But, apart from any such confirmation, I think that the theory offers an
explanation of the known facts of the case, and that it is the only theory
yet put forward which does. It enables us to solve many minor difficulties
that hardly otherwise admit of solution. But, above all, it gives a tragic
interest to the story by making the actions of the two main characters,
Finn and Hengest, intelligible and human: they are both great chiefs,
placed by circumstances in a cruel position. Finn is no longer a
treacherous host, plotting the murder of his guests, without even having
the courage personally to superintend the dirty work: and Hengest is not
guilty of the shameful act of entering the service of a king who had slain
his lord by treachery when a guest. The tale of _Finnsburg_ becomes one of
tragic misfortune besetting great heroes--a tale of the same type as the
stories of Thurisind or Ingeld, of Sigurd or Theodric.
* * * * *
{288}
FRISIA IN THE HEROIC AGE
It is now generally recognised that loose confederacies of tribes were, at
the period with which we are dealing, very common. Lawrence says this
expressly: "The actors in this drama are members of two North Sea tribes,
or _rather groups of tribes_[513]"; and again[514]: "At the time when the
present poem was put into shape, we surely have to assume for the Danes and
Frisians, not compact and unified political units, but groups of tribes
held somewhat loosely together, and sometimes known by tribal names."
This seems to me a quite accurate view of the political situation in the
later Heroic Age. The independent tribes, as they existed at the time of
Tacitus, tended to coalesce, and from such coalition the nations of modern
Europe are gradually evolved. In the seventh and eighth centuries a great
king of Northumbria or Frisia is likely to be king, not of one only, but of
many allied tribes. I cannot therefore quite understand why some scholars
reject so immediately the idea that the Eotens are not necessarily
Frisians, but rather a tribe in alliance with the Frisians. For if, as they
admit, we are dealing not with two compact units, but with two groups of
tribes, why must we assume, as earlier scholars have done, that _Eotenas_
must be synonymous either with Frisians or Danes? That assumption is based
upon the belief that we _are_ dealing with two compact units. It has no
other foundation. I can quite understand Kemble and Ettmueller jumping at
the conclusion that the Eotens _must_ be identical with the one side or the
other. But once we have recognised that confederacies of tribes, rather
than individual tribes, are to be expected in the period with which we are
dealing, then surely no such assumption should be made.
I think we shall be helped if we try to get some clear idea of the
nationalities concerned in the struggle. For to judge by the analogy of
other contemporary Germanic stories, there probably is some historic basis
for the _Finnsburg_ story: and even if the fight is purely fictitious, and
if Finn Folcwalding never existed, still the Old English poets would
represent the fictitious Frisian king in the light of what they knew of
contemporary kings.
Now the Frisians were no insignificant tribe. They were a power,
controlling the coasts of what was then called the "Frisian Sea[515]."
Commerce was in Frisian hands. Archaeological evidence points to a lively
trade between the Frisian districts and the coast of Norway[516]. From
about the sixth century, when "Dorostates of the Frisians" is mentioned by
the Geographer of Ravenna (or the source from which he drew) in a manner
which shows it to have been known even in Italy as a place of peculiar
{289} importance[517], to the ninth century, when it was destroyed by
repeated attacks of the Vikings, the Frisian port of Dorestad[518] was one
of the greatest trade centres of Northern Europe[519]. By the year 700 the
Frisian power had suffered severely from the constant blows dealt to it by
the Frankish Mayors of the Palace. Yet evidence seems to show that even at
that date the Frisian king ruled all the coast which intervened between the
borders of the Franks on the one side and of the Danes on the other[520].
When a zealous missionary demonstrated the powerlessness of the heathen
gods by baptizing three converts in the sacred spring of Fosetisland, he
was carried before the King of Frisia for judgement[521].
At a later date the "Danes" became the controlling power in the North Sea;
but in the centuries before the Viking raids began, the Frisians appear to
have had it all their own way.
Finn, son of Folcwald, found his way into some English genealogies[522]
just as the Roman Emperor did into others. This also seems to point to the
Frisian power having made an impression on the nations around.
We should expect all this to be reflected in the story of the great Frisian
king. How then would a seventh or eighth century Englishman regard Finn and
his father Folcwalda? Probably as paramount chiefs, holding authority over
the tribes of the South and East coast of the North Sea, similar to that
which, for example, a Northumbrian king held over the tribes settled along
the British coast. Indeed, the whole story of the Northumbrian kings, as
given in Bede, deserves comparison: the relation with the subordinate
tribes, the alliances, the feuds, the attempted assassinations, the loyalty
of the thegns--this is the atmosphere amid which the Finn story grew up in
England, and if we want to understand the story we must begin by getting
this point of view.
But, if this be a correct estimate of tribal conditions at the time the
_Finnsburg_ story took form, we no longer need far-fetched explanations to
account for Finnsburg not being in Friesland. It is natural that it should
not be, just as natural as that the contemporary Eadwinesburg should be
outside the ancient limits of Deira. Nor do we need any far-fetched
explanations why the Frisians should be called _Eotenas_. That the King of
Frisia should have had Jutes under his rule is likely enough. And this is
all that the words of the _Episode_ demand.
* * * * *
{290}
{291}
PART IV
APPENDIX
A. A POSTSCRIPT ON MYTHOLOGY IN _BEOWULF_
(1) _Beowulf the Scylding and Beowulf son of Ecgtheow_
It is now ten years since Prof. Lawrence attacked the mythological theories
which, from the time when they were first enunciated by Kemble and
elaborated by Muellenhoff, had wielded an authority over _Beowulf_ scholars
which was only very rarely disputed[523].
Whilst in the main I agree with Prof. Lawrence, I believe that there _is_
an element of truth in the theories of Kemble. It would, indeed, be both
astonishing and humiliating if we found that a view, accepted for
three-quarters of a century by almost every student, had no foundation.
What is really remarkable is, not that Kemble should have carried his
mythological theory too far, but that, with the limited information at his
disposal, he at once saw certain aspects of the truth so clearly.
The mythological theories involve three propositions:
(_a_) That some, or all, of the supernatural stories told of Beowulf the
Geat, son of Ecgtheow (especially the Grendel-struggle and the
dragon-struggle), were originally told of Beowulf the Dane, son of Scyld,
who can be identified with the Beow or Beaw[524] of the genealogies.
{292}
(_b_) That this Beow was an ancient "god of agriculture and fertility."
(_c_) That therefore we can allegorize Grendel and the dragon into
culture-myths connected with the "god Beow."
Now (_c_) would not necessarily follow, even granting (_a_) and (_b_); for
though a hero of story be an ancient god, many of his most popular
adventures may be later accretion. However, these two propositions (_a_)
and (_b_) would, together, establish a very strong probability that the
Grendel-story and the dragon-story were ancient culture-myths, and would
entitle to a sympathetic hearing those who had such an interpretation of
them to offer.
That Beow is an ancient "god of agriculture and fertility," I believe to be
substantially true. We shall see that a great deal of evidence, unknown to
Kemble and Muellenhoff, is now forthcoming to show that there _was_ an
ancient belief in a corn-spirit Beow: and this Beow, whom we find in the
genealogies as son of Scyld or Sceldwa and descendant of Sceaf, is pretty
obviously identical with Beowulf, son of Scyld Scefing, in the _Prologue_
of _Beowulf_.
So far as the _Prologue_ is concerned, there is, then, almost certainly a
remote mythological background. But before we can claim that this
background extends to the supernatural adventures attributed to Beowulf,
son of Ecgtheow, we must prove our proposition (_a_): that these adventures
were once told, not of Beowulf, son of Ecgtheow, but of Beowulf or Beow,
son of Scyld.
When it was first suggested, at the very beginning of _Beowulf_-criticism,
that Beowulf was identical with the Beow of the genealogies, it had not
been realized that there were in the poem _two_ persons named Beowulf: and
thus an anonymous scholar in the _Monthly Review_ of 1816[525], not knowing
that Beowulf the slayer of Grendel is (at any rate in the poem as it
stands) distinct from Beowulf, son of Scyld, connected both with Beow, son
of Scyld, so initiating a theory which, for almost a century, was accepted
as ascertained fact.
{293}
Kemble's identification was probably made independently of the work of this
early scholar. Unlike him, Kemble, of course, realized that in our poem
Beowulf the Dane, son of Scyld, is a person distinct from, is in fact not
related to, Beowulf son of Ecgtheow. But he deliberately identified the
two: he thought that two distinct traditions concerning the same hero had
been amalgamated: in one of these traditions Beowulf may have been
represented as son of Scyld, in the other as son of Ecgtheow, precisely as
the hero Gunnar or Gunter is in one tradition son of Gifica (Giuki), in
another son of Dankrat.
Of course such duplication as Kemble assumed is conceivable. Kemble might
have instanced the way in which one and the same hero reappears in the
pages of Saxo Grammaticus, with somewhat different parentage or
surroundings, as if he were a quite different person. The _Lives of the Two
Offas_ present another parallel: the adventures of the elder Offa have been
transferred to the younger, so that, along with much that is historical or
semi-historical, we have much in the _Life of Offa II_ that is simply
borrowed from the story of Offa I. In the same way it is conceivable that
reminiscences of the mythical adventures of the elder Beowulf (Beow) might
have been mingled with the history of the acts of the younger Beowulf, king
of the Geatas. A guarantee of the intrinsic reasonableness of this theory
lies in the fact that recently it has been put forward again by Dr Henry
Bradley. But it is not enough that a theory should be conceivable, and be
supported by great names. I cannot see that there is any positive evidence
for it at all.
The arguments produced by Kemble are not such as to carry conviction at the
present day. The fact that Beowulf the Geat, son of Ecgtheow, "is
represented throughout as a protecting and redeeming being" does not
necessarily mean that we must look for some god or demigod of the old
mythology--Frey or Sceaf or Beow--with whom we can identify him. This
characteristic is strongly present in many Old English monarchs and
magnates of historic, Christian, times: Oswald or Alfred or Byrhtnoth.
Indeed, it might with much plausibility be argued that we are to see in
this "protecting" character {294} of the hero evidence of Christian rather
than of heathen influence[526].
Nor can we argue anything from the absence of any historic record of a king
Beowulf of the Geatas; our records are too scanty to admit of argument from
silence: and were such argument valid, it would only prove Beowulf
fictitious, not mythological--no more necessarily an ancient god than Tom
Jones or Mr Pickwick.
There remains the argument of Dr Bradley. He points out that
"The poem is divided into numbered sections, the length of which was
probably determined by the size of the pieces of parchment of which an
earlier exemplar consisted. Now the first fifty-two lines, which are
concerned with Scyld and his son Beowulf, stand outside this numbering.
It may reasonably be inferred that there once existed a written text of
the poem that did not include these lines. Their substance, however, is
clearly ancient. Many difficulties will be obviated if we may suppose
that this passage is the beginning of a different poem, the hero of
which was not Beowulf the son of Ecgtheow, but his Danish
namesake[527]."
In this Bradley sees support for the view that "there were circulated in
England two rival poetic versions of the story of the encounters with
supernatural beings: the one referring them to Beowulf the Dane" [of this
the _Prologue_ to our extant poem would be the only surviving portion,
whilst] "the other (represented by the existing poem) attached them to the
legend of the son of Ecgtheow."
But surely many objections have to be met. Firstly, as Dr Bradley admits,
the mention of Beowulf the Dane is not confined to the _Prologue_; this
earlier Beowulf "is mentioned at the beginning of the first numbered
section" and consequently Dr Bradley has to suppose that "the opening lines
of this section have undergone alteration in order to bring them into
connection with the prefixed matter." And why should we assume that the
"passus" of _Beowulf_ correspond to pieces of {295} parchment of various
sizes of which an earlier exemplar consisted? These "passus" vary in length
from 43 lines to 142, a disproportion by no means extraordinary for the
sections of one and the same poem, but very awkward for the pages of one
and the same book, however roughly constructed. One of the "passus" is just
twice the average length, and 30 lines longer than the one which comes next
to it in size. Ought we to assume that an artificer would have made his
book clumsy by putting in this one disproportionate page, when, by cutting
it in two, he could have got two pages of just about the size he wanted?
Besides, the different "passus" do not seem to me to show signs of having
been caused by such mechanical reasons as the dimensions of the parchment
upon which they were written. On the contrary, the 42 places where sections
begin and end almost all come where a reader might reasonably be expected
to pause: 16 at the beginning or end of a speech: 18 others at a point
where the narrative is resumed after some digression or general remark.
Only eight remain, and even with these, there is generally some pause in
the narrative at the point indicated. In only two instances does a "passus"
end at a flagrantly inappropriate spot; in one of these there is strong
reason to suppose that the scribe may have caused the trouble by beginning
with a capital where he had no business to have done so[528]. Generally,
there seems to be some principle governing the division of chapter from
chapter, even though this be not made as a modern would have made it. But,
if so, is there anything extraordinary in the first chapter, which deals
with events three generations earlier than those of the body of the poem,
being allowed to stand outside the numbering, as a kind of prologue?
The idea of a preface or prologue was quite familiar in Old English times.
The oldest MSS[529] of Bede's _History_ have, at the end of the preface,
_Explicit praefatio incipiunt capitula_. So we have in one of the two
oldest MSS[530] of the _Pastoral Care_ "Dhis is seo forespraec." On the
other hand, the prologue or preface might be left without any heading or
colophon, and the next {296} chapter begin as No. I. This is the case in
the other MS of the _Pastoral Care_[531]. Is there, then, such difficulty
in the dissertation on the glory of the ancient Danish kings being treated
as what, in fact, it is: a prologue or preface; and being, as such, simply
left outside the numbering?
Still less can we argue for the identification of our hero, the son of
Ecgtheow, with Frotho, and through him with Beow, from the supposed
resemblances between the dragon fights of Beowulf and Frotho. Such
resemblances have been divined by Sievers, but we have seen that it is the
dissimilarity, not the resemblance, of the two dragon fights which is
really noteworthy[532].
To prove that Beow was the original antagonist of Grendel there remains,
then, only the mention in the charter of a _Grendles mere_ near a
_B[=e]owan hamm_[533]. Now this was not known to Kemble at the time when he
formed his theory that the original slayer of Grendel was not Beowulf, but
Beow. And if the arguments upon which Kemble based his theory had been at
all substantial, this charter would have afforded really valuable support.
But the fact that two names occur near each other in a charter cannot
confirm any theory, unless that theory has already a real basis of its own.
(2) _Beow_
Therefore, until some further evidence be discovered, we must regard the
belief that the Grendel and the dragon stories were originally myths of
Beow, as a theory for which sufficient evidence is not forthcoming.
But note where the theory breaks down. It seems indisputable that Beowulf
the Dane, son of Scyld Scefing, is identical with Beo(w) of the
genealogies: for Beo(w) is son of Scyld[534] or Sce(a)ldwa[535], who is a
Scefing. But here we must stop. There is, as we have seen, no evidence that
the Grendel or dragon adventures were transferred from him to their present
hero, {297} Beowulf the Geat, son of Ecgtheow. It would, of course, be
quite possible to accept such transference, and _still_ to reject the
mythological interpretation of these adventures, just as it would be
possible to believe that Gawain was originally a sun-hero, whilst rejecting
the interpretation as a sun-myth of any particular adventure which could be
proved to have been once told concerning Gawain. But I do not think we need
even concede, as Boer[536] and Chadwick[537] do, that adventures have been
transferred from Beowulf the Dane to Beowulf the Geat. We have seen that
there is no evidence for such transference, however intrinsically likely it
may be. Till evidence _is_ forthcoming, it is useless to build upon
Kemble's conjecture that Beowulf the Scylding sank into Beowulf the
Waegmunding[538].
But it is due to Kemble to remember that, while he only put this forward as
a tentative conjecture, what he _was_ certain about was the identity of
Beowulf the Scylding with Beow, and the divinity of these figures. And here
all the evidence seems to justify him.
"The divinity of the earlier Be['o]wulf," Kemble wrote, "I hold for
indisputable.... Beo or Beow is ... in all probability a god of
agriculture and fertility.... It strengthens this view of the case that
he is the grandson of Sce['a]f, _manipulus frumenti_, with whom he is
perhaps in fact identical[539]."
Whether or no Beow and Sceaf were ever identical, it is certain that Beow
(grain) the descendant of Sceaf (sheaf) suggests a corn-myth, some survival
from the ancient worship of a corn-spirit.
Now _b[=e]ow_, 'grain, barley,' corresponds to Old Norse _bygg_, just as,
corresponding to O.E. _tr[=i]ewe_, we have O.N. _tryggr_, or corresponding
to O.E. _gl[=e]aw_, O.N. _gl[o,]ggr_. Corresponding to the O.E. proper name
_B[=e]ow_, we might expect an O.N. name, the first letters in which would
be _Bygg(v)-_.
And pat he comes, like the catastrophe of the Old Comedy. When Loki strode
into the Hall of Aegir, and assailed with clamour and scandal the assembled
gods and goddesses, there were present, among the major gods, also Byggvir
and his wife {298} Beyla, the servants of Frey, the god of agriculture and
fertility. Loki reviles the gods, one after the other: at last he exchanges
reproaches with Frey. To see his lord so taunted is more than Byggvir can
endure, and he turns to Loki with the words:
Know thou, that were my race such as is that of Ingunar-Frey, and if I
had so goodly a seat, finer than marrow would I grind thee, thou crow
of ill-omen, and pound thee all to pieces[540].
Byggvir is evidently no great hero: he draws his ideas from the grinding of
the homely hand-mill, with which John Barleycorn has reason to be familiar:
A miller used him worst of all,
For he crushed him between two stones[541].
Loki, who has addressed by name all the other gods, his acquaintances of
old, professes not to know who is this insignificant being: but his
reference to the hand-mill shows that in reality he knows quite well:
What is that little creature that I see, fawning and sneaking and
snuffling: ever wilt thou be at the ears of Frey, and chattering at the
quern[542].
Byggvir replies with a dignity which reminds us of the traditional
characteristics of Sir John Barleycorn, or Allan O'Maut. For:
Uskie-bae ne'er bure the bell
Sae bald as Allan bure himsel[543].
{299} Byggvir adopts the same comic-heroic pose:
Byggvir am I named, and all gods and men call me hasty; proud am I, by
reason that all the children of Odin are drinking ale together[544].
But any claims Byggvir may make to be a hero are promptly dismissed by
Loki:
Hold thou silence, Byggvir, for never canst thou share food justly
among men: thou didst hide among the straw of the hall: they could not
find thee, when men were fighting[545].
Now the taunts of Loki, though we must hope for the credit of Asgard that
they are false, are never pointless. And such jibes as Loki addresses to
Byggvir _would_ be pointless, if applied to one whom we could think of as
in any way like our Beowulf. Later, Beyla, wife of Byggvir, speaks, and is
silenced with the words "Hold thy peace--wife thou art of Byggvir." Byggvir
must have been a recognized figure of the old mythology[546], but one
differing from the monster-slaying Beow of Muellenhoff's imagination.
Byggvir is a little creature (_et l['i]tla_), and we have seen above[547]
that Scandinavian scholars have thought that they have discovered this old
god in the Pekko who "promoted the growth of barley" among the Finns in the
sixteenth century, and who is still worshipped among the Esthonians on the
opposite side of the gulf as a three year old child; the form _Pekko_ being
derived, it is supposed, from the primitive Norse form *_Beggwuz_. This is
a corner of a very big subject: the discovery, among the Lapps and Finns,
of traces of the heathendom of the most {300} ancient Teutonic world, just
as Thomsen has taught us to find in the Finnish language traces of Teutonic
words in their most antique form.
The Lappish field has proved the most successful hunting ground[548]: among
the Finns, apart from the Thunder-god, connection with Norse beliefs is
arguable mainly for a group of gods of fruitfulness[549]. The cult of
these, it is suggested, comes from scattered Scandinavian settlers in
Finland, among whom the Finns dwelt, and from whom they learnt the worship
of the spirits of the seed and of the spring, just as they learnt more
practical lessons. First and foremost among these stands Pekko, whom we
know to have been especially the god of barley, and whose connection with
Beow or Byggvir (*_Beggwuz_) is therefore a likely hypothesis enough[550].
Much less certain is the connection of Saempsae, the spirit of vegetation,
with any Germanic prototype; he may have been a god of the rush-grass[551]
(Germ. _simse_). Runkoteivas or Rukotivo was certainly the god of rye, and
the temptation to derive his name from Old Norse (_rugr-tivorr_, "rye-god")
is great[552]. But we have not evidence for {301} the worship among
Germanic peoples of such a rye-god, as we have in the case of the
barley-god Byggvir-Beow. These shadowy heathen gods, however, do give each
other a certain measure of mutual support.
And, whether or no Pekko be the same as Byggvir, his worship is interesting
as showing how the spirit of vegetation may be honoured among primitive
folk. His worshippers, the Setukese, although nominally members of the
Greek Orthodox Church, speak their own dialect and often hardly understand
that of their Russian priests, but keep their old epic and lyric traditions
more than almost any other section of the Finnish-Esthonian race. Pekko,
who was honoured among the Finns in the sixteenth century for "promoting
the growth of barley," survives among the present-day peasantry around
Pskoff, not only as a spirit to be worshipped, but as an actual idol,
fashioned out of wax in the form of a child, sometimes of a three year old
child. He lives in the corn-bin, but on certain occasions is carried out
into the fields. Not everyone can afford the amount of wax necessary for a
Pekko--in fact there is usually only one in a village: he lodges in turn
with different members of his circle of worshippers. He holds two moveable
feasts, on moonlight nights--one in spring, the other in autumn. The wax
figure is brought into a lighted room draped in a sheet, there is feasting,
with dancing hand in hand, and singing round Pekko. Then they go out to
decide who shall keep Pekko for the next year--his host is entitled to
special blessing and protection. Pekko is carried out into the field,
especially to preside over the sowing[553].
I doubt whether, in spite of the high authorities which support it, we can
as yet feel at all certain about the identification of Beow and Pekko. But
I think we can accept with fair certainty the identification of Beow and
Byggvir. And we can at any rate use Pekko as a collateral example of the
way in which a grain-spirit is regarded. Now in either case we find no
support whatever for the supposition that the activities of {302} Beow, the
spirit of the barley, could, or would, have been typified under the guise
of battles such as those which Beowulf the Geat wages against Grendel,
Grendel's mother, and the dragon. In Beowulf the Geat we find much that
suggests the hero of folk-tale, overlaid with much that belongs to him as
the hero of an heroic poem, but nothing suggestive of a corn-myth. On the
other hand, so long as we confine ourselves to Beow and his ancestor Sceaf,
we _are_ in touch with this type of myth, however remotely. The way that
Sceaf comes over the sea, as recorded by William of Malmesbury, is
characteristic. That "Sheaf" should be, in the language of Muellenhoff,
"placed in a boat and committed to the winds and waves in the hope that he
will return new-born in the spring" is exactly what we might expect, from
the analogy of harvest customs and myths of the coming of spring.
In Saetersdale, in Norway, when the ice broke up in the spring, and was
driven ashore, the inhabitants used to welcome it by throwing their hats
into the air, and shouting "Welcome, Corn-boat." It was a good omen if the
"Corn-boats" were driven high and dry up on the land[554]. The floating of
the sheaf on a shield down the Thames at Abingdon[555] reminds us of the
Bulgarian custom, in accordance with which the venerated last sheaf of the
harvest was floated down the river[556]. But every neighbourhood is not
provided with convenient rivers, and in many places the last sheaf is
merely drenched with water. This is an essential part of the custom of
"crying the neck."
The precise ritual of "crying the neck" or "crying the mare" was confined
to the west and south-west of England[557]. But there is no such local
limitation about the custom of drenching the {303} last sheaf, or its
bearers and escort, with water. This has been recorded, among other places,
at Hitchin in Hertfordshire[558], in Cambridgeshire[559],
Nottinghamshire[560], Pembrokeshire[561], Wigtownshire[562] as well as in
Holstein[563], Westphalia[564], Prussia[565], Galicia[566], Saxon
Transsylvania[567], Roumania[568] and perhaps in ancient Phrygia[569].
Now it is true that drenching the last sheaf with water, as a rain charm,
is by no means the same thing as floating it down the river, in the
expectation that it will come again in the spring. But it shows the same
sense of the continued existence of the corn-spirit. That the _seed_, when
sown, should be sprinkled with water as a rain charm (as is done in places)
seems obvious and natural enough. But when the _last sheaf_ of the
preceding harvest is thus sprinkled, to ensure plenteous rain upon the
crops of next year, we detect the same idea of continuity which we find
expressed when Sceaf comes to land from over the sea: the spirit embodied
in the sheaf of last year's harvest returning, and bringing the renewed
power of vegetation.
The voyage of the Abingdonian sheaf on the Thames was conducted upon a
shield, and it may be that the "vessel without a rower" in which "Sheaf"
came to land was, in the original version, a shield. There would be
precedent for this. The shield was known by the puzzling name of "Ull's
ship" in Scaldic poetry, presumably because the god Ull used his shield as
a boat. Anyway, Scyld came to be closely connected with Sceaf and Beow. In
Ethelwerd he is son of the former and father of the latter: but in the
_Chronicle_ genealogies five names intervene between Scyld and Sceaf, and
the son of Sceaf is Bedwig, or as he is called in one version, Beowi.
_Bedwig_ and _Beowi_ are probably derived from _Beowius_, the Latinized
{304} form of _Beow_. A badly formed _o_ might easily be mistaken for a
_d_, and indeed _Beowius_ appears in forms much more corrupt. In that case
it would appear that while some genealogies made Beow the son of Scyld,
others made him son of Sceaf, and that the compiler of the pedigree got
over the difficulty in the usual way, by adding the one version to the
other[570].
But all this is very hypothetical; and how and when Scyld came to be
connected with Sceaf and with Beow we cannot with any certainty say. At any
rate we find no trace of such connection in Danish traditions of the
primitive King Skjold of the Danes. But we can say, with some certainty,
that in Beowulf the Dane, the son of Scyld Scefing, in our poem, we have a
figure which is identical with Beow, son of Scyld or of Sceldwa and
descendant of Sceaf, in the genealogies, and that this Beow is likely to
have been an ancient corn-spirit, parallel to the Scandinavian Byggvir.
That amount of mythology probably _does_ underlie the _Prologue_ to
_Beowulf_, though the author would no doubt have been highly scandalized
had he suspected that his pattern of a young prince was only a disguised
heathen god. But I think that any further attempt to proceed, from this, to
mythologize the deeds of Beowulf the Great, is pure conjecture, and
probably quite fruitless conjecture.
I ought not to conclude this note without reference to the admirable
discussion of this subject by Prof. Bjoerkman in _Englische Studien_[571].
This, with the elucidation of other proper names in _Beowulf_, was destined
to be the last big contribution to knowledge made by that ripe and good
scholar, whose premature loss we all deplore; and it shows to the full
those qualities of wide knowledge and balanced judgment which we have all
learnt to admire in him.
* * * * *
B. GRENDEL
It may be helpful to examine the places where the name of Grendel occurs in
English charters.
{305}
A.D. 708. Grant of land at Abbots Morton, near Alcester, co. Worcester, by
Kenred, King of the Mercians, to Evesham (extant in a late copy).
_[=Ae]rest of grindeles pytt on w[=i]dhimaere; of w[=i]dhimaere on
thaet r[=e]ade sl[=o]h ... of dh[=e]re d[=i]ce on thene blace p[=o]l;
of th[=a]m p[=o]le aefter long pidele in t[=o] th[=a]m mersce; of
th[=a]m mersce th[=a] aeft on grindeles pytt[572]._
The valley of the Piddle Brook is about a mile wide, with hills rising on
each side till they reach a height of a couple of hundred feet above the
brook. The directions begin in the valley and run "From Grindel's 'pytt' to
the willow-mere; from the willow-mere to the red morass"; then from the
morass the directions take us up the hill and along the lea, where they
continue among the downs till we again make our descent into the valley,
"from the ditch to the black pool, from the pool along the Piddle brook to
the marsh, and from the marsh back to Grindel's 'pytt.'" In modern English
a "pit" is an artificial hole which is generally dry: but the word is
simply Latin _puteus_, "a well," and is used in this sense in the Gospel
translations. Here it is a hole, and we may be sure that, with the
willow-mere and the red slough on the one side, and the black pool and the
marsh on the other, the hole was full of water.
A.D. 739. Grant of land at Creedy, co. Devon, by Aethelheard, King of
Wessex, to Bishop Forthhere.
_of doddan hrycge on grendeles pyt; of grendeles pytte on ifigbearo_
(ivy-grove)...[573].
The spot is near the junction of the rivers Exe and Creedy, with Dartmoor
in the distance. The neighbourhood bears uncanny names, _C[=a]ines aecer,
egesan tr[=e]ow_. If, as has been suggested by Napier and Stevenson, a
trace of this pit still survives in the name Pitt farm, the mere must have
been in the uplands, about 600 feet above sea level.
{306}
A.D. 931. Grant of land at Ham in Wiltshire by Athelstan to his thane
Wulfgar. Quoted above, p. 43. It is in this charter that _on B[=e]owan
hammes hecgan, on Grendles mere_[574] occur. "Grendel pits or meres" are in
most other cases in low-lying marshy country: but this, like (perhaps) the
preceding one, is in the uplands--it must have been a lonely mere among the
hills, under Inkpen Beacon.
_Circa_ A.D. 957. A list of boundaries near Battersea[575].
_Dhis synd dh[=a] landgem[=ae]re t[=o] Batriceseie. [=Ae]rst at
h[=e]gefre; fram h[=e]gefre to gaetenesheale; fram gaeteneshaele to
gryndeles syllen; fram gryndeles sylle to russemere; fram ryssemere to
baelgenham...._
All this is low-lying land, just south of the Thames. _H[=e]gefre_ is on
the river; _Baelgenham_ is Balham, co. Surrey. "From Grendel's mire to the
rushy mere" harmonizes excellently with what we know of the swampy nature
of this district in early times.
A.D. 958. Grant of land at Swinford, on the Stour, co. Stafford, by King
Eadred to his thane Burhelm[576].
_Ondlong baeces widh neothan eostacote; ondlong d[=i]ces in
grendels-mere; of grendels-mere in st[=a]nc[=o]fan; of st[=a]nc[=o]fan
ondlong d[=u]ne on stiran mere...._
A.D. 972. Confirmation of lands to Pershore Abbey (Worcester) by King
Edgar[577].
_of Grindles bece sw[=a] thaet gem[=ae]re ligdh...._
A.D. 972. Extract from an account of the descent of lands belonging to
Westminster, quoting a grant of King Edgar[578].
_andlang hagan to grendeles gatan aefter kincges mearce innan
braegentan...._
The property described is near Watling Street, between Edgware, Hendon, and
the River Brent. It is a low-lying {307} district almost surrounded by the
hills of Hampstead, Highgate, Barnet, Mill Hill, Elstree, Bushey Heath and
Harrow. The bottom of the basin thus formed must have been a swamp[579].
What the "gate" may have been it is difficult to say. A foreign scholar has
suggested that it may have been a narrow mountain defile or possibly a
cave[580]: but this suggestion could never have been made by anyone who
knew the country. The "gate" is likely to have been a channel connecting
two meres--or it might have been a narrow piece of land between them--one
of those _enge [=a]npadhas_ which Grendel and his mother had to tread.
Anyway, there is nothing exceptional in this use of "gate" in connection
with a water-spirit. Necker, on the Continent, also had his "gates." Thus
there is a "Neckersgate Mill" near Brussels, and the name "Neckersgate"
used also to be applied to a group of houses near by, surrounded by
water[581].
All the other places clearly point to a water-spirit: two meres, two pits,
a mire and a beck: for the most part situated in low-lying country which
must in Anglo-Saxon times have been swampy. All this harmonizes excellently
with the _fenfreodho_ of _Beowulf_ (l. 851). Of course it does not in the
least follow that these places were named after the Grendel of our poem. It
may well be that there was in England a current belief in a creature
Grendel, dwelling among the swamps. Von Sydow has compared the Yorkshire
belief in Peg Powler, or the Lancashire Jenny Greenteeth. But these aquatic
monsters are not exactly parallel; for they abide in the water, and are
dangerous only to those who attempt to cross it, or at any rate venture too
near the bank[582], whilst Grendel and even his mother are capable of
excursions of some distance from their fastness amid the fens.
{308}
Of course the mere-haunting Grendel _may_ have been identified only at a
comparatively late date with the spirit who struggles with the hero in the
house, and flees below the earth in the folk-tale.
At any rate belief in a Grendel, haunting mere and fen, is clearly
demonstrable for England--at any rate for the south and west of England:
for of these place-names two belong to the London district, one to
Wiltshire, one to Devonshire, two to Worcester and one to Stafford. The
place-name _Grendele_ in Yorkshire is too doubtful to be of much help.
(_Domesday Book_, I, 302.) It is the modern village Grindale, four miles
N.W. of Bridlington. From it, probably, is derived the surname _Grindle,
Grindall_ (Bardsley).
Abroad, the nearest parallel is to be found in Transsylvania, where there
is a _Graendels m[^o]r_ among the Saxons of the Senndorf district, near
Bistritz. The Saxons of Transsylvania are supposed to have emigrated from
the neighbourhood of the lower Rhine and the Moselle, and there is a
_Grindelbach_ in Luxemburg which may possibly be connected with the marsh
demon[583].
Most of the German names in _Grindel-_ or _Grendel-_ are connected with
_grendel_, "a bar," and therefore do not come into consideration here[584]:
but the Transsylvanian "Grendel's marsh[585]," anyway, reminds us of the
English "Grendel's marsh" or "mere" or "pit." Nevertheless, the local story
with which the Transsylvanian swamp is connected--that of a peasant who was
ploughing with six oxen and was swallowed up in the earth--is such that it
requires considerable ingenuity to see any connection between it and the
_Beowulf-Grendel_-tale[586].
{309}
The Anglo-Saxon place-names may throw some light upon the meaning and
etymology of "Grendel[587]." The name has generally been derived from
_grindan_, "to grind"; either directly[588], because Grendel grinds the
bones of those he devours, or indirectly, in the sense of "tormentor[589]."
Others would connect with O.N. _grindill_, "storm," and perhaps with M.E.
_gryndel_, "angry[590]."
It has recently been proposed to connect the word with _grund_, "bottom":
for Grendel lives in the _mere-grund_ or _grund-wong_ and his mother is the
_grund-wyrgin_. Erik Rooth, who proposes this etymology, compares the
Icelandic _grandi_, "a sandbank," and the common Low German dialect word
_grand_, "coarse sand[591]." This brings us back to the root "to grind,"
for _grand_, "sand" is simply the product of the grinding of the
waves[592]. Indeed the same explanation has been given of the word
"ground[593]."
However this may be, the new etymology differs from the old in giving
Grendel a name derived, not from his grinding or tormenting others, but
from his dwelling at the bottom of the lake or marsh[594]. The name would
have a parallel in the Modern English _grindle_, _grundel_, German
_grundel_[595], a fish haunting the bottom of the water.
The Old English place-names, associating Grendel as they do with meres and
swamps, seem rather to support this.
As to the Devonshire stream _Grendel_ (now the Grindle or Greendale Brook),
it has been suggested that this name is also {310} connected with the root
_grand_, "gravel," "sand." But, so far as I have been able to observe,
there is no particular suggestion of sand or gravel about this modest
little brook. If we follow the River Clyst from the point where the Grindle
flows into it, through two miles of marshy land, to the estuary of the Exe,
we shall there find plenty. But it is clear from the charter of 963 that
the name was then, as now, restricted to the small brook. I cannot tell why
the stream should bear the name, or what, if any, is the connection with
the monster Grendel. We can only note that the name is again found attached
to water, and, near the junction with the Clyst, to marshy ground.
Anyone who will hunt Grendel through the shires, first on the 6-in.
ordnance map, and later on foot, will probably have to agree with the Three
Jovial Huntsmen
This huntin' doesn't pay,
But we'n powler't up an' down a bit, an' had a rattlin' day.
But, if some conclusions, although scanty, can be drawn from place-names in
which the word _grendel_ occurs, nothing can be got from the numerous
place-names which have been thought to contain the name _B[=e]ow_. The
clearest of these is the _on B[=e]owan hammes hecgan_, which occurs in the
Wiltshire charter of 931. But we can learn nothing definite from it: and
although there are other instances of strong and weak forms alternating, we
cannot even be quite certain that the Beowa here is identical with the Beow
of the genealogies[596].
The other cases, many of which occur in _Domesday Book_ are worthless.
Those which point to a weak form may often be derived from the weak noun
_b[=e]o_, "bee": "The Anglo-Saxons set great store by their bees, honey and
wax being indispensables to them[597]."
_B[=e]as br[=o]c_, _B[=e]as feld_ (_Bewes feld_) occur in charters: but
here a connection with _b[=e]aw_, "horsefly," is possible: for parallels,
one has only to consider the long list of places enumerated by Bjoerkman,
the names of which are derived from those of beasts, {311} birds, or
insects[598]. And in such a word as _B[=e]ol[=e]ah_, even if the first
element be _b[=e]ow_, why may it not be the common noun "barley," and not
the name of the hero at all?
No argument can therefore be drawn from such a conjecture as that of Olrik,
that _B[=e]as br[=o]c_ refers to the water into which the last sheaf
(representing Beow) was thrown, in accordance with the harvest custom, and
in the expectation of the return of the spirit in the coming spring[599].
* * * * *
C. THE STAGES ABOVE WODEN IN THE WEST-SAXON GENEALOGY
The problems to which this pedigree gives rise are very numerous, and some
have been discussed above. There are four which seem to need further
discussion.
(I) A "Sceafa" occurs in _Widsith_ as ruling over the Longobards. Of course
we cannot be certain that this hero is identical with the Sceaf of the
genealogy. Now there is no one in the long list of historic or
semi-historic Longobard kings, ruling after the tribe had left Scandinavia,
who bears a name at all similar. It seems therefore reasonable to suppose
that Sceafa, if he is a genuine Longobard king at all, belongs to the
primitive times when the Longobardi or Winnili dwelt in "Scadan," before
the historic or semi-historic times with which our extant list deals. And
Old English accounts, although making Sceaf an ancestor of the Saxon kings,
are unanimous in connecting him with Scani or Scandza.
Some scholars[600] have seen a serious difficulty in the weak form
"Sceafa," as compared with "Sceaf." But we have the exactly parallel cases
of _Horsa_[601] compared with _Hors_[602], and _Hr[=ae]dla_[603] compared
with _Hr[=ae]del_[604], _Hr[=e]dhel_. Parallel, but not quite so certain,
are _Sceldwa_[605] and _Scyld_[606], _G[=e]ata_[607] and _G[=e]at_[608],
_B[=e]owa_[609] and _B[=e]aw, B[=e]o(w)_[610].
{312}
I do not think it has ever been doubted that the forms _Hors_ and _Horsa_,
or _Hr[=e]dhel_ and _Hr[=ae]dla_, relate to one and the same person. Prof.
Chadwick seems to have little or no doubt as to the identity of _Scyld_ and
_Sceldwa_[611], or _B[=e]o_ and _B[=e]owa_[612]. Why then should the
identity of _Sc[=e]af_ and _Sc[=e]afa_ be denied because one form is strong
and the other weak[613]? We cannot demonstrate the identity of the figure
in the genealogies with the figure in _Widsith_; but little difficulty is
occasioned by the weak form.
(II) Secondly, the absence of the name _Sc[=e]af_ from the oldest MS of the
_Chronicle_ (the _Parker MS_, _C.C.C.C._ 173) has been made the ground for
suggesting that when that MS was written (_c._ 892) Sceaf had not yet been
invented (Moeller, _Volksepos_, 43; Symons in _Pauls Grdr_. (2), III, 645;
Napier, as quoted by Clarke, _Sidelights_, 125). But Sceaf, and the other
names which are omitted from the _Parker MS_, are found in the other MSS of
the _Chronicle_ and the allied pedigrees, which are known to be derived
independently from one and the same original. Now, unless the names were
older than the _Parker MS_, they could not appear in so many independent
transcripts. For, even though these transcripts are individually later,
their _agreement_ takes us back to a period earlier than that of the
_Parker MS_ itself[614].
An examination of the different versions of the genealogy, given on pp.
202-3, above, and of the tree showing the connection between them, on p.
315, will, I think, make this clear.
The versions of the pedigree given in the _Parker MS_ of the _Chronicle_,
in Asser and in _Textus Roffensis I_, all contain the stages _Frithuwald_
and _Frithuwulf_. Asser and _Roff. I_ are connected by the note about
_G[=e]ata_: but _Roff. I_ is not derived from that text of Asser which has
come down to us, as that {313} text has corrupted _Fin_ and _Godwulf_ into
one name and has substituted _Seth_ for _Sc[=e]af_ ["Seth, _Saxonice_
Sceaf": Florence of Worcester]. _Roff. I_ is free from both these
corruptions.
Ethelwerd is obviously connected with a type of genealogy giving the stages
_Frithuwald_ and _Frithuwulf_, but differs from all the others in giving no
stages between _Scyld_ and _Sc[=e]f_.
None of the other versions contain the names _Frithuwald_ and _Frithuwulf_.
They are closely parallel, but fall into groups showing special
peculiarities.
_MSS Tib. A. VI_ and _Tib. B. I_ of the _Chronicle_ show only trifling
differences of spelling. The MSS belong respectively to about the years
1000 and 1050, and are both derived from an Abingdon original of about
977[615].
_MS Cott. Tib. B. IV_ is derived from a copy of the _Chronicle_ sent North
about 892[616].
_MS Cott. Tib. B. V_ and _Textus Roffensis II_ are closely connected, but
neither is derived from the other. For _Roff. II_ preserves _Tethwa_ and
_Hw[=a]la_, who are lost in _Tib. B. V; Tib. B. V_ preserves _Iterman_, who
is corrupted in _Roff. II._ Both _Tib. B. V_ and _Roff. II_ carry the
pedigree down to Edgar, mentioning his three sons _[=E]adweard and
[=E]admund and Aethelred aedhelingas syndon [=E]adg[=a]res suna cyninges_.
The original therefore apparently belongs to some date before 970, when
Edmund died (cf. Stevenson's Asser, 158, note).
Common features of _MS Cott. Tib. B. V_ and _Roff. II_ are (1) _Eat(a)_ for
_Geat(a)_, (2) the omission of _d_ from _Scealdwa_, and (3) the expression
_se Sc[=e]f_, "this Scef." Features (1) and (3) are copied in the Icelandic
pedigrees. _Scealdwa_ is given correctly there, but the Icelandic
transcriber could easily have got it from _Scealdwaging_ above. The
Icelandic was, then, ultimately derived either from _Tib. B. V_ or from a
version so closely connected as not to be worth distinguishing.
Accordingly _Cott. Tib. B. V_, _Textus Roffensis II_, _Langfedhgatal_ and
_Flateyarb['o]k_ form one group, pointing to an archetype _c._ 970.
{314}
The pedigrees can accordingly be grouped on the system shown on the
opposite page[617].
(III) Prof. Chadwick, in his _Origin of the English Nation_, draws wide
deductions from the fact that the Danes traced the pedigree of their kings
back to Skjold, whilst the West-Saxons included Sceldwa (Scyld) in their
royal pedigree:
"Since the Angli and the Danes claimed descent from the same ancestor,
there can be no doubt that the bond was believed to be one of
blood[618]."
This belief, Prof. Chadwick thinks, went back to exceedingly early
times[619], and he regards it as well-founded:
"It is true that the Angli of Britain seem never to have included
themselves among the Danes, but the reason for this may be that the
term _Dene_ (_Danir_) had not come into use as a collective term before
the invasion of Britain[620]."
Doubtless the fact that the name of a Danish king _Scyld_ or _Sceldwa_ is
found in a pedigree of West-Saxon kings, as drawn up at a period certainly
not later than 892, points to a belief, at that date, in some kind of a
connection. But we have still to ask: How close was the connection supposed
to be? And how old is the belief?
Firstly as to the closeness of the connection. Finn also occurs in the
pedigree--possibly the Frisian king: Sceaf occurs, possibly, though not
certainly, a Longobard king. Noah and Adam occur; are we therefore to
suppose that the compiler of the _Genealogy_ believed his kings to be of
one blood with the Hebrews? Certainly he did: but only remotely, as common
descendants of Noah. And the occurrence of Sceldwa and Sceaf and Finn in
the genealogies--granting the identity of these heroes with Skjold of the
Danes, Sceafa of the Longobards and Finn of the Frisians, might only prove
that the genealogist believed in their common (Germanic) race.
{315}
900 950 1000
| | |
| A. Chron |
_| Parker MS ______________________________|
/ | c. 890-900 |
/ | Asser
/ | MS Cott.
/______________________________________| Otho A.XII,
/ \ | c. 1000
/ \__________________________
/ | B. Chron.
Transcript of \ ................ | MS Cott.
Chronicle from Copy sent to Abingdon, : presumed : | Tib. A. VI,
which all kept there till c. 977__: Abingdon :/| c. 1000
extant \ : copy, c. 977 :\
MSS are \ :..............: \____________
derived \____________
Copy sent to Ripon\
\
\_______________________________
\
\ | Common original
\_| compiled about _
| 970 \
\ \______
\
\ | Genealogy
\_| MS Cott.
| Tib. B. V,_
| c. 1000
.........................................................................
1050 1100 1125
| | |
| W. Chron.
| MS Cott, Otho B. XI, 2.
| c. 1025
___________________________________| Textus Roffensis I,
| c. 1120
| C. Chron.
_______| MS Cott. Tib. B. I,
| c. 1050
| D. Chron.
_______| MS Cott. Tib. B. IV,
| c. 1050
___________________________________| Textus Roffensis II,
| c. 1120
___________________________________| Icelandic
| Genealogies
==>
{316}
Secondly, how old is the belief? The Anglian genealogies (Northumbrian,
Mercian and East Anglian), as reproduced in the _Historia Brittonum_ and in
the _Vespasian MS_, form part of what is doubtless, as is said above, the
oldest extant English historical document. But in this document _there is
no mention of Scyld_. Indeed, it contains no pedigree of the West-Saxon
kings at all. From whatever cause, the West-Saxon genealogy is not extant
from so early a date as are the pedigrees of the Northumbrian, Mercian,
East Anglian and Kentish kings[621]. Still, this may well be a mere
accident, and I am not prepared to dispute that the pedigree which traces
the West-Saxon kings to Woden dates back, like the other genealogies
connecting Old English kings with Woden, to primitive and heathen times.
Now the West-Saxon pedigree is found in many forms: some which trace the
royal house only to Woden, and some which go beyond Woden and contain a
list of names by which Woden is connected with Sceaf, and then with Noah
and Adam.
(1) The nucleus of the whole pedigree is to be found in the names between
Cynric or Cerdic and Woden. These occur in every version. The pedigree in
this, its simplest form, is found twice among the entries in the
_Chronicle_ which deal with the events of heathen times, under 552 and 597.
These names fall into verse:
[Cynr[=i]c Cerdicing], Cerdic Elesing,
Elesa Esling, Esla GiWising,
GiWis W[=i]ging, W[=i]g Fr[=e]awining,
Fr[=e]awine Fridhug[=a]ring, Fridhug[=a]r Bronding,
Brond B[=ae]ldaeging, B[=ae]ldaeg W[=o]dening.
Like the mnemonic lists in _Widsith_, these lines are probably very old.
Their object is clearly to connect the founder of the West-Saxon royal
house with Woden. Note, that not only do the names alliterate, but the
alliteration is perfect. Every line attains double alliteration in the
first half, with one alliterating word only in the second half. The lines
must go back to times when lists of royal ancestors, both real and
imaginary, had to {317} be arranged in correct verse; times when such
things were recorded by memory rather than by writing. They are
pre-literary, and were doubtless chanted by retainers of the West-Saxon
kings in heathen days.
(2) An expanded form of this genealogy occurs in _MSS C.C.C.C._ 183 and
_Cotton Tib. B. V_. Woden is here furnished with a father Frealaf. We know
nothing of any Frealaf as father of the All-Father in heathen days, though
Frealaf is found in this capacity in other genealogies written down in the
ages after the conversion. Frealaf breaks the correct alliterative system.
In both MSS the pedigree is brought down to King Ine (688-726): both MSS
are ultimately, no doubt, derived from a list current in the time of that
king, that is to say less than a century after the conversion of Wessex.
(3) A further expansion, which Prof. Napier has held on linguistic
grounds[622] to have been written down as early as 750, is incorporated in
a genealogical and chronological note regarding the West-Saxon kings, which
is extant in many MSS[623]. _In its present form_ this genealogical note is
a recension, under Alfred, of a document coming down to the death of his
father Aethelwulf. It traces the pedigree of Aethelwulf to Cerdic, but it
keeps this district from the rhythmical nucleus, in which it traces Cerdic
to Woden, and no further.
(4) Then, in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, under the year 855, the pedigree
is given in its most elaborate form. There the genealogy of Aethelwulf is
traced in one unbroken series, not merely through Cerdic to Woden, but from
Woden through a long line of Woden's ancestors, including Frealaf, Geat,
Sceldwa and Sceaf, to Noah and Adam.
It has been noted above[624] that none of the _Chronicle_ pedigrees {318}
stop at Sceaf. The _Chronicle_, in the stages above Woden, recognizes as
stopping places only Geat (Northumbrian pedigree, anno 547) or Adam
(West-Saxon pedigree, anno 855).
(5) The Chronicle of Ethelwerd (_c._ 1000) does, however, stop at
Scef[625]. Now it has been argued that Ethelwerd's pedigree is merely
abbreviated from the pedigree in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ under 855, and
that, in making Scef the final stage, and in what he tells us about that
hero, Ethelwerd is merely adapting what he had read in _Beowulf_ about
Scyld[626]. But this seems hardly possible. Ethelwerd, it is true, borrows
most of his facts from the _Chronicle_, from Bede, and other known sources:
but there are some passages which show that he had access to a source now
lost. Ethelwerd was a member of the West-Saxon royal house, and he wrote
his Chronicle for a kinswoman, Matilda, in order, as he says, to explain
their common stock and race. They were both descended from Aethelwulf, the
chronicler being great-great-grandson of Aethelred, and the lady to whom he
dedicates his work being great-great-granddaughter of Alfred. So he writes
to tell "who and whence were their kin, so far as memory adduces, and our
parents have taught us." Accordingly, though he begins his Chronicle with
the Creation, the bulk of it is devoted to the deeds of his or Matilda's
ancestors. Is it credible that he would have cut out all the stages in
their common pedigree between Scyld and Scef, that he would have sacrificed
all the ancestors of Scef, thus severing relations with Noah and Adam, and
that he would have attributed to Scef the story which in _Beowulf_ is
attributed to Scyld, all this simply in order to bring his English pedigree
into some harmony with what is told about the Danish pedigree in
_Beowulf_--a poem of which we have no evidence that he had ever heard?
To suppose him to have done this, is to make him sacrifice, _without any
reason_, just that part of the pedigree in the _Chronicle_ under 855 which,
from all we know of Ethelwerd, was most likely to have interested him: that
which connected his race with Noah and Adam. Further, it is to suppose him
to have reproduced just those stages in the pedigree which on critical
{319} grounds modern scholars can show to be the oldest, and to have
modified or rejected just those which on critical grounds modern scholars
can show to be later accretion. When Brandl supposes Ethelwerd to have
produced his pedigree by comparing together merely the materials which have
come down to us to-day, namely _Beowulf_ and the _Chronicle_, he is, in
reality, attributing to him the mind and acumen of a modern critic. An
Anglo-Saxon alderman could only have detected and rejected the additions by
using some material which has _not_ come down to us. What more natural than
that Ethelwerd, who writes as the historian of the West-Saxon royal family,
should have known of a family pedigree which traced the line up to Sceaf
and his arrival in the boat, and that he should have (rightly) thought this
to be more authoritative than the pedigree in the _Chronicle_ under the
year 855, which had been expanded from it? Prof. Chadwick, it seems to me,
is here quite justified in holding that Ethelwerd had "acquired the
genealogy from some unknown source, in a more primitive form than that
contained in the _Chronicle_[627]."
But, because the source of Ethelwerd's pedigree is more primitive than that
contained in the _Chronicle_ under the year 855, it does not follow that it
goes back to heathen times. Wessex had been converted more than two
centuries earlier.
We are now in a position to make some estimate of the antiquity of Scyld
and Sceaf in the West-Saxon pedigree. The nucleus of this pedigree is to be
found in the verses connecting Cynric and Cerdic with Woden. (Even as late
as Aethelwulf and Alfred this nucleus is often kept distinct from the
later, more historic stages connecting Cerdic with living men.) Pedigrees
of other royal houses go to Woden, and many stop there; however, in times
comparatively early, but yet Christian, we find Woden provided with five
ancestors: later, Ethelwerd gives him ten: the _Chronicle_ gives him
twenty-five. It is evidently a process of accumulation.
Now, if the name of Scyld had occurred in the portion of the pedigree which
traces the West-Saxon kings up to Woden, {320} it would possess sufficient
authority to form the basis of an argument. But Scyld, like Heremod, Beaw
and Sceaf, occurs in the fantastic development of the pedigree, by which
Woden is connected up with Adam and Noah. The fact that these heroes occur
_above_ Woden makes it almost incredible that their position in the
pedigree can go back to heathen times. Those who believed in Woden as a god
can hardly have believed at the same time that he was a descendant of the
Danish king Scyld. This difficulty Prof. Chadwick admits: "It is difficult
to believe that in heathen times Woden was credited with five generations
of ancestors, as in the _Frealaf-Geat_ list." Still less is it credible
that he was credited with 25 generations of ancestors, as in the
_Frealaf-Geat-Sceldwa-Sceaf-Noe-Adam_ list.
The obvious conclusion seems to me to be that the names above Woden were
added in Christian times to the original list, which in heathen times only
went back to Woden, and _which is still extant in this form_. A Christian,
rationalizing Woden as a human magician, would have no difficulty in
placing him far down the ages, just as Saxo Grammaticus does[628].
Obviously _Noe-Adam_ must be an addition of Christian times, and the same
seems to me to apply to all the other names above Woden, which, though
ancient and Germanic, are not therefore ancient and Germanic in the
capacity of ancestors of Woden.
And even if these extraordinary ancestors of Woden were really believed in
in heathen times, they cannot have been regarded as the special property of
any one nation. For it was never claimed that the West-Saxon kings had any
unique distinction in tracing their ancestry to Woden, such as would give
them a special claim upon Woden's forefathers. How then can the ancient
belief (if indeed it _were_ an ancient belief) that Woden was descended
from Scyld, King of Denmark, prove that the Anglo-Saxons regarded
_themselves_ as specially related to the Danes? For any such relationship
derived through Woden must have been shared by all descendants of the
All-Father.
Prof. Chadwick avoids this difficulty by supposing that Woden did not
originally occur in the pedigree, but is a later {321} insertion[629]. But
how can this be so when, of the two forms in which the West-Saxon pedigree
appears, one (and, so far as our evidence goes, much the older one) traces
the kings to Woden _and stops there_. The _object_ of this pedigree is to
connect the West-Saxon kings with Woden. The expanded pedigrees, which
carry on the line still further, from Woden to Sceldwa, Sceaf and Adam,
though very numerous, are all traceable to one, or at most two, sources. It
is surely not the right method to regard Woden as an interpolation (though
he occurs in that portion of the pedigree which is common to all versions,
some of which we can probably trace back to primitive times), and to regard
as the original element Scyld and Sceaf (though they form part of the
continuation of the pedigree found only in, at most, two families of MSS
which we cannot trace back beyond the ninth century).
Besides, there is the strongest external support for Woden in the very
place which he occupies in the West-Saxon pedigree. That pedigree is traced
in all its texts up to one Baldaeg and his father Woden. Those texts which
further give Woden's ancestry make him a descendant of Frealaf--they
generally make Woden son of Frealaf, though some texts insert an
intermediate Frithuwald.
Now the very ancient Northumbrian pedigree also goes up, by a different
route, to "Beldaeg," and gives him Woden for a father. In some versions
(e.g. the _Historia Brittonum_) the Northumbrian pedigree stops there: in
others (e.g. the _Vespasian MS_) Woden has a father Frealaf. How then _can_
it be argued, contrary to the unanimous evidence of all the dozen or more
MSS of the West-Saxon pedigree, that _Woden_, standing as he does between
his proper father and his proper son, is an interpolation? There is no
evidence whatsoever to support such an argument, and everything to disprove
it.
The fact that Sceaf, Sceldwa and Beaw occur above Woden, that some versions
of the pedigree stop at Woden, and that in heathen times presumably all
must have stopped when they reached the All-Father, seems to me a fatal
argument--not against the antiquity of the legends of Sceaf, Sceldwa, and
{322} Beaw, but against the antiquity of these characters in the capacity
(given to them in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_) of ancestors of the
West-Saxon kings, and against the vast deduction concerning the origin of
the English nation which Prof. Chadwick draws from this supposed antiquity.
(IV) Precisely the same argument--that Sceaf, Sceldwa and Beaw are found
_above Woden_ in the pedigree of the English kings, and are not likely to
have occupied that place in primitive heathen times, is fatal to the
attempt to draw from this pedigree any argument that the myths of these
heroes were specially and exclusively Anglo-Saxon. The argument of
Muellenhoff and other scholars for an ancient, _purely Anglo-Saxon_
Beowa-myth[630] falls, therefore, to the ground.
* * * * *
D. EVIDENCE FOR THE DATE OF _BEOWULF_. THE RELATION OF _BEOWULF_ TO THE
CLASSICAL EPIC
A few years ago there was a tendency to exaggerate the value of grammatical
forms in fixing the date of Old English poetry, and attempts were made to
arrange Old English poems in a chronological series, according to the exact
percentage of "early" to "late" forms in each. There has now been a natural
reaction against the assumption that, granting certain forms to be archaic,
these would necessarily be found in a percentage diminishing exactly
according to the dates of composition of the various poems in which they
occur. The reaction has now gone to the other extreme, and grammatical
facts are in danger of being regarded as not being "in any way valid or
helpful indications of dates[631]."
Schuecking[632], in an elaborate recent monograph on the date of _Beowulf_,
rejects the grammatical evidence as valueless, and proceeds to date the
poem about two centuries later than has usually been held, placing its
composition at the court of some christianized Scandinavian monarch in
England, about 900 A.D.
{323}
But it surely does not follow that, because grammatical data have been
misused, therefore no use can be made of them. And, if _Beowulf_ was
composed about the year 900, from stories current among the Viking
settlers, how are we to account for the fact that the proper names in
_Beowulf_ are given, not in the Scandinavian forms of the Viking age, nor
in corruptions of such forms, but in the correct English forms which we
should expect, according to English sound laws, if the names had been
brought over in the sixth century, and handed down traditionally[633]?
For example, King Hygelac no doubt called himself _Hugilaikaz_. The
_Chochilaicus_ of Gregory of Tours is a good--if uncouth--shot at
reproducing this name. The name became, in Norse, _Hugleikr_ and in Danish
_Huglek_ (_Hugletus_ in Saxo): traditional kings so named are recorded,
though it is difficult to find that they have anything in common with the
King Hygelac in _Beowulf_[634]. Had the name been introduced into England
in Viking times, we should expect the Scandinavian form, not
_Hygel[=a]c_[635].
Even in the rare cases where the character in _Beowulf_ and his
Scandinavian equivalent bear names which are not phonologically identical,
the difference does not point to any corruption such as might have arisen
from borrowing in Viking days[636]. We have only to contrast the way in
which the names of Viking chiefs are recorded in the _Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle_, to be convinced that the Scandinavian stories recorded in
_Beowulf_ are due to contact during the age when Britain was being
conquered, not during the Viking period three or four centuries later[637].
And the arguments from literary and political history, which Schuecking
adduces to prove his late date, seem to me to point in exactly the opposite
direction, and to confirm the orthodox view which would place _Beowulf_
nearer 700 than 900.
{324}
Schuecking urges that, however highly we estimate the civilizing effect of
Christianity, it was only in the second half of the seventh century that
England was thoroughly permeated by the new faith. Can we expect already,
at the beginning of the eighth century, a courtly work, showing, as does
_Beowulf_, such wonderful examples of tact, modesty, unselfishness and
magnanimity? And this at the time when King Ceolwulf was forced by his
rebellious subjects to take the cowl. For Schuecking[638], following
Hodgkin[639], reminds us how, in the eighth century, out of 15 Northumbrian
kings, five were dethroned, five murdered; two abdicated, and only three
held the crown to their death; and how at the end of the century
Charlemagne called the Northumbrian Angles "a perfidious and perverse
nation, murderers of their lords."
But surely, at the base of all this argument, lies the same assumption
which, as Schuecking rightly holds, vitiates so many of the grammatical
arguments; the assumption that development must necessarily be in steady
and progressive proportion. We may take Penda as a type of the unreclaimed
heathen, and Edward the Confessor of the chaste and saintly churchman; but
Anglo-Saxon history was by no means a development in steady progression, of
diminishing percentages of ruffianism and increasing percentages of
saintship.
The knowledge of, and interest in, heathen custom shown in _Beowulf_, such
as the vivid accounts of cremation, would lead us to place it as near
heathen times as other data will allow. So much must be granted to the
argument of Prof. Chadwick[640]. But the Christian tone, so far from
leading us to place _Beowulf_ late, would _also_ lead us to place it near
the time of the conversion. For it is precisely in these times just after
the conversion, that we get the most striking instances in all Old English
history of that "tact, modesty, generosity, and magnanimity" which
Schuecking rightly regards as characteristic of _Beowulf_.
King Oswin (who was slain in 651) was, Bede tells us, handsome, courteous
of speech and bearing, bountiful both to great {325} and lowly, beloved of
all men for his qualities of mind and body, so that noblemen came from all
over England to enter his service--yet of all his endowments gentleness and
humility were the chief. We cannot read the description without being
reminded of the words of the thegns in praise of the dead Beowulf. Indeed,
I doubt if Beowulf would have carried gentleness to those around him quite
so far as did Oswin. For Oswin had given to Bishop Aidan an exceptionally
fine horse--and Aidan gave it to a beggar who asked alms. The king's mild
suggestion that a horse of less value would have been good enough for the
beggar, and that the bishop needed a good horse for his own use, drew from
the saint the stern question "Is that son of a mare dearer to thee than the
Son of God?" The king, who had come from hunting, stood warming himself at
the fire, thinking over what had passed; then he suddenly ungirt his sword,
gave it to his squire, and throwing himself at the feet of the bishop,
promised never again to grudge anything he might give in his charities.
Of course such conduct was exceptional in seventh century Northumbria--it
convinced Aidan that the king was too good to live long, as indeed proved
to be the case. But it shows that the ideals of courtesy and gentleness
shown in _Beowulf_ were by no means beyond the possibility of
attainment--were indeed surpassed by a seventh century king. I do not know
if they could be so easily paralleled in later Old English times.
And what is true from the point of view of morals is true equally from that
of art and learning. In spite of the misfortunes of Northumbrian kings in
the eighth century, the _first third_ of that century was "the Golden Age
of Anglo-Saxon England[641]." And not unnaturally, for it had been preceded
by half a century during which Northumbria had been free both from internal
strife and from invasion. The empire won by Oswiu over Picts and Scots in
the North had been lost at the battle of Nectansmere: but that battle had
been followed by the twenty years reign of the learned Aldfrid, whose
scholarship did not prevent him from nobly retrieving the state of the
kingdom[642], though he could not recover the lost dominions.
{326}
Now, whatever we may think of _Beowulf_ as poetry, it is remarkable for its
conscious and deliberate art, and for the tone of civilization which
pervades it. And this half century was distinguished, above any other
period of Old English history, precisely for its art and its civilization.
Four and a half centuries later, when the works of great Norman master
builders were rising everywhere in the land, the buildings which Bishop
Wilfrid had put up during this first period of conversion were still
objects of admiration, even for those who had seen the glories of the great
Roman basilicas[643].
Nor is there anything surprising in the fact that this "golden age" was not
maintained. On the contrary, it is "in accordance with the phenomena of
Saxon history in general, in which seasons of brilliant promise are
succeeded by long eras of national eclipse. It is from this point of view
quite in accordance with natural likelihood that the age of conversion was
one of such stimulus to the artistic powers of the people that a level of
effort and achievement was reached which subsequent generations were not
able to maintain. The carved crosses and the coins certainly degenerate in
artistic value as the centuries pass away, and the fine barbaric gold and
encrusted work is early in date[644]."
Already in the early part of the eighth century signs of decay are to be
observed. At the end of his _Ecclesiastical History_, Bede complains that
the times are so full of disturbance that one knows not what to say, or
what the end will be. And these fears were justified. A hundred and forty
years of turmoil and decay follow, till the civilization of the North and
the Midlands was overthrown by the Danes, and York became the uneasy seat
of a heathen jarl.
How it should be possible to see in these facts, as contrasted with the
Christian and civilized tone of _Beowulf_, any argument for late date, I
cannot see. On the contrary, because of its Christian civilization combined
with its still vivid, if perhaps not always quite exact, recollection of
heathen customs, we should be inclined to put _Beowulf_ in the early
Christian ages.
{327}
A further argument put forward for this late date is the old one that the
Scandinavian sympathies of _Beowulf_ show it to have been composed for a
Scandinavian court, the court, Schuecking thinks, of one of the princes who
ruled over those portions of England which the Danes had settled[645]. Of
course Schuecking is too sound a scholar to revive at this time of day the
old fallacy that the Anglo-Saxons ought to have taken no interest in the
deeds of any but Anglo-Saxon heroes. But how, he asks, are we to account
for such _enthusiasm_ for, such a burning interest in, a people of alien
dialect and foreign dynasty, such as the Scyldings of Denmark?
The answer seems to me to be that the enthusiasm of _Beowulf_ is not for
the Danish nation as such: on the contrary, _Beowulf_ depicts a situation
which is most humiliating to the Danes. For twelve years they have suffered
the depredations of Grendel; Hrothgar and his kin have proved helpless: all
the Danes have been unequal to the need. Twice at least this is emphasized
in the most uncompromising, and indeed insulting, way[646]. The poet's
enthusiasm is not, then, for the Danish race as such, but for the ideal of
a great court with its body of retainers. Such retainers are not
necessarily native born--rather is it the mark of the great court that it
draws men from far and wide to enter the service, whether permanently or
temporarily, even as Beowulf came from afar to help the aged Hrothgar in
his need.
It is this ideal of personal valour and personal loyalty, rather than of
tribal patriotism, which pervades _Beowulf_, and which certainly suits the
known facts of the seventh and early eighth centuries. The bitterest strife
in England in the seventh century had been between the two quite new states
of Northumbria and Mercia, both equally of Anglian race. Both these states
had been built up by a combination of smaller units, and not without
violating the old local patriotisms of the diverse elements from which they
had been formed. At first, at any rate, no such thing as Northumbrian or
Mercian patriotism can have existed. Loyalty was personal, to the king.
Neither the kingdom nor the _comitatus_ was homogeneous. We have seen {328}
that Bede mentions it as a peculiar honour to a Northumbrian prince that
_from all parts of England_ nobles came to enter his service. We must not
demand from the seventh or eighth century our ideals of exclusive
enthusiasm for the land of one's birth, ideals which make it disreputable
for a "mercenary" to sell his sword. The ideal is, on the contrary, loyalty
to a prince whose service a warrior _voluntarily_ enters. And the Danish
court is depicted as a pattern of such loyalty--before the Scyldings began
to work evil[647], by the treason of Hrothulf.
Further, the fact that the Danish court at Leire had been a heathen one
might be matter for regret, but it would not prevent its being praised by
an Englishman about 700. For England was then entirely Christian. In the
process of conversion no single Christian had, so far as we know, been
martyred. There had been no war of religion. If Penda had fought against
Oswald, it had been as the king of Mercia against the king of Northumbria.
Penda's allies were Christian, and he showed no antipathy to the new
faith[648]. So that at this date there was no reason for men to feel any
deep hostility towards a heathendom which had been the faith of their
grandfathers, and with which there had never been any embittered conflict.
But in 900 the position was quite different. For more than a generation the
country had been engaged in a life-and-death struggle between two warring
camps, the "Christian men" and the "heathen men." The "heathen men" were in
process of conversion, but were liable to be ever recruited afresh from
beyond the sea. It seems highly unlikely that _Beowulf_ could have been
written at this date, by some English poet, for the court of a converted
Scandinavian prince, with a view perhaps, as Schuecking suggests, to
educating his children in the English speech. In such a case the one thing
likely to be avoided by the English poet, with more than two centuries of
Christianity behind him, would surely have been the praise of that
Scandinavian heathendom, from which his patron had freed himself, and from
which his children were to be weaned. The martyrdom of S. Edmund might have
seemed a more appropriate theme[649]. {329} The tolerant attitude towards
heathen customs, and the almost antiquarian interest in them, very justly,
as it seems to me, emphasized by Schuecking[650], is surely far more
possible in A.D. 700 than in A.D. 900. For between those dates heathendom
had ceased to be an antiquarian curiosity, and had become an imminent
peril.
If those are right who hold that _Beowulf_ is no purely native growth, but
shows influence of the classical epic, then again it is easier to credit
such influence about the year 700 than 900. At the earlier date we have
scholars like Aldhelm and Bede, both well acquainted with Virgil, yet both
interested in vernacular verse. It has been urged, as a _reductio ad
absurdum_ of the view which would connect _Beowulf_ with Virgil, that the
relation to the _Odyssey_ is more obvious than that to the _Aeneid_.
Perhaps, however, some remote and indirect connection even between
_Beowulf_ and the _Odyssey_ is not altogether unthinkable, about the year
700. At the end of the seventh century there was a flourishing school of
Greek learning in England, under Hadrian and the Greek Archbishop Theodore,
both "well read in sacred _and in secular_ literature." In 730 their
scholars were still alive, and, Bede tells us, could speak Greek and Latin
as correctly as their native tongue. Bede himself knew something about the
_Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_. Not till eight centuries have passed, and we
reach Grocyn and Linacre, was it again to be as easy for an Englishman to
have a first-hand knowledge of a Greek classic as it was about the year
700. What scholarship had sunk to by the days of Alfred, we know: and we
know that all Alfred's patronage did not produce any scholar whom we can
think of as in the least degree comparable to Bede.
So that from the point of view of its close touch with heathendom, its
tolerance for heathen customs, its Christian magnanimity and gentleness,
its conscious art, and its learned tone, all historic and artistic analogy
would lead us to place _Beowulf_ in the great age--the age of Bede.
This has brought us to another question--more interesting to many than the
mere question of date. Are we to suppose {330} any direct connection
between the classical and the Old English epic?
As nations pass through their "Heroic Age," similar social conditions will
necessarily be reflected by many similarities in their poetry. In heroic
lays like _Finnsburg_ or _Hildebrand_ or the Norse poems, phrases and
situations may occur which remind us of phrases and situations in the
_Iliad_, without affording any ground for supposing classical influence
direct or indirect.
But there is much more in _Beowulf_ than mere accidental coincidence of
phrase or situation.
A simple-minded romancer would have made the _Aeneid_ a biography of Aeneas
from the cradle to the grave. Not so Virgil. The story begins with mention
of Carthage. Aeneas then comes on the scene. At a banquet he tells to Dido
his earlier adventures. Just so _Beowulf_ begins, not with the birth of
Beowulf and his boyhood, but with Heorot. Beowulf arrives. At the banquet,
in reply to Unferth, he narrates his earlier adventures. The _Beowulf_-poet
is not content merely to tell us that there was minstrelsy at the feast,
but like Virgil or Homer, he must give an account of what was sung. The
epic style leads often to almost verbal similarities. Jupiter consoling
Hercules for the loss of the son of his host says:
stat sua cuique dies, breve et inreparabile tempus
omnibus est vitae; sed famam extendere factis
hoc virtutis opus[651].
In the same spirit and almost in the same words does Beowulf console
Hrothgar for the loss of his friend:
[=U]re [=ae]ghwylc sceal ende geb[=i]dan
worolde l[=i]fes; wyrce s[=e] the m[=o]te
d[=o]mes [=ae]r d[=e]athe; thaet bith drihtguman
unlifgendum aefter s[=e]lest.
On the other hand, though we are often struck by the likeness in spirit and
in plan, it must be allowed that there is no tangible or conclusive proof
of borrowing[652]. But the influence may have been none the less effective
for being indirect: nor is {331} it quite certain that the author, had he
known his Virgil, would necessarily have left traces of direct borrowing.
For the deep Christian feeling, which has given to _Beowulf_ its almost
prudish propriety and its edifying tone, is manifested by no direct and
dogmatic reference to Christian personages or doctrines.
I sympathize with Prof. Chadwick's feeling that a man who knew Virgil would
not have disguised his knowledge, and would probably have lacked both
inclination and ability to compose such a poem as _Beowulf_[653]. But does
not this feeling rest largely upon the analogy of other races and ages? Is
it borne out by such known facts as we can gather about this period? The
reticence of _Beowulf_ with reference to Christianity does not harmonize
with one's preconceived ideas; and Bishop Aldhelm gives us an even greater
surprise. Let anyone read, or try to read, Aldhelm's _Epistola ad Acircium,
sive liber de septenario et de metris_. Let him then ask himself "Is it
possible that this learned pedant can also have been the author of English
poems which King Alfred--surely no mean judge--thought best of all he
knew?" These poems may of course have been educated and learned in tone.
But we have the authority of King Alfred for the fact that Aldhelm used to
perform at the cross roads as a common minstrel, and that he could hold his
audiences with such success that they resorted to him again and again[654].
Only after he had made himself popular by several performances did he
attempt to weave edifying matter into his verse. And the popular, secular
poetry of Aldhelm, his _carmen triviale_, remained current among the common
people for centuries. Nor was Aldhelm's classical knowledge of late growth,
something superimposed upon an earlier love of popular poetry, for he had
{332} studied under Hadrian as a boy[655]. Later we are told that King Ine
imported two Greek teachers from Athens for the help of Aldhelm and his
school[656]; this may be exaggeration.
Everything seems to show that about 700 an atmosphere existed in England
which might easily have led a scholarly Englishman, acquainted with the old
lays, to have set to work to compose an epic. Even so venerable a person as
Bede, during his last illness, uttered his last teaching not, as we should
expect on _a priori_ grounds, in Latin hexameters, but in English metre.
The evidence for this is conclusive[657]. But, at a later date, Alcuin
would surely have condemned the minstrelsy of Aldhelm[658]. Even King
Alfred seems to have felt that it needed some apology. It would have
rendered Aldhelm liable to severe censure under the Laws of King
Edgar[659]; and Dunstan's biographer indignantly denies the charge brought
against his hero of having learnt the heathen songs of his
forefathers[660].
The evidence is not as plentiful as we might wish, but it rather suggests
that the chasm between secular poetry and ecclesiastical learning was more
easily bridged in the first generations after the conversion than was the
case later.
But, however that may be, it assuredly does not give any grounds for
abandoning the old view, based largely upon grammatical and metrical
considerations, which would make _Beowulf_ a product of the early eighth
century, and substituting for it a theory which would make our poem a
product of mixed Saxon and Danish society in the early tenth century.
* * * * *
{333}
E. THE "JUTE-QUESTION" REOPENED
The view that the Geatas of _Beowulf_ are the Jutes (Iuti, Iutae) of Bede
(i.e. the tribe which colonized Kent, the Isle of Wight and Hampshire) has
been held by many eminent scholars. It was dealt with only briefly above
(pp. 8-9) because I thought the theory was now recognized as being no
longer tenable. Lately, however, it has been maintained with conviction and
ability by two Danish scholars, Schuette and Kier. It therefore becomes
necessary once more to reopen the question, now that the only elaborate
discussion of it in the English language favours the "Jute-theory,"
especially as Axel Olrik gave the support of his great name to the view
that "the question is still open[661]" and that "the last word has not been
said concerning the nationality of the Geatas[662]."
As in most controversies, a number of rather irrelevant side issues have
been introduced[663], so that from mere weariness students are sometimes
inclined to leave the problem undecided. Yet the interpretation of the
opening chapters of Scandinavian history turns upon it.
Supporters of the "Jute-theory" have seldom approached the subject from the
point of view of Old English. Bugge[664] perhaps did so: but the
"Jute-theory" has been held chiefly by students of Scandinavian history,
literature or geography, like Fahlbeck[665], Steenstrup[666], Gering[667],
Olrik[668], Schuette[669] and Kier[670]. But, now that the laws of Old
English sound-change have been {334} clearly defined, it seldom happens
that anyone who approaches the subject primarily as a student of the
Anglo-Saxon language holds the view that the Geatas are Jutes.
And this is naturally so: for, from the point of view of language, the
question is not disputable. The _G[=e]atas_ phonologically are the _Gautar_
(the modern Goetar of Southern Sweden). It is admitted that the words are
identical[671]. And, equally, it is admitted that the word _G[=e]atas_
cannot be identical with the word _Iuti_, _Iutae_, used by Bede as the name
of the Jutes who colonized Kent[671]. Bede's _Iuti_, _Iutae_, on the
contrary, would correspond to a presumed Old English _*[=I]uti_ or
_*[=I]utan_[672], current in his time in Northumbria. This in later
Northumbrian would become _[=I]ote_, _[=I]otan_ (though the form _[=I]ute_,
_[=I]utan_ might also survive). The dialect forms which we should expect
(and which we find in the genitive and dative) corresponding to this would
be: Mercian, _[=E]ote_, _[=E]otan_; Late West-Saxon, _[=Y]te_, _[=Y]tan_
(through an intermediate Early West-Saxon _*[=I]ete_, _*[=I]etan_, which is
not recorded).
If, then, the word _G[=e]atas_ came to supplant the correct form _[=I]ote_,
_[=I]otan_ (or its Mercian and West-Saxon equivalents _[=E]ote_,
_[=E]otan_, _[=Y]te_, _[=Y]tan_), this can only have been the result of
confusion. Such confusion is, on abstract grounds, conceivable: it is
always possible that the name of one tribe may come to be attached to
another. "Scot" has ceased to mean "Irishman," and has come to mean "North
Briton"; and there is no intrinsic impossibility in the word _G[=e]atas_
having been transferred by Englishmen, from the half-forgotten Gautar, to
the Jutes, and having driven out the correct name of the latter, _[=I]ote_,
_[=I]otan_. For example, there might have been an exiled Geatic family
among the Jutish invaders, which might have become so prominent as to cause
{335} the name _G[=e]atas_ to supplant the correct _[=I]ote_, _[=E]ote_,
etc. But, whoever the Geatas may have been, _Beowulf_ is their chief early
record: indeed, almost all we know of their earliest history is derived
from _Beowulf_. In _Beowulf_, therefore, if anywhere, the old names and
traditions should be remembered. The word _G[=e]at_ occurs some 50 times in
the poem. The poet obviously wishes to use other synonyms, for the sake of
variety and alliteration: hence we get _Weder-G[=e]atas_, _Wederas_,
_S[=ae]-G[=e]atas_, _G[=u]dh-G[=e]atas_. Now, if these Geatas are the
Jutes, how comes it that the poet _never_ calls them such, never speaks of
them under the correct tribal name of _[=E]ote_, etc., although this was
the current name at the time _Beowulf_ was written, and indeed for
centuries later?
For, demonstrably, the form _[=E]ote_, etc., _was_ recognized as the name
of the Jutes till at least the twelfth century. Then it died out of current
speech, and only Bede's Latin _Iuti_ (and the modern "Jute" derived
therefrom) remained as terms used by the historians. The evidence is
conclusive:
(_a_) Bede, writing about the time when _Beowulf_, in its present form, is
supposed to have been composed, uses _Iuti_, _Iutae_, corresponding to a
presumed contemporary Northumbrian _*[=I]uti_, _*[=I]utan_.
(_b_) In the O.E. translation of Bede, made in Mercia perhaps two centuries
after Bede's time, we do indeed in one place find "Geata," "Geatum" used to
translate "Iutarum," "Iutis," instead of the correctly corresponding
Mercian form "Eota," "Eotum." Only two MSS are extant at this point. But
since both agree, and since they belong to different types, it is probable
that "Geata" here is no mere copyist's error, but is due to the translator
himself[673]. But, later, when the translator {336} has to render Bede's
"Iutorum," he gives, not "Geata," but the correct Mercian "Eota." There can
be no possible doubt here, for five MSS are extant at this point, and all
give the correct form--four in the Mercian, "Eota," whilst one gives the
West-Saxon equivalent, "Ytena."
Now the _G[=e]ata_-passage in the Bede translation is the chief piece of
evidence which those who would explain the Geatas of _Beowulf_ as "Jutes"
can call: and it does not, in fact, much help them. What they have to prove
is that the _Beowulf_-poet could _consistently and invariably_ have used
_G[=e]atas_ in the place of _[=E]ote_. To produce an instance in which the
two terms are both used by the same translator is very little use, when
what has to be proved is that the one term had already, at a much earlier
period, entirely ousted the other.
All our other evidence is for the invariable use of the correct form
_[=I]ote_, _[=I]otan_, etc. in Old English.
(_c_) The passage from Bede was again translated, and inserted into a copy
of the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, which was sent quite early to one of the
great abbeys of Northumbria[674]. In this, "Iutis, Iutarum" is represented
by the correct Northumbrian equivalent, "Iutum," "Iotum"; "Iutna."
(_d_) This Northumbrian Chronicle, or a transcript of it, subsequently came
South, to Canterbury. There, roughly about the year 1100, it was used to
interpolate an Early West-Saxon copy of the Chronicle. Surely at
Canterbury, the capital of the old Jutish kingdom, people must have known
the correct form of the Jutish name, whether _G[=e]atas_ or _[=I]ote_. We
find the forms "Iotum," "Iutum"; "Iutna."
(_e_) Corresponding to this Northumbrian (and Kentish) form _[=I]ote_,
Mercian _[=E]ote_, the Late West-Saxon form should be _[=Y]te_. Now _MS
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge_, 41, gives us "the Wessex version of the
English Bede" and is written by a scribe who knew the Hampshire
district[675]. In this MS the "Eota" of the Mercian original has been
transcribed as "Ytena," "Eotum" as "Ytum," showing that the scribe
understood the tribal name and its equivalent correctly. This was about the
{337} time of the Norman Conquest, but the name continued to be understood
till the early twelfth century at least. For Florence of Worcester records
that William Rufus was slain _in Noua Foresta quae lingua Anglorum Ytene
nuncupatur_; and in another place he speaks of the same event as happening
_in prouincia Jutarum in Noua Foresta_[676], which shows that Florence
understood that "Ytene" was _[=Y]tena land_, "the province of the Jutes."
It comes, then, to this. The "Jute-hypothesis" postulates not only that, at
the time _Beowulf_ was composed, _G[=e]atas_ had come to mean "Jutes," but
also that it had so completely ousted the correct old name _[=I]uti,
[=I]ote, [=E]ote, [=Y]te_, that none of the latter terms are ever used in
the poem as synonyms for Beowulf's people[677]. Yet all the evidence shows
that _[=I]uti_ etc. was the recognized name when Bede wrote, and we have
evidence at intervals showing that it was so understood till four centuries
later. But not only was _[=I]uti_, _[=I]ote_ never superseded in O.E.
times; there is no real evidence that _G[=e]atas_ was ever _generally_ used
to signify "Jutes." The fact that one translator in one passage (writing
probably some two centuries after _Beowulf_ was composed) uses "Geata,"
"Geatum," where he should have used "Eota," "Eotum," does not prove the
misnomer to have been general--especially when the same translator
subsequently uses the correct form "Eota."
I do not think sufficient importance has been attached to what seems (to
me) the vital argument against the "Jute-theory." It is not merely that
_G[=e]atas_ is the exact phonological equivalent of _Gautar_ (Goetar) and
cannot be equivalent to Bede's _Iuti_. This difficulty may be got over by
the assumption that somehow the _Iuti_, or some of them, had adopted the
name _G[=e]atas_: and we are not in a position to disprove such assumption.
But the advocates of the "Jute-theory" have further to assume that, at the
date when _Beowulf_ was written, the correct name _Iuti_ (Northumbrian
_[=I]ote_, Mercian _[=E]ote_, West-Saxon _[=Y]te_) must have so passed into
disuse that it could not be once used as a {338} synonym for Beowulf's
people, by our synonym-hunting poet. And this assumption we _are_ in a
position to disprove.
The Jute-theory would therefore still be untenable on the ground of the
name, even though it were laboriously proved that, from the historical and
geographical standpoint, there was more to be said for it than had hitherto
been recognized. But even this has not been proved: quite the reverse. As I
have tried to show above, historical and geographical considerations,
though in themselves not absolutely conclusive, point emphatically to an
identification with the Goetar, rather than with the Jutes[678].
The relations of Beowulf and the Geatas with the kings of Denmark and of
Sweden are the constant topic of the poem. Now the land of the Goetar _was_
situated between Denmark and Sweden. But if the Geatas be Jutes, their
neighbours were the Danes on the east and the Angles on the south; farther
away, across the Cattegat lay the Goetar, and beyond these the Swedes. If
the Geatas be Jutes, why should their immediate neighbours, the Angles,
never appear in _Beowulf_ as having any dealings with them? And why, above
all, should the Goetar never be mentioned, whilst the Swedes, far to the
north, play so large a part? Even if Swedes and Goetar had at this time
been under one king, the Goetar could not have been thus ignored, seeing
that, owing to their position, the brunt of the fighting must have fallen
on them[679]. But we know that the Goetar were independent. The strictly
contemporary evidence of Procopius shows quite conclusively that they were
one of the strongest of the Scandinavian kingdoms[680]. How then could
warfare be carried on for three generations between Jutes and Swedes
without concerning the Goetar, whose territory lay in between?
Again, in the "Catalogue of Kings" in _Widsith_, the Swedes are named with
their famous king Ongentheow. The Jutes (_[=Y]te_) are also mentioned, with
_their_ king. And their king is {339} not Hrethel, Haethcyn, Hygelac or
Heardred, but a certain Gefwulf, whose name does not even alliterate with
that of any known king of the Geatas[681].
Again, in the (certainly very early) _Book on Monsters_, Hygelac is
described as _Huiglaucus qui imperavit Getis_. Now Getis can mean
Goetar[682], but can hardly mean Jutes.
The geographical case against the identification of Geatas and Goetar
depends upon the assumption that the western sea-coast of the Goetar in
ancient times must have coincided with that of West Gothland
(Vestra-Goetland) in mediaeval and modern times. Now as this coast consists
merely of a small strip south of the river Goetaelv, it is argued that the
Goetar could not be the maritime Geatas of _Beowulf_, capable of
undertaking a Viking raid to the mouth of the Rhine. But the assumption
that the frontiers of the Goetar about A.D. 500 were the same as they were
a thousand years later, is not only improbable on _a priori_ grounds, but,
as Schueck has shown[683], can be definitely disproved. Adam of Bremen,
writing in the eleventh century, speaks of the river Gothelba (Goetaelv) as
running through the midst of the peoples of the Goetar. And the obvious
connection between the name of the river and the name of the people seems
to make it certain that Adam is right, and that the original Goetar must
have dwelt around the river Goetaelv. But, if so, then they were a maritime
folk: for the river Goetaelv is merely the outlet which connects Lake Wener
with the sea, running a course almost parallel with the shore and nowhere
very distant from it[684]. But even when Adam wrote, the {340} Goetar to
the north of the river had long been politically subject to Norway[685]:
and the _Heimskringla_ tells us how this happened.
Harold Fairhair, King of Norway (a contemporary of King Alfred), attacked
them: they had staked the river Goetaelv against him, but he moored his
ships to the stakes[686] and harried _on either shore_: he fought far and
wide in the country, had many battles _on either side of the river_, and
finally slew the leader of the Goetar, Hrani Gauzki (the Goetlander). Then
he annexed to Norway all the land north of the river and west of Lake
Wener. Thenceforward the Goetaelv was the boundary between Norway and West
Gothland, though the country ultimately became Swedish, as it now is. But
it is abundantly clear from the _Heimskringla_ that Harold regarded as
hostile all the territory north of the Goetaelv, and between Lake Wener and
the sea[687] (the old R['a]nriki and the modern Bohuslaen).
But, if so, then the objection that the Goetar are not a sufficiently
maritime people becomes untenable. For precisely to this region belong the
earliest records of maritime warfare to be found in the north of Europe,
possibly the earliest in Europe. The smooth rocks of Bohuslaen are covered
with incised pictures of the Bronze age: and the favourite subject of these
is ships and naval encounters. About 120 different pictures of ships and
sea fights are reproduced by one scholar alone[688]. And at the present day
this province of Goeteborg and Bohus is the most important centre in Sweden
both of fishery and shipping. Indeed, more than one quarter of the total
tonnage of the modern Swedish mercantile marine comes from this
comparatively tiny strip of coast[689].
{341}
It is surely quite absurd to urge that the men of this coast could not have
harried the Frisians in the manner in which Hygelac is represented as
doing. And surely it is equally absurd to urge that the people of this
coast would not have had to fear a return attack from the Frisians, after
the downfall of their own kings. The Frisians seem to have been "the chief
channel of communication between the North and West of Europe[690]" before
the rise of the Scandinavian Vikings, and to have been supreme in the North
Sea. The Franks were of course a land power, but the Franks, _when in
alliance with the Frisians_, were by no means helpless at sea. Gregory of
Tours tells us that they overthrew Hygelac on land, and _then in a sea
fight annihilated his fleet_. Now the poet says that the Geatas may expect
war when the Franks _and Frisians_ hear of Beowulf's fall. The objection
that, because they feared the Franks, the Geatas must have been reachable
by land, depends upon leaving the "and Frisians" out of consideration.
"Now we may look for a time of war" says the messenger "when the fall of
our king is known among the Franks and Frisians": then he gives a brief
account of the raid upon the land of the Frisians and concludes: "Ever
since then has the favour of the Merovingian king been denied us[691]."
What is there in this to indicate whether the raiders came from Jutland, or
from the coast of the Goetar across the Cattegat, 50 miles further off? The
messenger goes on to anticipate hostility from the Swedes[692]. To this, at
any rate, the Goetar were more exposed than the Jutes. Further, he
concludes by anticipating the utter overthrow of the Geatas[693]: and the
poet expressly tells us that these forebodings were justified[694]. There
must therefore be a reference to some famous national catastrophe. Now the
Goetar _did_ lose their independence, and _were_ incorporated into the
Swedish kingdom. When did the Jutes suffer any similar downfall at the
hands of either Frisians, Franks, or Swedes?
The other geographical and historical arguments urged in favour of the
Jutes, when carefully scrutinized, are found either {342} equally
indecisive, or else actually to tell against the "Jute-theory."
Schuette[695] thinks that the name "Wederas" (applied in _Beowulf_ to the
Geatas) is identical with the name _Eudoses_ (that of a tribe mentioned by
Tacitus, who _may_[696] have dwelt in Jutland). But this is impossible
phonologically: _Wederas_ is surely a shortened form of _Weder-G[=e]atas_,
"the Storm-Geatas." Indeed, we have, in favour of the Goetar-theory, the
fact that the very name of the Wederas survives on the Bohuslaen coast to
this day, in the Waeder Oear and the Waeder Fiord.
Advocates of the "Jute-theory" lay great stress upon the fact that Gregory
of Tours and the _Liber Historiae Francorum_ call Hygelac a Dane[697]:
_Dani cum rege suo Chochilaico_. Now, when Gregory wrote in the sixth
century, either the Jutes were entirely distinct from, and independent of,
the Danes, or they were not. If they were distinct, how do Gregory's words
help the "Jute-theory"? He must be simply using "Dane," like the
Anglo-Saxon historians, for "Scandinavian." But if the Jutes were not
distinct from the Danes, then we have an argument against the
"Jute-theory." For we know from _Beowulf_ that the Geatas _were_ quite
distinct from the Danes[698], and quite independent of them[699].
It is repeatedly urged that the Geatas and Swedes fight _ofer s[=ae]_[700].
But _s[=ae]_ can mean a great fresh-water lake, like Lake Wener, just as
well as the ocean[701]: and as a matter of fact we know that the decisive
battle did take place on Lake Wener, _in stagno Waener, ['a] Vaenis
['i]si_[702]. Lake Wener is an obvious battle place for Goetar and Swedes.
They were separated by the great and almost impassable forests of "Tived"
and "Kolm[oa]rd," and the lake was their simplest way of meeting[703]. But
it does not equally fit Jutes and Swedes.
It is repeatedly objected that the Goetar are remote from the
Anglo-Saxons[704]. Possibly: but remoteness did not prevent {343} the
Anglo-Saxons from being interested in heroes of the Huns or Goths or
Burgundians or Longobards, who were much more[705] distant. And the absence
of any direct connection between the history of the Geatas and the historic
Anglo-Saxon records, affords a strong presumption that the Geatas _were_ a
somewhat alien people. If the people of Beowulf, Hygelac, and Hrethel, were
the same people as the Jutes who colonized Kent and Hampshire, why do we
never, in the Kentish royal genealogies or elsewhere, find any claim to
such connection? The Mercians did not so forget their connection with the
old Offa of Angel, although a much greater space of time had intervened.
The fact that we have no mention among the ancestors of Beowulf and Hygelac
of any names which we can connect with the Jutish genealogy affords,
therefore, a strong presumption that they belonged to some other tribe.
The strongest historical argument for the "Jute-theory" was that produced
by Bugge. The _Ynglinga tal_ represents Ottar (who is certainly the Ohthere
of _Beowulf_) as having fallen in Vendel, and this Vendel was clearly
understood as being the district of that name in North Jutland. The body of
this Swedish king was torn asunder by carrion birds, and he was remembered
as "the Vendel-crow," a mocking nickname which pretty clearly goes back to
primitive times. Other ancient authors attributed this name, not to Ottar,
but to his father, who can be identified with the Ongentheow of _Beowulf_.
This would seem to indicate that the hereditary foes of Ongentheow and the
Swedish kings of his house were, after all, the Jutes of Vendel.
But Knut Stjerna has shown that the Vendel from which "Ottar Vendel-crow"
took his name was probably not the Vendel of Jutland at all, but the place
of that name north of Uppsala, famous for the splendid grave-finds which
show it to have been of peculiar importance during our period[706]. And
subsequent research has shown that a huge grave-mound, near this Vendel, is
mentioned in a record of the seventeenth century as King {344} Ottar's
mound, and is still popularly known as the mound of Ottar Vendel-crow[707].
But, if so, this story of the Vendel-crow, so far from supporting the
"Jute-hypothesis," tells against it: nothing could be more suitable than
Vendel, north of Uppsala, as the "last ditch" to which Ongentheow
retreated, if we assume his adversaries to have been the Goetar: but it
would not suit the Jutes so well.
An exploration of the mound has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it
_was_ raised to cover the ashes of Ottar Vendel-crow, the Ohthere of
_Beowulf_[708]. That Ohthere fell in battle against the Geatas there is
nothing, in _Beowulf_ or elsewhere, to prove. But the fact that his ashes
were laid in mound at Vendel in Sweden makes it unlikely that he fell in
battle against the Jutes, and is quite incompatible with what we are told
in the _Ynglinga saga_ of his body having been torn to pieces by carrion
fowl on a mound in Vendel in Jutland. It now becomes clear that this story,
and the tale of the crow of wood made by the Jutlanders in mockery of
Ottar, is a mere invention to account for the name Vendel-crow: the name,
as so often, has survived, and a new story has grown up to give a reason
for the name.
What "Vendel-crow" originally implied we cannot be quite sure. Apparently
"Crow" or "Vendel-crow" is used to this day as a nickname for the
inhabitants of Swedish Vendel. Ottar may have been so called because he was
buried (possibly because he lived) in Vendel, not, like other members of
his race, his son and his father, at Old Uppsala. But however that may be,
what is clear is that, as the name passed from the Swedes to those
Norwegian and Icelandic writers who have handed it down {345} to us, Vendel
of Sweden was naturally misunderstood as the more familiar Vendel of
Jutland. Stjerna's conjecture is confirmed. The Swedish king's nickname,
far from pointing to ancient feuds between Jute and Swede, is shown to have
nothing whatsoever to do with Jutland.
It appears, then, that _G[=e]atas_ is phonologically the equivalent of
"Goetar," but not the equivalent of "Jutes"; that what we know of the use
of the word "Jutes" (_[=I]ote_, etc.) in Old English makes it incredible
that a poem of the length of _Beowulf_ could be written, concerning their
heroes and their wars, without even mentioning them by their correct name;
that in many respects the geographical and historical evidence fits the
Goetar, but does _not_ fit the Jutes; that the instances to the contrary,
in which it is claimed that the geographical and historical evidence fits
the Jutes but does not fit the Goetar, are all found on examination to be
either inconclusive or actually to favour the Goetar.
* * * * *
F. _BEOWULF_ AND THE ARCHAEOLOGISTS
The peat-bogs of Schleswig and Denmark have yielded finds of the first
importance for English archaeology. These "moss-finds" are great
collections, chiefly of arms and accoutrements, obviously deposited with
intention. The first of these great discoveries, that of Thorsbjerg, was
made in the heart of ancient Angel: the site of the next, Nydam, also comes
within the area probably occupied by either Angles or Jutes; and most of
the rest of the "moss-finds" were in the closest neighbourhood of the old
Anglian home. The period of the oldest deposits, as is shown by the Roman
coins found among them, is hardly before the third century A.D., and some
authorities would make it considerably later.
An account of these discoveries will be found in Engelhardt's _Denmark in
the Early Iron Age_[709], 1866: a volume which {346} summarizes the results
of Engelhardt's investigations during the preceding seven years. He had
published in Copenhagen _Thorsbjerg Mosefund_, 1863; _Nydam Mosefund_,
1865. Engelhardt's work at Nydam was interrupted by the war of 1864: the
finds had to be ceded to Germany, and the exploration was continued by
German scholars. Engelhardt consoled himself that these "subsequent
investigations ... do not seem to have been carried on with the necessary
care and intelligence," and continued his own researches within the
narrowed frontiers of Denmark, publishing two monographs on the mosses of
Fuenen: _Kragehul Mosefund_, 1867; _Vimose Fundet_, 1869.
These deposits, however, obviously belong to a period much earlier than
that in which _Beowulf_ was written: indeed most of them certainly belong
to a period earlier than that in which the historic events described in
_Beowulf_ occurred; so that, close as is their relation with Anglian
civilization, it is with the civilization of the Angles while still on the
continent.
The Archaeology of _Beowulf_ has been made the subject of special study by
Knut Stjerna, in a series of articles which appeared between 1903 and his
premature death in 1909. A good service has been done to students of
_Beowulf_ by Dr Clark Hall in collecting and translating Stjerna's
essays[710]. They are a mine of useful information, and the reproductions
of articles from Scandinavian grave-finds, with which they are so copiously
illustrated, are invaluable. The magnificent antiquities from Vendel, now
in the Stockholm museum, are more particularly laid under
contribution[711]. Dr Clark Hall added a most useful "Index of things
mentioned in _Beowulf_[712]," well illustrated. Here again the
illustrations, with few exceptions, are from Scandinavian finds.
{347}
Two weighty arguments as to the origin of _Beowulf_ have been based upon
archaeology. In the first place it has been urged by Dr Clark Hall that:
"If the poem is read in the light of the evidence which Stjerna has
marshalled in the essays as to the profusion of gold, the prevalence of
ring-swords, of boar-helmets, of ring-corslets, and ring-money, it
becomes clear how strong the distinctively Scandinavian colouring is,
and how comparatively little of the _mise-en-sc[`e]ne_ must be due to
the English author[713]."
Equally, Prof. Klaeber finds in Stjerna's investigations a strong argument
for the Scandinavian character of _Beowulf_[714].
Now Stjerna, very rightly and naturally, drew his illustrations of
_Beowulf_ from those Scandinavian, and especially Swedish, grave-finds
which he knew so well: and very valuable those illustrations are. But it
does not follow, because the one archaeologist who has chosen to devote his
knowledge so wholeheartedly to the elucidation of _Beowulf_ was a
Scandinavian, using Scandinavian material, that therefore _Beowulf_ is
Scandinavian. This, however, is the inference which Stjerna himself was apt
to draw, and which is still being drawn from his work. Stjerna speaks of
our poem as a monument raised by the Geatas to the memory of their
saga-renowned king[715], though he allows that certain features of the
poem, such as the dragon-fight[716], are of Anglo-Saxon origin.
Of course, it must be allowed that accounts such as those of the fighting
between Swedes and Geatas, if they are historical (and they obviously are),
must have originated from eyewitnesses of the Scandinavian battles: but I
doubt if there is anything in _Beowulf_ so purely Scandinavian as to compel
us to assume that any line of the story, in the poetical form in which we
now have it, was _necessarily_ composed in Scandinavia. Even if it could be
shown that the conditions depicted in _Beowulf_ can be better illustrated
from the grave-finds of Vendel in Sweden than from English diggings, this
would not prove _Beowulf_ Scandinavian. Modern scientific archaeology is
surely based on chronology as well as geography. The English finds date
from {348} the period before 650 A.D., and the Vendel finds from the period
after. _Beowulf_ might well show similarity rather with contemporary art
abroad than with the art of earlier generations at home. For intercourse
was more general than is always realized. It was not merely trade and
plunder which spread fashions from nation to nation. There were the
presents of arms which Tacitus mentions as sent, not only privately, but
with public ceremony, from one tribe to another[717]. Similar presentations
are indicated in _Beowulf_[718]; we find them equally at the court of the
Ostrogothic Theodoric[719]; Charles the Great sent to Offa of Mercia _unum
balteum et unum gladium huniscum_[720]; according to the famous story in
the _Heimskringla_, Athelstan sent to Harold Fairhair of Norway a sword and
belt arrayed with gold and silver; Athelstan gave Harold's son Hakon a
sword which was the best that ever came to Norway[721]. It is not
surprising, then, if we find parallels between English poetry and
Scandinavian grave-finds, both apparently dating from about the year 700
A.D. But I do not think that there is any _special_ resemblance, though,
both in _Beowulf_ and in the Vendel graves, there is a profusion lacking in
the case of the simpler Anglo-Saxon tomb-furniture.
Let us examine the five points of special resemblance, alleged by Dr Clark
Hall, on the basis of Stjerna's studies.
"The profusion of gold." Gold is indeed lavishly used in _Beowulf_: the
golden treasure found in the dragon's lair was so bulky that it had to be
transported by waggon. And, certainly, gold is found in greater profusion
in Swedish than in English graves: the most casual visitor to the Stockholm
museum must be impressed by the magnificence of the exhibits there. But,
granting gold to have been rarer in England than in Sweden, I cannot grant
Stjerna's contention that therefore an English poet could not have
conceived the idea of a vast gold hoard[722]; or that, even if the poet
does deck his warriors with gold somewhat more sumptuously than was
actually the case in England, {349} we can draw any argument from it. For,
if the dragon in _Beowulf_ guards a treasure, so equally does the typical
dragon of Old English proverbial lore[723]. Beowulf is spoken of as
_gold-wlanc_, but the typical thegn in _Finnsburg_ is called
_gold-hladen_[724]. The sword found by Beowulf in the hall of Grendel's
mother has a golden hilt, but the English proverb had it that "gold is in
its place on a man's sword[725]." Heorot is hung with golden tapestry, but
gold-inwoven fabric has been unearthed from Saxon graves at Taplow, and
elsewhere in England[726]. Gold glitters in other poems quite as lavishly
as in _Beowulf_, sometimes more so. Widsith made a hobby of collecting
golden _b[=e]agas_. The subject of _Waldere_ is a fight for treasure. The
byrnie of Waldere[727] is adorned with gold: so is that of Holofernes in
_Judith_[728], so is that of the typical warrior in the _Elene_[729]. Are
all these poems Scandinavian?
"The prevalence of ring-swords." We know that swords were sometimes fitted
with a ring in the hilt[730]. It is not clear whether the object of this
ring was to fasten the hilt by a strap to the wrist, for convenience in
fighting (as has been the custom with the cavalry sword in modern times) or
whether it was used to attach the "peace bands," by which the hilt of the
sword was sometimes fixed to the scabbard, when only being worn
ceremonially[731]. The word _hring-m[=ae]l_, applied three times to the
sword in _Beowulf_, has been interpretated as a reference to these
"ring-swords," though it is quite conceivable that it may refer only to the
damascening of the sword with a ringed pattern[732]. Assuming that the
reference in _Beowulf_ _is_ to a "ring-sword," Stjerna illustrates the
allusion from seven ring-swords, or fragments of ring-swords, found in
Sweden. But, as Dr Clark Hall himself points out (whilst oddly enough
accepting this argument {350} as proof of the Scandinavian colouring of
_Beowulf_) four ring-swords at least have been found in England[733]. And
these English swords are _real_ ring-swords; that is to say, the pommel is
furnished with a ring, within which another ring moves (in the oldest type
of sword) quite freely. This freedom of movement seems, however, to be
gradually restricted, and in one of these English swords the two rings are
made in one and the same piece. In the Swedish swords, however, this
restriction is carried further, and the two rings are represented by a knob
growing out of a circular base. Another sword of this "knob"-type has
recently been found in a Frankish tomb[734], and yet another in the
Rhineland[735]. It seems to be agreed among archaeologists that the English
type, as found in Kent, is the original, and that the Swedish and
continental "ring-swords" are merely imitations, in which the ring has
become conventionalized into a knob[736]. But, if so, how can the mention
of a ring-sword in _Beowulf_ (if indeed that be the meaning of
_hring-m[=ae]l_) prove Scandinavian colouring? If it proved anything (which
it does not) it would tend to prove the reverse, and to locate _Beowulf_ in
Kent, where the true ring-swords have been found.
"The prevalence of boar-helmets." It is true that several representations
of warriors wearing boar-helmets have been found in Scandinavia. But the
only certainly Anglo-Saxon {351} helmet yet found in England has a
boar-crest[737]; and this is, I believe, the only actual boar-helmet yet
found. How then can the boar-helmets of _Beowulf_ show Scandinavian rather
than Anglo-Saxon origin?
"The prevalence of ring-corslets." It is true that only one trace of a
byrnie, and that apparently not of ring-mail, has so far been found in an
Anglo-Saxon grave. (We have somewhat more abundant remains from the period
prior to the migration to England: a peculiarly fine corslet of ring-mail,
with remains of some nine others, was found in the moss at Thorsbjerg[738]
in the midst of the ancient Anglian continental home; and other
ring-corslets have been found in the neighbourhood of Angel, at Vimose[739]
in Fuenen.) But, for the period when _Beowulf_ must have been composed, the
ring-corslet is almost as rare in Scandinavia as in England[740]; the
artist, however, seems to be indicating a byrnie upon many of the warriors
depicted on the Vendel helm (Grave 14: seventh century). Equally, in
England, warriors are represented on the Franks Casket as wearing the
byrnie: also the laws of Ine (688-95) make it clear that the byrnie was by
no means unknown[741]. Other Old English poems, certainly not Scandinavian,
mention the ring-byrnie. How then can the mention of it in _Beowulf_ be a
proof of Scandinavian origin?
"The prevalence of ring-money." Before minted money became current, rings
were used everywhere among the Teutonic peoples. Gold rings, _intertwined_
so as to form a chain, have been found throughout Scandinavia, presumably
for use as a medium of exchange. The term _locenra b[=e]aga_ (gen. plu.)
occurs in _Beowulf_, and this is interpreted by Stjerna as "rings
_intertwined or locked_ together[742]." But _locen_ in _Beowulf_ need not
have the meaning of "intertwined"; it occurs elsewhere in Old English of a
single jewel, _sincgim locen_[743]. Further, even if _locen_ does mean
{352} "intertwined," such intertwined rings are not limited to Scandinavia
proper. They have been found in Schleswig[744]. And almost the very phrase
in _Beowulf_, _londes ne locenra b[=e]aga_[745], recurs in the _Andreas_.
The phrase there may be imitated from _Beowulf_, but, equally, the phrase
in _Beowulf_ may be imitated from some earlier poem. In fact, it is part of
the traditional poetic diction: but its occurrence in the _Andreas_ shows
that it cannot be used as an argument of Scandinavian origin.
Whilst, therefore, accepting with gratitude the numerous illustrations
which Stjerna has drawn from Scandinavian grave-finds, we must be careful
not to read a Scandinavian colouring into features of _Beowulf_ which are
at least as much English as Scandinavian, such as the ring-sword or the
boar-helmet or the ring-corslet.
There is, as is noted above, a certain atmosphere of profusion and wealth
about some Scandinavian grave-finds, which corresponds much more nearly
with the wealthy life depicted in _Beowulf_ than does the comparatively
meagre tomb-furniture of England. But we must remember that, after the
spread of Christianity in the first half of the seventh century, the custom
of burying articles with the bodies of the dead naturally ceased, or almost
ceased, in England. Scandinavia continued heathen for another four hundred
years, and it was during these years that the most magnificent deposits
were made. As Stjerna himself points out, "a steadily increasing luxury in
the appointment of graves" is to be found in Scandinavia in these centuries
before the introduction of Christianity there. When we find in Scandinavia
things (complete ships, for example) which we do not find in England, we
owe this, partly to the nature of the soil in which they were embedded, but
also to the continuance of such burial customs after they had died out in
England.
Helm and byrnie were not necessarily unknown, or even very rare in England,
simply because it was not the custom to bury them with the dead. On the
other hand, the frequent mention of them in _Beowulf_ does not imply that
they were common: for {353} _Beowulf_ deals only with the aristocratic
adherents of a court, and even in _Beowulf_ fine specimens of the helm and
byrnie are spoken of as things which a king seeks far and wide to procure
for his retainers[746]. We cannot, therefore, argue that there is any
discrepancy. However, if we do so argue, it would merely prove, not that
_Beowulf_ is Scandinavian as opposed to English, but that it is
comparatively late in date. Tacitus emphasizes the fact that spear and
shield were the Teutonic weapons, that helmet and corslet were hardly
known[747]. Pagan graves show that at any rate they were hardly known _as
tomb-furniture_ in England in the fifth, sixth, and early seventh
centuries. The introduction of Christianity, and the intercourse with the
South which it involved, certainly led to the growth of pomp and wealth in
England, till the early eighth century became "the golden age of
Anglo-Saxon England."
It might therefore conceivably be argued that _Beowulf_ reflects the
comparative abundance of early Christian England, as opposed to the more
primitive heathen simplicity; but to argue a Scandinavian origin from the
profusion of _Beowulf_ admits of an easy _reductio ad absurdum_. For the
same arguments would prove a heathen, Scandinavian origin for the
_Andreas_, the _Elene_, the _Exodus_, or even for the Franks Casket,
despite its Anglo-Saxon inscription and Christian carvings.
However, though the absence of helm and byrnie from Anglo-Saxon graves does
not prove that these arms were not used by the living in heathen times, one
thing it assuredly _does_ prove: that the Anglo-Saxons in heathen times did
not sacrifice helm and byrnie recklessly in funeral pomp. And this brings
us to the second argument as to the origin of _Beowulf_ which has been
based on archaeology.
Something has been said above of this second contention[748]--that the
accuracy of the account of Beowulf's funeral is confirmed in every point by
archaeological evidence: that it must {354} therefore have been composed
within living memory of a time when ceremonies of this kind were still
actually in use in England: and that therefore we cannot date _Beowulf_
later than the third or fourth decade of the seventh century.
To begin with; the pyre in _Beowulf_ is represented as hung with helmets,
bright byrnies, and shields. Now it is impossible to say exactly how the
funeral pyres were equipped in England. But we _do_ know how the buried
bodies were equipped. And (although inhumation cemeteries are much more
common than cremation cemeteries) all the graves that have been opened have
so far yielded only one case of a helmet and byrnie being buried with the
warrior, and one other very doubtful case of a helmet without the byrnie.
Abroad, instances are somewhat more common, but still of great rarity. For
such things could ill be spared. Charles the Great forbade the export of
byrnies from his dominions. Worn by picked champions fighting in the
forefront, they might well decide the issue of a battle. In the mounds
where we have reason to think that the great chiefs mentioned in _Beowulf_,
Eadgils or Ohthere, lie buried, any trace of weapons was conspicuously
absent among the burnt remains. Nevertheless, the belief that his armour
would be useful to the champion in the next life, joined perhaps with a
feeling that it was unlucky, or unfair on the part of the survivor to
deprive the dead of his personal weapons, led in heathen times to the
occasional burial of these treasures with the warrior who owned them. The
fifth century tomb of Childeric I, when discovered twelve centuries later,
was found magnificently furnished--the prince had been buried with treasure
and much equipment[749], sword, scramasax[750], axe, spear. But these were
his own. Similarly, piety might have demanded that Beowulf should be burnt
with his full equipment. But would the pyre have been hung with helmets and
byrnies? Whose? Were the thegns asked to sacrifice theirs, and go naked
into the next fight in honour of their lord? If so, what archaeological
authority have we for such a custom in England?
{355}
Then the barrow is built, and the vast treasure of the dragon (which
included "many a helmet[751]") placed in it. Now there are instances of
articles which have not passed through the fire being placed in or upon or
around an urn with the cremated bones[752]. But is there any instance of
the thing being done on this scale--of a wholesale burning of helmets and
byrnies followed by a burial of huge treasure? If so, one would like to
know when, and where. If not, how can it be argued that the account in
_Beowulf_ is one of which "the accuracy is confirmed in every point by
archaeological or contemporary literary evidence?" Rather we must say, with
Knut Stjerna, that it is "too much of a good thing[753]."
For the antiquities of Anglo-Saxon England, the student should consult
the _Victoria County History_. The two splendid volumes of Professor G.
Baldwin Brown on _Saxon Art and Industry in the Pagan Period_[754] at
length enable the general reader to get a survey of the essential
facts, for which up to now he has had to have recourse to innumerable
scattered treatises. _The Archaeology of the Anglo-Saxon Settlements_
by Mr E. Thurlow Leeds will also be found helpful.
Side-lights from the field of Teutonic antiquities in general can be
got from Prof. Baldwin Brown's _Arts and Crafts of our Teutonic
Forefathers_, 1910, and from Lindenschmit's _Handbuch der deutschen
Alterthumskunde, I. Theil: Die Alterthuemer der Merovingischen Zeit_
(Braunschweig, 1880-89), a book which is still indispensable. Hoops'
_Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde_, Strassburg, 1911-19, 4
vols., includes a large number of contributions of the greatest
importance to the student of _Beowulf_, both upon archaeological and
other subjects. By the completion[755] of this most valuable work, amid
heart-breaking difficulties, Prof. Hoops has placed all students under
a great obligation.
Much help can be got from an examination of the antiquities of Teutonic
countries other than England. The following books are useful--for
Norway: {356} Gustafson (G.), _Norges Oldtid_, 1906; for Denmark:
Mueller (S.), _Vor Oldtid_, 1897; for Sweden: Montelius (O.),
_Civilization of Sweden in Heathen Times_, 1888, _Kulturgeschichte
Schwedens_, 1906; for Schleswig: Mestorf (J.), _Vorgeschichtliche
Alterthuemer aus Schleswig_; for the Germanic nations in their
wanderings on the outskirts of the Roman Empire: Hampel (J.),
_Alterthuemer des fruehen Mittelalters in Ungarn_, 3 Bde, 1905; for
Germanic remains in Gaul: Barri[`e]re-Flavy (M. C.), _Les Arts
industriels des peuples barbares de la Gaule du V^me au VIII^me
si[`e]cle_, 3 tom. 1901.
Somewhat popular accounts, and now rather out of date, are the two
South Kensington handbooks: Worsaae (J. J. A.), _Industrial Arts of
Denmark_, 1882, and Hildebrand (H.), _Industrial Arts of Scandinavia_,
1883.
_Scandinavian Burial Mounds_
The three great "Kings' Mounds" at Old Uppsala were explored between 1847
and 1874: cremated remains from them can be seen in the Stockholm Museum.
An account of the tunnelling, and of the complicated structure of the
mounds, was given in 1876 by the Swedish State-Antiquary[756]. From these
finds Knut Stjerna dated the oldest of the "Kings' Mounds" about 500
A.D.[757], and the others somewhat later. Now, as we are definitely told
that Athils (Eadgils) and the two kings who figure in the list of Swedish
monarchs as his grandfather and great-grandfather (Aun and Egil) were "laid
in mound" at Uppsala[758], and as the chronology agrees, it seems only
reasonable to conclude that the three Kings' Mounds were raised over these
three kings[759].
That Athils' father Ottar (Ohthere) was not regarded as having been buried
at Uppsala is abundantly clear from the account given of his death, and of
his nickname Vendel-crow[760]. A mound near Vendel north of Uppsala is
known by his name. Such names are often the result of quite modern
antiquarian conjecture: but that such is not the case here was proved by
the recent discovery that an antiquarian survey (preserved in MS in the
Royal Library at Stockholm) dating from 1677, mentions in Vendel "widh
Hussby, [en] stor jorde hoegh, som heeter Otters hoegen[761]." An
exploration of Ottar's mound showed a striking similarity with the Uppsala
mounds. The structure was the same, a cairn of stones covered over with
earth; the {357} cremated remains were similar, there were abundant traces
of burnt animals, a comb, half-spherical draughts with two round holes
bored in the flat side, above all, there was in neither case any trace of
weapons. In Ottar's mound a gold Byzantine coin was found, pierced, having
evidently been used as an ornament. It can be dated 477-8; it is much worn,
but such coins seldom remained in the North in use for a century after
their minting[762]. Ottar's mound obviously, then, belongs to the same
period as the Uppsala mounds, and confirms the date attributed by Stjerna
to the oldest of those mounds, about 500 A.D.