Many of the difficulties disappear: but the two big ones remain. Firstly,
if "Eoten" means "Jute," as it is usually agreed that it does, why should
the Frisians be called Jutes, seeing that a Frisian is not a Jute?
Secondly, when Hengest and the other thegns of Hnaef enter the service of
the slayer of their lord, they are not blamed for so doing, but rather
excused, _th[=a] him sw[=a] gethearfod waes_. Such a situation is unusual;
but it becomes incredible if that slayer, whose service they enter, had
fallen upon and slain their lord by treachery, when his guest.
It seems to me that neither of these difficulties is really inherent in the
situation, but rather accidental, and owing to the way Bugge's theory,
right enough in its main lines, has been presented both by Bugge and his
followers. For it is not necessary to assume that Frisians _are_ called
_Eotenas_ or Jutes. All that we are justified in deducing from the text is
that Frisians and _Eotenas_ are both under the command of Finn. If we
suppose what the text demands, _and no more_, we are at one stroke relieved
of both our difficulties. Though "Jute" can hardly have been synonymous
with "Frisian," nothing is more probable, as I shall try to show[478], than
that a great Frisian king should have had a tribe of Jutes subject to him,
or should have had in his pay a band of Jutish mercenaries. Now if the
trouble was due to these "Eotens"--and we are told that it was[479]--our
second difficulty is also solved. It would be much more natural for Hengest
to come to terms with Finn, albeit the _bana_ of his lord, if Finn's
conduct had not been stained by treachery, and if the blame for the
original attack did not rest with him.
And, as I have said, there is nothing in the text which justifies us in
assuming that _Eotenas_ means "Frisians" and that therefore _Eotena
tr[=e]owe_ refers to Finn's breach of faith. It has indeed been argued that
_Eotenas_ and Frisians are synonymous, {269} because in the terms of peace,
whilst it is stipulated that Hengest and his comrades are to have equal
control with the _Eotena bearn_, it is further stipulated that Finn is to
give Hengest's men gifts equal to those which he gives to the _Fr[=e]sena
cynn_[480]. Here then _Eotena bearn_ and _Fr[=e]sena cynn_ are certainly
parallel, and are both contrasted with Hengest and his troops. But surely
this in no wise proves _Eotena bearn_ and _Fr[=e]sena cynn_ synonymous:
they may equally well be different sections of Finn's host, just as in
_Brunanburh_ the soldiers of Athelstan are spoken of first as _Westseaxe_,
and then as _Myrce_. Are we to argue that West-Saxons are Mercians? So in
the account of Hygelac's fatal expedition[481] the opponents are called
Franks, Frisians, _H[=u]gas_, _Hetware_. A reader ignorant of the story
might suppose these all synonymous terms for one tribe. But we know that
they are not: the _Hetware_ were the people immediately attacked--the
Frankish overlord hastened to the rescue, and was apparently helped by the
neighbouring Frisians, who although frequently at this date opposed to the
Franks, would naturally make common cause against the pirate from
overseas[482].
It was quite natural that the earlier students of the _Finnsburg Episode_,
thinking of the two opposing forces as two homogeneous tribes, and finding
mention of three tribal names, Danes, Eotens and Frisians, should have
assumed that the Eotens must be exactly synonymous with _either_ Danes _or_
Frisians. But it is now recognized that the conditions of the time
postulate not so much tribes as groups of tribes[483]. In the _Fragment_ we
have, on the side of the Danes, _Sigeferth_, prince of the _Secgan_. The
_Secgan_ are not necessarily Danes, because their lord is fighting on the
Danish side. Neither need the _Eotenas_ be Frisians, because they are
fighting on the Frisian side.
We cannot, then, argue that two tribes are identical, because engaged in
fighting a common foe: still less, because they are {270} mentioned with a
certain parallelism[484]. And anyway, it is impossible to find in the use
of the expression _Eotena bearn_ in l. 1088 any support for the
interpretation which makes _Eotena tr[=e]owe_ signify the treachery of Finn
himself. For, assuredly, the proviso that Hengest and his fellows are to
have half control as against the _Eotena bearn_ does not mean that they are
to have half control as against Finn himself. For the very next lines make
it clear that they are to enter Finn's service and become his retainers.
That Hengest and his men are to have equal rights with Finn's Jutish
followers (_Eotena bearn_) is reasonable enough: but they obviously have
not equal rights with Finn, their lord whom they are now to follow. _Eotena
bearn_ in l. 1088, then, does _not_ include Finn: how _can_ it then be used
as an argument that _Eotena tr[=e]owe_ must refer to _Finn's_ faith and his
breach of it?
Finn, then, is the _bana_ of Hnaef, but there is nothing in the text which
compels us to assume that he is the slayer of his guest.
The reader may regard my zeal to clear the character of Finn as excessive.
But it is always worth while to understand a good old tale. And it is only
when we withdraw our unjust aspersions upon Finn's good faith that the tale
becomes intelligible.
This, I know, has been disputed, and by the scholars whose opinion I most
respect.
The poet tells us that Finn was the _bana_ of Hnaef, so, says Ayres, "it is
hard to see how it helps matters[485]" to argue that Finn was not guilty of
treachery. And Lawrence argues in the same way:
"How is it possible to shift the blame for the attack from Finn to the
Eotenas when Finn is called the _bana_ of Hnaef? It does not matter
whether he killed him with his own hands or not; he is clearly held
responsible; the lines tell us it was regarded as disgraceful for the
{271} Danes to have to follow him, and the revenge at the end falls
heavily upon him. The insult and hurt to Danish pride would be very
little lessened by the assumption that someone else started the
quarrel; and for this assumption, too, the lines give no warrant[486]."
Let us take these objections in turn. I do not see how the fact that Finn
is called the _bana_ of Hnaef can prove _anything_ as to "the blame for the
attack." Of course the older editors may have thought so. Kemble translates
_bana_ "slaughterer," which implies brutality, and perhaps culpability.
Bosworth-Toller renders _bana_ "murderer," which certainly implies blame
for attack. But we know that these are mere mistranslations. Nothing as to
"blame for attack" is implied in the term _bana_: "_bana_ 'slayer' is a
perfectly neutral word, and must not be translated by 'murderer,' or any
word connoting criminality. A man who slays another in self-defence, or in
righteous execution of the law, is still his 'bane'[487]." Everyone admits
this to be true: and yet at the same time _bana_ is quoted to prove that
Finn is to blame; because, for want of a better word, we half-consciously
render _bana_ "murderer": and "murderer" _does_ imply blame. "Words," says
Bacon, "as a Tartar's bow, do shoot back upon the understanding of the
wisest."
Lawrence continues: "The lines tell us that it was regarded as disgraceful
for the Danes to have to follow him." But surely this is saying too much.
That the Frisians are not to taunt the Danes with following the slayer of
their lord is only one of two possible interpretations of the ll. 1101-3.
And even if we accept this interpretation, it does not follow that the
Danes are regarded as having done anything with which they can be _justly_
taunted. It is part of the settlement between Gunnar and Njal, that Njal's
sons are not to be taunted: if a man repeats the taunts he shall fall
unavenged[488]. Surely a man may be touchy about being taunted, without
being regarded as having done anything disgraceful. Indeed, in our case,
the poet implies that taunts would _not_ be just, _th[=a] him sw[=a]
gethearfod waes_. But, as I try to show below, no _thearf_ could have
excused the submission of retainers to a foe who had just slain their lord
by deliberate treachery.
{272}
"The revenge at the end falls heavily upon Finn." It does; as so often
happens where the feud is temporarily patched up, it breaks out again, as
in the stories of Alboin, Ingeld or Bolli. But this does not prove that the
person upon whom the revenge ultimately falls heavily had been a
guest-slayer. The possibility of even temporary reconciliation rather
implies the reverse.
"The insult and hurt to Danish pride would be very little lessened by the
assumption that someone else [than Finn] started the quarrel; and for this
assumption, too, the lines give no warrant." But they _do_: for they tell
us that it was due to the bad faith of the Eotens. Commentators may argue,
if they will, that "Eotens" means Finn. But the weight of proof lies on
them, and they have not met it, or seriously attempted to meet it.
* * * * *