Fol. 11a
Qualiter Offa rex uxoremduxerit.
Diebus itaquesub eisdem, regnante in Francia Karolo rege magno ac uictoriosissimo, quedampuella, facie uenusta, sedmente nimis inhonesta, ipsi regi consanguinea, pro quodamquod patrauerat crimine flagiciosissimo, addicta est iudicialiter morti ignominiose; uerum, ob regie dignitatis reuerentiam, igni uel ferro tradenda noniudicatur, sedin nauicula armamentis carente, apposito uictu tenui, uentisetmari, eorumqueambiguis casibusexponiturcondempnata. Que diu uariis[401]procellis exagitata, tandemfortuna trahente, litori Britonumest appulsa, et cumin terra subiecta potestati regis Offe memorata cimba applicuisset, conspectui regis protinuspresentatur. Interogata autemquenam esset, respondens, patria lingua affirmauit, se Karolo regi Francorumfuisseconsanguinitate propinquam, Dridamquenominatam, sedpertirannidemFol. 11b| quorundam ignobilium(quorumnuptias ne degeneraret, spreuit) tali fuisse discrimini adiudicatam, abortisquelacrimis addidit dicens, "Deus autemqui innocentes a laqueis insidiantiumliberat, me captiuam ad alas tue protecionis, o regum serenissime, felicitertransmisit, vt meuminfortunium, inauspicium fortunatumtransmutetur,etbeatior inexilio quamin natali patria, ab omni predicer posteritate."
Rex autemuerborumsuorumornatumeteloquentiam,etcorporis puellaris cultumetelegantiamconsiderans[402], motus pietate, precepit ut ad comitissamMarcellin[am][403]matremsuamtucius duceretur alenda, ac mitius sub tam honeste matrone custodia, donec regiummandatumaudiret, confouenda. Puelle igitur infra paucos dies, macieetpallore per alimenta depulsis, rediit decor pristinus, ita ut mulierumpulcherima censeretur. Sedcito in uerba iactantieetelacionis (secundum patrie sue consuetudinem) prorumpens, domine sue comitisse, quematerno affectu eam dulcitereducauerat, molesta nimis fuit, ipsam procaciter contempnendo. Sedcomitissa, pro amore filii sui regis, omnia pacienter tolerauit: licetetipsa dicta puella, intercomitemetcomitissam uerba discordie seminasset. Una igitur dierum, cumrex ipsam causa uisitacionis adiens, uerbisconsolatoriisalloqueretur, incidit inretia amoris illius; erat enimiam species illius concupiscibilis. Clandestinoigiturac repentino matrimonio ipsam sibi, inconsultis patreetmatre, necnonetmagnatibussuis uniuersis, copulauit. Unde uterqueparentum, dolore ac tedio inetate senilicontabescens, dies uite abreuiando, sue mortis horam lugubriteranticiparunt; sciebant enimipsam mulierculam fuisseetregalibus amplexibus prorsus indignam; perpendebantqueiamiam ueracissime, nonsine causa exilio lacrimabili, ipsam, ut predictumest, fuisse conde[m]pnatam. Cumautemannos longeue senectutis vixisset[404]comes Tuinfredus,etpresenectute caligassent oculi eius, data filio suo regi benedicione, nature debita persoluit; cuiuscorpus magnifice, prout decuit, tradidit sepulture. Anno quoquesub eodemuxor eiuscomitissa Marcellina, mater uidelicetregis, valedicens filio, ab huius incolatu seculi feliciter transmigrauit....
Fol. 19a
De sancto Ælberto[405]cui tercia filia regis Offe tradenda fuit nuptui.
Erat quoquequidamiuuenis, cui rex Offa regnumOrientalium Anglorum, quod eumiure sanguiniscontingebat, concesserat, nomine Ælbertus. De cuiusvirtutibus[406]quidamuersificator, solitus regumlaudesetgesta describere, eleganterait;
Ælbertus iuuenis fuerat rex, fortis ad arma,Pace pius, pulchercorpore, mente sagax.
Ælbertus iuuenis fuerat rex, fortis ad arma,Pace pius, pulchercorpore, mente sagax.
Ælbertus iuuenis fuerat rex, fortis ad arma,
Pace pius, pulchercorpore, mente sagax.
CumqueHumbertusArchiepiscopusLichefeldensis,etVnwona EpiscopusLegrecestrensis, uiri sanctietdiscreti, et de nobili stirpe Merciorumoriundi, speciales essent regisconsiliarii,etsemperquehonesta erantetiusta atqueutilia, regi Offe suggessissent, inuidebat eis regina uxor Offe, queprius Drida, postea uero Quendrida, id est regina Drida, quiaregi ex insperato nupsit, est appellata: sicut inprecedentibuspleniusenarratur. Mulier auara et subdola, superbiens, eo quod ex stirpe Karoli originemduxerat, et inexorabili odio uiros memoratos persequebatur, tendens eis muscipulas muliebres. Porro cumipsi reges supradictos regi Offe in spiritu consilii salubriterreconciliassent,etut eidemregi federe matrimoniali specialiusconiungerentur, diligenteretefficaciterprocurassent, ipsa mulier facta eorumnitebaturinirritumreuocare, nec poterat, quibusacriter inuidebat. Ipsas enimpuellas filias suas, ultramarinis, alienigenis, in regis supplantacionemet regni Merciorumperniciem, credidit tradidisse maritandas. Cuiusrei prescii dicti Episcopi, muliebre consiliumprudencie repagulis impediebant. Uerum et adhuc tercia filia regis Offe inthalamo regine remansit maritanda, Ælfleda nomine. Procurantibusigitursupradictis episcopis, inclinatumest[407]cor regis ad consensum, licetcontradiceret regina, utet[408]hecregi Ælberto nuptui traderetur: utetsic specialiusregi Offeteneretur infidelitate dilecionis obligatus. Uocatus igiturrex Ælbertus, a rege Offa, ut filiam suamdesponsaret, affuit festiuusFol. 19b| et gaudens, ob honorem sibi a tanto rege oblatum. Cui amicabiliter rex occurrens aduentanti, recepit ipsum in osculoetpaterno amplexu, dicens: "Prospere ueneris filietgener, ex hoc, iuuenis amantissime, te in filiumadopto specialem." Sedhecpostquam efferate regine plenius innotuerit[409], plus accensa est liuore ac furore, dolens eumpietatis inmanu[410]regisetsuorumfidelium prosperari. Vidensquesue nequicie argumenta minime preualere, nec hanc saltemterciam filiam suam, ad uoluntatem suam alicui transmarino amico suo, inregni subuersionem(quod certissime sperauerat) dare nuptui, cumnonpreualuisset indictos episcopos huiusrei auctores eminusmalignari, inÆlbertumregem uirussue malicie truculentereuomuit, hoc modo.
Fraus muliebris crudelissima.
Rex huiusrei ignarus tantamlatitasse fraudemnoncredebat, immo pociuscredebat hecipsi omnia placitura. Cumigiturrex piissimusipsamsuperpremissis[411]secreciusconueniret,consiliumquerens qualiteretquando forentcomplenda, hecrespondit: "Ecce tradidit Deus hodie inimicumtuum, tibi caute, si sapis, trucidandum, qui sub specie superficiali, uenenumprodicionis inteetregnumtuumexercende, nequiter, ut fertur, occultauit. Et te cupit iam senescentem, cumsit iuuenisetelegans, de regno supplantando precipitare;etposterumsuorum, immoetmultorum, ut iactitat, quos regnisetpossessionibus uiolenteretiniuste spoliasti, iniurias uindicare. In cuiusrei fidem, michi a meis amicis significatumest, quod regis Karoli multis muneribusetnunciis ocultis intermeantibus, implorat ad hocpatrocinium: se spondens ei fore tributarium. Illo igitur, dum se tibi fortuna prebet fauorabilem, extincto latenter, regnumeiusin ius tuumetsuccessorumtuorumtranseat in eternum."
Cui rex mente nimiumperturbatus,etde uerbis quibuscredidit inesse ueraciter falsitatemetfraudem, cumindignacione ipsam increpando, respondit: "Quasi una destultis mulieribuslocuta es! Absit a me, absit, tam detestabile factum! Quo perpetrato, mihi meisquesuccessoribusforet obprobriumsempiternum, et peccatum ingenusmeumcumgraui uindicta diuciuspropagabile." Et hiis dictis, rex iratus ab ea recessit; detestans tantos ac tales occultos laqueos in muliere latitasse.
Interea mentis perturbacione paulatimdeposita,ethiis ciuiliterdissimulatis, reges consederunt ad mensam pransuri: ubi regalibusesculentisetpoculentis refecti, in timpanis, citharis,etchoris, diem totumin ingenti gaudio expleuerunt. Sedregina malefica, interim a ferali proposito nonrecedens, iussit indolo thalamummore regio pallis sericisetauleis sollempniteradornari, inquo rex Ælbertus nocturnumcaperet sompnum; iuxta stratumquoqueregium sedile preparari fecit, cultu nobilissimo extructum,etcortinis undiqueredimitum. Sub quoeciamfossam preparari fecit profundam,Fol. 20a| ut nephandumpropositumperduceret ad effectum.
De martirio Sancti Ælberti, regis innocentissimi.
Regina uero uultu serenoconceptumscelus pallians, intrauit inpalatium, ut tam regem Offanumquam regemÆlbertumexhilararet. Et interiocandum, conuersa ad Ælbertum, nihil sinistri[412]suspicantem, ait, "Fili, ueni uisendi causa puellam tibi nuptu copulandam, te inthalamo meo sicienterexpectantem, ut sermonibusgratissimis amores subarres profuturos." Surgensigiturrex Ælbertus, secutusest reginaminthalamumingredientem: rege Offano remanente, qui nil mali formidabat. Ingressoigiturrege Ælbertocumregina, exclusi sunt omnes qui eundem e uestigio sequebantursui commilitones. Et cumpuellam expectasset, ait regina: "Sede fili dumueniat aduocata."
Et cumin memorato sedili residisset, cumipsa sella in fosse corruit profunditatem. In qua, subito a lictoribusquos regina nonprocul absconderat, rex innocens suffocatus expirauit. Namilico cumcorruisset, proiecerunt supereumreginaetsuicomplices nephandissimi puluinaria cumuestibusetcortinis, ne clamans ab aliquibusaudiretur. Et sic elegantissimus iuuenis rexetmartir Ælbertus, innocenteretsine noxa extinctus, accepit coronamuite, [quam][413]ad instar Johannis Baptistemulieris laqueis irretitus, meruit optinere.
Puella uero regis filia Ælfleda uirguncula uenustissima, cumhecaudisset, nontantum matris detestata facinora, sedtociusseculi pompamrelinquens, habitumsuscepit religionis, utuirgo martiris uestigia sequeretur. [P]orro[414]ad augmentum[415]muliebris tirannidis[416], decollatumestcorpusculumexanime quiaadhuc palpitans uidebatur. Clamigiturdelatum est corpus cumcapite, usquead partes remociores ad occultandum sub profundo terre, et dum spiculator cruentus ista ferret, caput obiter amissumest feliciter: nox enimerat,etfestinabat lictor,etaperto ore sacci, caput cecidit euolutum, ignorante hocportitore. Corpus autemab ipso carnifice sine aliquo teste conscio ignobiliterest humatum. Contigit autem, Deo sic disponente, utquidamcecus eadem via graderetur, baculo semitam pretemptante. Habens autemcaput memoratumpro pedumoffendiculo, mirabatur quidnamesset: erat enimpes eiusirretitus incincinnis capitis flauisetprolixis. Et palpans cercius cognouit[417]esse caput hominis decollati. Et datum estei inspiritu intelligere, quod alicuiussancti caput esset, ac iuuenis. Et cummaduissent manuseiussanguine, apposuitetsanguinem faciei sue:etloco ubi quandoqueoculi eiusextiterant, et ilico restitutus est ei uisus; et quod habuerat propedum offendiculo, factum est ei felix luminis restitucio. Sedet in eodem loco quo caput sanctum iacuerat, fons erupit lucidissimus. Quod cum celebriter[418]fuerat diuulgatum, compertumesthoc fuisse caput sancti adolescentis Ælberti, quem regina inthalamo nequiter fecit sugillari ac decollari. Corpusautemubinam locorum occultatumfuerat, penitusignoratur. Hoccumconstaret Humberto Archiepiscopo, facta capside ex auroetargento, illud iussit in tesauro recondi precioso in Ecclesia Herefordensi.
Drida entraps AlbertusDrida (Thryth) entraps Albertus (Æthelberht) of East Anglia, and causes him to be slainFrom MS Cotton Nero D. I, fol. 19 b.hraþe seoþðan wæsæfter mund-ȝripe mēce ȝepinȝed.(Beowulf, ll. 1937-8.)
From MS Cotton Nero D. I, fol. 19 b.
hraþe seoþðan wæsæfter mund-ȝripe mēce ȝepinȝed.(Beowulf, ll. 1937-8.)
De predicti facinoris ulcione.
Cuius tandemdetestabilis sceleris a regina perpetrati, ad commilitonumbeati regisetMartiris aures cum[419]peruenisset, fama celeriusante lucemaurore diei sequentis clanculo recesserunt, ne de ipsis simile fieret iudiciummetuentes. Unde dolens regina, in thalamo ficta infirmitate decubans, quasi uulpecula latitabat.
Rex uero Offa cumde commisso facinore certitudinemcomperisset, sese lugens, in cenaculo interiori recludens, pe[r][420]tres dies cibum penitusnongustauit, animamsuamlacrimis, lamentacionibus,etieiunio uehementeraffligens. Et execrans mulieris impietatem, eam iussit omnibusuite sue diebusinclusam inloco remotamsecreciori peccata sua deplorare, si forte sibi celitus collata gracia, penitendo tanti commissi facinoris maculam posset abolere. Rex autemipsam postea ut sociam lateris in lecto suo dormire quasi suspectamnonpermisit[421].
De morte illiusfacinorose regine.
In loco igitur sibi deputato, commorante regina annis aliquot, insidiis latronumpreuenta, auroetargento quo multumhabundabat spoliata[422], in puteo suo proprio precipitata, spiritumexalauit; iusto dei iudicio siccondempnata, ut sicut regem Ælbertuminnocentemin foueam fecit precipitari,etprecipitatum suffocari, sic inputei profunditate submersa, uitammiseramterminaret.
O.Widsith, ll. 18, 24-49
18. Ætla, wēold Hūnum, Eormanrīc Ȝotum,* * * * * *Þēodrīc wēold Froncum, þyle Rondinȝum,25. Breoca Brondinȝum, Billinȝ Wernum.Ōswine wēold ĒowumondȲtum Ȝefwulf,Fin Folcwaldinȝ Frēsna cynne.Siȝehere lenȝest Sǣ-Denum wēold,Hnæf Hōcinȝum, Helm Wulfinȝum,30. Wald Wōinȝum, Wōd Þyrinȝum,Sǣferð Sycȝum, Swēom Onȝendþēow,Sceafthere Ymbrum, Scēafa Lonȝ-Beardum,Hūn Hætwerum,ondHolen Wrosnum.Hrinȝweald wæs hāten Herefarena cyning.35. Offa wēold Ongle, Alewīh Denum:sē wæs þāra manna mōdȝast ealra;nōhwæþre hē ofer Offan eorlscype fremede,ac Offa ȝeslōȝ ǣrest monnacniht wesende cynerīca mǣst;40. nǣniȝ efen-eald him eorlscipe māranon ōrette āne sweorde:merce ȝemǣrde wið Myrȝinȝumbī Fīfeldore; hēoldon forð siþþanEnȝleondSwǣfe, swā hit Offa ȝeslōȝ.45. HrōþwulfondHrōðȝār hēoldon lenȝestsibbe ætsomne suhtorfædran,siþþan hȳ forwrǣcon wīcinȝa cynnondInȝeldes ord forbīȝdan,forhēowan æt Heorote Heaðo-Beardna þrym.
18. Ætla, wēold Hūnum, Eormanrīc Ȝotum,* * * * * *Þēodrīc wēold Froncum, þyle Rondinȝum,25. Breoca Brondinȝum, Billinȝ Wernum.Ōswine wēold ĒowumondȲtum Ȝefwulf,Fin Folcwaldinȝ Frēsna cynne.Siȝehere lenȝest Sǣ-Denum wēold,Hnæf Hōcinȝum, Helm Wulfinȝum,30. Wald Wōinȝum, Wōd Þyrinȝum,Sǣferð Sycȝum, Swēom Onȝendþēow,Sceafthere Ymbrum, Scēafa Lonȝ-Beardum,Hūn Hætwerum,ondHolen Wrosnum.Hrinȝweald wæs hāten Herefarena cyning.35. Offa wēold Ongle, Alewīh Denum:sē wæs þāra manna mōdȝast ealra;nōhwæþre hē ofer Offan eorlscype fremede,ac Offa ȝeslōȝ ǣrest monnacniht wesende cynerīca mǣst;40. nǣniȝ efen-eald him eorlscipe māranon ōrette āne sweorde:merce ȝemǣrde wið Myrȝinȝumbī Fīfeldore; hēoldon forð siþþanEnȝleondSwǣfe, swā hit Offa ȝeslōȝ.45. HrōþwulfondHrōðȝār hēoldon lenȝestsibbe ætsomne suhtorfædran,siþþan hȳ forwrǣcon wīcinȝa cynnondInȝeldes ord forbīȝdan,forhēowan æt Heorote Heaðo-Beardna þrym.
18. Ætla, wēold Hūnum, Eormanrīc Ȝotum,
* * * * * *
Þēodrīc wēold Froncum, þyle Rondinȝum,
25. Breoca Brondinȝum, Billinȝ Wernum.
Ōswine wēold ĒowumondȲtum Ȝefwulf,
Fin Folcwaldinȝ Frēsna cynne.
Siȝehere lenȝest Sǣ-Denum wēold,
Hnæf Hōcinȝum, Helm Wulfinȝum,
30. Wald Wōinȝum, Wōd Þyrinȝum,
Sǣferð Sycȝum, Swēom Onȝendþēow,
Sceafthere Ymbrum, Scēafa Lonȝ-Beardum,
Hūn Hætwerum,ondHolen Wrosnum.
Hrinȝweald wæs hāten Herefarena cyning.
35. Offa wēold Ongle, Alewīh Denum:
sē wæs þāra manna mōdȝast ealra;
nōhwæþre hē ofer Offan eorlscype fremede,
ac Offa ȝeslōȝ ǣrest monna
cniht wesende cynerīca mǣst;
40. nǣniȝ efen-eald him eorlscipe māran
on ōrette āne sweorde:
merce ȝemǣrde wið Myrȝinȝum
bī Fīfeldore; hēoldon forð siþþan
EnȝleondSwǣfe, swā hit Offa ȝeslōȝ.
45. HrōþwulfondHrōðȝār hēoldon lenȝest
sibbe ætsomne suhtorfædran,
siþþan hȳ forwrǣcon wīcinȝa cynn
ondInȝeldes ord forbīȝdan,
forhēowan æt Heorote Heaðo-Beardna þrym.
Section I. TheFinnsburg Fragment
TheFinnsburg Fragmentwas discovered two centuries ago in the library of Lambeth Palace by George Hickes. It was written on a single leaf, which was transcribed and published by Hickes: but the leaf is not now to be found. This is to be regretted for reasons other than sentimental, since Hickes' transcript is far from accurate[423].
TheFragmentbegins and breaks off in the middle of a line: but possibly not much has been lost at the beginning. For thefirst lines of the fragment, as preserved, reveal a well-loved opening motive—the call to arms within the hall, as the watcher sees the foes approach. It was with such a call that theBjarkamál, the poem on the death of Rolf Kraki, began: "a good call to work" as a fighting king-saint thought it[424]. It is with a similar summons to business that theFinnsburg Fragmentbegins. The watchman has warned the king within the hall that he sees lights approaching—so much we can gather from the two and a half words which are preserved from the watchman's speech, and from the reply made by the "war-young" king: "This is not the dawn which is rising, but dire deeds of woe; to arms, my men." And the defending warriors take their posts: at the one door Sigeferth and Eaha: at the other Ordlaf and Guthlaf, and Hengest himself[425].
Then the poet turns to the foes, as they approach for the attack. The text as reported by Hickes is difficult: but it seems that Garulf[426]is the name of the warrior about to lead the assault on the hall. Another warrior, Guthere, whether a friend, kinsman, or retainer[427]we do not know, is dissuading him, urging him not to risk so precious a life in the first brunt. But Garulf pays no heed; he challenges the champion on guard: "Who is it who holds the door?"
"Sigeferth is my name," comes the reply, "Prince I am of the Secgan: a wandering champion known far and wide: many a woe, many a hard fight have I endured: from me canst thou have what thou seekest."
So the clash of arms begins: and the first to fall is Garulf, son of Guthlaf: and many a good man round him. "The swords flashed as if all Finnsburg were afire."
Never, we are told, was there a better defence than that of the sixty champions within the hall. "Never did retainers repay the sweet mead better than his bachelors did unto Hnæf. For five days they fought, so that none of the men at arms fell: but they held the doors." After a few more lines the piece breaks off.
There are many textual difficulties here. But these, for the most part, do not affect the actual narrative, which is a story of clear and straightforward fighting. It is when we try to fit this narrative into relationship with theEpisodeinBeowulfthat our troubles begin. Within theFragmentitself one difficulty only need at present be mentioned. Guthlaf is one of the champions defending the hall. Yet the leader of the assault, Garulf, is spoken of as Guthlaf's son. Of course it is possible that we have here a tragic incident parallel to the story of Hildebrand and Hadubrand: father and son may have been separated through earlier misadventures, and now find themselves engaged on opposite sides. This would harmonize with the atmosphere of theFinnsburgstory, which is one of slaughter breaking out among men near of kin, so that afterwards an uncle and a nephew are burnt on the same pyre. And it has been noted[428]that Garulf rushes to the attack only after he has asked "Who holds the door?" and has learnt that it is Sigeferth: Guthlaf had gone to the opposite door. Can Garulf's question mean that he knows his father Guthlaf to be inside the hall, and wishes to avoid conflict with him? Possibly; but I do not think we can argue much from this double appearance of the name Guthlaf. It is possible that the occurrence of Guthlaf as Garulf's father is simply a scribal error. For, puzzling as the tradition ofFinnsburgeverywhere is, it is peculiarly puzzling in its proper names, which are mostly given in forms that seem to have undergone some alteration. And even ifGūðlāfes sunube correctly written, it is possible that the Guthlaf who is father of Garulf is not to be identified with the Guthlaf whom Garulf is besieging within the hall[429].
One or other of these rather unsatisfactory solutions must unfortunately be accepted. For no theory is possible which will save us from admitting that, according to the received text, Guthlaf is fighting on the one side, and a "son of Guthlaf" on the other.
Section II. The Episode inBeowulf
Further details of the story we get in theEpisodeofFinnsburg, as recorded inBeowulf(ll. 1068-1159).
Beowulf is being entertained in the court of the king of the Danes, and the king's harper tells the tale of Hengest and Finn. Only the main events are enumerated. There are none of the dramatic speeches which we find in theFragment. It is evident that the tale has been reduced in scope, in order that it may be fitted into its place as an episode in the longer epic.
The tone, too, is quite different. Whereas theFragmentis inspired by the lust and joy of battle, the theme of theEpisode, as told inBeowulf, is rather the pity of it all; the legacy of mourning and vengeance which is left to the survivors:
For never can true reconcilement growWhere wounds of deadly hate have struck so deep.
For never can true reconcilement growWhere wounds of deadly hate have struck so deep.
For never can true reconcilement grow
Where wounds of deadly hate have struck so deep.
It is on this note that theEpisodeinBeowulfbegins: with the tragic figure of Hildeburh. Hildeburh is closely related to both contending parties. She is sister to Hnæf, prince of the "Half-Danes," and she is wedded to Finn, king of the Frisians. Whatever may be obscure in the story, it is clear that a fight has taken place between the men of Hnæf and those of Finn, and that Hnæf has been slain: probably by Finn directly, though perhaps by his followers[430]. A son of Finn has also fallen.
With regard to the peoples concerned there are difficulties. Finn's Frisians are presumably the main Frisian race, dwelling in and around the district still known as Friesland; for in the Catalogue of Kings inWidsithit is said that "Finn Folcwaldingruled the kin of the Frisians[431]." Hnæf and his people are called Half-Danes, Danes and Scyldings; Hnæf is therefore presumably related to the Danish royal house. But, in no account which has come down to us of that house, are Hnæf or his father Hoc ever mentioned as kings or princes of Denmark, and their connection with the family of Hrothgar, the great house of Scyldings who ruled Denmark from the capital of Leire, remains obscure. InWidsith, the people ruled over by Hnæf are called "children of Hoc" (Hōcingum), and are mentioned immediately after the "Sea-Danes[432]."
Then there is a mysterious people called theEotens, upon whom is placed the blame of the struggle: "Verily Hildeburh had little reason to praise the good faith of the Eotens." This is the typical understatement of Old English rhetoric: it can only point to deliberate treachery on the part of the Eotens. Our interpretation of the poem will therefore hinge largely upon our interpretation of this name. There have been two views as to the Eotens. The one view holds them to be Hnæf's Danes, and consequently places on Hnæf the responsibility for the aggression. This theory is, I think, quite wrong, and has been the cause of much confusion: but it has been held by scholars of great weight[433]. The other view regards the Eotens as subjectsof Finn and foes of Hnæf. This view has been more generally held, and it is, as I shall try to show, only along these lines that a satisfactory solution can be found.
The poet continues of the woes of Hildeburh. "Guiltless, she lost at the war those whom she loved, child and brother. They fell as was fated, wounded by the spear, and a sad lady was she. Not for naught did the daughter of Hoc [i.e. Hildeburh] bewail her fate when morning came, when under the sky she could behold the murderous bale of her kinsfolk...."
Then the poet turns to the figure of Finn, king of the Frisians. His cause for grief is as deep as that of Hildeburh. For he has lost that body of retainers which to a Germanic chief, even as to King Arthur, was dearer than a wife[434]. "War swept away all the retainers of Finn, except some few."
What follows is obscure, but as to the general drift there is no doubt. After the death of their king Hnæf, the besieged Danes are led by Hengest. Hengest must be Hnæf's retainer, for he is expressly so called (þēodnes þegn) "the king's thegn." So able is the defence of Hengest, and so heavy the loss among Finn's men, that Finn has to come to terms. Peace is made between Finn and Hengest, and the terms are given fully in theEpisode. Unfortunately, owing to the confusion of pronouns, we soon lose our way amidst the clauses of this treaty, and it becomes exceedingly difficult to say who are the people who are alluded to as "they." This is peculiarly unlucky because here again the critical wordEotenaoccurs, but amid such a tangle of "thems" and "theys" that it is not easy to tell from this passage to which side the Eotens belong[435].
But one thing in the treaty is indisputable. In the midst of these complicated clauses, it is said of the Danes, the retainersof Hnæf, that they are not to be taunted with a certain fact: or perhaps it may be that they are not, when speaking amongst themselves, to remind each other of a certain fact. However that may be, whatisclear is thefact, the mention of which is barred. Nothing is to be said of it, even though "they were following the slayer (bana) of their lord, being without a prince, since they were compelled so to do." Here, at least, are two lines about the interpretation of which we can be certain: and I shall therefore return to them. We must be careful, however, to remember that the wordbana, "slayer," conveys no idea of fault or criminality. It is a quite neutral word, although it has frequently been mistranslated "murderer," and has thus helped to encourage the belief that Finn slew Hnæf by treachery. Of course it conveys no such implication:banacan be applied to one who slays another in self-defence: it implies neither the one thing nor the other.
Then the poet turns to the funeral of the dead champions, who are burned on one pyre by the now reconciled foes. The bodies of Hnæf and of the son (or sons)[436]of Hildeburh are placed together, uncle and nephew side by side, whilst Hildeburh stands by lamenting.
Then, we are told, the warriors, deprived of their friends, departed to Friesland, to their homes and to their high-city.
Hengest still continued to dwell for the whole of that winter with Finn, and could not return home because of the winter storms. But when spring came and the bosom of the earth became fair, there came also the question of Hengest's departure: but he thought more of vengeance than of his sea-journey: "If he might bring about that hostile meeting which he kept in his mind concerning the child (or children) of the Eotens." Here again the wordEotenais used ambiguously, but, I think, this time not without some indication of its meaning. It has indeed been urged that the child or children of the Eotens are Hnæf, and any other Danes who may have fallen with him, and that when it is said that Hengest keeps them in mind, it is meant that he is remembering his fallen comrades with a view to takingvengeance for them. But this would be a queer way of speaking, as Hengest and his living comrades would on this theory be also themselves children of the Eotens[437]. We should therefore need the term to be further defined: "children of the Eotenswho fell at Finnsburg." It seems far more likely, from the way in which the expression is used here, that the children of the Eotens are the peopleuponwhom Hengest intends to take vengeance.
Then, we are further told, Hunlafing places in the bosom of Hengest a sword of which the edges were well known amongst the Eotens. Here again there has been ambiguity, dispute and doubt. Hunlafing has been even bisected into a chief "Hun," and a sword "Lafing" which "Hun" is supposed to have placed in the bosom of Hengest (or of someone else). Upon this act of "Hun" many an interpretation has been placed, and many a theory built. Fortunately it has become possible, by a series of rather extraordinary discoveries, such as we had little reason to hope for at this time of day, to put Hunlafing together again. We now know (and this I think should be regarded as outside the region of controversy) that the warrior who put the sword into Hengest's bosomwasHunlafing. And about Hunlafing we gather, though very little, yet enough to help us. He is apparently a Dane, the son of Hunlaf, and Hunlaf is the brother of the two champions Guthlaf and Ordlaf[438]. Now Guthlaf and Ordlaf, as we know from theFragment, were in the hall togetherwith Hengest: it was "Guthlaf, Ordlaf and Hengest himself" who undertook the defence of one of the doors against the assailants. Guthlaf and Ordlaf were apparently sons of the king of Denmark. As Scyldings they would be Hnæf's kinsmen, and accompanied him to his meeting with Finn. Hunlafing, then, is a nephew of two champions who were attacked in the hall, and it is possible, though we cannot prove this, that his father Hunlaf was himself also in the hall, and was slain in the struggle[439]. At any rate, when Hunlaf's son places a sword in the bosom of Hengest, this can only mean one thing. It means mischief. The placing of the sword, by a prince, in the bosom of another, is a symbol of war-service. It means that Hengest has accepted obligations to a Danish lord, a Scylding, a kinsman of the dead Hnæf, and consequently that he means to break the troth which he has sworn to Finn.
Further, we are told concerning the sword, that its edges were well known amongst the Eotens. At first sight this might seem, and to many has seemed, an ambiguous phrase, for a sword may be well known amongst either friends or foes. The old poets loved nothing better than to dwell upon the adornments of a sword, to say how a man, by reason of a fine sword which had been given to him, was honoured amongst his associates at table[440]. But if this had been the poet's meaning here, he would surely have dwelt, not upon the edges of the sword, but upon its gold-adorned hilt, or its jewelled pommel. When he says theedgesof the sword were well known amongst the Eotens, this seems to convey a hostile meaning. We know that the ill-faith of the Eotens was the cause of the trouble. The phrase about the sword seems therefore to mean that Hengest used this sword in order to take vengeance on the Eotens, presumably for their treachery.
TheEotenas, therefore, far from being the men of Hnæf and Hengest, must have been their foes.
Then the poet goes on to tell how "Dire sword-bale came upon the valiant Finn likewise." The Danes fell upon Finn athis own home, reddened the floor of his hall with the life-blood of his men, slew him, plundered his town, and led his wife back to her own people.
Here theEpisodeends.
Section III. Möller's Theory
Now our first task is to find what is the relation between the events told in theFragmentand the events told in theEpisodeinBeowulf. It can, I think, be shown that the events of theFragmentprecede the events of theEpisodeinBeowulf; that is to say that the fight in the hall, of which we are told in theFragment, is the same fight which has taken place before theEpisodeinBeowulfbegins, the fight which has resulted in the slaughter over which Hildeburh laments, and which necessitates the great funeral described in the first part of theEpisode(ll. 1108-24).
How necessary it is to place theFragmenthere, before the beginning of theEpisode, will be best seen, I think, if we examine the theory which has tried to place it elsewhere.
This is the theory, worked out elaborately and ingeniously by Möller[441], a theory which has had considerable vogue, and many of the assumptions of which have been widely accepted. According to Möller and his followers, the story ran something like this:
"Finn, king of the Frisians, had carried off Hildeburh, daughter of Hoc (1076), probably with her consent. Her father Hoc seems to have pursued the fugitives, and to have been slain in the fight which ensued on his overtaking them. After the lapse of some twenty years, the brothers Hnæf and Hengest, Hoc's sons, were old enough to undertake the duty of avenging their father's death. They make an inroad into Finn's country."
"Finn, king of the Frisians, had carried off Hildeburh, daughter of Hoc (1076), probably with her consent. Her father Hoc seems to have pursued the fugitives, and to have been slain in the fight which ensued on his overtaking them. After the lapse of some twenty years, the brothers Hnæf and Hengest, Hoc's sons, were old enough to undertake the duty of avenging their father's death. They make an inroad into Finn's country."
Up to this, all is Möller's hypothesis, unsupported by any evidence, either in theFragmentor theEpisode. It is based, so far as it has any real foundation, upon a mythical interpretation of Finn, and upon parallels with the Hild-story, the Gudrun-story, and a North Frisian folk-tale[442]. Some of theparallels are striking, but they are not sufficient to justify Möller's reconstruction. The authenticity of large portions of the folk-tale is open to doubt[443]: and these portions are vital to any parallel with the story ofFinnsburg; whilst we have no right to read into the Finn story details from the Hild or Gudrun stories, unless we can show that they are really versions of the same tale: and this cannot be shown. Möller's suppositions as to the events before theEpisodeinBeowulfopens, must therefore be dismissed. Möller's reconstruction then gets into relation with the real story, as narrated inBeowulf:
"A battle takes place in which many warriors, among them Hnæf and a son of Finn (1074, 1079, 1115), are killed. Peace is therefore solemnly concluded, and the slain warriors are burnt (1068-1124).As the year is too far advanced for Hengest to return home (ll. 1130 ff.), he and those of his men who survive remain for the winter in the Frisian country with Finn. But Hengest's thoughts dwell constantly on the death of his brother Hnæf, and he would gladly welcome any excuse to break the peace which has been sworn by both parties. His ill-concealed desire for revenge is noticed by the Frisians, who anticipate it by themselves taking the initiative and attacking Hengest and his men whilst they are sleeping in the hall.This is the night attack described in the Fragment.It would seem that after a brave and desperate resistance Hengest himself falls in this fight[444], but two of his retainers, Guthlaf and Oslaf[444], succeed in cutting their way through their enemies and in escaping to their own land. They return with fresh troops, attack and slay Finn, and carry his queen Hildeburh off with them (1125-1159)[445]."
"A battle takes place in which many warriors, among them Hnæf and a son of Finn (1074, 1079, 1115), are killed. Peace is therefore solemnly concluded, and the slain warriors are burnt (1068-1124).
As the year is too far advanced for Hengest to return home (ll. 1130 ff.), he and those of his men who survive remain for the winter in the Frisian country with Finn. But Hengest's thoughts dwell constantly on the death of his brother Hnæf, and he would gladly welcome any excuse to break the peace which has been sworn by both parties. His ill-concealed desire for revenge is noticed by the Frisians, who anticipate it by themselves taking the initiative and attacking Hengest and his men whilst they are sleeping in the hall.This is the night attack described in the Fragment.It would seem that after a brave and desperate resistance Hengest himself falls in this fight[444], but two of his retainers, Guthlaf and Oslaf[444], succeed in cutting their way through their enemies and in escaping to their own land. They return with fresh troops, attack and slay Finn, and carry his queen Hildeburh off with them (1125-1159)[445]."
Now the difficulties of this theory will, I think, be found to be insuperable. Let us look at some of them.
Möller's view rests upon his interpretation of the Eotens as the men of Hnæf[446]. Since the Eotens are the aggressors, hehasconsequently to invent the opening, which makes Hnæf and Hengest the invaders of Finn's country: and hehastherefore to relegate theFragment(in which Hnæf's men are clearly not the attacking party but the attacked) to a later stage in the story. But we have already seen that this interpretation of the Eotens as the men of Hnæf is not the natural one.
Further, the assumption that Hnæf and Hengest are brothers, though still frequently met with[447], is surely not justifiable.There is nothing which demands any such relationship, and there is much which definitely excludes it.After Hnæf's death, Hengest is described as the thegn of Hnæf: an expression without parallel or explanation, if he was really his brother and successor. Again, we are expressly told in theEpisodethat the Danish retainers make terms with Finn,the slayer of their lord, being without a prince. How could this be said, if Hengest was now their lord and prince? These lines are, as we have seen, one of the few clear and indisputable things in the poem. An interpretation which contradicts them flatly, by making Hengest the lord of the Danish retainers, seems self-condemned.
Again, inBeowulf, the poet dwells upon the blameless sorrows of Hildeburh. We gather that she wakes up in the morning to find that the kinsfolk whom she loves have, during the night, come to blows. "Innocent, she lost son and brother[448]—a sad lady she." Are such expressions natural, if Hildeburh had eloped with Finn, and her father had in consequence been slain by him some twenty years before? If she has taken that calmly, and continued to live happily with Finn, would her equanimity be so seriously disturbed by the slaughter of a brother in addition?
But these difficulties are nothing compared to the further difficulties which Möller's adherents have to face when they proceed to find a place for the night attack as told in theFragment, in the middle of theEpisodeinBeowulf, i.e. between lines 1145 and 1146. In the first place we have no right to postulate that such important events could have been passed over in silence in the summary of the story as given inBeowulf. For Möller has to assume that after the reconciliation between Hengest and Finn, Finn broke his pledges, attacked Hengest by night, slew most of the men who were with him, including perhaps Hengest himself; and that theBeowulf-poet nevertheless omitted all reference to these events, though they occur in the midst of the story, and are essential to an understanding of it.
But even apart from this initial difficulty, we find that by no process of explainingcanwe make the night attack narratedin theFragmentfit in at the point where Möller places it. In the night attack the men are called to arms by a "war-young king." This "war-young king" cannot be, as Möller supposes, Hengest, for the simple reason that Hengest, as I have tried to show above, far from being the brother of Hnæf, and his successor as king, is his servant and thegn. The king can only be Hnæf. But Hnæf has already been slain before theEpisodebegins: and this makes it impossible to place theFragment(in which Hnæf appears) in the middle of theEpisode. Further, it is said in theFragmentthat never did retainers repay a lord better than did his men repay Hnæf. Now these words would only be possible if the retainers were fighting for their lord; that is, either defending him alive or avenging him dead. But Möller's theory assumes that we are dealing with a period when the retainers have definitely left the service of their lord Hnæf, after his death, and have entered the service of his slayer, Finn. They have thus dissolved all bonds with their former lord: they have taken Finn's money and becomehismen. If Finn then turns upon his new retainers and treacherously tries to slay them, it might be said that the retainers defended their own lives stoutly: but it would be far-fetched to say that in doing so they repaid their lord Hnæf. Their lord, according to Möller's view, is no longer Hnæf, but Finn, who is seeking their lives.
Against such difficulties as these it is impossible to make headway, and we must therefore turn to some more possible view of the situation[449].
Section IV. Bugge's Theory
Let us therefore examine the second theory, which is more particularly associated with the name of Bugge, though it was the current theory before his time, and has been generally accepted since.
According to this view, theEotenasare the men of Finn, and since upon them is placed the blame for the trouble, itmust be Finn that makes a treacherous attack upon his wife's brother Hnæf, who is his guest in Finnsburg[450]. This is the fight of which theFragmentgives us the beginning. Hnæf is slain, and then follow the events as narrated in theEpisode: the treaty which Finn makes with Hengest, the leader of the survivors: and the ultimate vengeance taken upon Finn by these survivors.
Here I think we are getting nearer to facts, nearer to a view which can command general acceptance: at any rate, in so far as the fight narrated in theFragmentis placed before the beginning of theEpisodeinBeowulf. Positive evidence that this is the right place for theFragmentis scanty, yet not altogether lacking. After all, the fight in theFragmentis a night attack, and the fight which precedes theEpisodeinBeowulf, as I have tried to show, is a night attack[451]. But our reason for putting theFragmentbefore the commencement of theEpisodeis mainly negative: it lies in the insuperable difficulties which meet us when we try to place it anywhere else.
But, it will be objected, there are difficulties also in placing theFragmentbefore theEpisode. Perhaps: but I do not think these difficulties will be found to survive examination.
The first objection to supposing that theFragmentnarrates the same fight as precedes theEpisodeis, that the fight in theFragmenttakes place at Finnsburg[452], whilst the fight which precedes theEpisodeapparently takes place away from Finn's capital: for after the fighting is over, the dead burned, and the treaty made, the warriors depart "to see Friesland, their homes, and their high-town (hēa-burh)[453]."
But I do not see that this involves us in any difficulty. It is surely quite reasonable that Finnsburg—Finn's castle—where the first fight takes place, is not, and was never meant to be, the same as Finn's capital, hishēaburh, his "own home." After all, when a king's name is given to a town, the presumption is rather that the town isnothis capital, but some new settlement built in a newly acquired territory.Ēadwinesburhwas not the capital of King Eadwine: it was the stronghold which he held against the Picts on the outskirts of his realm. Aosta was not the capital of Augustus, nor Fort William of William III, nor Harounabad of Haroun al Raschid. So here: we know that the chief town of the Frisians was not Finnsburg, but Dorestad: "Dorostates of the Frisians[454]." The fight may have taken place at some outlying castle built by Finn, and named after himFinnsburg: then he returned, we are told, to hishēaburh: and it is here,æt his sylfes hām, "in his own home" (the poet himself seems to emphasize a distinction) that destruction in the end comes upon him. There is surely no difficulty here.
A second discrepancy has often been indicated. In theFragmentthe fight lasts five days before any one of the defenders fall: in theEpisode(it is argued) Hildeburh in the morning finds her brother slain[455]. Even were this so, I do not know that it need trouble us much. In a detail like this, whichdoes not go to the heart of the story, there might easily be a discrepancy between two versions[456].
But the whole difficulty merely arises from reading more into the words of theEpisodethan the text will warrant. It is not asserted in theEpisodethat Hildeburh found her kinsfolk dead in the morning, but that in the morning she found "murderous bale amid her kinsfolk." Hildeburh woke up to find a fight in progress: how long it went on, theEpisodedoes not say: but that it was prolonged we gather from ll. 1080-5: and there is no reason why the deadly strife which Hildeburh found in the morning might not have lasted five days or more, before it culminated in the death of Hnæf.
Thirdly, the commander in theFragmentis called a "war-young king." This, it has been said, is inapplicable to Hnæf, since he is brother of Hildeburh, who is old enough to have a son slain in the combat.
But an uncle may be very young. Beowulf speaks of his uncle Hygelac as young, even though he seems to imply that his own youth is partly past[457]. And no advantage, but the reverse, is gained, even in this point, if, following Möller's hypothesis, and assuming that the fight narrated in theFragmenttakes place after the treaty with Finn, we make the "war-young king" Hengest. For those who, with Möller, suppose Hengest to be brother of Hnæf, will have to admit the avuncular difficulty in him also.
Section V. Some Difficulties in Bugge's Theory
We may then, I think, accept as certain, that first come the events narrated in theFragment, then those told in theEpisodeinBeowulf. But we are not out of our troubles yet. There are difficulties in Bugge's view which have still to be faced.
The cause of the struggle, according to Bugge and his adherents, is a treacherous attack made by Finn upon hisbrother-in-law Hnæf. According to theEpisode, it is the Eotens who are treacherous; so Eotens must be another name for the Frisians.
The word occurs three times in the genitive,Eotena; once in the dative,Eotenum: as a common noun it means "giant," "monster": earlier inBeowulfit is applied to Grendel and to the other misbegotten creatures descended from Cain. But how "giant" can be applied to the Frisians, or to either of the contending parties in the Finnsburg fight, remains inexplicable[458].Eotenamust rather be the name of some tribe. But what tribe? The only people of whom we know, possessing a name at all like this, are the people who colonized Kent, whom Bede calls Jutes, but whose name would in Anglian be in the genitiveĒotna, but in the dativeĒotum, or perhaps occasionallyĒotnum,Ēotenum[459]. Now a scribe transliterating a poem from an Anglian dialect into West-Saxon should, of course, have altered these forms into the corresponding West-Saxon formsȲtenaandȲtum. But nothing would have been more likely than that he would have misunderstood the tribal name as a common noun, and retained the Anglian forms (alteringeotumoreotnumintoeotenum) supposing the word to mean "giants." After all, the common nouneotenum, "giants," was quite as like the tribal nameĒotum, which the scribe presumably had before him, as was the correct West-Saxon form of that name,Ȳtum.
It is difficult therefore to avoid the conclusion that the "Eotens" are Jutes: and this is confirmed by three other pieces of evidence, not convincing in themselves, but helpful as subsidiary arguments[460].
(1) We should gather fromWidsiththat the Jutes were concerned in theFinnsburgbusiness. For in that poem generally (though not always) tribes connected in story are grouped together; and the Jutes and Frisians are so coupled: