No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 February 2016
More or less covering lines 1071a-1159a (not counting the introductory verses), the Finnsburg digression comprises the longest and most intensively studied episode in Beowulf. Its context in the poem may be summarized briefly. Beowulf has mortally wounded Grendel. War-leaders from surrounding territories follow Grendel's tracks to the mere, now boiling with gore. On the way back a warrior sings of Sigemund and Heremod. Horse races are held, and the Danes and their guests gawk at Grendel's arm, which has been hung from a beam in Heorot. Hroðgar acknowledges Beowulf as an adoptive “son,” and a lavish celebration honors the hero, who secures five dynastic treasures not only in recognition of his valor and but also as confirmation of retainership and possibly of Hroðgar's adoption. Immediately following the bestowal of these gifts, a poet recites Finnsburg “fore Healfdenes I hildewisan” (“before Healfdene's warriors,” 1064). The tale commemorates a Danish victory over Frisians, a triumph which all agree should compliment Danish resolve. In fact, just before the episode opens, the Scylding Hntef is called a “hæleð Healf-Dena” (“hero of the Half-Danes,” 1069a), an epithet explicitly linking audience and characters.
1 Few agree on where the digression begins: “The Episode is generally printed within marks of quotation. Holthausen, Wyatt, Sedgefield begin this quotation with 1068 Finnes eaferum (or eaferan); Schücking with 1071 Nē hūru Hildeburg; the old Heyne-Socin text (1903) with 1069, Hæle∂ Healfdena, so also Trautmann, loc. cit., p. 30. Gering Child, Tinker, and Hall, Clark begin with 1068; Lesslie Hall with 1069” (Lawrence, W. W., “Beowulf and the Tragedy of Finnsburg,” Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 30 [1915]: 372–431, at 399-400). Alexander Green later elaborated: “Marks of quotation are placed before [line] 1068, 'Finnes … by Ettmüller, Grein, Wülcker, Bugge, Wyatt, Holder, Arnold, Holthausen, Sedgefield, , and Chambers, ; before [line] 1069, 'Hæle∂ … by Heyne, Socin and Trautmann, ; before [line] 1071, 'Nē hūru Hildeburh … by Schücking and Holthausen; whilst Kemble, Thorpe, and Grundtvig — the latter assumes a considerable gap after Scyldinga — print no signs of division or of quotation. Among the translators, [line] 1068 forms the commencement of the quotation in Ettmüller, Grein, Garnett, Clark Hall, Child, Tinker (based on Wyatt's text), Wyatt-Morris, , and Gering, ; [line] 1069 in Lesslie Hall, Earle, and Trautmann, and [line] 1071 in Gering. As against all of these, Gummere has no marks of quotation, but a simple indentation in [line] 1069” (“The Opening of the Episode of Finn in Beowulf,” Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 31 [1916]: 759-97, at 777-78). Beowulf is throughout cited from Klaeber's Beowulf , ed. Fulk, R. D. et al. (Toronto, 2008). Other Old English poems are cited from The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records , ed. Krapp, George Philip and Van Kirk Dobbie, Elliott, 6 vols. (New York, 1931—). The abbreviation “DOE” stands for Dictionary of Old English , ed. Cameron, Angus et al. (Toronto, 2003–). All translations are my own. I am grateful to Fulk, R. D., Indiana University, Hill, John M., United States Naval Academy, Tom Shippey, St. Louis University, and my South Carolina colleague Trevor Howard-Hill for generously commenting on this article, a draft of which was presented at the 2004 Medieval Congress, Kalamazoo, in a session honoring George Hardin Brown of Stanford University.Google Scholar
2 Some (Klaeber included) have questioned whether Beowulf actually gets Healf-Dene's sword, as he does Healf-Dene's saddle. Klaeber emended MS brand Healfdenes “Half-Dane's sword” of 1020b to bearn Healfdenes “Healfdene's son.” Opposed to this emendation are Kuhn, Sherman M., “The Sword of Healfdene,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 42 (1943): 82–95 and “Further Thoughts on Brand Healfdenes,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 76 (1977): 231-37; Mitchell, Bruce, “Beowulf 1020b: brand or beam?” Romanobarbarica 10 (1988-89): 283-92; Watanabe, Hideki, “Final Words on Beowulf 1020b: Brand Healfdenes,” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 101 (2000): 51-57. This brand of Healf-Dene's is almost certainly the weapon once owned by Heorogar and given to Hygelac (2155a).Google Scholar
3 Healf-Dene (literally “Half-Dane”) was a Danish king, Hro∂gar's father, whose name engendered the dynastic term “Half-Danes”; see Tolkien, J. R. R., Finn and Hengest: The Fragment and the Episode , ed. Bliss, Alan (Boston, 1983), 37–45. Although “Widsi∂” 29a calls Hnæf a leader of “Hocings,” Klaeber has alleged that Hnæf and his party represent “a minor branch of the great Danish nation” (“Observations on the Finn Episode,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 14 [1915]: 544-49, at 544). Hoc is father to Hildeburg in Beowulf 1076b, and since Hildeburg is deprived of a brother and son (1073a-74a), Hnæf must be her brother.Google Scholar
4 See Aurner, Nellie Slayton, “Hengest: A Study in Early English Hero Legend,” University of Iowa Humanistic Studies 2 (1921): 1–76, at 57-58: “In the earlier translations of [Beowulf and the “Finnsburg Fragment”] it was generally taken for granted that this Hengest was identical with the well-known figure in the chronicles. Grundtvig, the first to give a complete interpretation of these passages, assumed as a matter of course that the Hengest in the tale was the only Hengest referred to in heroic tradition. … This understanding of Hengest's identity was not only accepted but was definitely reaffirmed by Price and Kemble. Kemble, however, changed the translation of the important lines 1142-44, making them tell of the death of Hengest. … It was this translation apparently, that raised the first doubt of Hengest's identity. … But it was the compelling influence of Grein [Ebert's Jahrbuch 1862] that caused general acceptance of the theory that the Hengest of the Finnsburg tragedy was a person entirely distinct from the one in Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.” See also Turville-Petre, J. E., “Hengest and Horsa,” Saga Book of the Viking Society 14 (1953-57): 273-90; Joseph, Brian D., “Using Indo-European Comparative Mythology to. Solve Literary Problems: The Case of Old English Hengest,” Papers in Comparative Studies 2 (1982-83): 177-86; de Vries, Jan, “Die Beiden Hengeste,” Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 72 (1953): 125-43; Hawkes, C. F. C., “The Jutes of Kent,” in Dark-Age Britain: Studies Presented to E. D. Leeds , ed. Harden, Donald. B. and Thurlow Leeds, E. (London, 1956), 91-111. Nicholas Howe avers, “the Hengest of Beowulf may be the Hengest who led the Anglo-Saxon Migration” (Migration and Mythmaking in Anglo-Saxon England [New Haven, 1989], 145), although Niles, John D. (“Locating Beowulf in Literary History,” Exemplaria 5 [1993]: 79-109, at 98) is more direct: “To take this Hengest to be the Hengest of the Migration Myth seems only natural.” Richard North accepts the identification unconditionally in “Tribal Loyalties in the Finnsburh Fragment and Episode” (Leeds Studies in English, n.s., 21 [1990]: 13-43). He repeats the same position in Heathen Gods in Old English Literature (Cambridge, 1997), 65-77. Here I must mention the judgment of Bruce Mitchell, that the “modern identification of … Hengest with the Hengest (of Hengest and Horsa)” rests on highly “tenuous” evidence (“1947-1987: Forty Years On,” in Bruce Mitchell on Old English , ed. Mitchell, Bruce [Oxford, 1988], 325-44, at 338).Google Scholar
5 Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People , ed. Colgrave, Bertram and Mynors, R. A. B. (Oxford, 1969), 50, 150; Dumville, David N., The Historia Brittonum, 3: The “Vatican” Recension (Cambridge, 1985), §§20, 24-27.Google Scholar
6 Line 27: “Fin Folcwalding / Fresna cynne [weald]….” Google Scholar
7 Klaeber's Beowulf , 283–85.Google Scholar
8 Some have wondered whether the digression in Beowulf represents an actual performance (synoptic or otherwise) or the poet-narrator's summary of events as recited at that moment in Hro∂gar's hall; see Williams, R. A., The Finn Episode in Beowulf: An Essay in Interpretation (Cambridge, 1924), 15–16. Alistair Campbell suggested that evidence of an underlying lay of Finn could be observed in the scop's summary (“The Old English Epic Style,” English and Medieval Studies Presented to J. R. R. Tolkien on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday , ed. Davis, Norman and Wrenn, C. L. [London, 1962], 13-26; see also Frank, Roberta, “Germanic Legend in Old English Literature,” in The Cambridge Companion to Old English Literature , ed. Godden, Michael and Lapidge, Michael [Cambridge, 1991], 88-106, at 101).Google Scholar
9 The earliest commentators saw no relevance in Finnsburg, or else deemed it an example of Danish resolve. Green calls it an “interlude” (“Opening,” 782). Williams (Finn Episode, 10-11) went further than most of the nineteenth-century philologists, suggesting that the poet wished to describe “momentous events” in another hall. He paraphrased: “Now in the evening, gathered together in Heorot, which still shows plain traces of the terrific struggle, they wonder whether in any other hall such a game had e'er been played as Beowulf played there with Grendel. Can any other hall compare with theirs as the scene of events so momentous?” (see also Mitchell, Bruce and Robinson, Fred C., Beowulf: An Edition with Relevant Shorter Texts [Oxford, 1998], 20: “appropriate parallel between [the Danes'] deliverance from the longstanding depredations of Grendel and this earlier occasion [Finnsburg], when the Danes … finally prevail.”). Brodeur, A. G. wrote, “the circumstances under which the minstrel sang his lay have no bearing whatever on the interpretation of the Finn Episode. Our poet introduces the Episode simply as an illustration of the songs which furnished entertainment for Hro∂gar's feasting warriors” (“Design and Motive in the Finn Episode,” University of California Publications in English 14 [1943]: 1-42, at 41-42). Kemp Malone queries, “Why does the poet treat as he does this great story of the English heroic age?” and goes on to conclude weakly that the poet had an interest in Hengest's repentance for his hesitation in taking vengeance (“The Finn Episode in Beowulf,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 25 [1926]: 157-72, at 171).Google Scholar
10 Bonjour, Adrien, The Digressions in Beowulf (Oxford, 1950), 57.Google Scholar
11 Sarrazin, Gregor, “Miscellen: I. Rolf Krake und sein Vetter im Beowulfliede,” Englische Studien 24 (1898): 144–45. Chambers, R. W. (Beowulf: An Introduction to the Study of the Poem with a Discussion of the Stories of Offa and Finn, third edition revised by Wrenn, C. L. [Cambridge, 1959], 26-27) expounded on this evidence of Hroϸulf's treachery in the Gesta Danorum, and his argument deserves summarizing. Drawing on the now lost Bjarkamál, Saxo reports that “Roluo” (OE Hroϸulf) slew a king named R⊘ricus (OE Hre∂ric). Saxo calls R⊘ricus the “son of the covetous B⊘kus,” hypothetically translating the Old Icelandic epithet hn⊘ggvanbaugi or “?greedy for rings (i.e. treasure).” Coincidentally, the Lang-fe∂gatal, a genealogy of the ancient Danish kings, calls this R⊘ricus “Hrærek Hnauggvanbaugi” and records his succession after Rolf (=Hroϸulf). Chambers asserts that the genealogy identifies Hrærek as Hro∂gar's son and further reasons, “Hrærek has been moved from his proper place in order to clear Rolf of any suspicion of usurpation” (Beowulf, 26 n. 3). Chambers's clever speculation is ultimately unnecessary to demonstrate Hroϸulf's future plans (not his current intentions), for the intimations in Beowulf and “Widsith” present the case convincingly enough. However, Gerald Morgan disagrees with Hroϸulf's implication in treachery (“The Treachery of Hrothulf,” English Studies 53 [1972]: 23-39).Google Scholar
12 Hroϸulf is Hro∂gar's nephew, son of Halga “the Good” (“Halga til,” 61b). The succession in Germanic lands, as in post-migration England, generally followed on seniority and often generated strife between uncles and nephews. Hro∂gar himself seems to have shared in this tradition, for Heoroweard did not rule after his father Heorogar's death. The poet specifically mentions Beowulf's receipt of Heorogar's sword. For the subtleties of Wealhϸeow's reply, see Owen-Crocker, Gale R., “‘Gracious’ Hrothulf, ‘Gracious’ Hrothgar: A Reassessment,” English Language Notes 38 (2001): 1–9, at 4-5 and below, 193-95.Google Scholar
13 These words mirror the ominous tone in “Widsi∂,” where Hro∂gar and Hroϸulf are said to have held their peace until after they had “devastated Ingeld's army”: Hroϸwulf ond Hro∂gar heoldon lengest sibbe setsomne suhtorfædran, siϸϸan hy forwræcon wicinga cynn ond Ingeldes ord forbigdan, forheowan æt Heorote Hea∂obeardna ϸrym. (45a-49b) Google Scholar
14 Orchard, Andy, A Critical Companion to Beowulf (Woodbridge, 2003), 180–81. Yet Hill has admirably shown that Wealhϸeow is not “a passive onlooker in a much wider and more vicious game” (Hill, J. M., “Beowulf and the Danish Succession: Gift Giving as an Occasion for Complex Gesture,” Medievalia et Humanistica, n.s., 11 [1992]: 177-97, at 181). Bonjour (Digressions, 60) ultimately contrasted Hengest's successful vengeance in Finnsburg and the anticipated war at Heorot: “the allusion to the future tragedy of the Danish royal house is clear enough and its effect is obviously heightened by its double contrast with the brilliant scene of splendour and rejoicings in the Hall, and with the glorious Danish victory over their enemies at Finnsburg.” Google Scholar
15 Bonjour, , Digressions , 61–62. Bonjour closes his argument by reading the dragon's revenge (for the theft of a cup) as symbolic of “the great epic prophecy of the downfall of the Geatish people” — a consequence which the narrator himself never confirms.Google Scholar
16 Ibid., 62.Google Scholar
17 Irving, Edward B. Jr., A Reading of Beowulf (New Haven, 1968), 178–79.Google Scholar
18 Camargo, Martin, “The Finn Episode and the Tragedy of Revenge in Beowulf,” Studies in Philology 78 (1981): 120–34, at 127. Camargo summarizes, “The function of the Finn episode, in short, is to cast doubt on the revenge ethic at the very point in the narrative where such a code [of vengeance] appears most glorious” (132).Google Scholar
19 Berger, Harry Jr. and Marshall Leicester, H. Jr., “Social Structure as Doom: The Limits of Heroism in Beowulf,” in Old English Studies in Honor of John C. Pope , ed. Burlin, Robert B. and Irving, Edward B Jr. (Toronto, 1974), 37–79, at 43; these critics envision Grendel's mother's revenge as symbolic of Hroϸulf's future treachery. See also Leyerle, John M., “Beowulf the Hero and the King,” Medium Ævum 34 (1965): 89-102.Google Scholar
20 As Hill, John M. acknowledges in a different context ( The Anglo-Saxon Warrior Ethic [Gainesville, FL, 2000], 67): “We have … failed to understand the extent to which Hildeburh's bitter appropriation of the funeral pyre is a mute demand for retribution.” Albano, Robert A. would go further and implicate Hildeburg in the revenge (“The Role of Women in Anglo-Saxon Culture: Hildeburh in Beowulf and a Curious Counterpart in the Volsunga Saga,” English Language Notes 32 [1994]: 1-10).Google Scholar
21 Moore, Bruce, “The Relevance of the Finnsburh Episode,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 75 (1976): 317–29, at 317.Google Scholar
22 Ibid., 329.Google Scholar
23 The poem's dual consciousness has been explored in a series of publications: Lumiansky, R. M., “The Dramatic Audience in Beowulf,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 51 (1952): 545–50; Renoir, Alain, “The Heroic Oath in Beowulf, the Chanson de Roland, and the Niebelungenlied,” in Studies in Old English Literature in Honor of Arthur G. Brodem , ed. Greenfield, Stanley B. (Eugene, OR, 1963), 237-66, at 245; Osborn, Marijane, “The Great Feud: Scriptural History and Strife in Beowulf,” Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 93 (1978): 973-81; and Robinson, Fred C., Beowulf and the Appositive Style (Knoxville, TN, 1985). Robinson convincingly extended Osborn's findings to the entire poem and made the case for the duality of linguistic perception as well.Google Scholar
24 Osborn, , “Great Feud,” 974.Google Scholar
25 Bremmer, Rolf H., “The Importance of Kinship: Uncle and Nephew in ‘Beowulf,’” Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 15 (1980): 21–38; see also Shippey, Tom, “Wicked Queens and Cousin Strategies in Beowulf and Elsewhere,” The Heroic Age 5 (2001-2), http://www.heroicage.org/.Google Scholar
26 Owen-Crocker, , “‘Gracious’ Hrothulf” (n. 13 above), 4.Google Scholar
27 Ibid. Google Scholar
28 Damico, Helen, Beowulf's Wealhtheow and the Valkyrie Tradition (Madison, WI, 1984), 128.Google Scholar
29 Hill, , “Beowulf and the Danish Succession” (n. 14 above), 177–97; idem, The Cultural World in Beowulf (Toronto, 1995), 100-104.Google Scholar
30 Alfred Bammesberger's interpretation of “druncne dryhtguman / do∂ swa ic bidde” (1231) as “oh retainers, having drunk [the royal mead], do as I ask!” (Bammesberger's brackets) accords with this view (“The Conclusion of Wealhtheow's Speech [Beowulf 1231],” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 91 [1990]: 207-8). On Wealhϸeow's status, see the remarks of Hill, Thomas D., “‘Wealhtheow’ as a Foreign Slave: Some Continental Analogues,” Philological Quarterly 69 (1990): 106–12.Google Scholar
31 Fry, Donald K. avoids the problem of perspective by alleging that Grendel is expected to return ( “Finnsburh: A New Interpretation,” Chaucer Review 9 [1974]: 1–14, at 2). Ward Parks reveals the poet's opinion that the mother's aim was revenge (“wolde … sunu dead wrecan,” 1277b-78b), but her method predation (“Prey Tell: How Heroes Perceive Monsters in Beowulf,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 92 [1993]: 1-16, at 13). He writes, “In keeping with the habits of her clan, [Grendel's mother] too introduces herself to the Danes predatorially. … All the same, while her behavior is predatory, her motives are not.” Google Scholar
32 For Sigemund / Heremod see: Bonjour, , Digressions , 47; Clemoes, Peter, Interactions of Thought and Language in Old English Poetry (Cambridge, 1995), 195; Stanley, Eric G., “The Narrative Art of Beowulf,” reprinted in A Collection of Papers with Emphasis on Old English Literature , ed. Stanley, Eric G. (Toronto, 1987), 170-91, at 175; Barton Palmer, R., “In his End is His Beginning: Beowulf 2177-2199 and the Question of Unity,” Annuale Mediaevale 17 (1976): 5-21, at 16; Griffith, M. S., “Some Difficulties in Beowulf, Lines 874-902: Sigemund Reconsidered,” Anglo-Saxon England 24 (1995): 11-24; Chickering, Howell, Beowulf: A Dual Language Edition (Garden City, NY, 1977), 318; Bandy, Stephen C., “Cain, Grendel, and the Giants of Beowulf,” Papers on Language and Literature 9 (1973): 235-49, at 243; Malone, Kemp, “Coming Back from the Mere,” Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 69 (1954): 1292-99, at 1296. For Herebeald/Hæ∂cyn: Whitelock, Dorothy, “Beowulf 2444-2471,” Medium Ævum 8 (1939): 198-204 and eadem, “Anglo-Saxon Poetry and the Historian,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th ser., 31 (1949): 75-94; De Looze, Laurence N., “Frame Narratives and Fictionalization: Beowulf as Narrator,” reprinted in Interpretations of Beowulf: A Critical Anthology , ed. Fulk, R. D. (Bloomington, IN, 1991), 242-50; Greenfield, Stanley B., “Geatish History: Poetic Art and Epic Quality in Beowulf,” reprinted in Interpretations of Beowulf, 120-26; Sedgefield, Walter John, Beowulf (Manchester, 1910), 177; and Bragg, Lois, The Lyric Speakers of Old English Poetry (Rutherford, NJ, 1991), 82.Google Scholar
33 Lawrence reasoned in 1915, “so far as the woman is concerned, the general situation underlying both stories [Finn and Ingeld] is much the same” (“Tragedy of Finnsburg” [n. 1 above], 382); see also Girvan, Ritchie, Finnsburuh , British Academy: Sir Israel Gollancz Memorial Lecture [1940] (London, 1941), 15; Ayres, Henry Morgan, “The Tragedy of Hengest in Beowulf,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 16 (1917): 282-95, at 289: “The tragic situations both of Hildeburg and of Freawaru are keenly present to [the poet's] mind.” Google Scholar
34 Bonjour, , Digressions (n. 10 above), 61. There is no reason to assume that Freawaru is Wealhϸeow's daughter.Google Scholar
35 In Finnsburg, Danes and Frisians are said to share a “fæste frio∂uwære” (“firm compact of peace,” 1096a), whereas the Hea∂obeard digression refers to a “freondscipe fæstne” (“firm friendship,” 2069a).Google Scholar
36 The name is elsewhere known only from “Widsi∂” 124a, in context with Hama, mentioned in Beowulf 1198b. Wi∂ergyld (“Retribution”) may not be the Hea∂obeard's father's name; the connection was first proposed by Mead, Gilbert W., “Wi∂ergyld of Beowulf, 2051,” Modern Language Notes 32 (1917): 435–36. Bonjour, (Digressions, 38) also expatiates on the swords in both episodes and connects them to Wiglaf's sword. He expects that Eanmund's sword, now in Wiglaf's hands, will induce a conflict with the Swedes, ruled by Eanmund's brother Eadgils; Dennis Cronan rejects the position in “Wiglaf's Sword,” Studia Neophilologica 65 (1993): 129-39.Google Scholar
37 Huppé, Bernard F., “A Reconsideration of the Ingeld Passage in Beowulf,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 38 (1939): 217–25, at 221; cf. Ayres, , “Tragedy of Hengest,” 293: “Suppose, now, the son of Hunlaf offered the sword to Hengest with egging words similar to those of the eald æsc-wiga in Beowulf's account of the Ingeld-Freawaru episode. … Such a hint would do much to teach Hengest his course.” Google Scholar
38 On the meaning of OE gidd, see Reichl, Karl, “Old English giedd, Middle English yedding as Genre Terms,” in Words, Texts and Manuscripts: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Culture , ed. Gneuss, Helmut (Cambridge, 1992), 349–70; North, Richard, Pagan Words and Christian Meanings (Amsterdam, 1991), 39-62; Howlett, David R., “Form and Genre in Beowulf,” Studia Neophilologica 46 (1974): 309-25.Google Scholar
39 Malone, Kemp, “Hildeburg and Hengest,” ELH: A Journal of English Literary History 10 (1943): 257–84, at 261: “had to lament the hall-play along the mead-bench.” CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40 Klaeber, , “Observations” (n. 3 above), 547–48. Note that plural “eaferum” would require a singular meaning, “son.” Alexander Green wrote extensively on this emendation, first proposed by Benjamin Thorpe as adopted in Kemble's 1835 edition; cf. Kelly, Birte, “The Formative Stages of Beowulf Scholarship: Part II,” Anglo-Saxon England 12 (1983): 239-75, at 244 and 268. Green suggests that eaferum in 1068a is a “dative-instrumental of personal agency” (“Opening” [n. 1 above], 770) and translates, “By Finn's battle-fighters … Hnæf of the Scyldings … was fated to fall” (ibid., 792). Bruce Mitchell calls the emendation “disputed” and voices doubts about the formulation (Old English Syntax, 1 [Oxford, 1985]: §§ 1371-78). Yet “[be] Finnes eaferum” creates an ambiguity whereby the poet may lament “about Finn's men” or lament that Hnæf was destined to die “by Finn's men.” Google Scholar
41 E.g. Beowulf, 1724b-25a: “Ic ϸis gid be ϸe, // awræc wintrum frod” (“Wise in years, I recited this gidd about you”); “The Wife's Lament,” (ASPR III 210-11) 1: “Ic ϸis giedd wrece / bi me ful geomorre” (“I recite this gidd about my fully wretched self”).Google Scholar
42 “Six Cruces in the Finnsburg Fragment and Episode,” Medium Ævum 74 (2005): 191–204, at 195-97.Google Scholar
43 On such examples of “incremental repetition,” see Orchard, , Critical Companion (n. 14 above), 58 n. 10. Kemp Malone sees multiple performances leading up to the recitation of Finnsburg and attributes them to “amateurs or lesser artists” (“Hildeburg and Hengest,” 260). Karl Reichl (“Old English giedd,” 363) does not clarify whether the narrator or the characters in this digression call it a gidd: “Although it is not clear whether giedd here refers to the Lay of Finnsburh, which follows, the end of that lay in Beowulf makes it clear that this kind of narrative can be called a giedd (as well as a leo∂).” It has often been noticed that Beowulf's recollection seems muddled (see Waugh, Robin, “Competitive Narrators in the Homecoming Scene of Beowulf,” Journal of Narrative Technique 25 [1995]: 202-22, at 210-12).Google Scholar
44 On this conundrum see Opland, Jeff, “Beowulf on the Poet,” Mediaeval Studies 38 (1976): 442–67, at 455-57 and Creed, Robert P., “The Singer Looks at his Sources,” Comparative Literature 14 (1962): 44-52, at 47. Kock, Citing and Hoops, Klaeber in his third edition of Beowulf (Boston, 1950) conceded, “hildedeor 2107 may be taken as an epithet relating to an unnamed retainer” (205). Earlier in his note he posed the question, “was the gyd recited by Hrothgar?” (ibid.). The editors of Klaeber's Beowulf prefer to identify Hro∂gar as the performer.Google Scholar
45 Riley, Samuel M. identifies this singer as the anonymous reciter of the Sigemund/Heremod digression (“The Contrast between Beowulf and Hygelac,” Journal of Narrative Technique 10 [1980]: 186–97, at 189).Google Scholar
46 The syntax here is strained; I prefer to take the line “dryhtbearn Dena, / dugu∂a biwenede” as a loose appositive to ϸæs (2032a) particularizing the annoyance to Ingeld and his troop, and referring to “him” (2036a): “noble sons of Danes, honored hosts — on them the weapons of elders shine.” “He” therefore refers to Ingeld. OE dryhtbearn may be an equivalent of dryhtguma or dryhtealdor in the sense of “bride's attendant(s)” (Green, D. H., The Carolingian Lord: Semantic Studies on Four Old High German Words: balder, frô, truhtin, hêrro [Cambridge, 1965], 270, 274). Some read dryhtbearn as singular and connect it to “fæmnan ϸegn” of 2059a and “he” of 2034a because of the repetition of fæmne and of “on flett gæ∂” (2034b) and “on flet gæ∂” (2054b) (Huppé, , “Reconsideration,” 220; and Girvan, Ritchie, review of Beowulfstudien by Hoops, J., Modern Language Review 28 (1933): 244-46, at 246). This Dane is described as a “fæmnan ϸegn” or “lady's thane,” not “untried warrior” as Kemp Malone proposes (“Ingeld,” Modern Philology 27 [1930]: 257-76, at 259), but the warrior accompanying a bride; see Girvan, review of Hoops, Beowulfstudien, 246, where se fæmnan ϸegn is compared to Bede's description of Bishop Paulinus as comes copulae carnalis (Ecclesiastical History , ed. Colgrave, and Mynors, , 164).Google Scholar
47 On the difficult phrase “dugu∂a biwenede” see Mitchell, Bruce, “Two Syntactical Notes on Beowulf,” Neophilologus 52 (1968): 292–99, at 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48 Huppé, , “Reconsideration” (n. 37 above), 223.Google Scholar
49 Owen-Crocker, , “‘Gracious’ Hrothulf” (n. 12 above), 4–5. The Beowulf poet calls Ingeld the “glæd son of Froda” (2025b), underscoring an ironic appreciation for his marriage to Freawaru.Google Scholar
50 “onginne∂ geomormod higes cunnian, wigbealu weccean …” (2044a-45a).Google Scholar
51 OE byre designates a “youth,” a “lad” or “boy”; see Bäck, Hilding, The Synonyms for “Child,” “Boy,” “Girl” in Old English (Lund, 1934), 66.Google Scholar
52 Riedinger, Anita, “The Old English Formula in Context,” Speculum 60 (1985): 294–317, at 309-11 (310: “a thematic formula whose function it is to signify ‘the victor's reward’”).Google Scholar
53 Lawrence, , “Tragedy of Finnsburg” (n. 1 above), 403.Google Scholar
54 Many others have alleged Finn's innocence, e. g., Brodeur, : “[Finn's] failure to make adequate preparation for a surprise attack suffices to establish a probability against malicious intent” (“Design and Motive” [n. 9 above], 37) and “[Finn] had been compelled to support his troops once the battle at Finnsburg had been joined” (ibid., 39).Google Scholar
55 OE ferh∂frecan is a hapax, but frec / freca are often attested in Beowulf, where they mean “fierce,” “terrible,” or “dangerous.” The repetition of begeat (“befell,” 1146b), used to describe Finn's attack against Hnæf (1068b), highlights Finn's death as retributive.Google Scholar
56 “Wig ealle fornam // Finnes ϸegnas / nemne feaum anum …” (1080b-81b).Google Scholar
57 A very close verbal parallel is narrated in the Old English Boethius. The Goths demolish the Romans: “Ne meahte ϸa seo wealaf / wige forstandan // Gotan mid Gu∂e” MB 1.22a-23a [ASPR V 154]. In this case the Romans give treasure and land, and swear oaths — the same capitulations that Finn has to make: “giomonna gestrion // sealdon unwillum / eϸelweardas, // halige a∂as” (1.23b-25a). A passage from Wulfstan's homily “Be godcundre warnunge” (Loomis, Dorothy Bethurum, The Homilies of Wulfstan [Oxford, 1957], 253, 68-71: “And ϸonne land wyr∂e∂ for synnum forworden 7 ϸæs folces dugo∂ swyϸost fordwineϸ, ϸonne feh∂ seo wealaf sorhful 7 sarimod geomrigendum mode bemænan 7 sarlice syfian …”) confirms the sense of a diminished war-band. For a highly heterodox view of lines 1085b-96a, see Gray, John (“The Finn Episode in Beowulf: Line 1085(b) ac hig him geϸingo budon,” in Words and Wordsmiths: A Volume for H. L. Rogers , ed. Barnes, Geraldine et al. [Sydney, 1989], 32-39), arguing that the Danes offer terms to Finn.Google Scholar
58 “Finn's Stronghold,” Modern Philology 43 (1945): 83–85, at 85; see also Diller, Hans-Jürgen, “Literacy and Orality in Beowulf: The Problem of Reference,” in Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im englischen Mittelalter , ed. Erzgräber, Willi and Volk, Sabine (Tübingen, 1988), 15-25, at 18.Google Scholar
59 Malone, , “Hildeburh and Hengest” (n. 39 above), 267: “the poet gives Hengest credit (1) for the fact that the Frisians offer terms of peace at all, and (2) for the highly favorable nature of these terms.” In fact, Brodeur, Arthur G. criticized Malone's view of Hengest as a “craven weakling” by praising Hengest's negotiation which “[saved] his men from needless slaughter” (“Design and Motive” [n. 9 above], 7).Google Scholar
60 Ayres, , “Tragedy of Hengest” (n. 33 above); see also Stanley, Eric G., “The Narrative Art of Beowulf,” reprinted in Collection of Papers (n. 32 above), 170-91, at 177.Google Scholar
61 North has argued that Finn pledges on the god Ing's sacred relics, possibly a boar-idol taken from the Frisian treasury. He understands the lines “A∂ wæs geæfnod / ond icge gold // ahæfen of horde” (“an oath was performed and [Ing's] gold was taken from the treasury,” 1107a-8a) to refer to an oath sworn on a golden artifact (“Tribal Loyalties” [n. 4 above], 32-38). It also seems plausible that gold taken from the hoard is meant to be shared among Hengest's retinue in compensation of Hnæf's death (see lines 1089a-94b and Lawrence, “Tragedy of Finnesburg,” 406 n. 22). Coming right after the oath (“a∂ wæs geæfned,” 1107a), it seems most convenient to speculate that wergild is being paid out. R. D. Fulk has also suggested that icge and incge disguise idge “shining” (“Old English icge and incge,” English Studies 59 [1978]: 255-56). Klaeber emended a∂ “oath” to ad “pyre” and translated “the pyre was prepared” [Beowulf, 173], and this emendation has been retained in Klaeber's Beowulf. Google Scholar
62 Not all agree on the meaning, and some prefer to read “unhlitme” here; Rosier, James L. summarized the history of this reading in “The Unhlitm of Finn and Hengest,” Review of English Studies 17 (1966): 171–74; but see now Taylor, Paul Beekman, “Beowulf 1130, 1875 and 2006: In Defense of the Manuscript,” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 82 (1981): 357-59, at 357-58 and Boenig, Robert, “Time Markers and Treachery: The Crux at Beowulf 1130,” English Language Notes 24 (1987): 1-9. Mackie, W. S. (“Notes upon the Text and the Interpretation of ‘Beowulf,’” Modern Language Review 34 [1939]: 515-24, at 521) proposed emending unflitme to unflitne, and the reading suggests how unflitme has almost universally been thought to modify “ellen,” as in “with undisputed zeal” instead of “with zeal renouncing dispute.” Google Scholar
63 North, “Tribal Loyalties,” 22 (“Finn would thus forswear vengeance for his son by cancelling him out with Hnæf”) and Rosier, “Unhlitm of Finn and Hengest,” 173. The language is exotic, but ceast is attested in the Antwerp Glossary (Kindschi, Lowell, “The Latin-Old English Glossaries in Plantin-Moretus MS 32 and British Museum MS Additional 32.246” (PhD diss., Stanford University, 1955), 64: “Seditio, flocslite [leg. folcslite] uel æswicung, sacu, ceast”), and ceas in Aldhelm glosses (Gwara, Scott, ed., Aldhelmi Malmesbiriensis Prosa de Virginitate cum Glosa Latina atque Anglosaxonica, CCL 143-143A [Turnhout, 2001], 124A, 430: “INSECTATIONES] i. persecutiones, rixas uel cæsa”). The context makes it clear that an oath sworn “unceas” would mean that no guile would be tolerated. An oath of “unfæh∂” means forgoing vengeance.Google Scholar
64 I realize that the usage of “benemdon” in this passage is disputed, but I agree with Alan Bliss's reasoning as laid out in “Beowulf, Lines 3074-75,” in Tolkien, J. R. R., Scholar, and Storyteller, , ed. Salu, Mary and Farrell, Robert T. (Ithaca, NY, 1979), 41–63; and with Tanke, John, “Beowulf, Gold-Luck, and God's Will,” Studies in Philology 99 (2002): 356-79.Google Scholar
65 Renoir, , “Heroic Oath” (n. 23 above), 237–38, 242, 252; on the sanctity of Germanic oaths, see North, , “Tribal Loyalties,” 32-33.Google Scholar
66 Albano, , “Role of Women” (n. 20 above), 4. Other remarks of Albano's also require substantiation: “Once a bond of loyalty was established in either Anglo-Saxon or Old Norse culture, such loyalty would last indefinitely” (ibid.). Albano ultimately denies Hengest's “dilemma”: “Both Hildeburh and Hengest probably already had their minds made up as to what action to take in connection with Finn” (3-4). By this reading, Finn was foolish to trust Hengest's oath.Google Scholar
67 Albano, , “Role of Women,” 4.Google Scholar
68 Brodeur, , “Design and Motive,” 38.Google Scholar
69 Such as Fry, “New Interpretation” (n. 31 above), 10: “I interpret Hengest as awaiting his chance to avenge Hnæf. … Hengest must break his oath to Finn….” Google Scholar
70 Although Hengest takes his oath so seriously he will not break it, references to him as a “traitor” are somewhat overstated; cf. Stanley, Eric G., “‘Hengestes heap,’ Beowulf 1091,” in Britain 400-600: Language and History , ed. Bammesberger, Alfred and Wollmann, Alfred (Heidelberg, 1990), 51–63.Google Scholar
71 North, , “Tribal Loyalties,” 23.Google Scholar
72 Pogatscher, Alois, “Unausgedrücktes Subjekt im Altenglischen,” Anglia 23 (1901): 261–301.Google Scholar
73 The element searo denotes skillful artifice, and in prose always has a negative sense; see Taylor, Paul Beekman, “Searoni∂as: Old Norse Magic and Old English Verse,” Studies in Philology 80 (1983): 109–25, at 114-15; Hill, Thomas D., “The Confession of Beowulf and the Structure of Volsunga Saga,” in The Vikings , ed. Farrell, Robert T. (London, 1982), 165-79, at 173.Google Scholar
74 Klaeber's “se∂an scolde” (1106b) has been emended here in consideration of R. D. Fulk's reading “sy∂∂;an scede” (“Cruces in the Finnsburg Fragment”), where “scede” is the preterite subjunctive of OE scadan “decide.” The sense is not substantially changed from that of Klaeber's reading, but the syntax, phrasal parallelism, and metrical expectations are far superior. Malone thought that the clause “ϸonne hit sweordes ecg / se∂∂an scolde” meant that “the man [“guilty of trouble-making”] will be put to death” (“Finn Episode,” 163, my emphasis), but the fact that the “sword's edge” should settle “it” rather implies that the entire episode of “morϸorhete” would be settled by all-out war, the sort of risk that would prevent any baiting. Here the ingenious solution proposed by Robinson, Fred C. (“Textual Notes on Beowulf,” in Anglo-Saxonica: Beiträge zur Vor-und Frühgeschichte der englischen Sprache und zur altenglischen Literatur , ed. Schabram, Hans, Grinda, Klaus R., and Wetzel, Claus-Dieter [Munich, 1993], 107–12, at 111) should also be mentioned, in light of many cogent parallels. Retention of sy∂∂an would yield “it will be left to the sword….” Google Scholar
75 DOE s.v. flett (1); the editors cite this passage under (2) “dwelling, house, hall.” Google Scholar
76 OE morϸorbealu and its morphological equivalent morϸbealu are used only three times in Beowulf. Grendel commits “more murderous destruction” (“mor∂beala mare,” 136a), because he is an indiscriminate killer without motive. The second attestation comes during the Herebeald / Hæ∂cyn digression: Hæ∂cyn's killing is called “murder,” not because the crime was secretly committed but because it was both heinous and motiveless. On compounds with the second element in -bealu , see Shippey, T. A., Poems of Wisdom and Learning in Old English (Cambridge, 1976), 130 n. 6.Google Scholar
77 Hill, , Cultural World (n. 29 above), 26; idem, Warrior Ethic (n. 20 above), 64-65. Many have observed how central Hildeburg is in the digression but without noting that her appearances manifest the extent of Danish distress and absolute necessity for revenge, as Orchard has concluded in Critical Companion, 177-78: “The Beowulf-poet is at particular pains to highlight her impotence and passivity, as well as her innocence: she is portrayed purely as a victim.” Google Scholar
78 Malone, , “Hildeburg and Hengest” (n. 39 above), 270.Google Scholar
79 Woolf, Rosemary, “The Ideal of Men Dying with Their Lord in the Germania and in The Battle of Maldon,” Anglo-Saxon England 5 (1976): 63–81, at 69.Google Scholar
80 Ibid., 71. Others have also suggested that the truce is only temporary (e.g., Fry, , “New Interpretation” [n. 69 above]; Boenig, , “Time Markers” [n. 63 above]), but I prefer North's argument (“Tribal Loyalties”) that Finn intends to supplement his diminished warband with Hengest's recruits.Google Scholar
81 On this reading of “freondum befeallen,” see Bammesberger, Alfred, “OE befeallen in Beowulf, line 1126a,” Notes and Queries 248 (2003): 156–58; Bruce Mitchell rejects Bammesberger's position in “OE befeallen in Beowulf, Line 1126a,” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 105 (2004): 187-89. Malone, Kemp (“Finn Episode,” 165) conjectured that the Danes were allowed to wander about Frisia, but the locution “hamas ond heaburh” would then make little sense: why would Danes wish to see their enemies' homes?.Google Scholar
82 Griffith, , “Some Difficulties” (n. 31 above), 37–38.Google Scholar
83 Green, Dennis Howard, Language and History in the Early Germanic World (Cambridge, 1998), 108.Google Scholar
84 Lawrence, , “Tragedy of Finnsburg” (n. 1 above), 415–16; see also Malone, , “Finn's Stronghold” (n. 58 above), 85 (“the whole wealaf presumably left Frisia with them”); idem, “Hildeburg and Hengest,” 282; Brodeur, , “Design and Motive” (n. 9 above), 26; Tolkien, , Finn and Hengest (n. 3 above), 138.Google Scholar
85 DOE s.v. (II.C.1) “following (someone/something) in succession, succeeding, after”; (II.C.7) “subsequent to and in consequence of, as a result of, because of.” Google Scholar
86 Shippey, T. A., Old English Verse (London, 1972), 25. Ritchie Girvan also dislikes the duplicity, but the suggestion that the episode praises the Danes disturbs him more (Finnsburuh [n. 33 above], 11). Phillip Pulsiano argues that Danes especially were known for verbal duplicity (”‘Danish Men's Words Are Worse than Murder’: Viking Guile and The Battle of Maldon,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 96 [1997]: 13-25).Google Scholar
87 Shippey, , Old English Verse , 25.Google Scholar
88 Fulk, , Klaeber's Beowulf , 190 note to lines 1148 ff.; Orchard, , Critical Companion (n. 14 above), 185-86; Brodeur, , “Design and Motive” (n. 9 above), 27: “Gu∂laf and Oslaf cast in Finn's teeth all the woes that had befallen them since that first fateful journey across the sea, to Finnsburg” (Brodeur's emphasis); Anderson, Earl R., “Formulaic Typescene Survival: Finn, Ingeld, and the Niebelungenlied,” English Studies 61 (1980): 293-301, at 295.Google Scholar
89 North, , “Tribal Loyalties” (n. 4 above), 31. Fry suggests that “Guthlaf and Oslaf embolden the Danish spirits by reciting all their woes since the original voyage to Frisia” (“New Interpretation” [n. 31 above], 12).Google Scholar
90 There are only five occurrences of OE ætwitan in verse. It translates exprobraverunt (“they accused”) twice in the Paris Psalter (73.16, 88.45 [ASPR V 35, 60]).Google Scholar
91 Malone, , “Hildeburg and Hengest” (n. 39 above), 278 (see also 282-83). This is also the opinion of Taylor, “Beowulf 1130” (n. 63 above), 358.Google Scholar
92 Just as dryhten means leader of a dryht (war-band), ϸeoden means leader of a ∂eod (nation or tribe in a quite restricted sense); see Green, , Language and History (n. 83 above), 126-27; Storms, G., “The Subjectivity of the Style of Beowulf,” in Studies in Old English Literature in Honor of Arthur G. Brodeur , ed. Greenfield, Stanley B. (Eugene, OR, 1963), 171-86, at 178.Google Scholar
93 The point is emphasized in the expression “peodnes ∂egne” (1085a) in reference to Hengest; see Brown, Carleton, “Beowulf 1080-1106,” Modern Language Notes 34 (1919): 181–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
94 North, , “Tribal Loyalties,” 25.Google Scholar
95 Ibid., 18, 28. North suggests that Hengest transfers power and responsibility for the oath to the Danes. While I do not follow his argument about the transfer of power, his remarks on Hengest's role in the confederacy are germane. The problem is, of course, that Hengest seems to hold sway over the Danes as more than a leader in name alone.Google Scholar
96 Orchard, , Critical Companion (n. 14 above), 183.Google Scholar
97 The archaeology supports Bede; see Myres, J. N. L., “The Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes,” Proc. Brit. Acad. 56 (1972 for 1970): 145–74; Suzuki, Seiichi, The Quoit Brooch Style and Anglo-Saxon Settlement: A Casting and Recasting of Cultural Identity Symbols (Woodbridge, 2000), 103-21. However, Hengest is never called a Jute, and it makes sense that he could be an Angle, as Alan Bliss proposed on the evidence of Historia Brittonum (Tolkien, Finn and Hengest [n. 3 above], 168-80). On the impossibility of discovering facts of Anglo-Saxon settlement history from the written sources, see Sims-Williams, Patrick, “The Settlement of England in Bede and the Chronicle,” Anglo-Saxon England 12 (1983): 1-41.Google Scholar
98 Chambers, R. W., Widsith: A Study in Old English Heroic Legend (Cambridge, 1912), 237–41.Google Scholar
99 In Beowulf, alongside the adjective eotenisc (“made by giants, giant”) and compound noun eotonweard (“watch against a giant”); see DOE s.v. eoten. This word is marked in Klaeber's Beowulf with the symbol denoting its exceptional rarity in prose (s.v.). On the poet's linguistic precision in using eoten and gigant , see Bandy, Stephen C., “Cain, Grendel, and the Giants of Beowulf,” Papers on Language and Literature 9 (1973): 235–49, at 240. Stanley, Eric G. facetiously proposes “Jutish giants” in his translation of “eotena cynnes,” 883b (“Notes on Old English Poetry,” Leeds Studies in English 20 [1989]: 319-44, at 333).Google Scholar
100 Finn and Hengest , 53–54.Google Scholar
101 Messenius, Johannes, Scondia Illustrata, seu Chronologia de rebus Scondiae (Stockholm, 1700-1705).Google Scholar
102 Cf. Campbell, Alistair, Old English Grammar (Oxford, 1959), § 619.Google Scholar
103 Finn and Hengest, 62 n. 64. Bliss does offer an unlikely parallel in OIcel gotnar, gotna, gotnum (“Goths, men”).Google Scholar
104 Heremod's “exile” has been inferred from the following lines: He mid eotenum wear∂ on feonda geweald for∂ forlacen, snude forsended. (902b-4a) Most interpret “wear∂ for∂ forlacen” as “was betrayed” or “lured” by his people. The agent goes unstated, however, and the adverb is difficult. To be “betrayed forth” or “lured away” may mean to be utterly betrayed, i.e., unto death. While OE forlacan is attested only four times, one attestation in “Andreas” reveals that fate also “deceives” or “seduces”: “Hie seo wyrd beswac, // forleolc and forlærde” (“that destiny betrayed them, deceived and misled,” 613a-14a); cf. Blake, N. F., “The Heremod Digressions in Beowulf,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 61 (1962): 278–87, at 284; on the simplex lacan , see Afros, Elena, “Linguistic Ambiguities in Some Exeter Book Riddles,” Notes and Queries 250 (2005): 431-37, at 436. The expression “for∂ forlacen” is varied by “snude forsended” (“quickly exiled”), and OE forsendan (attested only seven times) does describe banishment. Yet adverb snude suggests that forsended may not express Heremod's exile at the hands of his people, since they lived with his tyranny for a long time: his people “very often” lamented his “si∂,” sorrow lamed him “too long,” and he was a “life-long anxiety” (Beowulf 904b-8b). In fact, to be quickly “forsended” means to die right away, the effect of being “lured forth,” as in Beowulf 2265b-66b: “Bealocwealm hafa∂ // fela feorhcynna / for∂ onsended!” (“Baleful death has banished the lives of many men!”). In the Old English Martyrology the collocation gast + onsendan commonly describes death, and Juliana characterizes martyrdom as an exile in “Juliana” 438a-b: “ϸonne ic beom onsended / wi∂ so∂fæstum”; “When I am exiled amongst the righteous.” The Martyrology also confirms that, in the case of the tyrant ϸeodric, one could be “sent off” into “everlasting fire”: “ϸæet wæs swi∂e riht ϸæt he from ϸæm mannum twæm wære sended on ϸæt ece fyr ϸa he ær unrihtlic ofsloh in ϸyssum life” (Günter Kotzor, Das altenglische Martyrologium [Munich, 1981], My 18, A.22). This reading of OE forsendan explains a second difficulty in the passage. The phrase “wear∂ for∂ forlacen” is modified by a circumlocution “on feonda geweald,” which elsewhere seems to describe Grendel's spirit passing to hell after his combat with Beowulf: “se ellorgast // on feonda geweald / feor si∂ian” (“the foreign spirit / guest traveled far into the power of enemies,” 807b-8b). (Blake unnecessarily suggests that “on feonda geweald” describes the Christian hell, but the locution may simply mean “he died” [“Heremod Digressions,” 284].) Kock, Ernst A. and Malone, Kemp propose that Heremod fell under the power of his “enemies”; cf. resp. “Interpretations and Emendations of Early English Texts VIII,” Anglia 45 (1921): 105-31, at 117; “Ealhhild,” Anglia 55 (1931): 266-72, at 268: “‘he was betrayed into the power of his enemies the Euts.’ Here mid Eotenum is a variation of feonda.” Finally, in “Andreas” 1619a-b, the expression “in feonda geweald / gefered ne wurdon” (“was not brought into the power of enemies”) refers both to death and to the damnation of “gastas” or “souls” (1617a). Heremod might therefore have been betrayed into the hands of devils by death. Like Grendel, Heremod metaphorically “travels” in death, a figure confirmed in “Fortunes of Men,” 26b, where “feor∂ bi∂ on si∂e” (“his spirit is/will be on a journey”) is said of a dying man. If to be “lured away and quickly dispatched into the power of fiends” describes Heremod's death as an exile, “mid eotenum” becomes important. Ernst A. Kock has compared the half-line to a clause in the Old English Orosius: “hie sendon … ϸone consul mid him mid firde” (“they sent the consul against him with an army”) (“Interpretations and Emendations,” 117); cf. Bately, Janet, The Old English Orosius, EETS, s.s., 6 (London, 1980), 120 (line 18). By this logic, if we construed eoten (“giant”) as a locution for “enemy,” we could read: “among his enemies he was misled right away into the power of fiends, quickly subdued.” Google Scholar
105 Suzuki, , Quoit Brooch Style , 116–17.Google Scholar
106 This does not seem to be the case, however, in Beowulf 1305a (“on ba healfa”), describing the Danes' and Grendel's “sides.” The genitive singular adjective “healfre” in the phrase “ϸæt hie healfre geweald … agan moston” modifies a feminine noun, almost certainly “heal.” Google Scholar
107 Grímur Jónsson Thorkelin first identified the eotenas as “Jutes” in his 1815 translation of Beowulf: “Jutorum foedus / Injuste fuit / Fractum adversus dominum.” Google Scholar
108 North, , “Tribal Loyalties” (n. 4 above), 21.Google Scholar
109 Kaske, R. E., “The Eotenas in Beowulf,” in Old English Poetry: Fifteen Essays , ed. Creed, Robert P. (Providence, RI, 1967), 285–310; see also Holthausen, Friedrich, “Zu altenglischen Denkmälern,” Englische Studien 51 (1917-18): 180-88, at 180; Lawrence, , “Tragedy of Finnsburg” (n. 1 above), 393: “Frisians, the men of King Finn, who are also called Eotenas …”; Malone, , “Finn Episode” (n. 9 above), 161: “Euts and Frisians are equivalent terms, for our poet, and from that we may infer that the treachery was on the Frisian side.” Google Scholar
110 Vickrey, John F., “On the Eor∂-Compounds in the Old English Finn-Stories,” Studia Neophilologica 65 (1993): 19–27.Google Scholar
111 Stuhmiller, Jacqueline, “On the Identity of the Eotenas,” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 100 (1999): 7–14. Her point is that “the Geats may have vanquished this particular eotena [Grendel], but the Danes have eradicated whole hosts of them in the past, against tremendous odds” (11). Stuhmiller concludes with an observation similar to mine: “it is no less important to acknowledge that Beowulf himself, from a Danish viewpoint at least, is a rapacious eoten of sorts” (12).Google Scholar
112 Kaske, , “Eotenas in Beowulf,” 289.Google Scholar
113 North, Richard, The Haustlong of ϸjo∂olfr of Hvinir (Middlesex, 1997), 8, 69.Google Scholar
114 Ibid., 56.Google Scholar
115 See the comments of Russchen, A., “Finnsburg — A Critical Approach,” in Miscellanea Frisica , ed. Århammar, N. R. (Assen, 1984), 349–56, at 351 and Wilts, Ommo, “Die Friesen im Beowulf — Rezeption und epische Grundlage,” Nordfriesisches Jahrbuch 15 (1979): 131-44.Google Scholar
116 Magoun, Francis P. Jr., “Beowulf and King Hygelac in the Netherlands: Lost Anglo-Saxon Verse-Stories about This Event,” English Studies 35 (1954): 193–204; Backx, Suzanne, “Sur la date et l'origine du De monstris, belluis et serpentibus,” Latomus 3 (1939): 61; Whitbread, L. G., “The Liber Monstrorum and Beowulf,” Mediaeval Studies 36 (1974): 434-71, at 463.Google Scholar
117 Brodeur is especially dismissive of the view that Hengest “made no [heroic] choice at all … between duty linked with desire to avenge … and his own weak irresolution”; see “Design and Motive” (n. 9 above), 4.Google Scholar
118 Malone, , “Finn Episode,” 168.Google Scholar
119 Ibid., 171.Google Scholar
120 Brodeur, , “Design and Motive” (n. 3 above), 23. Brodeur, however, thinks that Hengest resolves to break his oath.Google Scholar
121 Stanley, Eric G., “Old English Poetic Diction and the Interpretation of The Wanderer, The Seafarer and The Penitent's Prayer,” reprinted in Collection of Papers (n. 32 above), 234–80, at 252, 257; Burlin, Robert B., “Inner Weather and Interlace: A Note on the Semantic Value of Structure in Beowulf,” in Old English Studies in Honor of John C. Pope , ed. Burlin, Robert B. and Irving, Edward B. Jr. (Toronto, 1974), 81-89. Burlin exonerates Hengest (“the aim of the episode is clearly not to cast blame,” 83) and suggests that Hengest succumbs to “the way things are” [ibid.]).Google Scholar
122 While many have offered reconstructions of the text, the solution “(Finn) eal unhlitme” has found favor, the last two words being translated “not at all by lot,” hence “without reluctance.” This reading connects unhlitme to OE hleotan “to cast lots,” and OE hliet “chance, lot, share”; cf. “on hlytme,” Beowulf 3126: “Næs ∂a on hlytme / hwa ϸæt hord strude” (“It was by no means [decided] according to lot who plunder that hoard”). Orchard translates “ill-fated” (Critical Companion [n. 14 above], 186). Klaeber's Beowulf (notes to line 1128b-29a) offers the reading “he unflitme” introducing a new clause; see below, n. 124.Google Scholar
123 Fry, , Finnsburh (n. 31 above), 22.Google Scholar
124 Vickrey, John F., “The Narrative Structure of Hengest's Revenge in Beowulf,” Anglo-Saxon England 6 (1977): 91–103, at 91: “Any hlitm, ‘casting of lots,’ would imply ‘choice’ in the sense ‘decision pursuant to lots and not to one's desires.’ But the translation ‘having no choice’ means much more than this; it means ‘unwillingly,’ and shows that -hlitm here is really taken to imply ‘free choice, choice pursuant to one's desires.’” The translation “voluntarily” may be euphemistic, as Fulk, R. D. implies in his treatment of the term as “‘not reluctantly,’ ‘eagerly,’ ‘fondly’” (“Six Cruces” [n. 42 above], 199). Having accepted the sense “eagerly,” he applies “unhlitme” to the following half-line “eard gemunde,” partly because the subsequent verses about the winter weather suggest the impossibility of travel. Fulk therefore accepts the emendation ne < MS he in 1130a. In proposing the clause onset, he also recommends emending eal to he. Given the telegraphic style of the passage, I do not think that the verses on the winter weather need to explain the reason for Hengest's predicament, as the punctuation (a dash) implies. One could intuit, “Hengest stayed happily, even though he could sail home … the winter squalls set in.” Google Scholar
125 Vickrey, , “Narrative Structure,” 95; Vickrey claims, “Hengest meditates a dire revenge” (ibid.). He further argues that Hengest's revenge is implicated twice in the telling. When the poet describes the dread winter he actually portrays Hengest's mood. The arrival of spring represents Hengest's revenge: “The first ending hints at rage and a slaughterous revenge; the second records the details of revenge” (101).Google Scholar
126 North, , “Tribal Loyalties,” 27: “Hengest does not sail, therefore he does not look for omens … [he] plans to settle a new land [Britain], but his private feud takes precedence.” Google Scholar
127 Dumville, , Historia Brittonum (n. 5 above), 82.Google Scholar
128 Wright, Neil, The Historia Regum Britanniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth: I. Bern, Burgerbibliothek, MS. 568 (Cambridge, 1985), 65 (emending “et” to “ut”).Google Scholar
129 North, , “Tribal Loyalties,” 26–27. Another possibility is provided below, p. 230 note 156.Google Scholar
130 The half-line “ϸeah ϸe he meahte” has often been emended to “ϸeah ϸe ne meahte,” but the negation should be rejected; see Taylor, , “Beowulf 1130” (n. 62 above), 357–58 and North, , “Tribal Loyalties,” 26.Google Scholar
131 OE wæfre is a difficult term because of its rarity: attested only four times in Old English, it occurs three times in Beowulf. In line 1331a Hro∂gar says that a “wælgsest wæfre” (“hestitant slaughter-guest”: Grendel's mother) slew Æschere — a detail confirmed by the poet's remarks: Heo wæs on ofste, wolde ut ϸanon, feore beorgan, ϸa heo onfunden wæs … (1292a-93b) [She was in a hurry, wanted to get out of there and protect her life after she had been discovered.] In Beowulf, then, “wæfre” plausibly means “hesitant,” as in ModE “wavering.” On the etymology, see Wood, Francis A., “Etymologies,” Modern Language Notes 15 (1900): 95–101, at 98. Klaeber interpreted the word as “vagans” (“Die christlichen Elemente im Beowulf II,” Anglia 35 [1911]: 249-70, at 256). Garmonsway, G. N. argued that the term meant “furious, raging” and denied that Beowulf is “hesitant” (“Anglo-Saxon Heroic Attitudes,” in Franciplegius: Medieval and Linguistic Studies in Honor of Francis Peabody Magoun, Jr. , ed. Bessinger, Jess B. Jr. and Creed, Robert P. [New York, 1965], 139-46, at 143-46).Google Scholar
132 Malone, , “Finn Episode” (n. 32 above), 159.Google Scholar
133 Fry, , “New Interpretation” (n. 31 above), 11.Google Scholar
134 Bruce Mitchell discusses this line in his “Two Syntactical Notes” (n. 47 above), 16–22.Google Scholar
135 North, , “Tribal Loyalties” (n. 4 above), 19–20.Google Scholar
136 An excellent precedent for the sense “mental state” can be found in Beowulf 2113b.Google Scholar
137 Lines 390b, 642b, 1281b (adverb of motion), 1570b, 1800b, 1866b; 3059b refers to the dragon's lair. The phrase is highly formulaic. It occurs solely in the b-verse, and three times in Beowulf (I count “inne gemunde”) inne is found with a preterite verb form having prefix ge-. Google Scholar
138 Orchard suspects that gemunan “remember” can also mean “call to mind” (Critical Companion [n. 14 above], 186), but this sense would require justification if it meant “call to (someone else's) mind.” In Beowulf OE myndgian is used for the sense “remind” or “call to mind.” The form gemunde appears to be preterite subjunctive, but a translation would be crabbed: “might have remembered.” Google Scholar
139 Cleasby, Richard, Vigfusson, Gudbrand, and Craigie, William A., An Icelandic-English Dictionary , 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1957), s.v. muna, sense 2. It has to be conceded that in all the OIcel citations, one does not remember a person (as in Beowulf) but his doings. One “remembers” (humiliations or miseries) just before seeking revenge in Beowulf 1259b (Grendel's mother remembers “yrmϸe” or “humiliation”), and 2488 (Eofor's hand remembered feuds). In the Hea∂obeard digression the eald æscwiga “remembers all” and goads a youth to murder (2042b).Google Scholar
140 This character is the son of “Hunlaf” (see Clark Hall, John R., “A Note on Beowulf 1142-1145,” Modern Language Notes 25 [1910]: 113–14) known from the pages of the lost Skjoldunga saga epitomized by Arngrimur Jónsson in his Rerum Danicarum fragmenta: “Hunleifus, Oddleifus, Gunnleifus,” which correspond exactly to Hunlaf, Oddlaf (Ordlaf / Oslaf), and Gu∂laf (ed. Olrik, Axel, Skjoldungasaga i Arngrim Jonssons Udtog [Copenhagen, 1894]); and from an important reference in Cotton Vespasian D. IV fol. 139v, deriving from an anonymous history “de Bruto et Brittonibus secundum Bedam” (Rudolf Imelmann, review of Beowulf by Heyne, M. and Schücking, L., in Deutsche Literaturzeitung 17 [April 1909], cols. 995-1000, at col. 999): “In diebus illis, imperante Valentiniano … regnum barbarorum et germanorum exortum est. Surgentesque populi et naciones per totam Europam consederunt. Hoc testantur gesta rudolphi et hunlapi, Unwini et Widie, Horsi et Hengisti, Waltef et harne, quorum quidam in Italia, quidam in Gallia, alii in britannia, ceteri vero in Germania armis et rebus bellicis claruerunt.” Various readings have been proposed (for which see Klaeber's Beowulf, note to lines 1142-44), a heterodox one revived by Friend. Two questions arise if we accept the reading Hunlafing: Is Hunlafing the name of a sword (Olrik, Axel, Danmarks Heltedigtning: En Oldtidsstudie [Copenhagen, 1903], vol. 1, 68; Malone, Kemp, “Hunlafing,” Modern Language Notes 43 [1928]: 300-304) — or a person? The question arises whether one can call a son “Hunlafing” without a full first name, but Arthur Gilchrist Brodeur seems to have resolved the question to the extent that it can be (“The Climax of the Finn Episode,” University of California Publications in English 3 [1943]: 285-361, at 330-54). Girvan perversely identified Hengest as Hunlafing: “it was on his own lap he laid and wore the sword” (Finnsburuh [n. 32 above], 24).Google Scholar
141 Bandy, , “Giants of Beowulf” (n. 32 above).Google Scholar
142 Although this is not the only explanation: Van Meter, David C. (“The Ritualized Presentation of Weapons and the Ideology of Nobility in Beowulf,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 95 [1996]: 175–89) recalls an earlier explanation (i.e., Girvan, , Finnsburuh, 24) that the sword may have been Hnæf's and that a ritual of political legitimation renders Hengest fully responsible for blood vengeance (185; the notion of an heir seems implicit). If so, we would need to account for the delay of the ceremony, Hengest's own reluctance to break the treaty (does one require a ceremony to perform one's duty?) before and afterwards, and the ambiguity of the sword's history.Google Scholar
143 Hanning, Robert W., “Poetic Emblems in Medieval Narrative Texts,” in Vernacular Poetics in the Middle Ages , ed. Ebin, Lois (Kalamazoo, MI, 1984), 1–32, at 6, 8.Google Scholar
144 Frank, , “Germanic Legend” (n. 8 above), 90: “The silent placing of a sword on Hengest's lap screams out vengeance.” Frank is not quite clear how the sword prompts Hengest, and neither is Klaeber, writing, “Hunlafing … presents Hengest with a famous sword with the stipulation … that the vengeance he is brooding over is to be carried into execution” (“Observations” [n. 3 above], 547). For Klaeber, it almost seems as if the sword were a gift — or bribe. Malone (“Hildeburg and Hengest” [n. 39 above], 276) proposes that receiving the sword signifies Hengest's intent: “On this earlier occasion the Eotens had got well acquainted with his sword; he is intent on having them renew this acquaintance”; see also Malone, , “Finn Episode” (n. 9 above), 167. Brodeur alleges, “acceptance of the sword was a promise to Hengest's men; it restored him to unity with them, and ended his tragic isolation” (“Design and Motive” [n. 9 above], 24).Google Scholar
145 North, , “Tribal Loyalties,” 28–29.Google Scholar
146 Gwara, Scott, “Second Language Acquisition and Anglo-Saxon Bilingualism: Negative Transfer and Avoidance in Elfric Bata's Latin Colloquia, ca. A.D. 1000,” Viator 29 (1998): 1–24, at 14.Google Scholar
147 Collinder, Björn, “Beowulfskolier,” in Elias Wessén, 15 April 1954 (Lund, 1954), 16–25, at 20-21. A verse from Max II 25b bears on this question: “sweord sceal on bearme.” This occurs in a long section patterned “X sceal on Y” describing where men or objects should be positioned. Thus, “a gem should stand in a ring” (22b-23a), “a mast on a ship's keel must support a sail-yard” (24b-25a), “a king should give rings in his hall” (28b-29a). The context (as well as the dative of position) here indicates that the sword be attached to the bearm, and there is every reason to think that Hunlafing places the sword where it belongs, and not on Hengest's lap.Google Scholar
148 Hill suggests — and there is no avoiding the realistic possibility of his reading — that Hengest then carried out his vengeance using the sword ( Warrior Ethic [n. 20 above], 67).Google Scholar
149 Burlin, , “Inner Weather” (n. 121 above), 83–84.Google Scholar
150 Brodeur, , “Climax,” 313–30.Google Scholar
151 Ibid., 328–29; see DOE, s.v. folcræden: “public policy” and “national legislation.” Google Scholar
152 Lawrence, , “Tragedy of Finnsburg” (n. 1 above), 418.Google Scholar
153 Burlin, , “Inner Weather,” 83.Google Scholar
154 Garmonsway, , “Heroic Attitudes” (n. 131 above), 141. For a summary of the earliest suggestions and a few others not considered here, see Klaeber's Beowulf, 189 and George Sanderlin, “A Note on Beowulf 1142,” Modern Language Notes 53 (1938): 501-3, at 501 n. 1: “worldly intercourse,” “retainership,” “way of the world,” “destiny,” “custom of the world,” “condition,” “worldly duty,” “universal obligation.” Google Scholar
155 Malone's view (“Hildeburg and Hengest” [n. 39 above], 267) holds good in one respect: “In truth, all the Danes were in the same boat. Every man of them, when he entered Finn's service, made sacrifice of his honor. The tragedy of Hengest is representative; it is not his peculiar personal property.” All suffer humiliation, but only the Danes represented by Gu∂laf and Oslaf insist that the oath must be voided. For this reason, Malone proposes that Hunlafing must be a sword name: “In getting rid of [Hunlafing as a character] we also get rid of the hypothetical and inherently improbable difference of opinion (not to say ill feeling) between Hengest on the one hand and his fellow members of the wealaf on the other” (278). Malone then proceeds to vitiate his own theory when he says, “In my reconstruction, the other Danes became unjustifiably suspicious of Hengest because of his failure to act, and made their escape without him, under the leadership of Guthlaf and Oslaf” (284, my italics).Google Scholar
156 Cox, R. S., “The Old English Dicts of Cato,” Anglia 90 (1972): 1–42, at 15. London, British Library MS Cotton Vespasian D.xiv (s. xii med.) alone preserves this aphorism, which does not derive from the alleged source, the Distichs of Pseudo-Cato. The expression “his modes gnornung on his earde” may have some bearing on the phrase “eard gemunde” in Beowulf 1129b. Just as the tyrant laments for his homeland in a way that compromises his duty, Hengest may miss his people. By staying with Finn Hengest starts to resemble the rapacious foreign king.Google Scholar
157 On reading the Sigemund and Heremod digressions as analogies, see, e.g., Griffith, M. S., “Some Difficulties in Beowulf, Lines 874-902: Sigemund Reconsidered,” Anglo-Saxon England 24 (1995): 11–24.Google Scholar
158 George Hickes's printed texts reads “wrecten,” probably in error for “wreccen” ( Linguarum Veterum Septentrionalium Thesaurus Grammatico-Criticus et Archæologicus , 2 vols. (London, 1708), 192–93). Sigeferϸ and Hengest may plausibly have joined Hnæf either for national defense or for an “expedition,” to use the euphemism for piracy.Google Scholar
159 Hill, , “Danish Succession” (n. 14 above), 182: “The thought of Beowulf's parent, his mother only, may have led Hro∂gar to offer himself as a ‘father.’” Google Scholar
160 Ibid., 184. It is often noted that these four gifts are delivered to Hygelac in exactly the same order in which they are received (2152a-54a), and at that time Beowulf recounts that Heorogar once owned them. Apparently Beowulf keeps the saddle; see Orchard, , Critical Companion (n. 14 above), 226.Google Scholar
161 On the equivocal meaning of OE lofgeornost , see Richards, Mary P., “A Reexamination of Beowulf ll. 3180-3182,” English Language Notes 10 (1973): 163–67; Stanley, Eric G., “Hæpenra Hyht in Beowulf,” reprinted in A Collection of Papers with Emphasis on Old English Literature , ed. Stanley, Eric G., 192-208 (Toronto, 1987), 198; Cronan, Dennis, “Lofgeorn: Generosity and Praise,” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 92 (1991): 187-94; Mitchell, Bruce, “Literary Lapses: Six Notes on Beowulf and Its Critics,” Review of English Studies 43 (1992): 1-17, at 16-17.Google Scholar
162 Hill, , “Danish Succession” (n. 14 above), 186–90. Hill reads suspicion and distrust in Wealhϸeow's reaction: “She seems to imply that Beowulf, much favored, might be unkind to her sons, that he might commit deeds against their interest and against his own present fame” (190).Google Scholar
163 Ibid., 186.Google Scholar
164 On the use of analogous story in epic to give advice and impart past experience, see my “Misprision in the Para-Narratives of Iliad 9,” Arethusa 40 (2007): 303–36.Google Scholar