But, as we have seen, it is objected that this interpretation of the
situation, absolving Finn from any charge of treachery or aggression, does
not "help matters[494]." Or, as Prof. Lawrence puts it, "the hurt to Danish
pride [in entering the service of Finn] would be very little lessened by
the assumption that someone else [than Finn] started the quarrel."
These objections seem to me to be contrary to the whole spirit of the old
heroic literature.
I quite admit that there is a stage in primitive society when the act of
slaying is everything, and the circumstances, or motives, do not count. In
the Levitical Law, it is taken for granted that, if a man innocently causes
the death of another, as for instance if his axe break, and the axe-head
accidentally kill his comrade, then the avenger of blood will seek to slay
the homicide, just as much as if he had been guilty of treacherous murder.
To meet such cases the Cities of Refuge are established, where the homicide
may flee till his case can be investigated; but even though found innocent,
the homicide may be at once slain by the avenger, should he step outside
the City of Refuge. And this "eye for eye" vengeance yields slowly: it took
long to establish legally in our own country the distinction between murder
and homicide.
{277}
For "The thought of man" it was held "shall not be tried: as the devil
himself knoweth not the thought of man." Nevertheless, even the Germanic
_wer-gild_ system permits consideration of circumstances: it often happens
that no _wer-gild_ is to be paid because the slain man has been unjust, or
the aggressor[495], or no _wer-gild_ will be accepted because the slaying
was under circumstances making settlement impossible.
Doubtless in Germanic barbarism there was once a stage similar to that
which must have preceded the establishment of the Cities of Refuge in
Israel[496]; but that stage had passed before the period with which we are
dealing; in the Heroic Age the motive _did_ count for a very great deal.
Not but what there were still the literal people who insisted upon "an eye
for an eye," without looking at circumstances; and these people often had
their way; but their view is seldom the one taken by the characters with
whom the poet or the saga-man sympathises. These generally hold a more
moderate creed. One may almost say that the leading motive in heroic
literature is precisely this difference of opinion between the people who
hold that under any circumstances it is shameful to come to an agreement
with the _bana_ of one's lord or friend or kinsman, and the people who are
willing _under certain circumstances_ to come to such an agreement.
It happens not infrequently that after some battle in which a great chief
has been killed, his retainers are offered quarter, and accept it; but I do
not remember any instance of their doing this if, instead of an open
battle, it is a case of a treacherous attack. The two most famous downfalls
of Northern princes afford typical examples: after the battle of Svold,
Kolbjorn Stallari accepts quarter from Eric, the chivalrous _bani_ of his
lord Olaf[497]; but Rolf's men refuse quarter after the treacherous murder
of their lord by Hiarwarus[498].
{278}
That men, after a fair fight, could take quarter from, or give it to, those
who had slain their lord or closest kinsman, is shown by abundant
references in the sagas and histories. For instance, when Eric, after the
fight with the Jomsvikings, offers quarter to his prisoners, that quarter
is accepted, even though their leaders, their nearest kin, and their
friends have been slain. The first to receive quarter is young Sigurd,
whose father Bui has just been killed: yet the writer obviously does not
the less sympathize with Sigurd, or with the other Jomsviking survivors,
and feels the action to be generous on the part of Eric, and in no wise
base on the part of the Jomsvikings[499]. But this is natural, because the
Jomsvikings have just been defeated by Eric in fair fight. It would be
impossible, if Eric were represented as a traitor, slaying the Jomsvikings
by a treacherous attack, whilst they were his guests. Is it to be supposed
that Sigurd, under such circumstances, would have taken quarter from the
slayer of Bui his father?
In the _Laxdaela Saga_, Olaf the Peacock, in exacting vengeance for the
slaying of his son Kjartan, shows no leniency towards the sons of Osvif, on
whom the moral responsibility rests. But he accepts compensation in money
from Bolli, who had been drawn into the feud against his will. Yet Bolli
was the actual slayer of Kjartan, and he had taken the responsibility as
such[500]. And Olaf is not held to have lowered himself by accepting a
money payment as atonement from the slayer of his son--on the contrary "he
was considered to have grown in reputation" from having thus spared Bolli.
But after Olaf's death, the feud bursts out again, and revenge in the end
falls heavily upon Bolli[501], as it does upon Finn.
On this question a fairly uniform standard of feeling will be found from
the sixth century to the thirteenth. That it _does_ make all the difference
in composing a feud, whether the slaying from which the feud arises was
treacherous or not, can be abundantly proved from many documents, from Paul
the Deacon, and possibly earlier, to the Icelandic Sagas. Such composition
of feuds may or may not be lasting; it may or may {279} not expose to taunt
those who make it; but the questions which arise are precisely these: Who
started the quarrel? Was the slaying fair or treacherous? Upon the answer
depends the possibility of atonement. There may be some insult and hurt to
a man's pride in accepting atonement, even in cases where the other side
has much to say for itself. But if the slaying has been fair, composition
is felt to be possible, though not without danger of the feud breaking out
afresh.
Prof. Lawrence has suggested that perhaps, in the original version of the
_Finnsburg_ story, the Danes were reduced to greater straits than is
represented to be the case in the extant _Beowulf Episode_. He thinks that
it is "almost incomprehensible" that Hengest should make terms with Finn,
if he had really reduced Finn and his thegns to such a degree of
helplessness as the words of the _Episode_ state. It seems to me that the
matter depends much more upon the treachery or the honesty of Finn. If Finn
was guilty of treachery and slaughter of his guests, then it _is_
"unintelligible" that Hengest should spare him: but if Finn was really a
respectable character, then the fact that Hengest was making headway
against him is rather a reason why Hengest should be moderate, than
otherwise. To quote the _Laxdaela Saga_ again: though Olaf the Peacock lets
off Bolli, the _bani_ of his son Kjartan, with a money payment, he makes it
clear that he is master of the situation, before he shows this mercy.
Paradoxical as it sounds, it was often easier for a man to show moderation
in pursuing a blood feud, just _because_ he was in a strong position. It is
so again in the _Saga of Thorstein the White_. But the adversary must be
one who deserves to be treated with moderation.
Of course it is quite possible that Prof. Lawrence is right, and that in
some earlier and more correct version the Danes may have been represented
as so outnumbered by the Frisians that they had no choice except to
surrender to Finn, and enter his service, or else to be destroyed. But,
whether this be so or no, all parallel incidents in the old literature show
that their choice between these evil alternatives will depend upon whether
Finn, the _bana_ of their lord, slew that lord by deliberate and
premeditated treachery whilst he was his guest, or whether he {280} was
embroiled with him through the fault of others, under circumstances which
were perfectly honourable. If the latter is the case, then Hnaef's men
_might_ accept quarter. Their position is comparable with that of Illugi at
the end of the _Grettis Saga_[502]. Illugi is a prisoner in the hands of
the slayers of Grettir and he charges them with having overcome Grettir,
when already on the point of death from a mortifying wound, which they had
inflicted on him by sorcery and enchantment. The slayers propose to Illugi
terms parallel to those made to the retainers of Hnaef. "I will give thee
thy life," says their leader, "if thou wilt swear to us an oath not to take
vengeance on any of those who have been in this business."
Now, note the answer of Illugi: "That might have seemed to me a matter to
be discussed, if Grettir had been able to defend himself, and if ye had
overcome him with valour and courage; but now it is not to be looked for
that I will save my life by being such a coward as art thou. In a word, no
man shall be more harmful to thee than I, if I live, _for never can I
forget how it was that ye have vanquished Grettir_. Much rather, then, do I
choose to die."
Now of course it would have been an "insult and hurt" to the pride of
Illugi, or of any other decent eleventh century Icelander, to have been
compelled to swear an oath not to avenge his brother, even though that
brother had been slain in the most chivalrous way possible; and it would
doubtless have been a hard matter, even in such a case, for Illugi to have
kept his oath, had he sworn it. But the treachery of the opponents puts an
oath out of the question, just as it must have done in the case of the
followers of King Cynewulf[503] or of Rolf Kraki, and as it must have done
in the case of the followers of Hnaef, had the slaying of Hnaef been a
premeditated act of treachery on the part of Finn.
In the _Nj['a]ls Saga_, Flosi has to take up the feud for the slain
Hauskuld. Flosi is a moderate and reasonable man, so the first thing he
does is to enquire into the _circumstances_ under which Hauskuld was slain.
Flosi finds that the circumstances, and the outrageous conduct of the
slayers, give him no choice {281} but to prosecute the feud. So in the end
he burns Njal's hall, and in it the child of Kari.
Now to have burned a man's child to death might well seem a deed impossible
of atonement. Yet in the end Flosi and Kari are reconciled by a full
atonement, _the father of the slain child actually taking the first
step_[504]. And all this is possible because Flosi and Kari recognise that
each has been trying to play his part with justice and fairness, and that
each is dragged into the feud through the fault of others. When Flosi has
said of his enemy, "I would that I were altogether such a man as Kari is,"
we feel that reconciliation is in sight.
Very similar is the reconciliation between Alboin and Thurisind in
Longobard story, but with this difference, that here it is Alboin who seeks
reconciliation by going to the hall of the man whose son he has slain, thus
reversing the parts of Flosi and Kari; and reconciliation is possible--just
barely possible.
Again, when Bothvar comes to the hall of Rolf, and slays one of Rolf's
retainers, the other retainers naturally claim full vengeance. Rolf insists
upon investigating the _circumstances_. When he learns that it was his own
man who gave the provocation, he comes to terms with the slayer.
Of course it was a difficult matter, and one involving a sacrifice of their
pride, for the retainers of Hnaef to come to any composition with the
_bana_ of their lord; but it is not unthinkable, if the quarrel was started
by Finn's subordinates without his consent, and if Finn himself fought
fair. But had the slaying been an act of premeditated treachery on the part
of Finn, the atonement would, I submit, have been not only difficult but
impossible. If the retainers of Hnaef had had such success as our poem
implies, then their action under such circumstances is, as Lawrence says,
"almost incomprehensible." If they did it under compulsion, and fear of
death, then their action would be contrary to all the ties of Germanic
honour, and would entirely deprive them of any sympathy the audience might
otherwise have felt for them. Yet it is quite obvious that the retainers of
Hnaef are precisely the people with whom the audience is expected to
sympathise[505].
{282}
In any case, the feud was likely enough to break out again as it did in the
case of Alboin and Thurisind, and equally in that of Hrothgar and Ingeld.
Indeed, the different versions of the story of the feud between the house
of Hrothgar and the house of Froda are very much to the point.
Much the oldest version--probably in its main lines quite historical--is
the story as given in _Beowulf_. Froda has been slain by the Danes in
pitched battle. Subsequently Hrothgar, upon whom, as King of the Danes, the
responsibility for meeting the feud has devolved, tries to stave it off by
wedding his daughter Freawaru to Ingeld, son of Froda. The sympathy of the
poet is obviously with the luckless pair, Ingeld and Freawaru, involved as
they are in ancient hatreds which are not of their making. For it is
foreseen how some old warrior, who cannot forget his loyalty to his former
king, will stir up the feud afresh.
But Saxo Grammaticus tells the story differently. Froda (Frotho) is
treacherously invited to a banquet, and then slain. By this treachery the
whole atmosphere of the story is changed. Ingeld (Ingellus) marries the
daughter of his father's slayer, and, for this, the old version reproduced
by Saxo showers upon him literally scores of phrases of scorn and contempt.
The whole interest of the story now centres not in the recreant Ingeld or
his wife of treacherous race, but in the old warrior Starkad, whose spirit
and eloquence is such that he can bring Ingeld to a sense of his "vast
sin[506]," can burst the bonds of his iniquity, and at last compel him to
take vengeance for his father.
In the _Saga of Rolf Kraki_ the story of Froda is still further changed. It
is a tale not only of treachery but also of slaying of kin. Consequently
the idea of any kind of atonement, however temporary, has become
impossible; there is no hint of it.
Now the whole atmosphere of the Hengest-story in _Beowulf_ is parallel to
that of the _Beowulf_ version of the Ingeld-story: agreement is possible,
though it does not prove to be permanent. There is room for much hesitation
in the minds of Hengest and of Ingeld: they remain the heroes of the story.
But if Finn had, as is usually supposed, invited Hnaef to his fort and then
{283} deliberately slain him by treachery, the whole atmosphere would have
been different. Hengest could not then be the hero, but the foil: the
example of a man whose spirit fails at the crisis, who does the utterly
disgraceful thing, and enters the service of his lord's treacherous foe.
The hero of the story would be some other character--possibly the young
Hunlafing, who, loyal in spite of the treachery and cowardice of his leader
Hengest, yet, remaining steadfast of soul, is able in the end to infuse his
own courage into the heart of the recreant Hengest, and to inspire all the
perjured Danish thegns to their final and triumphant revenge on Finn.
But that is not how the story is presented.
* * * * *