We may then, I think, accept as certain, that first come the events
narrated in the _Fragment_, then those told in the _Episode_ in _Beowulf_.
But we are not out of our troubles yet. There are difficulties in Bugge's
view which have still to be faced.
The cause of the struggle, according to Bugge and his adherents, is a
treacherous attack made by Finn upon his {261} brother-in-law Hnaef.
According to the _Episode_, it is the Eotens who are treacherous; so Eotens
must be another name for the Frisians.
The word occurs three times in the genitive, _Eotena_; once in the dative,
_Eotenum_: as a common noun it means "giant," "monster": earlier in
_Beowulf_ it is applied to Grendel and to the other misbegotten creatures
descended from Cain. But how "giant" can be applied to the Frisians, or to
either of the contending parties in the Finnsburg fight, remains
inexplicable[458]. _Eotena_ must rather be the name of some tribe. But what
tribe? The only people of whom we know, possessing a name at all like this,
are the people who colonized Kent, whom Bede calls Jutes, but whose name
would in Anglian be in the genitive _[=E]otna_, but in the dative
_[=E]otum_, or perhaps occasionally _[=E]otnum_, _[=E]otenum_[459]. Now a
scribe transliterating a poem from an Anglian dialect into West-Saxon
should, of course, have altered these forms into the corresponding
West-Saxon forms _[=Y]tena_ and _[=Y]tum_. But nothing would have been more
likely than that he would have misunderstood the tribal name as a common
noun, and retained the Anglian forms (altering _eotum_ or _eotnum_ into
_eotenum_) supposing the word to mean "giants." After all, the common noun
_eotenum_, "giants," was quite as like the tribal name _[=E]otum_, which
the scribe presumably had before him, as was the correct West-Saxon form of
that name, _[=Y]tum_.
It is difficult therefore to avoid the conclusion that the "Eotens" are
Jutes: and this is confirmed by three other pieces of evidence, not
convincing in themselves, but helpful as subsidiary arguments[460].
{262}
(1) We should gather from _Widsith_ that the Jutes were concerned in the
_Finnsburg_ business. For in that poem generally (though not always) tribes
connected in story are grouped together; and the Jutes and Frisians are so
coupled:
[=Y]tum [weold] Gefwulf
Fin Folcwalding Fr[=e]sna cynne.
(2) There is another passage in _Beowulf_ in which _Eotenas_ is possibly
used in the sense of "Jutes."
We have seen above[461] that according to a Scandinavian tradition Lotherus
was exiled _in Jutiam_: and Heremod, who has been held to be the
counterpart of Lotherus
_mid Eotenum_ weardh
on f[=e]onda geweald fordh forl[=a]cen.
But the identification of Lotherus and Heremod is too hypothetical to carry
the weight of much argument.
(3) Finn comes into many Old English pedigrees, which have doubtless
borrowed from one another. But the earliest in which we find him, and the
only one in which we find his father Folcwald, is that of the Jutish kings
of Kent[462]. Here, too, the name Hengest meets us.
The view that the name "Eoten" in the _Finnsburg_ story is a form of the
word "Jute" is, then, one which is very difficult to reject. It is one
which has in the past been held by many scholars and is, I think, held by
all who have recently expressed any opinion on the subject[463]. But this
renders very difficult the assumption of Bugge and his followers that the
word "Eoten" is synonymous with "Frisian[464]." For Frisians were not
Jutes. {263} The tribes were closely related; but the two words were not
synonymous. The very lines in _Widsith_, which couple Jutes and Frisians
together, as if they were related in story, show that the names were
regarded as those of distinct tribes. And this evidence from _Widsith_ is
very important, because the compiler of that list of names clearly knew the
story of Finn and Hnaef.
But this is not the only difficulty in Bugge's interpretation of the Eotens
as Frisians. The outbreak of war, we are told, is due to the treachery of
the Eotens. This Bugge and his followers interpret as meaning that Finn
must have treacherously attacked Hnaef. Yet the poet speaks of "the
warriors of Finn when the sudden danger fell upon them": _th[=a] h[=i][=e]
se f[=ae]r begeat_. It is essential to _f[=ae]r_ that it signifies a sudden
and unexpected attack[465]: and the unexpected attack must have come, not
upon the assailants but upon the assailed.
Yet this difficulty, though it has been emphasized by Moeller[466] and
other opponents of Bugge's view, is not insuperable[467], and I hope to
show below that there is no real difficulty. But it leads us to a problem
not so easily surmounted. If Finn made a treacherous attack upon Hnaef, and
slew him, how did it come that Hengest, and Hnaef's other men, made terms
with their murderous host?
In the primitive heathen days it had been a rule that the retainer must not
survive his vanquished lord[468]. The ferocity of this rule was
subsequently softened, and, in point of fact, we _do_ often hear, after
some great leader has been slain, of his followers accepting quarter from a
chivalrous foe, without being {264} therefore regarded as having acted
disgracefully[469]. But, if Finn had invited Hnaef and Hnaef's retainers to
be his guests, and had fallen upon them by treachery, the action of the
retainers in coming to terms with Finn, in entering his service, and
stipulating how much of his pay they shall receive, would be contrary to
all standards of conduct as understood in the Heroic Age, and would deprive
Hnaef's men of any sympathy the audience might feel for them. But Hnaef's
men are not censured: they are in fact treated most sympathetically in the
_Episode_, and in the _Fragment_, at an earlier point in the story, they
are enthusiastically applauded[470].
It is strange enough in any case that Hnaef's retainers should make terms
with the slayer of their lord. But it is not merely strange, it is
absolutely unintelligible, if we are to suppose that Finn has not merely
slain Hnaef, but has lured him into his power, and then slain him while a
guest.
It is to the credit of Bugge that he felt this difficulty: but his attempt
to explain it is hardly satisfactory. He fell back upon a parallel between
the story of the death of Rolf Kraki and the story of _Finnsburg_. We have
already seen that the resemblance is very close between the _Bjarkam['a]l_,
which narrates the death of Rolf, and the opening of the _Finnsburg
Fragment_. The parallel which Bugge invoked comes from the sequel to the
Rolf story[471] which tells how Hiarwarus, the murderer of Rolf Kraki,
astonished by the devotion of Rolf's retainers, lamented their death, and
said how gladly he would have given quarter to such men, and taken them
into his service. Thereupon Wiggo, the one survivor, who had previously
vowed to avenge his lord, and had concealed himself with that object, came
forward and offered to accept these terms. Accordingly he placed his hand
upon the hilt of his new master's drawn sword, as if about to swear fealty
to him: but instead of swearing, he ran him through.
"Glorious and ever memorable hero, who valiantly kept his vow," says
Saxo[472]. Whether or no we share the exultation of {265} that excellent if
somewhat bloodthirsty ecclesiastic, we must admit that Wiggo's methods were
sensible and practical. If, singlehanded, he was to keep his vow, and
avenge his lord, he could only hope to do it by some such stratagem.
Bugge tries to explain Hengest's action on similar lines: "He does not
hesitate to enter the service of Finn in order thereby to carry out his
revenge[473]."
But the circumstances are entirely different. Wiggo was left alone, the
only survivor of Rolf's household, to face a whole army. But Hengest is no
single survivor: he and his fellows have made so good a defence that Finn
cannot overcome them by conflict on the _medhel-stede_. Not only so, but,
if we accept the interpretation that almost every critic and editor has put
upon the passage (ll. 1184-5), Hengest's position is even stronger. Finn
has lost almost all his thegns; the usual interpretation puts him at the
mercy of Hengest: at best it is a draw[474]. If, then, Hengest wants
vengeance upon Finn, why does he not pursue it? Instead of which, according
to Bugge, he enters Finn's service in order that he may get an opportunity
for revenge.
And note, that Wiggo did not swear the oath of fealty to the murderer of
his master Rolf: he merely put himself in the posture to do so, and then,
instead, ran the tyrant through forthwith. But Hengest _does_ swear the
oath, and _does not_ forthwith slay the tyrant. He spends the winter with
him, receives a sword from Hunlafing, after which his name does not occur
again. Finn is ultimately slain, but the names which are found in that
connection are those of Guthlaf and Oslaf [Ordlaf].
So Bugge's explanation comes to this: Hengest is fighting with success
against Finn, but he refrains from vengeance: instead, he treacherously
enters his service in order that he may take an opportunity of vengeance,
which opportunity, however, it is never made clear to us that he takes.
Had Hengest been a man of that kind, he would not have been a hero of Old
English heroic song.
* * * * *
{266}