Produced by Charlene Taylor, Ted Garvin, Keith Edkins and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net
Transcriber's note: In Germanic languages [=a] signifies "a macron"; [o,]
"o with Ogonek"; and so forth. [gh] represents yogh. Common accents are
shown ['a] acute, [`a] grave, [^a] circumflex. aesc, eth and thorn are
expanded to ae, dh and th; a-umlaut to ae, etc, o-slash to oe.
[Illustration: Drida (Thryth) reproached for her Evil Deeds
_From MS Cotton Nero D. I, fol. 11 b_
"That is no way for a lady to behave." (Ne bidh swylc cw[=e]nl[=i]c
th[=e]aw | idese t[=o] efnanne:
_Beowulf_, ll 1940-1.) ]
BEOWULF
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF
THE POEM WITH A DISCUSSION OF
THE STORIES OF OFFA AND FINN
BY
R. W. CHAMBERS
Dey mout er bin two deloojes: en den agin dey moutent.
UNCLE REMUS, _The Story of the Deluge_.
CAMBRIDGE
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1921
* * * * *
TO
PROF. WILLIAM WITHERLE LAWRENCE
DEAR PROF. LAWRENCE,
When, more than four years ago, I asked you to allow me to dedicate this
volume to you, it was as a purely personal token of gratitude for the help
I had received from what you have printed, and from what you have written
to me privately.
Since then much has happened: the debt is greater, and no longer purely
personal. We in this country can never forget what we owe to your people.
And the self-denial which led them voluntarily to stint themselves of food,
that we in Europe might be fed, is one of many things about which it is not
easy to speak. Our heart must indeed have been hardened if we had not
considered the miracle of those loaves. But I fear that to refer to that
great debt in the dedication to this little book may draw on me the
ridicule incurred by the poor man who dedicated his book to the Universe.
Nevertheless, as a fellow of that College which has just received from an
American donor the greatest benefaction for medical research which has ever
been made in this country of ours, I may rejoice that the co-operation
between our nations is being continued in that warfare against ignorance
and disease which some day will become the only warfare waged among men.
Sceal hring-naca ofer heafu bringan
l[=a]c ond luf-t[=a]cen. Ic th[=a] l[=e]ode w[=a]t
ge widh f[=e]ond ge widh fr[=e]ond faeste geworhte,
[=ae]ghwaes unt[=ae]le ealde w[=i]san.
R. W. C.
* * * * *
{vii}
PREFACE
I have to thank various colleagues who have read proofs of this book, in
whole or in part: first and foremost my old teacher, W. P. Ker; also Robert
Priebsch, J. H. G. Grattan, Ernest Classen and two old students, Miss E. V.
Hitchcock and Mrs Blackman. I have also to thank Prof. W. W. Lawrence of
Columbia; and though there are details where we do not agree, I think there
is no difference upon any important issues. If in these details I am in the
right, this is largely due to the helpful criticism of Prof. Lawrence,
which has often led me to reconsider my conclusions, and to re-state them
more cautiously, and, I hope, more correctly. If, on the other hand, I am
in the wrong, then it is thanks to Prof. Lawrence that I am not still more
in the wrong.
From Axel Olrik, though my debt to him is heavy, I find myself differing on
several questions. I had hoped that what I had to urge on some of these
might have convinced him, or, better still, might have drawn from him a
reply which would have convinced me. But the death of that great scholar
has put an end to many hopes, and deprived many of us of a warm personal
friend. It would be impossible to modify now these passages expressing
dissent, for the early pages of this book were printed off some years ago.
I can only repeat that it is just because of my intense respect for the
work of Dr Olrik that, where I cannot agree with his conclusions, I feel
bound to go into the matter at length. Names like those of Olrik, Bradley,
Chadwick and Sievers carry rightly such authority as to make it the duty of
those who differ, if only on minor details, to justify that difference if
they can.
From Dr Bradley especially I have had help in discussing various of these
problems: also from Mr Wharton of the British Museum, Prof. Collin of
Christiania, Mr Ritchie Girvan of Glasgow, and Mr Teddy. To Prof. Broegger,
the Norwegian state-antiquary, I am indebted for permission to reproduce
photographs of the {viii} Viking ships: to Prof. Finnur J['o]nsson for
permission to quote from his most useful edition of the _Hr['o]lfs Saga_
and the _Bjarka R['i]mur_, and, above all, to Mr Sigf['u]s Bloendal, of the
Royal Library of Copenhagen, for his labour in collating with the
manuscript the passages quoted from the _Grettis Saga_.
Finally, I have to thank the Syndics of the University Press for
undertaking the publication of the book, and the staff for the efficient
way in which they have carried out the work, in spite of the long
interruption caused by the war.
R. W. C.
_April 6, 1921._
* * * * *
{ix}
CONTENTS
PAGE
GENEALOGICAL TABLES xii
PART I
CHAPTER I. THE HISTORICAL ELEMENTS
SECTION I. The Problem 1
SECTION II. The Geatas--their Kings and their Wars 2
SECTION III. Heorot and the Danish Kings 13
SECTION IV. Leire and Heorot 16
SECTION V. The Heathobeardan 20
SECTION VI. Hrothulf 25
SECTION VII. King Offa 31
CHAPTER II. THE NON-HISTORICAL ELEMENTS
SECTION I. The Grendel Fight 41
SECTION II. The Scandinavian Parallels--Grettir and Orm 48
SECTION III. Bothvar Bjarki 54
SECTION IV. Parallels from Folklore 62
SECTION V. Scef and Scyld 68
SECTION VI. Beow 87
SECTION VII. The house of Scyld and Danish parallels--Heremod-Lotherus
and Beowulf-Frotho 89
CHAPTER III. THEORIES AS TO THE ORIGIN,
DATE AND STRUCTURE OF THE POEM
SECTION I. Is _Beowulf_ translated from a Scandinavian
original? 98
SECTION II. The dialect, syntax and metre of _Beowulf_ as
evidence of its literary history 104
SECTION III. Theories as to the structure of _Beowulf_ 112
SECTION IV. Are the Christian elements incompatible with the rest
of the poem? 121
{x}
PART II
DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATING THE STORIES IN
_BEOWULF_, AND THE _OFFA_-SAGA
A. The early Kings of the Danes, according to Saxo Grammaticus:
Dan, Humblus, Lotherus and Scioldus; Frotho's dragon fight;
Haldanus, Roe and Helgo; Roluo (Rolf Kraki) and Biarco
(Bjarki); the death of Rolf 129
B. Extract from _Hr['o]lfs Saga Kraka_, with translation
(cap. 23) 138
C. Extracts from _Grettis Saga_, with translation: (_a_) Glam episode
(caps. 32-35); (_b_) Sandhaugar episode (caps. 64-66) 146
D. Extracts from _Bjarka R['i]mur_, with translation 182
E. Extract from _Th['a]ttr Orms St['o]r['o]lfssonar_, with
translation 186
F. A Danish Dragon-slaying of the Beowulf-type, with translation 192
G. The Old English Genealogies. I. The Mercian Genealogy. II. The
stages above Woden: Woden to Geat and Woden to Sceaf 195
H. Extract from the Chronicle Roll 201
I. Extract from the Little Chronicle of the Kings of Leire 204
K. The Story of Offa in Saxo Grammaticus 206
L. From Skiold to Offa in Sweyn Aageson 211
M. Note on the Danish Chronicles 215
N. The _Life of Offa I_, with extracts from the _Life of Offa II_. Edited
from two MSS in the Cottonian Collection 217
O. Extract from _Widsith_, II. 18, 24-49 243
PART III
THE FIGHT AT FINNSBURG
SECTION I. The _Finnsburg Fragment_ 245
SECTION II. The Episode in _Beowulf_ 248
SECTION III. Moeller's Theory 254
SECTION IV. Bugge's Theory 257
SECTION V. Some Difficulties in Bugge's Theory 260
SECTION VI. Recent Elucidations. Prof. Ayres' Comments 266
SECTION VII. Problems still outstanding 268
SECTION VIII. The Weight of Proof: the Eotens 272
SECTION IX. Ethics of the Blood Feud 276
{xi}
SECTION X. An Attempt at Reconstruction 283
SECTION XI. Gefwulf, Prince of the Jutes 286
SECTION XII. Conclusion 287
_Note_. Frisia in the heroic age 288
PART IV
APPENDIX
A. A Postscript on Mythology in _Beowulf_. (1) Beowulf the Scylding
and Beowulf son of Ecgtheow. (2) Beow 291
B. Grendel 304
C. The Stages above Woden in the West-Saxon Genealogy 311
D. Grammatical and literary evidence for the date of _Beowulf_. The
relation of _Beowulf_ to the Classical Epic 322
E. The "Jute-question" reopened 333
F. _Beowulf_ and the Archaeologists 345
G. Leire before Rolf Kraki 365
H. Bee-wolf and Bear's son 365
I. The date of the death of Hygelac 381
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF _BEOWULF_ AND _FINNSBURG_ 383
INDEX 414
PLATES
PLATE
I. Drida (Thryth) reproached for her Evil Deeds FRONTISPIECE
II. Leire in the Seventeenth Century TO FACE 16
III. Offa, miraculously restored, vindicates his Right.
At the side, Offa is represented in Prayer " " 34
IV. Drida (Thryth) arrives in the land of King Offa,
"in nauicula armamentis carente" " " 36
V. Riganus (or Aliel) comes before King Warmundus
to claim that he should be made King in place of
the incompetent Offa " " 218
VI. Drida (Thryth) entraps Albertus (Aethelberht) of
East Anglia, and causes him to be slain " " 242
VII. The Gokstad Ship. The Oseberg Ship " " 362
VIII. Southern Scandinavia in the Sixth Century.
English Boar-Helmet and Ring-Swords _At end_
* * * * *
{xii}
GENEALOGICAL TABLES
The names of the corresponding characters in Scandinavian legend are added
in italics; first the Icelandic forms, then the Latinized names as recorded
by Saxo Grammaticus.
(1) THE DANISH ROYAL FAMILY
Scyld Sc[=e]fing [_Skj[o,]ldr_, _Skyoldus_]
|
B[=e]owulf [not the hero of the poem]
|
Healfdene [_Halfdan_, _Haldanus_]
|
.-----------------------------------------------------------.
| | | |
Heorog[=a]r Hr[=o]dhg[=a]r [_Hr['o]arr_[1], H[=a]lga a daughter
[_no _Roe_], _mar._ Wealhth[=e]ow [_Helgi_, [_Signy_]
Scandinavian_ | _Helgo_]
_parallel_] .----------------------. |
| | | | |
| | Hr[=o]dhmund | |
Heoroweard Hr[=e]dhr[=i]c Hr[=o]dhulf |
[_Hj[o,]rvardhr,_ [_Hraerekr,_ _mar._ [_Hr['o]lfr_
_Hiarwarus:_ _Roericus:_ Ingeld _Kraki,_
_but not_ _not_ _Roluo_]
_recognized as_ _recognized_
_belonging_ _as a son of_
_to this family_] _Hroarr_]
(2) THE GEAT ROYAL FAMILY
Hr[=e]dhel W[=ae]gmund
| |
.----------------------------. .-------------.
| | | | | |
Herebeald Haedhcyn | a daughter, _mar._ Ecgth[=e]ow W[=e]ohst[=a]n
| | |
Hygel[=a]c, _mar._ Hygd | |
| | |
.-----------------. B[=e]owulf W[=i]gl[=a]f
| |
a daughter, Heardr[=e]d
_mar._ Eofor
(3) THE SWEDISH ROYAL FAMILY
Ongenth[=e]ow
|
.-------------------------------------.
| |
Onela [=O]hthere [_['O]ttarr_]
[_['A]li, not recognized_ |
_as belonging to this_ .---------------.
_family_] | |
Eanmund [=E]adgils
[_Adhils_[2],
_Athislus_]
* * * * *
{1}
PART I
CHAPTER I
THE HISTORICAL ELEMENTS
SECTION I. THE PROBLEM.
The unique MS of _Beowulf_ may be, and if possible should be, seen by the
student in the British Museum. It is a good specimen of the elegant script
of Anglo-Saxon times: "a book got up with some care," as if intended for
the library of a nobleman or of a monastery. Yet this MS is removed from
the date when the poem was composed and from the events which it narrates
(so far as these events are historic at all) by periods of time
approximately equal to those which separate us from the time when
Shakespeare's _Henry V_ was written, and when the battle of Agincourt was
fought.
To try to penetrate the darkness of the five centuries which lie behind the
extant MS by fitting together such fragments of illustrative information as
can be obtained, and by using the imagination to bridge the gaps, has been
the business of three generations of scholars distributed among the ten
nations of Germanic speech. A whole library has been written around our
poem, and the result is that this book cannot be as simple as either writer
or reader might have wished.
The story which the MS tells us may be summarized thus: Beowulf, a prince
of the Geatas, voyages to Heorot, the hall of Hrothgar, king of the Danes;
there he destroys a monster Grendel, who for twelve years has haunted the
hall by night and slain all he found therein. When Grendel's mother in
revenge makes an attack on the hall, Beowulf seeks her out and kills her
also in her home beneath the waters. He then {2} returns to his land with
honour and is rewarded by his king Hygelac. Ultimately he himself becomes
king of the Geatas, and fifty years later slays a dragon and is slain by
it. The poem closes with an account of the funeral rites.
Fantastic as these stories are, they are depicted against a background of
what appears to be fact. Incidentally, and in a number of digressions, we
receive much information about the Geatas, Swedes and Danes: all which
information has an appearance of historic accuracy, and in some cases can
be proved, from external evidence, to be historically accurate.
* * * * *
SECTION II. THE GEATAS--THEIR KINGS AND THEIR WARS.
Beowulf's people have been identified with many tribes: but there is strong
evidence that the Geatas are the Goetar (O.N. _Gautar_), the inhabitants of
what is now a portion of Southern Sweden, immediately to the south of the
great lakes Wener and Wetter. The names _Geatas_ and _Gautar_ correspond
exactly[3], according to the rules of O.E. and O.N. phonetic development,
and all we can ascertain of the Geatas and of the Gautar harmonizes well
with the identification[4].
We know of one occasion only when the Geatas came into violent contact with
the world outside Scandinavia. Putting together the accounts which we
receive from Gregory of Tours and from two other (anonymous) writers, we
learn that a piratical raid was made upon the country of the Atuarii (the
O.E. _Hetware_) who dwelt between the lower Rhine and what is now the
Zuyder Zee, by a king whose name is spelt in a variety of ways, all of
which readily admit of identification with that of the Hygelac of our
poem[5]. From the land of the Atuarii this king carried much spoil to his
ships; but, remaining on shore, he was overwhelmed and slain by the army
which the {3} Frankish king Theodoric had sent under his son to the rescue
of these outlying provinces; the plunderers' fleet was routed and the booty
restored to the country. The bones of this gigantic king of the "Getae"
[presumably = Geatas] were long preserved, it was said, on an island near
the mouth of the Rhine.
Such is the story of the raid, so far as we can reconstruct it from monkish
Latin sources. The precise date is not given, but it must have been between
A.D. 512 and 520.
Now this disastrous raid of Hygelac is referred to constantly in _Beowulf_:
and the mention there of Hetware, Franks and the Merovingian king as the
foes confirms an identification which would be satisfactory even without
these additional data[6].
Our authorities are:
(1) Gregory of Tours (d. 594):
_His ita gestis, Dani cum rege suo nomine Chlochilaico evectu navale
per mare Gallias appetunt. Egressique ad terras, pagum unum de regno
Theudorici devastant atque captivant, oneratisque navibus tam de
captivis quam de reliquis spoliis, reverti ad patriam cupiunt; sed rex
eorum in litus resedebat donec naves alto mare conpraehenderent, ipse
deinceps secuturus. Quod cum Theudorico nuntiatum fuisset, quod
scilicet regio ejus fuerit ab extraneis devastata, Theudobertum, filium
suum, in illis partibus cum valido exercitu et magno armorum apparatu
direxit. Qui, interfecto rege, hostibus navali proelio superatis
opprimit, omnemque rapinam terrae restituit._
The name of the vanquished king is spelt in a variety of ways:
_Chlochilaichum_, _Chrochilaicho_, _Chlodilaichum_, _Hrodolaicum_.
See _Gregorii episcopi Turonensis Historia Francorum_, p. 110, in
_Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Scriptores rerum merovingicarum, I)_.
(2) The _Liber Historiae Francorum_ (commonly called the _Gesta
Francorum_):
_In illo tempore Dani cum rege suo nomine Chochilaico cum navale hoste
per alto mare Gallias appetent, Theuderico paygo [i.e. pagum] Attoarios
vel alios devastantes atque captivantes plenas naves de captivis alto
mare intrantes rex eorum ad litus maris resedens. Quod cum Theuderico
nuntiatum fuisset, Theudobertum filium suum cum magno exercitu in illis
partibus dirigens. Qui consequens eos, pugnavit cum eis caede magna
atque prostravit, regem eorum interficit, preda tullit, et in terra sua
restituit._
The _Liber Historiae Francorum_ was written in 727, but although so
much later than Gregory, it preserves features which are wanting in the
earlier historian, such as the mention of the Hetware (_Attoarii_).
Note too that the name of the invading king is given in a form which
{4} approximates more closely to _Hygelac_ than that of any of the MSS
of Gregory: variants are _Chrochilaico_, _Chohilaico_, _Chochilago_,
etc.
See _Monumenta Germaniae Historica_ (_Scriptores rerum merovingicarum,
II_, 274).
(3) An anonymous work _On monsters and strange beasts_, appended to two
MSS of Phaedrus.
_Et sunt [monstra] mirae magnitudinis: ut rex Huiglaucus qui imperavit
Getis et a Francis occisus est. Quem equus a duodecimo anno portare non
potuit. Cujus ossa in Reni fluminis insula, ubi in Oceanum prorumpit,
reservata sunt et de longinquo venientibus pro miraculo ostenduntur._
This treatise was first printed (from a MS of the tenth century, in
private possession) by J. Berger de Xivrey (_Traditions
t['e]ratologiques_, Paris, 1836, p. 12). It was again published from a
second MS at Wolfenbuettel by Haupt (see his _Opuscula_ II, 223, 1876).
This MS is in some respects less accurate, reading _Huncglacus_ for
_Huiglaucus_, and _gentes_ for _Getis_. The treatise is assigned by
Berger de Xivrey to the sixth century, on grounds which are hardly
conclusive (p. xxxiv). Haupt would date it not later than the eighth
century (II, 220).
The importance of this reference lies in its describing Hygelac as king
of the Getae, and in its fixing the spot where his bones were preserved
as near the mouth of the Rhine[7].
But if _Beowulf_ is supported in this matter by what is almost contemporary
evidence (for Gregory of Tours was born only some twenty years after the
raid he narrates) we shall probably be right in arguing that the other
stories from the history of the Geatas, their Danish friends, and their
Swedish foes, told with what seems to be such historic sincerity in the
different digressions of our poem, are equally based on fact. True, we have
no evidence outside _Beowulf_ for Hygelac's father, king Hrethel, nor for
Hygelac's elder brothers, Herebeald and Haethcyn; and very little for
Haethcyn's deadly foe, the Swedish king Ongentheow[8].
And in the last case, at any rate, such evidence might {5} fairly have been
expected. For there are extant a very early Norse poem, the _Ynglinga tal_,
and a much later prose account, the _Ynglinga saga_, enumerating the kings
of Sweden. The _Ynglinga tal_ traces back these kings of Sweden for some
thirty reigns. Therefore, though it was not composed till some four
centuries after the date to which we must assign Ongentheow, it should deal
with events even earlier than the reign of that king: for, unless the rate
of mortality among early Swedish kings was abnormally high, thirty reigns
should occupy a period of more than 400 years. Nothing is, however, told us
in the _Ynglinga tal_ concerning the deeds of any king Angantyr--which is
the name we might expect to correspond to Ongentheow[9].
But on the other hand, the son and grandson of Ongentheow, as recorded in
_Beowulf_, _do_ meet us both in the _Ynglinga tal_ and in the _Ynglinga
saga_.
According to _Beowulf_, Ongentheow had two sons, Onela and Ohthere: Onela
became king of Sweden and is spoken of in terms of highest praise[10]. Yet
to judge from the account given in _Beowulf_, the Geatas had little reason
to love him. He had followed up the defeat of Hygelac by dealing their
nation a second deadly blow. For Onela's nephews, Eadgils and Eanmund (the
sons of Ohthere), had rebelled against him, and had taken refuge at the
court of the Geatas, where Heardred, son of Hygelac, was now reigning,
supported by Beowulf. Thither Onela pursued them, and slew the young king
Heardred. Eanmund also was slain[11], then or later, but Eadgils escaped.
It is not clear from the poem what part Beowulf is supposed to have taken
in this struggle, or why he failed to ward off disaster from his lord and
his country. It is not even made clear whether or no he had to make formal
submission to the hated Swede: but we are told that when Onela withdrew he
succeeded to the vacant throne. In later days he took his revenge upon
Onela. "He became a friend to Eadgils in his distress; he supported the son
of Ohthere across the broad water with men, with warriors and arms: he
wreaked his {6} vengeance in a chill journey fraught with woe: he deprived
the king [Onela] of his life."
This story bears in its general outline every impression of true history:
the struggle for the throne between the nephew and the uncle, the support
given to the unsuccessful candidate by a rival state, these are events
which recur frequently in the wild history of the Germanic tribes during
the dark ages, following inevitably from the looseness of the law of
succession to the throne.
Now the _Ynglinga tal_ contains allusions to these events, and the
_Ynglinga saga_ a brief account of them, though dim and distorted[12]. We
are told how Athils (=Eadgils) king of Sweden, son of Ottar (=Ohthere),
made war upon Ali (=Onela). By the time the _Ynglinga tal_ was written it
had been forgotten that Ali was Athils' uncle, and that the war was a civil
war. But the issue, as reported in the _Ynglinga tal_ and _Ynglinga saga_,
is the same as in _Beowulf_:
"King Athils had great quarrels with the king called Ali of Uppland; he
was from Norway. They had a battle on the ice of Lake Wener; there King
Ali fell, and Athils had the victory. Concerning this battle there is
much said in the _Skjoldunga saga_."
From the _Ynglinga saga_ we learn more concerning King Athils: not always
to his credit. He was, as the Swedes had been from of old, a great
horse-breeder. Authorities differed as to whether horses or drink were the
death of him[13]. According to one account he brought on his end by
celebrating, with immoderate drinking, the death of his enemy Rolf (the
_Hrothulf_ of _Beowulf_). According to another:
"King Athils was at a sacrifice of the goddesses, and rode his horse
through the hall of the goddesses: the horse tripped under him and fell
and threw the king; and his head smote a stone so that the skull broke
and the brains lay on the stones, and that was his death. He died at
Uppsala, and there was laid in mound, and the Swedes called him a
mighty king."
{7}
There can, then, hardly be a doubt that there actually was such a king as
Eadgils: and some of the charred bones which still lie within the gigantic
"King's mounds" at Old Uppsala may well be his[14]. And, though they are
not quite so well authenticated, there can also be little doubt as to the
historic existence of Onela, Ohthere, and even of Ongentheow.
_The Swedish Kings._
The account in the _Ynglinga saga_ of the fight between Onela and
Eadgils is as follows:
_Adhils konungr ['a]tti deilur miklar vidh konung thann, er ['A]li
h['e]t inn upplenzki: hann var ['o]r N['o]regi. Their ['a]ttu orrostu
['a] Vaenis ['i]si; thar fell ['A]li konungr en Adhils hafdhi sigr;
fr['a] thessarri orrostu er langt sagt ['i] Skj[o,]ldunga s[o,]gu._
(_Ynglinga saga_ in _Heimskringla_, ed. J['o]nsson, Kjoebenhavn, 1893,
I, 56.)
The _Skjoldunga saga_ here mentioned is an account of the kings of
Denmark. It is preserved only in a Latin abstract.
_Post haec ortis inter Adilsum illum Sveciae regem et Alonem
Opplandorum regem in Norvegia, inimicitiis, praelium utrinque
indicitur: loco pugnae statuto in stagno Waener, glacie jam obducto. Ad
illud igitur se viribus inferiorem agnoscens Rolphonis privigni sui
opem implorat, hoc proposito praemio, ut ipse Rolpho tres
praeciosissimas res quascunque optaret ex universo regno Sveciae
praemii loco auferret: duodecim autem pugilum ipsius quilibet 3 libras
auri puri, quilibet reliquorum bellatorum tres marcas argenti defecati.
Rolpho domi ipse reses pugilos suos duodecim Adilso in subsidium
mittit, quorum etiam opera is alioqui vincendus, victoriam obtinuit.
Illi sibi et regi propositum praemium exposcunt, negat Adilsus,
Rolphoni absenti ullum deberi praemium, quare et Dani pugiles sibi
oblatum respuebant, cum regem suum eo frustrari intelligerent,
reversique rem, ut gesta est, exponunt._ (See _Skjoldungasaga i Arngrim
Jonssons Udtog, udgiven af Axel Olrik_, Kjoebenhavn, 1894, p. 34
[116].)
There is also a reference to this battle on the ice in the
_K['a]lfsv['i]sa_, a mnemonic list of famous heroes and their horses.
It is noteworthy that in this list mention is made of Vestein, who is
perhaps the Wihstan of our poem, and of Biar, who has been thought
(very doubtfully) to correspond to the O.E. Beaw.
_Dagr reith Dr[o,]sle en Dvalenn M['o]thne..._
_['A]le Hrafne es til ['i]ss ritho,_
_enn annarr austr und Athilse_
_gr['a]r hvarfathe geire undathr._
_Bj[o,]rn reith Blakke en Biarr Kerte,_
_Atle Glaume en Athils Slungne..._
_Lieder der Edda_, ed. Symons and Gering, I, 221-2.
"Ale was on Hrafn when they rode to the ice: but another horse, a grey
one, with Athils on his back, fell eastward, wounded by the spear."
This, as Olrik points out, appears to refer to a version of the story
in which Athils had his fall from his horse, not at a ceremony at
Uppsala, but after the battle with Ali. (_Heltedigtning_, I, 203-4.)
{8}
For various theories as to the early history of the Swedish royal
house, as recorded in _Beowulf_, see Weyhe, _Koenig Ongentheows Fall_,
in _Engl. Stud._, XXXIX, 14-39; Schueck, _Studier i Ynglingatal_
(1905-7); Stjerna, _Vendel och Vendelkr[oa]ka_, in _A.f.n.F._ XXI, 71,
_etc._
_The Geatas._
The identification of Geatas and Goetar has been accepted by the great
majority of scholars, although Kemble wished to locate the Geatas in
Schleswig, Grundtvig in Gotland, and Haigh in England. Leo was the
first to suggest the Jutes: but the "Jute-hypothesis" owes its currency
to the arguments of Fahlbeck (_Beovulfsqvaedet s[oa]som kaella foer
nordisk fornhistoria_ in the _Antiqvarisk Tidskrift foer Sverige_,
VIII, 2, 1). Fahlbeck's very inconclusive reasons were contested at the
time by Sarrazin (23 _etc._) and ten Brink (194 _etc._) and the
arguments against them have lately been marshalled by H. Schueck
(_Folknamnet Geatas i den fornengelska dikten Beowulf_, Upsala, 1907).
It is indeed difficult to understand how Fahlbeck's theory came to
receive the support it has had from several scholars (e.g. Bugge,
_P.B.B._ XII, 1 _etc._; Weyhe, _Engl. Stud._, XXXIX, 38 _etc._;
Gering). For his conclusions do not arise naturally from the O.E. data:
his whole argument is a piece of learned pleading, undertaken to
support his rather revolutionary speculations as to early Swedish
history. These speculations would have been rendered less probable had
the natural interpretation of Geatas as Goetar been accepted. The
Jute-hypothesis has recently been revived, with the greatest skill and
learning, by Gudmund Schuette (_Journal of English and Germanic
Philology_, XI, 574 _etc._). But here again I cannot help suspecting
that the wish is father to the thought, and that the fact that that
eminent scholar is a Dane living in Jutland, has something to do with
his attempt to locate the Geatas there. No amount of learning will
eradicate patriotism.
The following considerations need to be weighed:
(1) _Geatas_ etymologically corresponds exactly with O.N. _Gautar_, the
modern Goetar. The O.E. word corresponding to Jutes (the Iutae of Bede)
should be, not _Geatas_, but in the Anglian dialect _Eote_, _Iote_, in
the West Saxon _Iete_, _Yte_.
Now it is true that in one passage in the O.E. translation of Bede (I,
15) the word "Iutarum" _is_ rendered _Geata_: but in the other (IV, 16)
"Iutorum" is rendered _Eota_, _Ytena_. And this latter rendering is
supported (_a_) by the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (_Iotum_, _Iutna_) and
(_b_) by the fact that the current O.E. word for Jutes was _Yte_,
_Ytan_, which survived till after the Norman conquest. For the name
_Ytena land_ was used for that portion of Hampshire which had been
settled by the Jutes: William Rufus was slain, according to Florence of
Worcester, in _Ytene_ (which Florence explains as _prouincia Jutarum_).
From the purely etymological point of view the Goetar-hypothesis, then,
is unimpeachable: but the Jute-hypothesis is unsatisfactory, since it
is based upon one passage in the O.E. Bede, where _Jutarum_ is
incorrectly rendered _Geata_, whilst it is invalidated by the other
passage in the O.E. Bede, by the _Chronicle_ and by Florence of
Worcester, where _Jutorum_ is correctly translated by _Ytena_, or its
Anglian or Kentish equivalent _Eota_, _Iotna_.
(2) It is obvious that the Geatas of _Beowulf_ were a strong and
independent power--a match for the Swedes. Now we learn from Procopius
that in the sixth century the Goetar were an independent {9} and
numerous nation. But we have no equal evidence for any similar
preponderant Jutish power in the sixth century. The _Iutae_ are indeed
a rather puzzling tribe, and scholars have not even been able to agree
where they dwelt.
The Goetar on the other hand are located among the great nations of
Scandinavia both by Ptolemy (_Geog._ II, 11, 16) in the second century
and by Procopius (_Bell. Gott._ II, 15) in the sixth. When we next get
clear information (through the Christian missionaries) both Goetar and
Swedes have been united under one king. But the Goetar retained their
separate laws, traditions, and voice in the selection of the king, and
they were constantly asserting themselves during the Middle Ages. The
title of the king of Sweden, _rex Sveorum Gothorumque_, commemorates
the old distinction.
From the historical point of view, then, the Goetar comply with what we
are told in _Beowulf_ of the power of the Geatas much better than do
the Jutes.
(3) Advocates of the Jute-hypothesis have claimed much support from the
geographical argument that the Swedes and Geatas fight _ofer s[=ae]_
(e.g. when Beowulf and Eadgils attack Onela, 2394). But the term
_s[=ae]_ is just as appropriate to the great lakes Wener and Wetter,
which separated the Swedes from the Goetar, as it is to the Cattegatt.
And we have the evidence of Scandinavian sources that the battle
between Eadgils and Onela actually _did_ take place on the ice of lake
Wener (see above, p. 6). Moreover the absence of any mention of ships
in the fighting narrated in ll. 2922-2945 would be remarkable if the
contending nations were Jutes and Swedes, but suits Goetar and Swedes
admirably: since they could attack each other by land as well as by
water.
(4) There is reason to think that the old land of the Goetar included a
great deal of what is now the south-west coast of Sweden[15]. Hygelac's
capital was probably not far from the modern Goeteborg. The
descriptions in _Beowulf_ would suit the cliffs of southern Sweden
well, but they are quite inapplicable to the sandy dunes of Jutland.
Little weight can, however, be attached to this last argument, as the
cliffs of the land of the Geatas are in any case probably drawn from
the poet's imagination.
(5) If we accept the identification Beowulf = Bjarki (see below, pp.
60-1) a further argument for the equation of Geatas and Goetar will be
found in the fact that Bjarki travels to Denmark from Gautland just as
Beowulf from the land of the Geatas; Bjarki is the brother of the king
of the Gautar, Beowulf the nephew of the king of the Geatas.
(6) No argument as to the meaning of _Geatas_ can be drawn from the
fact that Gregory calls Chlochilaicus (Hygelac) a Dane. For it is clear
from _Beowulf_ that, whatever else they may have been, the Geatas were
not Danes. Either, then, Gregory must be misinformed, or he must be
using the word _Dane_ vaguely, to cover any kind of Scandinavian
pirate.
(7) Probably what has weighed most heavily (often perhaps not
consciously) in gaining converts to the "Jute-hypothesis" has been the
conviction that "in ancient times each nation celebrated in song its
own heroes alone." Hence one set of scholars, accepting the
identification of the Geatas with the Scandinavian Goetar, have argued
that _Beowulf_ is therefore simply a translation from a Scandinavian
Goetish original. Others, accepting _Beowulf_ as an English poem, have
{10} argued that the Geatas who are celebrated in it must therefore be
one of the tribes that settled in England, and have therefore favoured
the "Jute theory." But the _a priori_ assumption that each Germanic
tribe celebrated in song its own national heroes only is demonstrably
incorrect[16].
But in none of the accounts of the warfare of these Scandinavian kings,
whether written in Norse or monkish Latin, is there mention of any name
corresponding to that of Beowulf, as king of the Geatas. Whether he is as
historic as the other kings with whom in our poem he is brought into
contact, we cannot say.
It has been generally held that the Beowulf of our poem is compounded out
of two elements: that an historic Beowulf, king of the Geatas, has been
combined with a mythological figure Beowa[17], a god of the ancient Angles:
that the historical achievements against Frisians and Swedes belong to the
king, the mythological adventures with giants and dragons to the god. But
there is no conclusive evidence for either of these presumed component
parts of our hero. To the god Beowa we shall have to return later: here it
is enough to note that the current assumption that there _was_ a king
Beowulf of the Geatas lacks confirmation from Scandinavian sources.
And one piece of evidence there is, which tends to show that Beowulf is not
an historic king at all, but that his adventures have been violently
inserted amid the historic names of the kings of the Geatas. Members of the
families in _Beowulf_ which we have reason to think historic bear names
which alliterate the one with the other. The inference seems to be that it
was customary, when a Scandinavian prince was named in the Sixth Century,
to give him a name which had an initial letter similar to that of his
father: care was thus taken that metrical difficulties should not prevent
the names of father and son being linked together in song[18]. In the case
of Beowulf himself, however, this rule breaks down. Beowulf seems an
intruder {11} into the house of Hrethel. It may be answered that since he
was only the offspring of a daughter of that house, and since that daughter
had three brothers, there would have been no prospect of his becoming king,
when he was named. But neither does his name fit in with that of the other
great house with which he is supposed to be connected. Wiglaf, son of
Wihstan of the Waegmundingas, was named according to the familiar rules:
but Beowulf, son of Ecgtheow, seems an intruder in that family as well.
This failure to fall in with the alliterative scheme, and the absence of
confirmation from external evidence, are, of course, not in themselves
enough to prove that the reign of Beowulf over the Geatas is a poetic
figment. And indeed our poem _may_ quite possibly be true to historic fact
in representing him as the last of the great kings of the Geatas; after
whose death his people have nothing but national disaster to expect[19]. It
would be strange that this last and most mighty and magnanimous of the
kings of the Geatas should have been forgotten in Scandinavian lands: that
outside _Beowulf_ nothing should be known of his reign. But when we
consider how little, outside _Beowulf_, we know of the Geatic kingdom at
all, we cannot pronounce such oblivion impossible.
What tells much more against Beowulf as a historic Geatic king is that
there is always apt to be something extravagant and unreal about what the
poem tells us of his deeds, contrasting with the sober and historic way in
which other kings, like Hrothgar or Hygelac or Eadgils, are referred to.
True, we must not disqualify Beowulf forthwith because he slew a
dragon[20]. Several unimpeachably historical persons have done this: so
sober an authority as the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ assures us that fiery
dragons were flying in Northumbria as late as A.D. 793[21].
{12}
But (and this is the serious difficulty) even when Beowulf is depicted in
quite historic circumstances, there is still something unsubstantial about
his actions. When, in the midst of the strictly historical account of
Hygelac's overthrow, we are told that Beowulf swam home bearing thirty
suits of armour, this is as fantastic as the account of his swimming home
from Grendel's lair with Grendel's head and the magic swordhilt. We may
well doubt whether there is any more kernel of historic fact in the one
feat than in the other[22]. Again, we are told how Beowulf defended the
young prince Heardred, Hygelac's son. Where was he, then, when Heardred was
defeated and slain? To protect and if necessary avenge his lord upon the
battlefield was the essential duty of the Germanic retainer. Yet Beowulf
has no part to play in the episode of the death of Heardred. He is simply
ignored till it is over. True, we are told that in later days he _did_ take
vengeance, by supporting the claims of Eadgils, the pretender, against
Onela, the slayer of Heardred. But here again difficulties meet us: for the
Scandinavian authorities, whilst they agree that Eadgils overthrew Onela by
the use of foreign auxiliaries, represent these auxiliaries as Danish
retainers, dispatched by the Danish king Hrothulf. The chief of these
Danish retainers is Bothvar Bjarki, who, as we shall see later, has been
thought to stand in some relation to Beowulf. But Bothvar is never regarded
as king of the Geatas: and the fact remains that _Beowulf_ is at variance
with our other authorities in representing Eadgils as having been placed on
the throne by a Geatic rather than by a Danish force. Yet this Geatic
expedition against Onela is, with the exception of the dragon episode, the
only event which our poem has to narrate concerning Beowulf's long reign of
fifty years. And in other respects the reign is shadowy. Beowulf, we are
told, came to the throne at a time of utter national distress; he had a
long and prosperous reign, and became so powerful that he was able to
dethrone the mighty[23] Swedish king Onela, and place in his stead the
miserable fugitive[24] Eadgils. Yet, after this half century of success,
the {13} kingdom is depicted upon Beowulf's death as being in the same
tottering condition in which it stood at the time when he is represented as
having come to the throne, after the fall of Heardred.
The destruction one after the other of the descendants of Hrethel sounds
historic: at any rate it possesses verisimilitude. But the picture of the
childless Beowulf, dying, after a glorious reign, in extreme old age,
having apparently made no previous arrangements for the succession, so that
Wiglaf, a youth hitherto quite untried in war, steps at once into the place
of command on account of his valour in slaying the dragon--this is a
picture which lacks all historic probability.
I cannot avoid a suspicion that the fifty years' reign of Beowulf over the
Geatas may quite conceivably be a poetic fiction[25]; that the downfall of
the Geatic kingdom and its absorption in Sweden were very possibly brought
about by the destruction of Hygelac and all his warriors at the mouth of
the Rhine.
Such an event would have given the Swedes their opportunity for vengeance:
they may have swooped down, destroyed Heardred, and utterly crushed the
independent kingdom of the Geatas before the younger generation had time to
grow up into fighting men.
To the fabulous achievements of Beowulf, his fight with Grendel, Grendel's
dam, and the dragon, it will be necessary to return later. As to his other
feats, all we can say is that the common assumption that they rest upon an
historic foundation does not seem to be capable of proof. But that they
have an historic background is indisputable.
* * * * *
SECTION III. HEOROT AND THE DANISH KINGS.
Of the Danish kings mentioned in _Beowulf_, we have first Scyld Scefing,
the foundling, an ancient and probably a mythical figure, then Beowulf, son
of Scyld, who seems an intruder among the Danish kings, since the Danish
records know nothing {14} of him, and since his name does not alliterate
with those of either his reputed father or his reputed son. Then comes the
"high" Healfdene, to whom four children were born: Heorogar, Hrothgar,
Halga "the good," and a daughter who was wedded to the Swedish king. Since
Hrothgar is represented as an elder contemporary of Hygelac, we must
date[26] Healfdene and his sons, should they be historic characters,
between A.D. 430 and 520.
Now it is noteworthy that just after A.D. 500 the Danes first become widely
known, and the name "Danes" first meets us in Latin and Greek authors. And
this cannot be explained on the ground that the North has become more
familiar to dwellers in the classical lands: on the contrary far less is
known concerning the geography of the North Sea and the Baltic than had
been the case four or five centuries before. Tacitus and Ptolemy knew of
many tribes inhabiting what is now Denmark, but not of the Danes: the
writers in Ravenna and Constantinople in the sixth century, though much
less well informed on the geography of the North, know of the Danes as
amongst the most powerful nations there. _Beowulf_ is, then, supported by
the Latin and Greek records when it depicts these rulers of Denmark as a
house of mighty kings, the fame of whose realm spread far and wide. We
cannot tell to what extent this realm was made by the driving forth of
alien nations from Denmark, to what extent by the coming together (under
the common name of Danes) of many tribes which had hitherto been known by
other distinct names.
The pedigree of the house of Healfdene can be constructed from the
references in _Beowulf_. Healfdene's three sons, Heorogar, Hrothgar, Halga,
are presumably enumerated in order of age, since Hrothgar mentions
Heorogar, but not Halga, as his senior[27]. Heorogar left a son
Heoroweard[28], but it is in accordance with Teutonic custom that Hrothgar
should have succeeded to the throne if, as we may well suppose, Heoroweard
was too young to be trusted with the kingship.
{15}
The younger brother Halga is never mentioned during Beowulf's visit to
Heorot, and the presumption is that he is already dead.
The Hrothulf who, both in _Beowulf_ and _Widsith_, is linked with King
Hrothgar, almost as his equal, is clearly the son of Halga: for he is
Hrothgar's nephew[29], and yet he is not the son of Heorogar[30]. The
mention of how Hrothgar shielded this Hrothulf when he was a child confirms
us in the belief that his father Halga had died early. Yet, though he thus
belongs to the youngest branch of the family, Hrothulf is clearly older
than Hrethric and Hrothmund, the two sons of Hrothgar, whose youth, in
spite of the age of their father, is striking. The seat of honour occupied
by Hrothulf[31] is contrasted with the undistinguished place of his two
young cousins, sitting among the _giogoth_[32]. Nevertheless Hrothgar and
his wife expect their son, not their nephew, to succeed to the throne[33].
Very small acquaintance with the history of royal houses in these lawless
Teutonic times is enough to show us that trouble is likely to be in store.
So much can be made out from the English sources, _Beowulf_ and _Widsith_.
Turning now to the Scandinavian records, we find much confusion as to
details, and as to the characters of the heroes: but the relationships are
the same as in the Old English poem.
Heorogar is, it is true, forgotten; and though a name Hiarwarus is found in
Saxo corresponding to that of Heoroweard, the son of Heorogar, in
_Beowulf_, this Hiarwarus is cut off from the family, now that his father
is no longer remembered. Accordingly the Halfdan of Danish tradition
(Haldanus in Saxo's Latin: = O.E. Healfdene) has only two sons, Hroar {16}
(Saxo's Roe, corresponding to O.E. Hrothgar) and Helgi (Saxo's Helgo: =
O.E. Halga). Helgi is the father of Rolf Kraki (Saxo's Roluo: = O.E.
Hrothulf), the type of the noble king, the Arthur of Denmark.
And, just as Arthur holds court at Camelot, or Charlemagne is at home _ad
Ais, [`a] sa capele_, so the Scandinavian traditions represent Rolf Kraki
as keeping house at Leire (_Lethra_, _Hleidhar gardhr_).
Accounts of all these kings, and above all of Rolf Kraki, meet us in a
number of Scandinavian documents, of which three are particularly
important:
(1) Saxo Grammaticus (the lettered), the earlier books of whose
_Historia Danica_ are a storehouse of Scandinavian tradition and
poetry, clothed in a difficult and bombastic, but always amusing,
Latin. How much later than the English these Scandinavian sources are,
we can realize by remembering that when Saxo was putting the finishing
touches to his history, King John was ruling in England.
There are also a number of other Danish-Latin histories and
genealogies.
(2) The Icelandic _Saga of Rolf Kraki_, a late document belonging to
the end of the middle ages, but nevertheless containing valuable
matter.
(3) The Icelandic _Skjoldunga saga_, extant only in a Latin summary of
the end of the sixteenth century.
* * * * *
SECTION IV. LEIRE AND HEOROT.
The village of Leire remains to the present day. It stands near the north
coast of the island of Seeland, some five miles from Roskilde and three
miles from the sea, in a gentle valley, through the midst of which flows a
small stream. The village itself consists of a tiny cluster of cottages:
the outstanding feature of the place is formed by the huge grave mounds
scattered around in all directions.
The tourist, walking amid these cottages and mounds, may feel fairly
confident that he is standing on the site of Heorot.
There are two distinct stages in this identification: it must be proved
(_a_) that the modern Leire occupies the site of the Leire (_Lethra_) where
Rolf Kraki ruled, and (_b_) that the Leire of Rolf Kraki was built on the
site of Heorot.
[Illustration: Leire in the Seventeenth Century
From Saxo Grammaticus, ed. Stephanius, 1644.]
{17} (_a_) That the modern Leire occupies the site of the ancient Leire has
indeed been disputed[34], but seems hardly open to doubt, in view of the
express words of the Danish chroniclers[35]. It is true that the mounds,
which these early chroniclers probably imagined as covering the ashes of
'Haldanus' or 'Roe,' and which later antiquaries dubbed with the names of
other kings, are now thought to belong, not to the time of Hrothgar, but to
the Stone or Bronze Ages. But this evidence that Leire was a place of
importance thousands of years before Hrothgar or Hrothulf were born, in no
wise invalidates the overwhelming evidence that it was their residence
also.
The equation of the modern Leire with the Leire of Rolf Kraki we may then
accept. We cannot be quite so sure of our thesis (_b_): that the ancient
Leire was identical with the site where Hrothgar built Heorot. But it is
highly probable: for although Leire is more particularly connected with the
memory of Rolf Kraki himself, we are assured, in one of the mediaeval
Danish chronicles, that Leire was the royal seat of Rolf's predecessors as
well: of Ro (Hrothgar) and of Ro's father: and that Ro "enriched it with
great magnificence[36]." Ro also, according to this chronicler, heaped a
mound at Leire over the grave of his father, and was himself buried at
Leire under another mound.
Now since the Danish tradition represents Hrothgar as enriching his royal
town of Leire, whilst English tradition commemorates him as a builder king,
constructing a royal hall "greater than the sons of men had ever heard
speak of"--it becomes very probable that the two traditions are reflections
of the same fact, and that the site of that hall was Leire. That Heorot,
the picturesque name of the hall itself, should, in English tradition, have
been remembered, whilst that of the town where it was built had been
forgotten, is natural[37]. For {18} though the names of heroes survived in
such numbers, after the settlement of the Angles in England, it was very
rarely indeed, so far as we can judge, that the Angles and Saxons continued
to have any clear idea concerning the _places_ which had been familiar to
their forefathers, but which they themselves had never seen.
Further, the names of both Hrothgar and Hrothulf are linked with Heorot in
English tradition in the same way as those of Roe and Rolf are with Leire
in Danish chronicles.
Yet there is some little doubt, though not such as need seriously trouble
us, as to this identification of the site of Heorot with Leire. Two causes
especially have led students to doubt the connection of Roe (Hrothgar) with
Leire, and to place elsewhere the great hall Heorot which he built.
In the first place, Rolf Kraki came to be so intimately associated with
Leire that his connection overshadowed that of Roe, and Saxo even goes so
far in one place as to represent Leire as having been _founded_ by
Rolf[38]. In that case Leire clearly could not be the place where Rolf's
predecessor built his royal hall. But that Saxo is in error here seems
clear, for elsewhere he himself speaks of Leire as being a Danish
stronghold when Rolf was a child[39].
In the second place, Roe is credited with having founded the neighbouring
town of Roskilde (Roe's spring)[40] so that some have wished to locate
Heorot there, rather than at Leire, five miles to the west. But against
this identification of Heorot with Roskilde it must be noted that Roe is
said to have built Roskilde, not as a capital for himself, but as a
market-place for the merchants: there is no suggestion that it was his
royal town, though in time it became the capital, and its cathedral is
still the Westminster Abbey of Denmark.
What at first sight looks so much in favour of our equating {19} Roskilde
with Heorot--the presence in its name of the element _Ro_ (Hrothgar)--is in
reality the most suspicious thing about the identification. There are other
names in Denmark with the element _Ro_, in places where it is quite
impossible to suppose that the king's name is commemorated. Some other
explanation of the name has therefore to be sought, and it is very probable
that Roskilde meant originally not "Hrothgar's spring," but "the horses'
spring," and that the connection with King Ro is simply one of those
inevitable pieces of popular etymology which take place so soon as the true
origin of a name is forgotten[41].
Leire has, then, a much better claim than Roskilde to being the site of
Heorot: and geographical considerations confirm this. For Heorot is clearly
imagined by the poet of _Beowulf_ as being some distance inland; and this,
whilst it suits admirably the position of Leire, is quite inapplicable to
Roskilde, which is situated on the sea at the head of the Roskilde
fjord[42]. Of course we must not expect to find the poet of _Beowulf_, or
indeed any epic poet, minutely exact in his geography. At the same time it
is clear that at the time _Beowulf_ was written there were traditions
extant, dealing with the attack made upon Heorot by the ancestral foes of
the Danes, a tribe called the Heathobeardan. These accounts of the fighting
around Heorot must have preserved the general impression of its situation,
precisely as from the _Iliad_ we know that Troy is neither on the sea nor
yet very remote from it. A poet would draw on his imagination for details,
but would hardly alter a feature like this.
In these matters absolute certainty cannot be reached: but we may be fairly
sure that the spot where Hrothgar built his "Hart-Hall" and where Hrothulf
held that court to which the North ever after looked for its pattern of
chivalry was {20} Leire, where the grave mounds rise out of the waving
cornfields[43].
* * * * *
SECTION V. THE HEATHOBEARDAN.
Now, as _Beowulf_ is the one long Old English poem which happens to have
been preserved, we, drawing our ideas of Old English story almost
exclusively from it, naturally think of Heorot as the scene of the fight
with Grendel.
But in the short poem of _Widsith_, almost certainly older than _Beowulf_,
we have a catalogue of the characters of the Old English heroic poetry.
This catalogue is dry in itself, but is of the greatest interest for the
light it throws upon Old Germanic heroic legends and the history behind
them. And from _Widsith_ it is clear that the rule of Hrothgar and Hrothulf
at Heorot and the attack of the Heathobeardan upon them, rather than any
story of monster-quelling, was what the old poets more particularly
associated with the name of Heorot. The passage in _Widsith_ runs:
"For a very long time did Hrothgar and Hrothwulf, uncle and nephew,
hold the peace together, after they had driven away the race of the
Vikings and humbled the array of Ingeld, had hewed down at Heorot the
host of the Heathobeardan."
The details of this war can be reconstructed, partly from the allusions in
_Beowulf_, partly from the Scandinavian accounts. The Scandinavian versions
are less primitive and historic. They have forgotten all about the
Heathobeardan as an independent tribe, and, whilst remembering the names of
the leading chieftains on both sides, they see in them members of two rival
branches of the Danish royal house.
We gather from _Beowulf_ that for generations a blood feud has raged
between the Danes and the Heathobeardan. Nothing is told us in _Beowulf_
about the king Healfdene, except that he {21} was fierce in war and that he
lived to be old. From the Scandinavian stories it seems clear that he was
concerned in the Heathobard feud. According to some later Scandinavian
accounts he was slain by Frothi (=Froda, whom we know from _Beowulf_ to
have been king of the Heathobeardan) and this may well have been the
historic fact[44]. How Hroar and Helgi (Hrothgar and Halga), the sons of
Halfdan (Healfdene), evaded the pursuit of Frothi, we learn from the
Scandinavian tales; whether the Old English story knew anything of their
hair-breadth escapes we cannot tell. Ultimately, the saga tells us, Hroar
and Helgi, in revenge for their father's death, burnt the hall over the
head of his slayer, Frothi[45]. To judge from the hints in _Beowulf_, it
would rather seem that the Old English tradition represented this vengeance
upon Froda as having been inflicted in a pitched battle. The eldest brother
Heorogar--known only to the English story--perhaps took his share in this
feat. But, after his brothers Heorogar and Halga were dead, Hrothgar, left
alone, and fearing vengeance in his turn, strove to compose the feud by
wedding his daughter Freawaru to Ingeld, the son of Froda. So much we learn
from the report which Beowulf gives, on his return home, to Hygelac, as to
the state of things at the Danish court.
Beowulf is depicted as carrying a very sage head upon his young shoulders,
and he gives evidence of his astuteness by predicting[46] that the peace
which Hrothgar has purchased will not be lasting. Some Heathobard survivor
of the fight in which Froda fell, will, he thinks, see a young Dane in the
retinue of Freawaru proudly pacing the hall, wearing the treasures which
his father had won from the Heathobeardan. Then the old warrior will urge
on his younger comrade "Canst thou, my lord, tell the sword, the dear iron,
which thy father carried to the fight when he bore helm for the last time,
when the Danes slew him and had the victory? And now the son {22} of one of
these slayers paces the hall, proud of his arms, boasts of the slaughter
and wears the precious sword which thou by right shouldst wield[47]."
Such a reminder as this no Germanic warrior could long resist. So, Beowulf
thinks, the young Dane will be slain; Ingeld will cease to take joy in his
bride; and the old feud will break out afresh.
That it did so we know from _Widsith_, and from the same source we know
that this Heathobard attack was repulsed by the combined strength of
Hrothgar and his nephew Hrothulf.
But the tragic figure of Ingeld, hesitating between love for his father and
love for his wife, between the duty of vengeance and his plighted word, was
one which was sure to attract the interest of the old heroic poets more
even than those of the victorious uncle and nephew. In the eighth century
Alcuin, the Northumbrian, quotes Ingeld as the typical hero of song.
Writing to a bishop of Lindisfarne, he reproves the monks for their
fondness for the old stories about heathen kings, who are now lamenting
their sins in Hell: "in the Refectory," he says, "the Bible should be read:
the lector heard, not the harper: patristic sermons rather than pagan
songs. For what has Ingeld to do with Christ[48]?" This protest testifies
eloquently to the popularity of the Ingeld story, and further evidence is
possibly afforded by the fact that few heroes of story seem to have had so
many namesakes in Eighth Century England.
What is emphasized in _Beowulf_ is not so much the struggle in the mind of
Ingeld as the stern, unforgiving temper of the grim old warrior who will
not let the feud die down; and this is the case also with the Danish
versions, preserved to us in the Latin of Saxo Grammaticus. In two songs
(translated by Saxo into "delightful sapphics") the old warrior
Starcatherus stirs up Ingellus to his revenge:
"Why, Ingeld, buried in vice, dost thou delay to avenge thy father?
Wilt thou endure patiently the slaughter of thy righteous sire?...
{23}
Whilst thou takest pleasure in honouring thy bride, laden with gems,
and bright with golden vestments, grief torments us, coupled with
shame, as we bewail thine infamies.
Whilst headlong lust urges thee, our troubled mind recalls the fashion
of an earlier day, and admonishes us to grieve over many things.
For we reckon otherwise than thou the crime of the foes, whom now thou
holdest in honour; wherefore the face of this age is a burden to me,
who have known the old ways.
By nought more would I desire to be blessed, if, Froda, I might see
those guilty of thy murder paying the due penalty of such a crime[49]."
Starkath came to be one of the best-known figures in Scandinavian legend,
the type of the fierce, unrelenting warrior. Even in death his severed head
bit the earth: or according to another version "the trunk fought on when
the head was gone[50]." Nor did the Northern imagination leave him there.
It loved to follow him below, and to indulge in conjectures as to his
bearing in the pit of Hell[51].
Who the Heathobeardan were is uncertain. It is frequently argued that
they are identical with the Longobardi; that the words _Heatho-Bard_
and _Long-Bard_ correspond, just as we get sometimes _Gar-Dene_,
sometimes _Hring-Dene_. (So Heyne; Bremer in _Pauls Grdr._ (2) III, 949
_etc._) The evidence for this is however unsatisfactory (see Chambers,
_Widsith_, 205). Since the year 186 A.D. onwards the Longobardi were
dwelling far inland, and were certainly never in a position from which
an attack upon the Danes would have been practicable. If, therefore, we
accept the identification of Heatho-Bard and Long-Bard, we must suppose
the Heathobeardan of _Beowulf_ to have been not the Longobardi of
history, but a separate portion of the people, which had been left
behind on the shores of the Baltic, when the main body went south. But
as we have no evidence for any such offshoot from the main tribe, it is
misleading to speak of the Heathobeardan as identical with the
Longobardi: and although the similarity of one element in the name
suggests some primitive relationship, that relationship may well have
been exceedingly remote[52].
{24}
It has further been proposed to identify the Heathobeardan with the
Heruli[53]. The Heruli came from the Scandinavian district, overran
Europe, and became famous for their valour, savagery, and value as
light-armed troops. If the Heathobeardan are identical with the Heruli,
and if what we are told of the customs of the Heruli is true, Freawaru
was certainly to be pitied. The Heruli were accustomed to put to death
their sick and aged: and to compel widows to commit suicide.
The supposed identity of the Heruli with the Heathobeardan is however
very doubtful. It rests solely upon the statement of Jordanes that they
had been driven from their homes by the Danes (_Dani ... Herulos
propriis sedibus expulerunt_). This is inconclusive, since the growth
of the Danish power is likely enough to have led to collisions with
more than one tribe. In fact _Beowulf_ tells us that Scyld "tore away
the mead benches from _many_ a people." On the other hand the
dissimilarity of names is not conclusive evidence against the
identification, for the word _Heruli_ is pretty certainly the same as
the Old English _Eorlas_, and is a complimentary nick-name applied by
the tribe to themselves, rather than their original racial designation.
Nothing, then, is really known of the Heathobeardan, except that
evidence points to their having dwelt somewhere on the Baltic[54].
The Scandinavian sources which have preserved the memory of this feud
have transformed it in an extraordinary way. The Heathobeardan came to
be quite forgotten, although maybe some trace of their name remains in
_Hothbrodd_, who is represented as the foe of Roe (Hrothgar) and Rolf
(Hrothulf). When the Heathobeardan were forgotten, Froda and Ingeld
were left without any subjects, and naturally came to be regarded, like
Healfdene and the other kings with whom they were associated in story,
as Danish kings. Accordingly the tale developed in Scandinavian lands
in two ways. Some documents, and especially the Icelandic ones[55],
represent the struggle as a feud between two branches of the Danish
royal house. Even here there is no agreement who is the usurper and who
the victim, so that sometimes it is Froda and sometimes Healfdene who
is represented as the traitor and murderer.
But another version[56]--the Danish--whilst making Froda and Ingeld
into Danish kings, separates their story altogether from that of
Healfdene and his house: in this version the quarrel is still thought
of as being between two nations, not as between the rightful heir to
the throne and a treacherous and relentless usurper. Accordingly the
feud is such as may be, at any rate temporarily, laid aside: peace
between the contending parties is not out of the question. This version
therefore preserves much more of the original character of the story,
for it remains the tale of a young prince who, willing to marry into
the house of his ancestral foes and to forgive and forget the old feud,
is stirred by his more unrelenting henchman into taking vengeance for
his father. But, owing to the prince having come to be represented as a
Dane, patriotic reasons have suggested to the {25} Danish poets and
historians a quite different conclusion to the story. Instead of being
routed, Ingeld, in Saxo, is successful in his revenge.
See Neckel, _Studien ueber Frodhi_ in _Z.f.d.A._ XLVIII, 182: Heusler,
_Zur Skioeldungendichtung_ in _Z.f.d.A._ XLVIII, 57: Olrik,
_Skjoldungasaga_, 1894, 112 [30]; Olrik, _Heltedigtning_, II, 11
_etc._: Olrik, _Sakses Oldhistorie_, 222-6: Chambers, _Widsith_, pp.
79-81.]
* * * * *
SECTION VI. HROTHULF.
Yet, although the Icelandic sources are wrong in representing Froda and
Ingeld as Danes, they are not altogether wrong in representing the Danish
royal house as divided against itself. Only they fail to place the blame
where it really lay. For none of the Scandinavian sources attribute any act
of injustice or usurpation to Rolf Kraki. He is the ideal king, and his
title to the throne is not supposed to be doubtful.
Yet we saw that, in _Beowulf_, the position of Hrothulf is represented as
an ambiguous one[57], he is the king's too powerful nephew, whose claims
may prejudice those of his less distinguished young cousins, the king's
sons, and the speech of queen Wealhtheow is heavy with foreboding. "I
know," she says, "that my gracious Hrothulf will support the young princes
in honour, if thou, King of the Scyldings, shouldst leave the world sooner
than he. I ween that he will requite our children, if he remembers all
which we two have done for his pleasure and honour, being yet a child[58]."
Whilst Hrethric and Hrothmund, the sons of King Hrothgar, have to sit with
the juniors, the _giogoth_[59], Hrothulf is a man of tried valour, who sits
side by side with the king: "where the two good ones sat, uncle and nephew:
_as yet_ was there peace between them, and each was true to the other[60]."
Again we have mention of "Hrothgar and Hrothulf. Heorot was filled full of
friends: _at that time_ the mighty Scylding folk in no wise worked
treachery[61]." Similarly in _Widsith_ the mention of Hrothgar and Hrothulf
together seems to stir the poet to dark sayings. "_For a very long time_
did Hrothgar and Hrothulf, uncle and nephew, hold the peace together[62]."
{26}
The statement that "as yet" or "for a very long time" or "at that time"
there was peace within the family, necessarily implies that, at last, the
peace _was_ broken, that Hrothulf quarrelled with Hrothgar, or strove to
set aside his sons[63].
Further evidence is hardly needed; yet further evidence we have: by rather
complicated, but quite unforced, fitting together of various Scandinavian
authorities, we find that Hrothulf deposed and slew his cousin Hrethric.
Saxo Grammaticus tells us how Roluo (Rolf = O.N. Hrolfr, O.E. Hrothulf)
slew a certain Roericus (or Hraerek = O.E. Hrethric) and gave to his own
followers all the plunder which he found in the city of Roericus. Saxo is
here translating an older authority, the _Bjarkam['a]l_ (now lost), and he
did not know who Roericus was: he certainly did not regard him as a son or
successor of Roe (Hrothgar) or as a cousin of Roluo (Hrothulf). "Roluo, who
laid low Roericus _the son of the covetous Boekus_" is Saxo's phrase (_qui
natum Boeki Roericum stravit avari_). This would be a translation of some
such phrase in the _Bjarkam['a]l_ as _Hraereks bani hnoeggvanbauga_, "the
slayer of Hraerek Hnoggvanbaugi[64]."
But, when we turn to the genealogy of the Danish kings[65], we actually
find a _Hraerekr Hnauggvanbaugi_ given as a king of Denmark about the time
of Roluo. This _Roericus_ or _Hraerekr_ who was slain by Roluo was then,
himself, a king of the Danes, and must, therefore, have preceded Roluo on
the throne. But in that case Roericus _must_ be son of Roe, and identical
with his namesake Hrethric, the son of Hrothgar, in _Beowulf_. For no one
but a son of King Roe could have had such a claim to the throne as to rule
between that king and his all powerful nephew Roluo[65].
It is difficult, perhaps, to state this argument in a way which will be
convincing to those who are not acquainted with Saxo's method of working.
To those who realize how he treats {27} his sources, it will be clear that
Roericus is the son of Roe, and is slain by Roluo. Translating the words
into their Old English equivalents, Hrethric, son of Hrothgar, is slain by
Hrothulf.
The forebodings of Wealhtheow were justified.
Hrethric is then almost certainly an actual historic prince who was thrust
from the throne by Hrothulf. Of Hrothmund[66], his brother, Scandinavian
authorities seem to know nothing. He is very likely a poetical fiction, a
duplicate of Hrethric. For it is very natural that in story the princes
whose lives are threatened by powerful usurpers should go in pairs.
Hrethric and Hrothmund go together like Malcolm and Donalbain. Their
helplessness is thus emphasized over against the one mighty figure, Rolf or
Macbeth, threatening them[67].
Yet this does not prove Hrothmund unhistoric. On the contrary it may well
happen that the facts of history will coincide with the demands of
well-ordered narrative, as was the case when Richard of Gloucester murdered
_two_ young princes in the Tower.
Two other characters, who meet us in _Beowulf_, seem to have some part to
play in this tragedy.
It was a maxim of the old Teutonic poetry, as it is of the British
Constitution, that the king could do no wrong: the real fault lay with the
adviser. If Ermanaric the Goth slew his wife and his son, or if Irminfrid
the Thuringian unwisely challenged Theodoric the Frank to battle, this was
never supposed to be due solely to the recklessness of the monarch
himself--it was the work of an evil counsellor--a Bikki or an Iring. Now we
have seen that there is mischief brewing in Heorot--and we are introduced
to a counsellor Unferth, the _thyle_ or official spokesman and adviser of
King Hrothgar. And Unferth is evil. His jealous temper is shown by the
hostile and inhospitable reception which he gives to Beowulf. And Beowulf's
reply gives us a hint of some darker stain: "though {28} thou hast been the
slayer of thine own brethren--thy flesh and blood: for that thou shalt
suffer damnation in hell, good though thy wit may be[68]." One might
perhaps think that Beowulf in these words was only giving the "countercheck
quarrelsome," and indulging in mere reckless abuse, just as Sinfjotli (the
Fitela of _Beowulf_) in the _First Helgi Lay_ hurls at his foes all kinds
of outrageous charges assuredly not meant to be taken literally. But, as we
learn from the _Helgi Lay_ itself, the uttering of such unfounded taunts
was not considered good form; whilst it seems pretty clear that the speech
of Beowulf to Unferth is intended as an example of justifiable and spirited
self-defence, not, like the speech of Sinfjotli, as a storehouse of things
which a well-mannered warrior should _not_ say.
Besides, the taunt of Beowulf is confirmed, although but darkly, by the
poet himself, in the same passage in which he has recorded the fears of
Wealhtheow lest perhaps Hrothulf should not be loyal to Hrothgar and his
issue: "Likewise there Unferth the counsellor sat at the foot of the lord
of the Scyldingas: each of them [i.e. both Hrothgar and Hrothulf] trusted
to his spirit: that his courage was great, _though he had not done his duty
by his kinsmen at the sword-play_[69]."
But, granting that Unferth has really been the cause of the death of his
kinsmen, some scholars have doubted whether we are to suppose that he
literally slew them himself. For, had that been the case, they urge, he
could not be occupying a place of trust with the almost ideal king
Hrothgar. But the record of the historians makes it quite clear that murder
of kin did happen, and that constantly[70]. Amid the tragic complexities of
heroic life it often could not be avoided. The _comitatus_-system, by which
a man was expected to give unflinching support to any chief whose service
he had entered, must often have resulted in slaughter between men united by
very close bonds of kin or friendship. Turning from history to saga, we
find some of the greatest heroes not free from the stain. Sigmund, {29}
Gunnar, Hogni, Atli, Hrothulf, Heoroweard, Hnaef, Eadgils, Haethcyn,
Ermanaric and Hildebrand were all marred with this taint, and indeed were,
in many cases, rather to be pitied than blamed. I doubt, therefore, whether
we need try and save Unferth's character by suggesting that the stern words
of the poet mean only that he had indirectly caused the death of his
brethren by failing them, in battle, at some critical moment[71]. I suspect
that this, involving cowardice or incompetence, would have been held the
more unpardonable offence, and _would_ have resulted in Unferth's disgrace.
But a man might well have slain his kin under circumstances which, while
leaving a blot on his record, did not necessitate his banishment from good
society. All the same, the poet evidently thinks it a weakness on the part
of Hrothgar and Hrothulf that, after what has happened, they still put
their trust in Unferth.
Here then is the situation. The king has a counsellor: that counsellor is
evil. Both the king and his nephew trust the evil counsellor. A bitter feud
springs up between the king and his nephew. That the feud was due to the
machinations of the evil adviser can hardly be doubted by those who have
studied the ways of the old Germanic heroic story. But it is only an
inference: positive proof we have none.
Lastly, there is Heoroweard. Of him we are told in _Beowulf_ very little.
He is son of Heorogar (or Heregar), Hrothgar's elder brother, who was
apparently king before him, but died young[72]. It is quite natural, as we
have seen, that, if Heoroweard was too young for the responsibility when
his father died, he should not have succeeded to the throne. What is not so
natural is that he does not inherit his father's arms, which one might
reasonably have supposed Hrothgar would have preserved, to give to him when
he came of age. Instead, Hrothgar gives them to Beowulf[73]. Does Hrothgar
deliberately avoid doing honour to Heoroweard, because he fears that any
distinction conferred upon him would strengthen a rival {30} whose claims
to the throne might endanger those of his own sons? However this may be, in
any future struggle for the throne Heoroweard may reasonably be expected to
play some part.
Turning now to Saxo, and to the _Saga of Rolf Kraki_, we find that Rolf
owed his death to the treachery of one whose name corresponds exactly to
that of Heoroweard--Hiarwarus (Saxo), Hj[o,]rvarthr (_Saga_). Neither Saxo
nor the _Saga_ thinks of Hiarwarus as the cousin of Rolf Kraki: they do not
make it really clear _what_ the cause of his enmity was. But they tell us
that, after a banquet, he and his men treacherously rose upon Rolf and his
warriors. The defence which Rolf and his men put up in their burning hall:
the loyalty and defiance of Rolf's champions, invincible in death--these
were amongst the most famous things of the North; they were told in the
_Bjarkam['a]l_, now unfortunately extant in Saxo's paraphrase only.
But the triumph of Hiarwarus was brief. Rolf's men all fell around him,
save the young Wiggo, who had previously, in the confidence of youth,
boasted that, should Rolf fall, he would avenge him. Astonished at the
loyalty of Rolf's champions, Hiarwarus expressed regret that none had taken
quarter, declaring that he would gladly accept the service of such men.
Whereupon Wiggo came from the hiding-place where he had taken refuge, and
offered to do homage to Hiarwarus, by placing his hand on the hilt of his
new lord's sword: but in doing so he drove the point through Hiarwarus, and
rejoiced as he received his death from the attendants of the foe he had
slain. It shows how entirely the duty of vengeance was felt to outweigh all
other considerations, that this treacherous act of Wiggo is always spoken
of with the highest praise.
For the story of the fall of Rolf and his men see Saxo, Book II (ed.
Holder, pp. 55-68): _Saga of Rolf Kraki_, caps. 32-34: _Skjoldunga
Saga_ (ed. Olrik, 1894, 36-7 [118-9]).
How the feud between the different members of the Danish family forms
the background to _Beowulf_ was first explained in full detail by
Ludvig Schroeder (_Om Bjovulfs-drapen. Efter en raekke foredrag p[oa]
folke-hoejskolen i Askov_, Kjoebenhavn, 1875). Schroeder showed how the
bad character of Unferth has its part to play: "It is a _weakness_ in
Hrothgar that he entrusts important office to such a man--a {31}
weakness which will carry its punishment." Independently the domestic
feud was demonstrated again by Sarrazin (_Rolf Krake und sein vetter im
Beowulfliede_: _Engl. Stud._ XXIV, 144-5). The story has been fully
worked out by Olrik (_Heltedigtning_, 1903, I, 11-18 _etc._).
These views have been disputed by Miss Clarke (_Sidelights_, 102), who
seems to regard as "hypotheses" of Olrik data which have been
ascertained facts for more than a generation. Miss Clarke's
contentions, however, appear to me to be based upon a misunderstanding
of Olrik.
* * * * *
SECTION VII. KING OFFA.
The poem, then, is mainly concerned with the deeds of Geatic and Danish
kings: only once is reference made to a king of Anglian stock--Offa.
The _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ tells us of several kings named Offa, but two
only concern us here. Still remembered is the historic tyrant-king who
reigned over Mercia during the latter half of the eighth century, and who
was celebrated through the Middle Ages chiefly as the founder of the great
abbey of St Albans. This Offa is sometimes referred to as Offa _the
Second_, because he had a remote ancestor, Offa I, who, if the Mercian
pedigree can be trusted, lived twelve generations earlier, and therefore
presumably in the latter half of the fourth century. Offa I, then, must
have ruled over the Angles whilst they were still dwelling in Angel, their
continental home, in or near the modern Schleswig.
Now the Offa mentioned in _Beowulf_ is spoken of as related to Garmund and
Eomer (MS _geomor_). This, apart from the abundant further evidence, is
sufficient to identify him with Offa I, who was, according to the pedigree,
the son of Waermund and the grandfather of Eomer.
This Offa I, king of Angel, is referred to in _Widsith_. _Widsith_ is a
composite poem: the passage concerning Offa, though not the most obviously
primitive portion of it, is, nevertheless, early: it may well be earlier
than _Beowulf_. After a list of famous chieftains we are told:
Offa ruled Angel, Alewih the Danes; he was the boldest of all these
men, yet did he not in his deeds of valour surpass Offa. But Offa
gained, first of men, by arms the greatest of kingdoms whilst yet a
boy; no one of equal age ever did greater deeds of valour in battle
with his single sword: he drew the boundary against the Myrgingas at
Fifeldor. The boundaries were held afterwards by the Angles and the
Swaefe as Offa struck it out.
{32}
Much is obscure here: more particularly our ignorance as to the Myrgingas
is to be regretted: but there is reason for thinking that they were a
people dwelling to the south of the old continental home of the Angles.
After the lapse of some five centuries, we get abundant further information
concerning Offa. The legends about him, though carried to England by the
Anglian conquerors, must also have survived in the neighbourhood of his old
kingdom of Angel: for as Angel was incorporated into the Danish kingdom, so
these stories became part of the stock of Danish national legend. Offa came
to be regarded as a Danish king, and his story is told at length by the two
earliest historians of Denmark, Sweyn Aageson and Saxo Grammaticus. In Saxo
the story runs thus:
Wermund, king of Denmark, had a son Uffo [Offa], tall beyond the measure of
his age, but dull and speechless. When Wermund grew blind, his southern
neighbour, the king of Saxony, laid claim to Denmark on the ground that he
was no longer fit to rule, and, relying upon Uffo's incapacity, suggested
that the quarrel should be decided by their two sons in single combat.
Wermund, in despair, offered himself to fight, in spite of his blindness:
this offer the envoys of the Saxon king refused with insult, and the Danes
knew not what to say. Thereupon Uffo, who happened to be present, suddenly
asked leave to speak. Wermund could not believe that it was really his son
who had spoken, but when they all assured him that it _was_, he gave the
permission. "In vain," then said Uffo, "does the king of Saxony covet the
land of Denmark, which trusts to its true king and its brave nobles:
neither is a son wanting to the king nor a successor to the kingdom." And
he offered to fight not only the Saxon prince, but any chosen champion the
prince might bring with him.
The Saxon envoys accepted the offer and departed. The blind king was at
last convinced, by passing his hands over him, that the speaker had been in
truth his son. But it was found difficult to arm him; for his broad chest
split the rings of every coat of mail: the largest, his father's, had to be
cleft down the side and fastened with a clasp. Likewise no sword {33} was
so well tempered that he did not shatter it by merely brandishing it, till
the old king directed his men how they might find his ancient sword,
_Skrep_ (= ? stedfast) which he had buried, in despair, thinking his son
unworthy of it. The sword, when found, was so frail from age that Uffo did
not test it: for Wermund told him that, if he broke it, there was no other
left strong enough for him.
So Uffo and his two antagonists were taken to the place of combat, an
island in the river Eider. Crowds lined either bank, and Wermund stood
prepared to throw himself into the river should his son be slain. Uffo held
back at first, till he had discovered which of his antagonists was the more
dangerous, since he feared the sword would only be good for one blow. Then,
having by his taunts induced the champion to come to close quarters, he
clove him asunder with one stroke. Wermund cried out that he had heard the
sound of his son's sword, and asked where the blow had fallen: his
attendants assured him that it had pierced, not any particular part, but
the man's whole structure.
So Wermund drew back from the edge, desiring life now as keenly as before
he had longed for death. Finally Uffo smote his second antagonist through,
thus opening a career which after such a beginning we may well believe to
have been glorious.
The story is told again by Sweyn Aageson in a slightly varying form.
Sweyn's story has some good traits of its own--as when it makes Uffo enter
the lists girt with _two_ swords, intending to use his father's only in an
emergency. The worthless sword breaks, and all the Danes quake for fear:
whereupon Uffo draws the old sword and achieves the victory. But above all
Sweyn Aageson tells us the _reason_ of Uffo's dumbness and incapacity,
which Saxo leaves obscure: it was the result of shame over the deeds of two
Danes who had combined to avenge their father upon a single foe. What is
the incident referred to we can gather from Saxo. Two Danes, Keto and Wigo,
whose father Frowinus had been slain by a hostile king Athislus, attacked
Athislus together, two to one, thus breaking the laws of the duel. Uffo had
wedded the sister of {34} Keto and Wigo, and it was in order to wipe out
the stain left upon his family and his nation by their breach of duelling
etiquette that he insisted upon fighting single-handed against two
opponents.
That this incident was also known in England is rendered probable by the
fact that Freawine and Wig, who correspond to Saxo's Frowinus and Wiggo,
are found in the genealogy of English kings, and that an Eadgils, king of
the Myrgingas, who is almost certainly the Athislus of Saxo[74], also
appears in Old English heroic poetry. It is probable then that the two
tales were connected in Old English story: the two brethren shamefully
combine to avenge their father: in due time the family of the slain foe
take up the feud: Offa saves his country and his country's honour by
voluntarily undertaking to fight one against two.
About the same time that the Danish ecclesiastics were at work, a monk of
St Albans was committing to Latin the English stories which were still
current concerning Offa. The object of the English writer was, however,
local rather than national. He wrote the _Vitae duorum Offarum_ to
celebrate the historic Offa, king of Mercia, the founder of his abbey, and
that founder's ancestor, Offa I: popular tradition had confused the two,
and much is told concerning the Mercian Offa that seems to belong more
rightly to his forefather. The St Albans writer drew upon contemporary
tradition, and it is evident that in certain cases, as when he gives two
sets of names to some of the chief actors in the story, he is trying to
harmonize two distinct versions: he makes at least one error which seems to
point to a written source[75]. In one of the MSS the story is illustrated
by a series of very artistic drawings, which might possibly be from the pen
of Matthew Paris himself[76]. These drawings depict a version of the story
which in some respects differs from the Latin text which they accompany.
[Illustration: Offa, miraculously restored, vindicates his Right. At the
side, Offa is represented in Prayer
_From MS Cotton Nero D. I, fol. 2 b._ ]
{35} The story is located in England. Warmundus is represented as a king of
the Western Angles, ruling at Warwick. Offa, his only son, was blind till
his seventh, dumb till his thirtieth year. Accordingly an ambitious noble,
Riganus, otherwise called Aliel, claims to be recognized heir, in hope of
gaining the throne for his son, Hildebrand (Brutus). Offa gains the gift of
speech in answer to prayer; to the joy of his father and the councillors he
vindicates his right, much as in the Danish story. He is knighted with a
chosen body of companions, armed, and leads the host to meet the foe. He
dashes across the river which separates the two armies, although his
followers hang back. This act of cowardice on their part is not explained:
it is apparently a reminiscence of an older version in which Offa fights
his duel single handed by the river, and his host look on. The armies join
battle, but after a long struggle draw away from each other with the
victory undecided. Offa remaining in front of his men is attacked by Brutus
(or Hildebrand) and Sueno, the sons of the usurper, and slays them both (a
second reminiscence of the duel-scene). He then hurls himself again upon
the foe, and wins the victory.
_Widsith_ shows us that the Danish account has kept closer to the primitive
story than has later English tradition. _Widsith_ confirms the Danish view
that the quarrel was with a foreign, not with a domestic foe, and the
combat a duel, not a pitched battle: above all, _Widsith_ confirms Saxo in
representing the fight as taking place on the Eider--_b[=i]
F[=i]feldore_[77], whilst the account recorded by the monk of St Albans had
localised the story in England.
{36}
In _Beowulf_ too we hear of Offa as a mighty king, "the best of all mankind
betwixt the seas." But, although his wars are referred to, we are given no
details of them. The episode in _Beowulf_ relates rather to his wife
Thryth, and his dealings with her. The passage is the most obscure in the
whole poem, but this at least is clear: Thryth had an evil reputation for
cruelty and murder: she wedded Offa, and he put a stop to her evil deeds:
she became to him a good and loyal wife.
Now in the _Lives of the two Offas_ quite a long space is devoted to the
matrimonial entanglements of both kings. Concerning Offa I, a tale is told
of how he succoured a daughter of the king of York, who had been turned
adrift by her father; how when his years were advancing his subjects
pressed him to marry: and how his mind went back to the damsel whom he had
saved, and he chose her for his wife. Whilst the king was absent on his
wars, a messenger whom he had sent with a letter to report his victories
passed through York, where the wicked father of Offa's queen lived. A false
letter was substituted, commanding that the queen and her children should
be mutilated and left to die in the woods, because she was a witch and had
brought defeat upon the king's arms. The order was carried out, but a
hermit rescued and healed the queen and her children, and ultimately united
them to the king.
This is a popular folk-tale which is scattered all over Europe, and which
has many times been clothed in literary form: in France in the romance of
the _Manekine_, in English in the metrical romance of _Emar['e]_, and in
Chaucer's _Man of Lawes Tale_. From the name of the heroine in the last of
these versions, the tale is often known as the _Constance_-story. But it is
clear that this tale is not identical with the obscure story of the wife of
Offa, which is indicated in _Beowulf_.
When, however, we turn to the _Life of Offa II_, we do find a very close
parallel to the Thryth story.
[Illustration: Drida (Thryth) arrives in the land of King Offa, "in
nauicula armamentis carente"
_From MS Cotton Nero D. I, fol. 11a_ ]
{37} This tells how in the days of Charles the Great a certain beautiful
but wicked girl, related to that king, was condemned to death on account of
her crimes, but, from respect for her birth, was exposed instead in a boat
without sails or tackle, and driven ashore on the coast of King Offa's
land. Drida, as she said her name was, deceived the king by a tale of
injured innocence, and he committed her to the safe keeping of his mother,
the Countess Marcellina. Later, Offa fell in love with Drida, and married
her, after which she became known as _Quendrida_. But Drida continued her
evil courses and compassed the death of St Aethelbert, the vassal king of
East Anglia. In the end she was murdered by robbers--a just punishment for
her crimes--and her widowed husband built the Abbey of St Albans as a
thank-offering for her death.
The parallel here is too striking to be denied: for Drida is but another
way of spelling Thryth, and the character of the murderous queen is the
same in both stories. There are, however, striking differences: for whereas
Thryth ceases from her evil deeds and becomes a model wife to Offa, Drida
continues on her course of crime, and is cut off by violence in the midst
of her evil career. How are we to account for the parallels and for the
discrepancies?
As a matter of historical fact, the wife of Offa, king of Mercia, _was_
named (not indeed Cwoenthryth, which is the form which should correspond to
Quendrida, but) Cynethryth. The most obvious and facile way of accounting
for the likeness between what we are told in _Beowulf_ of the queen of Offa
I, and what we are elsewhere told of the queen of Offa II, is to suppose
that Thryth in _Beowulf_ is a mere fiction evolved from the historic
Cynethryth, wife of Offa II, and by poetic licence represented as the wife
of his ancestor, Offa I. It was in this way she was explained by Professor
Earle:
The name [Thrytho] was suggested by that of Cynethryth, Offa's
queen.... The vindictive character here given to Thrytho is a poetic
and veiled admonition addressed to Cynethryth[78].
Unfortunately this, like many another facile theory, is open to fatal
objections. In the first place the poem of _Beowulf_ can, with fair
certainty, be attributed to a date _earlier_ than that at which the
historic Offa and his spouse lived. Of course, it may be said that the Offa
episode in _Beowulf_ is an interpolation of a later date. But this needs
proof.
There are metrical and above all syntactical grounds {38} which have led
most scholars to place _Beowulf_ very early[79]. If we wish to regard the
_Offa-Thryth_-episode as a later interpolation, we ought first to prove
that it is later in its syntax and metre. We have no right to assume that
the episode is an interpolation merely because such an assumption may suit
our theory of the development of _Beowulf_. So until reasons are
forthcoming for supposing the episode of Thryth to be later than the rest
of the poem, we can but note that what we know of the date of _Beowulf_
forbids us to accept Earle's theory that Thryth is a reflection of, or
upon, the historic Cynethryth.
But there are difficulties in the way of Earle's theory even more serious
than the chronological one. We know nothing very definitely about the wife
of Offa II, except her name, but from a reference in a letter of Alcuin it
seems clear that she was a woman of marked piety: it is not likely that she
could have been guilty of deliberate murder of the kind represented in the
_Life of Offa II_. The St Albans _Life_ depends, so far as we know, upon
the traditions which were current four centuries after her death. There may
be, there doubtless are, some historic facts concerning Offa preserved in
it: but we have no reason to think that the bad character of Offa's queen
is one of them. Indeed, on purely intrinsic grounds we might well suppose
the reverse. As a matter of history we know that Offa _did_ put to death
Aethelberht, the vassal king of East Anglia. When in the _Life_ we find
Offa completely exonerated, and the deed represented as an assassination
brought about by the malice and cruelty of his queen, it seems
intrinsically likely that we are dealing with an attempt of the monks to
clear their founder by transferring his cruel deeds to the account of his
wife.
So far, then, from Thryth being a reflection of an historic cruel queen
Cynethryth, it is more probable that the influence has been in the reverse
direction; that the pious Cynethryth has been represented as a monster of
cruelty because she has not unnaturally been confused with a mythical
Thryth, the wife of Offa I.
To this it may be objected that we have no right to assume remarkable
coincidences, and that such a coincidence is {39} involved by the
assumption that there was a story of a mythical Thryth, the wife of Offa I,
and that this existed prior to, and independently of, the actual wedding of
Offa II to a Cynethryth. But the exceeding frequency of the element
_thryth_ in the names of women robs this objection of all its point. Such a
coincidence, far from being remarkable, would be the most natural in the
world. If we look at the Mercian pedigree we find that almost half the
ladies connected with it have that element _thryth_ in their names. The
founder of the house, Wihtlaeg, according to Saxo Grammaticus[80], wedded
Hermuthruda, the old English form of which would be Eormenthryth.
It is to this lady Hermuthruda that we must now devote our attention. She
belongs to a type which is common in folk-tale down to the time of Hans
Andersen--the cruel princess who puts her lovers to death unless they can
vanquish her in some way, worsting her in a contest of wits, such as the
guessing of riddles, or a contest of strength, such as running, jumping, or
wrestling. The stock example of this perilous maiden is, of course, for
classical story Atalanta, for Germanic tradition the Brunhilt of the
_Nibelungen Lied_, who demands from her wooer that he shall surpass her in
all three feats; if he fails in one, his head is forfeit[81].
Of this type was Hermuthruda: "in the cruelty of her arrogance she had
always loathed her wooers, and inflicted upon them the supreme punishment,
so that out of many there was not one but paid for his boldness with his
head[82]," words which remind us strongly of what our poet says of Thryth.
Hamlet (Amlethus) is sent by the king of Britain to woo this maiden for
him: but she causes Hamlet's shield and the commission to be stolen while
he sleeps: she learns from the shield that the messenger is the famous and
valiant Hamlet, and alters the commission so that her hand is requested,
not for the king of Britain, but for Hamlet himself. With this request she
complies, and the wedding is celebrated. But when Wihtlaeg (Vigletus)
conquers and slays Hamlet, she weds the conqueror, thus becoming ancestress
of Offa.
{40}
It may well be that there is some connection between the Thryth of
_Beowulf_ and the Hermuthruda who in Saxo weds Offa's ancestor--that they
are both types of the wild maiden who becomes a submissive though not
always happy wife. If so, the continued wickedness of Drida in the _Life of
Offa II_ would be an alteration of the original story, made in order to
exonerate Offa II from the deeds of murder which, as a matter of history,
did characterize his reign.
* * * * *
{41}
CHAPTER II
THE NON-HISTORICAL ELEMENTS
SECTION I. THE GRENDEL FIGHT.
When we come to the story of Beowulf's struggle with Grendel, with
Grendel's mother, and with the dragon, we are faced by difficulties much
greater than those which meet us when considering that background of Danish
or Geatic history in which these stories are framed.
In the first place, it is both surprising and confusing that, in the
prologue, before the main story begins, _another_ Beowulf is introduced,
the son of Scyld Scefing. Much emphasis is laid upon the upbringing and
youthful fame of this prince, and the glory of his father. Any reader would
suppose that the poet is going on to tell of _his_ adventures, when
suddenly the story is switched off, and, after brief mention of this
Beowulf's son, Healfdene, we come to Hrothgar, the building of Heorot,
Grendel's attack, and the voyage of Beowulf the Geat to the rescue.
Now "Beowulf" is an exceedingly rare name. The presence of the earlier
Beowulf, Scyld's son, seems then to demand explanation, and many critics,
working on quite different lines, have arrived independently at the
conclusion that either the story of Grendel and his mother, or the story of
the dragon, or both stories, were originally told of the son of Scyld, and
only afterwards transferred to the Geatic hero. This has indeed been
generally accepted, almost from the beginning of {42} Beowulf
criticism[83]. Yet, though possible enough, it does not admit of any
demonstration.
Now Beowulf, son of Scyld, clearly corresponds to a Beow or Beaw in the
West Saxon genealogy. In this genealogy Beow is always connected with Scyld
and Scef, and in some versions the relations are identical with those given
in _Beowulf_: Beow, son of Scyld, son of Scef, in the genealogies[84],
corresponding to Beowulf, son of Scyld Scefing, in our poem. Hence arose
the further speculation of many scholars that the hero who slays the
monsters was originally called, not Beowulf, but Beow, and that he was
identical with the hero in the West Saxon pedigree; in other words, that
the original story was of a hero Beow (son of Scyld) who slew a monster and
a dragon: and that this adventure was only subsequently transferred to
Beowulf, prince of the Geatas.
This is a theory based upon a theory, and some confirmation may reasonably
be asked, before it is entertained. As to the dragon-slaying, the
confirmatory evidence is open to extreme doubt. It is dealt with in Section
VII (Beowulf-Frotho), below. As to Grendel, one such piece of confirmation
there is. The conquering Angles and Saxons seem to have given the names of
their heroes to the lands they won in England: some such names--'Wade's
causeway,' 'Weyland's smithy'--have survived to modern times. The evidence
of the Anglo-Saxon charters shows that very many which have now been lost
existed in England prior to the Conquest. Now in a Wiltshire charter of the
year 931, we have _B[=e]owan hammes hecgan_ mentioned not far from a
_Grendles mere_. This has been claimed as evidence that the story of
Grendel, with Beow as his adversary, was localized in Wiltshire in the
reign of Athelstan, and perhaps had been localized there since the
settlement four centuries previously. Until recently this was accepted as
definitely {43} proving that the Beowulf-Grendel story was derived from an
ancient Beow-myth. Yet one such instance of name-association is not
conclusive. We cannot leave out of consideration the possibility of its
being a mere chance coincidence, especially considering how large is the
number of place names recorded in Old English charters. Of late, people
have become more sceptical in drawing inferences from proper names, and
quite recently there has been a tendency entirely to overlook the evidence
of the charter, by way of making compensation for having hitherto overrated
it.
All that can be said with certainty is that it _is_ remarkable that a place
named after Beowa should be found in the immediate proximity of a
"Grendel's lake," and that this fact supports the possibility, though it
assuredly does not prove, that in the oldest versions of the tale the
monster queller was named Beow, not Beowulf. But it is only a possibility:
it is not grounded upon any real evidence.
These crucial references occur in a charter given by Athelstan at
Luton, concerning a grant of land at Ham in Wiltshire to his thane
Wulfgar. [See Birch, _Cartularium Saxonicum_, 1887, vol. II, p. 363.]
... Ego Aedhelstanus, rex Anglorum ... quandam telluris particulam meo
fideli ministro Wulfgaro ... in loco quem solicolae _oet Hamme_
vocitant tribuo ... Praedicta siquidem tellus his terminis circumcincta
clarescit....
dhonne nordh ofer d[=u]ne on m[=e]os-hlinc westeweardne; dhonne
ad[=u]ne on dh[=a] yfre on b[=e]owan hammes hecgan, on br[=e]meles
sceagan [=e]asteweardne; dhonne on dh[=a] bl[=a]can gr[=ae]fan; dhonne
nordh be dh[=e]m ondh[=e]afdan t[=o] dh[=ae]re scortan d[=i]c b[=u]tan
[=a]nan aecre; dhonne t[=o] fugelmere t[=o] dh[=a]n wege; ondlong weges
t[=o] ottes forda; dhonon t[=o] wudumere; dhonne t[=o] dh[=ae]re
r[=u]wan hecgan; dhaet on langan hangran; dhonne on grendles mere;
dhonon on dyrnan geat....
Ambiguous as this evidence is, I do not think it can be dismissed as it
is by Lawrence (_Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXIV, 252) and Panzer
(_Beowulf_, 397), who both say "How do we know that it is not the
merest chance?" It _may_ of course be chance: but this does not justify
us in basing an argument upon the assumption that it _is_ the merest
chance. Lawrence continues: "Suppose one were to set up a theory that
there was a saga-relation between Scyld and Bikki, and offered as proof
the passage in the charter for the year 917 in which there are
mentioned, as in the same district, _scyldes treow_ and _bican
sell_.... How much weight would this carry?"
The answer surely is that the occurrence of the two names together in
the charter would, by itself, give no basis whatever for starting such
a theory: but if, on other grounds, the theory were likely, then the
occurrence of the two names together would certainly have some
corroborative value. Exactly how much, it is impossible to say, because
we cannot estimate the element of chance, and we cannot {44} be certain
that the _grendel_ and the _beowa_ mentioned are identical with our
Grendel and our Beowulf.
Miller has argued [_Academy_, May 1894, p. 396] that _grendles_ is not
a proper name here, but a common noun signifying "drain," and that
_grendles mere_ therefore means "cesspool."
Now "grindle" is found in modern dialect and even in Middle English[85]
in the sense of "a narrow ditch" or "gutter," but I doubt if it can be
proved to be an Old English word. Evidence would rather point to its
being an East Anglian corruption of the much more widely spread
_drindle_, or _dringle_, used both as a verb "to go slowly, to
trickle," and as "a small trickling stream." And even if an O.E.
_grendel_ as a common noun meaning "gutter" were authenticated, it
seems unlikely to me that places were named "the fen," "the mere," "the
pit," "the brook"--"of the gutter." There is no ground whatever for
supposing the existence of an O.E. _grendel_ = "sewer," or anything
which would lead us to suppose _grendles mere_ or _gryndeles sylle_ to
mean "cesspool[86]." Surely it is probable, knowing what we do of the
way in which the English settlers gave epic names to the localities
around their settlements, that these places were named after Grendel
because they seemed the sort of place where his story might be
localized--like "Weyland's smithy" or "Wade's causeway": and that the
meaning is "Grendel's fen," "mere," "pit" or "brook."
Again, both Panzer and Lawrence suggest that the Beowa who gave his
name to the _ham_ may have been, not the hero, but "an ordinary mortal
called after him" ... "some individual who lived in this locality."
But, among the numerous English proper names recorded, can any instance
be found of any individual named Beowa? {45} And was it in accordance
with the rules of Old English nomenclature to give to mortals the names
of these heroes of the genealogies[87]?
Recent scepticism as to the "Beow-myth" has been largely due to the fact
that speculation as to Beow had been carried too far. For example, because
Beow appeared in the West Saxon genealogy, it had been assumed that the
Beow-myth belonged essentially to the Angles and Saxons. Yet Beow would
seem to have been also known among Scandinavians. For in somewhat later
days Scandinavian genealogists, when they had made the acquaintance of the
Anglo-Saxon pedigrees, noted that Beow had a Scandinavian counterpart in a
hero whom they called Bjar[88]. That something was known in the north of
this Bjar is proved by the _K['a]lfsv['i]sa_, that same catalogue of famous
heroes and their horses which we have already found giving us the
counterparts of Onela and Eadgils. Yet this dry reference serves to show
that Bjar must once have been sufficiently famous to have a horse specially
his own[89]. Whether the fourteenth century Scandinavian who made Bjar the
Northern equivalent of Beow was merely guessing, we unfortunately cannot
tell. Most probably he was, for there is reason to think that the hero
corresponding to Beow was named, not _Bj['a]r_, but _Byggvir_[90]: a
correspondence intelligible to modern philologists as in agreement with
phonetic law, but naturally not obvious to an Icelandic genealogist. But
however this may be, the assumption that Beow was peculiarly the hero of
Angles and Saxons seems hardly justified.
{46}
Again, since Beow is an ancestor of Woden, it was further assumed that he
was an ancient god, and that in the story of his adventures we had to deal
with a nature-myth of a divine deliverer who saved the people from Grendel
and his mother, the personified powers of the stormy sea. It is with the
name of Muellenhoff, its most enthusiastic and ablest advocate, that this
"mythological theory" is particularly associated. That Grendel is
fictitious no one, of course, would deny. But Muellenhoff and his school,
in applying the term "mythical" to those portions of the _Beowulf_ story
for which no historical explanation could be found, meant that they
enshrined _nature-myths_. They thought that those elements in heroic poetry
which could not be referred back to actual fact must be traced to ancient
stories in which were recorded the nation's belief about the sun and the
gods: about storms and seasons.
The different mythological explanations of Beowulf-Beowa and Grendel have
depended mainly upon hazardous etymological explanations of the hero's
name. The most popular is Muellenhoff's interpretation. Beaw is the divine
helper of man in his struggle with the elements. Grendel represents the
stormy North Sea of early spring, flooding and destroying the habitations
of men, till the god rescues them: Grendel's mother represents the depths
of the ocean. But in the autumn the power of the god wanes: the dragon
personifies the coming of the wild weather: the god sinks in his final
struggle to safeguard the treasures of the earth for his people[91].
Others, remembering that Grendel dwells in the fen, see in him rather a
demon of the sea-marsh than of the sea itself: he is the pestilential
swamp[92], and the hero a wind which drives him away[93]. Or, whilst
Grendel still represents the storms, his antagonist is a "Blitzheros[94]."
Others, whilst hardly ranking Beowulf as {47} a god, still see an allegory
in his adventures, and Grendel must be a personification either of an
inundation[95], or of the terror of the long winter nights[96], or possibly
of grinding at the mill, the work of the enslaved foe[97].
Such explanations were till recently universally current: the instances
given above might be increased considerably.
Sufficient allowance was not made for the influence upon heroic poetry of
the simple popular folk-tale, a tale of wonder with no mythological or
allegorical meaning. Now, of late years, there has been a tendency not only
to recognize but even to exaggerate this influence: to regard the hero of
the folk-tale as the original and essential element in heroic poetry[98].
Though this is assuredly to go too far, it is but reasonable to recognize
the fairy tale element in the O.E. epic.
We have in _Beowulf_ a story of giant-killing and dragon-slaying. Why
should we construct a legend of the gods or a nature-myth to account for
these tales? Why must Grendel or his mother represent the tempest, or the
malaria, or the drear long winter nights? We know that tales of
giant-killers and dragon-slayers have been current among the people of
Europe for thousands of years. Is it not far more easy to regard the story
of the fight between Beowulf and Grendel merely as a fairy tale, glorified
into an epic[99]?
Those students who of late years have tried thus to elucidate the story of
Beowulf and Grendel, by comparison with folk-tales, have one great
advantage over Muellenhoff and the "mythological" school. The weak point of
Muellenhoff's view was that the nature-myth of Beow, which was called in to
explain the origin of the Beowulf story as we have it, was itself only an
assumption, a conjectural reconstruction. But the various popular tales in
which scholars have more recently tried to find parallels to _Beowulf_ have
this great merit, that {48} they do indubitably exist. And as to the first
step--the parallel between _Beowulf_ and the _Grettis saga_--there can,
fortunately, be but little hesitation.
* * * * *
SECTION II. THE SCANDINAVIAN PARALLELS--GRETTIR AND ORM.
The _Grettis saga_ tells the adventures of the most famous of all Icelandic
outlaws, Grettir the strong. As to the historic existence of Grettir there
is no doubt: we can even date the main events of his life, in spite of
chronological inconsistencies, with some precision. But between the year
1031, when he was killed, and the latter half of the thirteenth century,
when his saga took form, many fictitious episodes, derived from folk-lore,
had woven themselves around his name. Of these, one bears a great, if
possibly accidental, likeness to the Grendel story: the second is
emphatically and unmistakably the same story as that of Grendel and his
mother. In the first, Grettir stops at a farm house which is haunted by
Glam, a ghost of monstrous stature. Grettir awaits his attack alone, but,
like Beowulf, lying down. Glam's entry and onset resemble those of Grendel:
when Grettir closes with him he tries to get out. They wrestle the length
of the hall, and break all before them. Grettir supports himself against
anything that will give him foothold, but for all his efforts he is dragged
as far as the door. There he suddenly changes his tactics, and throws his
whole weight upon his adversary. The monster falls, undermost, so that
Grettir is able to draw, and strike off his head; though not till Glam has
laid upon Grettir a curse which drags him to his doom.
The second story--the adventure of Grettir at Sandhaugar
(Sandheaps)--begins in much the same way as that of Grettir and Glam.
Grettir is staying in a haunted farm, from which first the farmer himself
and then a house-carl have, on two successive Yuletides, been spirited
away. As before, a light burns in the room all night, and Grettir awaits
the attack alone, lying down, without having put off his clothes. As
before, Grettir and his assailant wrestle down the room, breaking all {49}
in their way. But this time Grettir is pulled put of the hall, and dragged
to the brink of the neighbouring gorge. Here, by a final effort, he
wrenches a hand free, draws, and hews off the arm of the ogress, who falls
into the torrent below.
Grettir conjectures that the two missing men must have been pulled by the
ogress into the gulf. This, after his experience, is surely a reasonable
inference: but Stein, the priest, is unconvinced. So they go together to
the river, and find the side of the ravine a sheer precipice: it is ten
fathom down to the water below the fall. Grettir lets down a rope: the
priest is to watch it. Then Grettir dives in: "the priest saw the soles of
his feet, and then knew no more what had become of him." Grettir swims
under the fall and gets into the cave, where he sees a giant sitting by a
fire: the giant aims a blow at him with a weapon with a wooden handle
("such a weapon men then called a _hefti-sax_"). Grettir hews it asunder.
The giant then grasps at another sword hanging on the wall of the cave, but
before he can use it Grettir wounds him. Stein, the priest, seeing the
water stained with blood from this wound, concludes that Grettir is dead,
and departs home, lamenting the loss of such a man. "But Grettir let little
space come between his blows till the giant lay dead." Grettir finds the
bones of the two dead men in the cave, and bears them away with him to
convince the priest: but when he reaches the rope and shakes it, there is
no reply, and he has to climb up, unaided. He leaves the bones in the
church porch, for the confusion of the priest, who has to admit that he has
failed to do his part faithfully.
Now if we compare this with _Beowulf_, we see that in the Icelandic story
much is different: for example, in the _Grettis saga_ it is the female
monster who raids the habitation of men, the male who stays at home in his
den. In this the _Grettis saga_ probably represents a corrupt tradition:
for, that the female should remain at home whilst the male searches for his
prey, is a rule which holds good for devils as well as for men[100]. {50}
The change was presumably made in order to avoid the difficulty--which the
_Beowulf_ poet seems also to have realized--that after the male has been
slain, the rout of the female is felt to be a deed of less note--something
of an anti-climax[101].
The sword on the wall, also, which in the _Beowulf_-story is used by the
hero, is, in the _Grettir_-story, used by the giant in his attack on the
hero.
But that the two stories are somehow connected cannot be disputed. Apart
from the general likeness, we have details such as the escape of the
monster after the loss of an arm, the fire burning in the cave, the
_hefti-sax_, a word which, like its old English equivalent
(_haeft-m[=e]ce_, _Beowulf_, 1457), is found in this story only, and the
strange reasoning of the watchers that the blood-stained water must
necessarily be due to the hero's death[102].
Now obviously such a series of resemblances cannot be the result of an
accident. Either the _Grettir_-story is derived directly or indirectly from
the _Beowulf_ epic, more or less as we have it, or both stories are derived
from one common earlier source. The scholars who first discovered the
resemblance believed that both stories were independently derived from one
original[103]. This view has generally been endorsed by later
investigators, but not universally[104]. And this is one of the questions
which the student cannot leave open, because our view of the origin of the
_Grendel_-story will have to depend largely upon the view we take as to its
connection with the episode in the _Grettis saga_.
If this episode be derived from _Beowulf_, then we have an interesting
literary curiosity, but nothing further. But if it is {51} independently
derived from a common source, then the episode in the _saga_, although so
much later, may nevertheless contain features which have been obliterated
or confused or forgotten in the _Beowulf_ version. In that case the story,
as given in the _Grettis saga_, would be of great weight in any attempt to
reconstruct the presumed original form of the _Grendel_-story.
The evidence seems to me to support strongly the view of the majority of
scholars--that the _Grettir_-episode is not derived from _Beowulf_ in the
form in which that poem has come down to us, but that both come from one
common source.
It is certain that the story of the monster invading a dwelling of men and
rendering it uninhabitable, till the adventurous deliverer arrives, did not
originate with Hrothgar and Heorot. It is an ancient and widespread type of
story, of which one version is localized at the Danish court. When
therefore we find it existing, independently of its Danish setting, the
presumption is in favour of this being a survival of the old independent
story. Of course it is _conceivable_ that the Hrothgar-Heorot setting might
have been first added, and subsequently stripped off again so clean that no
trace of it remains. But it seems going out of our way to assume this,
unless we are forced to do so[105].
Again, it is certain that these stories--like all the subject matter of the
Old English epic--did not originate in England, but were brought across the
North Sea from the old home. And that old home was in the closest
connection, so far as the passage to and fro of story went, with
Scandinavian lands. Nothing could be intrinsically more probable than that
a story, current in ancient Angel and carried thence to England, should
also have been current in Scandinavia, and thence have been carried to
Iceland.
Other stories which were current in England in the eighth century were also
current in Scandinavia in the thirteenth. Yet this does not mean that the
tales of Hroar and Rolf, or of Athils and Ali, were borrowed from English
epic accounts of Hrothgar and Hrothulf, or Eadgils and Onela. They were
part of the common inheritance--as much so as the strong verbs {52} or the
alliterative line. Why then, contrary to all analogy, should we assume a
literary borrowing in the case of the _Beowulf-Grettir_-story? The compiler
of the _Grettis saga_ could not possibly have drawn his material from a MS
of _Beowulf_[106]: he could not have made sense of a single passage. He
conceivably _might_ have drawn from traditions _derived_ from the Old
English epic. But it is difficult to see how. Long before his time these
traditions had for the most part been forgotten in England itself. One of
the longest lived of all, that of Offa, is heard of for the last time in
England at the beginning of the thirteenth century. That a Scandinavian
sagaman at the end of the century could have been in touch, in any way,
with Anglo-Saxon epic tradition seems on the whole unlikely. The
Scandinavian tradition of Offa, scholars are now agreed[107], was not
borrowed from England, and there is no reason why we should assume such
borrowing in the case of Grettir.
The probability is, then, considerable, that the _Beowulf_-story and the
_Grettir_-story are independently derived from one common original.
And this probability would be confirmed to a certainty if we should find
that features which have been confused and half obliterated in the O.E.
story become clear when we turn to the Icelandic. This argument has lately
been brought forward by Dr Lawrence in his essay on "The Haunted Mere in
_Beowulf_[108]." Impressive as the account of this mere is, it does not
convey any very clear picture. Grendel's home seems sometimes to be in the
sea: and again it seems to be amid marshes, moors and fens, and again it is
"where the mountain torrent goes down under the darkness of the cliffs--the
water below the ground (i.e. beneath overhanging rocks)."
This last account agrees admirably with the landscape depicted in the
_Grettis saga_, and the gorge many fathoms deep through which the stream
rushes, after it has fallen over the precipice; not so the other accounts.
These descriptions are {53} best harmonized if we imagine an original
version in which the monsters live, as in the _Grettis saga_, in a hole
under the waterfall. This story, natural enough in a Scandinavian country,
would be less intelligible as it travelled South. The Angles and Saxons,
both in their old home on the Continent and their new one in England, were
accustomed to a somewhat flat country, and would be more inclined to place
the dwelling of outcast spirits in moor and fen than under waterfalls, of
which they probably had only an elementary conception. "The giant must
dwell in the fen, alone in the land[109]."
Now it is in the highest degree improbable that, after the landscape had
been blurred as it is in _Beowulf_, it could have been brought out again
with the distinctness it has in the _Grettis saga_. To preserve the
features so clearly the _Grettir_-story can hardly be derived from
_Beowulf_: it must have come down independently.
But if so, it becomes at once of prime importance. For by a comparison of
_Beowulf_ and _Grettir_ we must form an idea of what the original story
was, from which both were derived.
Another parallel, though a less striking one, has been found in the story
of Orm Storolfsson, which is extant in a short saga about contemporary with
that of Grettir, _Ormsth['a]ttr St['o]r['o]lfssonar_[110], in two ballads
from the Faroe Islands[111] and two from Sweden[112].
It is generally asserted that the _Orm_-story affords a close parallel to
the episodes of Grendel and his mother. I cannot find close resemblance,
and I strongly suspect that the repetition of the assertion is due to the
fact that the _Orm_-story has not been very easily accessible, and has
often been taken as read by the critics.
But, in any case, it has been proved that the _Orm_-tale borrows largely
from other sagas, and notably from the _Grettis saga_ itself[113]. Before
arguing, therefore, from any parallel, it must first be shown that the
feature in which Orm resembles {54} Beowulf is not derived at second hand
from the _Grettis saga_. One such feature there is, namely Orm's piety,
which he certainly does not derive from Grettir. In this he with equal
certainty resembles Beowulf. According to modern ideas, indeed, there is
more of the Christian hero in Beowulf than in Orm.
Now Orm owes his victory to the fact, among other things, that, at the
critical moment, he vows to God and the holy apostle St Peter to make a
pilgrimage to Rome should he be successful. In this a parallel is seen to
the fact that Beowulf is saved, not only by his coat of mail, but also by
the divine interposition[114]. But is this really a parallel? Beowulf is
too much of a sportsman to buy victory by making a vow when in a tight
place. _G[=ae]dh [=a] wyrd sw[=a] h[=i]o scel_[115] is the exact antithesis
of Orm's pledge.
However, I have given in the Second Part the text of the _Orm_-episode, so
that readers may judge for themselves the closeness or remoteness of the
parallel.
The parallel between Grettir and Beowulf was noted by the Icelander
Gudbrand Vigf['u]sson upon his first reading _Beowulf_ (see
_Prolegomena to Sturlunga saga_, 1878, p. xlix: _Corpus Poeticum
Boreale_, II, 501: _Icelandic Reader_, 1879, 404). It was elaborately
worked out by Gering in _Anglia_, III, 74-87, and it is of course
noticed in almost every discussion of _Beowulf_. The parallel with Orm
was first noted by Schueck (_Svensk Literaturhistoria_, Stockholm,
1886, _etc._, I, 62) and independently by Bugge (_P.B.B._ XII, 58-68).
The best edition of the _Grettis saga_ is the excellent one of Boer
(Halle, 1900), but the opinions there expressed as to the relationship
of the episodes to each other and to the Grendel story have not
received the general support of scholars.
* * * * *
SECTION III. BOTHVAR BJARKI.
We have seen that there are in _Beowulf_ two distinct elements, which never
seem quite harmonized: firstly the historic background of the Danish and
Geatic courts, with their chieftains, Hrothgar and Hrothulf, or Hrethel and
Hygelac: and secondly the old wives' fables of struggles with ogres and
dragons. In the story of Grettir, the ogre fable appears--unmistakably
connected with the similar story as given in _Beowulf_, but with {55} no
faintest trace of having ever possessed any Danish heroic setting.
Turning back to the _Saga of Rolf Kraki_, we _do_ find against that Danish
setting a figure, that of the hero Bothvar Bjarki, bearing a very
remarkable resemblance to Beowulf.
Bjarki, bent on adventure, leaves the land of the Gautar (Goetar), where
his brother is king, and reaches Leire, where Rolf, the king of the Danes,
holds his court; [just as Beowulf, bent on adventure, leaves the land of
the Geatas (Goetar) where his uncle is king, and reaches Heorot, where
Hrothgar and Hrothulf (Rolf) hold court].
Arrived at Leire, Bjarki takes under his protection the despised coward
Hott, whom Rolf's retainers have been wont to bully. The champions at the
Danish court [in _Beowulf_ one of them only--Unferth] prove quarrelsome,
and they assail the hero during the feast, in the _Saga_ by throwing bones
at him, in _Beowulf_ only by bitter words. The hero in each case replies,
in kind, with such effect that the enemy is silenced.
But despite the fame and splendour of the Danish court, it has long been
subject to the attacks of a strange monster[116]--a winged beast whom no
iron will bite [just as Grendel is immune from swords[117]]. Bjarki [like
Beowulf[118]] is scornful at the inability of the Danes to defend their own
home: "if one beast can lay waste the kingdom and the cattle of the king."
He goes out to fight with the monster _by night_, accompanied only by Hott.
He tries to draw his sword, but the sword is fast in its sheath: he tugs,
the sword comes out, and he slays the beast with it. This seems a most
pointless incident: taken in connection with the supposed invulnerability
of the foe, it looks like the survival of some episode in which the hero
was unwilling [as in Beowulf's fight with Grendel[119]] or unable [as in
Beowulf's fight with Grendel's mother[120]] to slay the foe {56} with his
sword. Bjarki then compels the terrified coward Hott to drink the monster's
blood. Hott forthwith becomes a valiant champion, second only to Bjarki
himself. The beast is then propped up as if still alive: when it is seen
next morning the king calls upon his retainers to play the man, and Bjarki
tells Hott that now is the time to clear his reputation. Hott demands first
the sword, Gullinhjalti, from Rolf, and with this he slays the dead beast a
second time. King Rolf is not deceived by this trick; yet he rejoices that
Bjarki has not only himself slain the monster, but changed the cowardly
Hott into a champion; he commands that Hott shall be called Hjalti, after
the sword which has been given him. We are hardly justified in demanding
logic in a wild tale like this, or one might ask how Rolf was convinced of
Hott's valour by what he knew to be a piece of stage management on the part
of Bjarki. But, however that may be, it is remarkable that in _Beowulf_
also the monster Grendel, though proof against all ordinary weapons, is
smitten _when dead_ by a magic sword of which the _golden hilt_[121] is
specially mentioned.
In addition to the undeniable similarity of the stories of these heroes, a
certain similarity of name has been claimed. That _Bjarki_ is not
etymologically connected with _B[=e]owulf_ or _B[=e]ow_ is clear: but if we
are to accept the identification of Beowulf and Beow, remembering that the
Scandinavian equivalent of the latter is said to be _Bj['a]r_, the
resemblance to _Bjarki_ is obvious. Similarity of sound might have caused
one name to be substituted for another[122]. This argument obviously
depends upon the identification _B[=e]ow_ = _Bj['a]r_, which is extremely
doubtful: it will be argued below that it is more likely that _B[=e]ow_ =
_Byggvir_[123].
But force remains in the argument that the name Bjarki (little bear) is
very appropriate to a hero like the Beowulf of {57} our epic, who crushes
or hugs his foe to death instead of using his sword; even if we do not
accept explanations which would interpret the name "Beowulf" itself as a
synonym for "Bear."
It is scarcely to be wondered at, then, that most critics have seen in
Bjarki a Scandinavian parallel to Beowulf. But serious difficulties remain.
There is in the Scandinavian story a mass of detail quite unparallelled in
_Beowulf_, which overshadows the resemblances. Bjarki's friendship, for
example, with the coward Hott or Hjalti has no counterpart in _Beowulf_.
And Bjarki becomes a retainer of King Rolf and dies in his service, whilst
Beowulf never comes into direct contact with Hrothulf at all; the poet
seems to avoid naming them together. Still, it is quite intelligible that
the story should have developed on different lines in Scandinavia from
those which it followed in England, till the new growths overshadowed the
original resemblance, without obliterating it. After nearly a thousand
years of independent development discrepancies must be expected. It would
not be a reasonable objection to the identity of _Gullinhjalti_ with
_Gyldenhilt_, that the word _hilt_ had grown to have a rather different
meaning in Norse and in English; subsequent developments do not invalidate
an original resemblance if the points of contact are really there.
But, allowing for this independent growth in Scandinavia, we should
naturally expect that the further back we traced the story the greater the
resemblance would become.
This brings us to the second, serious difficulty: that, when we turn from
the _Saga of Rolf Kraki_--belonging in its present form perhaps to the
early fifteenth century--to the pages of Saxo Grammaticus, who tells the
same tale more than two centuries earlier, the resemblance, instead of
becoming stronger, almost vanishes. Nothing is said of Bjarki coming from
Gautland, or indeed of his being a stranger at the Danish court: nothing is
said of the monster having paid previous visits, visits repeated till king
Rolf, like Hrothgar, has to give up all attempt at resistance, and submit
to its depredations. The monster, instead of being a troll, like Grendel,
becomes a commonplace bear. All Saxo tells us is that "He [Biarco, i.e.
Bjarki] met a great bear in a thicket and slew it with a spear, and bade
his {58} comrade Ialto [i.e. Hjalti] place his lips to the beast and drink
its blood as it flowed, that he might become stronger."
Hence the Danish scholar, Axel Olrik, in the best and most elaborate
discussion of Bjarki and all about him, has roundly denied any connection
between his hero and Beowulf. He is astonished at the slenderness of the
evidence upon which previous students have argued for relationship.
"Neither Beowulf's wrestling match in the hall, nor in the fen, nor his
struggle with the firedrake has any real identity, but when we take a
little of them all we can get a kind of similarity with the latest and
worst form of the Bjarki saga[124]." The development of Saxo's bear into a
winged monster, "the worst of trolls," Olrik regards as simply in
accordance with the usual heightening, in later Icelandic, of these early
stories of struggles with beasts, and of this he gives a parallel instance.
Some Icelandic ballads on Bjarki (the _Bjarka r['i]mur_), which were first
printed in 1904, were claimed by Olrik as supporting his contention. These
ballads belong to about the year 1400. Yet, though they are thus in date
and dialect closely allied to the _Saga of Rolf Kraki_ and remote from Saxo
Grammaticus, they are so far from supporting the tradition of the _Saga_
with regard to the monster slain, that they represent the foe first as a
man-eating she-wolf, which is slain by Bjarki, then as a grey bear [as in
Saxo], which is slain by Hjalti after he has been compelled to drink the
blood of the she-wolf. We must therefore give up the winged beast as mere
later elaboration; for if the Bjarki ballads in a point like this support
Saxo, as against the _Saga_ which is so closely connected with them by its
date and Icelandic tongue, we must admit Saxo's version here to represent,
beyond dispute, the genuine tradition.
Accordingly the attempt which has been made to connect Bjarki's winged
monster with Beowulf's winged dragon goes overboard at once. But such an
attempt ought never to have been made at all. The parallel is between
Bjarki and the Beowulf-Grendel episode, not between Bjarki and the
Beowulf-dragon episode, which ought to be left out of consideration. And
the monstrous bear and the wolf of the _R['i]mur_ are not so {59}
dissimilar from Grendel, with his bear-like hug, and Grendel's mother, the
'sea-wolf[125].'
The likeness between Beowulf and Bjarki lies, not in the wingedness or
otherwise of the monsters they overthrow, but in the similarity of the
position--in the situation which places the most famous court of the North,
and its illustrious king, at the mercy of a ravaging foe, till a chance
stranger from Gautland brings deliverance. And here the _R['i]mur_ support,
not Saxo, but the _Saga_, though in an outworn and faded way. In the
_R['i]mur_ Bjarki is a stranger come from abroad: the bear has made
previous attacks upon the king's folds.
Thus, whilst we grant the wings of the beast to be a later elaboration, it
does not in the least follow that other features in which the _Saga_
differs from Saxo--the advent of Bjarki from Gautland, for instance--are
also later elaboration.
And we must be careful not to attach too much weight to the account of Saxo
merely because it is earlier in date than that of the _Saga_. The
presumption is, of course, that the earlier form will be the more original:
but just as a late manuscript will often preserve, amidst its corruptions,
features which are lost in much earlier manuscripts, so will a tradition.
Saxo's accounts are often imperfect[126]. And in this particular instance,
there is a want of coherency and intelligibility in Saxo's account, which
in itself affords a strong presumption that it _is_ imperfect.
What Saxo tells us is this:
At which banquet, when the champions were rioting with every kind of
wantonness, and flinging knuckle-bones at a certain Ialto [Hjalti] from
all sides, it happened that his messmate Biarco [Bjarki] through the
bad aim of the thrower received a severe blow on the head. But Biarco,
equally annoyed by the injury and the insult, sent the bone back to the
thrower, so that he twisted the front of his head to the back and the
back to the front, punishing the cross-grain of the man's temper by
turning his face round about.
But who were this "certain Hjalti" and Bjarki? There seems to be something
missing in the story. The explanation [which Saxo does not give us, but the
_Saga_ does] that Bjarki has come from afar and taken the despised
Hott-Hjalti under his {60} protection, seems to be necessary. Why was
Hjalti chosen as the victim, at whom missiles were to be discharged?
Obviously [though Saxo does not tell us so], because he was the butt of the
mess. And if Bjarki had been one of the mess for many hours, his messmates
would have known him too well to throw knuckle-bones either at him or his
friend. This is largely a matter of personal feeling, but Saxo's account
seems to me pointless, till it is supplemented from the _Saga_[127].
And there is one further piece of evidence which seems to clinch the whole
matter finally, though its importance has been curiously overlooked, by
Panzer and Lawrence in their arguments for the identification, and by Olrik
in his arguments to the contrary.
We have seen above how Beowulf "became a friend" to Eadgils, helping him in
his expedition against King Onela of Sweden, and avenging, in "chill raids
fraught with woe," _cealdum cears[=i]dhum_, the wrongs which Onela had
inflicted upon the Geatas. We saw, too, that this expedition was remembered
in Scandinavian tradition. "They had a battle on the ice of Lake Wener;
there King Ali fell, and Athils had the victory. Concerning this battle
there is much said in the _Skjoldunga saga_." The _Skjoldunga saga_ is
lost, but the Latin extracts from it give some information about this
battle[128]. Further, an account of it _is_ preserved in the _Bjarka
r['i]mur_, probably derived from the lost _Skjoldunga saga_. And the
_Bjarka r['i]mur_ expressly mention Bjarki as helping Athils in this battle
against Ali on the ice of Lake Wener[129].
Olrik does not seem to allow for this at all, though of course aware of it.
The other parallels between Bjarki and Beowulf he believes to be mere
coincidence. But is this likely?
To recapitulate: In old English tradition a hero comes from the land of the
Geatas to the royal court of Denmark, where Hrothgar and Hrothulf hold
sway. This hero is received in none too friendly wise by one of the
retainers, but {61} puts his foe to shame, is warmly welcomed by the king,
and slays by night a monster which has been attacking the Danish capital
and against which the warriors of that court have been helpless. The
monster is proof against all swords, yet its dead body is mutilated by a
sword with a golden hilt. Subsequently this same hero helps King Eadgils of
Sweden to overthrow Onela.
We find precisely the same situation in Icelandic tradition some seven
centuries later, except that not Hrothgar and Hrothulf, but Hrothulf (Rolf)
alone is represented as ruling the Danes, and the sword with the golden
hilt has become a sword named "Golden-hilt." It is _conceivable_ for a
situation to have been reconstructed in this way by mere accident, just as
it is conceivable that one player may have the eight or nine best trumps
dealt him. But it does not seem advisable to base one's calculations, as
Olrik does, upon such an accident happening.
The parallel of Bjarki and Beowulf seems to have been first noted by
Gisli Brynjulfsson (_Antiquarisk Tidsskrift_, 1852-3, p. 130). It has
been often discussed by Sarrazin (_Beowulf Studien_, 13 _etc._, 47:
_Anglia_, IX, 195 _etc._: _Engl. Stud._ XVI, 79 _etc._, XXIII, 242
_etc._, XXXV, 19 _etc._). Sarrazin's over-elaborated parallels form a
broad target for doubters: it must be remembered that a case, though it
may be discredited, is not invalidated by exaggeration. The problem is
of course noted in the Beowulf studies of Muellenhoff (55), Bugge
(_P.B.B._ XII, 55) and Boer (_Die Beowulfsage_, II, in _Arkiv f. nord.
filol._ XIX, 44 _etc._) and discussed at length and convincingly by
Panzer (364-386) and Lawrence (_Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXIV,
1909, 222 _etc._). The usual view which accepts some relationship is
endorsed by all these scholars, as it is by Finnur J['o]nsson in his
edition of the _Hr['o]lfs Saga Kraka og Bjarkar['i]mur_ (Koebenhavn,
1904, p. xxii).
Ten Brink (185 _etc._) denied any original connection, on the ground of
the dissimilarity between _Beowulf_ and the story given by Saxo. Any
resemblances between _Beowulf_ and the _Hr['o]lfs Saga_ he attributed
to the influence of the English _Beowulf_-story upon the _Saga_.
For Olrik's emphatic denial of any connection at all, see _Danmarks
Heltedigtning_, I, 134 _etc._ (This seems to have influenced Brandl,
who expresses some doubt in _Pauls Grdr._ (2) II. 1. 993.) For
arguments to the contrary, see Heusler in _A.f.d.A._ XXX, 32, and
especially Panzer and Lawrence as above.
The parallel of _Gullinhjalti_ and _gyldenhilt_ was first noted
tentatively by Kluge (_Engl. Stud._ XXII, 145).
* * * * *
{62}
SECTION IV. PARALLELS FROM FOLKLORE.
Hitherto we have been dealing with parallels to the Grendel story in
written literature: but a further series of parallels, although much more
remote, is to be found in that vast store of old wives' tales which no one
till the nineteenth century took the trouble to write down systematically,
but which certainly go back to a very ancient period. One particular tale,
that of the Bear's Son[130] (extant in many forms), has been instanced as
showing a resemblance to the _Beowulf_-story. In this tale the hero, a
young man of extraordinary strength, (1) sets out on his adventures,
associating with himself various companions; (2) makes resistance in a
house against a supernatural being, which his fellows have in vain striven
to withstand, and succeeds in mishandling or mutilating him. (3) By the
blood-stained track of this creature, or guided by him in some other
manner, the hero finds his way to a spring, or hole in the earth, (4) is
lowered down by a cord and (5) overcomes in the underworld different
supernatural foes, amongst whom is often included his former foe, or very
rarely the mother of that foe: victory can often only be gained by the use
of a magic sword which the hero finds below. (6) The hero is left
treacherously in the lurch by his companions, whose duty it was to have
drawn him up...
Now it may be objected, with truth, that this is not like the
_Beowulf_-story, or even particularly like the _Grettir_-story. But the
question is not merely whether it resembles these stories as we possess
them, but whether it resembles the story which must have been the common
origin of both. And we have only to try to reconstruct from _Beowulf_ and
from the _Grettis saga_ a tale which can have been the common original of
both, to see that it must be something extraordinarily like the folk-tale
outlined above.
{63}
For example, it is true that the departure of the Danes homeward because
they believe that Beowulf has met his death in the water below, bears only
the remotest resemblance to the deliberate treachery which the companions
in the folk-tale mete out to the hero. But when we compare the
_Grettir_-story, we see there that a real breach of trust is involved, for
there the priest Stein leaves the hero in the lurch, and abandons the rope
by which he should have drawn Grettir up. This can hardly be an innovation
on the part of the composer of the _Grettis saga_, for he is quite well
disposed towards Stein, and has no motive for wantonly attributing
treachery to him. The innovation presumably lies in the _Beowulf_-story,
where Hrothgar and his court are depicted in such a friendly spirit that no
disreputable act can be attributed to them, and consequently Hrothgar's
departure home must not be allowed in any way to imperil or inconvenience
the hero. A comparison of the _Beowulf_-story with the _Grettir_-story
leads then to the conclusion that in the oldest version those who remained
above when the hero plunged below _were_ guilty of some measure of
disloyalty in ceasing to watch for him. In other words we see that the
further we track the _Beowulf_-story back, the more it comes to resemble
the folk-tale.
And our belief that there is some connection between the folk-tale and the
original of _Beowulf_ must be strengthened when we find that, by a
comparison of the folk-tale, we are able to explain features in _Beowulf_
which strike us as difficult and even absurd: precisely as when we turn to
a study of Shakespeare's sources we often find the explanation of things
that puzzle us: we see that the poet is dealing with an unmanageable
source, which he cannot make quite plausible. For instance: when Grendel
enters Heorot he kills and eats the first of Beowulf's retinue whom he
finds: no one tries to prevent him. The only explanation which the poet has
to offer is that the retinue are all asleep[131]--strange somnolence on the
part of men who are awaiting a hostile attack, which they expect will be
fatal to them all[132]. And Beowulf at any rate is not asleep. Yet he
calmly watches whilst his henchman is {64} both killed and eaten: and
apparently, but for the accident that the monster next tackles Beowulf
himself, he would have allowed his whole bodyguard to be devoured one after
another.
But if we suppose the story to be derived from the folk-tale, we have an
explanation. For in the folk-tale, the companions and the hero await the
foe singly, in succession: the turn of the hero comes last, after all his
companions have been put to shame. But Beowulf, who is represented as
having specially voyaged to Heorot in order to purge it, cannot leave the
defence of the hall for the first night to one of his comrades. Hence the
discomfiture of the comrade and the single-handed success of the hero have
to be represented as simultaneous. The result is incongruous: Beowulf _has_
to look on whilst his comrade is killed.
Again, both Beowulf and Grettir plunge in the water with a sword, and with
the deliberate object of shedding the monster's blood. Why then should the
watchers on the cliff above assume that the blood-stained water must
necessarily signify the _hero's_ death, and depart home? Why did it never
occur to them that this deluge of blood might much more suitably proceed
from the monster?
But we can understand this unreason if we suppose that the story-teller had
to start from the deliberate and treacherous departure of the companions,
whilst at the same time it was not to his purpose to represent the
companions as treacherous. In that case some excuse _must_ be found for
them: and the blood-stained water was the nearest at hand[133].
Again, quite independently of the folk-tale, many _Beowulf_ scholars have
come to the conclusion that in the original version of the story the hero
did not wait for a second attack from the mother of the monster he had
slain, but rather, from a natural and laudable desire to complete his task,
followed the monster's tracks to the mere, and finished him and his mother
below. Many traits have survived which may conceivably point to an original
version of the story in which Beowulf (or the figure corresponding to him)
at once plunged down {65} in order to combat the foe corresponding to
Grendel. There are unsatisfactory features in the story as it stands. For
why, it might be urged, should the wrenching off of an arm have been fatal
to so tough a monster? And why, it has often been asked, is the adversary
under the water sometimes male, sometimes female? And why is it apparently
the blood of Grendel, not of his mother, which discolours the water and
burns up the sword, and the head of Grendel, not of his mother, which is
brought home in triumph? These arguments may not carry much weight, but at
any rate when we turn to the folk-tale we find that the adventure beneath
the earth _is_ the natural following up of the adventure in the house, not
the result of any renewed attack.
In addition, there are many striking coincidences between individual
versions or groups of the folk-tale on the one hand and the
_Beowulf-Grettir_ story on the other: yet it is very difficult to know what
value should be attached to these parallels, since there are many features
of popular story which float around and attach themselves to this or that
tale without any original connection, so that it is easy for the same trait
to recur in _Beowulf_ and in a group of folk-tales, without this proving
that the stories as a whole are connected[134].
The hero of the Bear's son folk-tale is often in his youth unmanageable or
lazy. This is also emphasized in the stories both of Grettir and of Orm:
and though such a feature was uncongenial to the courtly tone of _Beowulf_,
which sought to depict the hero as a model prince, yet it _is_ there[135],
even though only alluded to incidentally, and elsewhere ignored or even
denied[136].
Again, the hero of the folk-tale is very frequently (but not necessarily)
either descended from a bear, nourished by a bear, or has some ursine
characteristic. We see this recurring in certain traits of Beowulf such as
his bear-like method of hugging {66} his adversary to death. Here again the
courtly poet has not emphasized his hero's wildness[137].
Again, there are some extraordinary coincidences in names, between the
_Beowulf-Grettir_ story and the folk-tale. These are not found in _Beowulf_
itself, but only in the stories of Grettir and Orm. Yet, as the
_Grettir_-episode is presumably derived from the same original as the
_Beowulf_-episode, any _original_ connection between it and the folk-tale
involves such connection for _Beowulf_ also. We have seen that in _Grettis
saga_ the priest Stein, as the unfaithful guardian of the rope which is to
draw up the hero, seems to represent the faithless companions of the
folktale. There is really no other way of accounting for him, for except on
this supposition he is quite otiose and unnecessary to the _Grettir_-story:
the saga-man has no use for him. And his name confirms this explanation,
for in the folk-tale one of the three faithless companions of the hero is
called the Stone-cleaver, _Steinhauer_, _Stenkloever_, or even, in one
Scandinavian version, simply _Stein_[138].
Again, the struggle in the _Grettis saga_ is localized at Sandhaugar in
Barthardal in Northern Iceland. Yet it is difficult to say why the
saga-teller located the story there. The scenery, with the neighbouring
river and mighty waterfall, is fully described: but students of Icelandic
topography assert that the neighbourhood does _not_ at all lend itself to
this description[139]. When we turn to the story of Orm we find it
localized on the island Sandey. We are forced to the conclusion that the
name belongs to the story, and that in some early version this was
localized at a place called Sandhaug, perhaps at one of the numerous places
in Norway of that name. Now turning to one of the Scandinavian versions of
the folk-tale, we find that the descent into the earth and the consequent
struggle is localized in _en stor sandhaug_[140].
{67}
On the other hand, it must be remembered that if a collection is made of
some two hundred folk-tales, it is bound to contain, in addition to the
essential kernel of common tradition, a vast amount of that floating
material which tends to associate itself with this or that hero of story.
Individual versions or groups of versions of the tale may contain features
which occur also in the _Grendel_-story, without that being any evidence
for primitive connection. Thus we are told how Grendel forces open the door
of Heorot. In a Sicilian version of the folk-tale the doors spring open of
themselves as the foe appears. This has been claimed as a parallel. But, as
a sceptic has observed, the extraordinary thing is that of so slight a
similarity (if it is entitled to be called a similarity) we should find
only one example out of two hundred, and have to go to Sicily for
that[141].
The parallel between the _Beowulf_-story and the "Bear's son" folk-tale
had been noted by Laistner (_Das Raetsel der Sphinx_, Berlin, 1889, II,
22 _etc._): but the prevalent belief that the _Beowulf_-story was a
nature-myth seems to have prevented further investigation on these
lines till Panzer independently (p. 254) undertook his monumental work.
Yet there are other features in the folk-tale which are entirely
unrepresented in the _Beowulf-Grettir_ story. The hero of the folk-tale
rescues captive princesses in the underworld (it is because they wish to
rob him of this prize that his companions leave him below); he is saved by
some miraculous helper, and finally, after adopting a disguise, puts his
treacherous comrades to shame and weds the youngest princess. None of these
elements[142] are to be found in the stories of Beowulf, Grettir, Orm or
Bjarki, yet they are essential to the fairy tale[143].
{68}
So that to speak of _Beowulf_ as a version of the fairy tale is undoubtedly
going too far. All we can say is that some early story-teller took, from
folk-tale, those elements which suited his purpose, and that a tale,
containing many leading features found in the "Bear's son" story, but
omitting many of the leading motives of that story, came to be told of
Beowulf and of Grettir[144].
* * * * *
SECTION V. SCEF AND SCYLD.
Our poem begins with an account of the might, and of the funeral, of Scyld
Scefing, the ancestor of that Danish royal house which is to play so large
a part in the story. After Scyld's death his retainers, following the
command he had given them, placed their beloved prince in the bosom of a
ship, surrounded by many treasures brought from distant lands, by weapons
of battle and weeds of war, swords and byrnies. Also they placed a golden
banner high over his head, and let the sea bear him away, with soul
sorrowful and downcast. Men could not say for a truth, not the wisest of
councillors, who received that burden.
Now there is much in this that can be paralleled both from the literature
and from the archaeological remains of the North. Abundant traces have been
found, either of the burial or of the burning of a chief within a ship. And
we are told by different authorities of two ancient Swedish kings who,
sorely wounded, and unwilling to die in their beds, had themselves placed
upon ships, surrounded by weapons and the bodies of the slain. The funeral
pyre was then lighted on the vessel, and the ship sent blazing out to sea.
Similarly the dead body of Baldr was put upon his ship, and burnt.
Haki konungr fekk sv['a] st['o]r s['a]r, at hann s['a], at hans
l['i]fdagar mundu eigi langir verdha; th['a] l['e]t hann taka skeidh,
er hann ['a]tti, ok l['e]t hladha daudhum m[o,]nnum, ok v['a]pnum,
l['e]t th['a] flytja ['u]t til hafs ok leggja st['y]ri {69} ['i] lag ok
draga upp segl, en leggja eld ['i] tyrvidh ok gera b['a]l ['a] skipinu;
vedhr st['o]dh af landi; Haki var th['a] at kominn daudha edha daudhr,
er hann var lagidhr ['a] b['a]lit; sigldhi skipit s['i]dhan loganda
['u]t ['i] haf, ok var thetta allfraegt lengi s['i]dhan.
(King Haki was so sore wounded that he saw that his days could not be
long. Then he had a warship of his taken, and loaded with dead men and
weapons, had it carried out to sea, the rudder shipped, the sail drawn
up, the fir-tree wood set alight, and a bale-fire made on the ship. The
wind blew from the land. Haki was dead or nearly dead, when he was
placed on the pyre. Then the ship sailed blazing out to sea; and that
was widely famous for a long time after.)
_Ynglinga Saga_, Kap. 23, in _Heimskringla_, udg. af Finnur J['o]nsson,
Koebenhavn, 1893, vol. I, p. 43.
The _Skjoldunga Saga_ gives a story which is obviously connected with
this. King Sigurd Ring in his old age asked in marriage the lady
Alfsola; but her brothers scorned to give her to an aged man. War
followed; and the brothers, knowing that they could not withstand the
hosts of Sigurd, poisoned their sister before marching against him. In
the battle the brothers were slain, and Sigurd badly wounded.
Qui, Alfsola funere allato, magnam navim mortuorum cadaveribus oneratam
solus vivorum conscendit, seque et mortuam Alfsolam in puppi collocans
navim pice, bitumine et sulphure incendi jubet: atque sublatis velis in
altum, validis a continente impellentibus ventis, proram dirigit,
simulque manus sibi violentas intulit; sese ... more majorum suorum
regali pompa Odinum regem (id est inferos) invisere malle, quam inertis
senectutis infirmitatem perpeti....
_Skjoldungasaga i Arngrim J['o]nssons udtog_, udgiven af Axel Olrik,
Kjoebenhavn, 1894, Cap. XXVII, p. 50 [132].
So with the death of Baldr.
En aesirnir t['o]ku l['i]k Baldrs ok fluttu til saevar. Hringhorni
h['e]t skip Baldrs; hann var allra skipa mestr, hann vildu godhin framm
setja ok gera thar ['a] b['a]lf[o,]r Baldrs ... th['a] var borit ['u]t
['a] skipit l['i]k Baldrs,... Odhinn lagdhi ['a] b['a]lit gullhring
thann, er Draupnir heitir ... hestr Baldrs var leiddr ['a] b['a]lit
medh [o,]llu reidhi.
(But the gods took the body of Baldr and carried it to the sea-shore.
Baldr's ship was named Hringhorni: it was the greatest of all ships and
the gods sought to launch it, and to build the pyre of Baldr on it....
Then was the body of Baldr borne out on to the ship.... Odin laid on
the pyre the gold ring named Draupnir ... and Baldr's horse with all
his trappings was placed on the pyre.)
_Snorra Edda: Gylfaginning_, 48; udg. af Finnur J['o]nsson, Koebenhavn,
1900.
We are justified in rendering _setja skip fram_ by "launch": Olrik
(_Heltedigtning_, I, 250) regards Baldr's funeral as a case of the
burning of a body in a ship on land. But it seems to me, as to Mr
Chadwick (_Origin_, 287), that the natural meaning is that the ship was
launched in the sea.
But the case of Scyld is not exactly parallel to these. The ship which
conveyed Scyld out to sea was _not_ set alight. And the words of the poet,
though dark, seem to imply that it was intended to come to land somewhere:
"None could say who received that freight." {70}
Further, Scyld not merely departed over the waves--he had in the first
instance come over them: "Not with less treasure did they adorn him," says
the poet, speaking of the funeral rites, "than did those who at the
beginning sent him forth alone over the waves, being yet a child."
Scyld Scefing then, like Tennyson's Arthur, comes from the unknown and
departs back to it.
The story of the mysterious coming over the water was not confined to
Scyld. It meets us in connection with King Scef, who was regarded, at any
rate from the time of Alfred, and possibly much earlier, as the remotest
ancestor of the Wessex kings. Ethelwerd, a member of the West Saxon royal
house, who compiled a bombastic Latin chronicle towards the end of the
tenth century, traces back the pedigree of the kings of Wessex to Scyld
_and his father Scef_. "This Scef," he says, "came to land on a swift boat,
surrounded by arms, in an island of the ocean called Scani, when a very
young child. He was unknown to the people of that land, but was adopted by
them as if of their kin, well cared for, and afterwards elected king[145]."
Note here, firstly, that the story is told, not of Scyld Scefing, but of
Scef, father of Scyld. Secondly, that although Ethelwerd is speaking of the
ancestor of the West Saxon royal house, he makes him come to land and rule,
not in the ancient homeland of continental Angeln, but in the "island of
Scani," which signifies what is now the south of Sweden, and perhaps also
the Danish islands[146]--that same land of _Scedenig_ which is mentioned in
_Beowulf_ as the realm of Scyld. The tone of the narrative is, so far as we
can judge from Ethelwerd's dry summary, entirely warlike: Scef is
surrounded by weapons.
In the twelfth century the story is again told by William of Malmesbury.
"Sceldius was the son of Sceaf. He, they say, was carried as a small boy in
a boat without any oarsman to a certain isle of Germany called Scandza,
concerning which {71} Jordanes, the historian of the Goths, speaks. He was
sleeping, and a handful of corn was placed at his head, from which he was
called 'Sheaf.' He was regarded as a wonder by the folk of that country and
carefully nurtured; when grown up he ruled in a town then called Slaswic,
and now Haithebi--that region is called ancient Anglia[147]."
William of Malmesbury was, of course, aware of Ethelwerd's account, and may
have been influenced by it. Some of his variations may be his own
invention. The substitution of the classical form _Scandza_ for Ethelwerd's
_Scani_ is simply a change from popular to learned nomenclature, and
enables the historian to show that he has read something of Jordanes. The
alteration by which Malmesbury makes Sceaf, when grown up, rule at
Schleswig in ancient Angel, may again be his own work--a variant added in
order to make Sceaf look more at home in an Anglo-Saxon pedigree.
But William of Malmesbury was, as we shall see later, prone to incorporate
current ballads into his history, and after allowing for what he may have
derived from Ethelwerd, and what he may have invented, there can be no
doubt that many of the additional details which he gives are genuine
popular poetry. Indeed, whilst the story of Scyld's _funeral_ is very
impressive in _Beowulf_, it is in William's narrative that the story of the
child coming over the sea first becomes poetic.
Now since even the English historians connected this tale with the Danish
territory of _Scani, Scandza_, we should expect to find it again on turning
to the records of the Danish royal house. And we do find there, generally
at the head of the pedigree[148], a hero--Skjold--whose name corresponds,
and whose relationship to the later Danish kings shows him to be the same
as the _Scyld Scefing_ of _Beowulf_. But neither Saxo Grammaticus, nor any
other Danish historian, knows anything of {72} Skjold having come in his
youth or returned in his death over the ocean.
How are we to harmonize these accounts?
_Beowulf_ and Ethelwerd agree in representing the hero as "surrounded by
arms"; William of Malmesbury mentions only the sheaf; the difference is
weighty, for presumably the spoils which the hero brings with him from the
unknown, or takes back thither, are in harmony with his career. _Beowulf_
and Ethelwerd seem to show the warrior king, William of Malmesbury seems
rather to be telling the story of a semi-divine foundling, who introduces
the tillage of the earth[149].
In _Beowulf_ the child is Scyld Scefing, in Ethelwerd and William of
Malmesbury he is Sceaf, father of Scyld.
_Beowulf_, Ethelwerd and William of Malmesbury agree in connecting the
story with _Scedenig_, _Scani_ or _Scandza_, yet the two historians and the
_Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ all make Sceaf the ancestor of the West Saxon
house. Yet we have no evidence that the English were regarded as having
come from Scandinavia.
The last problem admits of easy solution. In heathen times the English
traced the pedigree of most of their kings to Woden, and stopped there. For
higher than that they could not go. But a Christian poet or genealogist,
who had no belief in Woden as a god, would regard the All Father as a
man--a mere man who, by magic powers, had made the heathen believe he was a
god. To such a Christian pedigree-maker Woden would convey no idea of
finality; he would feel no difficulty in giving this human Woden any number
of ancestors. Wishing to glorify the pedigree of his king, he would add any
other distinguished and authentic genealogies, and the obvious place for
these would be at the end of the line, i.e., above Woden. Hence we have in
some quite early (not West Saxon) pedigrees, five names given as ancestors
of Woden. These five names end in Geat or Geata, who was apparently
regarded as a god, and was possibly Woden under another name[150]. Somewhat
later, in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, under {73} the year 855, we have a
long version of the West Saxon pedigree with yet nine further names above
Geat, ending in Sceaf. Sceaf is described as a son of Noah, and so the
pedigree is carried back to Adam, 25 generations in all beyond Woden[151].
But it is rash to assume with Muellenhoff that, because Sceaf comes at the
head[152] of this English pedigree, Sceaf was therefore essentially an
English hero. _All_ these later stages above Woden look like the ornate
additions of a later compiler. Some of the figures, Finn, Sceldwa, Heremod,
Sceaf himself, we have reason to identify with the primitive heroes of
other nations.
The genealogist who finally made Sceaf into a son born to Noah in the ark,
and then carried the pedigree nine stages further back through Noah to
Adam, merely made the last of a series of accretions. It does not follow
that, because he made them ancestors of the English king, this compiler
regarded Noah, Enoch and Adam as Englishmen. Neither need he have so
regarded Sceaf or Scyld[153] or Beaw. In fact--and this has constantly been
overlooked--the authority for Sceaf, Scyld and Beaw as Anglo-Saxon heroes
is but little stronger than the authority for Noah and Adam in that
capacity. No manuscript exists which stops at Scyld or Sceaf. There is no
version which goes beyond Geat except that which goes up to Adam. Scyld,
Beaw, Sceaf, Noah and Adam as heroes of English mythology are all alike
doubtful.
We must be careful, however, to define what we mean when we regard these
stages of the pedigree as doubtful. They are doubtful in so far as they are
represented as standing above Woden in the Anglo-Saxon pedigree, because it
is incredible that, in primitive and heathen times, Woden was credited with
a dozen or more forefathers. The _position_ of these names in the pedigree
is therefore doubtful. But it is only their connection with the West Saxon
house that is unauthentic. It does not follow that the names are, _per se_,
unauthentic. On the contrary, it is because the genealogist had such
implicit belief in the authenticity of the generations {74} from Noah to
Adam that he could not rest satisfied with his West Saxon pedigree till he
had incorporated these names. They are not West Saxon, but they are part of
a tradition much more ancient than any pedigree of the West Saxon kings.
And the argument which applies to the layer of Hebrew names between Noah
and Adam applies equally to the layer of Germanic names between Woden and
Sceaf. From whatever branch of the Germanic race the genealogist may have
taken them, the fact that he placed them where he did in the pedigree is a
proof of his veneration for them. But we must not without evidence claim
them as West Saxon or Anglo-Saxon: we must not be surprised if evidence
points to some of them being connected with other nations--as Heremod, for
example, with the Danes[154].
More difficult are the other problems. William of Malmesbury tells the
story of Sceaf, with the attributes of a culture-hero: _Beowulf_, four
centuries earlier, tells it of Scyld, a warrior hero: Ethelwerd tells it of
Sceaf, but gives him the warrior attributes of Scyld[155] instead of the
sheaf of corn.
The earlier scholars mostly agreed[156] in regarding Malmesbury's
attribution of the story to Sceaf as the original and correct version of
the story, in spite of its late date. As a representative of these early
scholars we may take Muellenhoff[157]. Muellenhoff's love of mythological
interpretation found ample scope in the story of the child with the sheaf,
which he, with considerable reason, regarded as a "culture-myth."
Muellenhoff believed the carrying over of the attributes of a god to a line
of his supposed descendants to be a common feature of myth--the descendants
representing the god under another name. In accordance with this view,
Scyld could be explained as an "hypostasis" of his father or forefather
Sceaf, as a figure further explaining him and representing him, so that in
the end the tale of the boat arrival came to be told, in _Beowulf_, of
Scyld instead of Sceaf.
{75}
Recent years have seen a revolt against most of Muellenhoff's theories. The
view that the story originally belonged to Sceaf has come to be regarded
with a certain amount of impatience as "out of date." Even so fine a
scholar as Dr Lawrence has expressed this impatience:
"That the graceful story of the boy sailing in an open boat to the land
of his future people was told originally of Sceaf ... needs no detailed
refutation at the present day.
"The attachment of the motive to Sceaf must be, as an examination of
the sources shows, a later development[158]."
Accordingly the view of recent scholars has been this: That the story
belongs essentially to Scyld. That, as the hero of the boat story is
obviously of unknown parentage, we must interpret _Scefing_ not as "son of
Sceaf" but as "with the sheaf" (in itself a quite possible explanation).
That this stage of the story is preserved in _Beowulf_. That subsequently
_Scyld Scefing_, standing at the head of the pedigree, came to be
misunderstood as "Scyld, son of Sceaf". That consequently the story, which
must be told of the earlier ancestor, was thus transferred from Scyld to
his supposed father Sceaf--the version which is found in Ethelwerd and
William of Malmesbury.
One apparent advantage of this theory is that the oldest version, that of
_Beowulf_, is accepted as the correct and original one, and the much later
versions of the historians Ethelwerd and William of Malmesbury are regarded
as subsequent corruptions. This on the surface seems eminently reasonable.
But let us look closer. _Scyld Scefing_ in _Beowulf_ is to be interpreted
"Scyld with the Sheaf." But _Beowulf_ nowhere mentions the sheaf as part of
Scyld's equipment. On the contrary, we gather that the hero is connected
rather with prowess in war. It is the same in Ethelwerd. It is not till
William of Malmesbury that the sheaf comes into the story. So that the
interpretation of _Scefing_ as "with the sheaf" assumes the accuracy of
William of Malmesbury's story even in a point where it receives no support
from the _Beowulf_ version. In other words this theory does the very thing
to avoid doing which it was called into being[159].
{76}
Besides this, there are two fundamental objections to the theory that Sceaf
is a late creation, a figure formed from the misunderstanding of the
epithet _Scefing_ applied to _Scyld_. One portion of the poem of _Widsith_
consists of a catalogue of ancient kings, and among these occurs _Sceafa_,
ruling the Langobards. Now portions of _Widsith_ are very ancient, and this
catalogue in which Sceafa occurs is almost certainly appreciably older than
_Beowulf_ itself.
Secondly, the story of the wonderful foundling who comes over the sea from
the unknown and founds a royal line, must _ex hypothesi_ be told of the
first in the line, and we have seen that it is Sceaf, not Scyld, who comes
at the head of the Teutonic names in the genealogy in the _Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle_.
Now we can date this genealogy fairly exactly. It occurs under the year
855, and seems to have been drawn up at the court of King Aethelwulf. In
any case it cannot be later than the latter part of Alfred's reign. This
takes us back to a period when the old English epic was still widely
popular. A genealogist at Alfred's court must have known much about Old
English story.
These facts are simply not consistent with the belief that Sceaf is a late
creation, a figure formed from a misunderstanding of the epithet _Scefing_,
applied to Scyld[160].
{77}
To arrive at any definite conclusion is difficult. But the following may be
hazarded.
It may be taken as proved that the Scyld or Sceldwa of the genealogists is
identical with the Scyld Scefing of _Beowulf_. For Sceldwa according to the
genealogy is also ultimately a _Sceafing_, and is the father of Beow; Scyld
is _Scefing_ and is father of Beowulf[161].
It is equally clear that the Scyld Scefing of _Beowulf_ is identical with
the Skjold of the Danish genealogists and historians. For Scyld and Skjold
are both represented as the founder and head of the Danish royal house of
Scyldingas or Skjoldungar, and as reigning in the same district. Here,
however, the resemblance ceases. _Beowulf_ tells us of Scyld's marvellous
coming and departure. The only Danish authority who tells us much of Skjold
is Saxo Grammaticus, who records how as a boy Skjold wrestled successfully
with a bear and overcame champions, and how later he annulled unrighteous
laws, and distinguished himself by generosity to his court. But the Danish
and English accounts have nothing specifically in common, though the type
they portray is the same--that of a king from his youth beloved by his
retainers and feared by neighbouring peoples, whom he subdues and makes
tributary. It looks rather as if the oldest traditions had had little to
say about this hero beyond the typical things which might be said of any
great king; so that Danes and English had each supplied the deficiency in
their own way.
Now this is exactly what we should expect. For Scyld-Skjold is hardly a
personality: he is a figure evolved out of the name _Scyldingas_,
_Skjoldungar_, which is an old epic title for the Danes. Of this we may be
fairly certain: the Scyldingas did not get their name because they were
really descended from Scyld, but Scyld was created in order to provide an
eponymous father to the Scyldingas[162]. In just the same way {78}
tradition also evolved a hero Dan, from whom the Danes were supposed to
have their name. Saxo Grammaticus has combined both pedigrees, making
Skjold a descendant of Dan; but usually it was agreed that nothing came
before Skjold, that he was the beginning of the Skjoldung line[163]. At
first a mere name, we should expect that he would have no characteristic
save that, like every respectable Germanic king, he took tribute from his
foes and gave it to his friends. He differs therefore from those heroic
figures like Hygelac or Guthhere (Gunnar) which, being derived from actual
historic characters, have, from the beginning of their story, certain
definite features attached to them. Scyld is, in the beginning, merely a
name, the ancestor of the Scyldings. Tradition collects round him
gradually.
Hence it will be rash to attach much weight to any feature which is found
in one account of him only. Anything we are told of Scyld in English
sources alone is not to be construed as evidence as to his original story,
but only as to the form that story assumed in England. When, for example,
_Beowulf_ tells us that Scyld is _Scefing_, or that he is father of
Beowulf, it will be very rash of us to assume that these relationships
existed in the Danish, but have been forgotten. This is, I think,
universally admitted[164]. Yet the very scholars who emphasize this, have
assumed that the marvellous arrival as a child, in a boat, surrounded by
weapons, is an essential feature of Scyld's story. Yet the evidence for
this is no better and no worse than the evidence for his relationship to
Sceaf or Beow--it rests solely on the English documents. Accordingly it
only shows what was told about Scyld in England.
Of course the boat arrival _might_ be an original part of the story of
_Scyld-Skjold_, which has been forgotten in his native {79} country, but
remembered in England. But I cannot see that we have any right to assert
this, without proof.
What we can assert to have been the original feature of Scyld is this--that
he was the eponymous hero king of the Danes. Both _Beowulf_ and the
Scandinavian authorities agree upon that. The fact that his name (in the
form _Sceldwa_) appears in the genealogy of the kings of Wessex is not
evidence against a Danish origin. The name appears in close connection with
that of Heremod, another Danish king, and is merely evidence of a desire on
the part of the genealogist of the Wessex kings to connect his royal house
with the most distinguished family he knew: that of the Scyldingas, about
whom so much is said in the prologue to _Beowulf_.
Neither do the instances of place-names in England, such as _Scyldes
treow_, _Scildes well_, prove Scyld to have been an English hero. They
merely prove him to have been a hero who was celebrated in England--which
the Prologue to _Beowulf_ alone is sufficient to show to have been the
case. For place-names commemorating heroes of alien tribes are common
enough[165] on English ground.
So much at least is gained. Whatever Muellenhoff[166] and his followers
constructed upon the assumption that Scyld was an essentially Anglo-Saxon
hero goes overboard. Scyld is the ancestor king of the Danish house--more
than this we can hardly with safety assert.
Now let us turn to the figure of Sceaf. This was not necessarily connected
with Scyld from the first.
The story of Sceaf first meets us in its completeness in the pages of
William of Malmesbury. And William of Malmesbury is a twelfth century
authority; by his time the Old English courtly epics had died out--for they
could not have long survived the Norman Conquest and the overthrow of Old
English court life. But the popular tradition[167] remained, and {80} a
good many of the old stories, banished from the hall, must have lingered on
at the cross-roads--tales of Wade and Weyland, of Offa and Sceaf. For
songs, sung by minstrels at the cross roads, William of Malmesbury is good
evidence, and he owns to having drawn information from similar popular
sources[168]. William's story, then, is evidence that in his own day there
was a tradition of a mythical king Sheaf who came as a child sleeping in a
ship with a sheaf of corn at his head How old this tradition may be, we
cannot say. Ethelwerd knew the story, though he has nothing to say of the
sheaf. But we have seen that when we get back to the ninth century, and the
formation of the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, at a court where we may be sure
the old English heroic stories were still popular, it is Sceaf and not
Sceldwa who is regarded as the beginning of things--the king whose origin
is so remote that he is the oldest Germanic ancestor one can get back
to[169]: "he was born in Noah's ark."
Whether or no Noah's ark was chosen as Sceaf's birthplace because legend
represented him as coming in a boat over the water, we cannot tell. But the
place he occupies, with only the Biblical names before him, as compared
with Sceldwa the son of Heremod, clearly marks Sceaf rather than Sceldwa as
the hero who comes from the unknown. Turning now to the catalogue of kings
in _Widsith_, probably the oldest extant piece of Anglo-Saxon verse, some
generations more ancient than _Beowulf_, we find a King Sceafa, who ruled
over the Langobards. Finally, in _Beowulf_ itself, although the story is
told of Scyld, nevertheless this Scyld is characterized as _Scefing_. If
this means "with the sheaf," then the _Beowulf_-story stands convicted of
imperfection, of needing explanation outside itself from the {81} account
which William of Malmesbury wrote four centuries later. If it means "son of
Sceaf," why should a father be given to Scyld, when the story demands that
he should come from the unknown? Was it because, if the boat story was to
be attributed to Scyld, it was felt that this could only be made plausible
by giving him some relation to Sceaf?
When we find an ancient king bearing the extraordinary name of "Sheaf," it
is difficult not to connect this with the honour done to the sheaf of corn,
survivals of which have been found in different parts of England. In
Herrick's time, the sheaves of corn were still kissed as they were carried
home on the Hock-cart, whilst
Some, with great
Devotion, stroke the home-borne wheat.
Professor Chadwick argues, on the analogy of Prussian and Bulgarian harvest
customs, that the figure of the "Harvest Queen" in the English ceremony is
derived from a corn figure made from the last sheaf, and that the sheaf was
once regarded as a religious symbol[170]. But the evidence for this is
surely even stronger than would be gathered from Professor Chadwick's very
cautious statement. I suppose there is hardly a county in England from Kent
to Cornwall and from Kent to Northumberland, where there is not evidence
for honour paid to the last sheaf--an honour which cannot be accounted for
as merely expressing the joy of the reapers at having got to the end of
their task. In Kent "a figure composed of some of the best corn" was made
into a human shape: "this is afterwards curiously dressed by the women, and
adorned with paper trimmings cut to resemble a cap, ruffles, handkerchief,
etc., of the finest lace. It is brought home with the last load of
corn[171]." In Northumberland and Durham a sheaf known as the "Kern baby"
was made into the likeness of a human figure, decked out and brought home
in triumph with dancing and singing[172]. But the most striking form of the
sheaf ceremony is found in the honour done to the "Neck" in the West of
England.
{82}
... After the wheat is all cut, on most farms in the north of Devon the
harvest people have a custom of "crying the neck." I believe that this
practice is seldom omitted on any large farm in that part of the
country. It is done in this way. An old man, or someone else well
acquainted with the ceremonies used on the occasion (when the labourers
are reaping the last field of wheat), goes round to the shocks and
sheaves, and picks out a little bundle of all the best ears he can
find; this bundle he ties up very neat and trim, and plats and arranges
the straws very tastefully. This is called "the neck" of wheat, or
wheaten-ears. After the field is cut out, and the pitcher once more
circulated, the reapers, binders, and the women, stand round in a
circle. The person with "the neck" stands in the centre, grasping it
with both his hands. He first stoops and holds it near the ground, and
all the men forming the ring take off their hats, stooping and holding
them with both hands towards the ground. They then all begin at once in
a very prolonged and harmonious tone to cry "the neck!" at the same
time slowly raising themselves upright, and elevating their arms and
hats above their heads; the person with "the neck" also raising it on
high. This is done three times. They then change their cry to "wee
yen!"--"way yen!"--which they sound in the same prolonged and slow
manner as before, with singular harmony and effect, three times. This
last cry is accompanied by the same movements of the body and arms as
in crying "the neck." ...
... After having thus repeated "the neck" three times, and "wee yen" or
"way yen" as often, they all burst out into a kind of loud and joyous
laugh, flinging up their hats and caps into the air, capering about and
perhaps kissing the girls. One of them then gets "the neck," and runs
as hard as he can down to the farm-house, where the dairy-maid, or one
of the young female domestics, stands at the door prepared with a pail
of water. If he who holds "the neck" can manage to get into the house,
in any way, unseen or openly, by any other way than the door at which
the girl stands with the pail of water, then he may lawfully kiss her;
but, if otherwise, he is regularly soused with the contents of the
bucket. On a fine still autumn evening, the "crying of the neck" has a
wonderful effect at a distance, far finer than that of the Turkish
muezzin, which Lord Byron eulogizes so much, and which he says is
preferable to all the bells in Christendom. I have once or twice heard
upwards of twenty men cry it, and sometimes joined by an equal number
of female voices. About three years back, on some high grounds, where
our people were harvesting, I heard six or seven "necks" cried in one
night, although I know that some of them were four miles off[173].
The account given by Mrs Bray of the Devonshire custom, in her letters to
Southey, is practically identical with this[174]. We have plenty of
evidence for this ceremony of "Crying the Neck" in the South-Western
counties in Somersetshire[175], in Cornwall[176], and in a mutilated form
in Dorsetshire[177].
{83}
On the Welsh border the essence of the ceremony consisted in tying the last
ears of corn--perhaps twenty--with ribbon, and severing this "neck" by
throwing the sickle at it from some distance. The custom is recorded in
Cheshire[178], Shropshire[179], and under a different name in
Herefordshire[180]. The term "neck" seems to have been known as far afield
as Yorkshire and the "little England beyond Wales"--the English-speaking
colony of Pembrokeshire[181].
Whether we are to interpret the expression "the Neck," applied to the last
sheaf, as descended from a time when "the corn spirit is conceived in human
form, and the last standing corn is a part of its body--its neck[182] ..."
or whether it is merely a survival of the Scandinavian word for
sheaf--_nek_ or _neg_[183], we have here surely evidence of the worship of
the sheaf. "In this way 'Sheaf' was greeted, before he passed over into a
purely mythical being[184]."
I do not think these "neck" customs can be traced back beyond the
seventeenth century[185]. Though analogous usages are recorded in England
(near Eton) as early as the sixteenth century[186], it was not usual at
that time to trouble to record such things.
The earliest document bearing upon the veneration of the sheaf comes from a
neighbouring district, and is contained in the Chronicle of the Monastery
of Abingdon, which tells how in the time of King Edmund (941-946) a
controversy arose as to the right of the monks of Abingdon to a certain
portion of land adjoining the river. The monks appealed to a judgment of
God to vindicate their claim, and this took the shape of {84} placing a
sheaf, with a taper on the top, upon a round shield and letting it float
down the river, the shield by its movements hither and thither indicating
accurately the boundaries of the monastic domain. At last the shield came
to the field in debate, which, thanks to the floods, it was able to
circumnavigate[187].
Professor Chadwick, who first emphasized the importance of this strange
ordeal[188], points out that although the extant MSS of the _Chronicle_
date from the thirteenth century, the mention of a _round_ shield carries
the superstition back to a period before the Norman Conquest. Therefore
this story seems to give us evidence for the use of the sheaf and shield
together as a magic symbol in Anglo-Saxon times. "An ordeal by letting the
sheaf sail down the river on a shield was only possible at a time when the
sheaf was regarded as a kind of supernatural being which could find the way
itself[189]."
But a still closer parallel to the story of the corn-figure coming over the
water is found in Finnish mythology in the person of Saempsae Pellervoinen.
Finnish mythology seems remote from our subject, but if the figure of
Saempsae was borrowed from Germanic mythology, as seems to be thought[190],
we are justified in laying great weight upon the parallel.
Readers of the _Kalewala_ will remember, near the beginning, the figure of
Saempsae Pellervoinen, the god of Vegetation. He does not seem to do much.
But there are other Finnish {85} poems in his honour, extant in varying
versions[191]. It is difficult to get a collected idea from these
fragmentary records, but it seems to be this: Ahti, the god of the sea,
sends messengers to summon Saempsae, so that he may bring fertility to the
fields. In one version, first the Winter and then the Summer are sent to
arouse Saempsae, that he may make the crops and trees grow. Winter--
Took a foal swift as the spring wind,
Let the storm wind bear him forward,
Blew the trees till they were leafless,
Blew the grass till it was seedless,
Bloodless likewise the young maidens.
Saempsae refuses to come. Then the Summer is sent with better results. In
another version Saempsae is fetched from an island beyond the sea:
It is I who summoned Saempsae
From an isle amid the ocean,
From a skerry bare and treeless.
In yet another variant we are told how the boy Saempsae
Took six grains from off the corn heap,
Slept all summer mid the corn heap,
In the bosom of the corn boat.
Now "It's a long, long way to" Ilomantsi in the east of Finland, where this
last variant was discovered. But at least we have evidence that, within the
region influenced by Germanic mythology, the spirit of vegetation was
thought of as a boy coming over the sea, or sleeping in a boat with
corn[192].
To sum up:
Sceafa, when the Catalogue of Kings in _Widsith_ was drawn up--before
_Beowulf_ was composed, at any rate in its present form--was regarded as an
ancient king. When the West Saxon pedigree was drawn up, certainly not much
more than a century and a half after the composition of _Beowulf_, and
perhaps much less, Sceaf was regarded as the primitive figure in the
pedigree, before whom no one lived save the Hebrew patriarchs. That he was
originally thought of as a child, {86} coming across the water, with the
sheaf of corn, is, in view of the Finnish parallel, exceedingly probable,
and acquires some confirmation from the Chronicler's placing him in Noah's
ark. But the definite evidence for this is late.
Scyld, on the other hand, is in the first place probably a mere eponym of
the power of the Scylding kings of Denmark. He may, at a very early date,
have been provided with a ship funeral, since later two Swedish kings, both
apparently of Danish origin, have this ship funeral accorded to them, and
in one case it is expressly said to be "according to the custom of his
ancestors." But it seems exceedingly improbable that his original story
represented him as coming over the sea in a boat. For, if so, it remains to
be explained why this motive has entirely disappeared among his own people
in Scandinavia, and has been preserved only in England. Would the Danes
have been likely to forget utterly so striking a story, concerning the king
from whom their line derived its name? Further, in England, _Beowulf_ alone
attributes this story to Scyld, whilst later historians attribute it to
Sceaf. In view of the way in which the story of William of Malmesbury is
supported by folklore, to regard that story as merely the result of error
or invention seems perilous indeed.
On the other hand, all becomes straightforward if we allow that Scyld and
Sceaf were both ancient figures standing at the head of famous dynasties.
Their names alliterate. What more likely than that their stories should
have influenced each other, and that one king should have come to be
regarded as the parent or ancestor of the other? Contamination with Scyld
would account for Sceaf's boat being stated to have come to land in Scani,
Scanza--that Scedeland which is mentioned as the seat of Scyld's rule. Yet
this explanation is not necessary, for if Sceaf were an early Longobard
king, he would be rightly represented as ruling in Scandinavia[193].
* * * * *
{87}
SECTION VI. BEOW.
The Anglo-Saxon genealogies agree that the son of Sceldwa (Scyld) is Beow
(Beaw, Beo). In _Beowulf_, he is named not Beow, but Beowulf.
Many etymologies have been suggested for _B[=e]ow_. But considering that
Beow is in some versions a grandson, in all a descendant of Sceaf, it can
hardly be an accident that his name is identical with the O.E. word for
grain, _b[=e]ow_. The Norse word corresponding to this is _bygg_[194].
Recent investigation of the name is best summed up in the words of Axel
Olrik:
"New light has been cast upon the question of the derivation of the
name Beow by Kaarle Krohn's investigation of the debt of Finnish to
Norse mythology, together with Magnus Olsen's linguistic
interpretation. The Finnish has a deity Pekko, concerning whom it is
said that he promoted the growth of barley: the Esths, closely akin to
the Finns, have a corresponding Peko, whose image--the size of a
three-year-old child--was carried out into the fields and invoked at
the time of sowing, or else was kept in the corn-bin by a custodian
chosen for a year. This Pekko is plainly a personification of the
barley; the form corresponding phonetically in Runic Norse would be
*_beggw-_ (from which comes Old Norse _bygg_).
"So in Norse there was a grain *_beggw-_ (becoming _bygg_) and a
corn-god *_Beggw-_ (becoming _Pekko_). In Anglo-Saxon there was a grain
_b['e]ow_ and an ancestral _B['e]ow_. And all four are phonetically
identical (proceeding from a primitive form *_beuwa_, 'barley'). The
conclusion which it is difficult to avoid is, that the corn-spirit
'Barley' and the ancestor 'Barley' are one and the same. The relation
is the same as that between King Sheaf and the worship of the sheaf:
the worshipped corn-being gradually sinks into the background, and
comes to be regarded as an epic figure, an early ancestor.
"We have no more exact knowledge of the mythical ideas connected either
with the ancestor Beow or the corn-god Pekko. But we know enough of the
worship of Pekko to show that he dwelt in the corn-heap, and that, in
the spring, he was fetched out in the shape of a little child. That
reminds us not a little of Saempsae, who lay in the corn-heap on the
ship, and came to land and awoke in the spring[195]."
{88}
But it may be objected that this is "harking back" to the old mythological
interpretations. After refusing to accept Muellenhoff's assumptions, are we
not reverting, through the names of Sceaf and Beow, and the worship of the
sheaf, to very much the same thing?
No. It is one thing to believe that the ancestor-king Beow may be a
weakened form of an ancient divinity, a mere name surviving from the figure
of an old corn-god Beow; it is quite another to assume, as Muellenhoff did,
that what we are told about Beowulf was originally told about Beow _and
that therefore we are justified in giving a mythological meaning to it_.
All we know, conjecture apart, about Beow is his traditional relationship
to Scyld, Sceaf and the other figures of the pedigree. That Beowulf's
dragon fight belonged originally to him is only a conjecture. In
confirmation of this conjecture only one argument has been put forward: an
argument turning upon Beowulf, son of Scyld--that obscure figure,
apparently equivalent to Beow, who meets us at the beginning of our poem.
Beowulf's place as a son of Scyld and father of Healfdene is occupied in
the Danish genealogies by Frothi, son of Skjold, and father of Halfdan. It
has been urged that the two figures are really identical, in spite of the
difference of name. Now Frothi slays a dragon, and it has been argued that
this dragon fight shows similarities which enable us to identify it with
the dragon fight attributed in our poem to Beowulf the Geat.
The argument is a strong one--if it really is the case that the dragon
slain by Frothi was the same monster as that slain by Beowulf the Geat.
Unfortunately this parallel, which will be examined in the next section, is
far from certain. We must be careful not to argue in a circle, identifying
Beowulf and Frothi because they slew the same dragon, and then identifying
the dragons because they were slain by the same hero.
Whilst, therefore, we admit that it is highly probable that Beow (grain)
the descendant of Sceaf (sheaf) was originally a corn divinity or corn
fetish, we cannot follow Muellenhoff in his bold attribution to this
"culture hero" of Beowulf's adventures with the dragon or with Grendel.
* * * * *
{89}
SECTION VII. THE HOUSE OF SCYLD AND DANISH PARALLELS: HEREMOD-LOTHERUS AND
BEOWULF-FROTHO.
Scyld, although the source of that Scylding dynasty which our poem
celebrates, is _not_ apparently regarded in _Beowulf_ as the earliest
Danish king. He came to the throne after an interregnum; the people whom he
grew up to rule had long endured cruel need, "being without a prince[196]."
We hear in _Beowulf_ of one Danish king only whom we can place
chronologically before Scyld--viz. Heremod[197]. The way in which Heremod
is referred to would fit in very well with the supposition[198] that he was
the last of a dynasty; the immediate predecessor of Scyld; and that it was
the death or exile of Heremod which ushered in the time when the Danes were
without a prince.
Now there is a natural tendency in genealogies for each king to be
represented as the descendant of his predecessor, whether he really was so
or no; so that in the course of time, and sometimes of a very short time,
the first king of a new dynasty may come to be reckoned as son of a king of
the preceding line[199]. Consequently, there would be nothing surprising
if, in another account, we find Scyld represented as a son of Heremod. And
we _do_ find the matter represented thus in the West Saxon genealogy, where
Sceldwa or Scyld is son of Heremod. Turning to the Danish accounts,
however, we do not find any _Herm['o]dhr_ (which is the form we should
expect corresponding to _Herem[=o]d_) as father to Skjold (Scyld). Either
no father of Skjold is known, or else (in Saxo Grammaticus) he has a father
Lotherus. But, although the names are different, there is some
correspondence between what we are told of Lother and what we are told of
Heremod. A close parallel has indeed been drawn by Sievers between the
whole dynasty: on the one hand Lotherus, his son Skioldus, and his
descendant Frotho, {90} as given in Saxo: and on the other hand the
corresponding figures in _Beowulf_, Heremod, Scyld, and Scyld's son,
Beowulf the Dane.
The fixed and certain point here is the identity of the central figure,
Skioldus-Scyld. All the rest is very doubtful; not that there are not many
parallel features, but because the parallels are of a commonplace type
which might so easily recur accidentally.
The story of Lother, as given by Saxo, will be found below: the story of
Heremod as given in _Beowulf_ is hopelessly obscure--a mere succession of
allusions intended for an audience who knew the tale quite well. Assuming
the stories of Lother and Heremod to be different versions of one original,
the following would seem to be the most likely reconstruction[200], the
more doubtful portions being placed within round brackets thus ( ):
The old Danish prince [Dan in Saxo] has two sons, one a weakling
[_Humblus_, Saxo] the other a hero [_Lotherus_, Saxo: _Heremod_,
_Beowulf_] (who was already in his youth the hope of the nation). But
after his father's death the elder was (through violence) raised to the
throne: and Lother-Heremod went into banishment. (But under the rule of
the weakling the kingdom went to pieces, and thus) many a man longed
for the return of the exile, as a help against these evils. So the hero
conquers and deposes the weaker brother. But then his faults break
forth, his greed and his cruelty: he ceases to be the darling and
becomes the scourge of his people, till they rise and either slay him
or drive him again into exile.
If the stories of Lother and Heremod _are_ connected, we may be fairly
confident that Heremod, not Lother, was the name of the king in the
original story.
For Scandinavian literature does know a Hermoth (_Herm['o]dhr_), though no
such adventures are attributed to him as those recorded of Heremod in
_Beowulf_. Nevertheless it is probable that this Hermoth and Heremod in
_Beowulf_ are one and the same, because both heroes are linked in some way
or other with Sigemund. How these two kings, Heremod and Sigemund, came to
be connected, we do not know, but we find this connection recurring again
and again[201]. This _may_ be {91} mere coincidence: but I doubt if we are
justified in assuming it to be so[202].
It has been suggested[203] that both Heremod and Sigemund were originally
heroes specially connected with the worship of Odin, and hence grouped
together. The history of the Scandinavian Sigmund is bound up with that of
the magic sword which Odin gave him, and with which he was always
victorious till the last fight when Odin himself shattered it.
And we are told in the Icelandic that Odin, whilst he gave a sword to
Sigmund, gave a helm and byrnie to Hermoth.
Again, whilst in one Scandinavian poem Sigmund is represented as welcoming
the newcomer at the gates of Valhalla, in another the same duty is
entrusted to Hermoth.
It is clear also that the _Beowulf_-poet had in mind some kind of
connection, though we cannot tell what, between Sigemund and Heremod.
We may take it, then, that the Heremod who is linked with Sigemund in
_Beowulf_ was also known in Scandinavian literature as a hero in some way
connected with Sigmund: whether or no the adventures which Saxo records of
Lotherus were really told in Scandinavian lands in connection with Hermoth,
we cannot say. The wicked king whose subjects rebel against him is too
common a feature of Germanic story for us to feel sure, without a good deal
of corroborative evidence, that the figures of Lotherus and Heremod are
identical.
The next king in the line, Skioldus in Saxo, is, as we have seen, clearly
identical with Scyld in _Beowulf_. But beyond the name, the two traditions
have, as we have also seen, but little in common. Both are youthful
heroes[204], both force neighbouring kings to pay tribute[205]; but such
things are commonplaces[206].
We must therefore turn to the next figure in the pedigree: the son of
Skjold in Scandinavian tradition is Frothi (Frotho {92} in Saxo)[207], the
son of Scyld in _Beowulf_ is Beowulf the Dane. And Frothi is the father of
Halfdan (Haldanus in Saxo) as Beowulf the Dane is of Healfdene. The Frothi
of Scandinavian tradition corresponds then in position to Beowulf the Dane
in Old English story[208].
Now of Beowulf the Dane we are told so little that we have really no means
of drawing a comparison between him and Frothi. But a _theory_ that has
found wide acceptance among scholars assumes that the dragon fight of
Beowulf the Geat was originally narrated of Beowulf the Dane, and only
subsequently transferred to the Geatic hero. Theoretically, then, Beowulf
the Dane kills a dragon. Now certainly Frotho kills a dragon: and it has
been generally accepted[209] that the parallels between the dragon slain by
Frotho and that slain by Beowulf the Geat are so remarkable as to exclude
the possibility of mere accidental coincidence, and to lead us to conclude
that the dragon story was originally told of that Beowulf who corresponds
to Frothi, i.e. Beowulf the Dane, son of Scyld and father of Healfdene; not
Beowulf, son of Ecgtheow, the Geat.
But are the parallels really so close? We must not forget that here we are
building theory upon theory. That the Frotho of Saxo is the same figure as
Beowulf the Dane in Old English, is a theory, based upon his common
relationship to Skiold-Scyld before him and to Haldanus-Healfdene coming
after him: that Beowulf the Dane was the original hero of the dragon fight,
and that that dragon fight was only subsequently transferred to the credit
of Beowulf the Geat, is again a theory. Only if we can find real parallels
between the dragon-slaying of Frotho and the dragon-slaying of Beowulf will
these theories have confirmation.
{93}
Parallels have been pointed out by Sievers which he regards as so close as
to justify a belief that both are derived ultimately from an old lay, with
so much closeness that verbal resemblances can still be traced.
Unfortunately the parallels are all commonplaces. That Sievers and others
have been satisfied with them was perhaps due to the fact that they started
by assuming as proved that the dragon fight of Beowulf the Geat belonged
originally to Beowulf the Dane[210], and argued that since Frotho in Saxo
occupies a place corresponding exactly to that of Beowulf the Dane in
_Beowulf_, a comparatively limited resemblance between two dragons coming,
as it were, at the same point in the pedigree, might be held sufficient to
identify them.
But, as we have seen, the assumption that the dragon fight of Beowulf the
Geat belonged originally to Beowulf the Dane is only a theory that will
have to stand or fall as we can prove that the dragon fight of Frotho is
really parallel to that of Beowulf the Geat, and therefore must have
belonged to the connecting link supplied by the Scylding prince Beowulf the
Dane. In other words, the theory that the dragon in _Beowulf_ is to be
identified with the dragon which in Saxo is slain by Frotho the Danish
prince, father of Haldanus-Healfdene, is one of the main arguments upon
which we must base the theory that the dragon in _Beowulf_ was originally
slain by the Danish Beowulf, father of Healfdene, not by Beowulf the Geat.
We cannot then turn round, and assert that the fact that they were both
slain by a Danish prince, the father of Healfdene, is an argument for
identifying the dragons.
Turning to the dragon fight itself, the following parallels have been noted
by Sievers:
(1) A native (_indigena_) comes to Frotho, and tells him of the
treasure-guarding dragon. An informer (_melda_) plays the same part in
_Beowulf_[211].
But a dragon is not game which can be met with every day. He is a shy
beast, lurking in desert places. Some informant has very frequently to
guide the hero to his {94} foe[212]. And the situation is widely different.
Frotho knows nothing of the dragon till directed to the spot: Beowulf's
land has been assailed, he knows of the dragon, though he needs to be
guided to its _exact_ lair.
(2) Frotho's dragon lives on an island. Beowulf's lives near the sea, and
there is an island (_[=e]alond_, 2334) in the neighbourhood.
But _[=e]alond_ in _Beowulf_ probably does not mean "island" at all: and in
any case the dragon did not live upon the _[=e]alond_. Many dragons have
lived near the sea. Sigemund's dragon did so[213].
(3) The hero in each case attacks the dragon single-handed.
But what hero ever did otherwise? On the contrary, Beowulf's exploit
differs from that of Frotho and of most other dragon slayers in that he is
unable to _overcome_ his foe single-handed, and needs the support of
Wiglaf.
(4) Special armour is carried by the dragon slayer in each case.
But this again is no uncommon feature. The Red Cross Knight also needs
special armour. Dragon slayers constantly invent some ingenious or even
unique method. And again the parallel is far from close. Frotho is advised
to cover his shield and his limbs with the hides of bulls and kine: a
sensible precaution against fiery venom. Beowulf constructs a shield of
iron[214]: which naturally gives very inferior protection[215].
(5) Frotho's informant tells him that he must be of good courage[216].
Wiglaf encourages Beowulf[217].
But the circumstances under which the words are uttered are entirely
different, nor have the words more than a general resemblance. That a man
needs courage, if he is going to tackle a dragon, is surely a conclusion at
which two minds could have arrived independently.
(6) Both heroes waste their blows at first on the scaly back of the dragon.
{95}
But if the hero went at once for the soft parts, there would be no fight at
all, and all the fun would be lost. Sigurd's dragon-fight is, for this
reason, a one-sided business from the first. To avoid this, Frotho is
depicted as beginning by an attack on the dragon's rough hide (although he
has been specially warned by the _indigena_ not to do so):
ventre sub imo
esse locum scito quo ferrum mergere fas est,
hunc mucrone petens medium rimaberis anguem[218].
(7) The hoard is plundered by both heroes.
But it is the nature of a dragon to guard a hoard[219]. And, having slain
the dragon, what hero would neglect the gold?
(8) There are many verbal resemblances: the dragon spits venom[220], and
twists himself into coils[221].
Some of these verbal resemblances may be granted as proved: but they surely
do not prove the common origin of the two dragon fights. They only tend to
prove the common origin of the school of poetry in which these two dragon
fights were told. That dragons dwelt in mounds was a common Germanic
belief, to which the Cottonian Gnomic verses testify. Naturally, therefore,
Frotho's dragon is _montis possessor_: Beowulf's is _beorges hyrde_. The
two phrases undoubtedly point back to a similar gradus, to a similar
traditional stock phraseology, and to similar beliefs: that is all. As well
argue that two kings must be identical, because each is called _folces
hyrde_.
These commonplace phrases and commonplace features are surely quite
insufficient to prove that the stories are identical--at most they only
prove that they bear the impress of one and the same poetical school. If a
parallel is to carry weight there must be something individual about it, as
there is, for example, about the arguments by which the identity of Beowulf
and Bjarki have been supported. That a hero comes from {96} Geatland
(Gautland) to the court where Hrothulf (Rolf) is abiding; that the same
hero subsequently is instrumental in helping Eadgils (Athils) against Onela
(Ali)--here we have something tangible. But when two heroes, engaged upon
slaying a dragon, are each told to be brave, the parallel is too general to
be a parallel at all. "There is a river in Macedon: and there is also
moreover a river at Monmouth, and there is salmons in both."
And there is a fundamental difference, which would serve to neutralize the
parallels, even did they appear much less accidental than they do.
Dragon fights may be classified into several types: two stand out
prominently. There is the story in which the young hero begins his career
by slaying a dragon or monster and winning, it may be a hoard of gold, it
may be a bride. This is the type of story found, for instance, in the tales
of Sigurd, or Perseus, or St George. On the other hand there is the hero
who, at the end of his career, seeks to ward off evil from himself and his
people. He slays the monster, but is himself slain by it. The great example
of this type is the god Thor, who in the last fight of the gods slays the
Dragon, but dies when he has reeled back nine paces from the "baleful
serpent[222]."
Now the story of the victorious young Frotho is of the one type: that of
the aged Beowulf is of the other. And this difference is essential,
fundamental, dominating the whole situation in each case: giving its
cheerful and aggressive tone to the story of Frotho, giving the elegiac and
pathetic note which runs through the whole of the last portion of
_Beowulf_[223]. It is no mere detail which could be added or subtracted by
a narrator without altering the essence of the story.
In face of this we must pronounce the two stories essentially and
originally distinct. If, nevertheless, there were a large number of
striking and specific similarities, we should have to allow that, though
originally distinct, the one dragon story had influenced the other in
detail. For, whilst each poet who retold the tale would make alterations in
detail, and might {97} import such detail from one dragon story into
another, what we know of the method of the ancient story tellers does not
allow us to assume that a poet would have altered the whole drift of a
story, either by changing the last death-struggle of an aged, childless
prince into the victorious feat of a young hero, or by the reverse process.
Those, therefore, who hold the parallels quoted above to be convincing, may
believe that one dragon story has influenced another, originally
distinct[224]. To me, it does not appear that even this necessarily follows
from the evidence.
It seems very doubtful whether any of the parallels drawn by Sievers
between the stories of Lotherus and Heremod[225], Skioldus and Scyld,
Frotho and Beowulf, are more than the resemblances inevitable in poetry
which, like the Old Danish and the Old English, still retains so many
traces of the common Germanic frame in which it was moulded.
Indeed, of the innumerable dragon-stories extant, there is probably not one
which we can declare to be really identical with that of Beowulf. There is
a Danish tradition which shows many similarities[226], and I have given
this below, in Part II; but rather as an example of a dragon-slaying of the
_Beowulf_ type, than because I believe in any direct connection between the
two stories.
* * * * *
{98}
CHAPTER III
THEORIES AS TO THE ORIGIN, DATE, AND STRUCTURE OF THE POEM
SECTION I. IS "BEOWULF" TRANSLATED FROM A SCANDINAVIAN ORIGINAL?
Our poem, the first original poem of any length in the English tongue,
ignores England. In one remarkable passage (ll. 1931-62) it mentions with
praise Offa I, the great king who ruled the Angles whilst they were still
upon the Continent. But, except for this, it deals mainly with heroes who,
so far as we can identify them with historic figures, are Scandinavian.
Hence, not unnaturally, the first editor boldly declared _Beowulf_ to be an
Anglo-Saxon version of a Danish poem; and this view has had many
supporters. The poem _must_ be Scandinavian, said one of its earliest
translators, because it deals mainly with Scandinavian heroes and "everyone
knows that in ancient times each nation celebrated in song its own heroes
alone[227]." And this idea, though not so crudely expressed, seems really
to underlie the belief which has been held by numerous scholars, that the
poem is nothing more than a translation of a poem in which some
Scandinavian minstrel had glorified the heroes of his own nation.
But what do we mean by "nation"? Doubtless, from the point of view of
politics and war, each Germanic tribe, or offshoot of a tribe, formed an
independent nation: the Longobardi had no hesitation in helping the
"Romans" to cut the throats of their Gothic kinsmen: Penda the Mercian was
willing to ally with the Welshmen in order to overthrow his {99} fellow
Angles of Northumbria. But all this, as the history of the ancient Greeks
or of the ancient Hebrews might show us, is quite compatible with a
consciousness of racial unity among the warring states, with a common
poetic tradition and a common literature. For purposes of poetry there was
only one nation--the Germanic--split into many dialects and groups, but
possessed of a common metre, a common style, a common standard of heroic
feeling: and any deed of valour performed by any Germanic chief might
become a fit subject for the poetry of any Germanic tribe of the heroic
age.
So, if by "nation" we mean the whole Germanic race, then Germanic poetry is
essentially "national." The Huns were the only non-Germanic tribe who were
received (for poetical purposes) into Germania. Hunnish chiefs seem to have
adopted Gothic manners, and after the Huns had disappeared it often came to
be forgotten that they were not Germans. But with this exception the tribes
and heroes of Germanic heroic poetry are Germanic.
If, however, by "nation" we understand the different warring units into
which the Germanic race was, politically speaking, divided, then Germanic
poetry is essentially "international."
This is no theory, but a fact capable of conclusive proof. The chief actors
in the old Norse Volsung lays are not Norsemen, but Sigurd the Frank,
Gunnar the Burgundian, Atli the Hun. In Continental Germany, the ideal
knight of the Saxons in the North and the Bavarians in the South was no
native hero, but Theodoric the Ostrogoth. So too in England, whilst
_Beowulf_ deals chiefly with Scandinavian heroes, the _Finnsburg_ fragment
deals with the Frisian tribes of the North Sea coast: _Waldere_ with the
adventures of Germanic chiefs settled in Gaul, _Deor_ with stories of the
Goths and of the Baltic tribes, whilst _Widsith_, which gives us a
catalogue of the old heroic tales, shows that amongst the heroes whose
names were current in England were men of Gothic, Burgundian, Frankish,
Lombard, Frisian, Danish and Swedish race. There is nothing peculiar, then,
in the fact that _Beowulf_ celebrates heroes who were not of Anglian birth.
{100}
In their old home in Schleswig the Angles had been in the exact centre of
Germania: with an outlook upon both the North Sea and the Baltic, and in
touch with Scandinavian tribes on the North and Low German peoples on the
South. That the Angles were interested in the stories of all the nations
which surrounded them, and that they brought these stories with them to
England, is certain. It is a mere accident that the one heroic poem which
happens to have been preserved at length is almost exclusively concerned
with Scandinavian doings. It could easily have happened that the history of
the _Beowulf_ MS and the _Waldere_ MS might have been reversed: that the
_Beowulf_ might have been cut up to bind other books, and the _Waldere_
preserved intact: in that case our one long poem would have been localized
in ancient Burgundia, and would have dealt chiefly with the doings of
Burgundian champions. But we should have had no more reason, without
further evidence, to suppose the _Waldere_ a translation from the
Burgundian than we have, without further evidence, to suppose _Beowulf_ a
translation from the Scandinavian.
To deny that _Beowulf_, as we have it, is a translation from the
Scandinavian does not, of course, involve any denial of the Scandinavian
origin of the _story_ of Beowulf's deeds. The fact that his achievements
are framed in a Scandinavian setting, and that the closest parallels to
them have to be sought in Scandinavian lands, makes it probable on _a
priori_ grounds that the story had its origin there. On the face of it,
Muellenhoff's belief that the story was indigenous among the Angles is
quite unlikely. It would seem rather to have originated in the Geatic
country. But stories, whether in prose or verse, would spread quickly from
the Geatas to the Danes and from the Danes to the Angles.
After the Angles had crossed the North Sea, however, this close intimacy
ceased, till the Viking raids again reminded Englishmen, in a very
unpleasant way, of their kinsmen across the sea. Now linguistic evidence
tends to show that _Beowulf_ belongs to a time prior to the Viking
settlement in England, and it is unlikely that the Scandinavian traditions
embodied in _Beowulf_ found their way to England just at the time when
{101} communication with Scandinavian lands seems to have been suspended.
We must conclude then that all this Scandinavian tradition probably spread
to the Angles whilst they were still in their old continental home, was
brought across to England by the settlers in the sixth century, was handed
on by English bards from generation to generation, till some Englishmen
formed the poem of _Beowulf_ as we know it.
Of course, if evidence can be produced that _Beowulf_ is translated from
some Scandinavian original, which was brought over in the seventh century
or later, that is another matter. But the evidence produced so far is not
merely inconclusive, but ludicrously inadequate.
It has been urged[228] by Sarrazin, the chief advocate of the translation
theory, that the description of the country round Heorot, and especially of
the journey to the Grendel-lake, shows such local knowledge as to point to
its having been composed by some Scandinavian poet familiar with the
locality. Heorot can probably, as we have seen, be identified with Leire:
and the Grendel-lake Sarrazin identifies with the neighbouring Roskilde
fjord. But it is hardly possible to conceive a greater contrast than that
between the Roskilde fjord and the scenery depicted in ll. 1357 _etc._,
1408 _etc._ Seen, as Sarrazin saw it, on a May morning, in alternate sun
and shadow, the Roskilde fjord presents a view of tame and peaceful beauty.
In the days of Hrothgar, when there were perhaps fewer cultivated fields
and more beech forests, the scenery may have been less tame, but can hardly
have been less peaceful. The only trace of accurate geography is that
Heorot is represented as not on the shore, and yet not far remote from it
(ll. 307 _etc._). But, as has been pointed out above, we know that
traditions of the attack by the Heathobeardan upon Heorot were current in
England: and these would be quite sufficient to keep alive, even among
English bards, some remembrance of the strategic situation of Heorot with
regard to the sea. A man need not have been near Troy, to realize that the
town was no seaport and yet near the sea.
{102}
Again, it has been claimed by Sarrazin that the language of _Beowulf_ shows
traces of the Scandinavian origin of the poem. Sarrazin's arguments on this
head have been contested energetically by Sievers[229]. After some heated
controversy Sarrazin made a final and (presumably) carefully-weighed
statement of his case. In this he gave a list of twenty-nine words upon
which he based his belief[230]. Yet of these twenty-nine, twenty-one occur
in other O.E. writings, where there can be no possible question of
translation from the Scandinavian: some of these words, in fact, are
amongst the commonest of O.E. poetical expressions. There remain eight
which do not happen to be found elsewhere in the extant remains of O.E.
poetry. But these are mostly compounds like _headho-l[=a]c_,
_feorh-s[=e]oc_: and though the actual compound is not elsewhere extant in
English, the component elements are thoroughly English. There is no reason
whatever to think that these eight rare words are taken from Old Norse.
Indeed, three of them do not occur in Old Norse at all.
Evidence to prove _Beowulf_ a translation from a Scandinavian original is,
then, wanting. On the other hand, over and above the difficulty that the
_Beowulf_ belongs just to the period when intimate communication between
the Angles and Scandinavians was suspended, there is much evidence against
the translation theory. The earliest Scandinavian poetry we possess, or of
which we can get information, differs absolutely from _Beowulf_ in style,
metre and sentiment: the manners of _Beowulf_ are incompatible with all we
know of the wild heathendom of Scandinavia in the seventh or eighth
century[231]. _Beowulf_, as we now have it, with its Christian references
and its Latin loan-words, _could_ not be a translation from the
Scandinavian. And the proper names in _Beowulf_ which Sarrazin claimed were
Old Norse, not Old English, and had been taken {103} over from the Old
Norse original, are in all cases so correctly transliterated as to
necessitate the assumption that they were brought across early, at the time
of the settlement of Britain or very shortly after, and underwent phonetic
development side by side with the other words in the English language. Had
they been brought across from Scandinavia at a later date, much confusion
must have ensued in the forms.
Somewhat less improbable is the suggestion "that the poet had travelled on
the continent and become familiar with the legends of the Danes and Geats,
or else had heard them from a Scandinavian resident in England[232]." But
it is clear from the allusive manner in which the Scandinavian tales are
told, that they must have been familiar to the poet's audience. If, then,
the English audience knew them, why must the poet himself have travelled on
the continent in order to know them? There is, therefore, no need for this
theory, and it is open to many of the objections of the translation theory:
for example it fails, equally with that theory, to account for the
uniformly correct development of the proper names.
The obvious conclusion is that these Scandinavian traditions were brought
over by the English settlers in the sixth century. Against this only one
cavil can be raised, and that will not bear examination. It has been
objected that, since Hygelac's raid took place about 516, since Beowulf's
accession was some years subsequent, and since he then reigned fifty years,
his death cannot be put much earlier than 575, and that this brings us to a
date when the migration of the Angles and Saxons had been completed[233].
But it is forgotten that all the historical events mentioned in the poem,
which we can date, occur before, or not very long after, the raid of
Hygelac, c. 516. The poem asserts that fifty years after these events
Beowulf slew a dragon and was slain by it. But this does not make the
dragon historic, nor does it make the year 575 the historic date of the
death of Beowulf. We cannot be sure that there _was_ any actual king of the
Geatas named Beowulf; and if there was, the last known historic act with
which that king is associated is the raising of Eadgils to the Swedish
throne, {104} c. 525: the rest of Beowulf's long reign, since it contains
no event save the slaying of a dragon, has no historic validity.
It is noteworthy that, whereas there is full knowledge shown in our poem of
those events which took place in Scandinavian lands during the whole period
from about 450 to 530--the period during which hordes of Angles, Saxons and
Jutes were landing in Britain--there is no reference, not even by way of
casual allusion, to any continental events which we can date with certainty
as subsequent to the arrival of the latest settlers from the continent.
Surely this is strong evidence that these tales were brought over by some
of the last of the invaders, not carried to England by some casual
traveller a century or two later.
* * * * *
SECTION II. THE DIALECT, SYNTAX, AND METRE OF "BEOWULF" AS EVIDENCE OF ITS
LITERARY HISTORY.
A full discussion of the dialect, metre and syntax of _Beowulf_ forms no
part of the scheme of this study. It is only intended in this section to
see how far such investigations throw light upon the literary history of
the poem.
_Dialect._
_Beowulf_ is written in the late West Saxon dialect. Imbedded in the poem,
however, are a large number of forms, concerning which this at least can be
said--that they are not normal late West Saxon. Critics have classified
these forms, and have drawn conclusions from them as to the history of the
poem: arguing from sporadic "Mercian" and "Kentish" forms that _Beowulf_ is
of Mercian origin and has passed through the hands of a Kentish
transcriber.
But, in fact, the evidence as to Old English dialects is more scanty and
more conflicting than philologists have always been willing to admit. It is
exceedingly difficult to say with any certainty what forms are "Mercian"
and what "Kentish." Having run such forms to earth, it is still more
difficult to say what arguments are to be drawn from their _occasional_
{105} appearance in any text. Men from widely different parts of the
country would be working together in the scriptorium of one and the same
monastery, and this fact alone may have often led to confusion in the
dialectal forms of works transcribed.
A thorough investigation of the significance of all the abnormal forms in
_Beowulf_ has still to be made. Whether it would repay the labour of the
investigator may well be questioned. In the meantime we may accept the view
that the poem was in all probability originally written in some
non-West-Saxon dialect, and most probably in an Anglian dialect, since this
is confirmed by the way in which the Anglian hero Offa is dragged into the
story.
Ten Brink's attempt to decide the dialect and transmission of _Beowulf_
will be found in his _Beowulf_, pp. 237-241: he notes the difficulty
that the "Kentish" forms from which he argues are nearly all such as
occur also sporadically in West Saxon texts. A classification of the
forms by P. G. Thomas will be found in the _Modern Language Review_, I,
202 _etc._ How difficult and uncertain all classification must be has
been shown by Frederick Tupper (_Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXVI,
235 _etc._; _J.E.G.P._ XI, 82-9).
"_Lichtenheld's Test._"
Somewhat more definite results can be drawn from certain syntactical
usages. There can be no doubt that as time went on, the use of _se_,
_s[=e]o_, _thaet_ became more and more common in O.E. verse. This is
largely due to the fact that in the older poems the _weak adjective_ +
_noun_ appears frequently where we should now use the definite article:
_w[=i]sa fengel_--"the wise prince"; _se w[=i]sa fengel_ is used where some
demonstrative is needed--"that wise prince." Later, however, _se_,
_s[=e]o_, _thaet_ comes to be used in the common and vague sense in which
the definite article is used in Modern English.
We consequently get with increasing frequency the use of the _definite
article_ + _weak adjective_ + _noun_: whilst the usage _weak adjective_ +
_noun_ decreases. Some rough criterion of date can thus be obtained by an
examination of a poet's usage in this particular. Of course it would be
absurd--as has been done--to group Old English poems in a strict
chronological order according to the proportion of forms with and without
the article. Individual usage must count for a good deal: {106} also the
scribes in copying and recopying our text must to a considerable extent
have obliterated the earlier practice. Metre and syntax combine to make it
probable that, in line 9 of our poem, the scribe has inserted the
unnecessary article _th[=a]ra_ before _ymbsittendra_: and in the rare cases
where we have an O.E. poem preserved in two texts, a comparison proves that
the scribe has occasionally interpolated an article. But this later
tendency to level out the peculiarity only makes it the more remarkable
that we should find such great differences between O.E. poems, all of them
extant in copies transcribed about the year 1000.
How great is the difference between the usage of _Beowulf_ and that of the
great body of Old English poetry will be clear from the following
statistics.
The proportion of phrases containing the weak adjective + noun with and
without the definite article in the certain works of Cynewulf is as
follows[234]:
With article Without article
_Juliana_ 27 3
_Christ (II)_ 28 3
_Elene_ 66 9
In _Guthlac_ (A) (c. 750) the proportions are:
With article Without article
_Guthlac_ (A) 42 6
Contrast this with the proportion in our poem:
With article Without article
_Beowulf_ 13 65
The nearest approach to the proportions of _Beowulf_ is in the (certainly
very archaic)
With article Without article
_Exodus_ 10 14
On the other hand, certain late texts show how fallible this criterion is.
Anyone dating _Maldon_ solely by "Lichtenheld's Test" would assuredly place
it much earlier than 991.
{107}
It is easy to make a false use of grammatical statistics: and this test
should only be applied with the greatest caution. But the difference
between _Beowulf_ and the works of Cynewulf is too striking to be
overlooked. In _Beowulf_, to every five examples without the article (e.g.
_headho-st[=e]apa helm_) we have _one_ with the article (e.g. _se hearda
helm_): in Cynewulf to every five examples without the article we have
_forty_ with it.
A further test of antiquity is in the use of the weak adjective with the
instrumental--a use which rapidly diminishes.
There are eighteen such instrumental phrases in _Beowulf_ (3182
lines)[235]. In _Exodus_ (589 lines) there are six
examples[236]--proportionally more than in _Beowulf_. In Cynewulf's
undoubted works (c. 2478 lines) there is one example only, _beorhtan
reorde_[237].
This criterion of the absence of the definite article before the weak
adjective is often referred to as Lichtenheld's Test (see article by
him in _Z.f.d.A._ XVI, 325 _etc._). It has been applied to the whole
body of O.E. poetry by Barnouw (_Textcritische Untersuchungen_, 1902).
The data collected by Barnouw are most valuable, but we must be
cautious in the conclusions we draw, as is shown by Sarrazin (_Eng.
Stud._ XXXVIII, 145 _etc._), and Tupper (_Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc._ XXVI,
274).
Exact enumeration of instances is difficult. For example, Lichtenheld
gave 22 instances of definite article + weak adjective + noun in
_Beowulf_[238]. But eight of these are not quite certain; _se g[=o]da
m[=ae]g Hygel[=a]ces_ may be not "the good kinsman of Hygelac," but
"the good one--the kinsman of Hygelac," for there is the half line
pause after _g[=o]da_. These eight examples therefore should be
deducted[239]. One instance, though practically certain, is the result
of conjectural emendation[240]. Of the remaining thirteen[241] three
are variations of the same phrase.
The statistics given above are those of Brandl (_Sitzungsberichte d. k.
Preuss. Akad. d. Wissenschaften_, 1905, p. 719) which are based upon
those of Barnouw.
"_Morsbach's Test._"
Sievers' theories as to O.E. metre have not been accepted by all scholars
in their entirety. But the statistics which he {108} collected enable us to
say, with absolute certainty, that some given types of verse were not
acceptable to the ear of an Old English bard.
Sceptics may emphasize the fact that Old English texts are uncertain, that
nearly all poems are extant in one MS only, that the MS in each case was
written down long after the poems were composed, and that precise verbal
accuracy is therefore not to be expected[242]. All the more remarkable then
becomes the fact, for it is a fact, that there are certain types of line
which never occur in _Beowulf_, and that there are other types which are
exceedingly rare. Again, there are certain types of line which _do_ occur
in _Beowulf_ as we have it, though they seem contrary to the principles of
O.E. scansion. When we find that such lines consistently contain some word
which had a different metrical value when our extant MS of _Beowulf_ was
transcribed, from that which it had at the earlier date when _Beowulf_ was
composed, and that the earlier value makes the line metrical, the
conclusion is obvious. _Beowulf_ must have been composed at a time or in a
dialect when the earlier metrical values held good.
But we reach a certain date beyond which, if we put the language back into
its older form, it will no longer fit into the metrical structure. For
example, words like _fl[=o]d_, _feld_, _eard_ were originally "u-nouns":
with nom. and acc. sing. _fl[=o]du_, etc. But the half-line _ofer fealone
fl[=o]d_ (1950) becomes exceedingly difficult if we put it in the form
_ofer fealone fl[=o]du_[243]: the half-line _f[=i]felcynnes eard_ becomes
absolutely impossible in the form _f[=i]felcynnes eardu_[244].
It can, consequently, with some certainty be argued that these half-lines
were composed after the time when _fl[=o]du_, _eardu_ had become _fl[=o]d_,
_eard_. Therefore, it has been further argued, _Beowulf_ was composed after
that date. But are we justified in this further step--in assuming that
because a certain number of half-lines in _Beowulf_ must have been composed
after a certain date, therefore _Beowulf_ itself must have been composed
after that date?
{109}
From what we know of the mechanical way in which the Old English _scribe_
worked, we have no reason to suppose that he would have consistently
altered what he found in an older copy, so as to make it metrical according
to the later speech into which he was transcribing it. But if we go back to
a time when poems were committed to memory by a _scop_, skilled in the laws
of O.E. metre, the matter is very different. A written poem may be copied
word for word, even though the spelling is at the same time modernized, but
it is obvious that a poem preserved orally will be altered slightly from
time to time, if the language in which it is written is undergoing changes
which make the poem no longer metrically correct.
Imagine the state of things at the period when final _u_ was being lost
after a long syllable. This loss of a syllable would make a large number of
the half-lines and formulas in the old poetry unmetrical. Are we to suppose
that the whole of O.E. poetry was at once scrapped, and entirely new poems
composed to fit in with the new sound laws? Surely not; old formulas would
be recast, old lines modified where they needed it, but the old poetry
would go on[245], with these minor verbal changes adapting it to the new
order of things. We can see this taking place, to a limited extent, in the
transcripts of Middle English poems. In the transmission of poems by word
of mouth it would surely take place to such an extent as to baffle later
investigation[246].
Consequently I am inclined to agree that this test is hardly final except
"on the assumption that the poems were written down from the very
beginning[247]." And we are clearly not justified in making any such
assumption. A small number of such lines would accordingly give, not so
much a means of fixing a period before which _Beowulf_ cannot have been
composed, as merely {110} one before which _Beowulf_ cannot have been fixed
by writing in its present form.
If, however, more elaborate investigation were to show that the
_percentage_ of such lines is _just as great_ in _Beowulf_ as it is in
poems certainly written after the sound changes had taken place, it might
be conceded that the test was a valid one, and that it proved _Beowulf_ to
have been written after these sound changes occurred.
This would then bring us to our second difficulty. At what date exactly did
these sound changes take place? The chief documents available are the
proper names in Bede's History, and in certain Latin charters, the glosses,
and a few early runic inscriptions. Most important, although very scanty,
are the charters, since they bear a date. With these we proceed to
investigate:
A. The dropping of the _u_ after a long accented syllable (_fl['=o]du_
becoming _fl['=o]d_), or semi-accented syllable (_St['=a]nf[`o]rdu_
becoming _St['=a]nf[`o]rd_).
There is evidence from an Essex charter that this was already lost in 692
or 693 (_uuidmundesfelt_)[248]. From this date on, examples without the _u_
are forthcoming in increasing number[249]. One certain example only has
been claimed for the preservation of _u_. In the runic inscription on the
"Franks casket" _flodu_ is found for _flod_. But the spelling of the Franks
casket is erratic: for example _giutheasu_ is also found for _giutheas_,
"the Jews." Now _u_ here is impossible[250], and we must conclude perhaps
that the inscriber of the runes intended to write _giuthea su[mae]_[250] or
_giuthea su[na]_[251], "some of the Jews," "the sons of the Jews," and that
having reached the end of his line at _u_, he neglected to complete the
word: or else perhaps that he wrote _giutheas_ and having some additional
space added a _u_ at the end of his line, just for fun. Whichever
explanation we {111} adopt, it will apply to _flodu_, which equally comes
at the end of a line, and the _u_ of which may equally have been part of
some following word which was never completed[252].
Other linguistic data of the Franks casket would lead us to place it
somewhere in the first half of the eighth century, and we should hardly
expect to find _u_ preserved as late as this[253]. For we have seen that by
693 the _u_ was already lost after a subordinate accent in the Essex
charter. Yet it is arguable that the _u_ was retained later after a long
accented syllable (_fl[=['o]]du_) than after a subordinate accent
(_uu[=['i]]dm[`u]ndesf[`e]lt_); and, besides, the casket is Northumbrian,
and the sound changes need not have been simultaneous all over the country.
We cannot but feel that the evidence is pitifully scanty. All we can say is
that _perhaps_ the _flodu_ of the Franks casket shows that _u_ was still
preserved after a fully accented syllable as late as 700. But the _u_ in
_flodu_ may be a deliberate archaism on the part of the writer, may be a
local dialectal survival, may be a mere miswriting.
B. The preservation of _h_ between consonant and vowel.
Here there is one clear example which we can date: the archaic spelling of
the proper name _Welhisc_. _Signum manus uelhisci_ occurs in a Kentish
charter of 679[254]. The same charter shows _h_ already lost between
vowels: _uuestan ae_ (_ae_ dative of _[=e]a_, "river," cf. Gothic _ahwa_).
Not much can be argued from the proper name _Welhisc_, as to the current
pronunciation in Kent in 679, for an old man may well have continued to
spell his name as it was spelt when he was a child, even though the current
pronunciation had changed[255]. But we have further evidence in the
glosses, which show _h_ sometimes preserved and sometimes not. These
glosses are mechanical copies of an original which was presumably compiled
between 680 and 720. We are therefore justified in arguing that at that
date _h_ was still preserved, at any rate occasionally.
{112}
Of "Morsbach's test" we can then say that it establishes something of an
argument that _Beowulf_ was composed after the date when final _u_ after a
long syllable, or _h_ between consonant and vowel, were lost, and that this
date was probably within a generation or so of the year 700 A.D. But there
are too many uncertain contingencies involved to make the test at all a
conclusive one.
Morsbach's _Zur Datierung des Beowulf-epos_ will be found in the
Goettingen _Nachrichten_, 1906, pp. 252-77. These tests have been
worked out for the whole body of Old English poetry in the
_Chronologische Studien_ of Carl Richter, Halle, 1910.
* * * * *
SECTION III. THEORIES AS TO THE STRUCTURE OF "BEOWULF."
Certain peculiarities in the structure of _Beowulf_ can hardly fail to
strike the reader. (1) The poem is not a biography of Beowulf, nor yet an
episode in his life: it is two distinct episodes: the Grendel business and
the dragon business, joined by a narrow bridge. (2) Both these stories are
broken in upon by digressions: some of these concern Beowulf himself, so
that we get a fairly complete idea of the life of our hero: but for the
most part these digressions are not strictly apposite. (3) Even apart from
these digressions, the narrative is often hampered: the poet begins his
story, diverges and returns. (4) The traces of Christian thought and
knowledge which meet us from time to time seem to belong to a different
world from that of the Germanic life in which our poem has its roots.
Now in the middle of the nineteenth century it was widely believed that the
great epics of the world had been formed from collections of original
shorter lays fitted together (often unskilfully) by later redactors. For a
critic starting from this assumption, better material than the _Beowulf_
could hardly be found. And it _was_ with such assumptions that Carl
Muellenhoff, the greatest of the scholars who have dissected the _Beowulf_,
set to work. He attended the lectures of Lachmann, and formed, {113} a
biographer tells us, the fixed resolve to do for one epic what his admired
master had done for another[256].
Muellenhoff claimed for his theories that they were simple[257] and
straightforward: and so they were, if we may be allowed to assume as a
basis that the _Beowulf_ is made up out of shorter lays, and that the only
business of the critic is to define the scope of these lays. In the story
of Beowulf's fight with Grendel (ll. 194-836: Muellenhoff's Sect. I) and
with the dragon (ll. 2200-3183: Muellenhoff's Sect. IV) Muellenhoff saw the
much interpolated remains of two original lays by different authors. But,
before it was united to the dragon story, the Grendel story, Muellenhoff
held, had already undergone many interpolations and additions. The story of
Grendel's mother (ll. 837-1623: Sect. II) was added, Muellenhoff held, by
one continuator as a sequel to the story of Grendel, and ll. 1-193 were
added by another hand as an introduction. Then this Grendel story was
finally rounded off by an interpolator (A) who added the account of
Beowulf's return home (Sect. III, ll. 1629-2199) and at the same time
inserted passages into the poem throughout. Finally came Interpolator B,
who was the first to combine the Grendel story, thus elaborated, with the
dragon story. Interpolator B was responsible for the great bulk of the
interpolations: episodes from other cycles and "theologizing" matter.
Ten Brink, like Muellenhoff, regarded the poem as falling into four
sections: the Grendel fight, the fight with Grendel's mother, the return
home, the dragon fight. But Muellenhoff had imagined the epic composed out
of one set of lays: incoherences, he thought, were due to the bungling of
successive interpolators. Ten Brink assumed that in the case of all three
fights, with Grendel, with Grendel's mother, and with the dragon, there had
been two _parallel_ versions, which a later redactor had combined together,
and that it was to this combination that the frequent repetitions in the
{114} narrative were due: he believed that not only were the different
episodes of the poem originally distinct, but that each episode was
compounded of two originally distinct lays, combined together.
Now it cannot be denied that the process postulated by Muellenhoff _might_
have taken place: a lay on Grendel and a lay on the dragon-fight might have
been combined by some later compiler. Ten Brink's theory, too, is
inherently not improbable: that there should have been two or more versions
current of a popular story is probable enough: that a scribe should have
tried to fit these two parallel versions together is not without precedent:
very good examples of such attempts at harmonizing different versions can
be got from an examination of the MSS of _Piers Plowman_.
It is only here and there that we are struck by an inherent improbability
in Muellenhoff's scheme. Thus the form in which Muellenhoff assumes the
poem to have existed before Interpolator A set to work on it, is hardly a
credible one. The "original poet" has brought Beowulf from his home to the
Danish court, to slay Grendel, and the "continuator" has taken him to the
haunted lake: Beowulf has plunged down, slain Grendel's mother, come back
to land. Here Muellenhoff believed the poem to have ended, until
"Interpolator A" came along, and told how Beowulf returned in triumph to
Hrothgar, was thanked and rewarded, and then betook himself home, and was
welcomed by Hygelac. That it would have been left to an interpolator to
supply what from the old point of view was so necessary a part of the story
as the return to Hrothgar is an assumption perilous indeed. "An epic poem
only closes when everything is really concluded: not, like a modern novel,
at a point where the reader can imagine the rest for himself[258]."
Generally speaking, however, the theories of the "dissecting school" are
not in themselves faulty, if we admit the assumptions on which they rest.
They fail however in two ways. An examination of the short lay and the long
epic, so far as these are represented in extant documents, does not bear
out {115} well the assumptions of the theorizers. Secondly, the minute
scrutiny to which the poem has been subjected in matters of syntax, metre,
dialect and tradition has failed to show any difference between the parts
attributed to the different authors, such as we must certainly have
expected to find, had the theories of the "dissecting school" been correct.
That behind our extant _Beowulf_, and connecting it with the events of the
sixth century, there must have been a number of older lays, may indeed well
be admitted: also that to these lays our poem owes its plot, its traditions
of metre and its phraseology, and perhaps (but this is a perilous
assumption) continuous passages of its text. But what Muellenhoff and ten
Brink go on to assume is that these original oral lays were simple in
outline and treated a single well-defined episode in a straightforward
manner; that later redactors and scribes corrupted this primitive
simplicity; but that the modern critic, by demanding it, and using its
presence or absence as a criterion, can still disentangle from the complex
composite poem the simpler elements out of which it was built up.
Here are rather large assumptions. What right have we to postulate that
this primitive "literature without letters[259]," these short oral ballads
and lays, dealt with a single episode without digression or confusion:
whilst the later age,--the civilized, Christianized age of written
literature during which _Beowulf_ in the form in which we now have it was
produced,--is assumed to have been tolerant of both?
No doubt, here and there, in different literatures, groups of short lays
can be found which one can imagine might be combined into an orderly
narrative poem, without much hacking about. But on the other hand a short
lay will often tell, in less than a hundred lines, a story more complex
than that of the _Iliad_ or the _Odyssey_. Its shortness may be due, not to
any limitation in the scope of the plot, but rather to the passionate haste
with which it rushes through a long story. It is one thing to admit that
there must have been short lays on the story of Beowulf: it is another to
assume that these lays were of such a character that nothing was needed but
compilers {116} with a taste for arrangement and interpolation in order to
turn them into the extant epic of _Beowulf_.
When we find nearly five hundred lines spent in describing the reception of
the hero in Hrothgar's land, we may well doubt whether this passage can
have found its way into our poem through any such process of fitting
together as Muellenhoff postulated. It would be out of scale in any
narrative shorter than the _Beowulf_ as we have it. It suggests to us that
the epic is developed out of the lay, not by a process of fitting together,
but rather by a retelling of the story in a more leisurely way.
A comparison of extant short lays or ballads with extant epics has shown
that, if these epics were made by stringing lays together, such lays must
have been different from the great majority of the short lays now known.
"The lays into which this theory dissects the epics, or which it assumes as
the sources of the epics, differ in two ways from extant lays: they deal
with short, incomplete subjects and they have an epic breadth of
style[260]."
It has been shown by W. P. Ker[261] that a comparison of such fragments as
have survived of the Germanic short lay (_Finnsburg_, _Hildebrand_) does
not bear out the theory that the epic is a conglomeration of such lays. "It
is the change and development in style rather than any increase in the
complexity of the themes that accounts for the difference in scale between
the shorter and the longer poems."
A similar conclusion is reached by Professor Hart: "It might be
illuminating to base a _Liedertheorie_ in part, at least, upon a study of
existing _Lieder_, rather than wholly upon an attempt to dismember the epic
in question. Such study reveals indeed a certain similarity in kind of
Ballad and Epic, but it reveals at the same time an enormous difference in
degree, in stage of development. If the _Beowulf_, then, was made up of a
series of heroic songs, strung together with little or no modification,
these songs must have been something very different from the popular
ballad[262]."
{117}
And subsequent investigations into the history and folk-lore of our poem
have not confirmed Muellenhoff's theory: in some cases indeed they have hit
it very hard. When a new light was thrown upon the story by the discovery
of the parallels between _Beowulf_ and the _Grettis saga_, it became clear
that passages which Muellenhoff had condemned as otiose interpolations were
likely to be genuine elements in the tale. Dr Olrik's minute investigations
into the history of the Danish kings have shown from yet another point of
view how allusions, which were rashly condemned by Muellenhoff and ten
Brink as idle amplifications, are, in fact, essential.
How the investigation of the metre, form, and syntax of _Beowulf_ has
disclosed an archaic strictness of usage has been explained above (Sect.
II). This usage is in striking contrast with the practice of later poets
like Cynewulf. How far we are justified in relying upon such differences of
usage as criteria of _exact_ date is open to dispute. But it seems clear
that, had Muellenhoff's theories been accurate, we might reasonably have
expected to have been able to differentiate between the earlier and the
later strata in so composite a poem.
The composite theory has lately been strongly supported by Schuecking[263].
Schuecking starts from the fact, upon which we are all agreed, that the
poem falls into two main divisions: the story of how Beowulf at Heorot slew
Grendel and Grendel's mother, and the story of the dragon, which fifty
years later he slew at his home. These are connected by the section which
tells how Beowulf returned from Heorot to his own home and was honourably
received by his king, Hygelac.
It is now admitted that the ways of Old English narrative were not
necessarily our ways, and that we must not postulate, because our poem
falls into two somewhat clumsily connected sections, that therefore it is
compounded out of two originally distinct lays. But, on the other hand, as
Schuecking rightly urges, instances _are_ forthcoming of two O.E. poems
having been clumsily connected into one[264]. Therefore, whilst no one
would now urge that _Beowulf_ is put together out of two older {118} lays,
_merely_ because it can so easily be divided into two sections, this fact
does suggest that a case exists for examination.
Now if a later poet had connected together two old lays, one on the Grendel
and Grendel's mother business, and one on the dragon business, we might
fairly expect that this connecting link would show traces of a different
style. It is accordingly on the connecting link, the story of _Beowulf's
Return_ and reception by Hygelac, that Schuecking concentrates his
attention, submitting it to the most elaborate tests to see if it betrays
metrical, stylistic or syntactical divergencies from the rest of the poem.
Various tests are applied, which admittedly give no result, such as the
frequency of the repetition in the _Return_ of half verse formulas which
occur elsewhere in _Beowulf_[265], or the way in which compound nouns fit
into the metrical scheme[266]. Metrical criteria are very little more
helpful[267]. We have seen that the antiquity of _Beowulf_ is proved by the
cases where metre demands the substitution of an older uncontracted form
for the existing shorter one. Schuecking argues that no instance occurs in
the 267 lines of the _Return_. But, even if this were the case, it might
well be mere accident, since examples only occur at rare intervals anywhere
in _Beowulf_. As a matter of fact, however, examples are to be found in the
_Return_[268] (quite up to the normal proportion), though two of the
clearest come in a portion of it which Schuecking rather arbitrarily
excludes.
Coming to syntax in its broadest sense, and especially the method of
constructing and connecting sentences, Schuecking enumerates several
constructions which are found in the _Return_, but not elsewhere in
_Beowulf_. Syntax is a subject to which he has given special study, and his
opinion upon it must be of value. But I doubt whether anyone as expert in
the subject as Schuecking could not find in every passage of like length in
_Beowulf_ some constructions not to be exactly paralleled elsewhere in the
poem.
{119}
The fact that we find here, and here only, passages introduced by the
clauses _ic sceal fordh sprecan_[269], and _t[=o] lang ys t[=o]
reccenne_[270], is natural when we realize that we have here the longest
speech in the whole poem, which obviously calls for such apologies for
prolixity.
The fact that no parentheses occur in the _Return_ does not differentiate
it from the rest of _Beowulf_: for, as Schuecking himself points out
elsewhere, there are three other passages in the poem, longer than the
_Return_, which are equally devoid of parentheses[271].
There remain a few _hapax legomena_[272], but very inconclusive.
There are, in addition, examples which occur only in the _Return_, and in
certain other episodic passages. These episodic passages also, Schuecking
supposes, may have been added by the same reviser who added the _Return_.
But this is a perilous change of position. For example, a certain
peculiarity is found only in the _Return_ and the introductory genealogical
section[273]; or in the _Return_ and the _Finn Episode_[274]. But when
Schuecking proceeds to the suggestion that the _Introduction_ or the _Finn
Episode_ may have been added by the same reviser who added _Beowulf's
Return_, he knocks the bottom out of some of his previous arguments. The
argument from the absence of parentheses (whatever it was worth) must go:
for according to Schuecking's own punctuation, such parentheses are found
both in the _Introduction_ and in the _Finn Episode_. If these are by the
author of the _Return_, then doubt is thrown upon one of the alleged
peculiarities of that author; we find the author of the _Return_ no more
averse _on the whole_ to parentheses than the author or authors of the rest
of the poem.
Peculiar usages of the moods and tenses are found twice in the
_Return_[275], and once again in the episode where Beowulf {120} recalls
his youth[276]. Supposing this episode to be also the work of the author of
the _Return_, we get peculiar constructions used three times by this
author, which cannot be paralleled elsewhere in _Beowulf_[277].
Now a large number of instances like this last might afford basis for
argument; but they must be in bulk in order to prove anything. By the laws
of chance we might expect, in any passage of three hundred lines, taken at
random anywhere in _Beowulf_, to find something which occurred only in one
other passage elsewhere in the poem. We cannot forthwith declare the two
passages to be the work of an interpolator. One swallow does not make a
summer.
And the arguments as to style are not helped by arguments as to matter.
Even if it be granted--which I do not grant--that the long repetition
narrating Beowulf's contest with Grendel and Grendel's mother is tedious,
there is no reason why this tedious repetition should not as well be the
work of the original poet as of a later reviser. Must we find many
different authors for _The Ring and the Book_? It must be granted that
there are details (such as the mention of Grendel's glove) found in the
Grendel struggle as narrated in _Beowulf's Return_, but not found in the
original account of the struggle. Obviously the object is to avoid
monotony, by introducing a new feature: but this might as well have been
aimed at by the old poet retelling the tale as by a new poet retelling it.
To me, the fact that so careful and elaborate a study of the story of
_Beowulf's Return_ fails to betray any satisfactory evidence of separate
authorship, is a confirmation of the verdict of "not proven" against the
"dividers[278]." But there can be no doubt that Schuecking's method, his
attempt to prove differences in treatment, grammar, and style, is the right
one. If any satisfactory results are to be attained, it must be in this
way.
* * * * *
{121}
SECTION IV. ARE THE CHRISTIAN ELEMENTS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE REST OF THE
POEM?
Later students (like the man in Dante, placed between two equally enticing
dishes) have been unable to decide in favour of either of the rival
theories of Muellenhoff and ten Brink, and consequently the unity of the
poem, which always had its champions, has of late years come to be
maintained with increasing conviction and certainty.
Yet many recent critics have followed Muellenhoff so far at least as to
believe that the Christian passages are inconsistent with what they regard
as the "essentially heathen" tone of the rest of the poem, and are
therefore the work of an interpolator[279].
Certainly no one can escape a feeling of incongruity, as he passes from
ideas of which the home lies in the forests of ancient Germany, to others
which come from the Holy Land. But that both sets of ideas could not have
been cherished, in England, about the year 700, by one and the same poet,
is an assumption which calls for examination.
As Christianity swept northward, situations were created which to the
modern student are incongruous. But the Teutonic chief often had a larger
mind than the modern student: he needed to have, if he was to get the best
at the same time both from his wild fighting men and from his Latin clerks.
It is this which gives so remarkable a character to the great men of the
early centuries of converted Teutonism: men, like Theodoric the Great or
Charles the Great, who could perform simultaneously the duties of a
Germanic king and of a Roman Emperor: kings like Alfred the Great or St
Olaf, who combined the character of the tough fighting chieftain with that
of the saintly churchman. I love to think of these incongruities: to
remember that the warrior Alfred, surrounded by _thegn_ and _gesith_,
listening to the "Saxon songs" which he loved, was yet the same Alfred who
painfully translated Gregory's _Pastoral {122} Care_ under the direction of
foreign clerics. It is well to remember that Charles the Great, the
catholic and the orthodox, collected ancient lays which his successors
thought too heathen to be tolerated; or that St Olaf (who was so holy that,
having absent mindedly chipped shavings off a stick on Sunday, he burnt
them, as penance, on his open hand) nevertheless allowed to be sung before
him, on the morning of his last fight, one of the most wild and utterly
heathen of all the old songs--the _Bjarkam['a]l_.
It has been claimed that the account of the funeral rites of Beowulf is
such as "no Christian poet could or would have composed[280]." Lately this
argument has been stated more at length:
"In the long account of Beowulf's obsequies--beginning with the dying
king's injunction to construct for him a lofty barrow on the edge of
the cliff, and ending with the scene of the twelve princes riding round
the barrow, proclaiming the dead man's exploits--we have the most
detailed description of an early Teutonic funeral which has come down
to us, and one of which the accuracy is confirmed in every point by
archaeological or contemporary literary evidence[281]. Such an account
must have been composed within living memory of a time when ceremonies
of this kind were still actually in use[282]."
Owing to the standing of the scholar who urges it, this argument is coming
to rank as a dogma[283], and needs therefore rather close examination.
Professor Chadwick _may_ be right in urging that the custom of burning the
dead had gone out of use in England even before Christianity was
introduced[284]: anyhow it is certain that, wherever it survived, the
practice was disapproved by ecclesiastics, and was, indeed, formally
censured and suppressed by the church abroad.
The church equally censured and endeavoured to suppress the ancient
"heathen lays"; but without equal success. Now, in many of these lays the
heathen rites of cremation must certainly have been depicted, and, in this
way, the memory of the old funeral customs must have been kept fresh, long
{123} after the last funeral pyre had died out in England. Of course there
were then, as there have been ever since, puritanical people who objected
that heathen lays and heathen ways were no fit concern for a Christian man.
But the protests of such purists are just the strongest evidence that the
average Christian did continue to take an interest in these things. We have
seen that the very monks of Lindisfarne had to be warned by Alcuin. I
cannot see that there is any such _a priori_ impossibility that a poet,
though a sincere Christian enough, would have described a funeral in the
old style, modelling his account upon older lays, or upon tradition derived
from those lays.
The church might disapprove of the practice of cremation, but we have no
reason to suppose that mention of it was tabooed. And many of the old
burial customs seem to have kept their hold, even upon the converted.
Indeed, when the funeral of Attila is instanced as a type of the old
heathen ceremony, it seems to be forgotten that those Gothic chieftains who
rode their horses round the body of Attila were themselves probably Arian
Christians, and that the historian who has preserved the account was an
orthodox cleric.
Saxo Grammaticus, ecclesiastic as he was, has left us several accounts[285]
of cremations. He mentions the "pyre built of ships" and differs from the
poet of _Beowulf_ chiefly because he allows those frankly heathen
references to gods and offerings which the poet of _Beowulf_ excludes. Of
course, Saxo was merely translating. One can quite believe that a Christian
poet composing an account of a funeral in the old days, would have omitted
the more frankly heathen features, as indeed the _Beowulf_ poet does. But
Saxo shows us how far into Christian times the ancient funeral, in all its
heathendom, was remembered; and how little compunction an ecclesiastic had
in recording it. The assumption that no Christian poet would have composed
the account of Beowulf's funeral or of Scyld's funeral ship, seems then to
be quite unjustified.
The further question remains: Granting that he _would_, could he? Is the
account of Beowulf's funeral so true to old custom that it must have been
composed by an eye-witness of {124} the rite of cremation? Is its "accuracy
confirmed in every point by archaeological or contemporary literary
evidence"?
As to the archaeological evidence, the fact seems to be that the account is
archaeologically so inexact that it has given great trouble to one eminent
antiquary, Knut Stjerna. That the pyre should be hung with arms, which are
_burnt_ with the hero (ll. 3139-40), and that then a second supply of
unburnt treasures should be _buried_ with the cremated bones (ll. 3163-8),
is regarded by Stjerna as extraordinary[286].
Surely, any such inexactitude is what we should expect in a late poet,
drawing upon tradition. He would know that in heathen times bodies were
burnt, and that weapons were buried; and he might well combine both. It is
not necessary to suppose, as Stjerna does, that the poet has combined two
separate accounts of Beowulf's funeral, given in older lays, in one of
which the hero was burnt, and in the other buried. But the fact that an
archaeological specialist finds the account of Beowulf's funeral so inexact
that he has to assume a confused and composite source, surely disposes of
the argument that it is so exact that it must date back to heathen times.
As to confirmation from literary documents, the only one instanced by
Chadwick is the account of the funeral of Attila. The parallel here is by
no means so close as has been asserted. The features of Attila's funeral
are: the lying in state, during which the chosen horsemen of the nation
rode round the body singing the dead king's praises; the funeral feast; and
the burial (not burning) of the body. Now the only feature which recurs in
_Beowulf_ is the praise of the dead man by the mounted thanes. Even here
there is an essential difference. Attila's men rode round the dead body of
their lord _before_ his funeral. Beowulf's retainers ride and utter their
lament around (not the body but) the grave mound of their lord, ten days
after the cremation.
And this is perhaps no accidental discrepancy: it may well correspond to a
real difference in practice between the Gothic custom of the time of the
migrations and the Anglo-Saxon {125} practice as it prevailed in Christian
times[287]. For many documents, including the _Dream of the Rood_, tend to
show that the _sorhl[=e]odh_, the lament of the retainers for their dead
lord, survived into Christian times, but as a ceremony which was subsequent
not merely to the funeral, but even to the building of the tomb.
So that, here again, so far from the archaeological accuracy of the account
of Beowulf's funeral being confirmed by the account of that of Attila, we
find a discrepancy such as we might expect if a Christian poet, in later
times, had tried to describe a funeral of the old heathen type.
Of course, the evidence is far too scanty to allow of much positive
argument. Still, _so far as it goes_, and that is not far, it rather tends
to show that the account of the funeral customs is not quite accurate,
representing what later Christian times knew by tradition of the rite of
cremation, rather than showing the observation of that rite by an
eye-witness.
We must turn, then, to some other argument, if we wish to prove that the
Christian element is inconsistent with other parts of the poem.
A second argument that _Beowulf_ must belong either to heathen times, or to
the very earliest Christian period in England, has been found in the
character of the Christian allusions: they contain no "reference to Christ,
to the Cross, to the Virgin or the Saints, to any doctrine of the church in
regard to the Trinity, the Atonement, _etc._[288]" "A pious Jew would have
no difficulty in assenting to them all[289]." Hence it has been argued[290]
that they are the work of an interpolator who, working upon a poem
"essentially heathen," was not able to impose upon it more than this "vague
and colourless Christianity." I cannot see this. If passages had to be
rewritten at all, it was just as easy to rewrite them in a tone
emphatically Christian as in a tone mildly so. The difficulties which the
interpolator would meet in removing a heathen phrase, and composing a
Christian half-line in substitution, would be metrical, rather than
theological. For example, in a second {126} half-line the interpolator
could have written _ond h[=a]lig Crist_ or _ylda nergend_ just as easily as
_ond h[=a]lig god_, or _ylda waldend_: he could have put in an allusion to
the Trinity or to the Cross as easily as to the Lord of Hosts or the King
of Glory. It would depend upon the alliteration which was the more
convenient. And surely, if he was a monk deliberately sitting down to turn
a heathen into a Christian poem, he would, of two alternatives, have
favoured the more dogmatically Christian.
The vagueness which is so characteristic of the Christian references in
_Beowulf_ can then hardly be due to the poem having originally been a
heathen one, worked over by a Christian.
Others have seen in this vagueness a proof "that the minstrels who
introduced the Christian element had but a vague knowledge of the new
faith[291]": or that the poem was the work of "a man who, without having,
or wanting to have, much definite instruction, had become Christian because
the Court had newly become Christian[292]." But, vague as it is, does the
Christianity of _Beowulf_ justify such a judgment as this? Do not the
characters of Hrothgar or of Beowulf, of Hygd or of Wealhtheow, show a
Christian influence which, however little dogmatic, is anything but
superficial? This is a matter where individual feeling rather than argument
must weigh: but the _Beowulf_ does not seem to me the work of a man whose
adherence to Christianity is merely nominal[293].
And, so far as the absence of dogma goes, it seems to have been overlooked
that the Christian references in the _Battle of Maldon_, written when
England had been Christian for over three centuries, are precisely of the
same vague character as those in _Beowulf_.
Surely the explanation is that to a devout, but not {127}
theologically-minded poet, writing battle poetry, references to God as the
Lord of Hosts or the Giver of Victory came naturally--references to the
Trinity or the Atonement did not. This seems quite a sufficient
explanation; though it may be that in _Beowulf_ the poet has consciously
avoided dogmatic references, because he realized that the characters in his
story were not Christians[294]. That, at the same time, he allows those
characters with whom he sympathizes to speak in a Christian spirit is only
what we should expect. Just so Chaucer allows his pagans--Theseus for
instance--to use Christian expressions about God or the soul, whilst
avoiding anything strikingly doctrinal.
Finally I cannot admit that the Christian passages are "poetically of no
value[295]." The description of Grendel nearing Heorot is good:
Dh[=a] c[=o]m of m[=o]re under mist-hleothum
Grendel gongan--
but it is heightened when the poet adds:
Godes yrre baer.
Yet here again it is impossible to argue: it is a matter of individual
feeling.
When, however, we come to the further statement of Dr Bradley, that the
Christian passages are not only interpolations poetically worthless, but
"may be of any date down to that of the extant MS" (i.e. about the year
1000 A.D.), we have reached ground where argument _is_ possible, and where
definite results can be attained. For Dr Bradley, at the same time that he
makes this statement about the character of the Christian passages, also
quotes the archaic syntax of _Beowulf_ as proving an early date[296]. _But
this archaic syntax is just as prominent a feature of the Christian
passages as of any other parts of the poem._ If these Christian passages
are really the work of a "monkish copyist, whose piety exceeded his poetic
powers[297]," how do they come to show an antique syntax and a strict
technique surpassing those of Cynewulf or the _Dream {128} of the Rood_?
Why do they not betray their origin by metrical inaccuracies such as we
find in poems undoubtedly interpolated, like _Widsith_ or the _Seafarer_?
Dr Bradley is "our chief English seer in these matters," as Dr Furnivall
said long ago; and it is only with the greatest circumspection that one
should differ from any of his conclusions. Nevertheless, I feel that,
before we can regard any portion of _Beowulf_ as later than the rest,
discrepancies need to be demonstrated.
Until such discrepancies between the different parts of _Beowulf_ can be
demonstrated, we are justified in regarding the poem as homogeneous: as a
production of the Germanic world enlightened by the new faith. Whether
through external violence or internal decay, this world was fated to rapid
change, and perished with its promise unfulfilled. The great merit of
_Beowulf_ as a historic document is that it shows us a picture of a period
in which the virtues of the heathen "Heroic Age" were tempered by the
gentleness of the new belief; an age warlike, yet Christian: devout, yet
tolerant.
* * * * *
{129}
PART II
DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATING THE STORIES IN _BEOWULF_, AND THE _OFFA_-SAGA.
A. THE EARLY KINGS OF THE DANES ACCORDING TO SAXO GRAMMATICUS
Saxo, Book I, ed. Ascensius, fol. iii b; ed. Holder, p. 10, l. 25.
Uerum a Dan, ut fert antiquitas, regum nostrorum stemmata, ceu quodam
deriuata principio, splendido successionis ordine profluxerunt. Huic
filii Humblus et Lotherus fuere, ex Grytha, summae inter Teutones
dignitatis matrona, suscepti.
Lecturi regem ueteres affixis humo saxis insistere, suffragiaque
promere consueuerant, subiectorum lapidum firmitate facti constantiam
ominaturi. Quo ritu Humblus, decedente patre, nouo patriae beneficio
rex creatus, sequentis fortunae malignitate, ex rege priuatus euasit.
Bello siquidem a Lothero captus, regni depositione spiritum mercatus
est; haec sola quippe uicto salutis conditio reddebatur. Ita fraternis
iniuriis imperium abdicare coactus, documentum hominibus praebuit, ut
plus splendoris, ita minus securitatis, aulis quam tuguriis inesse.
Ceterum iniuriae tam patiens fuit, ut honoris damno tanquam beneficio
gratulari crederetur, sagaciter, ut puto, regiae conditionis habitum
contemplatus. Sed nec Lotherus tolerabiliorem regem quam militem egit,
ut prorsus insolentia ac scelere regnum auspicari uideretur; siquidem
illustrissimum quemque uita aut opibus spoliare, patriamque bonis
ciuibus uacuefacere probitatis loco duxit, regni aemulos ratus, quos
nobilitate pares habuerat. Nec diu scelerum impunitus, patriae
consternatione perimitur; eadem spiritum eripiente, quae regnum largita
fuerat. {130}
Cuius filius Skyoldus naturam ab ipso, non mores sortitus, per summam
tenerioris aetatis industriam cuncta paternae contagionis uestigia
ingeniti erroris deuio praeteribat. Igitur ut a paternis uitiis
prudenter desciuit, ita auitis uirtutibus feliciter respondit,
remotiorem pariter ac praestantiorem hereditarii moris portionem
amplexus. Huius adolescentia inter paternos uenatores immanis beluae
subactione insignis extitit, mirandoque rei euentu futurae eius
fortitudinis habitum ominata est. Nam cum a tutoribus forte, quorum
summo studio educabatur, inspectandae uenationis licentiam impetrasset,
obuium sibi insolitae granditatis ursum, telo uacuus, cingulo, cuius
usum habebat, religandum curauit, necandumque comitibus praebuit. Sed
et complures spectatae fortitudinis pugiles per idem tempus uiritim ab
eo superati produntur, e quibus Attalus et Scatus clari illustresque
fuere. Quindecim annos natus, inusitato corporis incremento
perfectissimum humani roboris specimen praeferebat, tantaque indolis
eius experimenta fuere, ut ab ipso ceteri Danorum reges communi quodam
uocabulo Skioldungi nuncuparentur....
Saxo then relates the adventures of Gram, Hadingus and Frotho, whom he
represents as respectively son, grandson and great-grandson of Skioldus.
That Gram and Hadingus are interpolated in the family is shewn by the fact
that the pedigree of Sweyn Aageson passes direct from Skiold to his son
Frothi.
Saxo, Book II, ed. Ascensius, fol. xi b; ed. Holder, p. 38, l. 4.
Hadingo filius Frotho succedit, cuius uarii insignesque casus fuere.
Pubertatis annos emensus, iuuenilium praeferebat complementa uirtutum,
quas ne desidiae corrumpendas praeberet, abstractum uoluptatibus animum
assidua armorum intentione torquebat. Qui cum, paterno thesauro
bellicis operibus absumpto, stipendiorum facultatem, qua militem
aleret, non haberet, attentiusque necessarii usus subsidia
circunspiceret, tali subeuntis indigenae carmine concitatur:
Insula non longe est praemollibus edita cliuis,
Collibus aera tegens et opimae conscia praedae.
Hic tenet eximium, montis possessor, aceruum
{131}
Implicitus giris serpens crebrisque reflexus
Orbibus, et caudae sinuosa uolumina ducens,
Multiplicesque agitans spiras, uirusque profundens.
Quem superare uolens clypeo, quo conuenit uti,
Taurinas intende cutes, corpusque bouinis
Tergoribus tegito, nec amaro nuda ueneno
Membra patere sinas; sanies, quod conspuit, urit.
Lingua trisulca micans patulo licet ore resultet,
Tristiaque horrifico minitetur uulnera rictu,
Intrepidum mentis habitum retinere memento.
Nec te permoueat spinosi dentis acumen,
Nec rigor, aut rapida iactatum fauce uenenum.
Tela licet temnat uis squamea, uentre sub imo
Esse locum scito, quo ferrum mergere fas est;
Hunc mucrone petens medium rimaberis anguem.
Hinc montem securus adi, pressoque ligone
Perfossos scrutare cauos; mox aere crumenas
Imbue, completamque reduc ad littora puppim.
Credulus Frotho solitarius in insulam traiicit: ne comitatior beluam
adoriretur, quam athletas aggredi moris fuerat. Quae cum aquis pota
specum repeteret, impactum Frothonis ferrum aspero cutis horrore
contempsit. Sed et spicula, quae in eam coniecta fuerant, eluso
mittentis conatu laesionis irrita resultabant. At ubi nil tergi duritia
cessit, uentris curiosius annotati mollities ferro patuit. Quae se
morsu ulcisci cupiens, clypeo duntaxat spinosum oris acumen impegit.
Crebris deinde linguam micatibus ducens, uitam pariter ac uirus
efflauit.
Repertae pecuniae regem locupletem fecere....
Saxo, Book II, ed. Ascensius, fol. xv b; ed. Holder, p. 51, l. 4.
His, uirtute paribus, aequa regnandi incessit auiditas. Imperii cuique
cura extitit; fraternus nullum respectus astrinxit. Quem enim nimia sui
caritas ceperit, aliena deserit: nee sibi quisquam ambitiose atque
aliis amice consulere potest. Horum maximus Haldanus, Roe et Scato
fratribus interfectis, naturam scelere polluit: regnum parricidio
carpsit. Et ne ullum crudelitatis exemplum omitteret, comprehensos
eorum fautores prius {132} uinculorum poena coercuit, mox suspendio
consumpsit. Cuius ex eo maxime fortuna ammirabilis fuit, quod, licet
omnia temporum momenta ad exercenda atrocitatis officia contulisset,
senectute uitam, non ferro, finierit.
Huius filii Roe et Helgo fuere. A Roe Roskildia condita memoratur: quam
postmodum Sueno, furcatae barbae cognomento clarus, ciuibus auxit,
amplitudine propagauit. Hic breui angustoque corpore fuit: Helgonem
habitus procerior cepit. Qui, diuiso cum fratre regno, maris
possessionem sortitus, regem Sclauiae Scalcum maritimis copiis
lacessitum oppressit. Quam cum in prouinciam redegisset, uarios pelagi
recessus uago nauigationis genere perlustrabat.
Saxo, Book II, ed. Ascensius, fol. xvi a; ed. Holder, p. 53, l. 16.
Huic filius Roluo succedit, uir corporis animique dotibus uenustus, qui
staturae magnitudinem pari uirtutis habitu commendaret.
_Ibid._, ed. Ascensius, fol. xvii a; ed. Holder, p. 55, l. 40.
Per idem tempus Agnerus quidam, Ingelli films, sororem Roluonis, Rutam
nomine, matrimonio ducturus, ingenti conuiuio nuptias instruit. In quo
cum pugiles, omni petulantiae genere debacchantes, in Ialtonem quendam
nodosa passim ossa coniicerent, accidit, ut eius consessor, Biarco
nomine, iacientis errore uehementem capite ictum exciperet. Qui dolore
pariter ac ludibrio lacessitus, osse inuicem in iacientem remisso,
frontem eius in occuput reflexit, idemque loco frontis intorsit,
transuersum hominis animum uultus obliquitate mulctando. Ea res
contumeliosam ioci insolentiam temperauit, pugilesque regia abire
coegit. Qua conuiuii iniuria permotus, sponsus ferro cum Biarcone
decernere statuit, uiolatae hilaritatis ultionem duelii nomine
quaesiturus. In cuius ingressu, utri prior feriendi copia deberetur
diutule certatum est. Non enim antiquitus in edendis agonibus crebrae
ictuum uicissitudines petebantur: sed erat cum interuallo temporis
etiam feriendi distincta successio; rarisque sed atrocibus plagis
certamina gerebantur, ut gloria potius percussionum magnitudini, quam
numero deferretur. Praelato ob generis dignitatem Agnero, tanta ui
ictum ab eo editum {133} constat, ut, prima cassidis parte conscissa,
supremam capitis cuticulam uulneraret, ferrumque mediis galeae
interclusum foraminibus dimitteret. Tunc Biarco mutuo percussurus, quo
plenius ferrum libraret, pedem trunco annixus, medium Agneri corpus
praestantis acuminis mucrone transegit. Sunt qui asserant, morientem
Agnerum soluto in risum ore per summam doloris dissimulationem spiritum
reddidisse. Cuius ultionem pugiles auidius expetentes, simili per
Biarconem exitio mulctati sunt. Utebatur quippe praestantis acuminis
inusitataeque longitudinis gladio, quem Loeui uocabat. Talibus operum
meritis exultanti nouam de se siluestris fera uictoriam praebuit. Ursum
quippe eximiae magnitudinis obuium sibi inter dumeta factum iaculo
confecit: comitemque suum Ialtonem, quo uiribus maior euaderet,
applicato ore egestum belluae cruorem haurire iussit. Creditum namque
erat, hoc potionis genere corporei roboris incrementa praestari. His
facinorum uirtutibus clarissimas optimatum familiaritates adeptus,
etiam regi percarus euasit; sororem eius Rutam uxorem asciuit, uictique
sponsam uictoriae praemium habuit. Ab Atislo lacessiti Roluonis
ultionem armis exegit, eumque uictum hello prostrauit. Tunc Roluo magni
acuminis iuuenem Hiarthwarum nomine, sorore Sculda sibi in matrimonium
data, annuoque uectigali imposito, Suetiae praefectum constituit,
libertatis iacturam affinitatis beneficio leniturus.
Hoc loci quiddam memoratu iucundum operi inseratur. Adolescens quidam
Wiggo nomine, corpoream Roluonis magnitudinem attentiori contemplatione
scrutatus, ingentique eiusdem admiratione captus, percontari per
ludibrium coepit, quisnam esset iste Krage, quem tanto staturae
fastigio prodiga rerum natura ditasset; faceto cauillationis genere
inusitatum proceritatis habitum prosecutus. Dicitur enim lingua Danica
'krage' truncus, cuius semicaesis ramis fastigia conscenduntur, ita ut
pes, praecisorum stipitum obsequio perinde ac scalae beneficio nixus,
sensimque ad superiora prouectus, petitae celsitudinis compendium
assequatur. Quern uocis iactum Roluo perinde ac inclytum sibi cognomen
amplexus, urbanitatem dicti ingentis armillae dono prosequitur. Qua
Wiggo dexteram excultam extollens, laeua per pudoris simulationem post
tergum {134} reflexa, ridiculum corporis incessum praebuit, praefatus,
exiguo laetari munere, quem sors diutinae tenuisset inopiae. Rogatus,
cur ita se gereret, inopem ornamenti manum nulloque cultus beneficio
gloriantem ad aspectum reliquae uerecundo paupertatis rubore perfundi
dicebat. Cuius dicti calliditate consentaneum priori munus obtinuit.
Siquidem Roluo manum, quae ab ipso occultabatur, exemplo reliquae in
medium accersendam curauit. Nec Wiggoni rependendi beneficii cura
defuit. Siquidem arctissima uoti nuncupatione pollicitus est, si
Roluonem ferro perire contingeret, ultionem se ab eius interfectoribus
exacturum. Nec praetereundum, quod olim ingressuri curiam proceres
famulatus sui principia alicuius magnae rei uoto principibus obligare
solebant, uirtute tirocinium auspicantes.
Interea Sculda, tributariae solutionis pudore permota, diris animum
commentis applicans, maritum, exprobrata condicionis deformitate,
propulsandae seruitutis monitu concitatum atque ad insidias Roluoni
nectendas perductum atrocissimis nouarum rerum consiliis imbuit, plus
unumquenque libertati quam necessitudini debere testata. Igitur crebras
armorum massas, diuersi generis tegminibus obuolutas, tributi more per
Hiarthwarum in Daniam perferri iubet, occidendi noctu regis materiam
praebituras. Refertis itaque falsa uectigalium mole nauigiis, Lethram
pergitur, quod oppidum, a Roluone constructum eximiisque regni opibus
illustratum, ceteris confinium prouinciarum urbibus regiae fundationis
et sedis auctoritate praestabat. Rex aduentum Hiarthwari conuiualis
impensae deliciis prosecutus ingenti se potione proluerat, hospitibus
praeter morem ebrietatis intemperantiam formidantibus. Ceteris igitur
altiorem carpentibus somnum, Sueones, quibus scelesti libido propositi
communem quietis usum ademerat, cubiculis furtim delabi coepere.
Aperitur ilico telorum occlusa congeries, et sua sibi quisque tacitus
arma connectit. Deinde regiam petunt, irruptisque penetralibus in
dormientium corpora ferrum destringunt. Experrecti complures, quibus
non minus subitae cladis horror quam somni stupor incesserat, dubio
nisu discrimini restitere, socii an hostes occurrerent, noctis errore
incertum reddente. Eiusdem forte silentio noctis Hialto, qui {135}
inter regios proceres spectatae probitatis merito praeeminebat, rus
egressus, scorti se complexibus dederat. Hic cum obortum pugnae
fragorem stupida procul aure sensisset, fortitudinem luxuriae
praetulit, maluitque funestum Martis discrimen appetere, quam blandis
Veneris illecebris indulgere. Quanta hunc militem regis caritate
flagrasse putemus, qui, cum ignorantiae simulatione excusationem
absentiae praestare posset, salutem suam manifesto periculo obicere,
quam uoluptati seruare satius existimauit? Discedentem pellex
percunctari coepit, si ipso careat, cuius aetatis uiro nubere debeat.
Quam Hialto, perinde ac secretius allocuturus, propius accedere iussam,
indignatus amoris sibi successorem requiri, praeciso naso deformem
reddidit, erubescendoque uulnere libidinosae percunctationis dictum
mulctauit, mentis lasciuiam oris iactura temperandam existimans. Quo
facto, liberum quaesitae rei iudicium a se ei relinqui dixit. Post
haec, repetito ocius oppido, confertissimis se globis immergit,
aduersasque acies mutua uulnerum inflictione prosternit. Cumque
dormientis adhuc Biarconis cubiculum praeteriret, expergisci iussum,
tali uoce compellat:
Saxo's translation of the _Bjarkam['a]l_ follows. The part which concerns
students of _Beowulf_ most is the account of how Roluo deposed and slew
Roericus.
Saxo, Book II, ed. Ascensius, fol. xix a; ed. Holder, p. 62, l. 1.
At nos, qui regem uoto meliore ueremur,
Iungamus cuneos stabiles, tutisque phalangem
Ordinibus mensi, qua rex praecepit, eamus
Qui natum Boeki Roericum strauit auari,
Implicuitque uirum leto uirtute carentem.
Ille quidem praestans opibus, habituque fruendi
Pauper erat, probitate minus quam foenore pollens;
Aurum militia potius ratus, omnia lucro
Posthabuit, laudisque carens congessit aceruos
Aeris, et ingenuis uti contempsit amicis.
Cumque lacessitus Roluonis classe fuisset,
Egestum cistis aurum deferre ministros
Iussit, et in primas urbis diffundere portas.
{136}
Dona magis quam bella parans, quia militis expers
Munere, non armis, tentandum credidit hostem;
Tanquam opibus solis bellum gesturus, et usu
Rerum, non hominum, Martem producere posset.
Ergo graues loculos et ditia claustra resoluit
Armillas teretes et onustas protulit arcas,
Exitii fomenta sui, ditissimus aeris,
Bellatoris inops, hostique adimenda relinquens
Pignora, quae patriis praebere pepercit amicis.
Annellos ultro metuens dare, maxima nolens
Pondera fudit opum, ueteris populator acerui.
Rex tamen hunc prudens, oblataque munera spreuit,
Rem pariter uitamque adimens; nec profuit hosti
Census iners, quem longo auidus cumulauerat aeuo.
Hunc pius inuasit Roluo, summasque perempti
Cepit opes, inter dignos partitus amicos,
Quicquid auara manus tantis congesserat annis;
Irrumpensque opulenta magis quam fortia castra,
Praebuit eximiam sociis sine sanguine praedam.
Cui nil tam pulchrum fuit, ut non funderet illud,
Aut carum, quod non sociis daret, aera fauillis
Assimulans, famaque annos, non foenore mensus.
Unde liquet, regem claro iam funere functum
Praeclaros egisse dies, speciosaque fati
Tempora, praeteritos decorasse uiriliter annos.
Nam uirtute ardens, dum uiueret, omnia uicit,
Egregio dignas sortitus corpore uires.
Tam praeceps in bella fuit, quam concitus amnis
In mare decurrit, pugnamque capessere promptus
Ut ceruus rapidum bifido pede tendere cursum.
Saxo, Book II, ed. Ascensius, fol. xxi a; ed. Holder, p. 67, l. 1.
Hanc maxime exhortationum seriem idcirco metrica ratione compegerim,
quod earundem sententiarum intellectus Danici cuiusdam carminis
compendio digestus a compluribus antiquitatis peritis memoriter
usurpatur.
Contigit autem, potitis uictoria Gothis, omne Roluonis {137} agmen
occumbere, neminemque, excepto Wiggone, ex tanta iuuentute residuum
fore. Tantum enim excellentissimis regis meritis ea pugna a militibus
tributum est, ut ipsius caedes omnibus oppetendae mortis cupiditatem
ingeneraret, eique morte iungi uita iucundius duceretur.
Laetus Hiartuarus prandendi gratia positis mensis conuiuium pugnae
succedere iubet, uictoriam epulis prosecuturus. Quibus oneratus magnae
sibi ammirationi esse dixit, quod ex tanta Roluonis militia nemo, qui
saluti fuga aut captione consuleret, repertus fuisset. Unde liquidum
fuisse quanto fidei studio regis sui caritatem coluerint, cui
superstites esse passi non fuerint. Fortunam quoque, quod sibi ne unius
quidem eorum obsequium superesse permiserit, causabatur, quam
libentissime se talium uirorum famulatu usurum testatus. Oblato Wiggone
perinde ac munere gratulatus, an sibi militare uellet, perquirit.
Annuenti destrictum gladium offert. Ille cuspidem refutans, capulum
petit, hunc morem Roluoni in porrigendo militibus ense extitisse
praefatus. Olim namque se regum clientelae daturi, tacto gladii capulo
obsequium polliceri solebant. Quo pacto Wiggo capulum complexus,
cuspidem per Hiartuarum agit, ultionis compos, cuius Roluoni
ministerium pollicitus fuerat. Quo facto, ouans irruentibus in se
Hiartuari militibus cupidius corpus obtulit, plus uoluptatis se ex
tyranni nece quam amaritudinis ex propria sentire uociferans. Ita
conuiuio in exequias uerso, uictoriae gaudium funeris luctus
insequitur. Clarum ac semper memorabilem uirum, qui, uoto fortiter
expleto, mortem sponte complexus suo ministerio mensas tyranni sanguine
maculauit. Neque enim occidentium manus uiuax animi uirtus expauit, cum
prius a se loca, quibus Roluo assueuerat, interfectoris eius cruore
respersa cognosceret. Eadem itaque dies Hiartuari regnum finiuit ac
peperit. Fraudulenter enim quaesitae res eadem sorte defluunt, qua
petuntur, nullusque diuturnus est fructus, qui scelere ac perfidia
partus fuerit. Quo euenit ut Sueones, paulo ante Daniae potitores, ne
suae quidem salutis potientes existerent. Protinus enim a
Syalandensibus deleti laesis Roluonis manibus iusta exsoluere piacula.
Adeo plerunque fortunae saeuitia ulciscitur, quod dolo ac fallacia
patratur.
* * * * *
{138}
B. HR['O]LFS SAGA KRAKA, CAP. 23
(ed. Finnur J['o]nsson, Koebenhavn, 1904, p. 65 ff.)
S['i]dhan f['o]r B[o,]dhvarr leidh s['i]na til Hleidhargardhs. Hann kemr
til konungs atsetu. B[o,]dhvarr leidhir s['i]dhan hest sinn ['a] stall
hj['a] konungs hestum hinum beztu ok spyrr engan at; gekk s['i]dhan inn
['i] h[o,]llina, ok var thar f['a]tt manna. Hann sez utarliga, ok sem hann
hefir verit thar litla hr['i]dh, heyrir hann thrausk n[o,]kkut utar ['i]
hornit ['i] einhverjum stadh. B[o,]dhvarr l['i]tr thangat ok s['e]r, at
mannsh[o,]nd kemr upp ['u]r mikilli beinahr['u]gu, er thar l['a]; h[o,]ndin
var sv[o,]rt mj[o,]k. B[o,]dhvarr gengr thangat til ok spyrr, hverr thar
vaeri ['i] beinahr['u]gunni; th['a] var honum svarat ok heldr ['o]framliga:
"H[o,]ttr heiti ek, Bokki saell." "Hv['i] ertu h['e]r, segir B[o,]dhvarr,
edha hvat gerir th['u]?" H[o,]ttr segir: "ek geri m['e]r skjaldborg, Bokki
saell." B[o,]dhvarr sagdhi: "vesall ertu thinnar skjaldborgar." B[o,]dhvarr
thr['i]fr til hans ok hnykkir honum upp ['u]r beinahr['u]gunni. H[o,]ttr
kvadh th['a] h['a]tt vidh ok maelti: "n['u] viltu m['e]r bana, ger eigi
thetta, sv['a] sem ek hefi n['u] vel um b['u]iz ['a]dhr, en th['u] hefir
n['u] r['o]tat ['i] sundr skjaldborg minni, ok hafdha ek n['u] sv['a] gert
hana h['a]va utan at m['e]r, at h['u]n hefir hl['i]ft m['e]r vidh [o,]llum
h[o,]ggum ykkar, sv['a] _at_ engi h[o,]gg hafa komit ['a] mik lengi, en
ekki var h['u]n enn sv['a] b['u]in, sem ek aetladhi h['u]n skyldi verdha."
B[o,]dhvarr maelti: "ekki muntu f['a] skjaldborgina lengr." H[o,]ttr maelti
ok gr['e]t: "skaltu n['u] bana m['e]r, Bokki saell?" B[o,]dhvarr badh hann
ekki hafa h['a]tt, t['o]k hann upp s['i]dhan ok bar hann ['u]t ['u]r
h[o,]llinni ok til vats n[o,]kkurs, sem thar var ['i] n['a]nd, ok g['a]fu
f['a]ir at thessu gaum, ok th['o] hann upp allan. S['i]dhan gekk
B[o,]dhvarr til thess r['u]ms, sem hann hafdhi ['a]dhr tekit, ok leiddi
eptir s['e]r H[o,]tt ok thar setr hann H[o,]tt hj['a] s['e]r, en hann er
sv['a] hraeddr, at skelfr ['a] honum leggr ok lidhr, en th['o] thykkiz hann
skilja, at thessi madhr vill hj['a]lpa s['e]r. Eptir that kveldar ok
dr['i]fa menn ['i] h[o,]llina ok sj['a] Hr['o]lfs kappar, at H[o,]ttr er
settr ['a] bekk upp, ok thykkir theim s['a] madhr hafa gert sik aerit
djarfan, er thetta hefir til tekit. Ilt tillit hefir H[o,]ttr, th['a] _er_
hann s['e]r kunningja s['i]na, thv['i] _at_ hann hefir ilt eitt af theim
reynt; hann vill lifa gjarnan ok fara aptr ['i] beinahr['u]gu s['i]na, en
B[o,]dhvarr heldr honum, sv['a] _at_ hann n['a]ir ekki ['i] burtu at fara,
thv['i] _at_ hann th['o]ttiz ekki jafnberr fyrir h[o,]ggum theira, ef hann
naedhi thangat {139} at komaz sem hann er n['u]. Hirdhmenn hafa n['u] sama
vanda, ok kasta fyrst beinum sm['a]m um thvert g['o]lfit til B[o,]dhvars ok
Hattar. B[o,]dhvarr laetr, sem hann sj['a]i eigi thetta. H[o,]ttr er sv['a]
hraeddr, at hann tekr eigi mat n['e] drukk, ok thykkir honum th['a] ok
th['a] sem hann muni vera lostinn; ok n['u] maelti H[o,]ttr til
B[o,]dhvars: "Bokki saell, n['u] ferr at th['e]r st['o]r hn['u]ta, ok mun
thetta aetlat okkr til naudha." B[o,]dhvarr badh hann thegja; hann setr
vidh holan l['o]fann ok tekr sv['a] vidh hn['u]tunni; thar fylgir leggrinn
medh; B[o,]dhvarr sendi aptr hn['u]tuna ok setr ['a] thann, sem kastadhi ok
r['e]tt framan ['i] hann medh sv['a] hardhri svipan, at hann fekk bana;
sl['o] th['a] miklum ['o]tta yfir hirdhmennina. Kemr n['u] thessi fregn
fyrir Hr['o]lf konung ok kappa hans upp ['i] kastalann, at madhr
mikil['u]dhligr s['e] kominn til hallarinnar ok hafi drepit einn hirdhmann
hans, ok vildu their l['a]ta drepa manninn. Hr['o]lfr konungr spurdhiz
eptir, hv['a]rt hirdhmadhrinn hefdhi verit saklauss drepinn. "Thv['i] var
naesta," s[o,]gdhu their. K['o]muz th['a] fyrir Hr['o]lf konung [o,]ll
sannindi h['e]r um. Hr['o]lfr konungr sagdhi that skyldu fjarri, at drepa
skyldi manninn--"hafi thit h['e]r illan vanda upp tekit, at berja saklausa
menn beinum; er m['e]r ['i] thv['i] ['o]virdhing, en ydhr st['o]r sk[o,]mm,
at gera sl['i]kt; hefi ek jafnan raett um thetta ['a]dhr, ok hafi thit at
thessu engan gaum gefit, ok hygg ek, at thessi madhr muni ekki alll['i]till
fyrir s['e]r, er th['e]r hafidh n['u] ['a] leitat, ok kallidh hann til
m['i]n, sv['a] _at_ ek viti, hverr hann er." B[o,]dhvarr gengr fyrir konung
ok kvedhr hann kurteisliga. Konunga spyrr hann at nafni. "Hattargridha
kalla mik hirdhmenn ydhar, en B[o,]dhvarr heiti ek." Konungr maelti:
"hverjar baetr viltu bj['o]dha m['e]r fyrir hirdhmann minn?" B[o,]dhvarr
segir: "til thess gerdhi hann, sem hann fekk." Konungr maelti: "viltu vera
minn madhr ok skipa r['u]m hans?" B[o,]dhvarr segir: "ekki neita ek, at
vera ydharr madhr, ok munu vit ekki skiljaz sv['a] b['u]it, vit H[o,]ttr,
ok dveljaz naer th['e]r b['a]dhir, heldr en thessi hefir setit, elligar vit
f[o,]rum burt b['a]dhir." Konungr maelti: "eigi s['e] ek at honum saemd en
ek spara ekki mat vidh hann." B[o,]dhvarr gengr n['u] til thess r['u]ms,
sem honum l['i]kadhi, en ekki vill hann that skipa, sem hinn hafdhi
['a]dhr; hann kippir upp ['i] einhverjum stadh thremr m[o,]nnum, ok
s['i]dhan settuz their H[o,]ttr thar nidhr ok innar ['i] h[o,]llinni en
theim var skipat. Heldr th['o]tti m[o,]nnum ['o]daelt vidh B[o,]dhvar, ok
er theim hinn mesti ['i]hugi at honum. Ok sem leidh at j['o]lum, {140}
gerdhuz menn ['o]k['a]tir. B[o,]dhvarr spyrr H[o,]tt, hverju thetta saetti;
hann segir honum, at d['y]r eitt hafi thar komit tv['a] vetr ['i] samt,
mikit ok ['o]gurligt--"ok hefir vaengi ['a] bakinu ok fl['y]gr that jafnan;
tvau haust hefir that n['u] hingat vitjat ok gert mikinn skadha; ['a] that
b['i]ta ekki v['a]pn, en kappar konungs koma ekki heim, their sem at eru
einna mestir." B[o,]dhvarr maelti: "ekki er h[o,]llin sv['a] vel skipudh,
sem ek aetladhi, ef eitt d['y]r skal h['e]r eydha r['i]ki ok f['e]
konungsins." H[o,]ttr sagdhi: "that er ekki d['y]r, heldr er that hit mesta
tr[o,]ll." N['u] kemr j['o]laaptann; th['a] maelti konungr: "n['u] vil ek,
at menn s['e] kyrrir ok hlj['o]dhir ['i] n['o]tt, ok banna ek [o,]llum
m['i]num m[o,]nnum at ganga ['i] n[o,]kkurn h['a]ska vidh d['y]rit, en
f['e] ferr eptir thv['i] sem audhnar; menn m['i]na vil ek ekki missa."
Allir heita h['e]r g['o]dhu um, at gera eptir thv['i], sem konungr baudh.
B[o,]dhvarr leyndiz ['i] burt um n['o]ttina; hann laetr H[o,]tt fara medh
s['e]r, ok gerir hann that naudhugr ok kalladhi hann s['e]r st['y]rt til
bana. B[o,]dhvarr segir, at betr mundi til takaz. Their ganga ['i] burt
fr['a] h[o,]llinni, ok verdhr B[o,]dhvarr at bera hann; sv['a] er hann
hraeddr. N['u] sj['a] their d['y]rit; ok thv['i] naest aepir H[o,]ttr
sl['i]kt, sem hann m['a], ok kvadh dyrit mundu gleypa hann. B[o,]dhvarr
badh bikkjuna hans thegja ok kastar honum nidhr ['i] mosann, ok thar liggr
hann ok eigi medh [o,]llu ['o]hraeddr; eigi thorir hann heim at fara heldr.
N['u] gengr B[o,]dhvarr m['o]ti d['y]rinu; that haefir honum, at sverdhit
er fast ['i] umgj[o,]rdhinni, er hann vildi bregdha thv['i]. B[o,]dhvarr
eggjar n['u] fast sverdhit ok th['a] bragdhar ['i] umgj[o,]rdhinni, ok
n['u] faer hann brugdhit umgj[o,]rdhinni, sv['a] _at_ sverdhit gengr ['u]r
sl['i]dhrunum, ok leggr thegar undir baegi d['y]rsins ok sv['a] fast, at
st['o]dh ['i] hjartanu, ok datt th['a] d['y]rit til jardhar dautt nidhr.
Eptir that ferr hann thangat sem H[o,]ttr liggr. B[o,]dhvarr tekr hann upp
ok berr thangat, sem d['y]rit liggr dautt. H[o,]ttr skelfr ['a]kaft.
B[o,]dhvarr maelti: "n['u] skaltu drekka bl['o]dh d['y]rsins." Hann er
lengi tregr, en th['o] thorir hann v['i]st eigi annat. B[o,]dhvarr laetr
hann drekka tv['a], sopa st['o]ra; hann l['e]t hann ok eta n[o,]kkut af
d['y]rshjartanu; eptir thetta tekr B[o,]dhvarr til hans, ok ['a]ttuz their
vidh lengi. B[o,]dhvarr maelti: "helzt ertu n['u] sterkr ordhinn, ok ekki
vaenti ek, et th['u] hraedhiz n['u] hirdhmenn Hr['o]lfs konungs." H[o,]ttr
sagdhi: "eigi mun ek th['a] hraedhaz ok eigi thik upp fr['a] thessu." "Vel
er th['a] ordhit, H[o,]ttr f['e]lagi; f[o,]ru vit n['u] til ok reisum upp
d['y]rit ok b['u]um sv['a] um, at adhrir aetli at kvikt muni vera." {141}
Their gera n['u] sv['a]. Eptir that fara their heim ok hafa kyrt um sik, ok
veit engi madhr, hvat their hafa idhjat. Konungr spyrr um morguninn, hvat
their viti til d['y]rsins, hv['a]rt that hafi n[o,]kkut thangat vitjat um
n['o]ttina; honum var sagt, at f['e] alt vaeri heilt ['i] grindum ok
['o]sakat. Konungr badh menn forvitnaz, hv['a]rt engi saei l['i]kindi til,
at that hefdhi heim komit. Vardhmenn gerdhu sv['a] ok k['o]mu skj['o]tt
aptr ok s[o,]gdhu konungi, at d['y]rit faeri thar ok heldr geyst at
borginni. Konungr badh hirdhmenn vera hrausta ok duga n['u] hvern eptir
thv['i], sem hann hefdhi hug til, ok r['a]dha af ['o]vaett thenna; ok
sv['a] var gert, sem konungr baudh, at their bjuggu sik til thess. Konungr
horfdhi ['a] d['y]rit ok maelti s['i]dhan: "enga s['e] ek f[o,]r ['a]
d['y]rinu, en hverr vill n['u] taka kaup einn ok ganga ['i] m['o]ti
thv['i]?" B[o,]dhvarr maelti: "that vaeri naesta hrausts manns
forvitnisb['o]t. H[o,]ttr f['e]lagi, rektu n['u] af th['e]r illmaelit that,
at menn l['a]ta, sem engi krellr n['e] dugr muni ['i] ther vera; far n['u]
ok drep th['u] d['y]rit; m['a]ttu sj['a], at engi er allf['u]ss til
annarra." "J['a]," sagdhi H[o,]ttr, "ek mun til thessa r['a]dhaz." Konungr
maelti: "ekki veit ek, hvadhan thessi hreysti er at th['e]r komin,
H[o,]ttr, ok mikit hefir um thik skipaz ['a] skammri stundu." H[o,]ttr
maelti: "gef m['e]r til sverdhit Gullinhjalta, er th['u] heldr ['a], ok
skal ek th['a] fella d['y]rit edha f['a] bana." Hr['o]lf konungr maelti:
"thetta sverdh er ekki beranda nema theim manni, sem baedhi er g['o]dhr
drengr ok hraustr." H[o,]ttr sagdhi: "sv['a] skaltu til aetla, at m['e]r
s['e] sv['a] h['a]ttat." Konungr maelti: "hvat m['a] vita, nema fleira hafi
skipz um hagi th['i]na, en sj['a] thykkir, en faestir menn thykkjaz thik
kenna, at th['u] s['e]r enn sami madhr; n['u] tak vidh sverdhinu ok nj['o]t
manna bezt, ef thetta er til unnit." S['i]dhan gengr H[o,]ttr at d['y]rinu
alldjarfliga ok hoeggr til thess, th['a] _er_ hann kemr ['i] h[o,]ggfaeri,
ok d['y]rit fellr nidhr dautt. B[o,]dhvarr maelti: "sj['a]idh n['u], herra,
hvat hann hefir til unnit." Konungr segir: "v['i]st hefir hann mikit
skipaz, en ekki hefir H[o,]ttr einn d['y]rit drepit, heldr hefir th['u]
that gert." B[o,]dhvarr segir: "vera m['a], at sv['a] s['e]." Konungr
segir: "vissa ek, th['a] _er_ th['u] komt h['e]r, at f['a]ir mundu
th['i]nir jafningjar vera, en that thykki m['e]r th['o] thitt verk
fraegiligast, at th['u] hefir gert h['e]r annan kappa, thar _er_ H[o,]ttr
er, ok ['o]vaenligr th['o]tti til mikillar giptu; ok n['u] vil ek _at_ hann
heiti eigi H[o,]ttr lengr ok skal hann heita Hjalti upp fr['a] thessu;
skaltu heita eptir sverdhinu Gullinhjalta." {142}
Then Bothvar went on his way to Leire, and came to the king's dwelling.
Bothvar stabled his horse by the king's best horses, without asking leave;
and then he went into the hall, and there were few men there. He took a
seat near the door, and when he had been there a little time he heard a
rummaging in a corner. Bothvar looked that way and saw that a man's hand
came up out of a great heap of bones which lay there, and the hand was very
black. Bothvar went thither and asked who was there in the heap of bones.
Then an answer came, in a very weak voice, "Hott is my name, good fellow."
"Why art thou here?" said Bothvar, "and what art thou doing?"
Hott said, "I am making a shield-wall for myself, good fellow."
Bothvar said, "Out on thee and thy shield-wall!" and gripped him and jerked
him up out of the heap of bones.
Then Hott cried out and said, "Now thou wilt be the death of me: do not do
so. I had made it all so snug, and now thou hast scattered in pieces my
shield-wall; and I had built it so high all round myself that it has
protected me against all your blows, so that for long no blows have come
upon me, and yet it was not so arranged as I meant it should be."
Then Bothvar said, "Thou wilt not build thy shield-wall any longer."
Hott said, weeping, "Wilt thou be the death of me, good fellow?" Bothvar
told him not to make a noise, and then took him up and bore him out of the
hall to some water which was close by, and washed him from head to foot.
Few paid any heed to this.
Then Bothvar went to the place which he had taken before, and led Hott with
him, and set Hott by his side. But Hott was so afraid that he was trembling
in every limb, and yet he seemed to know that this man would help him.
After that it grew to evening, and men crowded into the hall: and Rolf's
warriors saw that Hott was seated upon the bench. And it seemed to them
that the man must be bold {143} enough, who had taken upon himself to put
him there. Hott had an ill countenance when he saw his acquaintances, for
he had received naught but evil from them. He wished to save his life and
go back to his bone-heap, but Bothvar held him tightly so that he could not
go away. For Hott thought that, if he could get back into his bone-heap, he
would not be as much exposed to their blows as he was.
Now the retainers did as before; and first of all they tossed small bones
across the floor towards Bothvar and Hott. Bothvar pretended not to see
this. Hott was so afraid that he neither ate nor drank; and every moment he
thought he would be smitten.
And now Hott said to Bothvar, "Good fellow, now a great knuckle bone is
coming towards thee, aimed so as to do us sore injury." Bothvar told him to
hold his tongue, and put up the hollow of his palm against the knuckle bone
and caught it, and the leg bone was joined on to the knuckle bone. Then
Bothvar sent the knuckle bone back, and hurled it straight at the man who
had thrown it, with such a swift blow that it was the death of him. Then
great fear came over the retainers.
Now news came to King Rolf and his men up in the castle that a stately man
had come to the hall and killed a retainer, and that the retainers wished
to kill the man. King Rolf asked whether the retainer who had been killed
had given any offence. "Next to none," they said: then all the truth of the
matter came up before King Rolf.
King Rolf said that it should be far from them to kill the man: "You have
taken up an evil custom here in pelting men with bones without quarrel. It
is a dishonour to me and a great shame to you to do so. I have spoken about
it before, and you have paid no attention. I think that this man whom you
have assailed must be a man of no small valour. Call him to me, so that I
may know who he is."
Bothvar went before the king and greeted him courteously. The king asked
him his name. "Your retainers call me Hott's protector, but my name is
Bothvar."
The king said, "What compensation wilt thou offer me for my retainer?"
{144}
Bothvar said, "He only got what he asked for."
The king said, "Wilt thou become my man and fill his place?"
Bothvar said, "I do not refuse to be your man, but Hott and I must not part
so. And we must sit nearer to thee than this man whom I have slain has sat;
otherwise we will both depart together." The king said, "I do not see much
credit in Hott, but I will not grudge him meat." Then Bothvar went to the
seat that seemed good to him, and would not fill that which the other had
before. He pulled up three men in one place, and then he and Hott sat down
there higher in the hall than the place which had been given to them. The
men thought Bothvar overbearing, and there was the greatest ill will among
them concerning him.
And when it drew near to Christmas, men became gloomy. Bothvar asked Hott
the reason of this. Hott said to him that for two winters together a wild
beast had come, great and awful, "And it has wings on its back, and flies.
For two autumns it has attacked us here and done much damage. No weapon
will wound it: and the champions of the king, those who are the greatest,
come not back."
Bothvar said, "This hall is not so well arrayed as I thought, if one beast
can lay waste the kingdom and the cattle of the king." Hott said, "It is no
beast: it is the greatest troll."
Now Christmas-eve came; then said the king, "Now my will is that men
to-night be still and quiet, and I forbid all my men to run into any peril
with this beast. It must be with the cattle as fate will have it: but I do
not wish to lose my men." All men promised to do as the king commanded. But
Bothvar went out in secret that night; he caused Hott to go with him, but
Hott did that only under compulsion, and said that it would be the death of
him. Bothvar said that he hoped that it would be better than that. They
went away from the hall, and Bothvar had to carry Hott, so frightened was
he. Now they saw the beast; and thereupon Hott cried out as loud as he
could, and said that the beast would swallow him. Bothvar said, "Be silent,
thou dog," and threw him down in the mire. And there he lay in no small
fear; but he did not dare to go home, any the more. {145}
Now Bothvar went against the beast, and it happened that his sword was fast
in his sheath when he wished to draw it. Bothvar now tugged at his sword,
it moved, he wrenched the scabbard so that the sword came out. And at once
he plunged it into the beast's shoulder so mightily that it pierced him to
the heart, and the beast fell down dead to the earth. After that Bothvar
went where Hott lay. Bothvar took him up and bore him to where the beast
lay dead. Hott was trembling all over. Bothvar said, "Now must thou drink
the blood of the beast." For long Hott was unwilling, and yet he did not
dare to do anything else. Bothvar made him drink two great sups; also he
made him eat somewhat of the heart of the beast.
After that Bothvar turned to Hott, and they fought a long time.
Bothvar said, "Thou hast now become very strong, and I do not believe that
thou wilt now fear the retainers of King Rolf."
Hott said, "I shall not fear them, nor thee either, from now on."
"That is good, fellow Hott. Let us now go and raise up the beast, and so
array him that others may think that he is still alive." And they did so.
After that they went home, and were quiet, and no man knew what they had
achieved.
In the morning the king asked what news there was of the beast, and whether
it had made any attack upon them in the night. And answer was made to the
king, that all the cattle were safe and uninjured in their folds. The king
bade his men examine whether any trace could be seen of the beast having
visited them. The watchers did so, and came quickly back to the king with
the news that the beast was making for the castle, and in great fury. The
king bade his retainers be brave, and each play the man according as he had
spirit, and do away with this monster. And they did as the king bade, and
made them ready.
Then the king faced towards the beast and said, "I see no sign of movement
in the beast. Who now will undertake to go against it?"
Bothvar said, "That would be an enterprise for a man of true valour. Fellow
Hott, now clear thyself of that ill-repute, {146} in that men hold that
there is no spirit or valour in thee. Go now and do thou kill the beast;
thou canst see that there is no one else who is forward to do it."
"Yea," said Hott, "I will undertake this."
The king said, "I do not know whence this valour has come upon thee, Hott;
and much has changed in thee in a short time."
Hott said, "Give me the sword Goldenboss, Gullinhjalti, which thou dost
wield, and I will fell the beast or take my death." Rolf the king said,
"That sword cannot be borne except by a man who is both a good warrior and
valiant." Hott said, "So shalt thou ween that I am a man of that kind." The
king said, "How can one know that more has not changed in thy temper than
can be seen? Few men would know thee for the same man. Now take the sword
and have joy of it, if this deed is accomplished." Then Hott went boldly to
the beast and smote at it when he came within reach, and the beast fell
down dead. Bothvar said, "See now, my lord, what he has achieved." The king
said, "Verily, he has altered much, but Hott has not killed the beast
alone, rather hast thou done it." Bothvar said, "It may be that it is so."
The king said, "I knew when thou didst come here that few would be thine
equals. But this seems to me nevertheless thy most honourable work, that
thou hast made here another warrior of Hott, who did not seem shaped for
much luck. And now I will that he shall be called no longer Hott, but
Hjalti from this time; thou shalt be called after the sword Gullinhjalti
(Goldenboss)."
* * * * *
C. EXTRACTS FROM GRETTIS SAGA
(ed. G. Magn['u]sson, 1853; R. C. Boer, 1900)
(_a_) _Glam episode_ (caps. 32-35)
Th['o]rhallr h['e]t madhr, er bj['o] ['a] Th['o]rhallsst[o,]dhum ['i]
Forsaeludal. Forsaeludalr er upp af Vatnsdal. Th['o]rhallr var Gr['i]msson,
Th['o]rhallssonar, Fridhmundarsonar, er nam Forsaeludal. Th['o]rhallr
['a]tti th['a] konu, er Gudhr['u]n h['e]t. Gr['i]mr h['e]t sonr theira, en
Thur['i]dhr d['o]ttir; thau v['a]ru vel ['a] legg komin. Th['o]rhallr var
vel audhigr {147} madhr, ok mest at kvikf['e], sv['a] at engi madhr ['a]tti
jafnmart ganganda f['e], sem hann. Ekki var hann h[o,]fdhingi, en th['o]
skilr['i]kr b['o]nd['i]. Thar var reimt mj[o,]k, ok fekk hann varla
saudhamann, sv['a] at honum thoetti duga. Hann leitadhi r['a]dhs vidh marga
vitra menn, hvat hann skyldi til bragdhs taka; en engi gat that r['a]dh til
gefit, er dygdhi. Th['o]rhallr reidh til things hvert sumar. Hann ['a]tti
hesta g['o]dha. That var eitt sumar ['a] althingi, at Th['o]rhallr gekk til
b['u]dhar Skapta l[o,]gmanns, Th['o]roddssonar. Skapti var manna vitrastr,
ok heilr['a]dhr, ef hann var beiddr. That skildi medh theim fedhgum:
Th['o]roddr var forsp['a]r ok kalladhr undirhyggjumadhr af sumum m[o,]nnum,
en Skapti lagdhi that til medh hverjum manni, sem hann aetladhi at duga
skyldi, ef eigi vaeri af thv['i] brugdhit; thv['i] var hann kalladhr
betrfedhrungr. Th['o]rhallr gekk ['i] b['u]dh Skapta; hann fagnadhi vel
Th['o]rhalli, thv['i] hann vissi, at hann var r['i]kr madhr at f['e], ok
spurdhi hvat at t['i]dhendum vaeri.
Th['o]rhallr maelti: "Heilraedhi vilda ek af ydhr thiggja."
"['I] litlum foerum em ek til thess," sagdhi Skapti; "edha hvat stendr
thik?"
Th['o]rhallr maelti: "That er sv['a] h['a]ttat, at m['e]r helz l['i]tt ['a]
saudham[o,]nnum. Verdhr theim heldr klakks['a]rt, en sumir gera engar
lyktir ['a]. Vill n['u] engi til taka, s['a] er kunnigt er til, hvat fyrir
b['y]r."
Skapti svarar: "Thar mun liggja meinvaettr n[o,]kkur, er menn eru tregari
til at geyma s['i]dhr th['i]ns fj['a]r en annarra manna. N['u] fyrir
thv['i], at th['u] hefir at m['e]r r['a]dh s['o]tt, th['a] skal ek f['a]
th['e]r saudhamann, thann er Gl['a]mr heitir, aettadhr ['o]r
Sv['i]thj['o]dh, ['o]r Sylgsd[o,]lum, er ['u]t kom ['i] fyrra sumar, mikill
ok sterkr, ok ekki mj[o,]k vidh alth['y]dhu skap."
Th['o]rhallr kvaz ekki um that gefa, ef hann geymdi vel fj['a]rins; Skapti
sagdhi [o,]dhrum eigi vaent horfa, ef hann geymdi eigi fyrir afls sakir ok
['a]raedhis; Th['o]rhallr gekk th['a] ['u]t. Thetta var at thinglausnum.
Th['o]rhalli var vant hesta tveggja lj['o]sbleikra, ok f['o]r sj['a]lfr at
leita; af thv['i] thykkjaz menn vita, at hann var ekki mikilmenni. Hann
gekk upp undir Sledh['a]s ok sudhr medh fjalli thv['i], er ['A]rmannsfell
heitir. Th['a] s['a] hann, hvar madhr f['o]r ofan ['o]r Godhask['o]gi ok
bar hr['i]s ['a] hesti. Br['a]tt bar saman fund theira; Th['o]rhallr
spurdhi hann at nafni, en hann kvez Gl['a]mr heita. Thessi madhr {148} var
mikill vexti ok undarligr ['i] yfirbragdhi, bl['a]eygdhr ok opineygdhr,
['u]lfgr['a]r ['a] h['a]rslit. Th['o]rhalli br['a] n[o,]kkut ['i] br['u]n,
er hann s['a] thenna mann; en th['o] skildi hann, at honum mundi til thessa
v['i]sat.
"Hvat er th['e]r bezt hent at vinna?" segir Th['o]rhallr.
Gl['a]mr kvadh s['e]r vel hent at geyma saudhfj['a]r ['a] vetrum.
"Viltu geyma saudhfj['a]r m['i]ns?" segir Th['o]rhallr; "gaf Skapti thik
['a] mitt vald."
"Sv['a] mun th['e]r hentust m['i]n vist, at ek fari sj['a]lfr['a]dhr;
thv['i] ek em skapstyggr, ef m['e]r l['i]kar eigi vel," sagdhi Gl['a]mr.
"Ekki mun m['e]r mein at thv['i]," segir Th['o]rhallr, "ok vil ek, at
th['u] farir til m['i]n."
"Gera m['a] ek that," segir Gl['a]mr; "edha eru thar n[o,]kkur vandhoefi
['a]?"
"Reimt thykkir thar vera," sagdhi Th['o]rhallr.
"Ekki hraedhumz ek flykur thaer," sagdhi Gl['a]mr, "ok thykkir m['e]r at
['o]dauflig[r]a."
"Thess muntu vidh thurfa," segir Th['o]rhallr, "ok hentar thar betr, at
vera eigi alll['i]till fyrir s['e]r."
Eptir that kaupa their saman, ok skal Gl['a]mr koma at vetrn['o]ttum.
Sidhan skildu their, ok fann Th['o]rhallr hesta s['i]na, thar sem hann
hafdhi n['y]leitat. Reidh Th['o]rhallr heim, ok thakkadhi Skapta sinn
velgerning.
Sumar leidh af, ok fr['e]tti Th['o]rhallr ekki til saudhamanns, ok engi
kunni skyn ['a] honum. En at ['a]nefndum t['i]ma kom hann ['a]
Th['o]rhallsstadhi. Tekr b['o]ndi vidh honum vel, en [o,]llum [o,]dhrum gaz
ekki at honum, en h['u]sfreyju th['o] minst. Hann t['o]k vidh
fj['a]rvardhveizlu, ok vardh honum l['i]tit fyrir thv['i]; hann var
hlj['o]dhmikill ok dimmraddadhr, ok f['e]it st[o,]kk allt saman, thegar
hann h['o]adhi. Kirkja var ['a] Th['o]rhallsst[o,]dhum; ekki vildi Gl['a]mr
til hennar koma; hann var ['o]s[o,]ngvinn ok tr['u]lauss, stirfinn ok
vidhskotaillr; [o,]llum var hann hvimleidhr.
N['u] leidh sv['a] thar til er kemr atfangadagr j['o]la. Th['a] st['o]dh
Gl['a]mr snemma upp ok kalladhi til matar s['i]ns.
H['u]sfreyja svarar: "Ekki er that h['a]ttr kristinna manna, at mataz
thenna dag, thv['i]at ['a] morgin er j['o]ladagr hinn fyrsti," segir hon,
"ok er thv['i] fyrst skylt at fasta ['i] dag."
Hann svarar: "Marga hindrvitni hafi th['e]r, th['a] er ek s['e] til enskis
koma. Veit ek eigi, at m[o,]nnum fari n['u] betr at, heldr {149} en th['a],
er menn f['o]ru ekki medh sl['i]kt. Th['o]tti m['e]r th['a] betri sidhr, er
menn v['a]ru heidhnir kalladhir; ok vil ek mat minn en engar refjur."
H['u]sfreyja maelti: "V['i]st veit ek, at th['e]r mun illa faraz ['i] dag,
ef th['u] tekr thetta illbrigdhi til."
Gl['a]mr badh hana taka mat ['i] stadh; kvadh henni annat skyldu vera
verra. Hon thordhi eigi annat, en at gera, sem hann vildi. Ok er hann var
mettr, gekk hann ['u]t, ok var heldr gustillr. Vedhri var sv['a] farit, at
myrkt var um at litaz, ok fl[o,]gradhi ['o]r dr['i]fa, ok gn['y]mikit, ok
versnadhi mj[o,]k sem ['a] leidh daginn. Heyrdhu menn til saudhamanns
[o,]ndverdhan daginn, en midhr er ['a] leidh daginn. T['o]k th['a] at
fj['u]ka, ok gerdhi ['a] hr['i]dh um kveldit; k['o]mu menn til t['i]dha, ok
leidh sv['a] fram at dagsetri; eigi kom Gl['a]mr heim. Var th['a] um talat,
hv['a]rt hans skyldi eigi leita; en fyrir thv['i], at hr['i]dh var ['a] ok
nidhamyrkr, th['a] vardh ekki af leitinni. Kom hann eigi heim
j['o]lan['o]ttina; bidhu menn sv['a] fram um t['i]dhir. At oernum degi
f['o]ru menn ['i] leitina, ok fundu f['e]it v['i]dha ['i] f[o,]nnum, lamit
af ofvidhri edha hlaupit ['a] fj[o,]ll upp. Thv['i]naest k['o]mu their ['a]
tradhk mikinn ofarliga ['i] dalnum. Th['o]tti theim thv['i] l['i]kt, sem
thar hefdhi gl['i]mt verit heldr sterkliga, thv['i]at grj['o]tit var
v['i]dha upp leyst, ok sv['a] j[o,]rdhin. Their hugdhu at vandliga ok
s['a], hvar Gl['a]mr l['a], skamt ['a] brott fr['a] theim. Hann var daudhr,
ok bl['a]r sem Hel, en digr sem naut. Theim baudh af honum ['o]thekt mikla,
ok hraus theim mj[o,]k hugr vidh honum. En th['o] leitudhu their vidh at
foera hann til kirkju, ok g['a]tu ekki komit honum, nema ['a] einn
gilsthr[o,]m thar skamt ofan fr['a] s['e]r; ok f['o]ru heim vidh sv['a]
b['u]it, ok s[o,]gdhu b['o]nda thenna atburdh. Hann spurdhi, hvat Gl['a]mi
mundi hafa at bana ordhit. Their kv['a]dhuz rakit hafa spor sv['a] st['o]r,
sem keraldsbotni vaeri nidhr skelt thadhan fr['a], sem tradhkrinn var, ok
upp undir bj[o,]rg thau, er thar v['a]ru ofarliga ['i] dalnum, ok fylgdhu
thar medh bl['o]dhdrefjar miklar. That dr['o]gu menn saman, at s['u]
meinvaettr, er ['a]dhr hafdhi [thar] verit, mundi hafa deytt Gl['a]m; en
hann mundi fengit hafa henni n[o,]kkurn ['a]verka, thann er tekit hafi til
fulls, thv['i]at vidh th['a] meinvaetti hefir aldri vart ordhit s['i]dhan.
Annan j['o]ladag var enn til farit at foera Gl['a]m til kirkju. V['a]ru
eykir fyrir beittir, ok g['a]tu their hvergi foert hann, thegar
sl['e]ttlendit var ok eigi var forbrekkis at fara. Gengu n['u] fr['a] vidh
sv['a] b['u]it. Hinn thridhja dag f['o]r prestr medh theim, ok leitudhu
allan daginn, {150} ok Gl['a]mr fannz eigi. Eigi vildi prestr optar til
fara; en saudhamadhr fannz, thegar prestr var eigi ['i] ferdh. L['e]tu
their th['a] fyrir vinnaz, at foera hann til kirkju; ok dysjudhu hann thar,
sem th['a] var hann kominn. L['i]tlu s['i]dhar urdhu menn varir vidh that,
at Gl['a]mr l['a] eigi kyrr. Vardh m[o,]nnum at thv['i] mikit mein, sv['a]
at margir fellu ['i] ['o]vit, ef s['a] hann, en sumir heldu eigi vitinu.
Thegar eptir j['o]lin th['o]ttuz menn sj['a] hann heima thar ['a] boenum.
Urdhu menn ['a]kafliga hraeddir; stukku th['a] margir menn ['i] brott.
Thvinaest t['o]k Gl['a]mr at r['i]dha h['u]sum ['a] naetr, sv['a] at l['a]
vidh brotum. Gekk hann th['a] n['a]liga naetr ok daga. Varla thordhu menn
at fara upp ['i] dalinn, th['o]at aetti n['o]g oerendi. Th['o]tti m[o,]nnum
thar ['i] heradhinu mikit mein at thessu.
Um v['a]rit fekk Th['o]rhallr s['e]r hj['o]n ok gerdhi b['u] ['a] j[o,]rdhu
sinni. T['o]k th['a] at minka aptrgangr, medhan s['o]largangr var mestr.
Leidh sv['a] fram ['a] midhsumar. Thetta sumar kom ['u]t skip ['i]
H['u]navatni; thar var ['a] s['a] madhr, er Thorgautr h['e]t. Hann var
['u]tlendr at kyni, mikill ok sterkr; hann hafdhi tveggja manna afl; hann
var lauss ok einn fyrir s['e]r; hann vildi f['a] starfa n[o,]kkurn,
thv['i](at) hann var f['e]lauss. Th['o]rhallr reidh til skips ok fann
Thorgaut; spurdhi ef hann vildi vinna fyrir honum; Thorgautr kvadh that vel
mega vera, ok kvez eigi vanda that.
"Sv['a] skaltu vidh b['u]az," segir Th['o]rhallr, "sem thar s['e] ekki
veslingsm[o,]nnum hent at vera, fyrir aptrg[o,]ngum theim, er thar hafa
verit um hr['i]dh, en ek vil ekki thik ['a] t['a]lar draga."
Thorgautr svarar: "Eigi thykkjumz ek upp gefinn, th['o]at ek sj['a]
sm['a]v['a]fur; mun th['a] eigi [o,]dhrum daelt, ef ek hraedhumz; ok ekki
bregdh ek vist minni fyrir that."
N['u] semr theim vel kaupstefnan, ok skal Thorgautr gaeta saudhfj['a]r at
vetri.
Leidh n['u] af sumarit. T['o]k Thorgautr vidh f['e]nu at vetrn['a]ttum. Vel
l['i]kadhi [o,]llum vidh hann. Jafnan kom Gl['a]mr heim ok reidh h['u]sum.
That th['o]tti Thorgauti allk['a]tligt, ok kvadh, "thraelinn thurfa mundu
naer at ganga, ef ek hraedhumz." Th['o]rhallr badh hann hafa f['a]tt um;
"er bezt, at thit reynidh ekki medh ykkr."
Thorgautr maelti: "Sannliga er skekinn thr['o]ttr ['o]r ydhr; ok dett ek
eigi nidhr milli doegra vidh skraf thetta."
N['u] f['o]r sv['a] fram um vetrinn allt til j['o]la. Atfangakveld j['o]la
f['o]r saudhamadhr til fj['a]r. {151}
Th['a] maelti h['u]sfreyja: "Thurfa thoetti m['e]r, at n['u] foeri eigi at
fornum br[o,]gdhum."
Hann svarar: "Ver eigi hraedd um that, h['u]sfreyja," sagdhi hann; "verdha
mun eitthvert s[o,]guligt, ef ek kem ekki aptr." S['i]dhan gekk hann aptr
til fj['a]r s['i]ns. Vedhr var heldr kalt, ok fj['u]k mikit. Thv['i] var
Thorgautr vanr, at koma heim, th['a] er h['a]lfroekkvat var; en n['u] kom
hann ekki heim ['i] that mund. K['o]mu t['i]dhamenn, sem vant var. That
th['o]tti m[o,]nnum eigi ['o]l['i]kt ['a] horfaz sem fyrr. B['o]ndi vildi
leita l['a]ta eptir saudhamanni, en t['i]dhamenn t[o,]lduz undan, ok
s[o,]gdhuz eigi mundu haetta s['e]r ['u]t ['i] tr[o,]llahendr um naetr; ok
treystiz b['o]ndi eigi at fara, ok vardh ekki af leitinni. J['o]ladag, er
menn v['a]ru mettir, f['o]ru menn til ok leitudhu saudhamanns. Gengu their
fyrst til dysjar Gl['a]ms, thv['i]at menn aetludhu af hans v[o,]ldum mundi
ordhit um hvarf saudhamanns. En er their k['o]mu naer dysinni, s['a]u their
thar mikil t['i]dhendi, ok thar fundu their saudhamann, ok var hann brotinn
['a] h['a]ls, ok lamit sundr hvert bein ['i] honum. S['i]dhan foerdhu their
hann til kirkju, ok vardh engum manni mein at Thorgauti s['i]dhan. En
Gl['a]mr t['o]k at magnaz af n['y]ju. Gerdhi hann n['u] sv['a] mikit af
s['e]r, at menn allir stukku brott af Th['o]rhallsst[o,]dhum, ['u]tan
b['o]ndi einn ok h['u]sfreyja. Nautamadhr hafdhi thar verit lengi hinn
sami. Vildi Th['o]rhallr hann ekki lausan l['a]ta fyrir g['o]dhvilja sakir
ok geymslu. Hann var mj[o,]k vidh aldr, ok th['o]tti honum mikit fyrir, at
fara ['a] brott; s['a] hann ok, at allt f['o]r at ['o]nytju, that er
b['o]ndi ['a]tti, ef engi geymdi. Ok einn t['i]ma eptir midhjan vetr var
that einn morgin, at h['u]sfreyja f['o]r til fj['o]ss, at mj['o]lka k['y]r
eptir t['i]ma. Th['a] var allj['o]st, thv['i]at engi treystiz fyrr ['u]ti
at vera annarr en nautamadhr; hann f['o]r ['u]t, thegar l['y]sti. Hon
heyrdhi brak mikit ['i] fj['o]sit, ok beljan [o,]skurliga; hon hlj['o]p inn
oepandi ok kvaz eigi vita, hver ['o]doemi um vaeri ['i] fj['o]sinu.
B['o]ndi gekk ['u]t ok kom til nautanna, ok stangadhi hvert annat.
Th['o]tti honum thar eigi gott, ok gekk innar at hl[o,]dhunni. Hann s['a],
hvar l['a], nautamadhr, ok hafdhi h[o,]fudhit ['i] [o,]dhrum b['a]si en
foetr ['i] [o,]dhrum; hann l['a] ['a] bak aptr. B['o]ndi gekk at honum ok
threifadhi um hann; finnr br['a]tt, at hann er daudhr ok sundr hryggrinn
['i] honum. Var hann brotinn um b['a]shelluna. N['u] th['o]tti b['o]nda
eigi vaert, ok f['o]r ['i] brott af boenum medh allt that, sem hann
m['a]tti ['i] brott flytja. En allt kvikf['e] that, sem eptir var, deyddi
Gl['a]mr. Ok thvinaest f['o]r {152} hann um allan dalinn ok eyddi alla boei
upp fr['a] Tungu. Var Th['o]rhallr th['a] medh vinum s['i]num that [sem]
eptir var vetrarins. Engi madhr m['a]tti fara upp ['i] dalinn medh hest
edhr hund, thv['i]at that var thegar drepit. En er v['a]radhi, ok
s['o]largangr var sem mestr, l['e]tti heldr aptrg[o,]ngunum. Vildi
Th['o]rhallr n['u] fara aptr til lands s['i]ns. Urdhu honum ekki audhfengin
hj['o]n, en th['o] gerdhi hann b['u] ['a] Th['o]rhallsst[o,]dhum. F['o]r
allt ['a] sama veg sem fyrr; thegar at haustadhi, t['o]ku at vaxa
reimleikar. Var th['a] mest s['o]tt at b['o]ndad['o]ttur; ok sv['a] f['o]r,
at hon l['e]z af thv['i]. Margra r['a]dha var ['i] leitat, ok vardh ekki at
g[o,]rt. Th['o]tti m[o,]nnum til thess horfaz, at eydhaz mundi allr
Vatnsdalr, ef eigi yrdhi boetr ['a] r['a]dhnar.
N['u] er thar til at taka, at Grettir ['A]smundarson sat heima at Bjargi um
haustit, s['i]dhan their V['i]gabardhi skildu ['a] Th['o]reyjargn['u]pi. Ok
er mj[o,]k var komit at vetrn['o]ttum, reidh Grettir heiman nordhr yfir
h['a]lsa til V['i]dhidals, ok gisti ['a] Audhunarst[o,]dhum. Saettuz their
Audhunn til fulls, ok gaf Grettir honum oexi g['o]dha, ok maeltu til
vin['a]ttu medh s['e]r. Audhunn bj['o] lengi ['a] Audhunarst[o,]dhum ok var
kynsaell madhr. Hans sonr var Egill, er ['a]tti ['U]lfheidhi, d['o]ttur
Eyj['o]lfs Gudhmundarsonar, ok var theira sonr Eyj['o]lfr, er veginn var
['a] althingi. Hann var fadhir Orms, kapil['a]ns Thorl['a]ks biskups.
Grettir reidh nordhr til Vatnsdals ok kom ['a] kynnisleit ['i] Tungu. Thar
bj['o] th['a] J[o,]kull B['a]rdharson, m['o]dhurbr['o]dhir Grettis;
J[o,]kull var mikill madhr ok sterkr ok hinn mesti ofsamadhr. Hann var
siglingamadhr, ok mj[o,]k ['o]daell, en th['o] mikilhoefr madhr. Hann
t['o]k vel vidh Gretti, ok var hann thar thrj['a]r naetr. Th['a] var sv['a]
mikit ordh ['a] aptrg[o,]ngum Gl['a]ms, at m[o,]nnum var ekki
jafnt['i]dhroett sem that. Grettir spurdhi inniliga at theim atburdhum, er
h[o,]fdhu ordhit; J[o,]kull kvadh thar ekki meira af sagt en til vaeri
hoeft; "edha er th['e]r forvitni ['a], fraendi! at koma thar?"
Grettir sagdhi, at that var satt.
J[o,]kull badh hann that eigi gera, "thv['i] that er gaefuraun mikil; en
fraendr th['i]nir eiga mikit ['i] haettu, thar sem th['u] ert," sagdhi
hann; "thykkir oss n['u] engi sl['i]kr af ungum m[o,]nnum sem th['u]; en
illt mun af illum hlj['o]ta, thar sem Gl['a]mr er. Er ok miklu betra, at
f['a]z vidh mennska menn en vidh ['o]vaettir sl['i]kar."
Grettir kvadh s['e]r hug ['a], at koma ['a] Th['o]rhallsstadhi, ok sj['a],
hversu thar vaeri um gengit. {153}
J[o,]kull maelti: "S['e] ek n['u], at eigi tj['a]ir at letja thik; en satt
er that sem maelt er, at sitt er hv['a]rt, gaefa edha gervigleikr."
"Th['a] er [o,]dhrum v['a] fyrir dyrum, er [o,]dhrum er inn um komit; ok
hygg at, hversu th['e]r mun fara sj['a]lfum, ['a]dhr l['y]kr," kvadh
Grettir.
J[o,]kull svarar: "Vera kann, at vit sj['a]im b['a]dhir n[o,]kkut fram, en
hv['a]rrgi f['a]i vidh g[o,]rt."
Eptir that skildu their, ok l['i]kadhi hv['a]rigum annars sp['a]r.
Grettir reidh ['a] Th['o]rhallsstadhi, ok fagnadhi b['o]ndi honum vel. Hann
spurdhi, hvert Grettir aetladhi at fara; en hann segiz thar vilja vera um
n['o]ttina, ef b['o]nda l['i]kadhi, at sv['a] vaeri. Th['o]rhallr kvaz
th[o,]kk fyrir kunna, at hann vaeri thar, "en f['a]m thykkir sloegr til at
gista h['e]r um t['i]ma; muntu hafa heyrt getit um, hvat h['e]r er at
vaela. En ek vilda gjarna, at th['u] hlytir engi vandraedhi af m['e]r. En
th['o]at th['u] komiz heill ['a] brott, th['a] veit ek fyrir v['i]st, at
th['u] missir hests th['i]ns; thv['i] engi heldr h['e]r heilum s['i]num
fararskj['o]ta, s['a] er kemr."
Grettir kvadh gott til hesta, hvat sem af thessum yrdhi.
Th['o]rhallr vardh gladhr vidh, er Grettir vildi thar vera, ok t['o]k vidh
honum b['a]dhum h[o,]ndum. Var hestr Grettis laestr ['i] h['u]si sterkliga.
Their f['o]ru til svefns, ok leidh sv['a] af n['o]ttin, at ekki kom
Gl['a]mr heim.
Th['a] maelti Th['o]rhallr: "Vel hefir brugdhit vidh th['i]na kv['a]mu,
thv['i]at hverja n['o]tt er Gl['a]mr vanr at r['i]dha h['u]sum edha
brj['o]ta upp hurdhir, sem th['u] m['a]tt merki sj['a]."
Grettir maelti: "Th['a] mun vera annathv['a]rt, at hann mun ekki lengi ['a]
s['e]r sitja, edha mun af venjaz meirr en eina n['o]tt. Skal ek vera h['e]r
n['o]tt adhra ok sj['a], hversu ferr."
Sidhan gengu their til hests Grettis, ok var ekki vidh hann glez. Allt
th['o]tti b['o]nda at einu fara. N['u] er Grettir thar adhra n['o]tt, ok
kom ekki thraellinn heim. Th['a] th['o]tti b['o]nda mj[o,]k vaenkaz. F['o]r
hann th['a], at sj['a] hest Grettis. Th['a] var upp brotit h['u]sit, er
b['o]ndi kom til, en hestrinn dreginn til dyra ['u]tar, ok lamit ['i] sundr
['i] honum hvert bein.
Th['o]rhallr sagdhi Gretti, hvar th['a] var komit, ok badh hann fordha
s['e]r: "thv['i]at v['i]ss er daudhinn, ef th['u] b['i]dhr Gl['a]ms."
Grettir svarar: "Eigi m['a] ek minna hafa fyrir hest minn, en at sj['a]
thraelinn." {154}
B['o]ndi sagdhi, at that var eigi bati, at sj['a] hann, "thv['i]at hann er
['o]l['i]kr n[o,]kkurri mannligri mynd; en g['o]dh thykki m['e]r hver s['u]
stund, er th['u] vilt h['e]r vera."
N['u] l['i]dhr dagrinn; ok er menn skyldu fara til svefns, vildi Grettir
eigi fara af klaedhum, ok lagdhiz nidhr ['i] setit gegnt lokrekkju
b['o]nda. Hann hafdhi r[o,]ggvarfeld yfir s['e]r, ok knepti annat skautit
nidhr undir foetr s['e]r, en annat snaradhi hann undir h[o,]fudh s['e]r, ok
s['a] ['u]t um h[o,]fudhsm['a]ttina. Setstokkr var fyrir framan setit,
mj[o,]k sterkr, ok spyrndi hann thar ['i]. Dyraumb['u]ningrinn allr var
fr['a] brotinn ['u]tidyrunum, en n['u] var thar fyrir bundinn hurdharflaki,
ok ['o]vendiliga um b['u]it. Thverthilit var allt brotit fr['a]
sk['a]lanum, that sem thar fyrir framan hafdhi verit, baedhi fyrir ofan
thvertr['e]it ok nedhan. Saengr allar v['a]ru ['o]r stadh foerdhar. Heldr
var thar ['o]vistuligt. Lj['o]s brann ['i] sk['a]lanum um n['o]ttina. Ok er
af mundi thridhjungr af n['o]tt, heyrdhi Grettir ['u]t dynur miklar. Var
th['a] farit upp ['a] h['u]sin, ok ridhit sk['a]lanum ok barit haelunum,
sv['a] at brakadhi ['i] hverju tr['e]. Thvi gekk lengi; th['a] var farit
ofan af h['u]sunum ok til dyra gengit. Ok er upp var lokit hurdhunni, s['a]
Grettir, at thraellinn r['e]tti inn h[o,]fudhit, ok s['y]ndiz honum
afskraemiliga mikit ok undarliga st['o]rskorit. Gl['a]mr f['o]r seint ok
r['e]ttiz upp, er hann kom inn ['i] dyrnar; hann gnaefadhi ofarliga vidh
raefrinu; sn['y]r at sk['a]lanum ok lagdhi handleggina upp ['a]
thvertr['e]it, ok gaegdhiz inn yfir sk['a]lann. Ekki l['e]t b['o]ndi heyra
til s['i]n, thv['i]at honum th['o]tti oerit um, er hann heyrdhi, hvat um
var ['u]ti. Grettir l['a] kyrr ok hroerdhi sik hvergi. Gl['a]mr s['a], at
hr['u]ga n[o,]kkur l['a] ['i] setinu, ok r['e]z n['u] innar eptir
sk['a]lanum ok threif ['i] feldinn stundarfast. Grettir spyrndi ['i]
stokkinn, ok gekk thv['i] hvergi. Gl['a]mr hnykti ['i] annat sinn miklu
fastara, ok bifadhiz hvergi feldrinn. ['I] thridhja sinn threif hann ['i]
medh b['a]dhum h[o,]ndum sv['a] fast, at hann r['e]tti Gretti upp ['o]r
setinu; kiptu n['u] ['i] sundr feldinum ['i] millum s['i]n. Gl['a]mr leit
['a] slitrit, er hann helt ['a], ok undradhiz mj[o,]k, hverr sv['a], fast
mundi togaz vidh hann. Ok ['i] thv['i] hlj['o]p Grettir undir hendr honum,
ok threif um hann midhjan, ok spenti ['a] honum hrygginn sem fastast gat
hann, ok aetladhi hann, at Gl['a]mr skyldi kikna vidh. En thraellinn lagdhi
at handleggjum Grettis sv['a] fast, at hann h[o,]rfadhi allr fyrir orku
sakir. F['o]r Grettir th['a] undan ['i] ['y]ms setin. Gengu th['a] fr['a]
stokkarnir, ok allt brotnadhi, that sem fyrir vardh. Vildi {155} Gl['a]mr
leita ['u]t, en Grettir foerdhi vidh foetr, hvar sem hann m['a]tti. En
th['o] gat Gl['a]mr dregit hann fram ['o]r sk['a]lanum. ['A]ttu their
th['a] allhardha s['o]kn thv['i]at thraellinn aetladhi at koma honum ['u]t
['o]r boenum; en sv['a] illt sem var at eiga vidh Gl['a]m inni, th['a]
s['a] Grettir, at th['o] var verra, at f['a]z vidh hann ['u]ti; ok thv['i]
brauz hann ['i] m['o]ti af [o,]llu afli at fara ['u]t. Gl['a]mr foerdhiz
['i] aukana, ok knepti hann at s['e]r, er their k['o]mu ['i] anddyrit. Ok
er Grettir s['e]r, at hann fekk eigi vidh spornat, hefir hann allt eitt
atridhit, at hann hleypr sem hardhast ['i] fang thraelnum ok spyrnir
b['a]dhum f['o]tum ['i] jardhfastan stein, er stodh ['i] dyrunum. Vidh
thessu bj['o]z thraellinn eigi; hann hafdhi th['a] togaz vidh at draga
Gretti at s['e]r; ok thv['i] kiknadhi Gl['a]mr ['a] bak aptr, ok rauk
[o,]fugr ['u]t ['a] dyrnar, sv['a] at herdharnar n['a]mu uppdyrit, ok
raefrit gekk ['i] sundr, baedhi vidhirnir ok thekjan frerin; fell hann
sv['a] opinn ok [o,]fugr ['u]t ['o]r h['u]sunum, en Grettir ['a] hann ofan.
Tunglskin var mikit ['u]ti ok gluggathykkn; hratt stundum fyrir, en stundum
dr['o] fr['a]. N['u] ['i] thv['i], er Gl['a]mr fell, rak sk['y]it fr['a]
tunglinu, en Gl['a]mr hvesti augun upp ['i] m['o]ti. Ok sv['a], hefir
Grettir sagt sj['a]lfr, at th['a] eina s['y]n hafi hann s['e]t sv['a], at
honum brygdhi vidh. Th['a] sigadhi sv['a] at honum af [o,]llu saman, moedhi
ok thv['i], er hann s['a] at Gl['a]mr gaut s['i]num sj['o]num hardhliga, at
hann gat eigi brugdhit saxinu, ok l['a] n['a]liga ['i] milli heims ok
heljar. En thv['i] var meiri ['o]fagnadharkraptr medh Gl['a]mi en flestum
[o,]dhrum aptrg[o,]ngum[o,]nnum, at hann maelti th['a] ['a] thessa leidh:
"Mikit kapp hefir th['u] ['a] lagit, Grettir," sagdhi hann, "at finna mik.
En that mun eigi undarligt thykkja, th['o]at th['u] hlj['o]tir ekki mikit
happ af m['e]r. En that m['a] ek segja th['e]r, at th['u] hefir n['u]
fengit helming afls thess ok throska, er th['e]r var aetladhr, ef th['u]
hefdhir mik ekki fundit. N['u] fae ek that afl eigi af th['e]r tekit, er
th['u] hefir ['a]dhr hrept; en thv['i] m['a] ek r['a]dha, at th['u] verdhr
aldri sterkari en n['u] ertu, ok ertu th['o] n['o]gu sterkr, ok at thv['i]
mun m[o,]rgum verdha. Th['u] hefir fraegr ordhit h['e]r til af verkum
th['i]num; en hedhan af munu falla til th['i]n sektir ok v['i]gaferli, en
flest [o,]ll verk th['i]n sn['u]az th['e]r til ['o]gaefu ok hamingjuleysis.
Th['u] munt verdha ['u]tlaegr g[o,]rr, ok hlj['o]ta jafnan ['u]ti at b['u]a
einn samt. Th['a] legg ek that ['a] vidh thik, at thessi augu s['e] th['e]r
jafnan fyrir sj['o]num, sem ek ber eptir; ok mun th['e]r erfitt thykkja,
einum at vera; ok that mun th['e]r til daudha draga."
Ok sem thraellinn hafdhi thetta maelt, th['a] rann af Gretti ['o]megin,
{156} that sem ['a] honum hafdhi verit. Br['a] hann th['a] saxinu ok hj['o]
h[o,]fudh af Gl['a]mi ok setti that vidh thj['o] honum. B['o]ndi kom th['a]
['u]t, ok hafdhi klaez, ['a] medhan Gl['a]mr l['e]t ganga t[o,]luna; en
hvergi thordhi hann naer at koma, fyrr en Gl['a]mr var fallinn.
Th['o]rhallr lofadhi gudh fyrir, ok thakkadhi vel Gretti, er hann hafdhi
unnit thenna ['o]hreina anda. F['o]ru their th['a] til, ok brendu Gl['a]m
at k[o,]ldum kolum. Eptir that [b['a]ru their [o,]sku hans ['i] eina h['i]t
ok] gr['o]fu thar nidhr, sem s['i]zt v['a]ru fj['a]rhagar edha mannavegir.
Gengu heim eptir that, ok var th['a] mj[o,]k komit at degi. Lagdhiz Grettir
nidhr, thv['i]at hann var stirdhr mj[o,]k. Th['o]rhallr sendi menn ['a]
naestu boei eptir m[o,]nnum; s['y]ndi ok sagdhi, hversu farit hafdhi.
[O,]llum th['o]tti mikils um vert um thetta verk, theim er heyrdhu. Var
that th['a] almaelt, at engi vaeri thv['i]l['i]kr madhr ['a] [o,]llu
landinu fyrir afls sakir ok hreysti ok allrar atgervi, sem Grettir
['A]smundarson.
Th['o]rhallr leysti Gretti vel af gardhi ok gaf honum g['o]dhan hest ok
klaedhi soemilig, thv['i][at] thau v['a]ru [o,]ll sundr leyst, er hann
hafdhi ['a]dhr borit. Skildu their medh vin['a]ttu. Reidh Grettir thadhan
['i] ['A]s ['i] Vatnsdal, ok t['o]k Thorvaldr vidh honum vel ok spurdhi
inniliga at sameign theira Gl['a]ms; en Grettir segir honum vidhskipti
theira, ok kvaz aldri ['i] thv['i]l['i]ka aflraun komit hafa, sv['a] langa
vidhreign sem their h[o,]fdhu saman ['a]tt.
Thorvaldr badh hann hafa sik spakan, "ok mun th['a] vel duga, en ella mun
th['e]r slysgjarnt verdha."
Grettir kvadh ekki batnat hafa um lyndisbragdhit, ok sagdhiz n['u] miklu
verr stiltr en ['a]dhr, ok allar m['o]tgerdhir verri thykkja. ['A] thv['i]
fann hann mikla muni, at hann var ordhinn madhr sv['a] myrkfaelinn, at hann
thordhi hvergi at fara einn saman, thegar myrkva t['o]k. S['y]ndiz honum
th['a] hvers kyns skr['i]pi; ok that er haft s['i]dhan fyrir ordhtoeki, at
theim lj['a]i Gl['a]mr augna edhr gefi gl['a]ms['y]ni, er mj[o,]k s['y]niz
annan veg, en er. Grettir reidh heim til Bjargs, er hann hafdhi g[o,]rt
oerendi s['i]n, ok sat heima um vetrinn.
(_b_) _Sandhaugar episode_ (caps. 64-66)
Steinn h['e]t prestr, er bj['o] at Eyjardals['a] ['i] B['a]rdhardal. Hann
var b['u]thegn g['o]dhr ok r['i]kr at f['e]. Kjartan h['e]t son hans,
r[o,]skr madhr ok vel ['a] legg kominn. Thorsteinn hv['i]ti h['e]t madhr,
er {157} bj['o] at Sandhaugum, sudhr fr['a] Eyjardals['a]. Steinv[o,]r
h['e]t kona hans, ung ok gladhl['a]t. Thau ['a]ttu b[o,]rn, ok v['a]ru thau
ung ['i] thenna t['i]ma. Thar th['o]tti m[o,]nnum reimt mj[o,]k sakir
tr[o,]llagangs. That bar til, tveim vetrum fyrr en Grettir kom nordhr ['i]
sveitir, at Steinv[o,]r h['u]sfreyja at Sandhaugum f['o]r til
j['o]lat['i]dha til Eyjardals['a]r eptir vana, en b['o]ndi var heima.
L[o,]gdhuz menn nidhr til svefns um kveldit; ok um n['o]ttina heyrdhu menn
brak mikit ['i] sk['a]lann, ok til saengr b['o]nda. Engi thordhi upp at
standa at forvitnaz um, thv['i]at thar var f['a]ment mj[o,]k. H['u]sfreyja
kom heim um morguninn, ok var b['o]ndi horfinn, ok vissi engi, hvat af
honum var ordhit. Lidhu sv['a] hin naestu misseri. En annan vetr eptir,
vildi h['u]sfreyja fara til t['i]dha; badh hon h['u]skarl sinn heima vera.
Hann var tregr til; en badh hana r['a]dha. F['o]r thar allt ['a] s[o,]mu
leidh, sem fyrr, at h['u]skarl var horfinn. Thetta th['o]tti m[o,]nnum
undarligt. S['a]u menn th['a] bl['o]dhdrefjar n[o,]kkurar ['i] ['u]tidyrum.
Th['o]ttuz menn that vita, at ['o]vaettir mundu hafa tekit th['a] b['a]dha.
Thetta fr['e]ttiz v['i]dha um sveitir. Grettir hafdhi spurn af thessu. Ok
medh thv['i] at honum var mj[o,]k lagit at koma af reimleikum edha
aptrg[o,]ngum, th['a] gerdhi hann ferdh s['i]na til B['a]rdhardals, ok kom
atfangadag j['o]la til Sandha[u]ga. Hann duldiz ok nefndiz Gestr.
H['u]sfreyja s['a], at hann var furdhu mikill vexti, en heimaf['o]lk var
furdhu hraett vidh hann. Hann beiddiz thar gistingar. H['u]sfreyja kvadh
honum mat til reidhu, "en ['a]byrgz thik sj['a]lfr."
Hann kvadh sv['a] vera skyldu. "Mun ek vera heima," segir hann, "en th['u]
far til t['i]dha, ef th['u] vilt."
Hon svarar: "M['e]r thykkir th['u] hraustr, ef th['u] thorir heima at
vera."
"Eigi laet ek m['e]r at einu getit," sagdhi hann.
"Illt thykkir m['e]r heima at vera," segir hon, "en ekki komumz ek yfir
['a]na."
"Ek skal fylgja th['e]r yfir," segir Gestr.
S['i]dhan bj['o]z hon til tidha, ok d['o]ttir hennar medh henni, l['i]til
vexti. Hl['a]ka mikil var ['u]ti, ok ['a]in ['i] leysingum; var ['a] henni
jakaf[o,]r.
Th['a] maelti h['u]sfreyja: "['O]foert er yfir ['a]na, baedhi m[o,]nnum ok
hestum."
"V[o,]dh munu ['a] vera," kvadh Gestr; "ok veridh eigi hraeddar." {158}
"Ber th['u] fyrst meyna," kvadh h['u]sfreyja, "hon er l['e]ttari."
"Ekki nenni ek at gera tvaer ferdhir at thessu," segir Gestr, "ok mun ek
bera thik ['a] handlegg m['e]r."
Hon signdi sik ok maelti: "Thetta er ['o]foera; edha hvat gerir th['u]
th['a] af meyjunni?"
"Sj['a] mun ek r['a]dh til thess," segir hann; ok greip thaer upp b['a]dhar
ok setti hina yngri ['i] kn['e] m['o]dhur sinnar, ok bar thaer sv['a] ['a]
vinstra armlegg s['e]r; en hafdhi lausa hina hoegri h[o,]nd ok ['o]dh
sv['a], ['u]t ['a] vadhit. Eigi thordhu thaer at oepa, sv['a] v['a]ru thaer
hraeddar. En ['a]in skall thegar upp ['a] brj['o]sti honum. Th['a] rak at
honum jaka mikinn; en hann skaut vidh hendi theiri, er laus var, ok hratt
fr['a] s['e]r. Gerdhi th['a] sv['a] dj['u]pt, at strauminn braut ['a]
[o,]xlinni. ['O]dh hann sterkliga, thar til er hann kom at bakkanum
[o,]dhrum megin, ok fleygir theim ['a] land. S['i]dhan sneri hann aptr, ok
var th['a] h['a]lfroekkvit, er hann kom heim til Sandhauga; ok kalladhi til
matar. Ok er hann var mettr, badh hann heimaf['o]lk fara innar ['i] stofu.
Hann t['o]k th['a] bordh ok lausa vidhu, ok rak um thvera stofuna, ok
gerdhi b['a]lk mikinn, sv['a] at engi heimamadhr komz fram yfir. Engi
thordhi ['i] m['o]ti honum at maela, ok ['i] engum skyldi kretta. Gengit
var ['i] hlidhvegginn stofunnar inn vidh gaflhladhit; ok thar thverpallr
hj['a]. Thar lagdhiz Gestr nidhr ok f['o]r ekki af klaedhunum. Lj['o]s
brann ['i] stofunni gegnt dyrum. Liggr Gestr sv['a] fram ['a] n['o]ttina.
H['u]sfreyja kom til Eyjardals['a]r til t['i]dha, ok undrudhu menn um
ferdhir hennar yfir ['a]na. Hon sagdhiz eigi vita, hv['a]rt hana hefdhi
yfir flutt madhr edha tr[o,]ll. Prestr kvadh mann v['i]st vera mundu,
th['o]at f['a]rra maki s['e]; "ok l['a]tum hlj['o]tt yfir," sagdhi hann;
"m['a] vera, at hann s['e] aetladhr til at vinna b['o]t ['a] vandraedhum
th['i]num." Var h['u]sfreyja thar um n['o]ttina.
N['u] er fr['a] Gretti that at segja, at th['a] er dr['o] at midhri
n['o]tt, heyrdhi hann ['u]t dynur miklar. Thv['i]naest kom inn ['i] stofuna
tr[o,]llkona mikil. Hon hafdhi ['i] hendi trog, en annarri sk['a]lm, heldr
mikla. Hon litaz um, er hon kom inn, ok s['a], hvar Gestr l['a], ok
hlj['o]p at honum, en hann upp ['i] m['o]ti, ok r['e]dhuz ['a] grimmliga ok
s['o]ttuz lengi ['i] stofunni. Hon var sterkari, en hann f['o]r undan
koenliga. En allt that, sem fyrir theim vardh, brutu thau, jafnvel
thverthilit undan stofunni. Hon dr['o] hann fram yfir dyrnar, ok sv['a]
['i] anddyrit; thar t['o]k hann fast ['i] m['o]ti. Hon {159} vildi draga
hann ['u]t ['o]r boenum, en that vardh eigi fyrr en thau leystu fr['a]
allan ['u]tidyraumb['u]ninginn ok b['a]ru hann ['u]t ['a] herdhum s['e]r.
Thoefdhi hon th['a] ofan til ['a]rinnar ok allt fram at glj['u]frum. Th['a]
var Gestr ['a]kafliga m['o]dhr, en th['o] vardh annathv['a]rt at gera: at
herdha sik, ella mundi hon steypa honum ['i] glj['u]frin. Alla n['o]ttina
s['o]ttuz thau. Eigi th['o]ttiz hann hafa fengiz vidh thv['i]l['i]kan
['o]fagnadh fyrir afls sakir. Hon hafdhi haldit honum sv['a] fast at
s['e]r, at hann m['a]tti hv['a]rigri hendi taka til n[o,]kkurs, ['u]tan
hann helt um hana midhja k[ett]una. Ok er thau k['o]mu ['a] ['a]rgljufrit,
bregdhr hann flagdhkonunni til sveiflu. ['I] thv['i] vardh honum laus hin
hoegri h[o,]ndin. Hann threif th['a] skj['o]tt til saxins, er hann var
gyrdhr medh, ok bregdhr thv['i]; hoeggr th['a] ['a] [o,]xl tr[o,]llinu,
sv['a] at af t['o]k h[o,]ndina hoegri, ok sv['a], vardh hann lauss. En hon
steyptiz ['i] glj['u]frin ok sv['a] ['i] fossinn. Gestr var th['a] baedhi
stirdhr ok m['o]dhr, ok l['a] thar lengi ['a] hamrinum. Gekk hann th['a]
heim, er l['y]sa t['o]k, ok lagdhiz ['i] rekkju. Hann var allr thr['u]tinn
ok bl['a]r.
Ok er h['u]sfreyja kom fr['a] t['i]dhum, th['o]tti henni heldr raskat um
h['y]b['y]li s['i]n. Gekk hon th['a] til Gests ok spurdhi, hvat til hefdhi
borit, er allt var brotit ok boelt. Hann sagdhi allt, sem farit hafdhi.
Henni th['o]tti mikils um vert, ok spurdhi, hverr hann var. Hann sagdhi
th['a] til hit sanna, ok badh soekja prest ok kvaz vildu finna hann. Var ok
sv['a] g[o,]rt. En er Steinn prestr kom til Sandhauga, vardh hann br['a]tt
thess v['i]ss, at thar var kominn Grettir ['A]smundarson, er Gestr nefndiz.
Prestr spurdhi, hvat hann aetladhi af theim m[o,]nnum mundi vera ordhit, er
thar h[o,]fdhu horfit. Grettir kvaz aetla, at ['i] glj['u]frin mundu their
hafa horfit. Prestr kvaz eigi kunna at leggja tr['u]nadh ['a] sagnir hans,
ef engi merki maetti til sj['a]. Grettir segir, at s['i]fdhar vissi their
that goerr. F['o]r prestr heim. Grettir l['a] ['i] rekkju margar naetr.
H['u]sfreyja gerdhi vidh hann hardhla vel; ok leidh sv['a] af j['o]lin.
Thetta er s[o,]gn Grettis, at tr[o,]llkonan steypdhiz ['i] glj['u]frin
vidh, er hon fekk s['a]rit; en B['a]rdhardalsmenn segja, at hana dagadhi
uppi, th['a] er thau gl['i]mdu, ok spryngi, th['a] er hann hj['o] af henni
h[o,]ndina, ok standi thar enn ['i] konu l['i]king ['a] bjarginu. Their
dalb['u]arnir leyndu thar Gretti.
Um vetrinn eptir j['o]l var that einn dag, at Grettir f['o]r til
Eyjardals['a]r. Ok er their Grettir funduz ok prestr, maelti Grettir:
"S['e] ek that, prestr," segir hann, "at th['u] leggr l['i]tinn {160}
tr['u]nadh ['a] sagnir m['i]nar. N['u] vil ek at th['u] farir medh m['e]r
til ['a]rinnar, ok sj['a]ir, hver l['i]kendi th['e]r thykkir ['a] vera."
Prestr gerdhi sv['a]. En er their k['o]mu til fossins, s['a]u their
sk['u]ta upp undir bergit; that var meitilberg sv['a] mikit, at hvergi
m['a]tti upp komaz, ok naer t['i]u fadhma ofan at vatninu. Their h[o,]fdhu
festi medh s['e]r.
Th['a] maelti prestr: "Langt um ['o]foert s['y]niz m['e]r th['e]r nidhr at
fara."
Grettir svarar: "Foert er v['i]st; en theim mun bezt thar, sem
['a]gaetismenn eru. Mun ek forvitnaz, hvat ['i] fossinum er, en th['u]
skalt geyma festar."
Prestr badh hann r['a]dha, ok keyrdhi nidhr hael ['a] berginu, ok bar at
grj['o]t, [ok sat thar hj['a]].
N['u] er fr['a] Gretti at segja, at hann l['e]t stein ['i] festaraugat ok
l['e]t sv['a] s['i]ga ofan at vatninu.
"Hvern veg aetlar th['u] n['u]," segir prestr, "at fara?"
"Ekki vil ek vera bundinn," segir Grettir, "th['a] er ek kem ['i] fossinn;
sv['a] bodhar m['e]r hugr um."
Eptir that bj['o] hann sik til ferdhar, ok var f['a]klaeddr, ok gyrdhi sik
medh saxinu, en hafdhi ekki fleiri v['a]pn. S['i]dhan hlj['o]p hann af
bjarginu ok nidhr ['i] fossinn. S['a] prestr ['i] iljar honum, ok vissi
s['i]dhan aldri, hvat af honum vardh. Grettir kafadhi undir fossinn, ok var
that torvelt, thv['i]at idha var mikil, ok vardh hann allt til grunns at
kafa, ['a]dhr en hann koemiz upp undir fossinn. Thar var forberg n[o,]kkut,
ok komz hann inn thar upp ['a]. Thar var hellir mikill undir fossinum, ok
fell ['a]in fram af berginu. Gekk hann th['a] inn ['i] hellinn, ok var thar
eldr mikill ['a] br[o,]ndum. Grettir s['a], at thar sat j[o,]tunn
[o,]gurliga mikill; hann var hraedhiligr at sj['a]. En er Grettir kom at
honum, hlj['o]p j[o,]tunninn upp ok greip flein einn ok hj['o] til thess,
er kominn var, thv['i]at baedhi m['a]tti h[o,]ggva ok leggja medh [honum].
Tr['e]skapt var ['i]; that k[o,]lludhu menn th['a] heptisax, er thannveg
var g[o,]rt. Grettir hj['o] ['a] m['o]ti medh saxinu, ok kom ['a] skaptit,
sv['a] at ['i] sundr t['o]k. J[o,]tunninn vildi th['a] seilaz ['a] bak
s['e]r aptr til sverdhs, er thar hekk ['i] hellinum. ['I] thv['i] hj['o]
Grettir framan ['a] brj['o]stit, sv['a] at n['a]liga t['o]k af alla
bringspelina ok kvidhinn, sv['a] at idhrin steyptuz ['o]r honum ofan ['i]
['a]na, ok keyrdhi thau ofan eptir ['a]nni. Ok er prestr sat vidh festina,
s['a] hann, at slydhrur n[o,]kkurar rak ofan eptir strengnum bl['o]dhugar
{161} allar. Hann vardh th['a] lauss ['a] velli, ok th['o]ttiz n['u] vita,
at Grettir mundi daudhr vera. Hlj['o]p hann th['a] fr['a] festarhaldinu ok
f['o]r heim. Var th['a] komit at kveldi, ok sagdhi prestr v['i]sliga, at
Grettir vaeri daudhr; ok sagdhi, at mikill skadhi vaeri eptir
thv['i]l['i]kan mann.
N['u] er fr['a] Gretti at segja; hann l['e]t skamt h[o,]ggva ['i] milli,
thar til er j[o,]tunninn d['o]. Gekk Grettir th['a] innar eptir hellinum.
Hann kveikti lj['o]s ok kannadhi hellinn. Ekki er fr['a] thv['i] sagt,
hversu mikit f['e] hann fekk ['i] hellinum; en that aetla menn, at verit
hafi n[o,]kkut. Dvaldiz honum thar fram ['a] n['o]ttina. Hann fann thar
tveggja manna bein, ok bar thau ['i] belg einn. Leitadhi hann th['a] ['o]r
hellinum ok lagdhiz til festarinnar, ok hristi hana, ok aetladhi, at prestr
mundi thar vera. En er hann vissi, at prestr var heim farinn, vardh hann
th['a] at handstyrkja upp festina, ok komz hann sv['a] upp ['a] bjargit.
F['o]r hann th['a] heim til Eyjardals['a]r ok kom ['i] forkirkju belginum
theim, sem beinin v['a]ru ['i], ok thar medh r['u]nakefli thv['i], er
v['i]sur thessar v['a]ru forkunnliga vel ['a] ristnar:
"Gekk ek ['i] glj['u]fr et d[o,]kkva
gein veltiflug steina,
vith hj[o,]rgaethi hr['i]thar
hlunns ['u]rsv[o,]lum munni,
fast l['a] framm ['a] brj['o]sti
flugstraumr ['i] sal naumu
heldr kom ['a] herthar sk['a]ldi
h[o,]rth fj['o]n Braga kv['o]nar."
Ok en thessi:
"Lj['o]tr kom m['e]r ['i] m['o]ti
mellu vinr ['o]r helli;
hann fekz, heldr at s[o,]nnu
harthfengr, vith mik lengi;
hartheggjat l['e]t ek h[o,]ggvit
heptisax af skepti;
Gangs klauf brj['o]st ok bringu
bjartr gunnlogi svarta[298]."
{162}
Thar sagdhi sv['a], at Grettir hafi bein thessi ['o]r hellinum haft. En er
prestr kom til kirkju um morgininn, fann hann keflit ok that sem fylgdi, ok
las r['u]narnar. En Grettir hafdhi farit heim til Sandhauga.
En th['a] er prestr fann Gretti, spurdhi hann inniliga eptir atburdhum; en
hann sagdhi alla s[o,]gu um ferdh s['i]na, ok kvadh prest ['o]tr['u]liga
hafa haldit festinni. Prestr l['e]t that ['a] sannaz. Th['o]ttuz menn that
vita, at thessar ['o]vaettir mundu valdit hafa mannahv[o,]rfum thar ['i]
dalnum. Vardh ok aldri mein af aptrg[o,]ngum edha reimleikum thar ['i]
dalnum s['i]dhan. Th['o]tti Grettir thar g[o,]rt hafa mikla landhreinsan.
Prestr jardhadhi bein thessi ['i] kirkjugardhi.
TRANSLATION OF EXTRACTS FROM GRETTIS SAGA
The _Grettis saga_ was first printed in the middle of the eighteenth
century, in Iceland (Marc['u]sson, _Nockrer Marg-frooder Sogu-thatter_,
1756, pp. 81-163). It was edited by Magn['u]sson and Thordarson,
Copenhagen, 1853, with a Danish translation, and again by Boer
(_Altnordische Saga-bibliothek_, Halle, 1900). An edition was also
printed at Reykjavik in 1900, edited by V. ['A]smundarson.
There are over forty MSS of the saga: _Cod. Arn. Mag. 551 a_ (quoted in
the notes below as A) forms the basis of all three modern editions.
Boer has investigated the relationship of the MSS (_Die
handschriftliche ueberlieferung der Grettissaga, Z.f.d.Ph._ XXXI,
40-60), and has published, in an appendix to his edition, the readings
of five of the more important, in so far as he considers that they can
be utilized to amend the text supplied by A.
The reader who consults the editions of both Magn['u]sson and Boer will
be struck by the differences in the text, although both are following
the same MS. Many of these differences are, of course, due to the fact
that the editors are normalizing the spelling, but on different
principles: many others, however, are due to the extraordinary
difficulty of the MS itself. Mr Sigf['u]s Bloendal, of the Royal
Library of Copenhagen, has examined _Cod. Arn. Mag. 551 a_ for me, and
he writes:
"It is the very worst MS I have ever met with. The writing is
small, almost every word is abbreviated, and, worst of all, the
writing is in many places effaced, partly by smoke (I suppose the
MS needs must have been lying for years in some smoky and damp
_badhstofa_) rendering the parchment almost as black as
shoe-leather, but still more owing to the use of chemicals, which
modern editors have been obliged to use, to make sure of what there
really was in the text. By the use of much patience and a lens, one
can read it, though, in most places. Unfortunately, this does not
apply to the _Gl['a]mur_ episode, a big portion of which belongs to
the very worst part of the MS, and the readings of that portion are
therefore rather uncertain."
The Icelandic text given above agrees in the main with that in the
excellent edition of Boer, to whom, in common with all students of the
{163} _Grettis saga_, I am much indebted: but I have frequently adopted
in preference a spelling or wording nearer to that of Magn['u]sson. In
several of these instances (notably the spelling of the verses
attributed to Grettir) I think Prof. Boer would probably himself agree.
The words or letters placed between square brackets are those which are
not to be found in _Cod. Arn. Mag. 551 a_.
To Mr Bloendal, who has been at the labour of collating with the MS,
for my benefit, both the passages given above, my grateful thanks are
due.
There are English translations of the _Grettis saga_ by Morris and E.
Magn['u]sson (1869, and in Morris' _Works_, 1911, vol. VII) and by G.
A. Hight (_Everyman's Library_, 1914).
For a discussion of the relationship of the _Grettis saga_ to other
stories, see also Boer, _Zur Grettissaga_, in _Z.f.d.Ph._ XXX, 1-71.
(_a_) _Glam episode_ (p. 146 above)
There was a man called Thorhall, who lived at Thorhall's Farm in
Shadow-dale. Shadow-dale runs up from Water-dale. Thorhall was son of Grim,
son of Thorhall, son of Frithmund, who settled Shadow-dale. Thorhall's wife
was called Guthrun: their son was Grim, and Thurith their daughter--they
were grown up.
[Sidenote: p. 147]
Thorhall was a wealthy man, and especially in cattle, so that no man had as
much live stock as he. He was not a chief, yet a substantial yeoman. The
place was much haunted, and he found it hard to get a shepherd to suit him.
He sought counsel of many wise men, what device he should follow, but he
got no counsel which was of use to him. Thorhall rode each summer to the
All-Thing; he had good horses. That was one summer at the All-Thing, that
Thorhall went to the booth of Skapti Thoroddsson, the Law-man.
Skapti was the wisest of men, and gave good advice if he was asked. There
was this difference between Skapti and his father Thorodd: Thorodd had
second sight, and some men called him underhanded; but Skapti gave to every
man that advice which he believed would avail, if it were kept to: so he
was called 'Better than his father.' Thorhall went to the booth of Skapti.
Skapti greeted Thorhall well, for he knew that he was a prosperous man, and
asked what news he had.
Thorhall said, "I should like good counsel from thee." "I am little use at
that," said Skapti. "But what is thy need?" {164}
Thorhall said, "It happens so, that it is difficult for me to keep my
shepherds: they easily get hurt, and some will not serve their time. And
now no one will take on the task, who knows what is before him."
Skapti answered, "There must be some evil being about, if men are more
unwilling to look after thy sheep than those of other folk. Now because
thou hast sought counsel of me, I will find thee a shepherd, who is named
Glam, a Swede, from Sylgsdale, who came out to Iceland last summer. He is
great and strong, but not much to everybody's taste."
Thorhall said that he would not mind that, if he guarded the sheep well.
Skapti said that if Glam had not the strength and courage to do that, there
was no hope of anyone else. Then Thorhall went out; this was when the
All-Thing was nearly ending.
Thorhall missed two light bay horses, and he went himself to look for
them--so it seems that he was not a great man. He went up under Sledge-hill
and south along the mountain called Armannsfell.
Then he saw where a man came down from Gothashaw, bearing faggots on a
horse. They soon met, and Thorhall asked him his name, and he said he was
called Glam. Glam [Sidenote: p. 148] was tall and strange in bearing, with
blue[299] and glaring eyes, and wolf-grey hair. Thorhall opened his eyes
when he saw him, but yet he discerned that this was he to whom he had been
sent.
"What work art thou best fitted for?" said Thorhall.
Glam said he was well fitted to watch sheep in the winter.
"Wilt thou watch my sheep?" said Thorhall. "Skapti gave thee into my hand."
"You will have least trouble with me in your house if I go my own way, for
I am hard of temper if I am not pleased," said Glam.
"That will not matter to me," said Thorhall, "and I wish that thou shouldst
go to my house."
"That may I well do," said Glam, "but are there any difficulties?"
{165}
"It is thought to be haunted," said Thorhall.
"I am not afraid of such phantoms," said Glam, "and it seems to me all the
less dull."
"Thou wilt need such a spirit," said Thorhall, "and it is better that the
man there should not be a coward."
After that they struck their bargain, and Glam was to come at the
winter-nights [14th-16th of October]. Then they parted, and Thorhall found
his horses where he had just been searching. Thorhall rode home and thanked
Skapti for his good deed.
Summer passed, and Thorhall heard nothing of his shepherd, and no one knew
anything of him; but at the time appointed he came to Thorhall's Farm. The
yeoman greeted him well, but all the others could not abide him, and
Thorhall's wife least of all. Glam undertook the watching of the sheep, and
it gave him little trouble. He had a great deep voice, and the sheep came
together as soon as he called them. There was a church at Thorhall's Farm,
but Glam would not go to it. He would have nothing to do with the service,
and was godless; he was obstinate and surly and abhorred by all.
Now time went on till it came to Yule eve. Then Glam rose early and called
for meat. The yeoman's wife answered, "That is not the custom of Christian
men to eat meat today, because tomorrow is the first day of Yule," said
she, "and therefore it is right that we should first fast today."
He answered, "Ye have many superstitions which I see are good for nothing.
I do not know that men fare better now [Sidenote: p. 149] than before, when
they had nought to do with such things. It seemed to me a better way when
men were called heathen; and I want my meat and no tricks."
The yeoman's wife said, "I know for a certainty that it will fare ill with
thee today, if thou dost this evil thing."
Glam bade her bring the meat at once, else he said it should be worse for
her. She dared not do otherwise than he willed, and when he had eaten he
went out, foul-mouthed.
Now it had gone so with the weather that it was heavy all round, and
snow-flakes were falling, and it was blowing loud, and grew much worse as
the day went on. The shepherd {166} was heard early in the day, but less
later. Then wind began to drive the snow, and towards evening it became a
tempest. Then men came to the service, and so it went on to nightfall. Glam
did not come home. Then there was talk whether search ought not to be made
for him, but because there was a tempest and it was pitch dark, no search
was attempted. That Yule night he did not come home, and so men waited till
after the service [next, i.e. Christmas, morning]. But when it was full
day, men went to search, and found the sheep scattered in the
snow-drifts[300], battered by the tempest, or strayed up into the
mountains. Then they came on a great space beaten down, high up in the
valley. It looked to them as if there had been somewhat violent wrestling
there, because the stones had been torn up for a distance around, and the
earth likewise. They looked closely and saw where Glam lay a little
distance away. He was dead, and blue like Hel and swollen like an ox. They
had great loathing of him, and their souls shuddered at him. Nevertheless
they strove to bring him to the church, but they could get him no further
than the edge of a ravine a little below, and they went home leaving
matters so, and told the yeoman what had happened. He asked what appeared
to have been the death of Glam. They said that, from the trodden spot, up
to a place beneath the rocks high in the valley, they had tracked marks as
big as if a cask-bottom had been stamped down, and great drops of blood
with them. So men concluded from this, that the evil thing which had been
there before must have killed Glam, but Glam must have done it damage which
had been enough, in that nought has ever happened since from that evil
thing.
The second day of Yule it was again essayed to bring Glam to the church.
Beasts of draught were harnessed, but they could not move him where it was
level ground and not down hill, so they departed, leaving matters so.
The third day the priest went with them, and they searched [Sidenote: p.
150] all day, but Glam could not be found. The priest would go no {167}
more, but Glam was found when the priest was not in the company. Then they
gave up trying to carry him to the church, and buried him where he was,
under a cairn.
A little later men became aware that Glam was not lying quiet. Great harm
came to men from this, so that many fell into a swoon when they saw him,
and some could not keep their wits. Just after Yule, men thought they saw
him at home at the farm. They were exceedingly afraid, and many fled away.
Thereupon Glam took to riding the house-roofs at nights, so that he nearly
broke them in. He walked almost night and day. Men hardly dared to go up
into the dale, even though they had business enough. Men in that
country-side thought great harm of this.
In the spring Thorhall got farm-hands together and set up house on his
land. Then the apparition began to grow less frequent whilst the sun's
course was at its height; and so it went on till midsummer. That summer a
ship came out to Hunawater. On it was a man called Thorgaut. He was an
outlander by race, big and powerful; he had the strength of two men. He was
in no man's service, and alone, and he wished to take up some work, since
he had no money. Thorhall rode to the ship, and met Thorgaut. He asked him
if he would work for him. Thorgaut said that might well be, and that he
would make no difficulties.
"But thou must be prepared," said Thorhall, "that it is no place for
weaklings, by reason of the hauntings which have been going on for a while,
for I will not let thee into a trap."
Thorgaut answered, "It does not seem to me that I am undone, even though I
were to see some little ghosts. It must be no easy matter for others if I
am frightened, and I will not give up my place for that."
So now they agreed well, and Thorgaut was to watch the sheep when winter
came.
Now the summer passed on. Thorgaut took charge of the sheep at the
winter-nights. He was well-pleasing to all. Glam ever came home and rode on
the roofs. Thorgaut thought it sporting, and said that the thrall would
have to come nearer {168} in order to scare him. But Thorhall bade him keep
quiet: "It is best that ye should not try your strength together." Thorgaut
said, "Verily, your courage is shaken out of you: I shall not drop down
with fear between day and night over such talk."
Now things went on through the winter up to Yule-tide. On Yule evening the
shepherd went out to his sheep. Then [Sidenote: p. 151] the yeoman's wife
said, "It is to be hoped that now things will not go in the old way."
He answered, "Be not afraid of that, mistress; something worth telling will
have happened if I do not come back."
Then he went to his sheep. The weather was cold, and it snowed much.
Thorgaut was wont to come home when it was twilight, but now he did not
come at that time. Men came to the service, as was the custom. It seemed to
people that things were going as they had before. The yeoman wished to have
search made for the shepherd, but the church-goers excused themselves, and
said they would not risk themselves out in the hands of the trolls by
night. And the yeoman did not dare to go, so the search came to nothing.
On Yule-day, when men had eaten, they went and searched for the shepherd.
They went first to Glam's cairn, because men thought that the shepherd's
disappearance must have been through his bringing-about. But when they came
near the cairn they saw great things, for there they found the shepherd
with his neck broken and not a bone in him whole. Then they carried him to
the church, and no harm happened to any man from Thorgaut afterwards; but
Glam began to increase in strength anew. He did so much that all men fled
away from Thorhall's Farm, except only the yeoman and his wife.
Now the same cattle-herd had been there a long time. Thorhall would not let
him go, because of his good-will and good service. He was far gone in age
and was very unwilling to leave: he saw that everything went to waste which
the yeoman had, if no one looked after it. And once after mid-winter it
happened one morning that the yeoman's wife went to the byre to milk the
cows as usual. It was quite light, because no one dared to go out before,
except the cattle-herd: he went {169} out as soon as it dawned. She heard
great cracking in the byre and a hideous bellowing. She ran back, crying
out, and said she did not know what devilry was going on in the byre.
The yeoman went out, and came to the cattle, and they were goring each
other. It seemed to him no good to stay there, and he went further into the
hay-barn. He saw where the cattle-herd lay, and he had his head in one
stall and his feet in the next. He lay on his back. The yeoman went to him
and felt him. He soon found that he was dead, and his back-bone broken in
two; it had been broken over the partition slab.
Now it seemed no longer bearable to Thorhall, and he left his farm with all
that he could carry away; but all the live-stock [Sidenote: p. 152] left
behind Glam killed. After that he went through all the dale and laid waste
all the farms up from Tongue. Thorhall spent what was left of the winter
with his friends. No man could go up into the dale with horse or hound,
because it was slain forthwith. But when spring came, and the course of the
sun was highest, the apparitions abated somewhat. Now Thorhall wished to go
back to his land. It was not easy for him to get servants, but still he set
up house at Thorhall's Farm.
All went the same way as before. When autumn came on the hauntings began to
increase. The yeoman's daughter was most attacked, and it fared so that she
died. Many counsels were taken, but nothing was done. Things seemed to men
to be looking as if all Water-dale must be laid waste, unless some remedies
could be found.
Now the story must be taken up about Grettir, how he sat at home at Bjarg
that autumn, after he had parted from Barthi-of-the-Slayings at Thorey's
Peak. And when it had almost come to the winter-nights, Grettir rode from
home, north over the neck to Willow-dale, and was a guest at Authun's Farm.
He was fully reconciled to Authun, and gave him a good axe, and they spake
of their wish for friendship one with the other. (Authun dwelt long at
Authun's Farm, and much goodly offspring had he. Egil was his son, who
wedded Ulfheith, daughter of Eyjolf Guthmundson; and their son was Eyjolf,
who was slain at the All-Thing. He was father of Orm, chaplain to {170}
Bishop Thorlak.) Grettir rode north to Water-dale and came on a visit to
Tongue. At that time Jokul Barthson lived there, Grettir's uncle. Jokul was
a man great and strong and very proud. He was a seafaring man, and very
over-bearing, yet of great account. He received Grettir well, and Grettir
was there three nights.
There was so much said about the apparitions of Glam that nothing was
spoken of by men equally with that. Grettir inquired exactly about the
events which had happened. Jokul said that nothing more had been spoken
than had verily occurred. "But art thou anxious, kinsman, to go there?"
Grettir said that that was the truth. Jokul begged him not to do so, "For
that is a great risk of thy luck, and thy kinsmen have much at stake where
thou art," said he, "for none of the young men seems to us to be equal to
thee; but ill will come of ill where Glam is, and it is much better to have
to do with mortal men than with evil creatures like that."
Grettir said he was minded to go to Thorhall's Farm and [Sidenote: p. 153]
see how things had fared there. Jokul said, "I see now that it is of no
avail to stop thee, but true it is what men say, that good-luck is one
thing, and goodliness another."
"Woe is before one man's door when it is come into another's house. Think
how it may fare with thee thyself before the end," said Grettir.
Jokul answered, "It may be that both of us can see somewhat into the
future, but neither can do aught in the matter."
After that they parted, and neither was pleased with the other's
foreboding.
Grettir rode to Thorhall's Farm, and the yeoman greeted him well. He asked
whither Grettir meant to go, but Grettir said he would stay there over the
night if the yeoman would have it so. Thorhall said he owed him thanks for
being there, "But few men find it a profit to stay here for any time. Thou
must have heard what the dealings are here, and I would fain that thou
shouldst have no troubles on my account; but though thou shouldst come
whole away, I know for certain that thou {171} wilt lose thy steed, for no
one who comes here keeps his horse whole."
Grettir said there were plenty of horses, whatever should become of this
one.
Thorhall was glad that Grettir would stay there, and welcomed him
exceedingly.
Grettir's horse was strongly locked in an out-house. They went to sleep,
and so the night passed without Glam coming home. Then Thorhall said,
"Things have taken a good turn against thy coming, for every night Glam has
been wont to ride the roofs or break up the doors, even as thou canst see."
Grettir said, "Then must one of two things happen. Either he will not long
hold himself in, or the wonted haunting will cease for more than one night.
I will stay here another night and see how it goes."
Then they went to Grettir's horse, and he had not been attacked. Then
everything seemed to the yeoman to be going one way. Now Grettir stayed for
another night, and the thrall did not come home. Then things seemed to the
yeoman to be taking a very hopeful turn. He went to look after Grettir's
horse. When he came there, the stable was broken into, and the horse
dragged out to the door, and every bone in him broken asunder.
Thorhall told Grettir what had happened, and bade him save his own
life--"For thy death is sure if thou waitest for Glam."
Grettir answered, "The least I must have in exchange for my horse is to see
the thrall."
The yeoman said that there was no good in seeing him: [Sidenote: p. 154]
"For he is unlike any shape of man; but every hour that thou wilt stay here
seems good to me."
Now the day went on, and when bed-time came Grettir would not put off his
clothes, but lay down in the seat over against the yeoman's
sleeping-chamber. He had a shaggy cloak over him, and wrapped one corner of
it down under his feet, and twisted the other under his head and looked out
through the head-opening. There was a great and strong partition beam in
front of the seat, and he put his feet against it. The {172} doorframe was
all broken away from the outer door, but now boards, fastened together
carelessly anyhow, had been tied in front. The panelling which had been in
front was all broken away from the hall, both above and below the
cross-beam; the beds were all torn out of their places, and everything was
very wretched[301].
A light burned in the hall during the night: and when a third part of the
night was past, Grettir heard a great noise outside. Some creature had
mounted upon the buildings and was riding upon the hall and beating it with
its heels, so that it cracked in every rafter. This went on a long time.
Then the creature came down from the buildings and went to the door. When
the door was opened Grettir saw that the thrall had stretched in his head,
and it seemed to him monstrously great and wonderfully huge. Glam went
slowly and stretched himself up when he came inside the door. He towered up
to the roof. He turned and laid his arm upon the cross-beam and glared in
upon the hall. The yeoman did not let himself be heard, because the noise
he heard outside seemed to him enough. Grettir lay quiet and did not move.
Glam saw that a heap lay upon the seat, and he stalked in up the hall and
gripped the cloak wondrous fast. Grettir pressed his feet against the post
and gave not at all. Glam pulled a second time much more violently, and the
cloak did not move. A third time he gripped with both hands so mightily
that he pulled Grettir up from the seat, and now the cloak was torn asunder
between them.
Glam gazed at the portion which he held, and wondered much who could have
pulled so hard against him; and at that moment Grettir leapt under his arms
and grasped him round {173} the middle, and bent his back as mightily as he
could, reckoning that Glam would sink to his knees at his attack. But the
thrall laid such a grip on Grettir's arm that he recoiled at the might of
it. Then Grettir gave way from one seat to another. The beams[302] started,
and all that came in their way was broken. [Sidenote: p. 155] Glam wished
to get out, but Grettir set his feet against any support he could find;
nevertheless Glam dragged him forward out of the hall. And there they had a
sore wrestling, in that the thrall meant to drag him right out of the
building; but ill as it was to have to do with Glam inside, Grettir saw
that it would be yet worse without, and so he struggled with all his might
against going out. Glam put forth all his strength, and dragged Grettir
towards himself when they came to the porch. And when Grettir saw that he
could not resist, then all at once he flung himself against the breast of
the thrall, as powerfully as he could, and pressed forward with both his
feet against a stone which stood fast in the earth at the entrance. The
thrall was not ready for this, he had been pulling to drag Grettir towards
himself; and thereupon he stumbled on his back out of doors, so that his
shoulders smote against the cross-piece of the door, and the roof clave
asunder, both wood and frozen thatch. So Glam fell backwards out of the
house and Grettir on top of him. There was bright moonshine and broken
clouds without. At times they drifted in front of the moon and at times
away. Now at the moment when Glam fell, the clouds cleared from before the
moon, and Glam rolled up his eyes; and Grettir himself has said that that
was the one sight he had seen which struck fear into him. Then such a
sinking came over Grettir, from his weariness and from that sight of Glam
rolling his eyes, that he had no strength to draw his knife and lay almost
between life and death.
{174}
But in this was there more power for evil in Glam than in most other
apparitions, in that he spake thus: "Much eagerness hast thou shown,
Grettir," said he, "to meet with me. But no wonder will it seem if thou
hast no good luck from me. And this can I tell thee, that thou hast now
achieved one half of the power and might which was fated for thee if thou
hadst not met with me. Now no power have I to take that might from thee to
which thou hast attained. But in this may I have my way, that thou shalt
never become stronger than now thou art, and yet art thou strong enough, as
many a one shall find to his cost. Famous hast thou been till now for thy
deeds, but from now on shall exiles and manslaughters fall to thy lot, and
almost all of thy labours shall turn to ill-luck and unhappiness. Thou
shalt be outlawed and doomed ever to dwell alone, away from men; and then
lay I this fate on thee, that these eyes of mine be ever before thy sight,
and it shall seem grievous unto thee to be alone, and that shall drag thee
to thy death."
And when the thrall had said this, the swoon which had [Sidenote: p. 156]
fallen upon Grettir passed from him. Then he drew his sword and smote off
Glam's head, and placed it by his thigh.
Then the yeoman came out: he had clad himself whilst Glam was uttering his
curse, but he dare in no wise come near before Glam had fallen. Thorhall
praised God for it, and thanked Grettir well for having vanquished the
unclean spirit.
Then they set to work and burned Glam to cold cinders. After, they put the
ashes in a skin-bag and buried them as far as possible from the ways of man
or beast. After that they went home, and by that time it was well on to
day. Grettir lay down, for he was very stiff. Thorhall sent people to the
next farm for men, and showed to them what had happened. To all those who
heard of it, it seemed a work of great account; and that was then spoken by
all, that no man in all the land was equal to Grettir Asmundarson for might
and valour and all prowess. Thorhall sent Grettir from his house with
honour, and gave him a good horse and fit clothing; for all the clothes
which he had worn before were torn asunder. They parted great friends.
Grettir rode thence to Ridge in Water-dale, and Thorvald greeted him well,
and asked closely as to his meeting {175} with Glam. Grettir told him of
their dealings, and said that never had he had such a trial of strength, so
long a struggle had theirs been together.
Thorvald bade him keep quiet, "and then all will be well, otherwise there
are bound to be troubles for thee."
Grettir said that his temper had not bettered, and that he was now more
unruly than before, and all offences seemed worse to him. And in that he
found a great difference, that he had become so afraid of the dark that he
did not dare to go anywhere alone after night had fallen. All kinds of
horrors appeared to him then. And that has since passed into a proverb,
that Glam gives eyes, or gives "glam-sight" to those to whom things seem
quite other than they are. Grettir rode home to Bjarg when he had done his
errand, and remained at home during the winter.
(_b_) _Sandhaugar episode_ (p. 156 above)
There was a priest called Stein who lived at Eyjardals['a] (Isledale River)
in Barthardal. He was a good husbandman and rich in cattle. His son was
Kjartan, a doughty man and well grown. There was a man called Thorstein the
White who [Sidenote: p. 157] lived at Sandhaugar (Sandheaps), south of
Isledale river; his wife was called Steinvor, and she was young and merry.
They had children, who were young then.
People thought the place was much haunted by reason of the visitation of
trolls. It happened, two winters before Grettir came North into those
districts, that the good-wife Steinvor at Sandhaugar went to a Christmas
service, according to her custom, at Isledale river, but her husband
remained at home. In the evening men went to bed, and during the night they
heard a great rummage in the hall, and by the good-man's bed. No one dared
to get up to look to it, because there were very few men about. The
good-wife came home in the morning, but her husband had vanished, and no
one knew what had become of him.
The next year passed away. But the winter after, the good-wife wished again
to go to the church-service, and she bade her {176} manservant remain at
home. He was unwilling, but said she must have her own way. All went in the
same manner as before, and the servant vanished. People thought that
strange. They saw some splashes of blood on the outer door, and men thought
that evil beings must have taken away both the good-man and the servant.
The news of this spread wide throughout the country. Grettir heard of it;
and because it was his fortune to get rid of hauntings and spirit-walkings,
he took his way to Barthardal, and came to Sandhaugar on Yule eve. He
disguised himself[303], and said his name was Guest. The good-wife saw that
he was great of stature; and the farm-folk were much afraid of him. He
asked for quarters for the night. The good-wife said that he could have
meat forthwith, but "You must look after your own safety."
He said it should be so. "I will be at home," said he, "and you can go to
the service if you will."
She answered, "You are a brave man, it seems to me, if you dare to remain
at home."
"I do not care to have things all one way[304]," said he.
"It seems ill to me to be at home," said she, "but I cannot get over the
river."
"I will see you over," said Guest.
Then she got ready to go to the service, and her small daughter with her.
It was thawing, the river was in flood, and there were ice-floes in it.
Then the good-wife said, "It is impossible for man or horse to get across
the river."
"There must be fords in it," said Guest, "do not be afraid."
[Sidenote: p. 158]
"Do you carry the child first," said the good-wife, "she is the lighter."
"I do not care to make two journeys of it," said Guest, "and I will carry
thee on my arm."
She crossed herself and said, "That is an impossible way; what will you do
with the child?"
{177}
"I will see a way for that," said he; and then he took them both up, and
set the child on her mother's knee and so bore them both on his left arm.
But he had his right hand free, and thus he waded out into the ford.
They did not dare to cry out, so much afraid were they. The river washed at
once up against his breast; then it tossed a great icefloe against him, but
he put out the hand that was free and pushed it from him. Then it grew so
deep that the river dashed over his shoulder; but he waded stoutly on,
until he came to the bank on the other side, and threw Steinvor and her
daughter on the land.
Then he turned back, and it was half dark when he came to Sandhaugar and
called for meat; and when he had eaten, he bade the farm folk go to the far
side of the room. Then he took boards and loose timber which he dragged
across the room, and made a great barrier so that none of the farm folk
could come over it. No one dared to say anything against him or to murmur
in any wise. The entrance was in the side wall of the chamber by the
gable-end, and there was a dais there. Guest lay down there, but did not
take off his clothes: a light was burning in the room over against the
door: Guest lay there far into the night.
The good-wife came to Isledale river to the service, and men wondered how
she had crossed the river. She said she did not know whether it was a man
or a troll who had carried her over. The priest said, "It must surely be a
man, although there are few like him. And let us say nothing about it,"
said he, "it may be that he is destined to work a remedy for your evils."
The good-wife remained there through the night.
Now it is to be told concerning Grettir that when it drew towards midnight
he heard great noises outside. Thereupon there came into the room a great
giantess. She had in one hand a trough and in the other a short-sword,
rather a big one. She looked round when she came in, and saw where Guest
lay, and sprang at him; but he sprang up against her, and they struggled
fiercely and wrestled for a long time in the room. She was the {178}
stronger, but he gave way warily; and they broke all that was before them,
as well as the panelling of the room. She dragged him forward through the
door and so[305] into the porch, and he [Sidenote: p. 159] struggled hard
against her. She wished to drag him out of the house, but that did not
happen until they had broken all the fittings of the outer doorway and
forced them out on their shoulders. Then she dragged him slowly down
towards the river and right along to the gorge.
By that time Guest was exceedingly weary, but yet, one or other it had to
be, either he had to gather his strength together, or else she would have
hurled him down into the gorge. All night they struggled. He thought that
he had never grappled with such a devil in the matter of strength. She had
got such a grip upon him that he could do nothing with either hand, except
to hold the witch by the middle; but when they came to the gorge of the
river he swung the giantess round, and thereupon got his right hand free.
Then quickly he gripped his knife that he wore in his girdle and drew it,
and smote the shoulder of the giantess so that he cut off her right arm. So
he got free: but she fell into the gorge, and so into the rapids below.
Guest was then both stiff and tired, and lay long on the rocks; then he
went home when it began to grow light, and lay down in bed. He was all
swollen black and blue.
And when the good-wife came from the service, it seemed to her that things
had been somewhat disarranged in her house. Then she went to Guest and
asked him what had happened, that all was broken and destroyed[306]. He
told her all that had taken place. She thought it very wonderful, and asked
who he was. He told her the truth, and asked her to send for the priest,
and said he wished to meet him; and so it was done.
Then when Stein the priest came to Sandhaugar, he knew soon that it was
Grettir Asmundarson who had come there, and who had called himself Guest.
The priest asked Grettir what he thought must have become of those men who
had vanished. Grettir said he thought they {179} must have vanished into
the gorge. The priest said that he could not believe Grettir's saying, if
no signs of it were to be seen. Grettir said that they would know more
accurately about it later. Then the priest went home. Grettir lay many days
in bed. The good-wife looked after him well, and so the Christmas-time
passed.
Grettir's account was that the giantess fell into the gulf when she got her
wound; but the men of Barthardal say that day came upon her whilst they
wrestled, and that she burst when he smote her hand off, and that she
stands there on the cliff yet, a rock in the likeness of a woman[307].
The dwellers in the dale kept Grettir in hiding there. But after Christmas
time, one day that winter, Grettir went to Isledale river. And when Grettir
and the priest met, Grettir [Sidenote: p. 160] said "I see, priest, that
you place little belief in my words. Now will I that you go with me to the
river and see what the likelihood seems to you to be."
The priest did so. But when they came to the waterfall they saw that the
sides of the gorge hung over[308]: it was a sheer cliff so great that one
could in nowise come up, and it was nearly ten fathoms[309] from the top to
the water below. They had a rope with them. Then the priest said, "It seems
to me quite impossible for thee to get down."
Grettir said, "Assuredly it is possible, but best for those who are men of
valour. I will examine what is in the waterfall, and thou shalt watch the
rope."
{180}
The priest said it should be as he wished, drove a peg into the cliff,
piled stones against it, and sat by it[310].
Now it must be told concerning Grettir that he knotted a stone into the
rope, and so let it down to the water.
"What way," said the priest, "do you mean to go?"
"I will not be bound," said Grettir, "when I go into the water, so much my
mind forebodes me."
After that he got ready for his exploit, and had little on; he girded
himself with his short sword, and had no other weapon.
Then he plunged from the cliff down into the waterfall. The priest saw the
soles of his feet, and knew no more what had become of him. Grettir dived
under the waterfall, and that was difficult because there was a great eddy,
and he had to dive right to the bottom before he could come up behind the
waterfall. There was a jutting rock and he climbed upon it. There was a
great cave behind the waterfall, and the river fell in front of it from the
precipice. He went into the cave, and there was a big fire burning. Grettir
saw that there sat a giant of frightful size. He was terrible to look upon:
but when Grettir came to him, the giant leapt up and seized a pike, and
hewed at the new-comer: for with the pike he could both cut and stab. It
had a handle of wood: men at that time called a weapon made in such a way a
_heptisax_. Grettir smote against it with his short sword, and struck the
handle so that he cut it asunder. Then the giant tried to reach back for a
sword which hung behind him in the cave. Thereupon Grettir smote him in the
breast, and struck off almost all the lower part of his chest and his
belly, so that the entrails gushed out of him down into the river, and were
swept along the current.
And as the priest sat by the rope he saw some lumps, clotted [Sidenote: p.
161] with blood, carried down stream. Then he became unsteady, and thought
that now he knew that Grettir must be dead: and he ran from keeping the
rope and went home. It was then evening, and the priest said for certain
that Grettir was dead, and added that it was a great loss of such a man.
Now the tale must be told concerning Grettir. He let little space go
between his blows till the giant was dead. Then he {181} went further into
the cave; he kindled a light and examined it. It is not said how much
wealth he took in the cave, but men think that there was something. He
stayed there far into the night. He found there the bones of two men, and
put them into a bag. Then he left the cave and swam to the rope and shook
it, for he thought that the priest must be there. But when he knew that the
priest had gone home, then he had to draw himself up, hand over hand, and
so he came up on to the cliff.
Then he went home to Isledale river, and came to the church porch, with the
bag that the bones were in, and with a rune-staff, on which these verses
were exceedingly well cut:
There into gloomy gulf I passed,
O'er which from the rock's throat is cast
The swirling rush of waters wan,
To meet the sword-player feared of man.
By giant's hall the strong stream pressed
Cold hands against the singer's breast;
Huge weight upon him there did hurl
The swallower of the changing whirl[311].
And this rhyme too:
The dreadful dweller of the cave
Great strokes and many 'gainst me drave;
Full hard he had to strive for it,
But toiling long he wan no whit;
For from its mighty shaft of tree
The heft-sax smote I speedily;
And dulled the flashing war-flame fair
In the black breast that met me there.
[Sidenote: p. 162]
These verses told also that Grettir had taken these bones out of the cave.
But when the priest came to the church in the morning he found the staff,
and what was with it, and read the runes; but Grettir had gone home to
Sandhaugar.
But when the priest met Grettir he asked him closely as to what had
happened: and Grettir told him all the story of his journey. And he added
that the priest had not watched the rope faithfully. The priest said that
that was true enough.
Men thought for certain that these monsters must have caused the loss of
men there in the dale; and there was never any loss from hauntings or
spirit-walkings there afterwards.
{182} Grettir was thought to have caused a great purging of the land. The
priest buried these bones in the churchyard.
* * * * *
D. EXTRACTS FROM BJARKA R['I]MUR
(_Hr['o]lfs saga Kraka og Bjarkar['i]mur_ udgivne ved F. J['o]nsson,
Koebenhavn, 1904)
58. Flestir [o,]mudhu Hetti heldr,
hann var ekki ['i] m['a]li sneldr,
einn dag f['o]ru their ['u]t af h[o,]ll,
sv['o] ekki vissi hirdhin [o,]ll.
59. Hjalti talar er felmtinn faer,
"f[o,]rum vidh ekki sk['o]gi naer,
h['e]r er s['u] ylgr sem etr upp menn,
okkr drepr h['u]n b['a]dha senn."
60. Ylgrin hlj['o]p ['u]r einum runn,
['o]gurlig medh gapanda munn,
h[o,]rmuligt vardh Hjalta vidhr,
['a] honum skalf baedhi leggr og lidhr.
61. ['O]taept Bjarki adh henni gengr,
ekki dvelr hann vidh thadh lengr,
h[o,]ggur sv['o] adh ['i] hamri st['o]dh,
hlj['o]p ['u]r henni ferligt bl['o]dh.
62. "Kj['o]stu Hjalti um kosti tv['o],"
kappinn B[o,]dhvar taladhi sv['o],
"drekk n['u] bl['o]dh edha drep eg thig h['e]r,
dugrinn l['i]z m['e]r engi ['i] th['e]r."
63. Ansar Hjalti af aernum m['o]dh,
"ekki thori eg adh drekka bl['o]dh,
n['y]tir flest ef naudhigr skal,
n['u] er ekki ['a] betra val."
64. Hjalti gj[o,]rir sem B[o,]dhvar bidhr,
adh bl['o]dhi fr['a] eg hann lagdhist nidhr,
drekkur s['i]dhan drykki thrj['a],
duga mun honum vidh einn adh rj['a].
IV, 58-64.
{183}
4. Hann hefr fengidh hjartadh snjalt
af h[o,]rdhum m['o]dhi,
fekk hann huginn og aflidh alt
af ylgjar bl['o]dhi.
5. ['I] grindur vandist gr['a]bj[o,]rn einn
['i] gardhinn Hleidhar,
var s['a] margur vargrinn beinn
og v['i]dha sveidhar.
6. Bjarka er kent, adh hjardharhunda
hafi hann drepna,
ekki er h['o]num allvel hent
vidh ['y]ta kepna.
7. Hr['o]lfur b['y]st og hirdh hans [o,]ll
adh h['u]na st['y]ri,
"S['a] skal mestr ['i] minni h[o,]ll
er maetir d['y]ri."
8. Beljandi hlj['o]p bj[o,]rninn framm
['u]r b['o]li krukku,
veifar s['i]num v['o]nda hramm,
sv['o] virdhar hrukku.
9. Hjalti s['e]r og horfir th['a] ['a],
er hafin er r['o]ma,
hafdhi hann ekki ['i] h[o,]ndum th['a]
nema hnefana t['o]ma.
10. Hr['o]lfur fleygdhi adh Hjalta th['a]
theim hildar vendi,
kappinn m['o]ti krummu br['a]
og kl['o]tidh hendi.
11. Lagdhi hann s['i]dhan bj[o,]rninn br['a]tt
vidh b['o]ginn haegra,
bessi fell ['i] br['u]dhar ['a]tt
og bar sig laegra.
12. Vann hann thadh til fraegdha fyst
og fleira s['i]dhar,
hans var lundin l[o,]ngum byst
['i] leiki gr['i]dhar.
{184}
13. H['e]r medh fekk hann Hjalta nafn
hins hjartapr['u]dha,
Bjarki var eigi betri en jafn
vidh b['y]ti skr['u]dha.
V, 4-13.
23. Adhals var gladhr afreksmadhr,
austur thangadh k['o]mu,
fyrdhar their medh fr['a]nan geir
flengja thegar til r['o]mu.
24. ['Y]tar b['y]ta engum fridh,
unnu vel til m['a]la,
thar fell ['A]li og alt hans lidh
ungr ['i] leiki st['a]la.
25. Hestrinn beztur Hrafn er kendr,
hafa their tekidh af ['A]la,
Hildisv['i]n er hj['a]lmrinn vendr,
hann kaus Bjarki ['i] m['a]la.
26. [O,]dhling badh th['a] eigi drafl
eiga um n[o,]kkur skipti,
thadh mun kosta k['o]ngligt afl,
hann kappann gripunum svipti.
27. Ekki th['o]tti B[o,]dhvar betr,
['i] burtu f['o]ru their Hjalti,
l['e]tust ['a]dhr en lidhinn er vetr
leita adh Fr['o]dha malti.
28. S['i]dhan r['i]dha seggir heim
og s[o,]gdhu k['o]ngi thetta,
hann kvedhst mundu handa theim
heimta sl['i]kt af l['e]tta.
VIII, 23-28.
TRANSLATION OF EXTRACTS FROM BJARKA R['I]MUR
58. Most [of Rolf's retainers] much tormented Hott [Hjalti]; he was not
cunning in speech. One day Hjalti and Bothvar went out of the hall, in such
wise that none of the retainers knew thereof. {185}
59. Hjalti spake in great terror, "Let us not go near the wood; here is the
she-wolf who eats up men; she will kill us both together."
60. The she-wolf leapt from a thicket, dread, with gaping jaws. A great
terror was it to Hjalti, and he trembled in every limb.
61. Without delay or hesitation went Bjarki towards her, and hewed at her
so that the axe went deep; a monstrous stream of blood gushed from her.
62. "Choose now, Hjalti, of two things"--so spake Bothvar the
champion--"Drink now the blood, or I slay thee here; it seems unto me that
there is no valour in thee."
63. Hjalti replied stoutly enough, "I cannot bring myself to drink blood;
but if I needs must, it avails most [to submit], and now is there no better
choice."
64. Hjalti did as Bothvar bade: he stooped down to the blood; then drank he
three sups: that will suffice him to wrestle with one man.
IV, 58-64.
4. He [Hjalti] has gained good courage and keen spirit; he got strength and
all valour from the she-wolf's blood.
5. A grey bear visited the folds at Hleithargarth; many such a ravager was
there far and wide throughout the country.
6. The blame was laid upon Bjarki, because he had slain the herdsmen's
dogs; it was not so suited for him to have to strive with men[312].
7. Rolf and all his household prepared to hunt the bear; "He who faces the
beast shall be greatest in my hall."
8. Roaring did the bear leap forth from out its den, swinging its evil
claws, so that men shrank back.
9. Hjalti saw, he turned and gazed where the battle began; nought had he
then in his hands--his empty fists alone.
{186}
10. Rolf tossed then to Hjalti his wand of war [his sword]; the warrior put
forth his hand towards it, and grasped the pommel.
11. Quickly then he smote the bear in the right shoulder; Bruin fell to the
earth, and bore himself in more lowly wise.
12. That was the beginning of his exploits: many followed later; his spirit
was ever excellent amid the play of battle.
13. Herefrom he got the name of Hjalti the stout-hearted: Bjarki was no
more than his equal.
V, 4-13.
23. Joyful was the valiant Athils when they [Bjarki and Rolf's champions]
came east to that place [Lake Wener]; troops with flashing spears rode
quickly forthwith to the battle.
24. No truce gave they to their foes: well they earned their pay; there
fell Ali and all his host, young in the game of swords.
25. The best of horses, Hrafn by name, they took from Ali; Bjarki chose for
his reward the helm Hildisvin.
26. The prince [Athils] bade them have no talk about the business; he
deprived the champions[313] of their treasures--that will be a test of his
power.
27. Ill-pleased was Bothvar: he and Hjalti departed; they declared that
before the winter was gone they would seek for the treasure [the malt of
Frothi].
28. Then they rode home and told it to the king [Rolf]; he said it was
their business to claim their due outright.
VIII, 23-28.
* * * * *
E. EXTRACT FROM TH['A]TTR ORMS ST['O]R['O]LFSSONAR
(_Fornmanna S[o,]gur_, Copenhagen, 1827, III. 204 _etc._; _Flateyarb['o]k_,
Christiania, 1859-68, I. 527 _etc._)
7. Litlu s['i]dharr enn their Ormr ok ['A]sbj[o,]rn h[o,]fdhu skilit,
f['y]stist ['A]sbj[o,]rn nordhr ['i] Saudheyjar, f['o]r hann vidh 4 menn ok
20 ['a] skipi, heldr nordhr fyrir Maeri, ok leggr seint dags at Saudhey
{187} hinni ytri, g['a]nga ['a] land ok reisa tjald, eru thar um
n['o]ttina, ok verdha vidh ekki varir; um morgininn ['a]rla r['i]s
['A]sbj[o,]rn upp, klaedhir sik, ok tekr v['o]pn s['i]n, ok gengr upp['a]
land, en bidhr menn s['i]na b['i]dha s['i]n; en er nokkut sv['a] var lidhit
fr['a] thv['i], er ['A]sbj[o,]rn hafdhi ['i] brott gengit, verdha their
vidh that varir, at ketta ['o]grlig var komin ['i] tjaldsdyrnar, hon var
kolsv[o,]rt at lit ok heldr grimmlig, thv['i]at eldr th['o]tti brenna or
n[o,]sum hennar ok munni, eigi var hon ok vel eyg; theim br['a] mj[o,]k
vidh thessa s['y]n, ok urdhu ['o]ttafullir. Ketta hleypr th['a] innar at
theim, ok gr['i]pr hvern at [o,]dhrum, ok sv['a] er sagt at suma gleypti
hon, en suma rifi hon til daudhs medh kl['o]m ok t[o,]nnum, 20 menn drap
hon thar ['a] l['i]tilli stundu, en 3 kv['o]must ['u]t ok undan ok ['a]
skip, ok h['e]ldu thegar undan landi; en ['A]sbj[o,]rn gengr thar til, er
hann kemr at hellinum Br['u]sa, ok snarar thegar inn ['i]; honum vardh
nokkut dimt fyrir augum, en skuggamikit var ['i] hellinum; hann verdhr eigi
fyrr var vidh, enn hann er thrifinn ['a]lopt, ok faerdhr nidhr sv['a] hart,
at ['A]sbirni th['o]tti furdha ['i], verdhr hann thess th['a] varr, at thar
er kominn Br['u]si j[o,]tun, ok s['y]ndist heldr mikiligr. Br['u]si maelti
th['a]: th['o] lagdhir th['u] mikit kapp ['a] at saekja h['i]ngat; skaltu
n['u] ok eyrindi hafa, thv['i]at th['u] skalt h['e]r l['i]fit l['a]ta medh
sv['a] miklum harmkvaelum, at that skal adhra letja at saekja mik heim medh
['o]fridhi; fletti hann th['a] ['A]sbj[o,]rn klaedhum, thv['i]at sv['a],
var theirra mikill afla munr, at j[o,]tuninn vardh einn at r['a]dha theirra
['i] milli; b['a]lk mikinn s['a] ['A]sbj[o,]rn standa um thveran hellinn ok
st['o]rt gat ['a] midhjum b['a]lkinum; j['a]rns['u]la st['o]r st['o]dh
nokkut sv['a] fyrir framan b['a]lkinn. N['u] skal pr['o]fa that, segir
Br['u]si, hv['a]rt th['u] ert nokkut hardhari enn adhrir menn. L['i]tit mun
that at reyna, segir ['A]sbj[o,]rn....
S['i]dhan l['e]t ['A]sbj[o,]rn l['i]f sitt medh mikilli hreysti ok
dreingskap.
8. That er at segja at their thr['i]r menn, er undan k['o]must, s['o]ttu
kn['a]liga r['o]dhr, ok l['e]ttu eigi fyrr enn their k['o]mu at landi,
s[o,]gdhu thau t['i]dhindi er gerzt h[o,]fdhu ['i] theirra f[o,]rum,
kv['o]dhust aetla ['A]sbj[o,]rn daudhan, en kunnu ekki fr['a] at segja,
hversu at hefdhi borizt um hans l['i]fl['a]t; kv['o]mu their s['e]r i skip
medh kaupm[o,]nnum, ok fluttust sv['a] sudhr til Danmerkr; spurdhust n['u]
thessi t['i]dhindi v['i]dha, ok th['o]ttu mikil. Tha var ordhit
h[o,]fdh['i]ngja skipti ['i] Noregi, Hakon jarl daudhr, en ['O]lafr
Tryggvason ['i] land kominn, ok baudh [o,]llum r['e]tta tr['u]. Ormr
St['o]r['o]lfsson spurdhi ['u]t til ['I]slands um {188} farar ok
l['i]fl['a]t ['A]sbjarnar, er m[o,]nnum th['o]tti sem vera mundi; th['o]tti
honum that allmikill skadhi, ok undi eigi lengr ['a] ['I]slandi, ok t['o]k
s['e]r far ['i] Reydharfirdhi, ok f['o]r thar utan; their kv['o]mu
nordharliga vidh Noreg, ok sat hann um vetrinn ['i] Thr['a]ndheimi; th['a]
hafdhi ['O]lafr r['a]dhit 3 vetr Noregi. Um v['o]rit bj['o]st Ormr at fara
til Saudheya, their v['o]ru thv['i] naerr margir ['a] skipi, sem their
['A]sbj[o,]rn h[,]fdhu verit; their l[o,]gdhu at minni Saudhey s['i]dh um
kveldit, ok tj[o,]ldudhu ['a] landi, ok l['a]gu thar um n['a]ttina....
9. N['u] gengr Ormr thar til er hann kemr at hellinum, s['e]r hann n['u]
bjargit that st['o]ra, ok leizt ['u]m['a]tuligt nokkurum manni that ['i]
brott at faera; th['o] dregr hann ['a] sik gl['o]fana Mengladharnauta, tekr
s['i]dhan ['a] bjarginu ok faerir that burt or dyrunum, ok thikist Ormr
th['a] aflraun mesta s['y]nt hafa; hann gekk th['a] inn['i] hellinn, ok
lagdhi m['a]laj['a]rn ['i] dyrnar, en er hann var inn kominn, s['a] hann
hvar kettan hlj['o]p medh gapanda ginit. Ormr hafdhi boga ok [o,]rvamaeli,
lagdhi hann th['a] [o,]r ['a] streing, ok skaut at kettunni thremr [o,]rum,
en hon hendi allar medh hvoptunum, ok beit ['i] sundr, hefir hon sik th['a]
at Ormi, ok rekr klaernar framan ['i] f['a]ngit, sv['a] at Ormr kiknar
vidh, en klaernar gengu ['i] gegnum klaedhin sv['a] at ['i] beini st['o]dh;
hon aetlar th['a] at b['i]ta ['i] andlit Ormi, finnr hann th['a] at honum
mun eigi veita, heitir th['a] ['a] sj['a]lfan gudh ok hinn heilaga Petrum
postula, at g['a]nga til R['o]ms, ef hann ynni kettuna ok Br['u]sa, son
hennar; s['i]dhan fann Ormr at m['i]nkadhist afl kettunnar, tekr hann
th['a] annarri hendi um kverkr henni, en annarri um hrygg, ok gengr hana
['a] bak, ok br['y]tr ['i]sundr ['i] henni hrygginn, ok gengr sv['a] af
henni daudhri. Ormr s['a] th['a], hvar b['a]lkr st['o]rr var um thveran
hellinn; hann gengr th['a] innar at, en er hann kemr thar, s['e]r hann at
fleinn mikill kemr utar ['i] gegnum b['a]lkinn, hann var baedhi digr ok
l['a]ngr; Ormr gr['i]pr th['a] ['i] m['o]ti fleininum, ok leggr af ['u]t;
Br['u]si kippir th['a] at s['e]r fleininum ok var hann fastr sv['a] at
hvergi gekk; that undradhist Br['u]si, ok gaegdist upp yfir b['a]lkinn, en
er Ormr s['e]r that, thr['i]fr hann ['i] skeggit ['a] Br['u]sa b['a]dhum
h[o,]ndum, en Br['u]si bregzt vidh ['i] [o,]dhrum stadh, sviptast their
th['a] fast um b['a]lkinn. Ormr hafdhi vafit skegginu um h[o,]nd s['e]r, ok
rykkir til sv['a] fast, at hann r['i]fr af Br['u]sa allan skeggstadhinn,
h[o,]kuna, kjaptana b['a]dha, v['a]ngafyllurnar upp alt at eyrum, gekk
h['e]r medh holdit nidhr at beini. Br['u]si l['e]t th['a] {189} s['i]ga
br['y]nnar, ok grettist heldr greppiliga. Ormr st[o,]kkr th['a] innar yfir
b['a]lkinn, gr['i]past their th['a] til ok gl['i]ma lengi, maeddi Br['u]sa
th['a] fast bl['o]dhr['a]s, tekr hann th['a] heldr at g['a]ngast fyrir,
gefr Ormr th['a] ['a], ok rekr Br['u]sa at b['a]lkinum ok br['y]tr hann
thar um ['a] bak aptr. Snemma sagdhi m['e]r that hugr, sagdhi Br['u]si, at
ek munda af th['e]r nokkut erfitt f['a], thegar ek heyrdha th['i]n getit,
enda er that n['u] fram komit, muntu n['u] vinna skj['o]tt um, ok h[o,]ggva
h[o,]fudh af m['e]r, en that var satt, at mj[o,]k p['i]nda ek ['A]sbj[o,]rn
pr['u]dha, th['a] er ek rakta or honum alla tharmana, ok gaf hann sik ekki
vidh, fyrrenn hann d['o]. Illa gerdhir th['u] that, segir Ormr, at p['i]na
hann sv['a] mj[o,]k jafnr[o,]skvan mann, skaltu ok hafa thess nokkurar
menjar. Hann br['a] th['a] saxi ok reist bl['o]dh[o,]rn ['a] baki honum, ok
skar [o,]ll rifin fr['a] hryggnum, ok dr['o] thar ['u]t l['u]ngun; l['e]t
Br['u]si sv['a] l['i]f sitt medh litlum dreingskap; s['i]dhan bar Ormr eld
at, ok brendi upp til [o,]sku baedhi Br['u]sa ok kettuna, ok er hann hafdhi
thetta starfat, f['o]r hann burt or hellinum medh kistur tvaer fullar af
gulli ok silfri, en that sem meira var f['e]maett, gaf hann ['i] vald
Mengladhar, ok sv['a] eyna; skildu thau medh mikilli vin['a]ttu, kom Ormr
til manna sinna ['i] nefndan t['i]ma, h['e]ldu s['i]dhan til meginlands.
Sat Ormr ['i] Thr['a]ndheimi vetr annan.
TRANSLATION OF EXTRACT FROM TH['A]TTR ORMS ST['O]R['O]LFSSONAR
7.
A little after Orm and Asbiorn had parted, Asbiorn wished to go north to
Sandeyar[314]; he went aboard with twenty-four men, went north past Maeri,
and landed late in the day at the outermost of the Sandeyar[314]. They
landed and pitched a tent, and spent the night there, and met with nothing.
Early in the morning Asbiorn arose, clothed himself, took his arms, went
inland, and bade his men wait for him.
But when some time had passed from Asbiorn's having gone away, they were
aware that a monstrous[315] cat had come to the {190} door of the tent: she
was coal-black in colour and very fierce, for it seemed as if fire was
burning from her nostrils and mouth, and her eyes were nothing fair: they
were much startled at this sight, and full of fear. Then the cat leapt
within the tent upon them, and gripped one after the other, and so it is
said that some she swallowed and some she tore to death with claws and
teeth. Twenty men she killed in a short time, and three escaped aboard
ship, and stood away from the shore.
But Asbiorn went till he came to the cave of Brusi, and hastened in
forthwith. It was dim before his eyes, and very shadowy in the cave, and
before he was aware of it, he was caught off his feet, and thrown down so
violently that it seemed strange to him. Then was he aware that there was
come the giant Brusi, and he seemed to him a great one.
Then said Brusi, "Thou didst seek with great eagerness to come hither--now
shalt thou have business, in that thou shalt here leave thy life with so
great torments that that shall stay others from attacking me in my lair."
Then he stripped Asbiorn of his clothes, forasmuch as so great was their
difference in strength that the giant could do as he wished. Asbiorn saw a
great barrier standing across the cave, and a mighty opening in the midst
of it; a great iron column stood somewhat in front of the barrier. "Now it
must be tried," said Brusi, "whether thou art somewhat hardier than other
men." "Little will that be to test," said Asbiorn....
[Asbiorn then recites ten stanzas, Brusi tormenting him the while. The
first stanza is almost identical with No. 50 in the _Grettis saga_.]
Then Asbiorn left his life with great valour and hardihood.
8.
Now it must be told concerning the three men who escaped; they rowed
strongly, and stopped not until they came to land. They told the tidings of
what had happened in their journey, and said that they thought that Asbiorn
was dead, but that they could not tell how matters had happened concerning
his death. They took ship with merchants, and so went south to {191}
Denmark: now these tidings were spread far and wide, and seemed weighty.
There had been a change of rulers in Norway: jarl Hakon was dead, and Olaf
Tryggvason come to land: and he proclaimed the true faith to all. Orm
Storolfson heard, out in Iceland, about the expedition of Asbiorn, and the
death which it seemed to men must have come upon him. It seemed to him a
great loss, and he cared no longer to be in Iceland, and took passage at
Reytharfirth and went abroad. They reached Norway far to the north, and he
stayed the winter at Thrandheim: Olaf at that time had reigned three years
in Norway.
In the spring Orm made ready for his journey to Sandeyar, and there were
nearly as many in the ship as the company of Asbiorn had been.
They landed at Little Sandey late in the evening, and pitched a tent on the
land, and lay there the night....
9.
Now Orm went till he came to the cave. He saw the great rock, and thought
it was impossible for any man to move it. Then he drew on the gloves that
Menglath had given him, and grasped the rock and moved it away from the
door; this is reckoned Orm's great feat of strength. Then he went into the
cave, and thrust his weapon against the door. When he came in, he saw a
giantess (she-cat) springing towards him with gaping jaws. Orm had a bow
and quiver; he put the arrow on the string, and shot thrice at the
giantess. But she seized all the arrows in her mouth, and bit them asunder.
Then she flung herself upon Orm, and thrust her claws into his breast, so
that Orm stumbled, and her claws went through his clothes and pierced him
to the bone. She tried then to bite his face, and Orm found himself in
straits: he promised then to God, and the holy apostle Peter, to go to
Rome, if he conquered the giantess and Brusi her son. Then Orm felt the
power of the giantess diminishing: he placed one hand round her throat, and
the other round her back, and bent it till he broke it in two, and so left
her dead.
Then Orm saw where a great barrier ran across the cave: he went further in,
and when he came to it he saw a great shaft {192} coming out through the
barrier, both long and thick. Orm gripped the shaft and drew it away; Brusi
pulled it towards himself, but it did not yield. Then Brusi wondered, and
peeped up over the barrier. But when Orm saw that, he gripped Brusi by the
beard with both hands, but Brusi pulled away, and so they tugged across the
barrier. Orm twisted the beard round his hand, and tugged so violently that
he pulled the flesh of Brusi away from the bone--from chin, jaws, cheeks,
right up to the ears. Brusi knitted his brows and made a hideous face. Then
Orm leapt in over the barrier, and they grappled and wrestled for a long
time. But loss of blood wearied Brusi, and he began to fail in strength.
Orm pressed on, pushed Brusi to the barrier, and broke his back across it.
"Right early did my mind misgive me," said Brusi, "even so soon as I heard
of thee, that I should have trouble from thee: and now has that come to
pass. But now make quick work, and hew off my head. And true it is that
much did I torture the gallant Asbiorn, in that I tore out all his
entrails--yet did he not give in, before he died." "Ill didst thou do,"
said Orm, "to torture him, so fine a man as he was, and thou shalt have
something in memory thereof." Then he drew his knife, and cut the "blood
eagle" in the back of Brusi, shore off his ribs and drew out his lungs. So
Brusi died in cowardly wise. Then Orm took fire, and burned to ashes both
Brusi and the giantess. And when he had done that, he left the cave, with
two chests full of gold and silver.
And all that was most of value he gave to Menglath, and the island
likewise. So they parted with great friendship, and Orm came to his men at
the time appointed, and then they sailed to the mainland. Orm remained a
second winter at Thrandheim.
* * * * *
F. A DANISH DRAGON-SLAYING OF THE BEOWULF-TYPE
Paa den Tid, da kong Gram Guldkoelve regierede i Leire, vare der ved Hoffet
to Ministre, Bessus og Henrik. Og da der paa samme Tid indkom idelige
klager fra Indbyggerne i Vendsyssel, at et grueligt Udyr, som Boenderne
kaldte Lindorm, oedelagde baade Mennesker og Kreaturer, gav Bessus det
Raad, at Kongen skulde sende Henrik did hen, efterdi ingen i det ganske
Rige kunde maale sig med ham in Tapperhed og Mod. Da svarede {193} Henrik,
at han vel vilde paatage sig dette, dog tilfoeiede han, at han ansaae det
for umuligt at slippe fra saadan Kamp med Livet. Og belavede han sig da
strax til Reisen, tog roerende Afsked med sin Herre og Konge og sagde
iblandt andet: "Herre! om jeg ikke kommer tilbage, da soerg for min kone og
for mine Boern!" Da han derefter var kommen over til Vendsyssel, lod han
sig af Boenderne vise det Sted, hvor Uhyret havde sit Leie, og fik da at
vide, at Ormen endnu den samme Dag havde vaeret ude af Hulen og borttaget
en Hyrde og en Oxe, og at den efter Saedvane nu ikke vilde komme ud,
foerend om tre Timer, naar den skulde ned til Vandet for at drikke efter
Maaltidet. Henrik ifoerte sig da sin fulde Rustning, og eftersom Ingen
vovede at staae ham bi i dette Arbeide, lagde han sig ganske alene ved
Vandet, dog saaledes, at Vinden ikke bar fra ham henimod Dyret. Da udsendte
han foerst en vaeldig Piil fra sin Bue, men uagtet den rammede noeie det
sted, hvortil han havde sigtet, toernede den dog tilbage fra Ormens haarde
Skael. Herover blev Uhyret saa optaendt af Vrede, at det strax gik henimod
ham, agtende ham kun et ringe Maaltid; men Henrik havde iforveien hos en
Smed ladet sig gioere en stor Krog med Gjenhold, hvilken han jog ind i
Beestets aabne Gab, saa at det ikke kunde blive den qvit, ihvormeget det
end arbeidede, og ihvorvel Jernstangen brast i Henriks Haender. Da slog det
ham med sin vaeldige Hale til Jorden, og skioendt han havde fuldkommen
Jernrustning paa, kradsede det dog med sine forfaerdelige Kloeer saa at
han, naesten doedeligt saaret, faldt i Besvimelse. Men da han, efterat
Ormen i nogen Tid havde haft ham liggende under sin Bug, endelig kom lidt
til sin Samling igien, greb han af yderste Evne en Daggert, af hvilke han
foerte flere med sig i sit Baelte, og stak Dyret dermed i underlivet, hvor
Sksaellene vare bloedest, saa at det tilsidst maate udpuste sin giftige
Aande, medens han selv laae halv knust under dens Byrde. Da Boenderne i
Vendsyssel som stode i nogen Afstand, under megen Frygt og lidet Haab
omsider maerkede, at Striden sagtnede, og at begge Parter holdte sig
rolige, naermede de sig og fandt Hr. Henrik naesten livloes under det
draebte Udyr. Og efterat de i nogen Tid havde givet ham god Pleie, vendte
han tilbage for at doe hos sin Konge, til hvem han gientagende anbefalede
sin {194} Slaegt. Fra ham nedstammer Familien Lindenroth, som til Minde om
denne vaeldige Strid foerer en Lindorm i sit Vaaben.
_MS_ 222. 4^o. Stamme och Slectebog over den hoeiadelige Familie af
Lindenroth, in _Danmarks Folkesagn_, samlede af J. M. Thiele, 1843, I,
125-7.
A DANISH DRAGON-SLAYING OF THE BEOWULF-TYPE.
_Translation._
In the days when King Gram Guldkoelve ruled in Leire, there were two
ministers at court, Bessus and Henry. And at that time constant complaints
came to the court from the inhabitants of Vendsyssel, that a dread monster,
which the peasants called a Drake, was destroying both man and beast. So
Bessus gave counsel, that the king should send Henry against the dragon,
seeing that no one in the whole kingdom was his equal in valour and
courage. Henry answered that assuredly he would undertake it; but he added
that he thought it impossible to escape from such a struggle with his life.
And he made himself ready forthwith for the expedition, took a touching
farewell of his lord and king, and said among other things: "My lord, if I
come not back, care thou for my wife and my children."
Afterwards, when he crossed over to Vendsyssel, he caused the peasants to
show him the place where the monster had its lair, and learnt how that very
day the drake had been out of its den, and had carried off a herdsman and
an ox; how, according to its wont, it would now not come out for three
hours, when it would want to go down to the water to drink after its meal.
Henry clothed himself in full armour, and inasmuch as no one dared to stand
by him in that task, he lay down all alone by the water, but in such wise
that the wind did not blow from him toward the monster. First of all he
sent a mighty arrow from his bow: but, although it exactly hit the spot at
which he had aimed, it darted back from the dragon's hard scales. At this
the monster was so maddened, that it attacked him forthwith, reckoning him
but a little meal. But Henry had had a mighty barbed crook prepared by a
smith beforehand, which he thrust into the beast's open mouth, so that it
could {195} not get rid of it, however much it strove, although the iron
rod broke in Henry's hands. Then it smote him to the ground with its mighty
tail, and although he was in complete armour, clutched at him with its
dread claws, so that he fell in a swoon, wounded almost to death. But when
he came somewhat to his senses again, after the drake for some time had had
him lying under its belly, he rallied his last strength and grasped a
dagger, of which he carried several with him in his belt, and smote it
therewith in the belly, where the scales were weakest. So the monster at
last breathed out its poisoned breath, whilst he himself lay half crushed
under its weight. When the Vendsyssel peasants, who stood some distance
away, in great fear and little hope, at last noticed that the battle had
slackened, and that both combatants were still, they drew near and found
Henry almost lifeless under the slain monster. And after they for some time
had tended him well, he returned to die by his king, to whom he again
commended his offspring. From him descends the family Lindenroth, which in
memory of this mighty contest carries a drake on its coat of arms.
This story resembles the dragon fight in _Beowulf_, in that the hero
faces the dragon as protector of the land, with forebodings, and after
taking farewell; he attacks the dragon in its lair, single-handed; his
first attack is frustrated by the dragon's scales; in spite of
apparatus specially prepared, he is wounded and stunned by the dragon,
but nevertheless smites the dragon in the soft parts and slays him; the
watchers draw near when the fight is over. Yet these things merely
prove that the two stories are of the same type; there is no evidence
that this story is descended from _Beowulf_.
* * * * *
G. THE OLD ENGLISH GENEALOGIES.
I. _THE MERCIAN GENEALOGY_.
Of the Old English Genealogies, the only one which, in its stages _below_
Woden, immediately concerns the student of _Beowulf_ is the Mercian. This
contains three names which also occur in _Beowulf_, though two of them in a
corrupt form--Offa, Wermund (Garmund, _Beowulf_), and Eomaer (Geomor,
_Beowulf_).
This Mercian pedigree is found in its best form in _MS Cotton Vesp. B. VI_,
fol. 109 _b_,[316] and in the sister MS at Corpus Christi College,
Cambridge (_C.C.C.C._ 183)[317]. Both these MSS are of {196} the 9th
century. They contain lists of popes and bishops, and pedigrees of kings.
By noting where these lists stop, we get a limit for the final compilation
of the document. It must have been drawn up in its present form between 811
and 814[318]. But it was obviously compiled from lists already existing,
and some of them were even at that date old. For the genealogy of the
Mercian kings, from Woden, is not traced directly down to this period
811-814, but in the first place only as far as Aethelred (reigning
675-704), son of Penda: that is to say, it stops considerably more than a
century before the date of the document in which it appears. Additional
pedigrees are then appended which show the subsequent stages down to and
including Cenwulf, king of Mercia (reigning 796-821). It is difficult to
account for such an arrangement except on the hypothesis that the genealogy
was committed to writing in the reign of Aethelred, the monarch with whose
name it terminates in its first form, and was then brought up to date by
the addition of the supplementary names ending with Cenwulf. This is
confirmed when we find that precisely the same arrangement holds good for
the accompanying Northumbrian pedigree, which terminates with Ecgfrith
(670-685), the contemporary of Aethelred of Mercia, and is then brought up
to date by additional names.
Genealogies which draw from the same source as the _Vespasian_ genealogies,
and show the same peculiarities, are found in the _Historia Brittonum_ (ss.
57-61). They show, even more emphatically than do the _Vespasian_ lists,
traces of having been originally drawn up in the time of Aethelred of
Mercia (675-704) or possibly of his father Penda, and of having then been
brought up to date in subsequent revisions[319].
One such revision must have been made about 796[320]: it is a {197}
modification of this revision which is found in the _Historia Brittonum_.
Another was that which, as we have seen, must have been made between
811-814, and in this form is found in _MS Cotton Vespasian B. VI_, _MS
C.C.C.C._ 183, both of the 9th century, and in the (much later) _MS Cotton
Tiberius B. V_.
The genealogy up to Penda is also found in the _A.-S. Chronicle_ under the
year 626 (accession of Penda).
This Mercian list, together with the Northumbrian and other pedigrees which
accompany it, can claim to be the earliest extant English historical
document, having been written down in the 7th century, and recording
historic names which (allowing thirty years for a generation) cannot be
later than the 4th century A.D. In most similar pedigrees the earliest
names are meaningless to us. But the Mercian pedigree differs from the
rest, in that we are able from _Beowulf_, _Widsith_, Saxo Grammaticus,
Sweyn Aageson and the _Vitae Offarum_, to attach stories to the names of
Wermund and Offa. How much of these stories is history, and how much
fiction, it is difficult to say--but, with them, extant English history and
English poetry and English fiction alike have their beginning.
MS Cotton Vesp. B. VI. MS C.C.C.C. 183.
Aedhilred Peding Aedhelred Pending
Penda Pypbing Penda Pybbing
Pypba Crioding Pybba Creoding
Crioda Cynewalding Creoda Cynewalding
Cynewald Cnebbing Cynewald Cnebbing
Cnebba Icling Cnebba Icling
Icil Eamering Icel Eomaering
Eamer Angengeoting Eomaer Angengeoting
Angengeot Offing Angengiot Offing
Offa Uaermunding Offa Waermunding
Uermund Uihtlaeging Waermund Wihtlaeging
Uihtlaeg Wiodhulgeoting Wihtlaeg Wiotholgeoting
Weodhulgeot Wodning Weotholgiot Wodning
Woden Frealafing Woden Frealafing
{198}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Historia Brittonum_[321]. _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle._
MS Harl 3859. MSS Cotton Tib. A. VI. and B.I.[322]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Penda Penda Pybbing
Pubba Pybba Creoding
Creoda Cynewalding
Cynewald Cnebbing
Cnebba Iceling
Icel Eomaering
Eamer Eomaer Angeltheowing
Ongen Angeltheow Offing
Offa Offa Waermunding
Guerdmund Waermund Wihtlaeging
Guithleg Wihtlaeg Wodening
Gueagon
Guedolgeat
[U]Uoden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. _THE STAGES ABOVE WODEN._
(1) _WODEN TO GEAT._
The stages above Woden are found in two forms: a short list which traces
the line from Woden up to Geat: and a longer list which carries the line
from Geat to Sceaf and through Noah to Adam.
The line from Woden to Geat is found in the _Historia Brittonum_, not with
the other genealogies, but in s. 31, where the pedigree of the Kentish
royal family is given, when the arrival of Hengest in Britain is recounted.
Notwithstanding the dispute regarding the origin and date of the _Historia
Brittonum_, there is a pretty general agreement that this _Woden to Geat_
pedigree is one of the more primitive elements, and is not likely to be
much later than the end of the 7th century[323]. The original nucleus of
the _Historia Brittonum_ was revised by {199} Nennius in the 9th century,
or possibly at the end of the 8th[324]. The earliest MS of the _Historia_,
that of Chartres, belongs to the 9th or 10th century--this is fragmentary
and already interpolated; the received text is based upon _MS Harleian_
3859, dating from the end of the 11th century[325], or possibly somewhat
later.
I give the pedigree in four forms:
A. The critical text of the _Historia Brittonum_ as edited by Th. Mommsen
(_Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auct. Antiq., Chronica Minora_, III,
Berolini, 1898, p. 171).
B. _MS Harl._ 3859, upon which Mommsen's text is based, fol. 180.
C. The _Chartres MS._
D. Mommsen's critical text of the later revision, _Nennius interpretatus_,
which he gives parallel to the _Historia Brittonum_.
A B C D
Hors et Hengist Hors & Hengist Cors et Haecgens Hors et Hengist
filii Guictgils filii Guictgils filii Guictils filii Guictgils
Guigta Guitta Guicta Guigta
Guectha Guectha Gueta Guectha
VVoden VVoden VVoden Voden
Frealaf Frealaf Frelab Frealaf
Fredulf Fredulf Freudulf Fredolf
Finn Finn Fran Finn
Frenn
Fodepald Fodepald Folcpald Folcvald
Geta Geta G[e]uta Gaeta
qui fuit, qui fuit, qui sunt [_sic_], Vanli
ut aiunt, ut aiunt, ut aiunt, Saxi
filius dei filius dei filius dei Negua
_MS Cotton Vespasian B. VI_ (9th century) contains a number of Anglo-Saxon
genealogies and other lists revised up to the period 811-14[326]. The
genealogy of the kings of Lindsey in this list has the stages from Woden to
Geat. This genealogy is also found in the sister list in the 9th century MS
at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (_MS C.C.C.C._ 183).
{200}
A similar list is to be found in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (entered under
the year 547). But there it is appended to the genealogy of the
Northumbrian kings. This genealogy has been erased in the oldest MS
(Parker, end of the 9th century) to make room for later additions, but is
found in _MSS Cotton Tiberius A. VI_ and _B. I._
_Cotton (Vespasian) _Corpus MS._ _A.-S. Chronicle_
MS._
UUoden Frealafing Woden Frealafing Woden Freotholafing
Frealaf Friodhulfing Frealaf Friothowulsing (sic) Freothelaf Freothulfing
Friodhulf Finning Freothowulf Godwulfing Frithulf Finning
Finn Goduulfing Finn Godulfing
Godulf Geoting Godwulf Geating Godulf Geating
The _Fodepald_ or _Folcpald_ who, in the _Historia Brittonum_, appears as
the father of Finn, is clearly the _Folcwalda_ who appears as Finn's father
in _Beowulf_ and _Widsith_. The Old English _w_ ([wynn]) has been mistaken
for _p_, just as in _Pinefred_ for _Winefred_ in the _Life of Offa II_. In
the _Vespasian MS_ and in other genealogies Godwulf is Finn's father. It
has been very generally held that Finn and his father Godwulf are mythical
heroes, quite distinct from the presumably historic Finn, son of Folcwalda,
mentioned in _Beowulf_ and _Widsith_: and that by confusion _Folcwald_ came
to be written instead of _Godwulf_ in the genealogy, as given in the
_Historia Brittonum_. I doubt whether there is sufficient justification for
this distinction between a presumed historic Finn Folcwalding and a
mythical Finn Godwulfing. Is it not possible that Godwulf was a
traditional, probably historic, king of the Frisians, father of Finn, and
that _Folcwalda_[327] was a _title_ which, since it alliterated
conveniently, in the end supplanted the proper name in epic poetry?
III. _THE STAGES ABOVE WODEN._
(2) _WODEN TO SCEAF._
The stages above Geat are found in the genealogy of the West-Saxon kings
only[328]. This is recorded in the _Chronicle_ {201} under the year 855
(notice concerning Aethelwulf) and it was probably drawn up at the court of
that king. Though it doubtless contains ancient names, it is apparently not
so ancient as the _Woden-Geat_ list. It became very well known, and is also
found in Asser and the _Textus Roffensis_. It was copied by later
historians such as William of Malmesbury, and by the Icelandic
genealogists[329].
The principal versions of this pedigree are given in tabular form below
(pp. 202-3); omitting the merely second-hand reproductions, such as those
of Florence of Worcester.
* * * * *
H. EXTRACT FROM THE CHRONICLE ROLL.
This roll was drawn up in the reign of Henry VI, and its compiler must have
had access to a document now lost.
There are many copies of the roll extant--the "Moseley" Roll at University
College, London (formerly in the Phillipps collection); at Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge (No. 98 A); at Trinity College, Cambridge; and in the
Biblioth[`e]que Nationale, Paris[330]; and one which recently came into the
market in London.
Steph
|
Steldius
|
Boerinus
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | |
Cinrinicius Gothus Iutus Wandalus Gethius Fresus Suethedus Dacus Geate
{202}
WEST-SAXON GENEALOGY--STAGES ABOVE WODEN
/------------------------------------------------\
CHRONICLE
PARKER MS ASSER TEXTUS ROFFENSIS I
Woden Fribowalding Uuoden Woden
Frithuwald Freawining Frithowald Frithewold
Frealaf Frithuwulfing Frealaf Frealaf
Frithuwulf Finning Frithuwulf Frithewulf
Fin Godwulfing Fingodwulf Finn
Godwulf Geating Godwulf
Geat Taetwaing Geata* ... Geata* ...
Taetwa Beawing Caetuua Tethwa
Beaw Sceldwaing Beauu Beaw
Sceldwea Heremoding Sceldwea Scaldwa
Heremod Itermoning Heremod Heremod
Itermon Hrathraing Itermod Iterman
Hathra Hathra
Huala Hwala
Beduuig Bedwig
se waes geboren in thaere Seth Scyf, se waes in
earce Noe etc. Noe, etc. dham arken geboran
[but son
of Sem, not Noe]
* quem Getam *dhene dha haethena
iamdudum pagani wuthedon for god
pro deo
venerabantur
CHRONICLE
ETHELWERD MSS COTT. TIB. A. VI [& B. I]
Uuothen Woden Frealafing
Frithouuald
Frealaf
Frithouulf Frealaf Fin[n]ing
Fin Finn Godwulfing [Godulfing]
Goduulfe Godulf Geat[t]ing
Geat Geata [Geatt] Taetwaing
Tetuua Taetwa Beawing
Beo Beaw Sceldweaing [Scealdwaing]
Scyld Scyldwa [Scealdwa] Heremoding
Heremod Itermoning
Itermon Hadhraing
Hadhra Hwalaing
Hwala Bedwiging
Bedwig Sceafing, [i]d est filius N['o]e, se
Scef. Ipse Scef cum uno waes geboren on thaere earce N['o]es
dromone advectus est in
insula oceani quae dicitur Scani, armis circundatus, eratque valde
recens puer, et ab incolis illius terrae ignotus; attamen ab eis
suscipitur et ut familiarem diligenti animo eum custodierunt et post
in regem eligunt; de cuius prosapia ordinem trahit Athulf [i.e.
Aethelwulf] rex.
{203}
/--------------------------------------
Chronicle
MS Cott. Tib. B. IV Textus Roffensis II MS Cott. Tib. B. V
Woden Frealafing Woden Frealafing Woden Frealafing
Frealaf Finning Frealaf Finning Frealaf Finning
Fin Godulfing Finn Godulfing Finn Godulfing
Godulf Gating Godulf Eating Godulf Eating
Geat Taetwaing Eata Tethwafing Eat Beawing
Taetwa Beawing Tethwa Beawing
Beaw Scealdwaing Beaw Scealdwaging Beaw Scealdwaging
Scealdhwa Heremoding Scealwa Heremoding Scealwa Heremoding
Heremod Itermoning Heremod Hermanning Heremod Itermanning
Itermon Hadhrahing Herman Hathraing Iterman Hadhraing
Hathra Hadhra Hwalaing Hadhra Bedwiging
Hwala Beowung Hwala Bedwining
Beowi Sceafing, id est Beadwig Sceafing Bedwig Sceafing
filius Noe, se waes Se Scef waes Noes sunu se Scef waes N['o]es
sunu
geboren on thaere arce and he waes innan dhaere and he waes innan
Nones ... earce geboren thaere earce geboren
----------------------------------\
Langfedhgatal Flateyarb['o]k
Langebek, 1, 3 Christiania, 1860, 1, 27
Voden Voden, _er ver_
than kollvm ver _kollum_ Odinn
Oden
Frealaf Frilafr, _e.v.k._ Bors
Finn Burri, _e.v.k._ Finn
Godvlfi Godolfr
Eat
Beaf Beaf, _e.v.k._ Biar
Scealdna Skialldin, _e.v.k._ Skiolld
Heremotr Heremoth, _e.v.k._ Hermod
Itermann Trinaan
Athra Atra
Bedvig Beduigg
Seskef vel Seseph
Sescef
William of Malmesbury. Wodenius fuit filius Fridewaldi, Fridewaldus
Frelafii, Frelafius Finni, Finnus Godulfi, Godulfus Getii, Getius Tetii,
Tetius Beowii, Beowius Sceldii, Sceldius Sceaf. Iste, ut ferunt, in quandam
insulam Germaniae Scandzam ... appulsus, navi sine remige, puerulus, posito
ad caput frumenti manipulo, dormiens, ideoque Sceaf nuncupatus, ab
hominibus regionis illius pro miraculo exceptus et sedulo nutritus, adulta
aetate regnavit in oppido quod tunc Slaswic, nunc vero Haithebi appellatur
... Sceaf fuit filius Heremodii, Heremodius Stermonii, Stermonius Hadrae,
Hadra Gwalae, Gwala Bedwigii, Bedwegius Strephii; hic, ut dicitur, fuit
filius Noae in arca natus. {204}
The following marginal note occurs:
Iste Steldius p_r_im_us_ inhabitator Germanie fuit. Que Germania sic
dicta erat, quia instar ramor_um_ germina_n_ciu_m_ ab arbore, sic
nome_n_ regnaq_ue_ germania nuncupa_n_tur. In nouem filiis diuisa a
radice Boerini geminaueru_n_t. Ab istis nouem filiis Boerini
descenderu_n_t nouem gentes septentrionalem p_ar_tem inhabitantes, qui
quondam regnu_m_ Brita_n_nie inuaseru_n_t et optinueru_n_t, videlicet
Saxones, Angli, Iuthi, Daci, Norwagences, Gothi, Wandali, Geathi et
Fresi[331].
* * * * *
I. EXTRACT FROM THE LITTLE CHRONICLE OF THE KINGS OF LEIRE
From the _Annales Lundenses_. These Annals are comparatively late,
going up to the year 1307; but the short _Chronicle of the Kings of
Leire_, which is incorporated in them, is supposed to date from the
latter half of the 12th century. The text is given in Langebek,
_Scriptores Rerum Danicarum_, _I_, 224-6 (under the name of _Annales
Esromenses_) from _Cod. Arn. Mag._ 841. There is a critical edition by
Gertz, _Scriptores Minores historiae Danicae_, Copenhagen, 1917, based
upon _Cod. Arn. Mag._ 843. The text given below is mainly that of
Langebek, with corrections from Gertz's fine edition. See below, p.
216.
Erat ergo Dan rex in Dacia[332] per triennium. Anno tandem tertio cognouit
uxorem suam Daniam, genuitque ex ea filium nomine Ro. Qui post patris
obitum hereditarie possidebat regnum. Patrem uero suum Dan colle apud
Lethram tumulauit Sialandiae, ubi sedem regni pro eo pater constituit, quam
ipse post eum diuitiis multiplicibus ditauit. Tempore illo ciuitas magna
erat in medio Sialandiae, ubi adhuc mons desertus est, nomine Hekebiarch,
ubi sita erat ciuitas quae Hoekekoping nuncupata est; ad quam ut mox Ro rex
uidit, quod mercatores a nauibus in uia currus conducentes multum
expenderent, a loco illo ciuitatem amoueri jussit ad portum, ubi tenditur
Isaefiorth, et circa fontem pulcherrimum domos disponere. Aedificauit ibi
Ro ciuitatem honestam, cui nomen partitiuum imposuit post se et Fontem,
partem capiens fontis partemque sui, Roskildam Danice uocans, quae hoc
nomine uoca[bi]tur[333] in aeternum. Uixit autem rex Ro ita pacifice, ut
nullus ei aciem opponeret, nec ipse usquam expeditionem direxit[334]. Erat
autem uxor eius {205} fecunda sobole, ex qua genuit duos filios, nomen
primi Helhgi et secundi Haldan[335]. Cumque cepissent pueri robore
confortari et crescere, obiit pater eorum Ro, et sepultus est tumulo quodam
Laethrae, post cuius obitum partiti sunt regnum filii, quod in duas partes
diuidentes, alter terras, alter mare possidebat. Rexit itaque terras
Haldanus, et genuit filium nomine Siwardum, cognomine Album, qui patrem
suum Haldanum Laethrae tumulauit mortuum. Helgi autem rex erat marinus, et
multos ad se traxit malificos, nauali bello bene adeptus diuersas partes,
quasdam pace, quasdam cum piratica classe[336] petisse perhibetur....
The Chronicle then tells how Rolf was born, the son of Helgi and Yrse or
Ursula: also of the death and burial of Helgi.
Filius autem eius et Ursulae puer crescebat Rolf et fortitudine uigebat.
Mater uero eius Ursula, uelo uiduitatis deposito, data est regi Suethiae
Athislo, qui ex ea filiam sibi genuit, Rolf uero ex matre eius sororem
nomine Skuld. Interea dum haec de rege marino Helgi agerentur, frater eius,
rex Daciae, mortuus est Haldanus. Post quem[337] rex Sweciae Athisl a Danis
suscepit tributum.
Interea ... confortabatur filius Helgi, Rolff, cognomine Krake. Quem post
mortem Snyo[338] Dani [in][339] regem assumpserunt. Qui Sialandiae apud
Lethram, sicut antecessores sui, saepissime moratus est. Sororem suam
nomine Sculd secum habuit, Athisli regis filiam, et suae matris Ursulae, de
qua superius dictum est; quam fraterno amore dilexit. Cui provinciam
Hornshaeraeth Sialandiae ad pascendas puellas suas in expensam dedit, in
qua uillam aedificauit, nomine Sculdelef, unde nomen suscepit. Hoc tempore
erat quidam Comes Scaniae, nomine Hiarwarth, Teotonicus genere, Rolf
tributarius, qui ad eum procos misit, ut {206} sororem suam Sculd Hiarwardo
daret uxorem. Quo nolente, propria ipsius uoluntate puellae clanculo eam
raptam sociauit sibi. Unde conspirauerunt inter se deliberantes Hiarwart et
Sculd, quomodo Rolf interficeretur, et Hiarwardus superstes regni heres
efficeretur. Non post multum vero temporis animosus ad uxoris exhortationem
Hiarwart Sialandiam classe petiit. Genero suo Rolff tributum attulisse
simulauit. Die quadam dilucescente ad Laethram misit, ut uideret tributum,
Rolff nunciauit. Qui cum uidisset non tributum sed exercitum armatum,
uallatus est Rolff militibus, et a Hyarwardo interfectus est. Hyarwardum
autem Syalandenses et Scanienses, qui cum eo erant, in regem assumpserunt.
Qui breui tempore, a mane usque ad primam, regali nomine potitus est. Tunc
uenit Haky, frater Haghbardi, filius Hamundi; Hyarwardum interfecit et
Danorum rex effectus est. Quo regnante, uenit quidam nomine Fritleff a
partibus Septentrionalibus et filiam sibi desponsauit Rolff Crake, ex qua
filium nomine Frothe genuit, cognomine Largus.
* * * * *
K. THE STORY OF OFFA IN SAXO GRAMMATICUS
Book IV, ed. Ascensius, fol. xxxii b; ed. Holder, pp. 106-7.
Cui filius Wermundus succedit. Hic prolixis tranquillitatis otiis
felicissima temporum quiete decursis, diutinam domesticae pacis constantiam
inconcussa rerum securitate tractabat. Idem prolis expers iuuentam exegit;
senior uero filium Uffonem sero fortunae munere suscitauit, cum nullam ei
sobolem elapsa tot annorum curricula peperissent. Hic Uffo coaeuos quosque
corporis habitu supergressus, adeo hebetis ineptique animi principio
iuuentae existimatus est, ut priuatis ac publicis rebus inutilis uideretur.
Siquidem ab ineunte aetate nunquam Iusus aut ioci consuetudinem praebuit;
adeoque humanae delectationis uacuus fuit, ut labiorum continentiam iugi
silentio premeret, et seueritatem oris a ridendi prorsus officio
temperaret. Uerum ut incunabula stoliditatis opinione referta habuit, ita
post modum conditionis contemptum claritate mutauit; et quantum inertiae
spectaculum fuit, tantum prudentiae et fortitudinis exemplum euasit.
{207}
Book IV, ed. Ascensius, fol. xxxiv b; ed. Holder, pp. 113-7.
Cumque Wermundus aetatis uitio oculis orbaretur, Saxoniae rex, Daniam duce
uacuam ratus, ei per legatos mandat, regnum, quod praeter aetatis debitum
teneat, sibi procurandum committat, ne nimis longa imperii auiditate
patriam legibus armisque destituat. Qualiter enim regem censeri posse, cui
senectus animum, caecitas oculum pari caliginis horrore fuscauerit? Quod si
abnuat, filiumque habeat, qui cum suo ex prouocatione confligere audeat,
uictorem regno potiri permittat. Si neutrum probet, armis secum, non
monitis agendum cognoscat, ut tandem inuitus praebeat, quod ultroneus
exhibere contemnat. Ad haec Wermundus, altioribus suspiriis fractus,
impudentius se aetatis exprobratione lacerari respondit, quem non ideo huc
infelicitatis senectus prouexerit, quod pugnae parcus timidius iuuentam
exegerit. Nec aptius sibi caecitatis uitium obiectari, quod plerunque talem
aetatis habitum talis iactura consequi soleat, potiusque condolendum
calamitati quam insultandum uideatur. Iustius autem Saxoniae regi
impatientiae notam afferri posse, quem potius senis fatum operiri, quam
imperium poscere decuisset, quod aliquanto praestet defuncto succedere,
quam uiuum spoliare. Se tamen, ne tanquam delirus priscae libertatis
titulos externo uideatur mancipare dominio, propria manu prouocationi
pariturum. Ad haec legati, scire se inquiunt, regem suum conserendae cum
caeco manus ludibrium perhorrere, quod tam ridiculum decernendi genus
rubori quam honestati propinquius habeatur. Aptius uero per utriusque
pignus et sanguinem amborum negotio consuli. Ad haec obstupefactis animo
Danis, subitaque responsi ignorantia perculsis, Uffo, qui forte cum ceteris
aderat, responsionis a patre licentiam flagitabat, subitoque uelut ex muto
uocalis euasit. Cumque Wermundus, quisnam talem a se loquendi copiam
postularet, inquireret, ministrique eum ab Uffone rogari dixissent, satis
esse perhibuit, ut infelicitatis suae uulneribus alienorum fastus
illuderet, ne etiam a domesticis simili insultationis petulantia uexaretur.
Sed satellitibus Uffonem hunc esse pertinaci affirmatione testantibus,
"Liberum ei sit," inquit, "quisquis est, cogitata profari." Tum Uffo,
frustra ab eorum rege regnum appeti, inquit, quod tam proprii rectoris
officio quam {208} fortissimorum procerum armis industriaque niteretur:
praeterea, nec regi filium nec regno successorem deesse. Sciantque, se non
solum regis eorum filium, sed etiam quemcunque ex gentis suae fortissimis
secum adsciuerit, simul pugna aggredi constituisse. Quo audito legati
risere, uanam dicti animositatem existimantes. Nec mora, condicitur pugnae
locus, eidemque stata temporis meta praefigitur. Tantum autem stuporis Uffo
loquendi ac prouocandi nouitate praesentibus iniecit, ut, utrum uoci eius
an fiduciae plus admirationis tributum sit, incertum extiterit.
Abeuntibus autem legatis, Wermundus, responsionis auctore laudato, quod
uirtutis fiduciam non in unius, sed duorum prouocatione statuerit, potius
se ei, quicunque sit, quam superbo hosti regno cessurum perhibuit.
Uniuersis autem filium eius esse testantibus, qui legatorum fastum fiduciae
sublimitate contempserit, propius eum accedere iubet: quod oculis nequeat,
manibus experturus. Corpore deinde eius curiosius contrectato, cum ex
artuum granditate lineamentisque filium esse cognosset, fidem assertoribus
habere coepit, percontarique eum, cur suauissimum uocis habitum summo
dissimulationis studio tegendum curauerit, tantoque aetatis spatio sine
uoce et cunctis loquendi commerciis degere sustinuerit, ut se linguae
prorsus officio defectum natiuaeque taciturnitatis uitio obsitum credi
permitteret? Qui respondit, se paterna hactenus defensione contentum, non
prius uocis officio opus habuisse, quam domesticam prudentiam externa
loquacitate pressam animaduerteret. Rogatus item ab eo, cur duos quam unum
prouocare maluit, hunc iccirco dimicationis modum a se exoptatum respondit,
ut Athisli regis oppressio, quae, quod a duobus gesta fuerat, Danis
opprobrio extabat, unius facinore pensaretur, nouumque uirtutis specimen
prisca ruboris monumenta conuelleret. Ita antiquae crimen infamiae recentis
famae litura respergendum dicebat. Quem Wermundus iustam omnium
aestimationem fecisse testatus, armorum usum, quod eis parum assueuisset,
praediscere iubet. Quibus Uffo oblatis, magnitudine pectoris angustos
loricarum nexus explicuit; nec erat ullam reperire, quae eum iusto
capacitatis spatio contineret. Maiore siquidem corpore erat, quam ut
alienis armis uti posset. Ad ultimum, cum paternam quoque {209} loricam
uiolenta corporis astrictione dissolueret, Wermundus eam a laeuo latere
dissecari, fibulaque sarciri praecepit, partem, quae clypei praesidio
muniatur, ferro patere parui existimans. Sed et gladium, quo tuto uti
possit, summa ab eo cura conscisci iussit. Oblatis compluribus, Uffo manu
capulum stringens, frustatim singulos agitando comminuit; nec erat quisquam
ex eis tanti rigoris gladius, quem non ad primae concussionis motum crebra
partium fractione dissolueret. Erat autem regi inusitati acuminis gladius,
Skrep dictus, qui quodlibet obstaculi genus uno ferientis ictu medium
penetrando diffinderet, nec adeo quicquam praedurum foret, ut adactam eius
aciem remorari potuisset. Quem ne posteris fruendum relinqueret, per summam
alienae commoditatis inuidiam in profunda defoderat, utilitatem ferri, quod
filii incrementis diffideret, ceteris negaturus. Interrogatus autem, an
dignum Uffonis robore ferrum haberet, habere se dixit, quod, si pridem a se
terrae traditum recognito locorum habitu reperire potuisset, aptum corporis
eius uiribus exhiberet. In campum deinde perduci se iubens, cum,
interrogatis per omnia comitibus, defossionis locum acceptis signorum
indiciis comperisset, extractum cauo gladium filio porrigit. Quem Uffo
nimia uetustate fragilem exesumque conspiciens, feriendi diffidentia
percontatur, an hunc quoque priorum exemplo probare debeat, prius habitum
eius, quam rem ferro geri oporteat, explorandum testatus. Refert Wermundus,
si praesens ferrum ab ipso uentilando collideretur, non superesse, quod
uirium eius habitui responderet. Abstinendum itaque facto, cuius in dubio
exitus maneat.
Igitur ex pacto pugnae locus expetitur. Hunc fluuius Eidorus ita aquarum
ambitu uallat, ut earum interstitio repugnante, nauigii duntaxat aditus
pateat. Quem Uffone sine comite petente, Saxoniae regis filium insignis
uiribus athleta consequitur, crebris utrinque turbis alternos riparum
anfractus spectandi auiditate complentibus. Cunctis igitur huic spectaculo
oculos inferentibus, Wermundus in extrema pontis parte se collocat, si
filium uinci contigisset, flumine periturus. Maluit enim sanguinis sui
ruinam comitari, quam patriae interitum plenis doloris sensibus intueri.
Uerum Uffo, geminis iuuenum congressibus lacessitus, gladii diffidentia
amborum ictus umbone {210} uitabat, patientius experiri constituens, quem e
duobus attentius cauere debuisset, ut hunc saltem uno ferri impulsu
contingeret. Quem Wermundus imbecillitatis uitio tantam recipiendorum
ictuum patientiam praestare existimans, paulatim in occiduam pontis oram
mortis cupiditate se protrahit, si de filio actum foret, fatum precipitio
petiturus. Tanta sanguinis caritate flagrantem senem fortuna protexit. Uffo
siquidem filium regis ad secum auidius decernendum hortatus, claritatem
generis ab ipso conspicuo fortitudinis opere aequari iubet, ne rege ortum
plebeius comes uirtute praestare uideatur. Athletam deinde, explorandae
eius fortitudinis gratia, ne domini sui terga timidius subsequeretur,
admonitum fiduciam a regis filio in se repositam egregiis dimicationis
operibus pensare praecepit, cuius delectu unicus pugnae comes adscitus
fuerit. Obtemperantem illum propiusque congredi rubore compulsum, primo
ferri ictu medium dissecat. Quo sono recreatus Wermundus, filii ferrum
audire se dixit, rogatque, cui potissimum parti ictum inflixerit.
Referentibus deinde ministris, eum non unam corporis partem, sed totam
hominis transegisse compagem, abstractum praecipitio corpus ponti
restituit, eodem studio lucem expetens, quo fatum optauerat. Tum Uffo,
reliquum hostem prioris exemplo consumere cupiens, regis filium ad ultionem
interfecti pro se satellitis manibus parentationis loco erogandam
impensioribus uerbis sollicitat. Quem propius accedere sua adhortatione
coactum, infligendi ictus loco curiosius denotato, gladioque, quod tenuem
eius laminam suis imparem uiribus formidaret, in aciem alteram uerso,
penetrabili corporis sectione transuerberat. Quo audito Wermundus Screp
gladii sonum secundo suis auribus incessisse perhibuit. Affirmantibus
deinde arbitris, utrunque hostem ab eius filio consumptum, nimietate gaudii
uultum fletu soluit. Ita genas, quas dolor madidare non poterat, laetitia
rigauit. Saxonibus igitur pudore moestis, pugilumque funus summa cum
ruboris acerbitate ducentibus, Uffonem Dani iocundis excepere tripudiis.
Quieuit tum Athislanae caedis infamia, Saxonumque obprobriis expirauit.
Ita Saxoniae regnum ad Danos translatum, post patrem Uffo regendum
suscepit, utriusque imperii procurator effectus, {211} qui ne unum quidem
rite moderaturus credebatur. Hic a compluribus Olauus est dictus, atque ob
animi moderationem Mansueti cognomine donatus. Cuius sequentes actus
uetustatis uitio solennem fefellere notitiam. Sed credi potest, gloriosos
eorum processus extitisse, quorum tam plena laudis principia fuerint.
* * * * *
L. FROM SKIOLD TO OFFA IN SWEYN AAGESON
In Langebek, _Scriptores_, i, 44-7; Gertz, I, 97.
CAP. I.
De primo Rege Danorum.
Skiold Danis primum didici praefuisse. Et ut eius alludamus uocabulo,
idcirco tali functus est nomine, quia uniuersos regni terminos regiae
defensionis patrocinio affatim egregie tuebatur. A quo primum, modis
Islandensibus, "Skioldunger" sunt reges nuncupati. Qui regni post se
reliquit haeredes, Frothi uidelicet et Haldanum. Successu temporum
fratribus super regni ambitione inter se decertantibus, Haldan, fratre suo
interempto, regni monarchiam obtinuit. Hic filium, scilicet Helghi, regni
procreauit haeredem, qui ob eximiam uirtutum strenuitatem, pyraticam semper
exercuit. Qui cum uniuersorum circumiacentium regnorum fines maritimos
classe pyratica depopulatus, suo subiugasset imperio, "Rex maris" est
cognominatus. Huic in regno successit filius Rolf Kraki, patria virtute
pollens, occisus in Lethra, quae tunc famosissima Regis extitit curia, nunc
autem Roskildensi uicina ciuitati, inter abiectissima ferme uix colitur
oppida. Post quem regnauit filius eius Roekil cognomento dictus
"Slaghenback." Cui successit in regno haeres, agilitatis strenuitate
cognominatus, quem nostro uulgari "Frothi hin Froekni" nominabant. Huius
filius et haeres regni extitit Wermundus, qui adeo prudentiae pollebat
uirtute, ut inde nomen consequeretur. Unde et "Prudens" dictus est. Hic
filium genuit Uffi nomine, qui usque ad tricesimum aetatis suae annum fandi
possibilitatem cohibuit, propter enormitatem opprobrii, quod tunc temporis
Danis ingruerat, eo quod in {212} ultionem patris duo Dani in Sueciam
profecti, patricidam suum una interemerunt. Nam et tunc temporis
ignominiosum extitit improperium, si solum duo iugularent; praesertim cum
soli strenuitati tunc superstitiosa gentilitas operam satagebat impendere.
Praefatus itaque Wermundus usque ad senium regni sui gubernabat imperium;
adeo tandem aetate consumptus, ut oculi eius prae senio caligarent. Cuius
debilitatis fama cum apud transalpinas[340] partes percrebuisset, elationis
turgiditate Teotonica intumuit superbia, utpote suis nunquam contenta
terminis. Hinc furoris sui rabiem in Danos exacuit Imperator, se iam
Danorum regno conquisito sceptrum nancisci augustius conspicatus.
Delegantur itaque spiculatores, qui turgidi principis jussa reportent
praefato Danorum regi, scilicet Wermundo, duarum rerum praefigentes
electionem, quarum pars tamen neutra extitit eligenda. Aut enim regnum
jussit Romano resignare imperio, et tributum soluere, aut athletam
inuestigare, qui cum Imperatoris campione monomachiam committere auderet.
Quo audito, regis extitit mens consternata; totiusque regni procerum
legione corrogata, quid facto opus sit, diligenti inquisitione
percontabatur. Perplexam se namque regis autumabat autoritas, utpote cui et
ius incumbebat decertandi, et qui regno patrocinari tenebatur. Uultum
coecitas obnubilauerat, et regni heres elinguis factus, desidia torpuerat,
ita ut in eo, communi assertione, nulla prorsus species salutis existeret.
Nam ab infantia praefatus Uffo uentris indulgebat ingluuiei, et
Epicuraeorum more, coquinae et cellario alternum officiose impendebat
obsequium. Corrogato itaque coetu procerum, totiusque regni placito[341]
celebrato, Alamannorum regis ambitionem explicuit, quid in hac optione haud
eligenda facturus sit, indagatione cumulata senior sciscitatur. Et dum
uniuersorum mens consternaretur angustia, cunctique indulgerent silentio,
praefatus Uffo in media concione surrexit. Quem cum cohors uniuersa
conspexisset, satis nequibat admirari, ut quid elinguis uelut orationi
gestus informaret. Et quia omne rarum dignum nouimus admiratione, omnium in
se duxit intuitum. Tandem sic orsus coepit: "Non nos minae moueant
lacessentium, cum {213} ea Teotonicae turgiditati innata sit conditio, ut
uerborum ampullositate glorientur, minarumque uentositate pusillanimes et
imbecilles calleant comminatione consternare. Me etenim unicum et uerum
regni natura produxit heredem, cui profecto nouistis incumbere, ut
monomachiae me discrimini audacter obiiciam, quatenus uel pro regno solus
occumbam, uel pro patria solus uictoriam obtineam. Ut ergo minarum cassetur
ampullositas, haec Imperatori referant mandata, ut Imperatoris filius et
heres imperii, cum athleta praestantissimo, mihi soli non formidet
occurrere." Dixit, et haec verba dictauit voce superba. Qui dum orationem
complesset, a collateralibus senior sciscitabatur, cuiusnam haec fuisset
oratio? Cum autem a circumstantibus intellexisset, quod filius suus, prius
veluti mutus, hunc effudisset sermonem, palpandum eum jussit accersiri. Et
cum humeros lacertosque, et clunes, suras atque tibias, caeteraque membra
organica crebro palpasset: "Talem," ait, "me memini in flore extitisse
iuuentutis." Quid multa? Terminus pugnae constituitur et locus. Talique
responso percepto, ad propria legati repedabant.
CAP. II.
De duello Uffonis.
Superest ergo, ut arma nouo militi congrua corrogentur. Allatisque ensibus,
quos in regno praestantiores rex poterat inuestigare, Uffo singulos dextra
uibrans, in partes confregit minutissimas. "Haeccine arma sunt," inquit,
"quibus et uitam et regni tuebor honorem?" Cuius cum pater uiuidam
experiretur uirtutem, "Unicum adhuc," ait, "et regni et uitae nostrae
superest asylum." Ad tumulum itaque ducatum postulauit, in quo prius
mucronem experientissimum occultauerat. Et mox intersigniis per petrarum
notas edoctus, gladium jussit effodi praestantissimum. Quem illico dextra
corripiens, "Hic est," ait, "fili, quo numerose triumphaui, et qui mihi
infallibile semper tutamen extitit." Et haec dicens, eundem filio
contradidit. Nec mora; terminus ecce congressioni praefixus arctius {214}
instabat. Tandem, confluentibus undique phalangis innumerabilibus, in
Egdorae fluminis mediamne[342] locus pugnae constituitur: ut ita pugnatores
ab utriusque coetus adminiculo segregati nullius opitulatione fungerentur.
Teotonicis ergo ultra fluminis ripam in Holsatia considentibus, Danis uero
citra amnem dispositis, rex pontis in medio sedem elegit, quatenus, si
unigenitus occumberet, in fluminis se gurgitem praecipitaret, ne pariter
nato orbatus et regno cum dolore superstes canos deduceret ad inferos.
Deinde emissis utrinque pugilibus, in medio amne conuenerunt. Ast ubi miles
noster egregius Uffo, duos sibi conspexit occurrere, tanquam leo pectore
robusto infremuit, animoque constanti duobus electis audacter se opponere
non detrectauit, illo cinctus mucrone, quem patrem supra meminimus
occuluisse, et alterum dextra strictum gestans. Quos cum primum obuios
habuisset, sic singillatim utrumque alloquitur, et quod raro legitur
accidisse, athleta noster elegantissimus, cuius memoria in aeternum non
delebitur, ita aduersarios animabat ad pugnam: "Si te," inquit, "regni
nostri stimulat ambitio, ut nostrae opis, potentiaeque, opumque capessere
uelis opulentias, comminus te clientem decet praecedere, ut et regni tui
terminos amplifices, et militibus tuis conspicientibus, strenuitatis nomen
nanciscaris." Campionem uero hunc in modum alloquitur: "Uirtutis tuae
experientiam jam locus est propagare, si comminus accesseris, et eam, quam
pridem Alamannis gloriam ostendisti, Danis quoque propalare non cuncteris.
Nunc ergo famam tuae strenuitatis poteris ampliare, et egregiae
munificentiae dono ditari, si et dominum praecedas, et clypeo defensionis
eum tuearis. Studeat, quaeso, Teotonicis experta strenuitas variis artis
pugillatoriae modis Danos instruere, ut tandem optata potitus uictoria, cum
triumphi ualeas exultatione ad propria remeare." Quam quum complesset
exhortationem, pugilis cassidem toto percussit conamine, ita ut, quo
feriebat, gladius in duo dissiliret. Cuius fragor per uniuersum intonuit
exercitum. Unde cohors Teotonicorum exultatione perstrepebat: sed contra
Dani desperationis consternati tristitia, gemebundi murmurabant. Rex uero,
ut audiuit, quod filii ensis dissiliuisset, in margine se pontis jussit
{215} locari. Uerum Uffo, subito exempto, quo cinctus erat, gladio, pugilis
illico coxam cruentauit, nec mora, et caput pariter amputauit. Sic ergo
ludus fortunae ad instar lunae uarius, nunc his, nunc illis successibus
illudebat, et quibus iamiam exultatione fauebat ingenti, eos nouercali mox
uultu, toruoque conspexit intuitu. Hoc cognito, senior jam confidentius
priori se jussit sede locari. Nec jam anceps diu extitit uictoria. Siquidem
Uffo ualide instans, ad ripam amnis pepulit haeredem imperii, ibique eum
haud difficulter gladio iugulauit. Sicque duorum solus uictor existens,
Danis irrogatam multis retro temporibus infamiam gloriosa uirtute magnifice
satis aboleuit. Atque ita Alamannis cum improperii uerecundia, cassatisque
minarum ampullositatibus, cum probris ad propria remeantibus, postmodum in
pacis tranquillitate praecluis Uffo regni sui regebat imperium.
* * * * *
M. NOTE ON THE DANISH CHRONICLES
The text of Saxo Grammaticus, given above, is based upon the magnificent
first edition printed by Badius Ascensius (Paris, 1514). Even at the time
when this edition was printed, manuscripts of Saxo had become exceedingly
scarce, and we have now only odd leaves of MS remaining. One fragment,
however, discovered at Angers, and now in the Royal Library at Copenhagen,
comes from a MS which had apparently received additions from Saxo himself,
and therefore affords evidence as to his spelling.
Holder's edition (Strassburg, 1886) whilst following in the main the 1514
text of Badius Ascensius, is accordingly revised to comply with the
spelling of the Copenhagen fragments, and with any other traces of MS
authority extant. I doubt the necessity for such revision. If the text were
extant in MS, one might feel bound to follow the spelling of the MS, as in
the case of the old English MSS of the _Vitae Offarum_ below: but seeing
that Saxo, with the exception of a few pages, is extant only in a 16th
century printed copy, the spelling of which is almost identical with that
now current in Latin text books, it seems a pity to restore conjecturally
mediaeval spellings likely {216} to worry a student. Accordingly I have
followed the printed text of 1514, modernizing a very few odd spellings,
and correcting some obvious printers errors[343].
A translation of the first nine books of Saxo by Prof. O. Elton has been
published by the Folk-Lore Society (No. XXXIII, 1893).
Saxo completed his history in the early years of the 13th century. His
elder contemporary, Sweyn Aageson, had already written a _Brief History of
the Kings of Denmark_. Sweyn's _History_ must have been completed not long
after 1185, to which date belongs the last event he records. The extracts
given from it (pp. 211-15) are taken from Langebek's collection, with
modifications of spelling. Langebek follows the first edition (Stephanius,
1642); the MS used in this edition had been destroyed in 1728. _Cod. Arn.
Mag. 33_, recently printed by Gertz, although very corrupt, is supposed to
give the text of Sweyn's _History_ in a form less sophisticated than that
of the received text (see Gertz, _Scriptores Minores Historiae Danicae_,
1917, p. 62). The _Little Chronicle of the Kings of Leire_ is probably
earlier than Sweyn's _History_. Gertz dates it c. 1170, and thinks it was
written by someone connected with the church at Roskilde. It covers only
the early traditional history. See above, pp. 17, 204.
For comparison, the following lists, as given in the roll of kings known as
_Langfedhgatal_, in the _Little Chronicle_, in Sweyn, and in Saxo may be
useful:
| _Little_ | | |Names as given
_Langfedhgatal_|_Chronicle_ |_Sweyn_ | _Saxo_ | in _Beowulf_
| Dan | | Dan |
| | | {Humblus |
| | | {Lotherus | ? = Heremod
Skioldr ... | | Skiold | Skioldus | Scyld
{217}
| | | Gram |
| | | Hadingus |
| | {Frothi | Frotho I | ?= Beowulf I
Halfdan | | {Haldanus | {Haldanus I | Healfdene
| Ro | | {Roe I |
| | | {Scato |
{Hroar | {Haldan | | {Roe II | Hrothgar
{Helgi | {Helgi | Helghi | {Helgo | Halga
Rolf Kraki | Rolf Krake | Rolf Kraki | Roluo Krage | Hrothulf
| Hiarwarth | | Hiarthuarus | Heoroweard
| | | . . . . |
Hraerekr | | Roekil | Roericus | Hrethric
* * * * *
N. THE LIFE OF OFFA I, WITH EXTRACTS FROM THE LIFE OF OFFA II. EDITED FROM
TWO MSS IN THE COTTONIAN COLLECTION
The text is given from _MS Cotton Nero D. I_ (quoted in the footnotes as
A), collated with _MS Claudius E. IV_ (quoted as B). Minor variations of B
are not usually noted. The two MSS agree closely.
The _Nero_ MS is the more elaborate of the two, and is adorned with very
fine drawings. _Claudius_, however, offers occasionally a better text; it
has been read by a corrector whose alterations--contrary to what is so
often the ease in mediaeval MSS--seem to be authoritative.
The _Lives of the Offas_ were printed by Wats in his edition of Matthew
Paris (1639-40) from MS A. Miss Rickert has printed extracts from the two
lives, in _Mod. Phil._ II, 14 _etc._, following MS A, "as Wats sometimes
takes liberties with the text."
INCIPIT HISTORIA DE OFFA PRIMO Q_U_I STRENUITATE SUA S_IB_I ANGLIE
MAXIMA_M_ P_AR_TE_M_ S_U_BEG_I_T. CUI SIMILLIM_US_ FUIT S_E_C_UN_D_U_S
OFFA[344].
[Sidenote: Fol. 2 _a_]
Inter occidentalium Anglorum reges illustrissimos, precipua
co_m_mendac_i_onis laude celebratur Rex Warmundus, ab hiis qui historias
Angloru_m_ no_n_ solum relatu proferre, set eciam scriptis inserere
consueuerant. Is fundator erat cui_us_dam urbis a seip_s_o denominate, que
lingua Anglicana Warwic, id est curia Warmundi, nuncupatur. Qui usq_ue_ ad
annos seniles absq_ue_ liberis extitit, pret_er_ unicum filiu_m_; q_ue_m,
ut estimabat, regni sui heredem _et_ successorem puerilis debilitatis
incomodo labora_n_tem, constituere non ualebat. Licet enim idem unic_us_
filius eius, Offa uel Offanus no_m_i_n_e, statura fuisset procer_us_, {218}
corpore integer, _et_ elegantissime forme iuuenis existeret, perma_n_sit
t_ame_n a natiuitate uisu priuatus usq_ue_ ad annu_m_ septimu_m_, mutus
autem _et_ u_er_ba humana n_on_ proferens usq_ue_ ad annu_m_ etatis sue
tricesimum. Huius debilitatis incomodum no_n_ solum rex, s_ed_ eciam regni
proceres, supra q_u_am dici potest moleste sustinuerunt. Cum eni_m_
imineret p_at_ri etas senilis, _et_ ignoraret diem mortis sue, nesciebat
q_ue_m alium sibi[345] _con_stitueret heredem _et_ regni successore_m_.
Quidam au_tem_ p_r_imari_us_ regni, cui nomen Riganus[346], cu_m_ quoda_m_
suo co_m_plice Mitunno no_m_i_n_e, ambic_i_osus cu_m_ ambic_i_oso, seductor
cu_m_ proditore uidens regem decrepitu_m_, _et_ sine spe prolis procreande
senio fatiscente_m_, de se p_re_sumens, cepit ad regie dignitatis culmen
aspirare, conte_m_ptis aliis regni primatib_us_, se solum p_re_ cet_er_is
ad h_oc_ dignu_m_ reputando.
Iccirco diebus singulis regi molestus nimis, proterue eum aggreditur, ut se
h_er_edis loco adoptaret. Aliq_u_ando cor regis blande alliciens, interi_m_
aspere minis _et_ terroribus prouocans, persuadere no_n_ cessat regi q_uo_d
optabat[347]. Suggerebat eciam regi per uiros potentes, _com_plices
cupiditatis _et_ malicie sue, se regni sui su_m_mu_m_ apice_m_, uiolentia
_et_ terrorib_us_ et ui extorquere, nisi arbitrio uoluntatis sue rex ip_s_e
pareret, faciendo uirtute_m_ de necessitate. Super h_oc_ itaq_ue et_ aliis
regni negociis, euocato semel concilio, proteruus ille a rege reprobatus
discessit a curie p_re_sentia, iracundie calore freme_n_s in semetip_s_o,
pro repulsa q_u_am sustinuit.
[Illustration: Riganus (or Aliel) comes before King Warmundus to claim that
he should be made King in place of the incompetent Offa
_From MS Cotton Nero D. I, fol. 2 a._ ]
{219} [Sidenote: Fol. 2 _b_] Nec mora, accitis m_u_ltis qui cont_r_a regis
i_m_p_er_ium parte_m_ sua_m_ _con_fouebant, infra paucos dies, copiosum
i_m_mo infinitu_m_ exc_er_citu_m_ _con_gregauit: _et_ sub spe uictorie
uirilit_e_r optinende, regem _et_ suos ad hostile p_re_lium prouocauit. Rex
au_tem_ confectus senio, time_n_s rebellare, declinauit aliquocie_n_s
impet_us_ adu_er_sarior_um_. Tandem uero, co_n_uocatis i_n_ unum
p_r_incipib_us_ _et_ magnatib_us_ suis, delib_er_are cep_i_t q_u_o
f_a_c_t_o opus h_abe_ret. Dum igit_ur_ t_r_actarent i_n_ co_m_mune per
aliq_u_ot dies, secu_m_ deliberantes instantissime nec_es_citatis
articulu_m_, affuit int_er_ _ser_moci|nantes natus _et_ unigenitus regis,
eo usq_ue_ elinguis _et_ absq_ue_ sermone, s_ed_ aure purgata, singulorum
uerba discernens. Cum aute_m_ p_at_ris seniu_m_, _et_ se ip_su_m ad regni
negocia q_u_asi inutilem _et_ min_us_ efficacem despici _et_ reprobari ab
om_n_ib_us_ perpenderet, contritus est _et_ humiliatus in semetip_s_o,
usq_ue_ in lac_r_imarum aduberem profusionem. _Et_ exitus aq_u_arum
dedux_er_unt oculi eius; _et_ estuabat dolore cordis intrinsecus
amarissimo. Et q_u_a_m_ u_er_bis no_n_ pot_er_at, deo aff_e_c_t_u
int_r_inseco p_re_cordial_it_er suggerebat, ingemiscens, repone_n_sq_ue_
lac_r_imabilem q_ue_relam coram ip_s_o, orabat ut a spiritu s_an_c_t_o
reciperet consolac_i_on_em_, a p_at_re luminu_m_ fortitudinem, _et_ a filio
p_at_ris unigenito sapi_enci_e salutaris donatiuum. In breui igitur,
_con_t_r_iti cordis uota prospiciens, is, cui nuda _et_ aperta sunt omnia,
resoluit os adolescentis in u_er_ba discreta _et_ manifeste articulata.
Sicq_ue_ de regni principatu tumide _et_ minaciter contra se _et_ p_at_rem
suu_m_ perstrepentes, subito _et_ ex insp_er_ato alloquitur: "Quid adhuc me
_et_ p_at_re meo sup_er_stite contra leges _et_ iura uobis uendicatis regni
iudicium enormiter cont_re_ctare: _et_ me excluso, herede geneali, alium
degen_er_em facinorosu_m_ _ec_iam in minas _et_ diffiduciac_i_onem
sup_er_be nimis prorumpente_m_, subrogare ut uos no_n_ immerito iniquitatis
_et_ prodic_i_onis arguere valeam_us_. Quid, inq_u_am, ext_er_i, q_u_id
ex_tr_anei cont_ra_ nos agere debeant, cu_m_ nos affines _et_ domestici
n_ost_ri a p_at_ria q_u_am hactenus gen_er_is n_ost_ri successio iure
possedit hereditario, uelitis expellere?" Et dum hec Offanus uel Offa (hoc
eni_m_ nomen adolescentulo erat) qui ia_m_ n_un_c primo et_er_no nomine
cu_m_ b_e_n_e_d[_i_]c[_i_]onis memoria meruit intitulari, ore facundo,
s_er_mone rethorico, uultu sereno prosequeret_ur_, omniu_m_ audientium plus
q_u_am dici potest attonitoru_m_ oculos facies _et_ corda in se
conu_er_tit. Et prosequens inceptum s_er_mone_m_, _con_tinuando r_ati_onem,
ait (intuens ad superna): "Deum testor, om_ne_sq_ue_ celestis curie
primates, quod tanti sceleris _et_ discidii incentores, (n_is_i qui
cep_er_int titubare, uiriliter eriganter in uirtute_m_ p_r_istinam
roborati) inde_m_pnes (pro ut desides _et_ formidolosi promerueru_n_t) ac
impunitos, no_n_ paciar. Fideles autem, ac strenuos, omni honore
proseq_u_ar [et] co_n_fouebo."
Audito _i_gi_tur_ adolescentis sermone, q_ue_m mutum estimabant vanu_m_
_et_ inutilem, _con_st_er_nati admodum _et_ conterriti, ab ei_us_ {220}
p_re_sencia discesseru_n_t, q_u_i cont_r_a p_at_rem suu_m_ _et_ ip_su_m,
mota sedic_i_one, ausu temerario co_n_spirau_er_ant. Rigan_us_ t_ame_n,
co_n_tumax _et_ superbus, comitante Mittunno cu_m_ aliis complicibus suis,
qui iam iram in odium _con_u_er_t_er_ant, minas minis recessit cumulando,
rege_m_q_ue_ delirum cu_m_ filio suo inutili ac vano murione, frontose
diffiduciauit. Econt_r_a, naturales ac fideles regis, ipsius minas
paruipende_n_tes, i_m_mo [Sidenote: Fol. 3 _a_] | uilipendentes,
inestimabili gaudio perfusi, regis _et_ filii sui pedibus incuruati, sua
suor_um_q_ue_ corpora ad uindicandam regis iniuriam exponunt gratanter
uniu_er_si. Nec mora, rex in sua _et_ filii sui presentia generali edicto
eos qui parti sue fauebant iubet assistere, uolens co_m_muni eor_um_
consilio edoceri, q_u_aliter in agendis suis procedere _et_ negocia sua
exequi habeat conuenienter. Qui super hiis diebus aliquot deliberantes,
inprimis consulu_n_t regi ut filium suu_m_ morib_us_ _et_ etate ad h_oc_
maturu_m_, militari cingulo faciat insigniri: vt ad bellum procedens,
hostibus suis horrori fieret _et_ formidini. Rex aute_m_ sano et salubri
co_n_silio suoru_m_ obtemperans, celebri[348] ad hoc co_n_dicto die, cu_m_
solle_m_pni _et_ regia pompa, gladio filium suum accinxit; adiunctis
tirocinio suo strenuis adolescentib_us_ gen_er_osis, quos rex ad dec_us_
_et_ gloriam filii sui militarib_us_ indui fecit, _et_ honorari.
Cum aute_m_ post h_ec_[349], aliq_u_andiu cu_m_ sociis suis decertans,
instrumenta tiro Offanus experiretur, omnes eum strenuissimu_m_ _et_
singulos sup_er_ante_m_ uehement_er_[350] admirabant_ur_. Rex igit_ur_
in_de_ maiore_m_ assumens audaciam, _et_ in spem erectus alacriorem,
co_m_municato cu_m_ suis consilio, co_n_t_r_a hostes regni sui
insidiatores, i_m_mo iam manifeste _contr_a regnu_m_ suu_m_ insurgentes,
_et_ inito c_er_tami_n_e adu_er_santes, resu_m_pto sp_irit_u bellum
instaurari p_re_cep_i_t. Potentissim_us_ aut_em_ ille, q_u_i regnu_m_ sibi
usurpare moliebatur, cu_m_ filiis suis iuuenib_us_ duob_us_, uidelicet
tironib_us_ strenuissimis Otta _et_ Milione nominatis, ascita quoq_ue_
no_n_ minima multitudine, n_ich_ilomin_us_ audact_er_ ad rebellandum, se
suosq_ue_ p_re_munire cepit, alacer _et_ imp_er_t_er_rit_us_. Et preliandi
diem _et_ locum, hinc in_de_ rex _et_ eius emulus det_er_minarunt.
Congregato itaq_ue_ ut_r_obiq_ue_ copiosissimo _et_ formidabili nimis
exc_er_citu, parati ad congressum, fixerunt tentoria e regione, nichilq_ue_
int_er_erat nisi fluui_us_ torrens in medio, qui {221} utrumq_ue_
exc_er_citu_m_ sequestrabat. Et aliq_u_andiu hinc in_de_ meticulosi _et_
co_n_sternati, rapidi fluminis alueum int_er_positu_m_ (qui uix erat homini
uel equo t_r_ansmeabil_is_) transire distulerunt. Tela tamen sola, cu_m_
crebris co_m_minac_i_onibus _et_ conuiciis, transuolarunt. Tande_m_
indignatus Offa _et_ egre ferens probrose more dispendia, electis de
exc_er_citu suo robustiorib_us_ _et_ bello magis strenuis, q_u_os _eciam_
credebat fideliores, subitus _et_ improuisus flumen raptim p_er_transiens,
f_a_c_t_o impetu uehementi[351] _et_ repentino, hostes ei obuiam
occurre_n_tes, preocupatos t_ame_n circa ripam flum_in_is, plurimos de
adu_er_sarior_um_ exc_er_citu cont_r_iuit, _et_ i_n_ ore gladii trucidauit.
Primosq_ue_ om_ne_s t_r_ibunos _et_ p_r_imicerios potenter dissipauit.
Cu_m_ t_ame_n sui co_m_militones, forte uolentes p_re_scire in Offa
p_re_uio Martis fortuna_m_, segnit_er_ amne_m_ t_r_ansmearent, q_u_i latus
suu_m_ tenebantur suffulcire, _et_[352] pocius [Sidenote: Fol. 3 _b_] |
circumuallando roborare, et resu_m_pto sp_irit_u uiuidiore, reliquos
om_ne_s, hinc in_de_ ad modu_m_ nauis uelificantis _et_ equora uelocit_er_
sulcantis, impetuosissime diuisit, ense t_er_ribilit_er_ fulminante, _et_
hostiu_m_ cruore sepius inebriato, don_e_c sue om_ne_s acies ad ip_su_m
illese _et_ inde_m_pnes t_r_ansmear_en_t. Quo cu_m_ p_er_uenirent sui
co_m_militones, congregati ci_r_ca ip_su_m do_mi_n_u_m suu_m_,
exc_er_citu_m_ magnu_m_ et fortem co_n_flau_er_unt. Duces aute_m_
_con_t_r_arii exc_er_citus, sese densis agminib_us_ _et_ consertis aciebus,
uiolent_er_ opponu_n_t aduentantib_us_. Et congressu inito cruentissimo,
acclamatu_m_ _est_ utrobiq_ue_ et exhortatu_m_, ut res agatur pro capite,
_et_ c_er_tamen pro sua _et_ uxoru_m_ suar_um_, _et_ lib_er_or_um_
suor_um_, _et_ possessionu_m_ lib_er_ac_i_one, i_n_ea_n_t iustissimu_m_,
auxilio diuino p_ro_tegente. P_er_strepunt igitur tube cu_m_ lituis, clamor
exhortantiu_m_, equor_um_ hinnit_us_, morientiu_m_ _et_ uulnerator_um_
gemitus, fragor lancearum, gladioru_m_ tinnit_us_, ictuu_m_ tumultus, aera
p_er_t_ur_bare uidebant_ur_. Adu_er_sarii tandem Offe legiones deiciunt,
_et_ i_n_ fugam dissipatas _con_u_er_tunt.
Quod cum videret Offa strenuissim_us_, _et_ ex hostiu_m_ cede cruent_us_,
hausto sp_irit_u alac_r_iori, in hostes, more leonis _et_ leene sublatis
catulis, irruit truculent_er_, gladiu_m_ suu_m_ cruore hostili inebriando.
Quod cu_m_ uiderent t_r_ucida_n_di, fugitiui _et_ meticulosi pudore
confusi, reuersi su_n_t sup_er_ hostes, et ut famam redim_er_ent,
ferociores in obstantes fulminant _et_ debacant_ur_.
{222}
Multoq_ue_ temp_or_e t_r_uculent_er_ nimis dec_er_tatu_m_ est, _et_
utrobiq_ue_ suspensa est uictoria; tandem p_ost_ multor_um_ ruinam, hostes
fatigati pedem retulerunt, ut respirarent _et_ pausare_n_t p_ost_
co_n_flictu_m_.
Similit_er eciam et_ exc_er_citus Offani. Quod t_ame_n moleste nimis tulit
Offan_us_, cui_us_ sanguis in ulc_i_one_m_ estuabat, _et_ i_n_defessus
propugnator cessare erubescebat. Hic casu Offe obuiant duo filii diuitis
illi_us_, qui regnu_m_ p_at_ris ei_us_ sibi atte_m_ptauit usurpare. Nomen
p_r_imogenito Brutus [sive Hildebrandus][353] _et_ iuniori Sueno. Hii
probra _et_ u_er_ba turpia in Offam irreu_er_enter ingesserunt, _et_ iuueni
pudorato i_n_ _con_sp_ec_tu exc_er_cituum, no_n_ min_us_ s_er_monib_us_
q_u_am armis, molesti extit_er_unt. Offa igit_ur_, mag_is_ lacessitus, _et_
calore audacie scintillans, _et_ iracundia us_que_ ad fremitu_m_ succensus,
in impetu sp_iritu_s sui i_n_ eosde_m_ audact_er_ irruit. Et eor_um_
alteru_m_, videlic_et_ Brutu_m_, unico gladii ictu percussit, amputatoq_ue_
galee cono, craneu_m_ usq_ue_ ad cerebri medulla_m_ p_er_forauit, _et_ i_n_
morte singultante_m_ sub eq_u_inis pedib_us_ pot_e_nt_er_ p_re_cipitauit.
Alteru_m_ u_er_o, qui h_oc_ uiso fugam iniit, repentin_us_ inseq_ue_ns,
uuln_er_e letali sauciatu_m_, _con_te_m_psit _et_ prostratu_m_. Post
h_ec_[354] deseuie_n_s in cet_er_os _con_t_r_arii exc_er_citus duces,
gladi_us_ Offe q_u_icq_u_id obuiam h_ab_uit prost_er_nendo deuorauit,
exc_er_citu ip_s_i_us_ tali exemplo recenci_us_ i_n_ hostes insurgente,
_et_ iam gloriosius t_r_iu_m_phante.
[Sidenote: Fol. 4 _a_]
Pat_er_, uero, p_re_d_i_c_t_or_um_ iuuenu_m_, pert_er_rit_us_ _et_ dolore
i_n_t_r_inseco sauciatus, subt_er_fugiens amne_m_ oppositu_m_, nitebat_ur_|
pert_r_ansire: s_ed_ interf_e_c_t_oru_m_ sanguine torre_n_s fluuius, eum
loricatu_m_ _et_ armor_um_ pond_er_e grauatu_m_ _et_ multipl_icite_r
fatigatum, cum multis de suo excercitu simili incomodo p_re_peditis, ad ima
subm_er_sit, _et_ sine uuln_er_ib_us_, miseras animas exalarunt proditores,
toti posteritati sue probra relinq_ue_ntes. Amnis aute_m_ a Rigano ibi
subm_er_so sorciebatur uocabulum, _et_ Riganburne, vt f_act_i uiuat
perpetuo memoria, nuncupat_ur_. [Hiic alio no_m_i_n_e Auene
dicit_ur_.][355]
Reliqui aute_m_ om_ne_s de exc_er_citu Rigani [qui _et_ Aliel
dicebatur][355] qui sub ducatu Mitunni regebantur, in abissu_m_
desperac_i_onis dem_er_si, _et_ timore effeminati, cum eorum duce i_n_
q_u_o {223} magis Rigan_us_ confidebat, in noctis crepusculo trucidati,
cu_m_ uictoria gloriosa campu_m_ Offe strenuissimo (i_n_ nulla parte
corporis sui deformit_er_ mutilato, nec _eciam_ uel letaliter uel
periculose uuln_er_ato, licet ea die multis se letiferis opposuiss_et_
p_er_iculis) reliquerunt[356].
Sicq_ue_ Offe circa iuuentutis sue primicias, a Domino data est uictoria in
bello nimis ancipiti, ac cruentissimo, _et_ int_er_ alienigenas uirtutis
_et_ indust_r_ie sue nomen celebre ipsius uentilatum, _et_ odor longe
lateq_ue_ bonitatis ac ciuilitatis, n_e_c no_n_ _et_ st_r_enuitatis ei_us_
circumfusus, nomen ei_us_ ad sidera subleuauit.
Porro in crastinu_m_ post uictoria_m_, hostiu_m_ spolia int_er_fector_um_
_et_ fugitiuor_um_ magnifice co_n_te_m_pnens, n_e_c sibi uolens
aliq_u_atenus usurpare, ne q_u_omodolib_et_ auaricie turpit_er_
redargueretur, militibus suis stipendiariis, _et_ naturalib_us_ suis
hominib_us_ (p_re_cipue[357] hiis quos nou_er_at indigere) liberalit_er_
dereliq_u_it. Solos t_ame_n magnates, quos ip_s_emet i_n_ prelio cep_er_at,
sibi retinuit incarc_er_andos, redime_n_dos, u_e_l iudicialiter puniendos.
Iussitq_ue_ ut int_er_fector_um_ duces _et_ p_r_incipes, quor_um_ fama
titulos magnificauit, _et_ p_re_cipue eor_um_ qui in p_re_lio magnifice ac
fidelit_er_ se habuerant (licet ei[358] adu_er_sarentur) seorsum honorifice
i_n_tumulare_n_t_u_r, f_a_c_t_is eis obsequiis, cu_m_ lamentac_i_onib_us_.
Exc_er_citus au_tem_ popularis cadau_er_a, in arduo _et_ eminenti loco, ad
post_er_itatis memoriam, t_r_adi iussit sepulture ignobiliori. Vnde locus
ille hoc no_m_i_n_e Anglico Q_u_almhul[359], a strage uidelicet _et_
sepultura interfectorum m_er_ito meruit intitulari.
Multor_um_ eciam et magnor_um_ lapidum super eos struem excercitus Offe,
uoce p_re_conia iussus, congessit eminentem. Totaq_ue_ circumiacens
planicies[360] ab ip_s_o cruentissimo c_er_tamine _et_ notabili sepultura
nomen _et_ titulum indelebilem est sortita, et Blodiweld[361] a sa_n_guine
int_er_fector_um_ deno_m_i_n_abat_ur_.
Deletis igitur _et_ confusis hostib_us_, Offa cum ingenti t_r_iumpho ac
tripudio _et_ gloria reu_er_tit_ur_ ad propria. Pater uero Warmu_n_d_us_,
q_u_i sese recep_er_at in locis tucioribus rei euentu_m_ exp_e_ctans, s_ed_
iam fausto nuncio c_er_tificatus, comperiensq_ue_ _et_ securus de carissimi
filii sui uictoria, cu_m_ ingenti leticia ei {224} procedit obuius[362]: et
in a_m_plexus eius diutissime _com_moratus, _con_ceptu_m_ [Sidenote: Fol. 4
_b_] | interius de filii sui palma gaudium teg_er_e non uolens set n_e_c
ualens, hui_us_ cum lac_ri_mis exultac_i_onis prorupit in vocem: "Euge fili
dulcissime, quo affectu, quaue mentis leticia, laudes tuas prout dignu_m_
est prosequar? Tu eni_m_ es spes mea _et_ subditor_um_ iubilus ex
i_n_sp_er_ato _et_ exultac_i_o. In te spes inopinata meis reuixit
temporibus; in sinu tuo leticia mea, i_m_mo spes pocius toci_us_ regni est
reposita. Tu pop_u_li toci_us_ firmamentum, tu pacis _et_ lib_er_tatis mee
basis _et_ stabile, deo aspirante, fundamentum. Tibi debetur ruina
prot_e_rui proditoris illi_us_, q_u_ondam publici hostis n_ost_ri, qui
regni fastigium quod m_ih_i _et_ de genere meo propagatis iure debetur
h_er_editario, tam impudent_er_ q_u_am imprudenter, cont_r_a leges _et_ ius
gentium usurpare moliebatur. S_ed_ uultus d_omi_ni super eu_m_ _et_
co_m_plices suos facientes mala, ut perderet de terra memoriam eoru_m_,
Deus ulcionu_m_ Domin_us_ dissipau_i_t consilium ipsius. Ip_su_m q_u_o_que_
Riganu_m_ in sup_er_bia rigente_m_, _et_ i_m_mite_m_ Mitunnu_m_
_com_militone_m_ ipsius, cum exc_er_citu eor_um_ proiecit in flumen
rapacissimu_m_. Descendunt q_u_asi plu_m_bum i_n_ aq_u_is uehem_en_tib_us_;
deuorauit gladi_us_ tuus hostes n_ost_ros fulmina_n_s _et_ cruentat_us_,
hostili sanguine magnifice i_n_ebriatus; non degen_er_ es fili mi genealis,
s_ed_ pat_r_issans, patrum tuor_um_ uestigia seq_ue_ris magnificorum.
Sepult_us_ i_n_ inf_er_no n_oste_r hostis _et_ adu_er_sarius, fructus
viarum suaru_m_ condignos iam colligit, quos uiu_us_ promerebatur. Luctum
_et_ miseriam q_u_am senectuti mee malignus ille inf_er_re disposuerat,
u_er_sa uice, clementia diuina conuertit in tripudium[363]. Quamobre_m_ in
p_re_senti accipe, quod tuis m_er_itis exigentib_us_ debetur, eciam si
filius meus non esses, _et_ si m_ih_i iure h_er_editario non succederes;
ecce iam, cedo, _et_ regnu_m_ Anglor_um_ uoluntatis tue arbitrio deinceps
committo; etas enim mea fragilis _et_ iam decrepita, regni ceptrum ulterius
sustinere no_n_ sufficit. Iccirco te fili desid_er_atissime, uicem meam
supplere te co_n_uenit, _et_ corpus meu_m_ senio _con_fectum, donec
morientis oculos clauseris, quieti t_r_ad_er_e liberiori, vt a curis _et_
secularib_us_ sollicitudinibus, quib_us_ discerpor lib_er_atus, p_re_cibus
uacem _et_ _con_te_m_plac_i_oni. Armis hucusq_ue_ mat_er_ialib_us_
dimicaui: restat {225} ut de cet_er_o uita mea q_ue_ sup_er_est, militia
sit sup_er_ t_er_ram _con_t_r_a hostes sp_irit_uales.
"Ego u_er_o pro incolumitate tua _et_ regni statu, q_uo_d strenuitati tue,
O anime mee dimidiu_m_, ia_m_ _com_misi, preces quales mea, sci[t][364]
simplicitas _et_ potest i_m_becillitas, Deo fundam indefessas. S_ed_ q_uia_
temp_us_ perbreue amodo m_ih_i restat, _et_ corpori meo solum s_upe_rest
sepulchru_m_, aure_m_ benigna_m_ meis accomoda salutaribus consiliis, _et_
cor credulu_m_ meis monitis i_n_clina magnificis. Uerum ip_s_os qui
nobiscum c_ontr_a hostes publicos, Riganu_m_ videlicet _et_ Mitunnu_m_
[Sidenote: Fol. 5 _a_] | _et_ eor_um_ complices emulos n_ost_ros
fidelit_er_ steter_un_t, _et_ periculoso discrimini pro nobis se
opposuer_un_t, p_ate_rno amore t_ib_i co_m_mendo, diligendos, honorandos,
promouendos. Eos aute_m_ qui dec_r_epite sen_e_ctutis mee membra[365]
debilia _con_te_m_ptui h_abe_re ausi s_un_t, asserentes u_er_ba mea _et_
regalia p_re_cepta e_ss_e sinilia delirame_n_ta, p_re_sumentes tem_er_e
apice regali me priuato te exheredare, susp_e_ctos habe _et_
co_n_te_m_ptibiles, si qui sint elapsi ab hoc bello, _et_ a tuo gladio
deuorante, eciam cu_m_ eor_um_ post_er_itate: ne cu_m_ in ramusculos
uir_us_ pullulet, a radice aliquid _con_simile t_ib_i gen_er_etur in
posteru_m_. No_n_ eni_m_ recolo me talem eor_um_ promeruisse, q_u_i me _et_
te filiu_m_ meu_m_ gratis oderunt, persecuc_i_one_m_. Similit_er_ eos, quos
d_i_c_t_i proditores pro eo q_uo_d nobis fideliter adhes_er_ant, exulare
coeg_er_unt, u_e_l qui impote_n_tes rabiem eor_um_ fugiendo resist_er_e, ad
horam declinau_er_unt, cu_m_ omni mansuetudi_n_e studeas reuocare, _et_
honores eor_um_ cu_m_ possessionib_us_ ex innata t_ib_i regali
munific_e_ntia, graci_us_ ampliare. Laus industrie tue _et_ fame
p_re_conia, _et_ strenuitatis tue titulus, q_ue_ adolesc_e_nciam tuam
diuinit_us_ illustraru_n_t, in posterum de te maiora p_ro_m_i_ttu_n_t.
Desid_er_anti animo sicient_er_ affecto, ip_su_mq_ue_ Deu_m_, qui te
t_ib_i, sua mera gr_aci_a reddidit _et_ restaurauit, dep_re_cor affectuose,
vt has iuuentutis tue primicias, h_oc_ i_n_opinato t_r_iumpho subarratas,
melior semp_er_ ac splendidior op_er_um gl_ori_a subseq_u_atur. Et procul
dubio post morte_m_ meam (que non longe abest, iubente D_omi_no) fame tue
magnitudo per orbem uniu_er_su_m_ dilatabitur, _et_ felix suscipiet
inc_r_ementu_m_. Et q_ue_ D_e_o placita sunt, opere felici consumabis,
q_ue_ diuinitus p_ro_sp_er_abunt_ur_."
{226}
Hec aute_m_ filius deuotus _et_ mansuet_us_, licet magnific_us_
t_r_iumphator exaudiss_et_ _et_ intenta aure intellexiss_et_, flexis
genib_us_ _et_ iunctis manib_us_, _et_ exundantib_us_ oculis, p_at_ri suo
grates[366] rettulit accumulatas. Rex itaq_ue_ per fines Anglie missis
nunciis expeditissimis, q_u_i ma_n_data regia detuler_un_t, tocius dicionis
sue conuocat nobilitatem. Que conuocata ex reg_is_ precepto, _et_
persuasione, Offano filio suo unigenito ligiam fecerunt fidelitatem _et_
homagiu_m_ in p_at_ris presencia. Quod _et_ om_ne_s, animo uolenti, i_m_mo
gaudenti, co_m_munit_er_ perfec_er_unt.
Rex igitur q_ue_m pocius prona voluntas, q_u_a_m_ uigor prouexit
corporalis, per climata regni sui proficiscitur secur_us_ _et_ letabundus,
nullo _contr_adicente, u_e_l impediente, ut regni munic_i_o_ne_s _et_
varias possessiones, diu per inimicos suos alienatas _et_ iniuste ac
uiolent_er_ possessas, ad sue dic_i_onis reacciperet iure potestate_m_. Que
o_mn_ia sibi sunt s_i_n_e_ difficultate u_e_l more dispendio restituta.
Statimq_ue_ p_ate_r filium eoru_m_ possessionib_us_ corporaliter
inuestiuit; _et_ p_ate_rno contulit aff_e_c_t_u ac gratuito, proc_er_ib_us_
[Sidenote: Fol. 5 _b_] co_n_gaude_n_|tib_us_ super hoc uniuersis. Post hec
autem, Rex filio suo Offano erarium suum adaperiens, auru_m_ suu_m_ _et_
argentu_m_, uasa co_n_cupiscibilia, gemmas, oloserica omnia, sue subdidit
potestati. Sicq_ue_ subactis _et_ subt_r_actis hostibus[367] cunctis,
aliquandiu per uniu_er_sum regnu_m_ uiguit pax _et_ securitas diu
desiderabilis.
Rex igitur filii sui prosperitate gauisus, qui _eciam_ diatim de bono i_n_
melius gradatim ascendit, aliquo tempore uite sue metas distulit naturales:
iubilus quoq_ue_ in corde senis conceptus languores seniles plurimu_m_
mitigauit. Tandem Rex plenus dierum, cu_m_ b_e_n_e_dicc_i_one omniu_m_, qui
ip_su_m _eciam_ a remotis[368] partib_us_ p_er_ fama_m_ cognou_er_unt[369],
nature debita persoluens decessit. Et decedens, filio suo apice_m_ regni
sui pacatum _et_ quietu_m_ reliquit: Offan_us_ aute_m_ oculos p_at_ris sui
pie claudens, lamentaciones mensurnas cum magnis eiulatibus, lac_r_imis
_et_ specialib_us_ planctib_us_ (prout moris t_un_c erat principibus
magnificis) lugubriter pro tanto funere continuauit. Obsequiisq_ue_ cu_m_
exequiis, magnifice tam in ecc_lesi_a q_u_am in locis forinsecis conpletis,
apparatu regio _et_ loco celeberrimo _et_ nominatissimo.
{227} regibus _con_digno, videlicet i_n_ eminenc_i_ori ecc_lesi_a penes
Glou_er_nia_m_ urbem egregiam, eidem exhiberi iubet sepulturam. Offanus
aute_m_ cu_m_ morib_us_ o_mn_ibus foret redimitus, elegans corp_or_e, armis
strenuus, munificus _et_ benignus, post obitum p_at_ris sui magnifici
Warmundi[370], cui_us_ mores tractatus exigit speciales, plenarie
o_mn_iu_m_ p_r_incipum Regni d_omi_nium suscipit, _et_ debitu_m_ cum omni
deuoc_i_one, _et_ mera uoluntate, famulatu_m_. Cum igitur cui_us_dam
sole_m_pnitatis arrid_er_et serenitas, Offanus cu_m_ solle_m_pni t_r_ipudio
o_mn_ib_us_ applaudentibus _et_ faustum omen acclama_n_tibus, Anglie
diademate feliciter est i_n_signit_us_.
Adquiescens _i_gi_tur_ senior_um_ co_n_siliis _et_ sapientum
persuasionib_us_, cepit tocius regni irrep_re_h_e_nsibil_ite_r, immo
laudabiliter, habenas[371] modernanter _et_ sapient_er_ gubernare. Sic
igitur, subactis hostib_us_ regni uniu_er_sis, uiguit pax secura _et_
firmata i_n_ finib_us_ Anglor_um_, p_er_ te_m_pora longa; precipue t_ame_n
p_er_ spaciu_m_ temp_or_is qui_n_q_ue_nnale. Erat au_tem_ iam t_r_iginta
q_u_atuor annos etatis attingens, annis prospere pubescentib_us_.
Et cum Rex, more iuuenili, venatus gr_aci_a per nemora frequent_er_, cu_m_
suis ad h_oc_ conuocatis uenatorib_us_ _et_ canibus sagacib_us_, expeditus
peragrasset, contigit die quada_m_ quod aere turbato, longe a suor_um_
cat_er_ua semotus, solus p_er_ nemoris opaca penitus ipsoru_m_ locor_um_,
n_e_cnon _et_ fortune ignar_us_, casu deambulabat. Du_m_ aute_m_ sic per
ignota diu_er_ticula i_n_caucius oberraret, _et_ per inuia, uocem
lac_r_imabilem _et_ miserabiliter q_ue_rulam haut longe a se audiuit.
Cui_us_ sonitu_m_ secutus, int_er_ densos frutices [Sidenote: Fol. 6 _a_] |
virginem singularis forme _et_ regii apparat_us_, s_ed_ decore
uenustissimam, ex insperato repperit. Rex uero rei euentu_m_ admirans, que
ibi ageret et querele causas, eam blande alloq_ue_ns, cepit sciscitari. Que
ex imo pectoris flebilia t_r_ahens suspiria, regi respondit (neq_u_aq_u_am
in auctorem s_ed_ in seip_s_am reatum retorquens): "Peccatis meis" inquit
"exigentib_us_ infortunii hui_us_ calamitas m_ih_i accidit." Erat aute_m_
reguli cui_us_dam filia q_u_i Eboracensibus preerat. Hui_us_
inco_m_parabilis pulchritudinis singulare_m_ eminentiam p_ate_r admirans,
amatorio demone seductus, cep_i_t ea_m_ incestu libidinoso concupisc_er_e,
_et_ ad amorem illicitu_m_ sepe sollicitare ipsam puellam, {228} minis,
pollicitis, blanditiis, atq_ue_ mun_er_ibus adolescentule temptans emollire
_con_stantiam. Illa autem op_er_i nephario nullatenus adquiescens, cum
p_ate_r t_ame_n minas minis exaggeraret[372], _et_ promissa promissis
accumularet, mun_er_a mun_er_ib_us_ adaugeret, iuxta illud poeticu_m_:
Imperium, promissa, preces, confudit in unu_m_:
elegit magis incidere i_n_ manus ho_m_i_n_u_m_, _et_ eciam ferarum
qualiumcunq_ue_, vel gladii subire sent_e_ntiam, q_u_am D_e_i offensam
incurrere, p_ro_ tam g_r_aui culpa manifestam. Pater itaq_ue_ ipsam sibi
parere _con_stanter renuentem, euocatis quibusdam maligne me_n_tis
hominib_us_ quos ad hoc elegerat, p_re_cepit eam i_n_ desertum solitudinis
remote duci, u_e_l pocius t_r_ahi, _et_ crudelissima morte
conde_m_pnata_m_, bestiis i_b_id_em_ d_e_relinq_u_i. Qui cum in locu_m_
horroris _et_ vaste solitudinis p_er_uenissent, trahentes eam seductores
illi, Deo ut creditur inspirante, miserti pulch_r_itudinis[373] illius eam
ibidem sine t_r_ucidac_i_one _et_ me_m_b_r_or_um_ mutilac_i_one, uiuam,
s_ed_ t_ame_n sine aliquoru_m_ uictualiu_m_ alimento (exceptis talib_us_
qui de radicibus _et_ frondib_us_ uel h_er_bis colligi, urgente ultima
fame, possunt) dimiserunt.
Cum hac rex aliq_u_andiu habens sermonem, comitem itineris sui illam
habuit, don_e_c solitarii cui_us_da_m_ habitac_i_one_m_ reperissent, ubi
nocte s_upe_rueniente quiescentes pernoctau_er_unt. In c_r_astinu_m_ autem
solitarius ille uiarum _et_ semitaru_m_ peritus, regem cu_m_ comite sua
usq_ue_ ad fines domesticos, _et_ loca regi no_n_ ignota[374] conduxit. Ad
suos itaq_ue_ rex rediens, desolate illius q_u_am nup_er_ inuenerat curam
gerens, familiarib_us_ _et_ domesticis generis sui sub diligenti custodia
co_m_misit.
Post hec aliq_u_ot annis elapsis, cu_m_ rex celibem age_n_s uitam, mente
castus _et_ corpore perseueraret, proceres dic_i_onis sue, no_n_ solum de
tunc p_re_senti, s_ed_ de fut_ur_o sibi periculo precauentes, _et_
nimiru_m_ multum solliciti, d_omi_n_u_m suum de uxore ducenda unanimiter
_con_uenerunt: ne sibi _et_ regno successorem _et_ heredem no_n_ habens,
post obitum ipsi_us_ iminens p_er_iculum generaret. Etatis eni_m_ iuuenilis
pubertas, moru_m_ maturitas, _et_ urgens regni necessitas, n_e_cno_n_ _et_
honoris dignitas, itide_m_ postularu_n_t. [Sidenote: Fol. 6 _b_] | Et cum
super hoc negocio, sepius regem {229} sollicitarentur, _et_ alloquerentur,
ipse multociens ioculando, _et_ talia u_er_ba asserendo int_er_ludia fuisse
uanitatis, procerum suoru_m_ constantiam dissimulando differendoq_ue_
delusit. Quod quidam adu_er_tentes, co_m_municato cu_m_ aliis consilio,
regem ad nubendu_m_ incuntabiliter urgere ceperunt. Rex uero more optimi
principis, cui_us_ primordia iam bene subarrauerat, nolens uoluntati
magnatu_m_ suor_um_ resistere, diu secum de thori socia, libra profunde
r_ati_onis, studiose cepit deliberare. Cu_m_q_ue_ hoc in mente sua
sollicicius tractaret, uen_i_t forte i_n_ mente_m_ suam illius iuuencule
memoria, q_u_am dudum inter uenandum i_n_uenit uagabundam, solam, feris
_et_ predonibus miserabiliter expositam: quam ad tuciora ducens,
familiaribus gen_er_is sui co_m_mis_er_at alendam, ac carius custodiendam.
Que, ut rex audiuit, morib_us_ laudabiliter redimita, decoris existens
exp_ec_tabilis, omnibus sibi cognitis amabilem exhibuit _et_ laudabilem;
hec igit_ur_ sola, relictis multis, _eciam_ regalis stematis sibi oblatis,
complacuit; illamq_ue_ solam i_n_ matrimoniu_m_ sibi adoptauit.
Cum aute_m_ eam duxisset in uxorem, non int_er_ueniente m_u_lta mora,
elegantissime forme utriusq_ue_ sexus liberos ex eadem procreauit. Itaq_ue_
cum p_r_ius e_ss_et rex propria seueritate subditis suis formidabilis,
magnates eius, n_e_cnon _et_ populus eius uniu_er_sus, heredum _et_
successor_um_ apparentia animati, regni robur _et_ leticiam geminar_un_t.
Rex q_u_o_que_ ab uniu_er_sis suis, _et_ no_n_ solum prope positis, i_m_mo
alienigenis _et_ remotis, extit_i_t honori, uen_er_ac_i_oni, ac
dilecc_i_oni. Et cu_m_ inter se in Britannia, (q_ue_ tunc temporis in
plurima regna multiphariam diuisa fuisset) reg_u_li sibi finitimi
hostilit_er_ se impet_er_ent, solus Rex Offa pace regni sui potitus
felicit_er_, se sibiq_ue_ s_u_bditos in pace regebat _et_ lib_er_tate. Unde
_et_ adiacencium prouinciarum reges ei_us_ mendicabant auxilium, _et_ i_n_
necc_ess_itatis articulo, consiliu_m_.
Rex itaq_ue_ Northamhi_m_bror_um_, a barbara Scotor_um_ gente, _et eciam_
aliquib_us_ suor_um_, _gr_auit_er_ _et_ usq_ue_ f_er_me ad
int_er_nec_i_onem percussus, _et_ proprie defensionis auxilio destitutus,
ad Offam regem potentem legatos destinat; _et_ pacificum supplicans, ut
p_re_sidii eius solacio cont_r_a hostes suos roboretur. Tali mediante
_con_dic_i_one, ut Offe filiam sibi matrimonio copularet, _et_ non se
proprii regni, _sed_ Offam, primarium ac {230} principem preferr_et_, _et_
se cu_m_ suis om_n_ib_us_ ip_s_i subiugaret. Nichil itaq_ue_ dotis cum Offe
filia rogitauit, hoc sane contentus premio, ut a regni sui finibus barbaros
illos potenter _et_ frequenter experta fugaret strenuitate.
Cum autem legatorum uerba rex Offa succepisset, consilio suorum fretus
[Sidenote: Fol. 7 _a_] sup|plicantis uoluntati ac precibus adquieuit si
t_ame_n rex ille pactum huiusmodi, tactis sac_ro_s_an_c_t_is
euuangeliis[375], _et_ obsidum tradic_i_one, fideliter tenendum
confirmaret. Sic igitur Rex Offa, super hiis condic_i_onib_us_ sub c_er_ta
forma co_n_firmatus, _et_ ad plenum certificatus, in partes illas cu_m_
equitum numerosa multitudine proficiscitur. Cum autem illuc perueniss_et_,
timore eius consternata pars aduersa cessit, fuge presidio se saluando.
Quam t_ame_n rex Offa audacter prosecutus, non prius destitit fugare
fugientem, donec eam ex integro contriuisset; s_ed_ nec eo contentus,
ulteri_us_ progreditur, barbaros expugnaturus. Int_er_ea ad patriam suam
nunciu_m_ i_m_p_er_itu_m_ destinau_i_t, ad primates et precipuos regni sui,
quib_us_ tocius dic_i_onis sue regimen commendau_er_at, et lit_er_as regii
sigilli sui munimine co_n_signatas[376], eidem nunc_i_o commisit,
deferendas. Q_u_i autem destinatus fuit, iter arripiens u_er_sus Offe
regnum, ut casu accidit int_er_ eundu_m_, hospitandi gr_aci_a aulam regiam
introiuit illi_us_ regis, cuius filiam Offa sibi m_at_rimo_n_io
copulau_er_at. Rex au_tem_ ille, cum de statu _et_ causa itineris sui
subdole requirendo cognouisset, uultus sui serenitate animi u_er_suciam
mentitus, specie ten_us_ illum amantissime suscepit: _et_ uelamen sceleris
sui querens, a conspectu publico sub quodam dilecc_i_onis pretexu, ad regii
thalami secreta penetralia ip_su_m nuncium nichil sinist_r_i suspicantem
introduxit: magnoq_ue_ studio elaborauit, ut ip_su_m, uino estuanti
madentem, redderet temulentum, et ip_s_o nuncio uel dormiente uel aliquo
alio modo ignorante, mandata d_omi_ni sui regis Offe tacit_us_ ac subdolus
apertis _et_ explicatis lit_er_is persc_r_utabatur; cepitq_ue_ perniciose
immutare et p_er_uertere sub Offe nomine sigillu_m_ adultera_n_s,
fallacesq_ue_ _et_ perniciosas literas loco inuentarum occultauit. Forma
autem adulterinar_um_ [l_ite_rar_um_][377] hec est q_ue_ subscribitur[378]:
{231}
[379]"Rex Offa, maioribus et p_re_cipuis regni sui, salutis et
prosperitatis augmentu_m_. Uniu_er_sitati u_est_re notum facio, i_n_
itin_er_e quod arripui infortunia _et_ adu_er_sa plurima tam michi q_u_am
subditis meis accidisse, _et_ maiores excercitus mei, non ignauia propria,
u_e_l hostium oppugnantium uirtute, set pocius peccatis n_ost_ris iusto Dei
iudicio interisse. Ego autem instantis periculi causam p_er_tracta_n_s,
_et_ consciencie mee intima perscrutatus, i_n_ memetip_s_o nichil aliud
conicio altissimo displicere, nisi quod perditam _et_ maleficam illa_m_
absq_ue_ meorum consensu uxorem imperito _et_ infelici duxi matrimonio. Ut
ergo de malefica memorata, uoluntati u_est_re ad plenum q_u_a_m_ temere
offendi satisfiat, asportetur cum lib_er_is ex ea genitis ad loca deserta,
ho_m_i_ni_b_us_ i_n_cognita[380], [Sidenote: Fol. 7 _b_] | feris _et_
auib_us_ aut siluestribus predonibus frequentata: ubi cum pueris suis
puerpera, truncata manus et pedes, exemplo pereat inaudito."
Nuncius autem mane facto, uino quo maduerat digesto, co_m_pos iam sui
effectus, discessit: et post aliquot dies perueniens ad propria,
magnatib_us_ qui regno regis Offe p_re_erant literas do_mi_ni sui sigillo
signatas exposuit. In quar_um_ auditu perlecta mandati serie, in stuporem
_et_ uehementissimam admirac_i_one_m_ uniu_er_si, plus q_u_am dici possit,
rapiuntur. Et super hiis, aliquot diebus co_m_municato cum magnatibus
consilio deliberantes, periculosum ducebant[381] mandatis ac iussionib_us_
regiis non obtemperare. Misera _i_gi_tur_ seducta, deducta est in
remotissimu_m_ _et_ i_n_habitabilem locum horroris et uaste solitudinis:
cu_m_ qua eciam liberi ei_us_ miseri _et_ miserabiles queruli _et_
uagientes, absq_ue_ mi_sericordi_a, ut cu_m_ ea t_r_ahere_n_t_ur_
occidendi, iudiciu_m_ acceperu_n_t.
Nec mora, memorati apparitores matre_m_ cu_m_ pignorib_us_ suis in
des_er_tu_m_ uastissimu_m_ t_r_aheba_n_t. Mat_r_i uero p_ro_pt_er_ ei_us_
forma_m_ admirabile_m_ p_ar_ce_n_tes, lib_er_os ei_us_, n_e_c forme, n_e_c
sexui, etati u_e_l _con_dic_i_oni p_ar_c_e_ntes, d_e_truncarunt menbratim,
i_m_mo poci_us_ frustatim[382] crudeliter in bestialem feritate_m_
seuientes. Completaq_ue_ tam crudeli sente_n_cia, cruenti apparitores ocius
reuertunt_ur_. Nec mora, solitarius quidam uitam in omni s_an_c_t_itate,
uigiliis assiduis, ieiuniis crebris, _et_ continuis {232} or_ati_onib_us_,
ducens heremiticam, circa noctis crepusculum eo p_er_t_r_ansie_n_s,
mulieris cuiusdam luctus lac_r_imabiles _et_ querelas usq_ue_ ad intima
cordis _et_ ossuum[383] medullas penetratiuas, quas D_omi_n_u_s ex
mortuorum corporib_us_ licet lac_er_atis elicuit, audiuit.
Infantulorumq_ue_ uagitus lugubres nimis cu_m_ doloris ululatibus quasi in
materno sinu audiendo similiter annotauit. Mis_er_icordia autem s_an_c_tus_
Dei motus, usq_ue_ ad lacrimaru_m_ aduberem effusionem, quo ipsa uox
ip_su_m uocabat, Domino ducente peruenit. Et cu_m_ illuc peruenisset, nec
aliud q_u_am corp_or_a humana in frusta detruncata reperisset,
cognouit[384] in sp_irit_u ip_s_a alicuius innocentis corp_us_, uel
aliquorum i_n_nocentiu_m_ corpuscula extitisse, que tam inhumanam
sentenciam subierunt. Nec sine martirii palma, ipsos quorum hee fuerunt
exuuie, ab h_oc_[385] sec_u_lo t_r_ansmigrasse suspicabatur. Auxiliu_m_
t_ame_n pro D_e_i amore _et_ caritatis intuitu postulatu_m_ non denegans,
se pro illorum reparac_i_one prostrauit in deuotissima_m_ cum lacrimis
or_aci_onem, maxime propter uocem celitus emissam, quam profecto
cognou_i_t[384] p_er_ D_eu_m li_n_g_u_as cadau_er_u_m_ p_ro_tulisse. Piis
_i_gi_tur_ s_an_c_tu_s _com_mot_us_ uisc_er_ib_us_, igneq_ue_ succe_n_s_us_
caritatis, ex cognic_i_one[386] ei_us_, q_u_am, ut ia_m_ d_i_c_tu_m,
dudu_m_ uiderat, h_ab_uit, f_a_c_tus_ hilarior, pro ipsis [Sidenote: Fol. 8
_a_] | flexis genib_us_, inundantibus oculis, iunctisq_ue_ palmis orauit,
dicens: "D_omi_ne Jesu Ch_rist_e, q_u_i Lazarum quatriduanu_m_ ac fetidum
resuscitasti, immo qui omniu_m_ n_ostro_r_u_m corpora i_n_ ext_r_emo
examine suscitabis, u_est_ram oro mis_er_icordiam, ut non habens ad me
peccatorem, s_ed_ ad horum innocentum pressuras respectu_m_ piissimu_m_,
corpuscula h_ec_ iubeas resuscitari, ad laudem _et_ gloriam tuam i_n_
se_m_pit_er_nu_m_, vt om_ne_s qui mortis horum causam _et_ forma_m_
audierint, te glorificent Deum _et_ Dominum mundi Saluatorem."
Sic igitur s_an_c_tu_s iste, D_omi_ni de fidei sue[387] uirtute i_n_ Domino
presumens _et_ co_n_fidens, int_er_ orandum, membra p_re_cisa
recollige_n_s, _et_ sibi particulas adaptans _et_ coniungens, _et_ i_n_
q_u_antum potuit redintegrans, in parciu_m_ q_u_amplurimu_m_, set in
integritate_m_ pocius delectat_us_, Domino rei consummac_i_onem q_u_i
mortificat _et_ uiuificat co_m_mendauit. Coniuncta igitur corpora, signo
crucis triumphali consignauit. Mira fidei uirtus et {233} efficacia, signo
c_r_ucis uiuifice et or_ati_onis ac fidei serui D_e_i uirtute, no_n_
solu_m_ m_at_ris orbate anim_us_ reparat_ur_, s_ed_ _et_ filior_um_
corp_us_cula in pristinu_m_ _et_ integrum nature sunt reformata decorem,
necnon _et_ anime mortuor_um_ ad sua pristina domicilia sunt reuerse. Ad
mansiuncule igitur sue septa (a qua elongatus fuerat, gr_aci_a lignor_um_
ad pulmentaria deq_u_oquenda colligendor_um_) ip_s_e senex: qui prius
detruncati fuerant, Domino iubente integ_r_i uiui _et_ alacres sunt
reuersi, ducem s_an_c_tu_m suum sequentes pedetentim. Ubi more patris,
ip_s_am desolatam cum liberis sibi ip_s_is restitutis, alimentis quibus
potuit, _et_ q_ue_ ad manum habuit, pie ac misericordit_er_ _con_fouebat.
Nesciens _er_go quo migraret regina, cu_m_ suis infantulis intra
uastissimam heremum cum memorato solitario, diu moram ibidem
or_ati_onib_us_, uigiliis, ac aliis s_an_c_ti_s operibus eius intenta _et_
iamiam conuenienter informata, _et_ edulio siluestri sustentata,
co_n_tinuabat. Post duoru_m_ uero mensium curricula, Rex Offa
uictoriosissimus domu_m_ let_us_ remeauit, spolia deuictorum suis
magnatib_us_ regali munificentia gloriose distribuendo; uerunt_ame_n, ne
lacrime gaudia regis, _et_ eoru_m_ q_u_i cum eo aduen_er_ant,
miserabilit_er_ int_er_rump_er_ent, consiliarii regii q_u_e de regina _et_
lib_er_is ei_us_ accid_er_a_n_t, diu sub silenc_i_o caute dissimulando,
_et_ causas absencie eius fictas annectendo, _con_celabant. Tandem cu_m_
rex uehement_er_ admiraretur ubinam regina delituisset, q_ue_ ip_s_i regi
ab ancipiti bello reu_er_tenti occurrisse gaudenter teneretur, _et_ in
oscul_is_ _et_ amplexib_us_ ceteris gaudentius t_r_iumphatore_m_
aduentante_m_ suscepisse, sciscitabatur instanti_us_, _et_ toruius _et_
p_ro_t_er_uius, quid de ip_s_a fieret uel euenisset. Suspicabatur eni_m_
eam morbo detenta_m_, ipsa_m_q_ue_ cu_m_ lib_er_is [Sidenote: Fol. 8 _b_] |
suis, regis _et_ aliorum hominu_m_, ut quieti uacaret, frequentiam
declinasse. Tande_m_ cum iratus nullatenus se uelle ampli_us_ ignorare,
cu_m_ iuramento, q_u_id de uxore sua _et_ lib_er_is euenisset, uultu toruo
asseruisset, unus ex edituis omnia q_ue_ accid_er_ant, de tirannico ei_us_
mandato, _et_ mandati plenaria execuc_i_one, seriatim enarrauit.
Hiis auditis, risus in luctu_m_, gaudium i_n_ lamenta, iubilus in singultus
flebilit_er_ conu_er_tuntur, totaq_ue_ regia ululatibus personuit _et_
merorib_us_. Lugensq_ue_ rex diu ta_m_ i_m_mane infortuniu_m_, induit se
sacco cilicino, aspersum cin_er_e, ac multiplicit_er_ {234} deformatum.
Tandem monitu suorum, qui dicebant n_on_ uiror_um_ magnificor_um_ s_ed_
pocius effeminator_um_, dolorem int_er_iecto solacio nolle temperare[388],
e_ss_e propriu_m_ _et_ _con_suetudine_m_, rex cepit respirare, _et_ dolori
modu_m_ imponere. Consilio igitur p_er_itorum, qui nouerant regem
libent_er_ i_n_ te_m_pore p_ro_sp_er_o in studio uenatico plurimu_m_
delectari, conuocantur uenatores, ut rex spaciaturus uenando, dolorem
suu_m_ diminueret _et_ luctu_m_ solacio demulceret. Qui int_er_ uenandum
dum p_er_ siluaru_m_ abdita, Deo misericordiaru_m_ _et_ toci_us_
co_n_solac[_i_]onis ducente, felicit_er_ solus per inuia oberrauit, _et_
tandem ad heremitoriu_m_ memorati h_er_emite directe peruenit, eiusq_ue_
exiguu_m_ domicilium subintrans, humaniss[_im_]e _et_ cu_m_ su_m_mo gaudio
receptus _est_. Et cu_m_ humili residens sedili, membra[389] fatigata
quieti daret ad horam, recolens qual_ite_r uxore_m_ sua_m_ ibidem quonda_m_
diuinitus reperisset, _et_ feliciter educasset, _et_ educatam duxisset i_n_
uxorem, _et_ q_u_am elegantem ex ea prolem p_ro_tulisset, eruperunt lacrime
cu_m_ gemitibus, _et_ in querelas lugubres ora resoluens, hospiti suo
sinistru_m_ de uxore sua q_u_i[390] infausto sidere nup_er_ euen_er_at
qua_m_ _et_ ip_s_e q_u_onda_m_ viderat, enarrauit. At senex sereno uultu,
factus ex intrinsecus concepto gaudio alacrior, consolatus est regem, et in
uocem exultac_i_o_n_is eminus prorumpens: "Eia d_omi_ne mi rex, eia, ait;
uere Deus misericordiar_um_, D_omi_n_u_s, famulos suos quasi p_ate_r filios
in omni t_r_ibulacione p_ost_ pressuras consolatur, percutit _et_ medetur,
deicit ut gloriosius eleuet pregrauatum. Uiuit uxor tua, cum lib_er_is tuis
in o_mn_i sospitate restauratis: non meis m_er_itis, s_ed_ poci_us_ tuis,
integritati, sanitati _et_ leticie pleni_us_ qui trucidabantur
restituunt_ur_. Recognosce[391] q_u_anta fecit t_ib_i D_omi_n_u_s, _et_ in
laudes et gr_aci_ar_um_ acciones tot_us_ exurge." Tunc prosiliens
s_an_c_tu_s pre gaudio, euocauit reginam, que in int_er_iori diu_er_ticulo,
pueros suos balneo micius m_ate_rno studio _con_fouebat. Que cu_m_ ad regem
int_r_oisset, uix se [Sidenote: Fol. 9 _a_] | gaudio capiens, pedibus
mariti sui p_ro_uoluta, in lacrimis exultac_i_onis inundauit. In cuius
amplexus desid_er_atissimos rue_n_s rex, ipsam in maius q_u_am dici possit
gaudiu_m_ suscepit. Interi_m_ senex, pueros elegantissimos _et_ ex
abluc_i_one elegantiores, uestit, comit, _et_ p_ate_rno more _et_
aff_e_c_t_u componit, _et_ ad p_re_sentiam p_at_ris _et_ matris
int_r_oducit. Quos p_ate_r int_r_a {235} b_r_achia suscipiens, _et_ ad
pectus arctiorib_us_ amplexib_us_ applicans, roseis uultib_us_ infantu_m_
oscula i_m_p_r_imit m_u_ltiplicata; quos t_ame_n rore lac_r_imarum, p_re_
nimia mentis exultac_i_one, madefecit. Et cu_m_ diucius eor_um_ colloquiis
pasceret_ur_, co_n_u_er_sus rex ad senem, ait: "O p_ate_r s_anct_e, p_ate_r
dulcissime[392], me_n_tis mee reparator, _et_ gaudii cordis mei
restaurator, qua merita u_est_ra, caritatis officia, pietatisq_ue_
beneficia, p_ro_seq_u_ar remun_er_ac[_i_]one? Accipe _er_go, licet m_u_lto
maiora exigant m_er_ita tua, q_u_icq_u_id erarium meu_m_ ualet effund_er_e;
me, meos, et mea, tue expono uoluntati." At s_anctu_s, "D_omi_ne mi rex,
non decet me peccatore_m_ conu_er_su_m_ ad Do_mi_n_u_m, ad insanias quas
reliqui falsas respicere. Tu uero pocius pro a_n_i_m_ab_us_ p_at_ris tui
_et_ matris tue, quib_us_ q_u_andoq_ue_ car_us_ fuera_m_ ac familiaris,
_et_ tua, _et_ uxoris tue, _et_ lib_er_or_um_ tuor_um_ corporali sanitate,
_et_ salute sp_irit_uali, regni tui soliditate, _et_ successor_um_ tuor_um_
p_ro_sp_er_itate, Deo gratus, qui tot in te congessit beneficia, cenobium
quodda_m_ fundare, u_e_l aliquod dirutu_m_ studeas restaurare: in quo digne
_et_ laudabiliter Deo in perpetuum s_er_uiatur; _et_ tui memoria cu_m_
p_re_cib_us_ ad D_omi_n_u_m fusis, cu_m_ b_e_n_e_diccionib_us_ semp_er_
recenter recolatur." Et _con_u_er_sus ad reginam, ait, "Et tu, filia,
q_u_amuis mulier, no_n_ t_ame_n muliebrit_er_, ad hoc regem accendas _et_
admoneas diligenter, filiosq_ue_ tuos instrui facias, ut[393] _et_
D_omi_n_u_m D_eu_m, qui eos uite reparauit, studeant g_r_atant_er_
honorare, _et_ eidem fidelit_er_ famulando fundandi cenobii possessiones
ampliare, _et_ tueri libertates."
Desc_e_nsus ad sec_un_d_u_m Offa_m_.
Sanctus autem ad cellam reu_er_sus, post paucu_m_ temporis ab i_n_colatu
h_uiu_s mundi migrauit ad D_omi_n_u_m, m_er_cedem et_er_nam pro labore
temporali recepturus. Rex au_tem_, cito monita ipsius salubria da_n_s
obliuioni _et_ incurie, ex tunc ocio ac paci uacauit: prolemq_ue_ copiosam
utriusq_ue_ sexus expectabilis pulch_r_itudinis procreauit. Unde semen
regium a latere _et_ descensu felix suscepit incrementu_m_. Qui co_m_pleto
vite sue tempore, post etatem bonam q_u_ieuit in pace, _et_ regaliter
sepultus, appositus _est_ ad patres suos; in eo multu_m_ redarguend_us_,
quod cenobium[394] uotiuo aff_ect_u repromissu_m_, thesauris parcendo no_n_
construxit. Post {236} uictorias eni_m_ a D_omin_o[395] sibi collatas,
amplexib_us_ _et_ ignauie n_e_cno_n_ auaricie plus equo indulsit.
P_ro_speritas eni_m_ secularis, animos, licet [Sidenote: Fol. 9 _b_]
uir|iles, solet frequenter effeminare. Ueru_n_tamen hoc onus humeris filii
sui moritu_r_us apposuit: qui cum deuota assercione, illud sibi suscepit.
S_ed_ nec ipse Deo auerso pollicita, prout p_at_ri suo promiserat,
compleuit; set filio suo huius uoti obligac_i_onem i_n_ fine uite sue
dereliquit. Et sic memorati uoti uinculum, sine efficacia complementi de
p_at_re in filium descendens, usq_ue_ ad temp_or_a Pineredi filii Tuinfreth
suspendebatur. Quibus pro pena negligentie, tale euenit i_n_fortuniu_m_, ut
om_ne_s principes, quos Offa magnificus edomuerat, a subiecc_i_one ipsius
Offe _et_ posteritatis sue procaciter recesseru_n_t, _et_ ip_su_m
moriente_m_ despexerunt. Quia ut p_re_d_i_c_tu_m est, ad morte_m_
u_er_gens, deliciis _et_ senii ualitudine marcuit eneruatus.
De ortu secundi Offe.
Natus est igitur memorato Tuinfred[o][396] (_et_ qui de stemate regum
fuit) filius, videlicet Pineredus, usq_ue_ ad annos adolescentie
i_n_utilis, poplitib_us_ cont_r_actis, qui n_e_c oculor_um_ uel aurium
plene officio naturali fung_er_et_ur_. Unde p_at_ri suo Tuin_fredo_ _et_
m_at_ri sue Marcelline, oneri fuit no_n_ honori, _con_fusioni _et_ n_on_
exultac_i_oni. Et licet unic_us_ eis fuisset, mallent prole caruisse,
q_u_a_m_ talem habuisse. Uer_un_t_ame_n memorie reducentes euentu_m_ Offe
magni, qui in ten_er_a etate penitus erat inutilis, _et_ postea, Deo
propicio, penit_us_ sibi restitutus, mirabili strenuitate om_ne_s suos
edomuit adu_er_sarios, _et_ bello p_re_pote_n_s, gloriose multociens de
magnis hostib_us_ t_r_iu_m_phauit: spem conceperunt, quod eodem medico
medente (Chr_ist_o uidelicet, qui _eciam_ mortuos suscitat, p_ro_piciatus)
posset similiter uisitari _et_ sibi restitui. Pater igitur ei_us_ _et_
m_ate_r ip_s_um pueru_m_ inito salubri consilio, i_n_ templo presentaru_n_t
Domino, votiua deuoc_i_one firmit_er_ promitte_n_tes: "Ut si ip_su_m Deus
restauraret, q_uo_d parentes eius negligenter omiserunt, ip_s_e puer cu_m_
se facultas offerret fidelit_er_ adimpleret": videl_icet_ de cenobio[397],
cui_us_ mencio p_re_libata est, honorifice construendo: uel de diruto
restaurando. Et cum h_ec_ tam puer q_u_am p_ate_r _et_ m_ate_r deuotissime
postularent, exaudita est or_ati_o eorum a Deo, qui se nu_n_q_u_am
difficilem exhibet precib_us_ iustis supplicantium, hoc modo.
{237}
Q_u_om_od_o p_ro_sp_er_abat_ur_.
Erat in eadem regione (Mercior_um_ uidelic_et_) quidam tirannus, pocius
dest_r_uens _et_ dissipans regni nobilitatem, q_u_a_m_ rege_n_s, no_m_i_n_e
Beormredus[398]. Hic gen_er_osos, quos regius sanguis preclaros
[fecerat][399], usq_ue_ ad int_er_necionem subdole perseq_ue_batur,
relegauit, _et_ occulta nece p_er_didit iugulandos. Sciebat eni_m_, q_uo_d
uniu_er_sis de regno m_er_ito extitit odiosus; et ne aliq_u_is loco ipsius
subrogaret_ur_ (_et_ p_re_s_er_tim de sang_u_ine regio propagatus)
uehementer formidabat. Tetendit insuper laq_ue_os Tuinfredo _et_ uxori
eius, ut ip_s_os de t_er_ra expelleret, u_e_l poci_us_ p_er_d_er_et
t_r_ucidatos. [Sidenote: Fol. 10 _a_] | Puerum autem Pinefredum[400]
spreuit, n_e_c ip_su_m querere ad perdendum dignabatur; reputa_n_s eu_m_
inutilem _et_ ualitudinariu_m_. Fugientes igitur memorat_us_ T_uinfredus_
_et_ uxor ei_us_ _et_ familia a facie p_er_seq_ue_ntis, sese in locis
tucioribus receperunt, ne gen_er_ali calu_m_pnie inuolu_er_entur. Quod
comp_er_iens Pinefredus adolescens, q_u_asi a g_r_aui so_m_pno
expergefactus, erexit se: _et_ co_m_pagib_us_ neruor_um_ laxatis, _et_
miraculose prot_e_nsis, sese de longa desidia redarguens, fecit alices,
b_r_achia, crura, pedes, extendendo. Et aliquocie_n_s oscitans, cum loqui
conaretur, solutum _est_ uinculum lingue eius, _et_ loquebatur recte,
u_er_ba proferens ore facundo pro_m_pci_us_ articulata. Quid plura? de
cont_r_acto, muto, _et_ ceco, fit elegans corpore, eloquens s_er_mone, acie
p_er_spicax oculor_um_. Qui temp_or_e modico in tantam floruit ac uiguit
strenuitatem, ut null_us_ in regno M_er_cior_um_, ip_s_i in morib_us_ _et_
probitate m_u_ltiplici ualuit co_m_parari, unde ip_s_i Mercii,
s_e_c_un_d_u_m Offam, _et_ n_on_ Pinefredu_m_, iam no_m_i_n_antes (q_uia_ a
Deo respectus _et_ electus fuisset, eode_m_ m_od_o quo _et_ rex Offa filius
regis Warmundi) cep_er_unt ip_s_i quasi D_omi_no uniu_er_salit_er_
adherere; ip_su_mq_ue_ ia_m_ f_a_c_tu_m milite_m_, _contra_ regem
Beormredu_m_ _et_ eius insidias, potenter ac prudent_er_ protegere, dantes
ei dextras, _et_ fed_us_ cu_m_ ip_s_o, prestitis iuramentis, ineuntes. Quod
audiens Beormredus, doluit, _et_ dolens timuit sibi vehement_er_.
Penituitq_ue_ eu_m_ amarissime, ip_su_m Pinefredum[400] (qui iam Offa
nominabat_ur_) cum cet_er_is fraudulenter no_n_ int_er_emisse....
{238}
[Sidenote: Fol. 11 _a_]
Qualiter Offa rex uxore_m_ dux_er_it.
Diebus itaq_ue_ sub eisde_m_, regnante in Francia Karolo rege magno ac
uictoriosissimo, queda_m_ puella, facie uenusta, s_ed_ mente nimis
i_n_honesta, ip_s_i regi co_n_sanguinea, pro quoda_m_ q_u_od pat_r_au_er_at
c_r_imine flagiciosissimo, addicta est iudicialiter morti ignominiose;
ueru_m_, ob regie dignitatis reuerentiam, igni uel ferro tradenda n_on_
iudicatur, s_ed_ in nauicula armamentis carente, apposito uictu tenui,
uentis _et_ mari, eor_um_q_ue_ ambiguis casib_us_ exponitur
_con_de_m_pnata. Que diu uariis[401] p_ro_cellis exagitata, tande_m_
fortuna trahente, litori Britonu_m_ est appulsa, et cu_m_ in t_er_ra
subiecta potestati regis Offe memorata ci_m_ba applicuiss_et_,
co_n_sp_e_ctui regis p_ro_tin__us__ p_re_sentat_ur_. Int_er_ogata au_tem_
q_ue_nam e_ss_et, respondens, p_at_ria lingua affi_r_mauit, se Karolo regi
F_r_ancor_um_ fuisse _con_sa_n_guinitate p_ro_pi_n_q_u_am, Dridamq_ue_
no_m_i_n_ata_m_, s_ed_ p_er_ tirannide_m_ [Sidenote: Fol. 11 _b_] |
quor_un_dam ignobiliu_m_ (quor_um_ nuptias ne degeneraret, spreuit) tali
fuisse disc_r_imini adiudicatam, abortisq_ue_ lac_r_imis addidit dice_n_s,
"Deus aute_m_ qui innocentes a laq_ue_is insidia_n_tiu_m_ lib_er_at, me
captiuam ad alas tue p_ro_tec_i_onis, o regum serenissime, felicit_er_
transmisit, vt meu_m_ infortuniu_m_, i_n_ auspicium fortunatu_m_
t_r_ansmutet_ur_, _et_ beatior i_n_ exilio q_u_a_m_ in natali p_at_ria, ab
o_mn_i p_re_dicer post_er_itate."
Rex au_tem_ u_er_bor_um_ suor_um_ ornatu_m_ _et_ eloq_ue_ntiam, _et_
corporis puellaris cultu_m_ _et_ elegantia_m_ considerans[402], motus
pietate, precepit ut ad comitissa_m_ Marcellin[am][403] matre_m_ sua_m_
tucius duceretur alenda, ac mitius sub tam honeste matrone custodia,
don_e_c regiu_m_ mandatu_m_ audiret, co_n_fouenda. Puelle igitur infra
paucos dies, macie _et_ pallore per alimenta depulsis, rediit decor
pristinus, ita ut mulieru_m_ pulch_er_ima censeretur. S_ed_ cito in u_er_ba
iactantie _et_ elac_i_onis (s_e_c_un_d_u_m p_at_rie sue co_n_suetudine_m_)
proru_m_pens, d_omi_ne sue comitisse, q_ue_ m_ate_rno aff_e_c_t_u eam
dulcit_er_ educau_er_at, molesta nimis fuit, ip_s_am procaciter
conte_m_pnendo. S_ed_ comitissa, pro amore filii sui regis, o_mn_ia
pacienter tolerauit: licet _et_ ip_s_a d_i_c_t_a puella, int_er_ comite_m_
_et_ comitissam u_er_ba discordie seminasset. Una igitur dieru_m_, cu_m_
rex ip_s_am causa uisitac_i_onis adiens, u_er_b_is_ _con_solatoriis {239}
alloq_ue_retur, incidit i_n_ retia amoris illius; erat eni_m_ iam sp_eci_es
illius co_n_cupiscibilis. Clandestino _i_gi_tur_ ac repentino m_at_rimonio
ip_s_am sibi, i_ncon_sultis p_at_re _et_ m_at_re, n_e_cno_n_ _et_
magnatib_us_ suis uniu_er_sis, copulauit. Unde ut_er_q_ue_ parentu_m_,
dolore ac tedio i_n_ etate senili _con_tabescens, dies uite abreuiando, sue
mortis horam lugubrit_er_ anticiparu_n_t; sciebant eni_m_ ipsam mulierculam
fuisse _et_ regalibus amplexibus prorsus indignam; perpendebantq_ue_ iamiam
ueracissime, n_on_ sine causa exilio lacrimabili, ipsam, ut pr_e_d_i_c_tu_m
_est_, fuisse conde[_m_]pnatam. Cu_m_ aut_em_ annos longeue senectutis
vixisset[404] comes T_uinfredus_, _et_ p_re_ senectute caligasse_n_t oculi
ei_us_, data filio suo regi b_e_n_e_d_i_c_i_one, nature debita persoluit;
cui_us_ corpus magnifice, p_ro_ut decuit, tradidit sepulture. Anno
q_u_o_que_ sub eode_m_ uxor ei_us_ comitissa M_arcellina_, m_ate_r
uidelic_et_ regis, valedicens filio, ab huius incolatu seculi feliciter
tra_n_smigrauit....
[Sidenote: Fol. 19_a_]
De s_anct_o Aelb_er_to[405] cui t_er_cia filia regis Offe t_r_ad_e_nda fuit
nuptui.
Erat quoq_ue_ quida_m_ iuuenis, cui rex Offa regnu_m_ Orientalium
Anglor_um_, q_uo_d eu_m_ iure sanguinis _con_ti_n_gebat, co_n_cesserat,
no_m_i_n_e Aelbertus. De cui_us_ virtutibus[406] q_u_ida_m_ u_er_sificator,
solitus regu_m_ laudes _et_ gesta describ_er_e, elegant_er_ ait;
Aelb_er_tus iuuenis fuerat rex, fortis ad arma,
Pace pius, pulch_er_ corpore, me_n_te sagax.
Cu_m_q_ue_ Hu_m_b_er_t_us_ Archiep_is_c_opus_ Lichefeld_e_nsis, _et_ Vnwona
Ep_is_c_opus_ Legrecestr_en_sis, uiri s_anct_i _et_ discreti, et de nobili
stirpe M_er_cior_um_ oriundi, speciales essent regis _con_siliarii, _et_
semp_er_ q_ue_ honesta era_n_t _et_ iusta atq_ue_ utilia, regi Offe
suggessissent, i_n_uidebat eis regina uxor Offe, q_ue_ p_r_ius Drida,
postea u_er_o Quendrida, id est regina Drida, q_uia_ regi ex insp_er_ato
nupsit, est app_e_llata: sicut i_n_ p_re_cedentib_us_ pleni_us_
enarrat_ur_. Mulier auara et subdola, sup_er_biens, eo q_uo_d ex stirpe
Karoli origine_m_ duxerat, et i_n_exorabili odio uiros memoratos
p_er_seq_ue_batur, tende_n_s eis muscipulas muliebres. Porro cu_m_ ip_s_i
reges sup_r_ad_i_c_t_os regi Offe in sp_irit_u consilii salubrit_er_
re_con_ciliassent, _et_ ut eide_m_ regi fed_er_e m_at_rimoniali
speciali_us_ _con_iungerent_ur_, dilig_e_nt_er_ _et_ efficacit_er_
p_ro_curassent, ip_s_a mulier f_a_c_t_a eor_um_ {240} nitebat_ur_ i_n_
irritu_m_ reuocare, n_e_c pot_er_at, quib_us_ acriter inuidebat. Ip_s_as
eni_m_ puellas filias suas, ultramarinis, alienigenis, in regis
supplantac_i_one_m_ et regni M_er_c_i_or_um_ p_er_niciem, credidit
t_r_adidisse marita_n_das. Cui_us_ rei p_re_scii d_i_c_t_i Ep_iscop_i,
muliebre co_n_siliu_m_ prudencie repagulis impediebant. Uerum et adhuc
tercia filia regis Offe i_n_ thalamo regine remansit maritanda, Aelfleda
no_m_i_n_e. Procurantib_us_ _i_gi_tur_ sup_r_ad_i_c_t_is ep_iscop_is,
inclinatu_m_ est[407] cor regis ad co_n_sensum, lic_et_ _contr_adic_er_et
regina, ut _et_[408] h_ec_ regi Aelb_er_to nuptui trad_er_et_ur_: ut _et_
sic speciali_us_ regi O_ffe_ teneretur i_n_ fidelitate dilec_i_onis
obligatus. Uocat_us i_gi_tur_ rex Aelb_er_t_us_, a rege O_ffa_, ut filiam
sua_m_ desponsaret, affuit festiu_us_ [Sidenote: Fol. 19_b_] | et gaudens,
ob honorem sibi a tanto rege oblatum. Cui amicabiliter rex occurrens
aduentanti, recepit ip_su_m in osculo _et_ p_ate_rno amplexu, dicens:
"Prospere ueneris fili _et_ gen_er_, ex h_oc_, iuuenis amantissime, te in
filiu_m_ adopto specialem." S_ed_ h_ec_ postq_u_am eff_er_ate regine
plenius i_n_notuer_i_t[409], plus accensa est liuore ac furore, dole_n_s
eu_m_ pietatis i_n_ manu[410] regis _et_ suor_um_ fidelium prosperari.
Vide_n_sq_ue_ sue neq_u_icie argumenta minime p_re_ualere, n_e_c hanc
salte_m_ t_er_ciam filiam sua_m_, ad uolu_n_tatem suam alic_u_i
t_r_ansmarino amico suo, i_n_ regni subu_er_sione_m_ (q_uo_d c_er_tissime
sperauerat) dare nuptui, cu_m_ n_on_ p_re_ualuisset i_n_ d_i_c_t_os
ep_iscop_os h_uius_ rei auctores emin_us_ malignari, i_n_ Aelb_er_tu_m_
regem uir_us_ sue malicie truculent_er_ euomuit, hoc m_od_o.
Fraus mulieb_ri_s c_r_udelissima.
Rex hui_us_ rei ignarus tanta_m_ latitasse fraude_m_ n_on_ credebat, i_m_mo
poci_us_ credebat h_ec_ ip_s_i o_mn_ia placit_ur_a. Cu_m_ igit_ur_ rex
piissim_us_ ipsa_m_ sup_er_ p_re_missis[411] secreci_us_ co_n_ueniret,
_con_siliu_m_ q_ue_rens q_u_al_ite_r _et_ q_u_ando forent _com_plenda,
h_ec_ respondit: "Ecce t_r_adidit D_eu_s hodie inimicu_m_ tuu_m_, t_ib_i
caute, si sapis, t_r_ucidandu_m_, qui sub specie sup_er_ficiali, uenenu_m_
prodic_i_o_n_is i_n_ te _et_ regnu_m_ tuu_m_ ex_er_cende, neq_u_it_er_, ut
fertur, occultauit. Et te cupit iam senesc_e_nte_m_, cu_m_ sit iuuenis _et_
elegans, de regno supplanta_n_do precipitare; _et_ posteru_m_ suor_um_,
i_m_mo _et_ multoru_m_, ut iactitat, quos regnis _et_ possessionibus
uiolent_er_ {241} _et_ iniuste spoliasti, iniurias ui_n_dicare. In cui_us_
rei fidem, michi a meis amicis significatu_m_ est, quod regis Karoli multis
mun_er_ibus _et_ nu_n_ciis ocultis int_er_meantib_us_, implorat ad h_oc_
patrociniu_m_: se sponde_n_s ei fore tributariu_m_. Illo igitur, dum se
t_ib_i fortuna p_re_bet fauorabile_m_, extincto latent_er_, regnu_m_ ei_us_
in ius tuu_m_ _et_ successor_um_ tuor_um_ t_r_anseat in et_er_nu_m_."
Cui rex mente nimiu_m_ p_er_turbatus, _et_ de u_er_bis quib_us_ credidit
i_n_e_ss_e ueraciter falsitate_m_ _et_ fraude_m_, cu_m_ indignacione ipsam
i_n_crepando, respondit: "Quasi una d_e_ stultis mulierib_us_ locuta es!
Absit a me, absit, tam detestabile f_a_c_tu_m! Quo perpetrato, m_ih_i
meisq_ue_ successorib_us_ foret obprobriu_m_ sempit_er_nu_m_, et
p_e_cc_atu_m i_n_ gen_us_ meu_m_ c_um_ g_r_aui uind_i_c_t_a diuci_us_
propagabile." Et hiis d_i_c_t_is, rex iratus ab ea recessit; detestans
ta_n_tos ac tales occultos laq_ue_os in muliere latitasse.
Interea mentis p_er_turbac_i_one paulati_m_ deposita, _et_ hiis ciuilit_er_
dissimulatis, reges co_n_sederunt ad me_n_sam pransuri: ubi regalib_us_
esculentis _et_ poculentis refecti, in ti_m_panis, citharis, _et_ choris,
diem totu_m_ in i_n_genti gaudio expleu_er_unt. S_ed_ regina malefica,
int_er_im a ferali p_ro_posito n_on_ recedens, iussit i_n_ dolo thalamu_m_
more regio pallis sericis _et_ auleis solle_m_pnit_er_ adornari, i_n_ q_u_o
rex Aelb_er_tus nocturnu_m_ caperet so_m_pnu_m_; iuxta stratu_m_ quoq_ue_
regium sedile p_re_parari fecit, cultu nobilissimo ext_r_uctu_m_, _et_
cortinis undiq_ue_ redimitu_m_. Sub q_u_o _eciam_ fossam p_re_parari fecit
profunda_m_, [Sidenote: Fol. 20_a_] | ut nephandu_m_ propositu_m_
perduc_er_et ad eff_e_c_tu_m.
De martirio S_an_c_t_i Aelb_er_ti, regis innocentissimi.
Regina uero uultu sereno _con_ceptu_m_ scelus pallians, intrauit i_n_
palatiu_m_, ut tam regem Offanu_m_ q_u_am rege_m_ Aelb_er_tu_m_
exhilararet. Et int_er_ iocandu_m_, co_n_u_er_sa ad Aelb_er_tum, n_ih_il
sinistri[412] suspicantem, ait, "Fili, ueni uisendi causa puellam t_ib_i
nuptu copulanda_m_, te i_n_ thalamo meo sicient_er_ exp_e_ctante_m_, ut
s_er_monib_us_ g_r_atissimis amores subarres profut_ur_os." Surge_n_s
_i_gi_tur_ rex Aelb_er_tus, secut_us_ est regina_m_ i_n_ thalamu_m_
i_n_grediente_m_: rege Offano remanente, q_u_i nil mali formidabat.
Ingresso _i_gi_tur_ rege Ae_lberto_ cu_m_ regina, exclusi su_n_t om_ne_s
qui eundem e uestigio seq_ue_bant_ur_ sui co_m_militones. Et cu_m_ puellam
exp_e_ctasset, ait regina: "Sede fili du_m_ ueniat aduocata."
{242} Et cu_m_ in memorato sedili residisset, cu_m_ ip_s_a sella in fosse
corruit profunditate_m_. In q_u_a, subito a lictorib_us_ quos regina no_n_
procul abscond_er_at, rex innocens suffocatus expirauit. Na_m_ ilico cu_m_
corruisset, proiec_er_unt sup_er_ eu_m_ regina _et_ sui _com_plices
nepha_n_dissimi puluinaria cu_m_ uestib_us_ _et_ cortinis, ne clamans ab
aliq_u_ib_us_ audiret_ur_. Et sic elegantissimus iuuenis rex _et_ martir
Ae_lbertus_, innoce_n_t_er_ _et_ sine noxa extinctus, accepit corona_m_
uite, [q_ua_m][413] ad i_n_star Joh_ann_is Bapt_iste_ mulieris laq_ue_is
irretitus, meruit optinere.
Puella u_er_o regis filia Aelfleda ui_r_guncula uen_us_tissima, cu_m_ h_ec_
audisset, no_n_ t_antu_m mat_r_is detestata facinora, s_ed_ toci_us_ seculi
pomp_am_ relinq_ue_ns, h_ab_itu_m_ suscep_i_t religio_n_is, u_t_ ui_r_go
martiris uestigia seq_ue_ret_ur_. [_P_]orro[414] ad augmentu_m_[415]
muliebris tirannidis[416], decollatu_m_ _est_ corp_us_culu_m_ exanime
q_uia_ adhuc palpitans uidebatur. Clam _i_gi_tur_ delatum est corpus cu_m_
capite, usq_ue_ ad partes remociores ad occultandum sub profundo t_er_re,
et dum spiculator c_r_uentus ista ferret, caput obiter amissu_m_ est
feliciter: nox eni_m_ erat, _et_ festinabat lictor, _et_ ap_er_to ore
sacci, caput cecidit euolutu_m_, ignorante h_oc_ portitore. Corpus au_tem_
ab ip_s_o carnifice sine aliquo teste conscio ignobilit_er_ est humatu_m_.
Contigit au_tem_, D_e_o sic disponente, u_t_ quida_m_ cecus eadem via
g_r_aderetur, baculo semitam p_re_te_m_ptante. Habens au_tem_ caput
memoratu_m_ pro pedu_m_ offendiculo, mirabatur q_u_idna_m_ esset: erat
eni_m_ pes ei_us_ irretitus i_n_ cincinnis capitis flauis _et_ prolixis. Et
palpans c_er_cius cognouit[417] e_ss_e caput hominis decollati. Et datu_m
est_ ei i_n_ sp_irit_u intelligere, q_uo_d alicui_us_ s_an_c_t_i caput
e_ss_et, ac iuuenis. Et cu_m_ maduissent man_us_ ei_us_ sanguine, apposuit
_et_ sang_u_inem faciei sue: _et_ loco ubi q_ua_n_do_q_ue_ oculi ei_us_
extit_er_ant, et ilico restitutus est ei uisus; et quod habuerat p_ro_
pedum offendiculo, factum est ei felix luminis restitucio. S_ed_ et in
eodem loco q_u_o caput s_an_c_tu_m iacuerat, fons erupit lucidissimus. Quod
cum celebriter[418] fuerat diuulgatum, comp_er_tu_m_ _est_ hoc fuisse caput
s_an_c_t_i adolescentis Ae_lberti_, q_ue_m regina i_n_ thalamo neq_u_iter
fec_i_t sugillari ac decollari. Corp_us_ au_tem_ ubinam locorum
occultatu_m_ fuerat, penit_us_ ignorat_ur_. H_oc_ cu_m_ _con_staret
Hu_m_b_er_to Archiep_iscop_o, f_act_a capside ex auro _et_ argento, illud
iussit in tesauro recondi p_re_c_i_oso in Ecc_lesi_a Herefordensi.
[Illustration: Drida (Thryth) entraps Albertus (Aethelberht) of East
Anglia, and causes him to be slain
_From MS Cotton Nero D. I, fol. 19 b._
hrathe seothdhan waes
aefter mund-[gh]ripe m[=e]ce [gh]epin[gh]ed.
(_Beowulf_, ll. 1937-8.) ]
{243}
De p_re_d_ict_i facinoris ul_ci_one.
Cuius tande_m_ detestabilis sceleris a regina perpetrati, ad
co_m_militonu_m_ b_eat_i re_gis_ _et_ Ma_rti_ris aures cum[419]
p_er_ueniss_et_, fama celeri_us_ ante luce_m_ aurore diei seq_ue_ntis
clanculo recesserunt, ne de ipsis simile fieret iudiciu_m_ metuentes. Unde
dolens regina, in thalamo ficta i_n_firmitate decubans, q_u_asi uulpecula
latitabat.
Rex u_er_o Offa cu_m_ de co_m_misso facinore c_er_titudine_m_
co_m_perisset, sese lugens, in cenac_u_lo int_er_iori recludens,
pe[_r_][420] tres dies cibum penit_us_ no_n_ gustauit, anima_m_ sua_m_
lac_r_imis, lamentac_i_o_n_ib_us_, _et_ ieiunio uehement_er_ affligens. Et
execrans mulieris impietate_m_, eam iussit om_n_ib_us_ uite sue dieb_us_
inclusam i_n_ loco remota_m_ secrec_i_ori pecc_at_a sua deplorare, si forte
s_i_bi celitus collata gr_aci_a, penite_n_do tanti co_m_missi facinoris
maculam posset abolere. Rex au_tem_ ip_s_am postea ut sociam lat_er_is in
lecto suo dormire quasi susp_e_cta_m_ n_on_ p_er_misit[421].
De morte illi_us_ facinorose regine.
In loco igitur sibi d_e_putato, co_m_morante regina annis aliq_u_ot,
insidiis latronu_m_ preuenta, auro _et_ argento quo multu_m_ habundabat
spoliata[422], in puteo suo prop_r_io p_re_cipitata, spiritu_m_ exalauit;
iusto d_e_i iudic_i_o sic _con_de_m_pnata, ut sicut regem Aelb_er_tu_m_
innocente_m_ in foueam fecit p_re_cipitari, _et_ p_re_cipitatum suffocari,
sic i_n_ putei profunditate s_u_bm_er_sa, uita_m_ mis_er_a_m_ t_er_minaret.
* * * * *
O. _WIDSITH_, ll. 18, 24-49
18. Aetla, w[=e]old H[=u]num, Eormanr[=i]c [GH]otum,
* * * * * *
Th[=e]odr[=i]c w[=e]old Froncum, thyle Rondin[gh]u_m_,
25. Breoca Brondin[gh]u_m_, Billin[gh] Wernum.
[=O]swine w[=e]old [=E]owum _ond_ [=Y]tum [GH]efwulf,
{244}
Fin Folcwaldin[gh] Fr[=e]sna cynne.
Si[gh]ehere len[gh]est S[=ae]-Denum w[=e]old,
Hnaef H[=o]cin[gh]um, Helm Wulfin[gh]u_m_,
30. Wald W[=o]in[gh]um, W[=o]d Thyrin[gh]u_m_,
S[=ae]ferdh Syc[gh]um, Sw[=e]om On[gh]endth[=e]ow,
Sceafthere Ymbrum, Sc[=e]afa Lon[gh]-Beardu_m_,
H[=u]n Haetwerum, _ond_ Holen Wrosnum.
Hrin[gh]weald waes h[=a]ten Herefarena cyning.
35. Offa w[=e]old Ongle, Alew[=i]h Denu_m_:
s[=e] waes th[=a]ra manna m[=o]d[gh]ast ealra;
n[=o]hwaethre h[=e] ofer Offan eorlscype fremede,
ac Offa [gh]esl[=o][gh] [=ae]rest monna
cniht wesende cyner[=i]ca m[=ae]st;
40. n[=ae]ni[gh] efen-eald him eorlscipe m[=a]ran
on [=o]rette [=a]ne sweorde:
merce [gh]em[=ae]rde widh Myr[gh]in[gh]u_m_
b[=i] F[=i]feldore; h[=e]oldon fordh siththan
En[gh]le _ond_ Sw[=ae]fe, sw[=a] hit Offa [gh]esl[=o][gh].
45. Hr[=o]thwulf _ond_ Hr[=o]dh[gh][=a]r h[=e]oldon len[gh]est
sibbe aetsomne suhtorfaedran,
siththan h[=y] forwr[=ae]con w[=i]cin[gh]a cynn
_ond_ In[gh]eldes ord forb[=i][gh]dan,
forh[=e]owan aet Heorote Headho-Beardna thrym.
* * * * *
{245}
PART III
THE FIGHT AT FINNSBURG
SECTION I. THE FINNSBURG FRAGMENT
The _Finnsburg Fragment_ was discovered two centuries ago in the library of
Lambeth Palace by George Hickes. It was written on a single leaf, which was
transcribed and published by Hickes: but the leaf is not now to be found.
This is to be regretted for reasons other than sentimental, since Hickes'
transcript is far from accurate[423].
The _Fragment_ begins and breaks off in the middle of a line: but possibly
not much has been lost at the beginning. For the {246} first lines of the
fragment, as preserved, reveal a well-loved opening motive--the call to
arms within the hall, as the watcher sees the foes approach. It was with
such a call that the _Bjarkam['a]l_, the poem on the death of Rolf Kraki,
began: "a good call to work" as a fighting king-saint thought it[424]. It
is with a similar summons to business that the _Finnsburg Fragment_ begins.
The watchman has warned the king within the hall that he sees lights
approaching--so much we can gather from the two and a half words which are
preserved from the watchman's speech, and from the reply made by the
"war-young" king: "This is not the dawn which is rising, but dire deeds of
woe; to arms, my men." And the defending warriors take their posts: at the
one door Sigeferth and Eaha: at the other Ordlaf and Guthlaf, and Hengest
himself[425].
Then the poet turns to the foes, as they approach for the attack. The text
as reported by Hickes is difficult: but it seems that Garulf[426] is the
name of the warrior about to lead the assault on the hall. Another warrior,
Guthere, whether a friend, kinsman, or retainer[427] we do not know, is
dissuading him, urging him not to risk so precious a life in the first
brunt. But Garulf pays no heed; he challenges the champion on guard: "Who
is it who holds the door?"
"Sigeferth is my name," comes the reply, "Prince I am of the Secgan: a
wandering champion known far and wide: many a woe, many a hard fight have I
endured: from me canst thou have what thou seekest."
So the clash of arms begins: and the first to fall is Garulf, son of
Guthlaf: and many a good man round him. "The swords flashed as if all
Finnsburg were afire."
{247}
Never, we are told, was there a better defence than that of the sixty
champions within the hall. "Never did retainers repay the sweet mead better
than his bachelors did unto Hnaef. For five days they fought, so that none
of the men at arms fell: but they held the doors." After a few more lines
the piece breaks off.
There are many textual difficulties here. But these, for the most part, do
not affect the actual narrative, which is a story of clear and
straightforward fighting. It is when we try to fit this narrative into
relationship with the _Episode_ in _Beowulf_ that our troubles begin.
Within the _Fragment_ itself one difficulty only need at present be
mentioned. Guthlaf is one of the champions defending the hall. Yet the
leader of the assault, Garulf, is spoken of as Guthlaf's son. Of course it
is possible that we have here a tragic incident parallel to the story of
Hildebrand and Hadubrand: father and son may have been separated through
earlier misadventures, and now find themselves engaged on opposite sides.
This would harmonize with the atmosphere of the _Finnsburg_ story, which is
one of slaughter breaking out among men near of kin, so that afterwards an
uncle and a nephew are burnt on the same pyre. And it has been noted[428]
that Garulf rushes to the attack only after he has asked "Who holds the
door?" and has learnt that it is Sigeferth: Guthlaf had gone to the
opposite door. Can Garulf's question mean that he knows his father Guthlaf
to be inside the hall, and wishes to avoid conflict with him? Possibly; but
I do not think we can argue much from this double appearance of the name
Guthlaf. It is possible that the occurrence of Guthlaf as Garulf's father
is simply a scribal error. For, puzzling as the tradition of _Finnsburg_
everywhere is, it is peculiarly puzzling in its proper names, which are
mostly given in forms that seem to have undergone some alteration. And even
if _G[=u]dhl[=a]fes sunu_ be correctly written, it is possible that the
Guthlaf who is father of Garulf is not to be identified with the Guthlaf
whom Garulf is besieging within the hall[429].
{248}
One or other of these rather unsatisfactory solutions must unfortunately be
accepted. For no theory is possible which will save us from admitting that,
according to the received text, Guthlaf is fighting on the one side, and a
"son of Guthlaf" on the other.
* * * * *