Took a foal swift as the spring wind,Let the storm wind bear him forward,Blew the trees till they were leafless,Blew the grass till it was seedless,Bloodless likewise the young maidens.
Took a foal swift as the spring wind,Let the storm wind bear him forward,Blew the trees till they were leafless,Blew the grass till it was seedless,Bloodless likewise the young maidens.
Took a foal swift as the spring wind,
Let the storm wind bear him forward,
Blew the trees till they were leafless,
Blew the grass till it was seedless,
Bloodless likewise the young maidens.
Sämpsä refuses to come. Then the Summer is sent with better results. In another version Sämpsä is fetched from an island beyond the sea:
It is I who summoned SämpsäFrom an isle amid the ocean,From a skerry bare and treeless.
It is I who summoned SämpsäFrom an isle amid the ocean,From a skerry bare and treeless.
It is I who summoned Sämpsä
From an isle amid the ocean,
From a skerry bare and treeless.
In yet another variant we are told how the boy Sämpsä
Took six grains from off the corn heap,Slept all summer mid the corn heap,In the bosom of the corn boat.
Took six grains from off the corn heap,Slept all summer mid the corn heap,In the bosom of the corn boat.
Took six grains from off the corn heap,
Slept all summer mid the corn heap,
In the bosom of the corn boat.
Now "It's a long, long way to" Ilomantsi in the east of Finland, where this last variant was discovered. But at least we have evidence that, within the region influenced by Germanic mythology, the spirit of vegetation was thought of as a boy coming over the sea, or sleeping in a boat with corn[192].
To sum up:
Sceafa, when the Catalogue of Kings inWidsithwas drawn up—beforeBeowulfwas composed, at any rate in its present form—was regarded as an ancient king. When the West Saxon pedigree was drawn up, certainly not much more than a century and a half after the composition ofBeowulf, and perhaps much less, Sceaf was regarded as the primitive figure in the pedigree, before whom no one lived save the Hebrew patriarchs. That he was originally thought of as a child,coming across the water, with the sheaf of corn, is, in view of the Finnish parallel, exceedingly probable, and acquires some confirmation from the Chronicler's placing him in Noah's ark. But the definite evidence for this is late.
Scyld, on the other hand, is in the first place probably a mere eponym of the power of the Scylding kings of Denmark. He may, at a very early date, have been provided with a ship funeral, since later two Swedish kings, both apparently of Danish origin, have this ship funeral accorded to them, and in one case it is expressly said to be "according to the custom of his ancestors." But it seems exceedingly improbable that his original story represented him as coming over the sea in a boat. For, if so, it remains to be explained why this motive has entirely disappeared among his own people in Scandinavia, and has been preserved only in England. Would the Danes have been likely to forget utterly so striking a story, concerning the king from whom their line derived its name? Further, in England,Beowulfalone attributes this story to Scyld, whilst later historians attribute it to Sceaf. In view of the way in which the story of William of Malmesbury is supported by folklore, to regard that story as merely the result of error or invention seems perilous indeed.
On the other hand, all becomes straightforward if we allow that Scyld and Sceaf were both ancient figures standing at the head of famous dynasties. Their names alliterate. What more likely than that their stories should have influenced each other, and that one king should have come to be regarded as the parent or ancestor of the other? Contamination with Scyld would account for Sceaf's boat being stated to have come to land in Scani, Scanza—that Scedeland which is mentioned as the seat of Scyld's rule. Yet this explanation is not necessary, for if Sceaf were an early Longobard king, he would be rightly represented as ruling in Scandinavia[193].
Section VI. Beow.
The Anglo-Saxon genealogies agree that the son of Sceldwa (Scyld) is Beow (Beaw, Beo). InBeowulf, he is named not Beow, but Beowulf.
Many etymologies have been suggested forBēow. But considering that Beow is in some versions a grandson, in all a descendant of Sceaf, it can hardly be an accident that his name is identical with the O.E. word for grain,bēow. The Norse word corresponding to this isbygg[194].
Recent investigation of the name is best summed up in the words of Axel Olrik:
"New light has been cast upon the question of the derivation of the name Beow by Kaarle Krohn's investigation of the debt of Finnish to Norse mythology, together with Magnus Olsen's linguistic interpretation. The Finnish has a deity Pekko, concerning whom it is said that he promoted the growth of barley: the Esths, closely akin to the Finns, have a corresponding Peko, whose image—the size of a three-year-old child—was carried out into the fields and invoked at the time of sowing, or else was kept in the corn-bin by a custodian chosen for a year. This Pekko is plainly a personification of the barley; the form corresponding phonetically in Runic Norse would be *beggw-(from which comes Old Norsebygg)."So in Norse there was a grain *beggw-(becomingbygg) and a corn-god *Beggw-(becomingPekko). In Anglo-Saxon there was a grainbéowand an ancestralBéow. And all four are phonetically identical (proceeding from a primitive form *beuwa, 'barley'). The conclusion which it is difficult to avoid is, that the corn-spirit 'Barley' and the ancestor 'Barley' are one and the same. The relation is the same as that between King Sheaf and the worship of the sheaf: the worshipped corn-being gradually sinks into the background, and comes to be regarded as an epic figure, an early ancestor."We have no more exact knowledge of the mythical ideas connected either with the ancestor Beow or the corn-god Pekko. But we know enough of the worship of Pekko to show that he dwelt in the corn-heap, and that, in the spring, he was fetched out in the shape of a little child. That reminds us not a little of Sämpsä, who lay in the corn-heap on the ship, and came to land and awoke in the spring[195]."
"New light has been cast upon the question of the derivation of the name Beow by Kaarle Krohn's investigation of the debt of Finnish to Norse mythology, together with Magnus Olsen's linguistic interpretation. The Finnish has a deity Pekko, concerning whom it is said that he promoted the growth of barley: the Esths, closely akin to the Finns, have a corresponding Peko, whose image—the size of a three-year-old child—was carried out into the fields and invoked at the time of sowing, or else was kept in the corn-bin by a custodian chosen for a year. This Pekko is plainly a personification of the barley; the form corresponding phonetically in Runic Norse would be *beggw-(from which comes Old Norsebygg).
"So in Norse there was a grain *beggw-(becomingbygg) and a corn-god *Beggw-(becomingPekko). In Anglo-Saxon there was a grainbéowand an ancestralBéow. And all four are phonetically identical (proceeding from a primitive form *beuwa, 'barley'). The conclusion which it is difficult to avoid is, that the corn-spirit 'Barley' and the ancestor 'Barley' are one and the same. The relation is the same as that between King Sheaf and the worship of the sheaf: the worshipped corn-being gradually sinks into the background, and comes to be regarded as an epic figure, an early ancestor.
"We have no more exact knowledge of the mythical ideas connected either with the ancestor Beow or the corn-god Pekko. But we know enough of the worship of Pekko to show that he dwelt in the corn-heap, and that, in the spring, he was fetched out in the shape of a little child. That reminds us not a little of Sämpsä, who lay in the corn-heap on the ship, and came to land and awoke in the spring[195]."
But it may be objected that this is "harking back" to the old mythological interpretations. After refusing to accept Müllenhoff's assumptions, are we not reverting, through the names of Sceaf and Beow, and the worship of the sheaf, to very much the same thing?
No. It is one thing to believe that the ancestor-king Beow may be a weakened form of an ancient divinity, a mere name surviving from the figure of an old corn-god Beow; it is quite another to assume, as Müllenhoff did, that what we are told about Beowulf was originally told about Beowand that therefore we are justified in giving a mythological meaning to it.
All we know, conjecture apart, about Beow is his traditional relationship to Scyld, Sceaf and the other figures of the pedigree. That Beowulf's dragon fight belonged originally to him is only a conjecture. In confirmation of this conjecture only one argument has been put forward: an argument turning upon Beowulf, son of Scyld—that obscure figure, apparently equivalent to Beow, who meets us at the beginning of our poem.
Beowulf's place as a son of Scyld and father of Healfdene is occupied in the Danish genealogies by Frothi, son of Skjold, and father of Halfdan. It has been urged that the two figures are really identical, in spite of the difference of name. Now Frothi slays a dragon, and it has been argued that this dragon fight shows similarities which enable us to identify it with the dragon fight attributed in our poem to Beowulf the Geat.
The argument is a strong one—if it really is the case that the dragon slain by Frothi was the same monster as that slain by Beowulf the Geat.
Unfortunately this parallel, which will be examined in the next section, is far from certain. We must be careful not to argue in a circle, identifying Beowulf and Frothi because they slew the same dragon, and then identifying the dragons because they were slain by the same hero.
Whilst, therefore, we admit that it is highly probable that Beow (grain) the descendant of Sceaf (sheaf) was originally a corn divinity or corn fetish, we cannot follow Müllenhoff in his bold attribution to this "culture hero" of Beowulf's adventures with the dragon or with Grendel.
Section VII. The house of Scyld and Danish parallels: Heremod-Lotherus and Beowulf-Frotho.
Scyld, although the source of that Scylding dynasty which our poem celebrates, isnotapparently regarded inBeowulfas the earliest Danish king. He came to the throne after an interregnum; the people whom he grew up to rule had long endured cruel need, "being without a prince[196]." We hear inBeowulfof one Danish king only whom we can place chronologically before Scyld—viz. Heremod[197]. The way in which Heremod is referred to would fit in very well with the supposition[198]that he was the last of a dynasty; the immediate predecessor of Scyld; and that it was the death or exile of Heremod which ushered in the time when the Danes were without a prince.
Now there is a natural tendency in genealogies for each king to be represented as the descendant of his predecessor, whether he really was so or no; so that in the course of time, and sometimes of a very short time, the first king of a new dynasty may come to be reckoned as son of a king of the preceding line[199]. Consequently, there would be nothing surprising if, in another account, we find Scyld represented as a son of Heremod. And wedofind the matter represented thus in the West Saxon genealogy, where Sceldwa or Scyld is son of Heremod. Turning to the Danish accounts, however, we do not find anyHermóðr(which is the form we should expect corresponding toHeremōd) as father to Skjold (Scyld). Either no father of Skjold is known, or else (in Saxo Grammaticus) he has a father Lotherus. But, although the names are different, there is some correspondence between what we are told of Lother and what we are told of Heremod. A close parallel has indeed been drawn by Sievers between the whole dynasty: on the one hand Lotherus, his son Skioldus, and his descendant Frotho,as given in Saxo: and on the other hand the corresponding figures inBeowulf, Heremod, Scyld, and Scyld's son, Beowulf the Dane.
The fixed and certain point here is the identity of the central figure, Skioldus-Scyld. All the rest is very doubtful; not that there are not many parallel features, but because the parallels are of a commonplace type which might so easily recur accidentally.
The story of Lother, as given by Saxo, will be found below: the story of Heremod as given inBeowulfis hopelessly obscure—a mere succession of allusions intended for an audience who knew the tale quite well. Assuming the stories of Lother and Heremod to be different versions of one original, the following would seem to be the most likely reconstruction[200], the more doubtful portions being placed within round brackets thus ( ):
The old Danish prince [Dan in Saxo] has two sons, one a weakling [Humblus, Saxo] the other a hero [Lotherus, Saxo:Heremod,Beowulf] (who was already in his youth the hope of the nation). But after his father's death the elder was (through violence) raised to the throne: and Lother-Heremod went into banishment. (But under the rule of the weakling the kingdom went to pieces, and thus) many a man longed for the return of the exile, as a help against these evils. So the hero conquers and deposes the weaker brother. But then his faults break forth, his greed and his cruelty: he ceases to be the darling and becomes the scourge of his people, till they rise and either slay him or drive him again into exile.
The old Danish prince [Dan in Saxo] has two sons, one a weakling [Humblus, Saxo] the other a hero [Lotherus, Saxo:Heremod,Beowulf] (who was already in his youth the hope of the nation). But after his father's death the elder was (through violence) raised to the throne: and Lother-Heremod went into banishment. (But under the rule of the weakling the kingdom went to pieces, and thus) many a man longed for the return of the exile, as a help against these evils. So the hero conquers and deposes the weaker brother. But then his faults break forth, his greed and his cruelty: he ceases to be the darling and becomes the scourge of his people, till they rise and either slay him or drive him again into exile.
If the stories of Lother and Heremodareconnected, we may be fairly confident that Heremod, not Lother, was the name of the king in the original story.
For Scandinavian literature does know a Hermoth (Hermóðr), though no such adventures are attributed to him as those recorded of Heremod inBeowulf. Nevertheless it is probable that this Hermoth and Heremod inBeowulfare one and the same, because both heroes are linked in some way or other with Sigemund. How these two kings, Heremod and Sigemund, came to be connected, we do not know, but we find this connection recurring again and again[201]. Thismaybemere coincidence: but I doubt if we are justified in assuming it to be so[202].
It has been suggested[203]that both Heremod and Sigemund were originally heroes specially connected with the worship of Odin, and hence grouped together. The history of the Scandinavian Sigmund is bound up with that of the magic sword which Odin gave him, and with which he was always victorious till the last fight when Odin himself shattered it.
And we are told in the Icelandic that Odin, whilst he gave a sword to Sigmund, gave a helm and byrnie to Hermoth.
Again, whilst in one Scandinavian poem Sigmund is represented as welcoming the newcomer at the gates of Valhalla, in another the same duty is entrusted to Hermoth.
It is clear also that theBeowulf-poet had in mind some kind of connection, though we cannot tell what, between Sigemund and Heremod.
We may take it, then, that the Heremod who is linked with Sigemund inBeowulfwas also known in Scandinavian literature as a hero in some way connected with Sigmund: whether or no the adventures which Saxo records of Lotherus were really told in Scandinavian lands in connection with Hermoth, we cannot say. The wicked king whose subjects rebel against him is too common a feature of Germanic story for us to feel sure, without a good deal of corroborative evidence, that the figures of Lotherus and Heremod are identical.
The next king in the line, Skioldus in Saxo, is, as we have seen, clearly identical with Scyld inBeowulf. But beyond the name, the two traditions have, as we have also seen, but little in common. Both are youthful heroes[204], both force neighbouring kings to pay tribute[205]; but such things are commonplaces[206].
We must therefore turn to the next figure in the pedigree: the son of Skjold in Scandinavian tradition is Frothi (Frothoin Saxo)[207], the son of Scyld inBeowulfis Beowulf the Dane. And Frothi is the father of Halfdan (Haldanus in Saxo) as Beowulf the Dane is of Healfdene. The Frothi of Scandinavian tradition corresponds then in position to Beowulf the Dane in Old English story[208].
Now of Beowulf the Dane we are told so little that we have really no means of drawing a comparison between him and Frothi. But atheorythat has found wide acceptance among scholars assumes that the dragon fight of Beowulf the Geat was originally narrated of Beowulf the Dane, and only subsequently transferred to the Geatic hero. Theoretically, then, Beowulf the Dane kills a dragon. Now certainly Frotho kills a dragon: and it has been generally accepted[209]that the parallels between the dragon slain by Frotho and that slain by Beowulf the Geat are so remarkable as to exclude the possibility of mere accidental coincidence, and to lead us to conclude that the dragon story was originally told of that Beowulf who corresponds to Frothi, i.e. Beowulf the Dane, son of Scyld and father of Healfdene; not Beowulf, son of Ecgtheow, the Geat.
But are the parallels really so close? We must not forget that here we are building theory upon theory. That the Frotho of Saxo is the same figure as Beowulf the Dane in Old English, is a theory, based upon his common relationship to Skiold-Scyld before him and to Haldanus-Healfdene coming after him: that Beowulf the Dane was the original hero of the dragon fight, and that that dragon fight was only subsequently transferred to the credit of Beowulf the Geat, is again a theory. Only if we can find real parallels between the dragon-slaying of Frotho and the dragon-slaying of Beowulf will these theories have confirmation.
Parallels have been pointed out by Sievers which he regards as so close as to justify a belief that both are derived ultimately from an old lay, with so much closeness that verbal resemblances can still be traced.
Unfortunately the parallels are all commonplaces. That Sievers and others have been satisfied with them was perhaps due to the fact that they started by assuming as proved that the dragon fight of Beowulf the Geat belonged originally to Beowulf the Dane[210], and argued that since Frotho in Saxo occupies a place corresponding exactly to that of Beowulf the Dane inBeowulf, a comparatively limited resemblance between two dragons coming, as it were, at the same point in the pedigree, might be held sufficient to identify them.
But, as we have seen, the assumption that the dragon fight of Beowulf the Geat belonged originally to Beowulf the Dane is only a theory that will have to stand or fall as we can prove that the dragon fight of Frotho is really parallel to that of Beowulf the Geat, and therefore must have belonged to the connecting link supplied by the Scylding prince Beowulf the Dane. In other words, the theory that the dragon inBeowulfis to be identified with the dragon which in Saxo is slain by Frotho the Danish prince, father of Haldanus-Healfdene, is one of the main arguments upon which we must base the theory that the dragon inBeowulfwas originally slain by the Danish Beowulf, father of Healfdene, not by Beowulf the Geat. We cannot then turn round, and assert that the fact that they were both slain by a Danish prince, the father of Healfdene, is an argument for identifying the dragons.
Turning to the dragon fight itself, the following parallels have been noted by Sievers:
(1) A native (indigena) comes to Frotho, and tells him of the treasure-guarding dragon. An informer (melda) plays the same part inBeowulf[211].
But a dragon is not game which can be met with every day. He is a shy beast, lurking in desert places. Some informant has very frequently to guide the hero to hisfoe[212]. And the situation is widely different. Frotho knows nothing of the dragon till directed to the spot: Beowulf's land has been assailed, he knows of the dragon, though he needs to be guided to itsexactlair.
(2) Frotho's dragon lives on an island. Beowulf's lives near the sea, and there is an island (ēalond, 2334) in the neighbourhood.
ButēalondinBeowulfprobably does not mean "island" at all: and in any case the dragon did not live upon theēalond. Many dragons have lived near the sea. Sigemund's dragon did so[213].
(3) The hero in each case attacks the dragon single-handed.
But what hero ever did otherwise? On the contrary, Beowulf's exploit differs from that of Frotho and of most other dragon slayers in that he is unable toovercomehis foe single-handed, and needs the support of Wiglaf.
(4) Special armour is carried by the dragon slayer in each case.
But this again is no uncommon feature. The Red Cross Knight also needs special armour. Dragon slayers constantly invent some ingenious or even unique method. And again the parallel is far from close. Frotho is advised to cover his shield and his limbs with the hides of bulls and kine: a sensible precaution against fiery venom. Beowulf constructs a shield of iron[214]: which naturally gives very inferior protection[215].
(5) Frotho's informant tells him that he must be of good courage[216]. Wiglaf encourages Beowulf[217].
But the circumstances under which the words are uttered are entirely different, nor have the words more than a general resemblance. That a man needs courage, if he is going to tackle a dragon, is surely a conclusion at which two minds could have arrived independently.
(6) Both heroes waste their blows at first on the scaly back of the dragon.
But if the hero went at once for the soft parts, there would be no fight at all, and all the fun would be lost. Sigurd's dragon-fight is, for this reason, a one-sided business from the first. To avoid this, Frotho is depicted as beginning by an attack on the dragon's rough hide (although he has been specially warned by theindigenanot to do so):
ventre sub imoesse locum scito quo ferrum mergere fas est,hunc mucrone petens medium rimaberis anguem[218].
ventre sub imoesse locum scito quo ferrum mergere fas est,hunc mucrone petens medium rimaberis anguem[218].
ventre sub imo
esse locum scito quo ferrum mergere fas est,
hunc mucrone petens medium rimaberis anguem[218].
(7) The hoard is plundered by both heroes.
But it is the nature of a dragon to guard a hoard[219]. And, having slain the dragon, what hero would neglect the gold?
(8) There are many verbal resemblances: the dragon spits venom[220], and twists himself into coils[221].
Some of these verbal resemblances may be granted as proved: but they surely do not prove the common origin of the two dragon fights. They only tend to prove the common origin of the school of poetry in which these two dragon fights were told. That dragons dwelt in mounds was a common Germanic belief, to which the Cottonian Gnomic verses testify. Naturally, therefore, Frotho's dragon ismontis possessor: Beowulf's isbeorges hyrde. The two phrases undoubtedly point back to a similar gradus, to a similar traditional stock phraseology, and to similar beliefs: that is all. As well argue that two kings must be identical, because each is calledfolces hyrde.
These commonplace phrases and commonplace features are surely quite insufficient to prove that the stories are identical—at most they only prove that they bear the impress of one and the same poetical school. If a parallel is to carry weight there must be something individual about it, as there is, for example, about the arguments by which the identity of Beowulf and Bjarki have been supported. That a hero comes fromGeatland (Gautland) to the court where Hrothulf (Rolf) is abiding; that the same hero subsequently is instrumental in helping Eadgils (Athils) against Onela (Ali)—here we have something tangible. But when two heroes, engaged upon slaying a dragon, are each told to be brave, the parallel is too general to be a parallel at all. "There is a river in Macedon: and there is also moreover a river at Monmouth, and there is salmons in both."
And there is a fundamental difference, which would serve to neutralize the parallels, even did they appear much less accidental than they do.
Dragon fights may be classified into several types: two stand out prominently. There is the story in which the young hero begins his career by slaying a dragon or monster and winning, it may be a hoard of gold, it may be a bride. This is the type of story found, for instance, in the tales of Sigurd, or Perseus, or St George. On the other hand there is the hero who, at the end of his career, seeks to ward off evil from himself and his people. He slays the monster, but is himself slain by it. The great example of this type is the god Thor, who in the last fight of the gods slays the Dragon, but dies when he has reeled back nine paces from the "baleful serpent[222]."
Now the story of the victorious young Frotho is of the one type: that of the aged Beowulf is of the other. And this difference is essential, fundamental, dominating the whole situation in each case: giving its cheerful and aggressive tone to the story of Frotho, giving the elegiac and pathetic note which runs through the whole of the last portion ofBeowulf[223]. It is no mere detail which could be added or subtracted by a narrator without altering the essence of the story.
In face of this we must pronounce the two stories essentially and originally distinct. If, nevertheless, there were a large number of striking and specific similarities, we should have to allow that, though originally distinct, the one dragon story had influenced the other in detail. For, whilst each poet who retold the tale would make alterations in detail, and mightimport such detail from one dragon story into another, what we know of the method of the ancient story tellers does not allow us to assume that a poet would have altered the whole drift of a story, either by changing the last death-struggle of an aged, childless prince into the victorious feat of a young hero, or by the reverse process.
Those, therefore, who hold the parallels quoted above to be convincing, may believe that one dragon story has influenced another, originally distinct[224]. To me, it does not appear that even this necessarily follows from the evidence.
It seems very doubtful whether any of the parallels drawn by Sievers between the stories of Lotherus and Heremod[225], Skioldus and Scyld, Frotho and Beowulf, are more than the resemblances inevitable in poetry which, like the Old Danish and the Old English, still retains so many traces of the common Germanic frame in which it was moulded.
Indeed, of the innumerable dragon-stories extant, there is probably not one which we can declare to be really identical with that of Beowulf. There is a Danish tradition which shows many similarities[226], and I have given this below, in Part II; but rather as an example of a dragon-slaying of theBeowulftype, than because I believe in any direct connection between the two stories.
THEORIES AS TO THE ORIGIN, DATE, AND STRUCTURE OF THE POEM
Section I. Is "Beowulf" Translated from a Scandinavian original?
Our poem, the first original poem of any length in the English tongue, ignores England. In one remarkable passage (ll. 1931-62) it mentions with praise Offa I, the great king who ruled the Angles whilst they were still upon the Continent. But, except for this, it deals mainly with heroes who, so far as we can identify them with historic figures, are Scandinavian.
Hence, not unnaturally, the first editor boldly declaredBeowulfto be an Anglo-Saxon version of a Danish poem; and this view has had many supporters. The poemmustbe Scandinavian, said one of its earliest translators, because it deals mainly with Scandinavian heroes and "everyone knows that in ancient times each nation celebrated in song its own heroes alone[227]." And this idea, though not so crudely expressed, seems really to underlie the belief which has been held by numerous scholars, that the poem is nothing more than a translation of a poem in which some Scandinavian minstrel had glorified the heroes of his own nation.
But what do we mean by "nation"? Doubtless, from the point of view of politics and war, each Germanic tribe, or offshoot of a tribe, formed an independent nation: the Longobardi had no hesitation in helping the "Romans" to cut the throats of their Gothic kinsmen: Penda the Mercian was willing to ally with the Welshmen in order to overthrow hisfellow Angles of Northumbria. But all this, as the history of the ancient Greeks or of the ancient Hebrews might show us, is quite compatible with a consciousness of racial unity among the warring states, with a common poetic tradition and a common literature. For purposes of poetry there was only one nation—the Germanic—split into many dialects and groups, but possessed of a common metre, a common style, a common standard of heroic feeling: and any deed of valour performed by any Germanic chief might become a fit subject for the poetry of any Germanic tribe of the heroic age.
So, if by "nation" we mean the whole Germanic race, then Germanic poetry is essentially "national." The Huns were the only non-Germanic tribe who were received (for poetical purposes) into Germania. Hunnish chiefs seem to have adopted Gothic manners, and after the Huns had disappeared it often came to be forgotten that they were not Germans. But with this exception the tribes and heroes of Germanic heroic poetry are Germanic.
If, however, by "nation" we understand the different warring units into which the Germanic race was, politically speaking, divided, then Germanic poetry is essentially "international."
This is no theory, but a fact capable of conclusive proof. The chief actors in the old Norse Volsung lays are not Norsemen, but Sigurd the Frank, Gunnar the Burgundian, Atli the Hun. In Continental Germany, the ideal knight of the Saxons in the North and the Bavarians in the South was no native hero, but Theodoric the Ostrogoth. So too in England, whilstBeowulfdeals chiefly with Scandinavian heroes, theFinnsburgfragment deals with the Frisian tribes of the North Sea coast:Walderewith the adventures of Germanic chiefs settled in Gaul,Deorwith stories of the Goths and of the Baltic tribes, whilstWidsith, which gives us a catalogue of the old heroic tales, shows that amongst the heroes whose names were current in England were men of Gothic, Burgundian, Frankish, Lombard, Frisian, Danish and Swedish race. There is nothing peculiar, then, in the fact thatBeowulfcelebrates heroes who were not of Anglian birth.
In their old home in Schleswig the Angles had been in the exact centre of Germania: with an outlook upon both the North Sea and the Baltic, and in touch with Scandinavian tribes on the North and Low German peoples on the South. That the Angles were interested in the stories of all the nations which surrounded them, and that they brought these stories with them to England, is certain. It is a mere accident that the one heroic poem which happens to have been preserved at length is almost exclusively concerned with Scandinavian doings. It could easily have happened that the history of theBeowulfMSand theWaldereMSmight have been reversed: that theBeowulfmight have been cut up to bind other books, and theWalderepreserved intact: in that case our one long poem would have been localized in ancient Burgundia, and would have dealt chiefly with the doings of Burgundian champions. But we should have had no more reason, without further evidence, to suppose theWalderea translation from the Burgundian than we have, without further evidence, to supposeBeowulfa translation from the Scandinavian.
To deny thatBeowulf, as we have it, is a translation from the Scandinavian does not, of course, involve any denial of the Scandinavian origin of thestoryof Beowulf's deeds. The fact that his achievements are framed in a Scandinavian setting, and that the closest parallels to them have to be sought in Scandinavian lands, makes it probable ona priorigrounds that the story had its origin there. On the face of it, Müllenhoff's belief that the story was indigenous among the Angles is quite unlikely. It would seem rather to have originated in the Geatic country. But stories, whether in prose or verse, would spread quickly from the Geatas to the Danes and from the Danes to the Angles.
After the Angles had crossed the North Sea, however, this close intimacy ceased, till the Viking raids again reminded Englishmen, in a very unpleasant way, of their kinsmen across the sea. Now linguistic evidence tends to show thatBeowulfbelongs to a time prior to the Viking settlement in England, and it is unlikely that the Scandinavian traditions embodied inBeowulffound their way to England just at the time whencommunication with Scandinavian lands seems to have been suspended. We must conclude then that all this Scandinavian tradition probably spread to the Angles whilst they were still in their old continental home, was brought across to England by the settlers in the sixth century, was handed on by English bards from generation to generation, till some Englishmen formed the poem ofBeowulfas we know it.
Of course, if evidence can be produced thatBeowulfis translated from some Scandinavian original, which was brought over in the seventh century or later, that is another matter. But the evidence produced so far is not merely inconclusive, but ludicrously inadequate.
It has been urged[228]by Sarrazin, the chief advocate of the translation theory, that the description of the country round Heorot, and especially of the journey to the Grendel-lake, shows such local knowledge as to point to its having been composed by some Scandinavian poet familiar with the locality. Heorot can probably, as we have seen, be identified with Leire: and the Grendel-lake Sarrazin identifies with the neighbouring Roskilde fjord. But it is hardly possible to conceive a greater contrast than that between the Roskilde fjord and the scenery depicted in ll. 1357etc., 1408etc.Seen, as Sarrazin saw it, on a May morning, in alternate sun and shadow, the Roskilde fjord presents a view of tame and peaceful beauty. In the days of Hrothgar, when there were perhaps fewer cultivated fields and more beech forests, the scenery may have been less tame, but can hardly have been less peaceful. The only trace of accurate geography is that Heorot is represented as not on the shore, and yet not far remote from it (ll. 307etc.). But, as has been pointed out above, we know that traditions of the attack by the Heathobeardan upon Heorot were current in England: and these would be quite sufficient to keep alive, even among English bards, some remembrance of the strategic situation of Heorot with regard to the sea. A man need not have been near Troy, to realize that the town was no seaport and yet near the sea.
Again, it has been claimed by Sarrazin that the language ofBeowulfshows traces of the Scandinavian origin of the poem. Sarrazin's arguments on this head have been contested energetically by Sievers[229]. After some heated controversy Sarrazin made a final and (presumably) carefully-weighed statement of his case. In this he gave a list of twenty-nine words upon which he based his belief[230]. Yet of these twenty-nine, twenty-one occur in other O.E. writings, where there can be no possible question of translation from the Scandinavian: some of these words, in fact, are amongst the commonest of O.E. poetical expressions. There remain eight which do not happen to be found elsewhere in the extant remains of O.E. poetry. But these are mostly compounds likeheaðo-lāc,feorh-sēoc: and though the actual compound is not elsewhere extant in English, the component elements are thoroughly English. There is no reason whatever to think that these eight rare words are taken from Old Norse. Indeed, three of them do not occur in Old Norse at all.
Evidence to proveBeowulfa translation from a Scandinavian original is, then, wanting. On the other hand, over and above the difficulty that theBeowulfbelongs just to the period when intimate communication between the Angles and Scandinavians was suspended, there is much evidence against the translation theory. The earliest Scandinavian poetry we possess, or of which we can get information, differs absolutely fromBeowulfin style, metre and sentiment: the manners ofBeowulfare incompatible with all we know of the wild heathendom of Scandinavia in the seventh or eighth century[231].Beowulf, as we now have it, with its Christian references and its Latin loan-words,couldnot be a translation from the Scandinavian. And the proper names inBeowulfwhich Sarrazin claimed were Old Norse, not Old English, and had been takenover from the Old Norse original, are in all cases so correctly transliterated as to necessitate the assumption that they were brought across early, at the time of the settlement of Britain or very shortly after, and underwent phonetic development side by side with the other words in the English language. Had they been brought across from Scandinavia at a later date, much confusion must have ensued in the forms.
Somewhat less improbable is the suggestion "that the poet had travelled on the continent and become familiar with the legends of the Danes and Geats, or else had heard them from a Scandinavian resident in England[232]." But it is clear from the allusive manner in which the Scandinavian tales are told, that they must have been familiar to the poet's audience. If, then, the English audience knew them, why must the poet himself have travelled on the continent in order to know them? There is, therefore, no need for this theory, and it is open to many of the objections of the translation theory: for example it fails, equally with that theory, to account for the uniformly correct development of the proper names.
The obvious conclusion is that these Scandinavian traditions were brought over by the English settlers in the sixth century. Against this only one cavil can be raised, and that will not bear examination. It has been objected that, since Hygelac's raid took place about 516, since Beowulf's accession was some years subsequent, and since he then reigned fifty years, his death cannot be put much earlier than 575, and that this brings us to a date when the migration of the Angles and Saxons had been completed[233]. But it is forgotten that all the historical events mentioned in the poem, which we can date, occur before, or not very long after, the raid of Hygelac, c. 516. The poem asserts that fifty years after these events Beowulf slew a dragon and was slain by it. But this does not make the dragon historic, nor does it make the year 575 the historic date of the death of Beowulf. We cannot be sure that therewasany actual king of the Geatas named Beowulf; and if there was, the last known historic act with which that king is associated is the raising of Eadgils to the Swedish throne,c. 525: the rest of Beowulf's long reign, since it contains no event save the slaying of a dragon, has no historic validity.
It is noteworthy that, whereas there is full knowledge shown in our poem of those events which took place in Scandinavian lands during the whole period from about 450 to 530—the period during which hordes of Angles, Saxons and Jutes were landing in Britain—there is no reference, not even by way of casual allusion, to any continental events which we can date with certainty as subsequent to the arrival of the latest settlers from the continent. Surely this is strong evidence that these tales were brought over by some of the last of the invaders, not carried to England by some casual traveller a century or two later.
Section II. The dialect, syntax, and metre of "Beowulf" as evidence of its literary history.
A full discussion of the dialect, metre and syntax ofBeowulfforms no part of the scheme of this study. It is only intended in this section to see how far such investigations throw light upon the literary history of the poem.
Dialect.
Beowulfis written in the late West Saxon dialect. Imbedded in the poem, however, are a large number of forms, concerning which this at least can be said—that they are not normal late West Saxon. Critics have classified these forms, and have drawn conclusions from them as to the history of the poem: arguing from sporadic "Mercian" and "Kentish" forms thatBeowulfis of Mercian origin and has passed through the hands of a Kentish transcriber.
But, in fact, the evidence as to Old English dialects is more scanty and more conflicting than philologists have always been willing to admit. It is exceedingly difficult to say with any certainty what forms are "Mercian" and what "Kentish." Having run such forms to earth, it is still more difficult to say what arguments are to be drawn from theiroccasionalappearance in any text. Men from widely different parts of the country would be working together in the scriptorium of one and the same monastery, and this fact alone may have often led to confusion in the dialectal forms of works transcribed.
A thorough investigation of the significance of all the abnormal forms inBeowulfhas still to be made. Whether it would repay the labour of the investigator may well be questioned. In the meantime we may accept the view that the poem was in all probability originally written in some non-West-Saxon dialect, and most probably in an Anglian dialect, since this is confirmed by the way in which the Anglian hero Offa is dragged into the story.
Ten Brink's attempt to decide the dialect and transmission ofBeowulfwill be found in hisBeowulf, pp. 237-241: he notes the difficulty that the "Kentish" forms from which he argues are nearly all such as occur also sporadically in West Saxon texts. A classification of the forms by P. G. Thomas will be found in theModern Language Review,I, 202etc.How difficult and uncertain all classification must be has been shown by Frederick Tupper (Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer.XXVI, 235etc.;J.E.G.P.XI, 82-9).
Ten Brink's attempt to decide the dialect and transmission ofBeowulfwill be found in hisBeowulf, pp. 237-241: he notes the difficulty that the "Kentish" forms from which he argues are nearly all such as occur also sporadically in West Saxon texts. A classification of the forms by P. G. Thomas will be found in theModern Language Review,I, 202etc.How difficult and uncertain all classification must be has been shown by Frederick Tupper (Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer.XXVI, 235etc.;J.E.G.P.XI, 82-9).
"Lichtenheld's Test."
Somewhat more definite results can be drawn from certain syntactical usages. There can be no doubt that as time went on, the use ofse,sēo,þætbecame more and more common in O.E. verse. This is largely due to the fact that in the older poems theweak adjective+nounappears frequently where we should now use the definite article:wīsa fengel—"the wise prince";se wīsa fengelis used where some demonstrative is needed—"that wise prince." Later, however,se,sēo,þætcomes to be used in the common and vague sense in which the definite article is used in Modern English.
We consequently get with increasing frequency the use of thedefinite article+weak adjective+noun: whilst the usageweak adjective+noundecreases. Some rough criterion of date can thus be obtained by an examination of a poet's usage in this particular. Of course it would be absurd—as has been done—to group Old English poems in a strict chronological order according to the proportion of forms with and without the article. Individual usage must count for a good deal:also the scribes in copying and recopying our text must to a considerable extent have obliterated the earlier practice. Metre and syntax combine to make it probable that, in line 9 of our poem, the scribe has inserted the unnecessary articleþārabeforeymbsittendra: and in the rare cases where we have an O.E. poem preserved in two texts, a comparison proves that the scribe has occasionally interpolated an article. But this later tendency to level out the peculiarity only makes it the more remarkable that we should find such great differences between O.E. poems, all of them extant in copies transcribed about the year 1000.
How great is the difference between the usage ofBeowulfand that of the great body of Old English poetry will be clear from the following statistics.
The proportion of phrases containing the weak adjective + noun with and without the definite article in the certain works of Cynewulf is as follows[234]:
InGuthlac(A) (c. 750) the proportions are:
Contrast this with the proportion in our poem:
The nearest approach to the proportions ofBeowulfis in the (certainly very archaic)
On the other hand, certain late texts show how fallible this criterion is. Anyone datingMaldonsolely by "Lichtenheld's Test" would assuredly place it much earlier than 991.
It is easy to make a false use of grammatical statistics: and this test should only be applied with the greatest caution. But the difference betweenBeowulfand the works of Cynewulf is too striking to be overlooked. InBeowulf, to every five examples without the article (e.g.heaðo-stēapa helm) we haveonewith the article (e.g.se hearda helm): in Cynewulf to every five examples without the article we havefortywith it.
A further test of antiquity is in the use of the weak adjective with the instrumental—a use which rapidly diminishes.
There are eighteen such instrumental phrases inBeowulf(3182 lines)[235]. InExodus(589 lines) there are six examples[236]—proportionally more than inBeowulf. In Cynewulf's undoubted works (c. 2478 lines) there is one example only,beorhtan reorde[237].
This criterion of the absence of the definite article before the weak adjective is often referred to as Lichtenheld's Test (see article by him inZ.f.d.A.XVI, 325etc.). It has been applied to the whole body of O.E. poetry by Barnouw (Textcritische Untersuchungen, 1902). The data collected by Barnouw are most valuable, but we must be cautious in the conclusions we draw, as is shown by Sarrazin (Eng. Stud.XXXVIII, 145etc.), and Tupper (Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc.XXVI, 274).Exact enumeration of instances is difficult. For example, Lichtenheld gave 22 instances of definite article + weak adjective + noun inBeowulf[238]. But eight of these are not quite certain;se gōda mǣg Hygelācesmay be not "the good kinsman of Hygelac," but "the good one—the kinsman of Hygelac," for there is the half line pause aftergōda. These eight examples therefore should be deducted[239]. One instance, though practically certain, is the result of conjectural emendation[240]. Of the remaining thirteen[241]three are variations of the same phrase.The statistics given above are those of Brandl (Sitzungsberichte d. k. Preuss. Akad. d. Wissenschaften, 1905, p. 719) which are based upon those of Barnouw.
This criterion of the absence of the definite article before the weak adjective is often referred to as Lichtenheld's Test (see article by him inZ.f.d.A.XVI, 325etc.). It has been applied to the whole body of O.E. poetry by Barnouw (Textcritische Untersuchungen, 1902). The data collected by Barnouw are most valuable, but we must be cautious in the conclusions we draw, as is shown by Sarrazin (Eng. Stud.XXXVIII, 145etc.), and Tupper (Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc.XXVI, 274).
Exact enumeration of instances is difficult. For example, Lichtenheld gave 22 instances of definite article + weak adjective + noun inBeowulf[238]. But eight of these are not quite certain;se gōda mǣg Hygelācesmay be not "the good kinsman of Hygelac," but "the good one—the kinsman of Hygelac," for there is the half line pause aftergōda. These eight examples therefore should be deducted[239]. One instance, though practically certain, is the result of conjectural emendation[240]. Of the remaining thirteen[241]three are variations of the same phrase.
The statistics given above are those of Brandl (Sitzungsberichte d. k. Preuss. Akad. d. Wissenschaften, 1905, p. 719) which are based upon those of Barnouw.
"Morsbach's Test."
Sievers' theories as to O.E. metre have not been accepted by all scholars in their entirety. But the statistics which hecollected enable us to say, with absolute certainty, that some given types of verse were not acceptable to the ear of an Old English bard.
Sceptics may emphasize the fact that Old English texts are uncertain, that nearly all poems are extant in oneMSonly, that theMSin each case was written down long after the poems were composed, and that precise verbal accuracy is therefore not to be expected[242]. All the more remarkable then becomes the fact, for it is a fact, that there are certain types of line which never occur inBeowulf, and that there are other types which are exceedingly rare. Again, there are certain types of line whichdooccur inBeowulfas we have it, though they seem contrary to the principles of O.E. scansion. When we find that such lines consistently contain some word which had a different metrical value when our extantMSofBeowulfwas transcribed, from that which it had at the earlier date whenBeowulfwas composed, and that the earlier value makes the line metrical, the conclusion is obvious.Beowulfmust have been composed at a time or in a dialect when the earlier metrical values held good.
But we reach a certain date beyond which, if we put the language back into its older form, it will no longer fit into the metrical structure. For example, words likeflōd,feld,eardwere originally "u-nouns": with nom. and acc. sing.flōdu, etc. But the half-lineofer fealone flōd(1950) becomes exceedingly difficult if we put it in the formofer fealone flōdu[243]: the half-linefīfelcynnes eardbecomes absolutely impossible in the formfīfelcynnes eardu[244].
It can, consequently, with some certainty be argued that these half-lines were composed after the time whenflōdu,earduhad becomeflōd,eard. Therefore, it has been further argued,Beowulfwas composed after that date. But are we justified in this further step—in assuming that because a certain number of half-lines inBeowulfmust have been composed after a certain date, thereforeBeowulfitself must have been composed after that date?
From what we know of the mechanical way in which the Old Englishscribeworked, we have no reason to suppose that he would have consistently altered what he found in an older copy, so as to make it metrical according to the later speech into which he was transcribing it. But if we go back to a time when poems were committed to memory by ascop, skilled in the laws of O.E. metre, the matter is very different. A written poem may be copied word for word, even though the spelling is at the same time modernized, but it is obvious that a poem preserved orally will be altered slightly from time to time, if the language in which it is written is undergoing changes which make the poem no longer metrically correct.
Imagine the state of things at the period when finaluwas being lost after a long syllable. This loss of a syllable would make a large number of the half-lines and formulas in the old poetry unmetrical. Are we to suppose that the whole of O.E. poetry was at once scrapped, and entirely new poems composed to fit in with the new sound laws? Surely not; old formulas would be recast, old lines modified where they needed it, but the old poetry would go on[245], with these minor verbal changes adapting it to the new order of things. We can see this taking place, to a limited extent, in the transcripts of Middle English poems. In the transmission of poems by word of mouth it would surely take place to such an extent as to baffle later investigation[246].
Consequently I am inclined to agree that this test is hardly final except "on the assumption that the poems were written down from the very beginning[247]." And we are clearly not justified in making any such assumption. A small number of such lines would accordingly give, not so much a means of fixing a period before whichBeowulfcannot have been composed, as merelyone before whichBeowulfcannot have been fixed by writing in its present form.
If, however, more elaborate investigation were to show that thepercentageof such lines isjust as greatinBeowulfas it is in poems certainly written after the sound changes had taken place, it might be conceded that the test was a valid one, and that it provedBeowulfto have been written after these sound changes occurred.
This would then bring us to our second difficulty. At what date exactly did these sound changes take place? The chief documents available are the proper names in Bede's History, and in certain Latin charters, the glosses, and a few early runic inscriptions. Most important, although very scanty, are the charters, since they bear a date. With these we proceed to investigate:
A. The dropping of theuafter a long accented syllable (flō´dubecomingflō´d), or semi-accented syllable (Stā´nfòrdubecomingStā´nfòrd).
There is evidence from an Essex charter that this was already lost in 692 or 693 (uuidmundesfelt)[248]. From this date on, examples without theuare forthcoming in increasing number[249]. One certain example only has been claimed for the preservation ofu. In the runic inscription on the "Franks casket"floduis found forflod. But the spelling of the Franks casket is erratic: for examplegiuþeasuis also found forgiuþeas, "the Jews." Nowuhere is impossible[250], and we must conclude perhaps that the inscriber of the runes intended to writegiuþea su[mæ][250]orgiuþea su[na][251], "some of the Jews," "the sons of the Jews," and that having reached the end of his line atu, he neglected to complete the word: or else perhaps that he wrotegiuþeasand having some additional space added auat the end of his line, just for fun. Whichever explanation weadopt, it will apply toflodu, which equally comes at the end of a line, and theuof which may equally have been part of some following word which was never completed[252].
Other linguistic data of the Franks casket would lead us to place it somewhere in the first half of the eighth century, and we should hardly expect to findupreserved as late as this[253]. For we have seen that by 693 theuwas already lost after a subordinate accent in the Essex charter. Yet it is arguable that theuwas retained later after a long accented syllable (flódu) than after a subordinate accent (uuídmùndesfèlt); and, besides, the casket is Northumbrian, and the sound changes need not have been simultaneous all over the country.
We cannot but feel that the evidence is pitifully scanty. All we can say is thatperhapsthefloduof the Franks casket shows thatuwas still preserved after a fully accented syllable as late as 700. But theuinflodumay be a deliberate archaism on the part of the writer, may be a local dialectal survival, may be a mere miswriting.
B. The preservation ofhbetween consonant and vowel.
Here there is one clear example which we can date: the archaic spelling of the proper nameWelhisc.Signum manus uelhiscioccurs in a Kentish charter of 679[254]. The same charter showshalready lost between vowels:uuestan ae(aedative ofēa, "river," cf. Gothicahwa).
Not much can be argued from the proper nameWelhisc, as to the current pronunciation in Kent in 679, for an old man may well have continued to spell his name as it was spelt when he was a child, even though the current pronunciation had changed[255]. But we have further evidence in the glosses, which showhsometimes preserved and sometimes not. These glosses are mechanical copies of an original which was presumably compiled between 680 and 720. We are therefore justified in arguing that at that datehwas still preserved, at any rate occasionally.
Of "Morsbach's test" we can then say that it establishes something of an argument thatBeowulfwas composed after the date when finaluafter a long syllable, orhbetween consonant and vowel, were lost, and that this date was probably within a generation or so of the year 700A.D.But there are too many uncertain contingencies involved to make the test at all a conclusive one.
Morsbach'sZur Datierung des Beowulf-eposwill be found in the GöttingenNachrichten, 1906, pp. 252-77. These tests have been worked out for the whole body of Old English poetry in theChronologische Studienof Carl Richter, Halle, 1910.
Morsbach'sZur Datierung des Beowulf-eposwill be found in the GöttingenNachrichten, 1906, pp. 252-77. These tests have been worked out for the whole body of Old English poetry in theChronologische Studienof Carl Richter, Halle, 1910.
Section III. Theories as to the structure of "Beowulf."
Certain peculiarities in the structure ofBeowulfcan hardly fail to strike the reader. (1) The poem is not a biography of Beowulf, nor yet an episode in his life: it is two distinct episodes: the Grendel business and the dragon business, joined by a narrow bridge. (2) Both these stories are broken in upon by digressions: some of these concern Beowulf himself, so that we get a fairly complete idea of the life of our hero: but for the most part these digressions are not strictly apposite. (3) Even apart from these digressions, the narrative is often hampered: the poet begins his story, diverges and returns. (4) The traces of Christian thought and knowledge which meet us from time to time seem to belong to a different world from that of the Germanic life in which our poem has its roots.
Now in the middle of the nineteenth century it was widely believed that the great epics of the world had been formed from collections of original shorter lays fitted together (often unskilfully) by later redactors. For a critic starting from this assumption, better material than theBeowulfcould hardly be found. And itwaswith such assumptions that Carl Müllenhoff, the greatest of the scholars who have dissected theBeowulf, set to work. He attended the lectures of Lachmann, and formed,a biographer tells us, the fixed resolve to do for one epic what his admired master had done for another[256].
Müllenhoff claimed for his theories that they were simple[257]and straightforward: and so they were, if we may be allowed to assume as a basis that theBeowulfis made up out of shorter lays, and that the only business of the critic is to define the scope of these lays. In the story of Beowulf's fight with Grendel (ll. 194-836: Müllenhoff's Sect. I) and with the dragon (ll. 2200-3183: Müllenhoff's Sect. IV) Müllenhoff saw the much interpolated remains of two original lays by different authors. But, before it was united to the dragon story, the Grendel story, Müllenhoff held, had already undergone many interpolations and additions. The story of Grendel's mother (ll. 837-1623: Sect. II) was added, Müllenhoff held, by one continuator as a sequel to the story of Grendel, and ll. 1-193 were added by another hand as an introduction. Then this Grendel story was finally rounded off by an interpolator (A) who added the account of Beowulf's return home (Sect. III, ll. 1629-2199) and at the same time inserted passages into the poem throughout. Finally came Interpolator B, who was the first to combine the Grendel story, thus elaborated, with the dragon story. Interpolator B was responsible for the great bulk of the interpolations: episodes from other cycles and "theologizing" matter.
Ten Brink, like Müllenhoff, regarded the poem as falling into four sections: the Grendel fight, the fight with Grendel's mother, the return home, the dragon fight. But Müllenhoff had imagined the epic composed out of one set of lays: incoherences, he thought, were due to the bungling of successive interpolators. Ten Brink assumed that in the case of all three fights, with Grendel, with Grendel's mother, and with the dragon, there had been twoparallelversions, which a later redactor had combined together, and that it was to this combination that the frequent repetitions in thenarrative were due: he believed that not only were the different episodes of the poem originally distinct, but that each episode was compounded of two originally distinct lays, combined together.
Now it cannot be denied that the process postulated by Müllenhoffmighthave taken place: a lay on Grendel and a lay on the dragon-fight might have been combined by some later compiler. Ten Brink's theory, too, is inherently not improbable: that there should have been two or more versions current of a popular story is probable enough: that a scribe should have tried to fit these two parallel versions together is not without precedent: very good examples of such attempts at harmonizing different versions can be got from an examination of theMSSofPiers Plowman.