Now our first task is to find what is the relation between the events told
in the _Fragment_ and the events told in the _Episode_ in _Beowulf_. It
can, I think, be shown that the events of the _Fragment_ precede the events
of the _Episode_ in _Beowulf_; that is to say that the fight in the hall,
of which we are told in the _Fragment_, is the same fight which has taken
place before the _Episode_ in _Beowulf_ begins, the fight which has
resulted in the slaughter over which Hildeburh laments, and which
necessitates the great funeral described in the first part of the _Episode_
(ll. 1108-24).
How necessary it is to place the _Fragment_ here, before the beginning of
the _Episode_, will be best seen, I think, if we examine the theory which
has tried to place it elsewhere.
This is the theory, worked out elaborately and ingeniously by Moeller[441],
a theory which has had considerable vogue, and many of the assumptions of
which have been widely accepted. According to Moeller and his followers,
the story ran something like this:
"Finn, king of the Frisians, had carried off Hildeburh, daughter of Hoc
(1076), probably with her consent. Her father Hoc seems to have pursued
the fugitives, and to have been slain in the fight which ensued on his
overtaking them. After the lapse of some twenty years, the brothers
Hnaef and Hengest, Hoc's sons, were old enough to undertake the duty of
avenging their father's death. They make an inroad into Finn's
country."
Up to this, all is Moeller's hypothesis, unsupported by any evidence,
either in the _Fragment_ or the _Episode_. It is based, so far as it has
any real foundation, upon a mythical interpretation of Finn, and upon
parallels with the Hild-story, the Gudrun-story, and a North Frisian
folk-tale[442]. Some of the {255} parallels are striking, but they are not
sufficient to justify Moeller's reconstruction. The authenticity of large
portions of the folk-tale is open to doubt[443]: and these portions are
vital to any parallel with the story of _Finnsburg_; whilst we have no
right to read into the Finn story details from the Hild or Gudrun stories,
unless we can show that they are really versions of the same tale: and this
cannot be shown. Moeller's suppositions as to the events before the
_Episode_ in _Beowulf_ opens, must therefore be dismissed. Moeller's
reconstruction then gets into relation with the real story, as narrated in
_Beowulf_:
"A battle takes place in which many warriors, among them Hnaef and a
son of Finn (1074, 1079, 1115), are killed. Peace is therefore solemnly
concluded, and the slain warriors are burnt (1068-1124).
As the year is too far advanced for Hengest to return home (ll. 1130
ff.), he and those of his men who survive remain for the winter in the
Frisian country with Finn. But Hengest's thoughts dwell constantly on
the death of his brother Hnaef, and he would gladly welcome any excuse
to break the peace which has been sworn by both parties. His
ill-concealed desire for revenge is noticed by the Frisians, who
anticipate it by themselves taking the initiative and attacking Hengest
and his men whilst they are sleeping in the hall. _This is the night
attack described in the Fragment._ It would seem that after a brave and
desperate resistance Hengest himself falls in this fight[444], but two
of his retainers, Guthlaf and Oslaf[444], succeed in cutting their way
through their enemies and in escaping to their own land. They return
with fresh troops, attack and slay Finn, and carry his queen Hildeburh
off with them (1125-1159)[445]."
Now the difficulties of this theory will, I think, be found to be
insuperable. Let us look at some of them.
Moeller's view rests upon his interpretation of the Eotens as the men of
Hnaef[446]. Since the Eotens are the aggressors, he _has_ consequently to
invent the opening, which makes Hnaef and Hengest the invaders of Finn's
country: and he _has_ therefore to relegate the _Fragment_ (in which
Hnaef's men are clearly not the attacking party but the attacked) to a
later stage in the story. But we have already seen that this interpretation
of the Eotens as the men of Hnaef is not the natural one.
Further, the assumption that Hnaef and Hengest are brothers, though still
frequently met with[447], is surely not justifiable. {256} There is nothing
which demands any such relationship, and there is much which definitely
excludes it. _After Hnaef's death_, Hengest is described as the thegn of
Hnaef: an expression without parallel or explanation, if he was really his
brother and successor. Again, we are expressly told in the _Episode_ that
the Danish retainers make terms with Finn, _the slayer of their lord, being
without a prince_. How could this be said, if Hengest was now their lord
and prince? These lines are, as we have seen, one of the few clear and
indisputable things in the poem. An interpretation which contradicts them
flatly, by making Hengest the lord of the Danish retainers, seems
self-condemned.
Again, in _Beowulf_, the poet dwells upon the blameless sorrows of
Hildeburh. We gather that she wakes up in the morning to find that the
kinsfolk whom she loves have, during the night, come to blows. "Innocent,
she lost son and brother[448]--a sad lady she." Are such expressions
natural, if Hildeburh had eloped with Finn, and her father had in
consequence been slain by him some twenty years before? If she has taken
that calmly, and continued to live happily with Finn, would her equanimity
be so seriously disturbed by the slaughter of a brother in addition?
But these difficulties are nothing compared to the further difficulties
which Moeller's adherents have to face when they proceed to find a place
for the night attack as told in the _Fragment_, in the middle of the
_Episode_ in _Beowulf_, i.e. between lines 1145 and 1146. In the first
place we have no right to postulate that such important events could have
been passed over in silence in the summary of the story as given in
_Beowulf_. For Moeller has to assume that after the reconciliation between
Hengest and Finn, Finn broke his pledges, attacked Hengest by night, slew
most of the men who were with him, including perhaps Hengest himself; and
that the _Beowulf_-poet nevertheless omitted all reference to these events,
though they occur in the midst of the story, and are essential to an
understanding of it.
But even apart from this initial difficulty, we find that by no process of
explaining _can_ we make the night attack narrated {257} in the _Fragment_
fit in at the point where Moeller places it. In the night attack the men
are called to arms by a "war-young king." This "war-young king" cannot be,
as Moeller supposes, Hengest, for the simple reason that Hengest, as I have
tried to show above, far from being the brother of Hnaef, and his successor
as king, is his servant and thegn. The king can only be Hnaef. But Hnaef
has already been slain before the _Episode_ begins: and this makes it
impossible to place the _Fragment_ (in which Hnaef appears) in the middle
of the _Episode_. Further, it is said in the _Fragment_ that never did
retainers repay a lord better than did his men repay Hnaef. Now these words
would only be possible if the retainers were fighting for their lord; that
is, either defending him alive or avenging him dead. But Moeller's theory
assumes that we are dealing with a period when the retainers have
definitely left the service of their lord Hnaef, after his death, and have
entered the service of his slayer, Finn. They have thus dissolved all bonds
with their former lord: they have taken Finn's money and become _his_ men.
If Finn then turns upon his new retainers and treacherously tries to slay
them, it might be said that the retainers defended their own lives stoutly:
but it would be far-fetched to say that in doing so they repaid their lord
Hnaef. Their lord, according to Moeller's view, is no longer Hnaef, but
Finn, who is seeking their lives.
Against such difficulties as these it is impossible to make headway, and we
must therefore turn to some more possible view of the situation[449].
* * * * *