stat sua cuique dies, breve et inreparabile tempusomnibus est vitae; sed famam extendere factishoc virtutis opus[651].
stat sua cuique dies, breve et inreparabile tempusomnibus est vitae; sed famam extendere factishoc virtutis opus[651].
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:
Ūre ǣghwylc sceal ende gebīdanworolde līfes; wyrce sē þe mōtedōmes ǣr dēaþe; þæt biþ drihtgumanunlifgendum æfter sēlest.
Ūre ǣghwylc sceal ende gebīdanworolde līfes; wyrce sē þe mōtedōmes ǣr dēaþe; þæt biþ drihtgumanunlifgendum æfter sēlest.
Ūre ǣghwylc sceal ende gebīdan
worolde līfes; wyrce sē þe mōte
dōmes ǣr dēaþe; þæt biþ drihtguman
unlifgendum æfter sēlest.
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 isit 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 toBeowulfits 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 asBeowulf[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 ofBeowulfwith 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'sEpistola 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, hiscarmen 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 hadstudied 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 ona priorigrounds, 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 makeBeowulfa 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.
E. THE "JUTE-QUESTION" REOPENED
The view that the Geatas ofBeowulfare 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, Schütte 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], Schütte[669]and Kier[670]. But, now that the laws of Old English sound-change have beenclearly 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. TheGēatasphonologically are theGautar(the modern Götar of Southern Sweden). It is admitted that the words are identical[671]. And, equally, it is admitted that the wordGēatascannot be identical with the wordIuti,Iutae, used by Bede as the name of the Jutes who colonized Kent[671]. Bede'sIuti,Iutae, on the contrary, would correspond to a presumed Old English*Īutior*Īutan[672], current in his time in Northumbria. This in later Northumbrian would becomeĪote,Īotan(though the formĪute,Īutanmight also survive). The dialect forms which we should expect (and which we find in the genitive and dative) corresponding to this would be: Mercian,Ēote,Ēotan; Late West-Saxon,Ȳte,Ȳtan(through an intermediate Early West-Saxon*Īete,*Īetan, which is not recorded).
If, then, the wordGēatascame to supplant the correct formĪote,Īotan(or its Mercian and West-Saxon equivalentsĒote,Ēotan,Ȳte,Ȳtan), 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 wordGēatashaving been transferred by Englishmen, from the half-forgotten Gautar, to the Jutes, and having driven out the correct name of the latter,Īote,Īotan. For example, there might have been an exiled Geatic family among the Jutish invaders, which might have become so prominent as to causethe nameGēatasto supplant the correctĪote,Ēote, etc. But, whoever the Geatas may have been,Beowulfis their chief early record: indeed, almost all we know of their earliest history is derived fromBeowulf. InBeowulf, therefore, if anywhere, the old names and traditions should be remembered. The wordGēatoccurs some 50 times in the poem. The poet obviously wishes to use other synonyms, for the sake of variety and alliteration: hence we getWeder-Gēatas,Wederas,Sǣ-Gēatas,Gūð-Gēatas. Now, if these Geatas are the Jutes, how comes it that the poetnevercalls them such, never speaks of them under the correct tribal name ofĒote, etc., although this was the current name at the timeBeowulfwas written, and indeed for centuries later?
For, demonstrably, the formĒote, etc.,wasrecognized as the name of the Jutes till at least the twelfth century. Then it died out of current speech, and only Bede's LatinIuti(and the modern "Jute" derived therefrom) remained as terms used by the historians. The evidence is conclusive:
(a) Bede, writing about the time whenBeowulf, in its present form, is supposed to have been composed, usesIuti,Iutae, corresponding to a presumed contemporary Northumbrian*Īuti,*Īutan.
(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 twoMSSare 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 translatorhas to render Bede's "Iutorum," he gives, not "Geata," but the correct Mercian "Eota." There can be no possible doubt here, for fiveMSSare extant at this point, and all give the correct form—four in the Mercian, "Eota," whilst one gives the West-Saxon equivalent, "Ytena."
Now theGēata-passage in the Bede translation is the chief piece of evidence which those who would explain the Geatas ofBeowulfas "Jutes" can call: and it does not, in fact, much help them. What they have to prove is that theBeowulf-poet couldconsistently and invariablyhave usedGēatasin the place ofĒote. 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 formĪote,Īotan, etc. in Old English.
(c) The passage from Bede was again translated, and inserted into a copy of theAnglo-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, whetherGēatasorĪote. We find the forms "Iotum," "Iutum"; "Iutna."
(e) Corresponding to this Northumbrian (and Kentish) formĪote, MercianĒote, the Late West-Saxon form should beȲte. NowMS 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 thisMSthe "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 thetime 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 slainin Noua Foresta quae lingua Anglorum Ytene nuncupatur; and in another place he speaks of the same event as happeningin prouincia Jutarum in Noua Foresta[676], which shows that Florence understood that "Ytene" wasȲtena land, "the province of the Jutes."
It comes, then, to this. The "Jute-hypothesis" postulates not only that, at the timeBeowulfwas composed,Gēatashad come to mean "Jutes," but also that it had so completely ousted the correct old nameĪuti, Īote, Ēote, Ȳte, that none of the latter terms are ever used in the poem as synonyms for Beowulf's people[677]. Yet all the evidence shows thatĪutietc. 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 wasĪuti,Īotenever superseded in O.E. times; there is no real evidence thatGēataswas evergenerallyused to signify "Jutes." The fact that one translator in one passage (writing probably some two centuries afterBeowulfwas 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 thatGēatasis the exact phonological equivalent ofGautar(Götar) and cannot be equivalent to Bede'sIuti. This difficulty may be got over by the assumption that somehow theIuti, or some of them, had adopted the nameGēatas: 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 whenBeowulfwas written, the correct nameIuti(NorthumbrianĪote, MercianĒote, West-SaxonȲte) must have so passed into disuse that it could not be once used as asynonym for Beowulf's people, by our synonym-hunting poet. And this assumption wearein 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 Götar, 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 Götarwassituated 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 Götar, and beyond these the Swedes. If the Geatas be Jutes, why should their immediate neighbours, the Angles, never appear inBeowulfas having any dealings with them? And why, above all, should the Götar never be mentioned, whilst the Swedes, far to the north, play so large a part? Even if Swedes and Götar had at this time been under one king, the Götar 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 Götar 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 Götar, whose territory lay in between?
Again, in the "Catalogue of Kings" inWidsith, the Swedes are named with their famous king Ongentheow. The Jutes (Ȳte) are also mentioned, withtheirking. And their king isnot Hrethel, Hæthcyn, 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 asHuiglaucus qui imperavit Getis. Now Getis can mean Götar[682], but can hardly mean Jutes.
The geographical case against the identification of Geatas and Götar depends upon the assumption that the western sea-coast of the Götar in ancient times must have coincided with that of West Gothland (Vestra-Götland) in mediæval and modern times. Now as this coast consists merely of a small strip south of the river Götaelv, it is argued that the Götar could not be the maritime Geatas ofBeowulf, capable of undertaking a Viking raid to the mouth of the Rhine. But the assumption that the frontiers of the Götar aboutA.D.500 were the same as they were a thousand years later, is not only improbable ona priorigrounds, but, as Schück has shown[683], can be definitely disproved. Adam of Bremen, writing in the eleventh century, speaks of the river Gothelba (Götaelv) as running through the midst of the peoples of the Götar. 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 Götar must have dwelt around the river Götaelv. But, if so, then they were a maritime folk: for the river Götaelv 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, theGötar to the north of the river had long been politically subject to Norway[685]: and theHeimskringlatells us how this happened.
Harold Fairhair, King of Norway (a contemporary of King Alfred), attacked them: they had staked the river Götaelv against him, but he moored his ships to the stakes[686]and harriedon either shore: he fought far and wide in the country, had many battleson either side of the river, and finally slew the leader of the Götar, Hrani Gauzki (the Götlander). Then he annexed to Norway all the land north of the river and west of Lake Wener. Thenceforward the Götaelv was the boundary between Norway and West Gothland, though the country ultimately became Swedish, as it now is. But it is abundantly clear from theHeimskringlathat Harold regarded as hostile all the territory north of the Götaelv, and between Lake Wener and the sea[687](the old Ránriki and the modern Bohuslän).
But, if so, then the objection that the Götar 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 Bohuslän 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 Göteborg 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].
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, andthen in a sea fight annihilated his fleet. Now the poet says that the Geatas may expect war when the Franksand Frisianshear 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 Götar across the Cattegat, 50 miles further off? The messenger goes on to anticipate hostility from the Swedes[692]. To this, at any rate, the Götar 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 Götardidlose their independence, andwereincorporated 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 eitherequally indecisive, or else actually to tell against the "Jute-theory." Schütte[695]thinks that the name "Wederas" (applied inBeowulfto the Geatas) is identical with the nameEudoses(that of a tribe mentioned by Tacitus, whomay[696]have dwelt in Jutland). But this is impossible phonologically:Wederasis surely a shortened form ofWeder-Gēatas, "the Storm-Geatas." Indeed, we have, in favour of the Götar-theory, the fact that the very name of the Wederas survives on the Bohuslän coast to this day, in the Wäder Öar and the Wäder Fiord.
Advocates of the "Jute-theory" lay great stress upon the fact that Gregory of Tours and theLiber Historiae Francorumcall 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 fromBeowulfthat the Geataswerequite distinct from the Danes[698], and quite independent of them[699].
It is repeatedly urged that the Geatas and Swedes fightofer sǣ[700]. Butsǣcan 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, á Vænis ísi[702]. Lake Wener is an obvious battle place for Götar and Swedes. They were separated by the great and almost impassable forests of "Tived" and "Kolmård," 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 Götar are remote from the Anglo-Saxons[704]. Possibly: but remoteness did not preventthe 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 Geataswerea 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. TheYnglinga talrepresents Ottar (who is certainly the Ohthere ofBeowulf) 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 ofBeowulf. 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 KingOttar'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 Götar: but it would not suit the Jutes so well.
An exploration of the mound has proved beyond reasonable doubt that itwasraised to cover the ashes of Ottar Vendel-crow, the Ohthere ofBeowulf[708]. That Ohthere fell in battle against the Geatas there is nothing, inBeowulfor 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 theYnglinga sagaof 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 downto 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, thatGēatasis phonologically the equivalent of "Götar," but not the equivalent of "Jutes"; that what we know of the use of the word "Jutes" (Īote, etc.) in Old English makes it incredible that a poem of the length ofBeowulfcould 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 Götar, but doesnotfit 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 Götar, are all found on examination to be either inconclusive or actually to favour the Götar.
F.BEOWULFAND THE ARCHÆOLOGISTS
The peat-bogs of Schleswig and Denmark have yielded finds of the first importance for English archæology. 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 centuryA.D., and some authorities would make it considerably later.
An account of these discoveries will be found in Engelhardt'sDenmark in the Early Iron Age[709], 1866: a volume whichsummarizes the results of Engelhardt's investigations during the preceding seven years. He had published in CopenhagenThorsbjerg 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 Fünen:Kragehul Mosefund, 1867;Vimose Fundet, 1869.
These deposits, however, obviously belong to a period much earlier than that in whichBeowulfwas written: indeed most of them certainly belong to a period earlier than that in which the historic events described inBeowulfoccurred; so that, close as is their relation with Anglian civilization, it is with the civilization of the Angles while still on the continent.
The Archæology ofBeowulfhas 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 ofBeowulfby 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 inBeowulf[712]," well illustrated. Here again the illustrations, with few exceptions, are from Scandinavian finds.
Two weighty arguments as to the origin ofBeowulfhave been based upon archæology. 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 themise-en-scènemust be due to the English author[713]."
"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 themise-en-scènemust be due to the English author[713]."
Equally, Prof. Klaeber finds in Stjerna's investigations a strong argument for the Scandinavian character ofBeowulf[714].
Now Stjerna, very rightly and naturally, drew his illustrations ofBeowulffrom 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 archæologist who has chosen to devote his knowledge so wholeheartedly to the elucidation ofBeowulfwas a Scandinavian, using Scandinavian material, that thereforeBeowulfis 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 inBeowulfso purely Scandinavian as to compel us to assume that any line of the story, in the poetical form in which we now have it, wasnecessarilycomposed in Scandinavia. Even if it could be shown that the conditions depicted inBeowulfcan be better illustrated from the grave-finds of Vendel in Sweden than from English diggings, this would not proveBeowulfScandinavian. Modern scientific archæology is surely based on chronology as well as geography. The English finds date fromthe period before 650A.D., and the Vendel finds from the period after.Beowulfmight 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 inBeowulf[718]; we find them equally at the court of the Ostrogothic Theodoric[719]; Charles the Great sent to Offa of Merciaunum balteum et unum gladium huniscum[720]; according to the famous story in theHeimskringla, 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 700A.D.But I do not think that there is anyspecialresemblance, though, both inBeowulfand 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 inBeowulf: 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,we can draw any argument from it. For, if the dragon inBeowulfguards a treasure, so equally does the typical dragon of Old English proverbial lore[723]. Beowulf is spoken of asgold-wlanc, but the typical thegn inFinnsburgis calledgold-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 inBeowulf, sometimes more so. Widsith made a hobby of collecting goldenbēagas. The subject ofWaldereis a fight for treasure. The byrnie of Waldere[727]is adorned with gold: so is that of Holofernes inJudith[728], so is that of the typical warrior in theElene[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 wordhring-mǣl, applied three times to the sword inBeowulf, 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 inBeowulfisto 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 argumentas proof of the Scandinavian colouring ofBeowulf) four ring-swords at least have been found in England[733]. And these English swords arerealring-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 archæologists 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 inBeowulf(if indeed that be the meaning ofhring-mǣl) prove Scandinavian colouring? If it proved anything (which it does not) it would tend to prove the reverse, and to locateBeowulfin 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-Saxonhelmet 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 ofBeowulfshow 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 Fünen.) But, for the period whenBeowulfmust 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 inBeowulfbe 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,intertwinedso as to form a chain, have been found throughout Scandinavia, presumably for use as a medium of exchange. The termlocenra bēaga(gen. plu.) occurs inBeowulf, and this is interpreted by Stjerna as "ringsintertwined or lockedtogether[742]." ButloceninBeowulfneed not have the meaning of "intertwined"; it occurs elsewhere in Old English of a single jewel,sincgim locen[743]. Further, even iflocendoes mean"intertwined," such intertwined rings are not limited to Scandinavia proper. They have been found in Schleswig[744]. And almost the very phrase inBeowulf,londes ne locenra bēaga[745], recurs in theAndreas. The phrase there may be imitated fromBeowulf, but, equally, the phrase inBeowulfmay be imitated from some earlier poem. In fact, it is part of the traditional poetic diction: but its occurrence in theAndreasshows 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 ofBeowulfwhich 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 inBeowulfthan 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 inBeowulfdoes not imply that they were common: forBeowulfdeals only with the aristocratic adherents of a court, and even inBeowulffine 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 thatBeowulfis 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 knownas tomb-furniturein 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 thatBeowulfreflects the comparative abundance of early Christian England, as opposed to the more primitive heathen simplicity; but to argue a Scandinavian origin from the profusion ofBeowulfadmits of an easyreductio ad absurdum. For the same arguments would prove a heathen, Scandinavian origin for theAndreas, theElene, theExodus, 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 assuredlydoesprove: 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 ofBeowulfwhich has been based on archæology.
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 archæological evidence: that it musttherefore 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 dateBeowulflater than the third or fourth decade of the seventh century.
To begin with; the pyre inBeowulfis 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 wedoknow 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 inBeowulf, 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 archæological authority have we for such a custom in England?
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 inBeowulfis one of which "the accuracy is confirmed in every point by archæological 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 theVictoria County History. The two splendid volumes of Professor G. Baldwin Brown onSaxon 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 Archæology of the Anglo-Saxon Settlementsby 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'sArts and Crafts of our Teutonic Forefathers, 1910, and from Lindenschmit'sHandbuch der deutschen Alterthumskunde, I. Theil: Die Alterthümer 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 ofBeowulf, both upon archæological 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:Gustafson (G.),Norges Oldtid, 1906; for Denmark: Müller (S.),Vor Oldtid, 1897; for Sweden: Montelius (O.),Civilization of Sweden in Heathen Times, 1888,Kulturgeschichte Schwedens, 1906; for Schleswig: Mestorf (J.),Vorgeschichtliche Alterthümer aus Schleswig; for the Germanic nations in their wanderings on the outskirts of the Roman Empire: Hampel (J.),Alterthümer des frühen Mittelalters in Ungarn, 3 Bde, 1905; for Germanic remains in Gaul: Barrière-Flavy (M. C.),Les Arts industriels des peuples barbares de la Gaule du Vme au VIIIme siècle, 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.
For the antiquities of Anglo-Saxon England, the student should consult theVictoria County History. The two splendid volumes of Professor G. Baldwin Brown onSaxon 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 Archæology of the Anglo-Saxon Settlementsby 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'sArts and Crafts of our Teutonic Forefathers, 1910, and from Lindenschmit'sHandbuch der deutschen Alterthumskunde, I. Theil: Die Alterthümer 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 ofBeowulf, both upon archæological 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:Gustafson (G.),Norges Oldtid, 1906; for Denmark: Müller (S.),Vor Oldtid, 1897; for Sweden: Montelius (O.),Civilization of Sweden in Heathen Times, 1888,Kulturgeschichte Schwedens, 1906; for Schleswig: Mestorf (J.),Vorgeschichtliche Alterthümer aus Schleswig; for the Germanic nations in their wanderings on the outskirts of the Roman Empire: Hampel (J.),Alterthümer des frühen Mittelalters in Ungarn, 3 Bde, 1905; for Germanic remains in Gaul: Barrière-Flavy (M. C.),Les Arts industriels des peuples barbares de la Gaule du Vme au VIIIme siècle, 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 500A.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 inMSin the Royal Library at Stockholm) dating from 1677, mentions in Vendel "widh Hussby, [en] stor jorde högh, som heeter Otters högen[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; thecremated 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 500A.D.
Weapons
For weapons in general see Lehmann (H.),Über die Waffen im angelsächsischen Beowulfliede, inGermania,XXXI, 486-97; Keller (May L.),The Anglo-Saxon weapon names treated archæologically and etymologically, Heidelberg, 1906 (Anglistische Forschungen,XV: cf. Holthausen,Anglia, Beiblatt,XVIII, 65-9, Binz,Litteraturblatt,XXXI, 98-100); ‡Wagner (R.),Die Angriffswaffen der Angelsächsischen, Diss., Königsberg; and especially Falk (H.),Altnordische Waffenkunde, inVidenskapsselskapets Skrifter, Hist.-Filos. Klasse, 1914, Kristiania.
For weapons in general see Lehmann (H.),Über die Waffen im angelsächsischen Beowulfliede, inGermania,XXXI, 486-97; Keller (May L.),The Anglo-Saxon weapon names treated archæologically and etymologically, Heidelberg, 1906 (Anglistische Forschungen,XV: cf. Holthausen,Anglia, Beiblatt,XVIII, 65-9, Binz,Litteraturblatt,XXXI, 98-100); ‡Wagner (R.),Die Angriffswaffen der Angelsächsischen, Diss., Königsberg; and especially Falk (H.),Altnordische Waffenkunde, inVidenskapsselskapets Skrifter, Hist.-Filos. Klasse, 1914, Kristiania.
The Sword.The sword of the Anglo-Saxon pagan period (from the fifth to the seventh century) "is deficient in quality as a blade, and also ... in the character of its hilt[763]." In this it contrasts with the sword found in the peat-bogs of Schleswig from an earlier period: "these swords of the Schleswig moss-finds are much better weapons[764]," as well as with the later Viking sword of the ninth or tenth century, which "is a remarkably effective and well-considered implement[765]." It has been suggested that both the earlier Schleswig swords and the later Viking swords (which bear a considerable likeness to each other, as against the inferior Anglo-Saxon sword) are the product of intercourse with Romanized peoples[766], whilst the typical Anglo-Saxon sword "may represent an independent Germanic effort at sword making[767]." However this may be, it is noteworthy that nowhere inBeowulfdo we have any hint of the skill of any sword-smith who is regarded as contemporary. A good sword is always "an old heirloom," "an ancient treasure[768]." The sword of Wiglaf, which had belonged to Eanmund, or the sword with which Eofor slays Ongentheow, aredescribed by the phraseealdsweord eotenisc, as if they were weapons of which the secret and origin had been lost—indeed the same phrase is applied to the magic sword which Beowulf finds in the hall of Grendel's mother.
The blade of these ancestral swords was sometimes damascened or adorned with wave-like patterns[769]. The swords of the Schleswig moss-finds are almost all thus adorned with a variegated surface, as often are the later Viking swords; but those of the Anglo-Saxon graves arenot. Is it fanciful to suggest that the reference to damascening is a tradition coming down from the time of the earlier sword as found in the Nydam moss? A few early swords might have been preserved among the invaders as family heirlooms, too precious to be buried with the owner, as the product of the local weapon-smith was.
See, for a full discussion of the sword inBeowulf, Stjerna,Hjälmar och svärd i Beovulf(Studier tillägnade O. Montelius, Stockholm, pp. 99-120 =Essays, transl. Clark Hall, pp. 1-32). The standard treatise on the sword,Den Yngre Jernalders Sværd, Bergen, 1889, by A. L. Lorange, deals mainly with a rather later period.
The Helmet.The helmet found at Benty Grange in Derbyshire in 1848 is now in the Sheffield Museum[770]: little remains except the boar-crest, the nose-piece, and the framework of iron ribs radiating from the crown, and fixed to a circle of iron surrounding the brow (perhaps thefrēawrāsnofBeowulf, 1451). Mr Bateman, the discoverer, described the helmet as "coated with narrow plates of horn, running in a diagonal direction from the ribs, so as to form a herring-bone pattern; the ends were secured by strips of horn, radiating in like manner as the iron ribs, to which they were riveted at intervals of about an inch and a half: all the rivets had ornamented heads of silver on the outside, and on the front rib is a small cross of the same metal. Upon the top or crown of the helmet, is an elongated oval brass plate, upon which stands the figure of an animal, carved in iron, now much rusted, but still a very good representation of a pig: it has bronze eyes[771]." Helmets of very similar construction, but without the boar, have been found on the Continent and in Scandinavia (Vendel, Grave 14, late seventh century). The continental helmets oftenstand higher[772]than the Benty Grange or Vendel specimens, being sometimes quite conical (cf. the epithet "war-steep,"heaðo-stēap,Beowulf). Many of the continental helmets are provided with cheek-protections, and these also appear in the Scandinavian representations of warriors on the Torslunda plates and elsewhere. These side pieces have become detached from the magnificent Vendel helmet, which is often shown in engravings without them[773], but they can be seen in the Stockholm Museum[774]. If it ever possessed them, the Benty Grange helmet has lost these side pieces. Such cheek-protections are, however, represented, together with the nose-protection, on the head of one of the warriors depicted on the Franks Casket. In the Vendel helms, the nose-pieces were connected under the eyes with the rim of the helmet, so as to form a mask[774]; the helmet inBeowulfis frequently spoken of as the battle-mask[775].