Heroic Identity in the World of Beowulf

Heroic Identity in the World of Beowulf Medieval and Renaissance Authors and Texts Editor-in-chief Francis G. Gentry Emeritus Professor of German, Penn State University Editorial Board Teodolinda Barolini (Columbia University) Cynthia Brown (University of California, Santa Barbara) Marina Brownlee (Princeton University) Keith Busby (University of Wisconsin-Madison) Craig Kallendorf (Texas A&M University) Alastair Minnis (Yale University) Brian Murdoch (Stirling University) Jan Ziolkowski (Harvard University and Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection) VOLUME 2 Heroic Identity in the World of Beowulf by Scott Gwara LEIDEN • BOSTON 2008 This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gwara, Scott, 1962– Heroic identity in the world of Beowulf / by Scott Gwara. p. cm.—(Medieval and renaissance authors and texts, ISSN 0925-7683 ; v. 2) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17170-1 (alk. paper) 1. Beowulf. 2. Heroic virtue in literature. 3. Epic poetry, English (Old)—History and criticism. 4. Heroes in literature. I. Title. II. Series. PR1585.G93 2009 829’.3—dc22 2008040583 ISSN 0925-7683 ISBN 978 90 04 17170 1 Copyright 2008 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands THIS BOOK IS FOR PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE STAFF OF THE DICTIONARY OF OLD ENGLISH, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO CONTENTS Acknowledgments ....................................................................... Author’s Note ............................................................................. Abbreviations .............................................................................. ix xiii xv Introduction A Contested Beowulf ....................................... 1 Chapter One The Wisdom Context of the SigemundHeremod and Hunferð Digressions ............... 59 The Foreign Beowulf and the “Fight at Finnsburh” ...................................................... 135 Chapter Three The Rhetoric of Oferhygd in Hroðgar’s “Sermon” ........................................................ 181 Chapter Two Chapter Four Beowulf ’s Dragon Fight and the Appraisal of Oferhygd ....................................... 239 King Beowulf and Ealdormonn Byrhtnoð .... 311 Conclusion .................................................................................. 351 Bibliography ................................................................................ 375 Chapter Five Indices Index of Passages Cited from Old English Verse Texts ........ Index of Old English Words, Affixes, and Collocations Discussed ............................................................................. Index of Latin and Greek Words and Collocations Discussed ............................................................................. Index of Old Icelandic Terms Discussed .............................. General Index ......................................................................... 397 405 409 410 411 . Michael Drout. Also. Rob’s learning saved me from countless errors. I also wish to thank a number of scholars who read this book in draft and offered explicit and judicious comments on it. Michael convinced me how important the comitatus was in the poem. Both made me re-think and ultimately justify more than a few positions I had staked. Reference (Sharon Verba). Hill at the United States Naval Academy. and we spent a day together explicating the warband context of Beowulf. Walter J. William C. In 2002 the Department of English awarded me research leave to pursue what. shared his own insights and doubts over the direction I was taking. . are due to Rob Fulk at Indiana University. Major sections of this book were drafted during a sabbatical semester in 2001. for sustaining a project of such duration. and Elsie D. H. especially in regard to the potentially negative Beowulf I envision. for reading several chapters and offering cogent corrections and points of departure. Steven Lynn. at the time. was meant to be a much shorter book on the digressions of Beowulf. Ong Professor of English at Saint Louis University. In 2004 I met with Michael J.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My research on Beowulf would not have been possible without generous subsidy from the University of South Carolina and its Department of English Language and Literature. however. who read every line of my penultimate drafts for chapters 2–4 and offered pages of advice and corrections with enthusiasm or skepticism. My greatest thanks. Professor of History at Eastern Carolina University. I am grateful to the department chairman (now Associate Dean) and Louise Fry Scudder Professor of English. unfailing and gracious cooperation from the divisions of Circulation (Tucker Taylor). Special Collections (Patrick Scott). and his influence is obvious in these pages. His 1998 article “The Warband Context of the Unferþ Episode” transformed my own thinking about Beowulf ’s identity. Enright. Off-Site Storage. wherever appropriate. Prentice Professor of English at Wheaton College (MA). and to the Research Professorship committee members. and Interlibrary Loan at the Thomas Cooper Library enabled me to work efficiently: for the years this book was in production I was the chief user of university library resources campus-wide. I also owe a significant debt to Tom Shippey. as did John M. Grettir lived at the end of the Viking Age and during the transition to Christianity—at a time. and his research launched my own thinking about digressions in the poem. For more than two decades the question has pursued me: If Beowulf is the closest analogue to Grettir’s Saga. how we should appraise Grettir’s “Miniver Cheevy” born-too-late-ism. Hill pioneered in The Cultural World in Beowulf. My approach to Beowulf leans towards the “anthropological” or “ethnological” analysis that John M. Anglo-Saxon kin relationships. Robinson had published Beowulf and the Appositive Style. one might say. an Achilles in the Germanic setting. A few scholars whose work I have drawn on deserve special mention here. my tutor in Old Norse (now Professor of English at University College London). Their impressions encouraged me to re-think more than a few statements I made in contradiction of the received interpretation of Beowulf. a year after Fred C. I arrived at Yale in 1986. from Robinson’s perspective. and I have always wondered. hypothetically stable and consistent. This book has been evolving for a long time. No one reading the saga comes away unconflicted about Grettir. One’s best friends seldom make the most searching critics. and Philip B. I think of Richard’s 1990 and 1991 articles as some of the very best recent forays in Beowulf and Maldon scholarship. kingship and other social idioms may likewise be paralleled in modern cultures with similar social structures. but mine held me to account. Hill .x acknowledgments and this book is far better because of his input—even if his own reaction to Beowulf differs quite substantially from mine. There I learned much from Richard North. Cambridge. marriage ties. my retired colleagues at the University of South Carolina. Trevor Howard-Hill. His Pride and Prodigies made room for Anglo-Saxonists to think skeptically about the depiction of Beowulf. Orchard’s chapter on Grettir’s Saga defined Grettir as monstrous. Parts of it date to 1984–86. is realized in—and can be quarried from—Old English literature. shouldn’t we also feel conflicted about Beowulf ? Orchard’s views suggested my approach to Beowulf in ways distinct from an earlier generation of Christianizers. similar in social context to the backwards-looking Beowulf. warrior identities. Andy Orchard influenced my thinking in a different direction. commented on every word and nuance of the manuscript. and twenty years later I still rate Appositive Style as one of the most important books on Old English. The ingenuity of this book convinced me immediately. Rollinson. Hill’s book proposes that Germanic cultural identity. when I was an undergraduate at Corpus Christi College. Finally. Hill. Shippey. Ida Masters Hollowell. Elaine Tuttle Hansen. the most significant and fundamental research on Old English language and literature. Bruce Mitchell. his methodology differs slightly from mine in philosophy and focus. an inspiring intellectual monument to the industry and brilliance of its collaborators. Ongoing now for three decades. Second. T.. Hill. Writing about Beowulf has been immensely gratifying. I should mention my particular indebtedness to works by Alfred Bammesberger. Fulk. Andy Orchard. In the public social currents that Hill discerningly locates in Beowulf. Scott Gwara June 2008 . Greenfield. Thomas D. Eric Stanley. reflect on their own cultural anxieties. present. and future staff of the Dictionary of Old English project at the University of Toronto. subtle literary meditations on the fictive society of the poem. which in turn directs much of the poem’s meaning. I make no claims that anthropological observations derived from Beowulf represent any reality other than the aesthetic—even if they might actually do so. Richard North. and dramatize both personal feeling and political instinct. Irving. His second opinion is that the ethnological details make sense of the poem. Dennis Cronan. John Tanke. Roberta Frank. E. Edward B. John M. and Dorothy Whitelock. I find private eddies. the poet himself critiques the institutions he defines. Michael Enright. Stanley B. R. The Dictionary and its offshoots have generated. Johann Köberl. In my mind the Beowulf poet could have rendered an invented culture. John D. J. A. D. Niles. my position is that characters in Beowulf discern themselves. and I remain deeply indebted to all the critics whose works I have consulted—many more than are listed in the Bibliography. Cross. Of those critics I do acknowledge. Leyerle. Frederick Klaeber. By complex analogies and overlapping narratives. the Dictionary of Old English is the premier philological mission in Anglo-Saxon studies. First. and will continue to beget. John M.acknowledgments xi contends that Beowulf accurately renders an idealized Germanic society. George Clark. Fred C. It is a pleasure at last to dedicate this book to the past. Although Hill’s endorsement of ethnology reflects my own understanding of Beowulf. Robinson. Jr. . 255–98) in several places throughout.” ASE 4 (1975). and John D. ed. Bjork. R. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies and U of Toronto P. to the editor of Mediaeval Studies for permission to cite passages from my article “Forht and Fægen in The Wanderer and Related Literary Contexts of AngloSaxon Warrior Wisdom” (Mediaeval Studies 69 (2007). 1972). “DOE” refers to the Dictionary of Old English. 207–21.AUTHOR’S NOTE With the exception of Beowulf. The standard short titles for Old English poems are taken from Bruce Mitchell et al. and to the editor of Neophilologus. 333–38) in Chapter 4. Robert E. 1986–). Klaeber’s Beowulf. . 1931–53). and unless otherwise noted. Translations in all languages are my own unless otherwise stated. Antonette diPaolo Healey et al. Fulk. 2008). “Bosworth-Toller” refers to Joseph Bosworth and T.. D. Beowulf is cited from the monumental fourth edition of Klaeber’s text. Alistair Campbell (Oxford: Clarendon. ed. George Philip Krapp and Elliot Van Kirk Dobbie. Niles (Toronto: U of Toronto P. for permission to re-print my note “Beowulf 3074–75: Beowulf Appraises His Reward” (Neophilologus 92 (2008). Northcote Toller. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. 331–3. all Old English verse texts are cited from The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records. I am grateful to Fordham University Press for permission to re-print a version of my article “The Foreign Beowulf and the ‘Fight at Finnsburg’ ” (Traditio 63 [2008]) as chapter 2 of this book. six volumes (New York: Columbia UP. “Short Titles of Old English Texts. ed.” ASE 8 (1979). ed. emended by the same authors in “Short Titles of Old English Texts: Addenda and Corrigenda. enlarged edition. . Auctores Antiquissimi Modern Language Notes Modern Language Review Modern Philology Neophilologus Neuphilologische Mitteilungen Notes and Queries Proceedings of the British Academy Papers on Language and Literature Publications of the Modern Language Association of America Review of English Studies Saga Book of the Viking Society Studia Neophilologica Studies in Philology Scandinavian Studies Transactions of the Royal Historical Society Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie . Series Latina Comparative Literature Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Early English Text Society Original Series. SS ELN ES JEGP LSE MÆ MGH AA MLN MLR MP Neophil NM NQ PBA PLL PMLA RES SBVS SN SP SS TRHS ZfdP American Notes and Queries Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Litteraturen Anglo-Saxon England Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Corpus Christianorum. Supplemental Series English Languages Notes English Studies Journal of English and Germanic Philology Leeds Studies in English Medium Ævum Monumenta Germaniae Historica.ABBREVIATIONS ANQ ASNSL ASE BGDSL BJRL CCSL CL CSEL EETS OS. . is Beowulf to be indicted. Beowulf criticism has been marked by persistent contradictions. see the assessments by Mitchell. since it might be said that the uniqueness of Beowulf accounts for its modern prestige as a succès d’estime. Orchard. Beowulf especially seems to succumb to pride (or its Germanic equivalent). see the references gathered in Chickering. 1 2 . the work confounds standards that attend most readings of Old English poetry and figuratively straddles every conceivable generic classification. “Hæþenra Hyht” 148. The minority view generally challenges the positive orthodoxy—a pseudo-Christian idealization—and disputes whether we should characterize Beowulf as a “noble pagan” or an ignoble one. the obvious questions about Beowulf ’s motivations (vainglorious or charitable?) and temperament Sisam. or pitied? Unsurprisingly. On the general context. Stanley. then.2 Disagreements over the Christian-versus-secular emphasis typically arise whenever Beowulf ’s motivation or attitudes are scrutinized. epic. or mixed. then. but for others an unyielding ambiguity always seems to qualify his virtue. action. and diction. secular. versification.INTRODUCTION A CONTESTED BEOWULF Insisting that Beowulf is a great poem sounds like making a virtue of necessity.1 In other words. and Cronan. Richards. doubts over any universal approval we ought to have of him and his feats continue to surface. as folktale. and the like.” Cronan reveals that lofgeorn in prose translates Latin prodigus “(overly) generous” and shows that the word could have a positive sense in Beowulf. Pride and Prodigies 56. Despite a solid consensus that idealizes Beowulf. elegy. heroic verse. “Literary Lapses” 16–17. “Reexamination”. Most readers sense that anachronistic Christian values are meant to clarify Beowulf ’s judgment. saga. Sui generis in length. lionized. a notorious vice inimical to Christian humility. Even the very last word lofgeornost “most eager for praise” (designating Beowulf ) is the target of apologists who debate whether the social milieu of Beowulf is “essentially” Christian. few native literary parallels can illuminate so distinctive a poem. Because of this inherent historical and cultural ambiguity. “Lyric Time” 492 note 7. As a pre-Christian archetype. chief of which is the relevance of the poem’s Christian elements. structure. “Lofgeorn. Structure 27. place-names in the vicinity of Malmesbury. The assumption again yields no purchase on the ethical valences of Beowulf. 1010. First. Although the manuscript Cotton Vitellius A. for two reasons.xv can be dated paleographically no later than ca. Mercia. Wessex. whose Anglo-Saxon author shared a rare source with Aldhelm of Malmesbury (d. as the potentially generous and wise Beowulf.” Dumville. might find virtues in Beowulf where monks given to Benedictine Christianity would see faults. Yet the degree of interference may be slight. the date was later affirmed (Frank. Dorothy Whitelock (Audience of Beowulf ) suggests late eighth-century Mercia. From Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe (Visible Song) we have learned that every written transmittal is a potential scribal performance. Sam Newton (Origins of Beowulf ) has proposed pre-Viking East Anglia.” 5 By “originary composition” I mean a form of the text generically similar to the one that survives.3 Second. 650 and 10165 and have backed Northumbria. An early aristocratic audience. and localizing the poem and its hypothesized audience (as much as a work probably composed and transmitted in an oral tradition could allow) might resolve the discrepant accounts of Beowulf ’s character. Stanley (“Lordlessness in Ancient Times”) alleges interesting historical contexts for these periods. Girvan for reasons of a theorized warband polity. dating. the notion goes. 709). Frank (“Skaldic Verse”) backed ninth-century Wessex because of Skaldic parallels in Beowulf. and often in the same verses. Michael Lapidge (“Beowulf. Aldhelm”) recommends mid-eighth-century Wessex for two main reasons: 1. even a monastic audience need not have disparaged the poem’s vigorous secularism. and East Anglia as a place of origin. Michael Lapidge (“Archetype of Beowulf ” 37) has conjectured that over 600 lines in the poem could reflect scribal intervention from generations of copying.6 Where Beowulf originated has no bearing Wormald. Both as a hero and king. “Argumentation” 16–25. Beowulf has resisted any firm dating. Cook (“Beowulf 2523”) and Ritchie Girvan (Beowulf and the Seventh Century) proposed Northumbria. depending on how one views the matter. Some readers look outside Beowulf to settle the fundamental ambivalence that I theorize for it. “Beowulf Come Lately. Handbook 13–34. “Anglo-Saxon Aristocracy. 6 Proposals for the poem’s historical setting are gathered in Bjork and Niles. see Fulk.2 introduction (ruthless or benign?) have had no unconditional resolution. Judgments of the Geat’s motivation are a matter of perspective. S. Relying on the hypotheses of Roy Michael Liuzza (“Dating of Beowulf ”).4 scholars have ventured a point of originary composition anywhere between ca. Few observe that the names from Beowulf seem to have been popular in ninth-century Northumbria. the potentially reckless Beowulf coexists in the same text. as 3 4 . A. Oral-formulaic theorists have defeated decisive chronologies. Identifying. and 2. “Germanic Legend”) on the assumption that pan-Germanicism is not attested any earlier. In this book I shall argue that they are not meant to. as Patrick Wormald has shown. the mention of Hygelac in the Liber monstrorum. a contested BEOWULF 3 on my interpretation of it, but the date is more crucial, and, for the moment, recent scholarship has pushed the composition back to the pre-Viking Age. In 1992 R. D. Fulk investigated Kaluza’s Law, which governed metrical patterns in compounds terminating certain verses, and noted that “Beowulf is unique in respect to the great ease and regularity of the poet’s ability to distinguish long and short endings.”7 He concluded, “Beowulf almost certainly was not composed after ca. 725 if Mercian in origin, or after ca. 825 if Northumbrian.”8 This remarkable finding gained support from Michael Lapidge’s more recent analysis of scribal errors in Beowulf.9 Many, he explains, arose from misreading an alphabet called Cursive Minuscule, which fell out of use by ca. 800. Therefore, while a date for Beowulf cannot be firmly assigned, a convergence of evidence now indicates a poem written no later than ca. 800. Admittedly, however, strong minority opinions still confute this early chronology. Unfortunately, neither the early date for Beowulf nor a conjectural mixed audience can easily explain its presentation of an inchoate Christianity. Although Beowulf exclusively treats pre-Christian Germanic figures, its references to Cain, a “flood,” and heathen devil-worship, not to mention a host of ostensibly Christian words, idioms, and collocations, presuppose a poet familiar with, but not necessarily steeped in, Christian doctrine.10 In an edifying article that frames the debate, Edward B. Irving, Jr. has traced the contradictory positions on the poem’s Christian references.11 He reminds us that the poet’s Christianity engages Germanic heroism, not “paganism” per se: A third sense of pagan lies in the realm of ethics and morality, and this is the area that has caused the most argument. Here matters might often be clarified if we used terms like secular or non-Christian (or possibly Germanic or recorded in the Liber vitae of Durham: Biuuulf, Hyglac, Heardred, Ingeld (Ingild), Heremod, Sigmund, and Hroðuulf appear among priests, deacons, and monks (Dumville, Liber Vitae Dunelmensis). Roy Liuzza (“Dating of Beowulf ”) has valuably summarized the scholarship on the dating question. In addition to the work listed above, landmarks in the dating effort also include Amos; Chase, Dating of Beowulf; Wetzel; Dumville, “Beowulf Come Lately”; Fulk, Old English Meter; Kiernan; Lapidge, “Archetype of Beowulf.” 7 Fulk, Old English Meter 164. 8 Ibid. 390. 9 “Archetype of Beowulf.” 10 For a recent view of Christian components in the poem, see Irving, “Nature of Christianity.” 11 Irving, “Christian and Pagan Elements.” 4 introduction heroic) for pagan . . . The fundamental ethical code of the poem is unmistakably secular: it is the warrior code of the aristocracy, celebrating bravery, loyalty, and generosity, with the hero finding his only immortality in the long-lasting fame of great exploits carried out in this world.12 Irving observes, “in certain strict Christian contexts . . . some of these secular virtues can be seen as vices: especially pride in the frank display of strength and the open pleasure taken in material wealth.”13 With this important reservation Irving describes the prevailing view of the poet’s narrow Christianity, “not so much primitive,” he says, “as either deliberately or unconsciously tailored to the dimensions of heroic poetry.”14 In other words, Christianity moderates the poem’s triumphant secularism. The pagan characters of Beowulf espouse this anachronistic “tailored” Christian virtue and that their actions should be measured against it, as sanitizing or authorizing.15 The argument has wide appeal, as Irving concludes, but it introduces problems related to audience.16 Since the narrator delivers all the verifiably Christian references, the audience seems to enjoy a privileged Christian knowledge, if not a point-of-view, clearly distinct from that of the characters. Irving trivialized this complication in 1989 by simply arguing that the “border-line” between the audience’s and the characters’ Christian knowledge is “sometimes hard to trace.”17 He proposed, for example, that an anonymous scop sings the Genesis version of creation but that the Danes do not know about Grendel’s descent from Cain. Some have disagreed. Yet more troubling in Irving’s model is how inadequately it accounts for the characters’ behavior. Irving identified Hroðgar and Beowulf as the most pious characters, since Ibid. 180. Ibid. 14 Ibid. 186. 15 Christians, it must be said, have no monopoly on virtue, and some critics have affirmed Beowulf ’s rectitude in secular terms, alleging that the Christian element is overemphasized. Those who envision Beowulf as a “noble pagan” found evidence in the Icelandic sagas, especially Njáls Saga; see Lönnroth, “Noble Heathen.” Larry D. Benson reasons that the poet’s secularism reflects tolerant attitudes towards eighth-century continental pagans, who were pitied but respected (“Pagan Coloring”). Halverson, Moorman, and Cherniss (all are discussed in Irving’s article) affirm that the poem’s rarified Christianity does not fundamentally affect its secularism. 16 Irving (“Christian and Pagan Elements” 191) submits, “apparently a consensus is now forming, or has formed, on the subject: namely, that Beowulf is at all points a smooth blend of pagan/secular elements with Christian ones, with its chief purpose to express and celebrate the heroic ethic.” 17 Irving, “Nature of Christianity” 9. 12 13 a contested BEOWULF 5 together they express thirty percent of the religious allusions in the poem.18 Irving defines a religious allusion as an expression like “ece drihten” (“Eternal Lord”) or “god ælmihtig” (“Almighty God”) which occur chiefly in Christian contexts outside of Beowulf. Hroðgar utters such “Christian” sentiments three times more often than Beowulf, Irving calculates, but Irving nevertheless disapproves of Hroðgar’s “passivity.”19 By contrast, Beowulf seems beyond reproach. When, for example, the density of Christian language drops off measurably in the dragon-fight section, Irving projects a “patchwork” text or “awkward questions” created by Christian expectations at Beowulf ’s death—but not any qualms over Beowulf ’s behavior.20 What pseudo-Christian secularism explains Irving’s impression of Hroðgar’s weakness, even when Hroðgar imparts such religious zeal? What religious scruples get submerged at Beowulf ’s death? Evaluating Beowulf ’s motivation in Christian terms still appears unresolved. Opposed to Irving’s position is Fred C. Robinson, whose book Beowulf and the Appositive Style insists on the distinction between diegetic and intradiegetic narrative.21 Robinson’s ideas convincingly extend a position first voiced (as far as I am aware) by R. M. Lumiansky, in a paper subsequently refined by Alain Renoir and Marijane Osborn.22 18 Ibid.: “If we first tabulate the utterers of these Christian words, we find that it is the poet-narrator who, in his 61.7% of the poem, makes about 65% of the references. The poet is not the most Christian speaker, however; though Hrothgar’s speeches comprise only 8% of the poem, they contain nearly 17% of the religious allusions. Beowulf ’s speeches make up 18% of the poem, but he makes only 13% of the Christian allusions. To re-state these important differences more clearly: the narrator makes one Christian reference every sixteen lines; Hrothgar makes one every eight lines or twice as often; Beowulf makes one every twenty-four lines or only one-third as often as Hrothgar. The remaining speakers as a group, with 12% of the lines, are the least Christian of all: they make only 5% of the Christian references, or one every forty-three lines. Only the young warrior Wiglaf has any significant number.” 19 Ibid. 14: “Hrothgar’s religion is that of the passive person, one who depends on God to rescue him and even grumbles at one point that God could easily have done so earlier if he had had a mind to . . . When Beowulf . . . makes the hall-floor clatter with his decisive movements, it sets off by contrast Hrothgar’s helpless passivity.” 20 Irving, “Christian and Pagan Elements” 186. 21 By no means has Robinson’s book met with universal approval. His recent collaboration with Bruce Mitchell boasts a section “Two Views of Beowulf ” in which Mitchell opposes Robinson’s position: “[ Bruce Mitchell] finds it hard to believe that the poet was always in such firm control of his material and maintained throughout the poem such a clear understanding of the strategy [ Fred C. Robinson] detects” (Beowulf: An Edition 34). 22 Lumiansky; Renoir 245. Lumiansky proposed that the characters in the world of the poem impart reactions that the omniscient audience cannot have. Donahue 6 introduction Osborn’s more enlarged argument rests on the simple proposition of a “double point of view in Beowulf —what they know in the poem and what we know outside it.”23 For a single passage she observes how attentively the poet differentiates between the knowledge of his enlightened Christian audience and that of his benighted pagan Danes. This superior understanding generates the poem’s situational ironies, especially those in which the narrator places heathen suffering in the cosmic feud: Cain’s murder results in Grendel’s depravities, but the pagan audience only senses the action of wyrd or “fate.” The runic inscription about the flood that Hroðgar reads on the giant sword hilt may reference the Flood of Genesis, but Hroðgar has no knowledge of the biblical context. As he sees it, a band of giants encounters a flood and drowns. Exploring this dual consciousness more fully, Robinson resolved a handicap in Osborn’s elaboration of the double audience in Beowulf, and prophetically rebutted Irving’s identification of specifically “Christian” utterances, by theorizing bivalent references in the poet’s language. Holding the strict division between the Scandinavian and English settings, Robinson maintained that the poet’s sententious commentary on Christian pre-history reveals a consistent dramatic irony. He argued persuasively that terms like “ælmihtig, alwalda, dryhten, god, metod and waldend” express a context-dependent polysemy. Borrowed from a pagan lexicon to express Christian concepts, these words describe an “all-powerful being,” a “creator,” a “lord,” or a “ruler” who is both inconspicuously pagan in Beowulf ’s Scandinavian society but faintly, if anachronistically, “Christian” in the Anglo-Saxon audience’s imagination. The Old English word god, Robinson explains, should be parsed “a god” for the Geats and Danes, but recall the Christian God—capital G—for those admiring of Beowulf ’s or Hroðgar’s piety. When Beowulf and his retainers “gode þancodon” (“thanked a god/god/God,” 227b), they literally acknowledge a heathen god in language that sounds familiarly Christian to a Christian audience. But not only does the poet freight equivocal language with dual meanings, more importantly he also avoids words and expressions with extended Renoir’s ideas, and Osborn (“Great Feud”) argued them in even greater detail. Famously, Benson suggested that Beowulf expresses a pagan “coloring” that derives from continental models. On the basis of a passage in the Life of St. Anskar, Andersson (“Heathen Sacrifice”) has argued that the Danish apostasy of lines 175–88 makes sense for a community of recent Christian converts. Andersson accepts the anachronism. 23 Osborne, “Great Feud” 974. a contested BEOWULF 7 prominent and therefore obtrusive Christian associations, such as: 1. “the popular system of God terms consisting of a base word combined with the genitive engla”; 2. “two-part terms meaning ‘God’s Son’ ”; 3. “the terms nergend and hælend.”24 Furthermore, “[the poet] never alludes,” Robinson observes, “to the Incarnation, Crucifixion, Eucharist, Redemption, Cross, church, saints, New Testament, and other cardinal elements of Christianity.”25 The poet’s reluctance to voice overt Christian references, a curiosity long attended by critics, can be expounded as the avoidance of ideologies with no feasible pagan resonance. Because the two social systems—secular/heroic/pagan and the Christian—were not coterminous, the secular was engineered to parallel the Christian. One’s revulsion becomes less automatic.26 For this reason, I find it unconvincing that the Scandinavian world in Beowulf could be deemed an unadulterated expression of pre-migration pagan culture, however much the poet endeavors to depict it as authentic. The suppression of flagrant paganism—the reluctance to name pagan gods, to report (invent, if you will) any details of potentially offensive rituals, to parade the term hæðen as consummately disparaging—lies in the poet’s ambition to evoke a moral or religious proximity between Beowulf ’s world and that of the audience. (Nevertheless, just enough paganism survives in the poem to remind Anglo-Saxons that the characters were benighted, if not doomed.)27 In these ways, the Beowulf poet can be said to have inflected the religion and moral behavior of his pagan characters in terms similar, if distant, to those Irving alleges. Irving unfairly mischaracterizes Robinson’s argument by describing this linguistic duality as “wigwagging secret messages to his Christian audience over the heads of his characters.”28 On the contrary, this ingenious encryption subtly validates secular attitudes coincident with Robinson, Appositive Style 43. Ibid. 26 See Robinson, “Language of Paganism” 182 note 13: “My own view, expressed repeatedly in the past, is that the poet is careful not to go into detail when he refers to pagan elements, for while it is important to his purpose to affirm the paganism of his characters, it is equally important not to dwell on these elements, for to do so would make it difficult for his Christian audience to admire the heroism of his characters.” 27 Bazelmans 87–9. 28 Irving, “Christian and Pagan Elements” 188; Irving had earlier concluded: “. . . Hrothgar does not see . . . the story of God’s use of the flood to punish the ancient giant-race that is written or pictured on the sword-hilt Beowulf brings back from the mere. At least he makes no comment on it; it seems a message to us over his head, so to speak” (1989 10). 24 25 8 introduction Christianity by making them appear Christian and by emphasizing the heathen Beowulf ’s moral enlightenment. From the Beowulf poet’s perspective pagan Danes, Swedes, Geats, and Frisians cannot discern anything of Christianity, despite their tendentious piety. Yet the narrator can magnify the Christian God’s eternal intervention, even in the pagan world, and negotiate a coincidental religious empathy for his characters. Robinson shows how the double perspective of Beowulf (between character and audience) expresses the poet’s emphatic regret for the pagan past, not Irving’s “gloating over the pitiable or pathetic condition of the benighted characters.”29 On the contrary, the Beowulf poet admires these fictional men and women, and he wants to redeem them by making their virtues look Christian. In these terms the poet may have moderated offensive heroic ideals with a ration of Christian humility, as Irving proposes. Two Beowulfs Robinson’s study contemplates how the Beowulf poet was deeply moved by the strength, generosity, wisdom, and eloquence of secular heroes. He defines the theme of Beowulf using the words “admiration” and “dignity,”30 and his argument requires a beneficent, righteous Beowulf such as Tolkien imagined in his lecture on “The Monsters and the Critics” (although Tolkien famously changed his mind about Beowulf ’s virtue). Nor is Robinson’s position unorthodox. Reactions to Beowulf as a literary figure have been chiefly positive, and notional Christianity in the poem (or pseudo-Christianity or secularism, however one wishes to pose it) seems to have licensed the critics’ views. Even after eighty years, Frederick Klaeber’s assessment of Beowulf ’s heroism summarizes the prevailing opinion: “Beowulf rose to the rank of a truly ideal hero, and his contests were viewed in the light of a struggle between the powers of good and evil.”31 Major writings on Beowulf sanction this extravagant sympathy. Arthur Brodeur speaks of Beowulf ’s “gallant stand” and “valiant fight” in Frisia,” his “sacrificial and triumphant 29 30 31 Irving, “Christian and Pagan Elements” 188. Robinson, Appositive Style 11, 13 resp. Klaeber, Beowulf cxviii. a contested BEOWULF 9 death.”32 Robert Kaske’s famous essay on sapientia and fortitudo in Beowulf sets out to recover wisdom and strength in the hero along the lines of Roman virtus.33 Eric Stanley proclaims him “all but flawless.”34 George Clark claims that “the hero’s lasting fame, more enduring than monuments, confirms the value of a heroic life.”35 John Niles, who sees the controlling theme of Beowulf as “community” subverted by an ineffable mutability, relates: . . . Beowulf . . . praises a life lived in accord with ideals that help perpetuate the best features of the kind of society it depicts . . . Most notably they include the notions of unflinching courage in the face of adversity; unswerving loyalty in fulfilling one’s duty to one’s king, one’s kindred, and one’s word, and in carrying out one’s earned or inherited social obligations in general; and unsparing generosity, particularly on the part of kings and queens.36 Having acknowledged opposing views “based on the notion of the hero’s faults,” Niles protests that, “such negative verdicts concerning the value of the hero’s final self-sacrifice maintain an appeal whose attractiveness is chiefly a priori rather than based on the text.”37 Like Irving, Niles believes that the poet has blunted Beowulf ’s secular heroic values by reference to Christian ethics. This judgment seems moderate compared to Christian allegorical readings like Maurice B. McNamee’s: “The character of Beowulf is . . . a complete verification of the Christian notion of the heroic or magnanimous. . . .”38 The valedictory overwhelms, to such an extent that one seeks intellectual shelter in Roberta Frank’s salutary quip, Brodeur, Art of Beowulf 72–3. Kaske, “Sapientia et Fortitudo.” 34 Stanley, “Hæþenra Hyht” 203. 35 Clark, Beowulf 142. 36 Niles, Beowulf 236. 37 Ibid. 237–8. Here I must situate Stanley B. Greenfield’s article “Judgement of the Righteous,” which systematically rationalizes three “volatile centers that have produced negative perceptions of the hero” (395): 1. Hroðgar’s “sermon”; 2. implications of greed in Beowulf ’s speech (2518b–37); 3. Wiglaf ’s criticism of Beowulf ’s resolution to face the dragon. Greenfield reasons that Beowulf is “fallible in judgement (his only flaw)” (396), so that the poet’s audience could “empathize with the ‘tragic situation’ ” (397). I see the same potential flaw but find it more egregious. 38 McNamee, Epic Hero 109 (cited in Niles, Beowulf 302); the view summarizes that of McNamee, “Allegory of Salvation”; see also Robertson and Cabaniss for allegorical views of Beowulf as a Christ figure. Bazelmans 71–110 adroitly critiques the various positions on the Christian-versus-secular influences that have been intuited in the poem. 32 33 10 introduction Scholarly tradition wants us to speak well of the works we study; there would be little point in talking about something that was not beautiful and truthful, not ‘interesting.’ Germanic legend has interest, almost too much so, but its beauty is not in the usual places.39 A minority of skeptical scholars disputes Beowulf ’s latent “Christian” virtue, and their negative evaluations of Beowulf also exploit Christianity as an ethical yardstick. The critics fall into two dominant groups. The first condemns heroic values in general, suggesting that, while Beowulf may be good on his own terms, his cultural debts compromise his deeds.40 For these writers Beowulf does not, and cannot, acknowledge his moral deficiency, since he is shackled to his governing social ideology. A subset of these critics considers Beowulf to be morally flawed, but they focus narrowly on the dragon fight where they insist Beowulf ’s egotism is most transparent. By contrast, Beowulf ’s actions in the first half of the poem reveal more genuine selflessness, and the movement of the poem entails a moral decline. This reading alone proposes a mixed account of Beowulf ’s heroism, rather than a purely positive or negative one. It likewise assumes that Beowulf resists the potentially negative values dominating secular heroism by reference to the sublimated Christianity I have outlined. The second group of critics, mostly the Christian allegorists, likewise reads Beowulf ’s heroism in terms of pride, but for them Beowulf consistently expresses vanity associated with heroic secularism right from the start.41 Whether or not Beowulf is a victim of his civilization, he still fights for all the wrong reasons: glory, empire, wealth. In other words, Beowulf disregards the pseudo-Christian canons implicit in the poem’s delicate syncretism and charges into profane error and damnation. Both the positive and negative assessments of Beowulf in this “Robertsonian” tradition have recently been discounted, since few now credit the alleged theological sophistication of the imagined audience. Frank, “Germanic Legend” 88. Stanley, “Hæþenra Hyht”; Leyerle, “Beowulf the Hero”; Berger and Leicester; Huppé, Earthly City; Bolton, Alcuin and Beowulf; Fajardo-Acosta. 41 Bolton, Alcuin and Beowulf; Goldsmith, “Christian Perspective,” Mode and Meaning. Goldsmith’s and Bolton’s volumes approach Beowulf ’s characterization by imagining a Christian world-view against which his deeds could be read. Goldsmith’s historical pastiche broadly evokes Christian intolerance for anything pagan. By contrast, Bolton intuits what the Anglo-Saxon cleric Alcuin may have thought of Beowulf, since Alcuin expressed disdain for heroic poetry in a famous letter to Bishop Speratus (Unuuona) of Leicester (“Quid Hinieldus cum Christo?”); see Bullough. Reviews of these books were exceptionally derogatory, no doubt partly because of the strongly positive views of Beowulf current at the time. 39 40 he does not propose that Alexander has a Orchard. Pride and Prodigies. Alexander. Orchard likewise delves into Grettir’s Saga.” 47 Orchard. Parallels drawn between Beowulf and his monster adversaries and between him and Cain. 46 The view that Beowulf is monstrous himself is an old one. have themselves become monsters in Christian eyes. Instead. such as Hercules. 45 Orchard. at least in perspective if not precisely in methodology. an Anglo-Saxon could just as easily condemn Beowulf for similar failings—especially because their own outlook on Alexander was largely negative. Studies 65–96. see Howe. Irving.46 Orchard concludes that Anglo-Saxons would probably have regarded Beowulf rather more cynically—as the victim of pride—than most critics do today: “The heathen warriors and monster-slayers. which betrays little of the moderation that Robinson.”47 Yet Orchard steers clear of positing any internal Christian atmosphere—the imaginary secular or pagan perspective I have been describing—in the heathen setting. Sisam. Pride and Prodigies 169.43 Orchard examines protagonists in an alleged Nowell “anthology”:44 Alexander the Great. The extensive evidence for Beowulf ’s “pride” that Orchard has gathered exemplifies the problematic disposition that Beowulf imparts in my reading of the poem. Pettitt. He interprets Beowulf as he imagines Anglo-Saxon Christian readers might have done. and others have inferred. he appraises the poem from the standpoint of a hypothetical Christian audience evaluating the poet’s imitative Germanic secularism. “Transformations. Christopher (a cynocephalus or “dog-head”). 42 43 . St.a contested BEOWULF 11 Andy Orchard has lately revived the skeptical tradition. Niles. but rather benign prior to Orchard’s publication. Beowulf. Writing the Map 151–94. whether monastic or lay. Alexander the Great. and Grettir. an anonymous work from early fourteenth-century Iceland that portrays the protagonist Grettir as a misanthropic troll. Dragland.42 Extending Kenneth Sisam’s description of the Nowell Codex as a liber monstrorum. If Greeks and Romans could view some of Alexander’s behaviors as immoral (vainglorious. He finds pre-Christian sources critical of Alexander the Great. O’Brien O’Keeffe. and Grettir Asmundarson make Beowulf ’s deeds unrighteous. When Orchard outlines the separate traditions of pride-versus-glory associated with Alexander the Great in Anglo-Saxon reception. cf.45 He alleges the author’s condemnation of Grettir’s freakish strength and fierce sociopathy. anthropomorphs and other beasts of the Liber monstrorum. 44 On a different view of the Nowell anthology. Pride and Prodigies 140–68. specifically). Grettir’s maternal uncle Jökull Bárðarson urges Grettir not to fight the revenant Glámr. Ibid.48 At the end of his “five-act tragedy” Grettir’s arrogance will consume him. . This ambivalence is expressed throughout Grettir’s Saga. Orchard’s chapter “The Kin of Cain” affirms Christian misgivings for heroic conduct by associating Grendel with the proud tyrants of Genesis. His take on Grettir is similar. 48 49 50 51 Ibid. challenges any confident assertion of Beowulf ’s pride. Robinson’s position on the internal and external audiences of Beowulf accounts for this ambivalence. so many challenges of his motives. my own reading proposes that characters in Beowulf debate Beowulf ’s motivation. which is only potentially proud. For Orchard. Orchard concludes that the Beowulf poet himself set out to criticize his hero and that referents to pride in the poem have been routinely slighted in favor of Beowulf ’s presumed virtue. These “mighty men” are unequivocally imperious. this dual consciousness comprises the poet’s subject.12 introduction mixed nature susceptible to prejudicial misinterpretation. Ibid.49 By comparing Beowulf to this portrait of Grettir. By contrast. he suggests that Christian readers emphasized Alexander’s pride in mistrust of it as a sinful. Orchard deduces that Beowulf ’s heroism is troublingly arrogant. On the contrary. critics fall back on some indeterminate cultural paradigm (such as the “heroic code” or latent Christian morality). either affirming or disputing the hero’s virtue. .50 Jökull’s advice sounds much like Germanic “wisdom” in Beowulf that recommends moderation over recklessness. and this discourse. when. Grettir embodies a monstrous avatar that makes him “a type of Antichrist” at his death. “. monstrous indulgence. I reason. 142. 154. when. . Bandy 244. As Stephen C. for example.”51 Quite understandably. Because Beowulf acts at times like Grendel. The Wreccan of Beowulf From the foregoing discussion one might ask why the Beowulf poet described the hero’s behavior so evasively that completely opposed views of Beowulf ’s motivations could be entertained. 155. Bandy remarks. the question remains why Beowulf should repeatedly attract such dark suspicions. in fact. These characters mistrust Beowulf ’s potential for excessive ambition. While some are satisfied with Beowulf ’s sense of heroic proportion. Old English has no equivalent word for “hero. At the inflection point of heroic eminence. The narrator himself validates this nominal Christian outlook. Such figures contemplate Beowulf ’s exceptionality in light of his desire for glory (dom) or praise (lof ). etc. In the fictional world of Danes and Geats. and some react guardedly. however. more skeptical observers fear the prospect of latent recklessness that can accompany matchless strength and uninhibited zeal. especially to those who lack his gifts. who could belong to any number of identifiable social positions. The categories “nobleman” (æþeling. then. and potential. Outside the poem an audience of Christian Anglo-Saxons weighs Beowulf ’s deeds from the superior. Beowulf ’s motivations engender anxieties about his present and future conduct—the potential for immoderation that he seems to express. but not condescending. devoted. The “hero” as we moderns imagine him typically conjures the pretensions of late medieval chivalry: decorous. Beowulf represents a liminal figure of pre-eminent ability whose potentially courageous actions can also seem just as potentially reckless. as much for themselves as for him. Yet the characters observing Beowulf hold conflicting and therefore inconclusive views of him. This description does not comfortably suit Germanic heroes like Beowulf. As I shall show. characters of imperfect capacity and discernment appraise Beowulf ’s ambition. The notion of Beowulf ’s latent arrogance or recklessness will no doubt surprise some readers of the poem.” a loan from Greek heros first attested in 1387 but popularized in its present-day meaning only in the sixteenth century.” especially in the Grendel fight. . fearless.a contested BEOWULF 13 which is generated by contradictory appraisals of Beowulf ’s identity and motivation. their views of Beowulf occasionally confront the Christian audience’s superior awareness and the narrator’s sympathy for his hero. judgment. Apart from hæle or hæleð and perhaps the loanword cempa. temporarily or intermittently. and some worry about the consequences of his success. For them Beowulf is an enigmatic figure whose incommensurate power they admire and fear. A key impediment to entertaining this motivational—and hence moral—ambivalence stems largely from defining the social (or literary) phenomenon of Germanic heroism as distorted by the poet’s projected Christian morality. By no means do all the inhabitants of Beowulf ’s Germanic world approve of his “confidence. viewpoint of Christian dogma. because most critics endorse the position of Beowulf ’s generous heroism. 54 The failure to disambiguate this special status in studies like Bazelmans’ surprises (see 112 (“powerful lords often attracted followers from outside their realm”) and 141 set against the identical categorization of native and foreign warband members. Andreas illuminates the character of Beowulf ’s own mission as potentially reckless. On the contrary. “retainer” ( þegn. 115 note 15. Where the external Christian audience may intuit God’s “right-minded” deputy. gesið. cempa.54 If historical records are any guide.). Beowulf should be classified as a peripatetic warrior or adventurer. the pagan characters see a champion motivated by glory. alleges that Beowulf comes to Heorot for selfless reasons: “Is [ Beowulf ’s] quest simply for glory. Beowulf intends to distinguish himself at a famous court. not in the strict sense of “mercenary” but as a sound. ethical warrior cannot ignore?”53 Hill. and Andreas’s divine mission corresponds to Beowulf ’s exercise of divine will in killing Cain’s spawn. 136. for Christ in disguise questions Andreas about the recklessness implicit in his overseas venture.). “lord” (dryhten).” In other words. despite the great risk? Or is there something in the idea of ‘need’ that a right-minded. or “king” (cyning. expeditions) in the world outside the kingdom in order to show his strength and courage” 175–6.14 introduction eorl ). a fundamental and honorable incentive for heroic action in Beowulf ’s world. Andreas’s reply downplays the risks in fatalistic terms. On the contrary. 53 Narrative Pulse 11 (my emph.52 Coming from abroad. monn). The phrase “despite the great risk” implies that Beowulf is foolhardy and must have a better reason to fight Grendel than “mere” glory. if untested. Critics have largely neglected Beowulf ’s status as a foreigner in Denmark. Abundant evidence contradicts the implication that an “ethical” Beowulf merely wishes to rescue Hroðgar. an observation made by some men in his world. suggesting that Christ himself will determine the outcome of the journey. the great risk attracts Beowulf. identifies a tension occasioned by the poem’s dual audiences. 136–7). journeys. John M. Much of Hill’s position is staked on comparisons to Andreas 307–14 (see 13–14) and on passages from the Odyssey. even though nomadic fighting men like him differ in standing from Hroðgar’s native retainers who are largely anonymous in the poem. guma. By this 52 . etc. enterprises. Bazelmans also suggests that “a prominent retainer should undertake without the king adventurous endeavours (siðas. freca. the presence of foreigners For a thorough analysis of the relational terms found in Beowulf see Bazelmans 114. for example. fighter eager to earn a reputation for his “warfare. “warrior” (wiga. þeoden) arguably characterize Beowulf. Some critics have doubted this heroic rationale. Beowulf has sailed from home to earn fame by killing Grendel. as if offended by martial glory devoid of any altruistic context. Hill. who yet has a special status in addition to these. I sense. The Andreas passage confirms my own intuition about Beowulf ’s bivalent motivation. pp.”).” literally “spirit” or “zeal. 55 Colgrave.55 no doubt from many different tribes. Moreover. Evans points out that as war-leaders gained reputations for winning riches. possibly because they were ranking nobles in their homelands. he may belong to the social category of wreccan. Wulfgar.” Described as “wræcmæcgas” (“banished men”) in Beowulf. .” or “adventurers. he deduces that Beowulf “has brought honour to Hygelac’s people by his actions” (183). Wulfgar’s “courage is known to many” (“his modsefa/manegum gecyðed. an expression that implies a pan-Germanic reputation.” 349a–b). Onela: formulation.56 Evans goes on to describe Bede’s account in the Historia ecclesiatica. Hunferð.” 366b–7a). HE III. 33.”57 The make-up of these historical courts matches Hroðgar’s legendary one. Guðlac’s late seventh-century warband attracted fighters “of various races” (“diversarum gentium”). but Hunferð represents a different kind of adventurer with a more sinister reputation. No doubt this turns out to be true. described as a “prince of the Wendels (or Vandals?)” (“Wendla leod.” 348b). the Scylfing princes Eanmund and Eadgils may exemplify Hunferð’s status. Stephan S. his authority implicit in the terse way he advises the king: “No ðu him wearne geteoh//ðinra gegncwida” (“Do not refuse him your reply. 57 Ibid. Another foreign soldier. In Heorot at least. 56 Lords of Battle 28. Because Hunferð had a hand in the death of his brothers. Felix’s Life 80 (XVII). 87–92). foreign fighters seem to hold high offices. They seek Heardred’s protection after rebelling against their king. or else pre-eminent fighters.” is glossed by the variand “war and wisdom” (“wig ond wisdom. men flocked to their banners.a contested BEOWULF 15 in a king’s warband was normal. holds the office of þyle (defined below.14: (“to his service flocked the most noble men from nearly all the provinces. but why would any king risk losing a prominent thane in the first place? In fact.” 350a). This “modsefa. Hill emphasizes Beowulf ’s potential to leave Hygelac’s service and become Hroðgar’s thane (Cultural World 106). has an important position as a counselor to Hroðgar. John M. that King Oswine of Deira recruited noblemen from neighboring provinces once his reputation had been established: “ad eius ministerium de cunctis prope provinciis viri etiam nobilissimi concurrerent. a term translated variously as “exiles. a phrase emphasizing Wulfgar’s prudence and reliability.” “outcasts. the custom of kings recruiting exiles like Germanic wreccan is documented even in the Iliad. which. a “glorious prince. either sensibly or rashly. þone selestan sæcyninga þara ðe in Swiorice sinc brytnade. (2379b–2384a) The sons of Ohthere—banished men—sought [ Heardred ] over the sea.//wreccea wide cuð. one reason why powerful kings manage to rule relatively vast dominions. The difference between them lies in the way they express these heroic endowments in their behavior. Interestingly.” 1489b). The identity is socially liminal.58 the circumstances of the nephews’ exile confirms Onela’s legitimacy: he was already the Scylfing king. Even in Beowulf the king’s eldest son is not automatically enthroned after his father’s death. suna Ohteres. “a prince of the Secgan and an ‘exile’ widely known” (“Secgena leod.16 introduction Hyne [ Heardred ] wræcmæcgas ofer sæ sohtan. describes warriors “forced out” or exiled from their homelands.” he dispensed treasure liberally. They had rebelled against the protector of the Scylfings. As the “best king” in Swedish history. also includes a man named Sigeferþ. Although some critics have concluded that Onela “usurped” the Swedish throne from Eadgils. On the passage see Bazelmans 132 (“the two sons . . This is the same language used of Wulfgar and Hunferð. . In Beowulf the foreign wrecca Hengest joins a Danish warband. Both Wulfgar and Hunferð have strength. challenge Onela’s accession”). the best sea-king who had ever dispensed treasure in Sweden. hæfdon hy forhealden helm Scylfinga. . and zeal for glory. like Wulfgar. The forcibly exiled wrecca can attach himself to a foreign retinue.” 24b–5a). for wreccan are exiled for the same ruthless ambition that motivates other foreign fighters seeking glory abroad.). . compelling his nephews Eanmund and Eadgils to flee the country” (my emph. courage. on the evidence of the Finnsburg Fragment. where Phoenix and Patroclus gain patronage from Peleus. Onela seizes the throne. Hunferð is trusted and his reputation widespread (“widcuðne man. but Patroclus Klaeber’s Beowulf lx: “. Even though. among a host of other usages. Eanmund and Eadgils have wronged their generous lord. his implicit status as a man like Eanmund and Eadgils brands him as potentially dangerous. Phoenix chooses exile after threatening to kill his father. mærne þeoden. 58 . upon Ohthere’s death. mostly because of rivalrous dispositions and impetuous violence. a glorious prince. OE wrecca derives from the verb wrecan “to force or impel” and. a conflict which Hroðgar settled by payment of wergild. broadens this characterization.60 59 Following the settlement.” and Wulfgar’s pointed evaluation of Beowulf ’s voyage to Denmark for wlenco rather than wræcsið draw attention to Beowulf ’s problematic identity./Hroðgar sohton. While Beowulf himself is not exiled from Geatland. Both become leading men in Phthia. The prominent foreign leaders in Hroðgar’s host. . in light of his pre-eminence and ambition.59 In no way am I suggesting that Ecgþeow was exiled from Geatland.a contested BEOWULF 17 is banished for a murder committed over a game. the implicit profile of Hunferð as a wrecca “widely known.” 338). as it were—and not because of ‘exile’ ” (“Wen’ ic þæt ge for wlenco. In my view. Ecgþeow caused a “great strife” (“fæhðe mæste. cross the behavioral threshold separating wreccan from other adventurers. the suggestion seems clear: does Beowulf.” 459b) among the Wylfings when he slew Heaþolaf (459a–61a)./nalles for wræcsiðum//ac for higeþrymmum.” 338a–9b). his appearance at Heorot prompts a conspicuous appraisal of him as one of these two types of mercenary fighters. For this reason. given that royal marriages in Beowulf are rewards for exceptional military service. one may be tempted to render Wulfgar’s laconic statement as mild sarcasm: “I suppose you have sought Hroðgar for ‘glory’—‘majesty of mind’. While the lack of detail about the Wylfing feud prevents any conclusive understanding of Ecgþeow’s identity. joining Hroðgar before or after his marriage to Hreðel’s only daughter (374b–75a). however. Wulfgar resolves that Beowulf has come “for wlenco/nalles for wræcsiðum” (“for reasons of glory. 60 Orchard. like his father. Pride and Prodigies 30–4. not at all because of exile. the long-recognized association between the wrecca Grendel and Beowulf has suggested a kind of congruent identity. Ecgþeow either switched his loyalty to the Geatish court or served Hroðgar for a time. Wulfgar’s verdict first introduces a key anxiety that frames Beowulf ’s ambition—that he could. Beowulf ’s father Ecgþeow resembles a wrecca himself. One wonders what business took Ecgþeow to such a distant corner of the Baltic. see Wardale. Ecgþeow may have attached himself to Hroðgar’s retinue. Under these hypothetical circumstances. Kemp Malone formulated an ingenious argument that Ecgþeow had himself been a Wylfing and fled to Hroðgar because Wealhþeow was likewise a member of that tribe (“Ecgtheow”). Even more evidence. On the possibility that Ecgþeow was a Scylfing. also have the potential for such violence? Furthermore. but he may represent the soldier-of-fortune whose behavior triggered powerful hostilities abroad. Paul Beekman Taylor (“Beowulf ’s Family”) offers some speculations on Ecgþeow’s marriage. drawing particularly on Norse evidence of Beowulf ’s monstrous identity. a wretched being (“wonsæli wer. All of them take wreccan as their subjects. Hengest. depending on one’s sympathy. In multiple analogous stories characters scrutinize Beowulf ’s present motivation and. .” 144a). by extension.” 721a. and socially marginal.61 He has. Andy Orchard had investigated this convincing parallel in Pride and Prodigies. Johann Köberl has lately pointed out that Grendel is not just an “exile” but. a “hall-thane” (“healðegnes. especially Hroðgar. actually identifying the warriors and kings they profile as “exiles.” The explicit comparisons strongly suggest that some observers in the world of the poem consider Beowulf to have the traits of a wrecca. Beowulf serving as Grendel’s “alter ego. Ibid. solitary. Grendel “has trodden the paths of exile” (“wræclastas træd. ironically.” 770a). On the basis of this suggestive evidence. identifying Beowulf as a “wrecca” would be imprecise.” 105a). and Heremod. the prospect of tyranny remains a foremost worry for all the characters in the poem. Because his deeds in Denmark as well as his aristocratic heritage distinguish him as a future king of Geats. 98. Comparison of Beowulf to prominent wreccan suggests the liminal behavior that characterizes Beowulf ’s exceptionality. in appreciation of the verb rixode (“ruled. The digressions function as exempla. foretell his future. notorious) exiles: Sigemund.” 1275a).” 142a) and a “hall-guardian” (“renweardas. But to say that Beowulf is compared to wreccan reflects the poet’s conscientious strategy of disinterest in the exploration of his hero’s liminal identity. “dreame bedæled. This alleged identity generates an extraordinary anxiety over the possibility of Beowulf ’s leadership.18 introduction Like other exiles in Beowulf. as Wulfgar acknowledges.” 1352b) “deprived of joy” (“dreamum bedæled. become the king of Heorot. Beowulf ’s potential status as one of these Germanic champions marks him as a figure of supreme ability whose motivations remain arguably impulsive. The implicit identification of Ecgþeow as a wrecca and the potential relevance of this bloodline for Beowulf ’s conduct become significantly meaningful when Beowulf is later compared to three famous (or. Ibid. Attending this 61 62 63 Indeterminacy 97.62 This subtle metaphor has suggested to Johann Köberl that Grendel and Beowulf share a co-extensive identity.”63 In fact. then. . proving his strength. but also to understand the bearing of Grettir’s Saga for Beowulf. but Skeggi then insults Grettir by recalling an earlier humiliation that Grettir suffered. although they quite convincingly explained Beowulf ’s behavior as described in Orchard. or despised—for almost twenty years. time after time. in consideration of latent arrogance. if not obviously his virtue. Both works explore the intersection of heroic prominence and social disruption. Right after Beowulf has reported his success in Denmark. reflects my own reading of Beowulf ’s conflicted portrayal. Skeggi’s reluctance to show the bag looks suspicious. Although Beowulf should in no way be thought to have committed any crime before venturing to Denmark. Exiled for the killing of Skeggi at the Althing. The central ambivalence characterizing Grettir. Grettir insists on seeing it. that Beowulf arguably expresses as a thane and king.a contested BEOWULF 19 focus on heroic identity not only enables us to reconcile the contradictory judgments of Beowulf ’s deeds made by internal characters (and modern critics). that Grettir earns exile for his first killing. but Grettir ends up killing Skeggi with the same weapon. the narrator mentions 64 At a glance. although Fjalldal’s findings only address moments in Beowulf thought to be related to long-held folktale analogues. My comparison of Beowulf to Grettir in support of Beowulf ’s potential conceit may likewise explain Beowulf ’s “inglorious youth. Skeggi attacks first and swings at Grettir with an axe.” subject to flagrant dissembling because it ostensibly confirms a failing of sorts. Grettir later becomes the most famous exile in Iceland—respected. some Danes perceive a Grettir-like potential in Beowulf ’s confidence and pursuit of glory.64 It would seem relevant. and quite clearly Grettir represents the Beowulfian parallel. Grettir’s ambiguous motivation and the contradictory appraisals of it indicate that the saga characters cannot fathom his violence. at least. since Grettir’s arrogance is devoid of the civility. his impetuous aggression. tolerated. A provocative recent study by Magnús Fjalldal postulates no genetic connection between the two works. Pride and Prodigies. honored Hygelac. He finds these parallels impressionistic. Details from the saga reveal the innocent circumstances under which Grettir and the servant Skeggi lost their supplies. a savage murder over a food bag. Grettir sails to Norway. but the recovered food bag may have belonged to either man. and bestowed Hreðel’s war-gear on him. Grettir’s life as an exile from the community of men invites comparison to Beowulf ’s life as a future exile. the resemblances between Grettir and Beowulf seem remote. The early fourteenth-century Grettir’s Saga has often been advanced as the closest analogue to Beowulf. “Inglorious Youth” 133–4. micles wyrðne gedon wolde. The passage is generally explained by a “principle of contrast” in which present accomplishments are magnified by a recollection of past miseries. The parallel in Grettir’s Saga answers some critics of the passage. Only when the ship is swamped will Grettir intervene and leverage his miraculous rescue for maximum prestige.65 shiftless (“sleac. “Theme of Exile” 203. such as herding geese.67 The Geats therefore mistake Beowulf ’s pacifism for passivity.14: “unfrom on ferhþe”) where it glosses imperfectum. see Klaeber’s Beowulf note to line 2183b ff. while sailing to Norway aboard Hafliði’s ship. and unworthy of much honor on the mead-bench (2185a–b): swa hyne Geata bearn ne hine on medobence dryhten Wedera swyðe wendon.” “abject”) for a long time (2183b). Jr.” 66 Greenfield. denies any “inglorious youth” and charges that the narrator expresses a Geatish view of Beowulf ’s antiheroic temperance. (2183b–9b) [ Beowulf ] was abject for a long time. but note that “unfrom” occurs elsewhere only in a verse from the Paris Psalter (138. and flays Kengala.” 2187b). Lazy. a cowardly prince. Although these lines voice disapproval and OE hean regularly describes exiles. Raymond Tripp.” 2188a). godne ne tealdon. or herding the mare Kengala. “Humiliated” by women’s work and by the general disregard for his heroic genius. as “indolence” indeed characterizes Grettir’s youth. . the “shiftless” Grettir suggests why Beowulf is thought to be “abject” and “slack”: he will not perform any chore beneath his heroic dignity. They earnestly presumed that he was immature. Edwenden cwom torna gehwylces. 67 Tripp. for example.66 anything disparaging about Beowulf is invariably downplayed. impetuous. Furthermore. Some characters in the saga think little of 65 I back this reading uncomfortably. nor would the lord of the Weathers make him worthy of much on the mead-bench. scratching his father’s back. injures his father with a wool comb. æðeling unfrom.. young Grettir the “coal-biter” scorns work that does not flatter his self-esteem. and hostile. He kills many goslings. tireadigum menn Hean wæs lange. since the “Geata bearn” or (“sons of the Geats. A change came to the victory-blessed man for each of those indignities. perhaps “immature. Grettir is accused of being shiftless because he will not help bail.20 introduction that Beowulf was “hean” (“humiliated.” 2184a) thought him immature (“unfrom. since the sons of the Geats did not consider him good. (236). þæt he sleac wære. Beowulf is not a wrecca.69 According to Hume. 474. Beowulf ’s prospective identity as a wrecca hinges significantly on his perceived temerity. 472 resp. and willingness to resort to extreme brutality characterize him throughout the saga. ugly-minded bully. and in the chapters which follow I lay out the evidence for a cynical fear surrounding Beowulf and his accomplishments.”68 Grettir’s heroism needs to be managed under the right circumstances: When the [social] context is congenial. inevitably. Grettir exhibits self-restraint when some authority—specifically a man of the “lordly type”—validates him with the “grand gesture.”70 In other words. and he can coexist peacefully with men of good will. Grettir’s presumption. The burden of proof lies with me to show that Beowulf may exhibit the negative characteristics associated with wreccan. The narrative homologies between Beowulf and Grettir’s Saga merely suggest that Beowulf might express an identity with similarly ambiguous contours. and they approve of him. In fact. Ibid.” while its continental antecedent gave rise to Modern German Recke (“hero”). “Grettir is a frightening. . Grettir is portrayed as nearly ideal. sensitivity. He is also able to control his temper when happily circumstanced. agrarian (or commercial). and the notable but sociopathic wreccan to whom he is compared. Kathryn Hume contends that Grettir cannot adapt to the lawful. Grettir’s ideal patron acts much like an ancient king whom Grettir would serve as a prominent thane (the simile is Hume’s). to some observers.a contested BEOWULF 21 Grettir—a position. “Thematic Design” 473. and Christian society that Iceland became and that. he seems to betray their temperament. but every case of violence seems moderated by provocations or other special circumstances. that reflects Hunferð’s opinion of Beowulf. The Limits of Heroic Glory OE wrecca begot Modern English “wretch. Ibid. but he is compared to them because. Without such indulgence Grettir would appear irascible and arrogant. one might say. to most Icelandic settlers. his arguably reckless feats. Each reflex characterizes 68 69 70 Hume. . . Þórr spoke: I lay this on him. Óðinn mællti: Þat skapa ek honum. While Óðinn magnifies Starkaðr’s powers. that he shall never think he has enough. Þórr pronounced: He shall commit treachery in each of them. that he shall have the best weapons and clothes. In the Norse tradition the best-known figure corresponding to the Anglo-Saxon wrecca would be Starkaðr. . at hann fái í hverju vígi meizlasár.22 introduction the ambivalent personality of the Germanic “hero” represented by Beowulf: always glorious. Þórr mællti: Þat legg ek á hann. Óðinn svaraði: Ek gef honum sigr ok snilld at hverju vígi. and violent. at hann skal hvórki eiga son né dóttur ok enda svó ætt sína. hateful. skapa ek þat Starkaði. Óðinn spoke: I give him victory and renown in every battle. Þórr pronounced: I lay this on him. Þórr svaraði: Þat legg á hann. Þórr mællti: Hann skal ekki muna eptir þat er hann yrkir. fearless. svó at hann skal ei seinna yrkja en mæla. . Only with Achilles can the Argives hope to win the Trojan War. Óðinn svaraði: Þat skapa ek honum. even murderous. [Þórr spoke:] I ordain this for Starkaðr. Þórr mællti: Þat skapa ek honum. on the other. Þórr pronounced: I ordain this for him. Óðinn mællti: Ek gef honum þat.” Heroic literature abounds in the kind of individual potentially represented by Beowulf. Þórr mællti: Hann skal vinna níðingsverk á hverjum mannzalldri. at hann skal eiga en beztu vópn ok vóðir. and his issue will end with him. The late thirteenth-century Gautreks Saga traces his ambiguous personality to an altercation between Óðinn and Þórr over Starkaðr’s fate. that he shall have neither land nor territories. so that he shall compose verses 71 Ranisch 28–9. . rebarbative. that he shall have neither a son nor a daughter. Óðinn svaraði: Þat skapa ek honum. vain. . The combination of isolation and habitual violence. yet the most outstanding fighter among the Greeks. and solitary on the one hand. Óðinn mællti: Ek gef honum skálldskap. Þórr mællti: Leiðr skal hann alþýðu allri. at hann skal eiga of lausafjár. at hann skal lifa þrjá mannzalldra. I suppose. Óðinn pronounced: I give him the art of poetry. make the wrecca a “wretch. Achilles epitomizes the type: acutely defensive of any slight to his honor. at hann skal þikja hæztr enum göfguztum mönnum ok hinum beztum. a curse from Þórr makes each of his attributes a hardship:71 . at hann skal alldri þikjazt nóg eiga. that he shall possess treasure. at hann skal hvórki eiga land né láð. Óðinn pronounced: I give him this. Óðinn spoke: I ordain for him that he shall live for three lifespans. potentially spiteful. that he shall have serious wounds in every battle. barbaric. Óðinn spoke: I ordain this for him. they have to accommodate him. and other elites.a contested BEOWULF 23 as he speaks. whose mod should be distinguished as that appropriate to his liminal exceptionality. and precisely because of its bivalence. Þórr pronounced: All the common people shall despise him. noblemen. The same bivalence also characterizes OE mod. retainers. Admired by kings but despised by commoners. The motivation for Starkaðr’s ferocity is the same as Achilles’s: glory. that he shall be thought foremost by all the noblest and best men. He exchanges kingship (the responsibilities and limitations of power) for the glory and the visible display of clothing and weapons. rational faculty but something more like an inner passion or willfulness. Thus OE ellen means “courage” but does not describe the incentive to express courage. Much like Achilles’s own zeal. No modern English term quite captures Beowulf ’s motivation. Shippey. A. a quality associated with one’s personal ambition for honor and a touchy regard for its public acknowledgment. a term for “pride” or “dignity.” “courage. One approximation in Old English might be mod. OE mod belongs to kings.72 Here my interest involves the underlying motivation for one’s deeds. an intensification of the self that can be dangerous. that wlenco may be the silent term by which Beowulf ’s behavior is contested as “courageous” or “arrogant. T. Old English Verse 39. Starkaðr represents the consummate soldier. Þórr pronounced: He shall never remember afterwards what he composes. see Godden 287: “mod seems to convey to many Anglo-Saxon writers not so much the intellectual. Óðinn pronunced: I ordain this for him. but more precision is required for Beowulf. suffer repeatedly from battle wounds. a word for “spirit. I suggest that OE wlenco. and guard his reputation with a jealous vigilance. not in the terminology describing the deeds themselves.” or “high-mindedness” that has lately been called an aristocratic virtue.” 72 73 . Shippey calls wlenco “the quality of a hero—or of a meddler.” could express both the magnitude and the ambiguity of Beowulf ’s heroism. Starkaðr’s drive for preeminence makes him commit three great crimes. which in Greek epic might be expressed as thymos. and he has lately expressed the range of behaviors associated with its positive and negative manifestations: Highfield.” Within a spectrum of motivations OE wlenco has context-specific boundaries that determine its ethical value.”73 Dennis Cronan comes closest to my own position that wlenco reflects a mental state. Wlenco thus appears to have been a greatspirited courage which could lead one to daring undertakings for the good of others or to reckless endeavours that produce unnecessary risk. which the King of Geats undertakes “for wlenco” (1206a). and glosses. The primary and most comprehensive study is by Michael von Rüden.” 208a) in the Exeter Book poem. In fact. poetry. “proud in its treasured possessions” (“maðmæhta wlonc. where the noun wlenco occurs three times. confident dignity (331b. in which a moral or civic duty calls for sacrifice. Hunferð accuses Beowulf of a committing a reckless stunt with Breca “for wlence. enhances personal prestige. This usage Cronan. On its own. Avenging a kinsman. however. being wlonc might mean being either “proud” or “dignified.” and in this case the term is pejorative. . Cronan’s remarks refer to Beowulf 338 and 1202–7. 341a).” portending a formal. Dangerous or rash behavior verges on “pride” when one’s conduct merely establishes social supremacy. who has documented this ambivalent sense for OE wlonc and wlenco in all genres: prose. After Beowulf has killed the dragon.” but the nature and outcome of one’s social interactions will determine the aspect of wlenco.” 2833b). both are described as “wlonc. the narrator remarks that it will no longer visit its lair.74 Heroic and homiletic sources document this semantic equivocacy. Both audacity and greatness of accomplishment can be implied in the term. wlenco denotes a daring bravado which shades into the recklessness that can impair a person’s judgement. the verdict hardly evokes praise for glorious deeds. . “Poetic Words” 34. and given the outcome of the invasion. especially hazardous (one might say “aggressive”) physical or verbal behavior intended for one’s own social or material profit often establishes the limit at which wlenco turns negative.” When Wulfgar and Beowulf meet. And yet in Genesis A the Shinarites also build the Tower of Babel “for wlence” (“in arrogance. not refuge as an exile (338a).” 1673a). In line 508a. The same derogatory usage describes Hygelac’s Frisian raid. In Wulfgar’s speech “wlenco” seems to have a positive sense: Beowulf has come seeking glory. or defending one’s territory would characterize the positive kind of wlenco.75 Even Saint Guðlac can seize his mountain hermitage from devils “for wlence” (“in daring. either “dignified” or “arrogant. 74 75 . or unnecessarily endangers the group. The narrator himself makes this judgment.24 introduction . however. A similar case can be made for the usage of OE wlonc. This same motivational bivalence figures in Beowulf. Nor is OE wlenco ever associated with the conduct or deeds of wreccan in any specific expression. In my view. . In other words. What thought-category he had in mind is impossible to discover. but OE wlenco captures the bivalent nature of this heroic confidence.” From convergent conclusions reached in these pages. however.a contested BEOWULF 25 expresses a degree of arrogant overconfidence. In Beowulf one encounters elites apparently motivated by glory. and sometimes it suggests that he resembles an honorable foreign champion defending Danes and Geats. I must be forthright.” and both terms seem to encompass the semantic ambivalence of Modern English “proud” and “pride.” “arrogance” more often than “sacrifice.” While the term wlenco is found in Beowulf in exactly the indefinite sense that characterizes my understanding of Beowulf ’s liminal action. Simply because wreccan are disposed to maximize their prestige. the poet’s explicit indecision over Beowulf ’s motivation—the charge of generosity or pride—explains the poem’s general ambivalence. about Beowulf ’s alleged status: the poet never accuses him of arrogance. It is my view that doing so would tip his hand. it never comprises part of a behavioral or moral system like the one I theorize. but wreccan are a special case. “Beowulf expressed wlenco when he challenged Grendel” or “Beowulf was wlonc when he confronted the dragon. the motivation they express may resemble “pride” more often than “dignity. In other words. Sometimes the evidence suggests that Beowulf resembles a vainglorious wrecca. to improvise phantom reservations. being “wlonc” means having “wlenco. for he aims merely to hint of Beowulf ’s potential arrogance as a prospective wrecca. the Beowulf poet never explicitly says.” Their deeds therefore look more “foolhardy” than “courageous. ambition. the poet has conveyed a similar motivation of equivocal virtue. I propose the affiliation because the usage of OE wlenco throughout the corpus describes Beowulf ’s bivalent potential. to discredit certainties. This inconclusiveness should not imply a dearth of evidence. I observed that OE wlenco perfectly approximates the uncertain ambition motivating Beowulf ’s feats.” especially when men of lower status. only that symptoms of Beowulf ’s negative potential are subverted by signs of possible magnanimity (on Beowulf ’s part) or misjudgment (on the characters’ part). and skill suffer for their zeal. while wlenco specifically may not have motivated Beowulf to fight Grendel. Quite clearly. he remarks. have no clear-cut factual proof. rather than intradiegetically. Are we satisfied that he is less impetuous now? He says that he killed water-monsters in a struggle that Hunferð could never win. however. on each occasion. This frank ambivalence invites readers of Beowulf to settle the poem’s open-endedness: an audience was meant to judge Beowulf ’s motivation and rationalize the poet’s equivocacy. The poet has not. . where the poet has frustrated any conclusive ruling on Beowulf ’s motivation. He has both posed and rebutted the most subtle reactions to Beowulf ’s death in a way that demands full engagement with the paradox of it. I do not mean to imply that the poet has laid out evidence pro and con in daisy-chain fashion. My treatment of the Hunferð digression illustrates the method of this internal debate: charge and rebuttal that. only conjectures formulated in reaction to preferred interpretations. it does not concede resolution.26 introduction Ambivalent Heroism and Indeterminacy The competing perspectives. but one shaped by debate. but that he has presented multiple alternative readings of Beowulf ’s character. While his method invites deliberation. in fact. As I see it. in the imperfect awareness of its characters. or is Beowulf just using the flyting convention of distorted sarcasm to demean his opponent? The implicit “argumentation” that characterizes the Hunferð episode has an extensive corollary in the dragon fight. a discourse of ratiocination. established an incontrovertible outcome. Köberl generally locates this ambivalence in the text of Beowulf as construed by its Anglo-Saxon audience. the position of arrogance that some readers have over-emphasized and others dismissed. Beowulf states that he was young. and counter-arguments for Beowulf ’s ambivalent identity give rise to a subtle contrapuntalism. Johann Köberl proposes that the poem’s ambiguities have yielded “over-determined” interpretations foreclosing its intentional open-endedness. the uncertainty of Beowulf ’s ambition motivates the poem by inviting judgment: “how is Beowulf a good king?” The ambivalence of heroic action in Beowulf and the consequent rationalization that such indeterminacy would entail have been the subject of a recent book called The Indeterminacy of Beowulf. Explaining the potential impiety of heroic archetypes for an Anglo-Saxon audience. Does that validate his alleged rashness? Does Beowulf ’s public condemnation for Hunferð’s “murder” mean that Hunferð must be biased. In answer to Hunferð’s accusation of temerity. arguments. refuses to be authoritative. Köberl addresses the subjective viewpoints of characters like Hunferð in establishing the valences of indeterminacy.78 76 77 78 Indeterminacy 9. death. In a chapter on “The Search for a Theme” Köberl conjectures that ambivalences in the dichotomy individual-versus-collective and king-versus-subject cannot be resolved in favor of one domain. 81: “Is [Beowulf ] about a celebration and glorification of heroic life. . unresolved in their argumentative equipoise: a warrior’s eternal glory is meaningful in response to heroic Fatalism but antithetical or irrelevant to the Christian afterlife. from which perspective its ideologies are offensive. it may well develop a way of talking about its past in terms that do not unambiguously sing the praises of those ancestors.”77 Instead.a contested BEOWULF 27 . While I find this situational and semantic polyvalence nearly identical to my own understanding of the poet’s rhetorical strategy. At times. fah/fag. If a society keeps alive the memory of its ancestors because of their heroism and is then faced with the possibility that those ancestors are doomed to an eternity in hell. the poet juxtaposes competing views of heroic identity. gæst) that not only prevent hermeneutic closure but also draw attention to the oppositions themselves—the “anxiety” that I would locate in Beowulf ’s liminal identity. . Köberl’s position may be applied to the narrower thesis of heroic identity that I allege for the poem as a whole. judgment. In other words. if not odious. heaven and hell.76 The poet’s sublimation of offensive pagan associations has atheticized Beowulf ’s heroism and therefore encourages such an evaluation. For Köberl Beowulf yields thematic oppositions enhanced by nuanced linguistic amphibolies (polysemous words like lofgeornost. Even so. or is it . 82. transience. Grounding this notional ambivalence in the wider context of fate. The ambivalence that Köberl theorizes for heroic action in Beowulf centers on an ambiguously rendered ethos that is uncertainly resolved. and mortality. Köberl concludes that “the text’s discourse on the final things. it may also be speculated that Anglo-Saxon society is characterised by an ambivalent attitude towards its own pre-Christian past. Ibid. but must recognize that both exist coterminously. Köberl’s global account of narrative misprision in Beowulf also concedes both the narrator’s and the characters’ perspectives. I perceive a different emphasis on heroic action as a human ideal but subject to defects of proportion that exceptional mortals exhibit. Ibid. The incentive to earn glory motivates a pretense of Germanic heroism. 95. 80 Ibid. 176. . The poem’s presentation of heroism oscillates between approval of its search for glory and disapproval of its inherent instability. the accomplishments themselves—killing the dragon.”79 Köberl describes an “oscillation” of perspective that I have characterized as a logical “contrapuntalism” centered on the poet’s presentation of Beowulf ’s ambiguous motivation. its materialism. therefore. In my view. although the indeterminacy I theorize in the dragon fight challenges the Anglo-Saxon audience as much as the characters. and its consequent ignorance if. The Function of Fate in Heroic Prominence A primary reason why Beowulf is theoretically indeterminate results from its presentation of heroic restraint as a function of Fatalism. ultimately unresolvable. he reasons that both positive and negative aspects of heroism remain salient to the poet’s audience. Christian values. only its expression in the hero Beowulf. No boundary seems to separate right action from excessive action. Köberl argues. would see my own position as a kind of narrative closure. In contrast to Köberl’s wider sense of indeterminacy. as Beowulf remarks: a condemnation? The indisputable fact that these—and other—thematic ambivalences have not been resolved in all the years of Beowulf criticism may well lead to the conclusion that any resolution can only be temporary. above all—are equivocated as possibly springing from excessive ambition. its feud-and-revenge ethics. At times throughout the poem internal and external perspectives overlap.” 79 Ibid. The difference is significant. forecloses a deliberate equivocation: “The disputed issue of heroism need not be resolved in terms of glorification or condemnation. and disregard for. since the ambivalences are actually characteristic of the whole text and are.”80 such that any ambiguity rests on valuing or devaluing Beowulf ’s accomplishments. as well as Germanic heroism more generally. Köberl. Köberl envisions a positive Beowulf who “has managed to keep royal and heroic qualities in balance. I imagine. Choosing one position.28 introduction Critical of the interpretive judgmentalism that reduces many latent oppositions to a single reading. I do not claim that the poet distrusts heroic action per se. that a fighter’s utmost courage sometimes enables him to prevail against otherwise impossible odds. ” For example.” Beowulf straddles the margin separating permissible and excessive zeal— is perceived. duty. the greater the honor and likelihood of fatality. but exceptional valor can forestall an unanticipated death that might come about through momentary weakness or doubt. Now. Somewhere between sheer cowardice and certain death one finds a point of comfortable risk—a coordinate of multiple social variables beyond which one exhibits immoderation by overestimating the chances of survival relative to one’s legitimate obligations. in fact. before the fight the poet notes that Beowulf is the strongest man alive (196a–8a. the narrator specifically says that Grendel’s mother is weaker than Grendel (1282b–4b)—a deduction that Beowulf might have made himself— although Beowulf is handicapped by fighting her underwater and in her lair. nor did the foresight of wearing a mailcoat. As I shall show. since the riskier the deed. the fight with Grendel’s mother does not acquit Beowulf of pride–the desire for glory—but does vindicate the encounter. we are led to speculate that Beowulf would have died fighting Grendel’s mother if the giant sword had not been hanging within reach in her cave. kinship. depends as much on the situation as on one’s own prowess and motivation. it must be said. the only appropriate circumstance in Beowulf for men to convey reckless “heroism. cf. Beowulf confronts Grendel’s mother alone. 81 Gwara. No amount of courage saves a doomed man. wlenco. who fights his dragon solo. “Forht and Fægen. 379b–81a). so his prowess cannot be impugned. Fortune also favored him. 29 Wyrd oft nereð þonne his ellen deah! (572b–3b) Fate often protects an undoomed nobleman when his courage is strong! The statement is not tautological. The motivational dimension includes such public and private terms as revenge. since Beowulf endangers no one but himself.” . and if not for the arguable motivation of avenging Æschere’s death. The situational dimension could be called “luck.a contested BEOWULF unfægne eorl. one might question Beowulf ’s prudence: Did he express courage for a just cause or pride for a rash enterprise? The poet defers judgment. Yet prowess alone did not save Beowulf. of course. as inclined to violate the social decorum governing wlenco as “courage” and to be driven by a potential recklessness. or emotions like love and hate. Moreover. An ambiguity in this system of belief lies in gauging the unknowable boundary of success.81 An acceptable risk. Like the legendary Sigemund. The problem lies in the boundary of excess implied by the adverb “too. his ambition for glory could. since it can. I argue. Warrior Wisdom: The Language of Self-Restraint. Beowulf serves an apprenticeship of sorts at Heorot. not too aggressive. as Hroðgar.” Citing metaphors of “holding or binding the mind” in Maxims I. which a man needs to learn to understand and anticipate. “such expressions invite us to see a distinction between the conscious self and some other.”82 In fact. exempla identifying good and bad behavior. it has become commonplace to imagine that Germanic warriors adhered to a golden mean or rule of moderation (a native understanding of “righteous behavior”): not too boastful. not too talkative. etc. but for my current purposes I need only mention that much of it offered advice on controlling one’s “willa” or “desire. inner power which we might legitimately gloss as ‘mind’ though it could also be translated in particular contexts as ‘passion’. components of which were codified in Old English “wisdom verse. teaches him a conduct of moderation and responsibility especially appropriate to kingship. the contested Beowulf I describe in these prolegomena conveys the crisis of resolving Beowulf ’s motivation. but need not. and how can it be recognized and prevented? It should come as no surprise that the Anglo-Saxons. “the thought of the heart stems from an inner self with its own volition. . and utterances about the competitive warrior life in a Germanic hall. violate standards of moderation and self-control common to Germanic warriors.30 introduction Judged either by secular or Christian principles. not too lustful. Godden concludes. ‘mood’ ” (288). Elsewhere he affirms. and Reticence Two contingent questions emerge from my stance on Beowulf ’s transgressive personality: how does recklessness arise. presumably. The old king’s lessons countervail the potential for Beowulf to fall into the unrestrained ambition and violence that distinguish Germanic “exiles” as a class. of keeping it centered on the social virtues that Germanic warriors safeguard. I shall have more to say in detail about aspects of the wisdom verse. Therefore. Homiletic Fragment II and The Wanderer. like the Greeks. ‘temper’. developed an ars heroica or art of heroic behavior.” Old English “wisdom poetry” comprises a hodgepodge of sententious lore disseminated in maxims.” 82 Even the most tentative research on Anglo-Saxon literary presentations of mind confirms the tension between a mental faculty of “desire” and one of “restraint. Humility. dictate his actions in spite of his conscious self ” (292). nor too weak a warrior. for example. ne næfre gielpes to georn. 83 . 84 Godden 294. Kindrick suggests exactly this formulation of wisdom as restraint and moderation.” and being wise means restricting ambition in recognition of a social ethic. In reference to Beowulf. . Furthermore. ne to wanhydig. Conjoining “wisdom” and “moderation. he remarks.” this passage emphasizes selfawareness.” Although I have notably different views of Beowulf ’s moderation.” “jural. nor too greedy nor too ready to boast before he knows for certain.) is precisely the claim I examine here. not too hot-tempered. for example. restraint. Both extreme situations are imprudent and potentially reckless. he readily understands whither the thought of his breast will turn. (65b–72b) A wise man ought to be patient. oþþæt collenferð hwider hreþra gehygd Wita sceal geþyldig. We need only read certain “wisdom” passages that advocate the heroic mean to know that self-restraint was a prized virtue. “the governing or restraining aspect of wisdom finds vivid expression in . þonne he beot spriceð. . stout-hearted. cunne gearwe hweorfan wille. the capacity for regulating a vice that approximates pride. and strategy” (13). ne to hrædwyrde. urgent. the “exile” concludes. the parallels Kindrick adduces in “Hávamál” support his general conclusion that Beowulf centers on “wisdom. R. nor too reckless (neither too fearful nor too eager).” or even achievable. passionate personality and a more reluctant self which controls action.” 111a–12a). Kindrick’s intuition that restraint motivates political objectives related to social amity is fully explored in this book. ne to feohgifre ær he geare cunne. Presumably one should be neither too trusting of friends nor too hateful of enemies. A man ought to wait whenever he speaks a boast until.a contested BEOWULF 31 In Old English verse “wisdom” or snyttru takes the form of “warning. a point made by M. nor too hasty in speech.”84 In The Wanderer the same virtue of moderation is expressed more fulsomely: ne sceal no to hatheort ne to wac wiga (ne to forht ne to fægen). social consciousness. Beorn sceal gebidan. Godden about the poem’s depiction of a bipartite mind: “[The Seafarer] distinguishes two centers of consciousness: an inner. and his deduction that “Germanic culture was developing its own set of restraints on unchecked valor and wild heroism” (ibid. “scyle monna gehwylc/mid gemete healdan//wiþ leofne ond wið laþne” (“a man ought to treat friend and foe with moderation. what is “right. portions of the poem” (6). Kindrick explores multiple political contexts in which restraint functions “as the prince’s responsibility for the welfare of his subjects.83 In The Seafarer. The Old English poem Precepts also clarifies Beowulf ’s prospective recklessness. where what is “good” is not to drink. and greed. As the poem Precepts puts it. a wrecca arguably expresses a judgment barely governable by the ordinary conventions of warrior wisdom. In just this way one should honor comrades as “friends” or trusted co-equals in battle. in fact it was thought to be a vice. lust. a central apothegm of which reveals that moderation is the soul of Germanic wisdom: “Hæle sceal wisfæst//ond gemetlice” (“A warrior should be wise and moderate. and avoiding. The father furthermore enjoins his son to heed the advice of parents. (54a–6b) . elders. Unrestrained and unwise acts spurred by immoderate ambition distinguish “pride” from “dignity. Circumspection was encouraged. speak. while the arrogant soldier embraces habitual self-regard. sorgleas blissað. either in the beer-hall or on the battlefield. Although some who see the Anglo-Saxon warriors as barbaric and fatalistic might imagine that recklessness was encouraged. the extreme sensitivity to dishonor. In 1982 Elaine Tuttle Hansen drew important parallels between Hroðgar’s instruction in his “sermon” and Precepts. or desire in excess. a proud individual. and the drive to excel in every combat. ridicule. drymeð sorgful nefne he fæhþe wite. to avoid drunkenness and indiscreet remarks.” and the wrecca was most given to this excess. and to recognize good and evil. and the wise—by which terms compliance might be said to characterize the humble. and not as jealous rivals. One immediately sees the utility of the wisdom verse for inhibiting recklessness. Precepts takes the form of a wise “father” (probably an aristocratic father: a king or retainer) warning his “son” to be loyal to friends. presumably of legal responsibility. With the capacity for violence. Death was the surest sign of recklessness. “Evil” is defined as intemperance. In the Anglo-Saxon tradition the experience of adversity begets wisdom. Seldan snottor guma swylce dol seldon ymb his forðgesceaft. the sort of man who would manifest excess in drunkenness.” 86b–7a). and the motivation of recklessness was an insatiable craving for glory. The humble warrior can learn restraint from his teachers because he already expresses patience. Wisdom poetry taught warriors to judge whether they could achieve the deeds they promised to undertake.32 introduction The poem called Vainglory focuses entirely on identifying. Responsible or proportionate action informs wisdom poems like Precepts. but such ambition can shade into arrogance or presumption when the warrior can no longer assess the odds of his victory. Without exercising restraint. or else continue to test his skill—and luck—until the day he “goes too far” and dies. he may acknowledge providence for his escape and end his risk-taking. no matter the risk. for example. he may then be tempted to paddle a canoe in a hurricane. If he lives. Death often results from overestimating one’s chances against an enemy—the very antithesis of warrior wisdom. If the sailor thinks that surviving the storm was solely his own doing. even when he exerts himself to the utmost. no matter how strong or experienced he was.a contested BEOWULF 33 Seldom does a wise man rejoice without having experienced some sorrow. a god should not be seen to deliver a punishment for arrogance by creating a storm. Providence in this scenario is nothing more than the concatenation of circumstances that led to his survival. even if a god is thought to have been behind the circumstances of his miraculous survival. providence may be said to have saved him. If his canoe sank because of this wave. as ruler of the universe. If the sailor represents a warrior and the confluence of rogue wave and canoe a hopeless engagement.” capital W). in some abstract sense (as “Wyrd. that glory tempts an otherwise moderate man to sail a boat in a storm. of course. could be said to determine in some dispassionate sense the fate of the proud. “Going too far” means that the sailor encounters an unexpected circumstance. If the sailor survives. but not inevitably. one could eventually. Victory follows victory until the warrior begins to think that he will always win any engagement. Having suffered no setbacks that might teach him moderation—the limits of his ambition—a fool foresees no edwenden or reversal and rejoices too confidently in his prospects. come across a superior enemy or encounter impossible circumstances—at which point one becomes fæge or “doomed. a rogue wave let us say. A god does not literally rescue the sailor.” Consider. likewise the fool rarely rejoices over the future with any sense of anxiety unless he should understand violence. Wlenco or “pride” arguably makes a man seek greater glory. What emerges from this (deliberately simplistic) illustration of Anglo-Saxon fatalism is nothing less than a rationale for moderating one’s desire for glory in the moral universe of Germanic heroism. arrogance would characterize the . although a god. in which recklessness arises through a succession of victories in encounters of increasing boldness. that he could have handled in his boat but not in his canoe. This same attitude defines the fatalistic world of Beowulf. Theirs is a distinctive mentality. In fact. not merely the extension (and hardly the apotheosis) of a Germanic warrior profile. Yet a man [or: retainer] must give it freely if he intends to obtain glory as a lord. Their solitary ventures are both admired as magnificent accomplishments and scorned as impetuous and arrogant–not “heroic” in the modern sense of the term as “sacrificial. Men like Beowulf contravene the expectation of responsible or appropriate action because they survive encounters likely to result in death for other. Kings differ from exceptional warriors and wreccan in responsibility. some Danes imagine Beowulf to behave like a wrecca. so transcendent are some warriors—like Sigemund and Beowulf—that they must fight superhuman foes such as trolls and dragons. Beowulf ’s Prospective Kingship and Subaltern Anxiety In the first half of the poem and especially in the Grendel duel. Sceal ðeah manna gehwylc miclun hyt dælan gif he wile for drihtne domes hleotan. including wreccan. a solitary fighter may legitimately pursue what looks like “suicidal” combat.” unless they encounter many of them. and death would prove his recklessness. and explicit social boundaries regulate their seemingly insatiable ambition. (1a–3b) Treasure is a comfort for every man. The tension that emerges in the appraisal of Beowulf as potentially reckless is further magnified by Beowulf ’s potential to become king of Geats. they challenge them. Killing human adversaries seems too easy for these liminal “heroes. less capable men. perform under different constraints.” To ordinary men fighters like Beowulf challenge the definition of wisdom as restraint. He would have misjudged his advantage. and his unlikely victory would confer immense glory in Germanic terms. as the Rune Poem relates: Feoh byþ frofur fira gehwylcum. or credible national champions like Beowulf (against Dæghrefn and the Franks). like the wrecca Waldere does. Therefore. or else expect him to become like one because of a latent predisposition. Only against these foes can the ambitious translate their audacity into fame. . Rather than enacting cultural ideals.34 introduction warrior’s motivation. Yet a significant vexation in Beowulf is that exceptional men. The complication of this status for Beowulf explains the conspicuous emphasis in the poem on wisdom. disgracing one’s retainers by jealously withholding their rewards not only represents a failing of generosity but also manifests a clash of incompatible identities. of course. but precisely by observing closely the limits of that power” (128). however. Partly for this reason Hunferð condemns Beowulf ’s presumption. and the story of Breca warns Geats and Danes that Beowulf is unfit because he unthinkingly endangers his men. In these terms. he is obliged to ensure a prosperous reign. .) never describe Beowulf ’s followers. The poet is careful to show that Beowulf need not be responsible for this group of men as a “dryhten” might be for a warband. see Bazelmans 127–8 on the king’s duty to exercise restraint: “Knowing that his rule is granted him by God. gesteallan.” or else a foil highlighting Beowulf ’s prowess. and the imagined obligations to his men and his kingdom should regulate his own valor. while kings (also men) must learn to dispense it in rejection of personal frofor. Heremod does not transcend the competitive warrior outlook that earns him exile. in becoming a stingy king.a contested BEOWULF 35 All men (including warriors) want to earn treasure. Hence.” whose members with one exception are anonymous. . From this moment.85 In light of this premise. gesiðas. Migration (see 152–3). duguð. like epic in general. Regarding Beowulf as an outsider or “exile. Such kings become tyrants subjecting their people to ruinous warfare. not by the unfettered use of power. Hunferð’s criticism invites us to conclude that Beowulf ’s leadership would translate into disaster for any nation that has him as king. I say “warband” advisedly because the terms typically used of such retinues (dryht. recognizing and preventing Beowulf ’s potential recklessness means acknowledging the social expectations of Germanic kingship as represented in the poem.86 The poet deflects whether Beowulf might express the immoderation of a wrecca by focusing instead on whether and how the future responsibility of kingship necessitates inhibiting any immoderation he might possess. . Beowulf ’s troop. ever escalating risk that subordinates the national good to the attainment of personal glory.” he envisions the Grendel fight as a challenge to Hroðgar’s authority. as much a conflict of values as of personalities” (4). A second failing of warrior-kings derives from unnecessary. does nothing against Grendel or Grendel’s mother and has always seemed a vestigial “blind motif. frequently addresses “the conflict between ruler and hero . 86 Jackson (Hero and the King 26–36) proposes that Beowulf. the war-leader Beowulf will be evaluated as a potential king. the anchor of their security. Beowulf appears in Heorot at the head of a “warband. 85 Köberl 80. citing Howe. etc. or recommend self-restraint underlie implicit and explicit criticisms of Beowulf ’s behavior. The weaker men subordinate to a tyrant of peerless strength and unbounded oferhygd would find themselves. In the context of Beowulfian kingship. For Germanic kings. As I shall show.” although it may be best to think of it as a leader’s excessive ambition. Casting a long semantic shadow over Beowulf ’s heroic mentality in the first half of the poem. tempts one to take chances otherwise hazardous for the comitatus. Oferhygd defines a kind of Germanic psychosis specific to leaders. Some have suggested that the poet presents such warfare as socially determined—the outcome of feud. The Oferhygd Complex Aspects of the Anglo-Saxon wisdom tradition that identify excessive zeal. The prospect of Beowulf ’s oferhygd would handicap his leadership because excessive zeal in a king translates into blind intolerance that portends fatal misjudgments. Moreover.” concepts expressed by the term oferhygd in Beowulf. Germanic “wisdom” promotes ideal kingship by advocating methods preventing recklessness associated with leadership. it is expressed in warfare and in relations with the comitatus.36 introduction although Hunferð’s jealousy impugns his credibility. Hroðgar’s “sermon” teaches Beowulf to shun the kind of heroic recklessness that ignores one’s own responsibilities and other men’s capacities. curb immoderation. In fact. like the nation as a whole. OE oferhygd in Beowulf reflects a specific propensity for something like arrogant overconfidence. “Glory. Superficially. specifically—but the poet’s criticism falls chiefly on kingship as an extension of personal ambition.87 The identical concern is raised in my appraisal of two other kings afflicted by oferhygd: Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. Hroðgar’s mental taxonomy of overconfidence perfectly describes arrogant kingship in the Old English Daniel.” in other words. King Hroðgar works actively and persistently to teach Beowulf how to recognize and limit excessive ambition in kingship. “Beowulf the Hero.” . exposed to risks they could not possibly master. Leyerle. and accelerating successes generate over-confidence to the point where annihilation becomes certain. it means “excessive spirit” or “impetuosity. ambition can yield “over-confidence” or “immoderation. 87 Berger and Leicester. a contested BEOWULF 37 This view of Beowulf ’s potential egotism is nearly identical to that voiced by John Leyerle. most of the evidence for Beowulf ’s potentially reckless behavior actually comes from characters in the fictional Scandinavian world: from Hunferð. for an understandable reason: the poet delivers criticisms of Beowulf indirectly in conversation or asides. hated when he claims land but beloved when he offers more of it. and the secularists underestimated. the potential for Beowulf ’s immoderation in the Grendel section of Beowulf. (58b–9b) A king is eager for dominion. While I agree that “indomitable will and valour” could motivate a heroic champion. and a number of unnamed poets who memorialize Beowulf ’s exploits. as well as an intentional ambiguity in Beowulf ’s susceptibility to oferhygd. In fact.” He falls into it as a consequence of his security and renown—the success that comes from being exceptional. but society requires a king who acts for the common good. criticism of Beowulf ’s faults—those of the Germanic hero and of the social institution of heroism. even suicidally. I discern a deterrent to recklessness in heroic wisdom. the heroic king beset by the oferhygd psychosis has no conscious awareness of his breakdown: he does not literally choose “imprudent action. in fact—are expressed largely in the poem’s digressions. “Beowulf the Hero” 89. The Instructional Function of the Digressions The Christian allegorists have exaggerated. not for his own glory. Furthermore. Hroðgar. Cyning biþ anwealdes georn. Wiglaf. The greater the hero. risks.”88 Even Maxims I seems to stipulate the contrary opinions of Anglo-Saxon kings whose prestige derives from plunder or (in times of peace) tribute: lað se þe londes monað. who suggested a “fatal contradiction at the core of heroic society”: “The hero follows a code that exalts indomitable will and valour in the individual. As it turns out. potentially fatal. leof se þe mare beodeð. 88 Leyerle. ignoring the limits of one’s power will generate escalating. the more likely his tendency to imprudent action as king. As I have said relative to heroic recklessness. and oferhygd in the dragon fight. . the story of Sigemund and Heremod. Hence.90 Without this reflection. they were not intended merely to “entertain” but to depict choice as a function of wisdom. proportionate action versus recklessness. however.” for they are meant to guide behavior. Leyerle.”91 In Beowulf. reason. poem. 90 Michael D. . or between two or more digressions themselves. On digressive analogy and the way it functions in the Iliad. or respond to. sermon.” and Beowulf ’s meditation on the death of Hreðel. the group versus the individual. a modus legendi that contemplates a man’s future and directs his conduct by historical or legendary precedent coextensive with present circumstance. see Bonjour. He assumes that an audience hearing Beowulf would expect digressive matter to comment on. Beowulf would appear uncritically righteous. local narrative. which might be deemed opportunities for reflection.89 The digressions of Beowulf therefore resemble exempla. that the digressions ought to be meaningful in their immediate context. tale. responsibility versus fame. “Misprision” and Alden. the pagan Scandinavian audience of Beowulf weighs Beowulf ’s intentions and prospects after his feats. This epic mode of discourse is widespread in ancient Greek literature. Reichl. North. proverb.” Bonjour theorized thematic “links” between the digressions and moments in the main narrative. the meaning of OE gidd in these contexts may be 89 On the digressions in general. and correspondingly in Beowulf. especially in the Iliad. to impart behaviors that promote success. see Parker. speech. and to expose conduct that invites disaster. and on the clash between the social identities of wrecca and cyning. As such. see Gwara. some digressions in Beowulf are called gidd in the poem or implicitly identified as gidd: the lay of Finnsburh. saying. for the poet’s intentional ambiguity would lack its defining antitheses: dignity versus pride. to anticipate the hero’s fate by his attitude. I contend. Bjork. Cherniss (“Oral Presentation”) makes a similar case. “Digressions and Episodes. “Interlace Structure”.38 introduction which often take the form of analogies. as intradiegetic commentary. they highlight social or philosophical backgrounds of “portentous significance” (73). all of which constitute “parallels” or “parallelisms.” “ironic. lay. reckoning. Interestingly. verses or words. The digressions can be “prophetic. dirge. sentence. most commonly. maxim.” “premonitory” or. Dictionaries and translations render the well-attested vocable gidd multifariously as “account. Heremod’s story in Hroðgar’s “Sermon.” In other words. Pagan Words. “anticipatory. riddle. Howlett. 91 On the meaning of the term. One might call the digressions “counsels. Digressions.” Most of the episodes are “contrasts” or else “counterbalance” incidents or themes in the main narrative. song. lament. story. I take pains to analyze the digressions in Beowulf as extended analogies or exempla because comparing Beowulf to his heroic antecedents generates internal reflections on immoderation and oferhygd. refers not to Hygd but to Beowulf whose attendance on Hroðgar has reined in Beowulf ’s own potential truculence. The digression. When Achilles declines the bribe. I will argue. by contrast. Ajax. Interestingly. a hero from past generations . his self-imposed isolation. the poet launches into a description of the arrogant queen Fremu whose venality was tamed by marriage to King Offa. however. Phoenix tells three stories in illustration of the choice that awaits Achilles. the poet-narrator makes this analogy outside the Scandinavian world of the poem—invisible to its inhabitants. Later. the ambassadors Odysseus.” and the events surrounding his leadership of a group of Danes. As a non-Danish leader of Danes. and Phoenix approach Achilles with gifts intended to assuage his anger and bring him back into the war. Phoenix’s comparandum is his own life experience from the recent past. the story of Fremu (formerly thought to be Modþryð or Modþryðo) evokes the ambivalence characterizing Beowulf in the Grendel fight. For example. his own feud with his father Oeneus. For example. Beowulf should avoid the failings of Heremod and Hengest. in other words—probably as confirmation of Beowulf ’s new-minted political maturity. the attempt on Oeneus’s life. respectively. almost certainly the Jutish or Anglian commander of Vortigern’s mercenary “Saxons. Hengest hesitates too long in fulfilling the sacred obligation of vengeance for the Danes’ fallen lord. In Book 9 of the epic. In these narratives. The story of Hengest. Other episodes are structured analogically but never called gidd. they also compare people or events in illustration of a present circumstance. exemplifies the danger of Beowulf ’s potential kingship for the Danes. and flight. the gidd of Sigemund and Heremod describes wreccan from the legendary and historical past. Sigemund illustrates a distinguished precedent that Beowulf could become if he adopted Sigemund’s policy of fighting alone. This paradeigma analogizes Achilles’ stated decision to return home by describing Phoenix’s parallel experience and illustrating the outcome for Achilles should he choose this fate. Having described Hygelac and his queen Hygd. In most respects the digressions in Beowulf function like paradeigmata or ainoi in the Iliad.a contested BEOWULF 39 extended to embrace a “didactic or prophetic comparison” between a figure or event from the past and one in the present. Heremod destroyed the Danes with the kind of unrestrained ambition that brought glory to Sigemund. He first recounts his own biography. Like the other digressions. The Finnsburh story recalls an episode from British history concerning the wrecca Hengest. By contrast. Phoenix will tell the paradeigma of Meleager. and significantly re-interprets. or verbal debate. Phoenix’s analogies are discernible on the level of the characters. This focalization recalls the story of Queen Fremu. Of course. and the narrator even suggests that Hunferð could have misjudged Beowulf out of jealousy. the events of book 1. while Beowulf seems to “win” the flyting with Hunferð. I claim.40 introduction and hunter of the Calydonian boar. between Beowulf and Hunferð. We are left wondering whether Hunferð’s estimation of Beowulf could still be accurate in part. Hunferð levels two charges that originate in observing Beowulf as a potential wrecca and as a leader of daring volunteers.” as the Old English poem Precepts puts it. In other words. Beowulf accuses Hunferð of a failure of judgment. By recalling the scenario. the þyle’s key faculty. his boast sounds arrogant . The dispute that arises between Menelaus and Antilochus after the chariot race re-plays. Phoenix illustrates how another hero hesitated to fight and lost magnanimous gifts that were offered but rescinded. Because Beowulf does not know anything about Grendel’s size and strength. One of his arts is the assessment of a warrior’s motivation—the “intention of an evil man. the victory makes him uncertainly righteous.” Hunferð is. moments like the Fremu episode refine our perception of Beowulf ’s conduct. Meleager abandons his comrades in wartime. I will argue. They know their enemy. the audience—not the characters—attends the narrative parallel between Fremu and Beowulf. analogizes Beowulf ’s own experience abroad. since the Danes have learned to stop their losses by giving up the hall before the monster shows. Like Achilles. not direct appeal. he criticizes Beowulf for provoking Grendel. Beowulf contextualizes Hunferð’s position when he deploys the language of Hunferð’s office sarcastically: Vainglory tells the warrior how to recognize and avoid oferhygd in terms that recall Hunferð’s charge of rash action against Beowulf. The Hunferð episode in Beowulf yields evidence of Beowulf ’s possible recklessness and alleges his potential for oferhygd. which. as a survey of flytings in Scandinavian sources reveals. Phoenix is trying to win Achilles’ trust and bring him back to the Argive ranks. He describes the outcomes of choices made by other great men in similar situations. Obviously. but his method of persuasion is narrative analogy. taking to his bed in a fit of pique for a curse laid down by his mother. a ranking counselor charged with teaching retainers the traditions of Germanic warrior wisdom. On the one hand. Because it has been told by the narrator. but Homer has himself embedded parallel narration in the chariot race of book 22. Perhaps the most important example of such characterization is the flyting. Nevertheless. Described as a þyle or “spokesman. Understanding the digressions as analogical commentary enables us to read searchingly their relevance in Beowulf. . or responsible for the death of kinsmen. Beowulf lost a competition . Making bold claims to kill a powerful demonic adversary is reckless but especially so when other men’s lives are at stake. the poet carefully alternates arguments for and against Beowulf ’s excessive wlenco. Hunferð proposes.” i. . but Beowulf risks his Geatish comrades. Beowulf endangers his men unnecessarily and Hondscioh dies . This collocation literally means “sorrowful venture. . a “jester” or “coward. but the escapade was also deemed a “sorhfullne sið” (512a). as the narrator remarks.” but in Beowulf it designates a “venture almost certain to end in sorrow. Or did it? The narrator divulges that Beowulf intended to gauge Grendel’s strategy by watching how the troll would proceed. . reckless and irresponsible. but reading them on two levels complicates the matter of Beowulf ’s motivation. does not justify Hondscioh’s death. Yet he also emphasizes Beowulf ’s eagerness to endanger Breca “because of wlenco” (“for wlence. . . His confidence may have caused one man’s death. that Beowulf lost the venture with Breca and that he will lose against Grendel. then. . Despite his status and objections. On the other hand. if only Beowulf were endangered. but Grendel moved faster than Beowulf expected.e.”92 Hunferð’s evaluation of Beowulf ’s recklessness appears confirmed when Hondscioh dies and when the other Geats find themselves incapable of piercing Grendel’s hide. The digressions 92 Bazelmans 123 (italicized in the original). so that neither position can be substantiated and fully believed: Beowulf is arrogant . however. . As Bazelmans formulates this provision of wisdom. and characteristically undercuts each argument. Implicit in the critique is Beowulf ’s unfitness for leadership. especially kingship.” 509a). Even this excuse. because of impetuosity. Clearly. the boast would be less repugnant. He may be jealous.” and his criticisms are unsympathetically demeaned. “no one. Perhaps by claiming so confidently that he could kill Grendel with a sword (680b). too.” 508a) and on account of a “foolish boast” (“for dolgilpe.a contested BEOWULF 41 and offensive. or incapable of exploits like Beowulf ’s. for reasons I shall outline later. Hunferð has been deemed rancorous. may be seen as separate from another or others. . nor any group either. Beowulf wrongly encouraged their involvement. but the full context of Hunferð’s challenge still disparages Beowulf ’s ambition. . Hunferð is jealous . Beowulf was assessing Grendel’s ambush. Beowulf actually killed watermonsters . . Not only was Breca a king with towns and treasure. internal and external. the source of group identity. and the foundation of a king’s prosperity. we cannot appreciate what anachronistic “Christian” precepts the heathen Beowulf is made to embrace. their evaluation of an episode may be thought to supersede the secular “Christianized” dogmas endorsed in the narrative. this group of men comprises the king’s retainers and fighting force. I speculate. and have ransacked the Patrology for evidence of his failings or virtues. The tension between wrecca and king that I locate in Beowulf centers principally on the warband (comitatus in Latin. My own view is quite different. the coast-warden. that of the minor characters whose opinions. Because the Anglo-Saxon spectators know a Christian truth (and very likely the outcome of the poem). The anonymous singers.” The Subaltern Voice As authorial critiques.” for they are no doubt influenced by notional Christian ethics) coincide with heroic ideologies centered on responsible leadership. As characterized in Tacitus’s Germania.42 introduction speak not only to the narrator’s Christian audience but also to the audience in the world of the poem. On account of this ambiguity. represent a customary point of view relative to warrior identity. the king and comitatus enjoyed a “horizontal” . kingship. the Beowulfian digressions. Wiglaf. although we may theorize that they relate to moderation or humility. Ethical conflicts arise in the world of the poem as the “hero” Beowulf competes with the subaltern in his own heroic domain. scholars have tried to evaluate Beowulf ’s behavior or attitude by Christian principles. because we know so little of the secular world glimpsed in Old English literature. politics. An unresolvable tension therefore arises between the two perspectives. however. The moral judgments in Beowulf (I think of them as “Christianized. although the Christian view is never satisfyingly transparent. The subaltern position manifestly derives from the comitatus. In most respects. the digressions exemplify this subaltern voice. and (to some extent) Hroðgar voice the aristocratic values of community and peace—of “mondream” or “joys of fellowship. Superficially. In other words. and the focus of his responsibility. duguð in Old English). and Germanic wisdom. but as an institution it also betrays a complex “psychological” identity. Hunferð. including the gidd. figuratively direct a social discourse about heroic fanaticism in the social institution of Germanic kingship. Scholars now agree that institutionalized kingship emerged as a consequence of expanded tribal jurisdictions in the post-migration period. perhaps something akin to the roving Viking bands whose leaders in one ninth-century source described themselves as coequals. Although the king’s authority was paramount. regardless of his absolute authority.a contested BEOWULF 43 power-sharing relationship. he ultimately answers to the king’s ambition. The unsuccessful king. In this quid pro quo.93 By the Anglo-Saxon period. in which retainers in the warband owed service to a king who rewarded them for loyalty. In fact. however. I am not suggesting that Beowulf belongs to Hroðgar’s warband as a thane in any sense. Because the nation relied on the warband for its security and wealth. but the successful king negotiated power with his retainers. the “horizontal” relationship yielded to a more strongly “vertical” one. how does one negotiate responsibilities shared by the individual (a king) and the group (a warband) when the individual’s priorities–glory as embodied in status and wealth—derive from his own ambition? While it is true that a Germanic warrior seeks status—the honors attached to gifts and the glory of reputation–as a member of a retinue. especially gift-giving. if not confound. in turn. and his own ambition has to be tempered by institutions emphasizing reciprocity. the pattern of royal obligation and retainer allegiance. by contrast. “Tribal Loyalties” 28. he earns honor primarily by being “hold” or “loyal. and that Beowulf is thought by some to have the potential for such tyranny. They may not have shared the same ambitions. thanes have a right to earn status. The king’s men will fight more willingly for his causes in recognition of mutual obligations. although Beowulf ’s implicit status inflects the poem’s fundamental tensions. The ensuing problem is. One can legitimately speculate that they voiced a subaltern opinion to the king. would fail to consult his men—or at least appreciate their political stake in decisions that jeopardized their lives or prestige. One might therefore say that the primary resistance to ideal kingship derives from an antithetical heroic vanity.” But because glory drives the economy of heroism. he undoubtedly took counsel from the ranking members of his warband. and the king. the king’s wishes must accommodate his men’s inclinations and abilities. would ideally acknowledge these subaltern views in decisions affecting the group’s prosperity. however. . The Beowulf poet represents this kind of king as a tyrant given to oferhygd. I do propose that certain warrior-kings at least challenge. the king had to respect the warband’s capabilities and objectives. 93 North. ” An uncanny parallel to the sentiment emerges in Beowulf. .44 introduction In the Gautreks Saga passage I have cited above. however. One might say that the Germanic warband gains a voice in Beowulf. þæt hine on ylde eft gewunigen wilgesiþas. where the relationship between the king and his retainers. fromum feohgiftum on fæder bearme. In fact. the duguð or comitatus. which the poet emphasizes from the start when he describes how Beow (18a). An eminent warrior born into the royal lineage. foregrounds the evaluation of Beowulf ’s behavior. Hroðgar even speaks of kingship as a kind of election. Óðinn says of Starkaðr. so that in maturity willing companions will support him—the people sustain him—should war come. at least to guarantee loyalty in old age. one senses the conflict between Hroðgar’s own will and the group’s when he says. and he predicts that Beowulf ’s valor will make him a prominent candidate. Kingship demands reciprocity. “I ordain this for him. Beowulf could expect to become king of the Geats. Depictions of reciprocity in Beowulf prove that the king-warband relationship was similarly based on the material exchange observed in Beow’s conduct above. (20a–4a) So should a young warrior perform good deeds with lavish gifts in his father’s company. Before this eventuality. The extent of this reciprocity—the king’s generosity. significantly—determined the stability of the warband relationship and the corresponding strength of the kingdom. leode gelæsten. A significant duty of the king was to intuit the group’s will relative to his own.” 23a) and his national advocacy make it plain that future kings owe retainers recognition as much as they owe service to their own lords. þonne wig cume. the Norse equivalent of a wrecca. The stress here on Beow’s willing companions (“wilgesiþas. earns the trust of his men even before his father dies: Swa sceal geong guma gode gewyrcean.” Þórr counters with a curse: “All the common people shall despise him. Scyld’s son. that he shall be thought foremost by all the noblest and best men. although intertwined with the obligation to foster the group’s well-being. Beowulf must learn to curb his ambition in acknowledgment of a king’s responsibility towards his warband. But bestowing lavish gifts was only one dimension of a king’s responsibility to his warband. at least as part of a system of kingship constituted by warband reciprocity. The narrator’s own judgment of Beowulf is more circumspect. (951a–3a) Very often have I bestowed a reward for less. until they think that no enemy can ever harm them. He was killed amongst his enemies and. sæmran æt sæcce. The message could not be plainer: the potential for recklessness could grow unintentionally from heroic vanity. hoard-honor to a lowlier warrior weaker in battle. but it is important to understand that named and unnamed warriors level charges of recklessness against Beowulf. Heremod seems to have stopped rewarding his retinue for the risks they took in his campaigns. Hroðgar’s admission betrays some reluctance for past generosity. Just as excessive ambition would tempt a wrecca to pursue fatal risks. Beowulf ’s appearance inspires his hope. and he became a terrible burden on their lives. Because he will not risk lesser men against so powerful a foe. When kings forget that providence bestows success. Heremod’s men regretted his behavior. by extension. Unlike Hroðgar. The allusion to Heremod. for example. too. Ermanaric’s chronic warfare was so brutal that his own men lived in expectation of extermination. Heremod’s status as a kingturned-wrecca evokes Beowulf ’s potential for a similar destiny. Heremod’s own retainers banished him. Said to be troubled for a long time by “sorhwylmas” (“anxieties. conveyed “into the power of devils” (“on feonda geweald. who rewarded his men in their failed assaults against Grendel. The Heremod narrative succinctly expresses the king’s neglected duty to his warband. In this digression Hroðgar explains the cause of oferhygd as progressive overconfidence and moderation as the result of moral vigilance. As a result.” 908a) led his nation to disaster because of oferhygd. I have mentioned. who did not reward his men at all. this wilful king (“swiðferhþes. The laments his people utter are reminiscent of those expressed by Ermanaric’s Goths in the poem Deor. reveals Hroðgar’s diplomacy in suppressing his own obsession for Grendel’s death. oferhygd would cause a king to endanger his men and. the outcome that one expects from a king afflicted by oferhygd.” 904b). his nation. how the Fremu digression functions as the narrator’s oblique statement of . The subaltern voice in Beowulf manifests the hero’s egotism. hordweorþunge hnahran rince. as if to suggest that the other men who faced Grendel did not (in his view) earn their rewards.a contested BEOWULF 45 Ful oft ic for læssan lean teohhode.” 903a). like Grendel. progressive victories magnify their audacity. among the kings in this world he was the mildest of men. Grettir’s Saga looks 94 On the Grendelkin as literally demonic. Like Beowulf. at least to the audience. issues from the mouths of his hearth-companions (“heorðgeneatas. At times Beowulf ’s choices appear to clash with the expectations of the comitatus for security—a function of warrior moderation—but his actions turn out to be justifiable. the gentlest. Collapsing the perspectives confounds the poet’s strategy. and any alignment between its values and arguable Christian resonances derive in all likelihood from the poet’s amelioration of heroic excess. The subaltern views of social cohesion and benevolent leadership happen to coincide with the poet’s arguable “Christian” emphasis. Pride and Prodigies 39–45 and Russom “Center of Beowulf. the kindest to his people and the most desirous of praise. the kin of Cain united in a cosmic feud against the Almighty. Nevertheless. The same position holds for Beowulf ’s actions. For the audience. the Beowulf poet makes reflection the vehicle of judgment. Readers who disregard the pessimistic view of Beowulf ’s motivations fail to appreciate the poet’s imitation of moral doubt in Beowulf ’s own universe. . simply because the judgments made about Beowulf in his own world reflect a deliberate ambivalence. this coherence strongly endorses Beowulf ’s righteousness as a divine avenger and legitimizes the monster fights in Beowulf ’s world on the grounds of moral authority.94 This divine validation recalls a curious and neglected parallel illuminating Grettir’s own heroic motivation. wyruldcyninga ond monðwærust. Hence. ond lofgeornost (3180b–2b) . But if Beowulf recklessly confronts Grendel and Grendel’s mother. .” 3179b) and is subject to the dissembling that undercuts Beowulf ’s glory throughout. .46 introduction Beowulf ’s growth into responsible kingship. Beowulf ’s description. which may or may not be antagonistic to his subalterns.” . . manna mildust leodum liðost . why does he survive? The poet implies that he survives because his enemies happen to be enemies of the eternal Christian God. Offering no resolution to the ultimate fate of his pagan lords. in the world of Beowulf the subaltern should be thought of as wholly secular (albeit Christianized). see Orchard. It is crucially important to keep the distinction between the pagan inside and Christian outside. Grettir’s Saga expresses a discrete separation between the hero’s motivations and the audience’s perception of them. Until the introduction of Christianity to Iceland. as it were. endowing him with profound strength. law. The fact that Snorri is a Christian priest is never said to motivate Grettir’s mercy. to confront the Grendel plague. When two women cannot cross a flooding river. When Snorri’s son promises to kill Grettir. Grettir is quite certainly pagan but expresses no overt heathen (Odinic) identity separate from his fatalistic belligerence. therefore. Grettir defeats God’s enemy. the pagan Swede Glámr demands food during the Christmas fast. Grettir appears either uninterested in religion or ignorant of Glámr’s contempt for Christianity.95 He worships no god and utters no prayers. For example. Grettir expresses a retrospective Viking “heroism” judged by social custom. however. has a fatalistic interpretation of Beowulf ’s triumph. Beowulf survives because providence suffered him to survive. Hroðgar. however. the narrator excuses his violence by saying that the boy who incited Grettir was possessed by a demon. Glámr’s body cannot be found. A fatalistic Dane. Hroðgar envisions a detached god whose intervention in the world approximates 95 On this peculiar dimension of Grettir’s coincidental Christianity see Orchard. This unacknowledged Christianity may validate Grettir’s most significant fights in the same way it does Beowulf ’s against Grendel. although the audience alone appreciates the function of this narrative congruity. and bringing him to Heorot. then. When a priest is present. Grettir carries them. the sagaman makes Grettir’s significant feats coincide with Christianity. . Born prior to the Conversion in 999 AD. Coincident moments between Grettir’s motivation and the furtherance of Christianity recur throughout the saga. Robinson describes Beowulf ’s religious expression as conforming to anachronistic Christian precedents. When Grettir fails an ordeal to clear his name.a contested BEOWULF 47 back to a pagan age. His aid is never attributed to their need to attend a feast day Mass. upon which he becomes possessed by a demon. and (one presumes) an unstated moral pretense. Like Beowulf. not by intervening in the combat but by engendering him. Pride and Prodigies 153–5. In the post-Conversion setting. Grettir remembers a past kindness and spares the gangly boy’s life. From his position. and its author situates Grettir’s actions relative to Christianity in the way Fred C. although Grettir remains ignorant of their moral valence. and in fact he stays behind and kills two trolls. All of the . indeed. the dragon fight. 2. to be sure. the fight with Grendel and Grendel’s mother. however. What I blandly call “righteous deeds” should be understood as Hroðgar understands them: for a hero.e. For Beowulf. since his return to Geatland is marked by exceptional generosity and his rule by obvious prosperity. especially the tribe or nation. pointing it away from personal indulgence towards community protection. deeds that promote individual glory and imperil no one else. in fact. especially in the dragon fight. Of course. The simple reason why Grendel does not crush Beowulf is that Grendel has encountered a stronger force. say) legitimates glory-seeking. in the gracious behavior he himself exhibits. the strongest force he has ever encountered. Grendel’s death assures glory. in the lessons of moderation and discretion he utters. Beowulf cannot know about Grendel’s ancestry. of the many digressions and exhortations. Beowulf falls into three (or more) parts: 1. Beowulf ’s Dragon Fight: Responsible Kingship or Reckless Heroism? Part of the problem we have in decoding Beowulf ’s conduct. The old king indoctrinates Beowulf in the protocols of kingship passively. for a king. especially those made by Hroðgar. deeds that benefit the security of others. the nature of one’s enemy or the status of a conflict (revenge. and actively. Yet the Christian audience perceives even more behind Beowulf ’s success. but he can be taught to direct his ambition and undertake “righteous” deeds that coincidentally suit this ineffable “Christian” imperative. To Hroðgar. He does not start out exemplary and remain so. Beowulf ’s victory looks like a god’s special protection for the Danes and. restraint)—the consequence. The poem implicitly asserts Beowulf ’s progression to kingship as the cultivation of wisdom (i. One can only assume that Beowulf learns Hroðgar’s lessons of moderation. the homecoming. even if it appears excessive to the poem’s benighted onlookers. Hroðgar elevates Beowulf ’s heroism. a god’s future special protection for Geats—as long as Beowulf does not continue to “tempt fate” by assuming ever greater risks until he meets his own predestined terminal force. In this way. What happens later will challenge this ideal. in some special circumstances. They understand that Beowulf is God’s agent of revenge and that.48 introduction providence but whose omniscience seems to enact deliverance. 3. derives from his treatment by critics as a static character. By fixing the boundary between courage and recklessness in the duties of Germanic kingship. Beowulf now praises Hondscioh’s valor. as well as his declaration of loyalty. An extraordinary coda. . and opposed them to the gestures of his righteousness as a responsible protector of Geats. The narrator then moves swiftly to commemorate Beowulf ’s generous reign—and to introduce one final crisis. and these warn against excessive ambition in the quest for glory. Beowulf is either honorable or ignoble. therefore.” we become immediately sensitized to Beowulf ’s future predicament in the dragon episode. if motivated by vanity. when before he never mentioned the dead thane. the poet’s elaboration of Beowulf ’s potential oferhygd is deliberately inconclusive. and invalidates any position that can be formulated on the question of Beowulf ’s charge as a king versus that of his heroic ego—a significant reason why both Beowulf and the dragon must die. Because most readers resist a negative Beowulf. and his own generosity to Hygelac. but Fremu’s reform under her husband Offa’s supervision conjures Beowulf ’s own rehabilitation in Denmark. He dodges. especially because wlenco accounts for Hygelac’s death and oferhygd misled Heremod. Beowulf emphasizes ideal social contexts for a heroic prodigy—for which reason the poet sympathizes with Beowulf in a manner that simultaneously confounds his admiration. and “recklessness” only explains the hero’s death. Inquiry into Beowulf ’s possible oferhygd explains the poet’s enigmatic and paradoxical analysis of intent relative to kingship and heroism. the dragon. and the nation’s jeopardy. OE oferhygd arguably constitutes the silent term by which his fight is evaluated as righteous or arrogant. When Hroðgar establishes the mental contours of oferhygd in his “sermon. The digression concerning Queen Fremu repeats the same expressions of venality used to describe Heremod. Characteristically. Having achieved distinction as a liberal king and having defeated all his enemies. but not both. the dragon episode swings between evidence of recklessness and heroism in expression of the poet’s mannered ambivalence—just as it did in the Grendel section. undercuts. The poet has laid out the signs of Beowulf ’s potential irresponsibility as reminiscent of his immoderate heroic wlenco. An authority’s judgment of oferhygd depends significantly on outcome. Beowulf faces a moral test in the dragon epilogue. Revealingly. Yet the homecoming affirms Beowulf ’s promise.a contested BEOWULF 49 intradiegetic digressions appear in the first division. defy precedent. This strategy often generates frustrating contradictions that scholars typically account for by adopting one sense or the other of Beowulf ’s motivation. however. just let him lie where he had been for so long. yet we remain unsure whether the terms of his reflection validate the risk. Symbolically. In a moment of contemplation Beowulf justifies his attack on the dragon. In the dragon fight. as has happened to us. lete hyne licgean. þæt he ne grette goldweard þone. Is this dragon therefore the enemy of God? Or. . Ne meahton we gelæran leofne þeoden. Beowulf has died by this time.50 introduction virtue trumps doubt. the draconitas that Tolkien foresaw. The poet so carefully complicates Beowulf ’s motivation and so thoroughly disarms criticism of him that the poem appears to define the inflection point of socially compatible heroism. Hygelac. after all. one should not confuse Beowulf ’s conduct in the dragon episode with his exemplary rule. þær he longe wæs. protector of the kingdom. and the poet’s ethical symmetry is submerged. any counsel that he not meet the gold-guardian. but Wiglaf recalls that he and the other retainers tried to dissuade Beowulf from an attack: Oft sceall eorl monig anes willan wræc adreogan. and in Beowulf at least. rices hyrde ræd ænigne. any dragon could represent evil generally. wicum wunian oð woruldende. We feel the loss of guidance at the conclusion of Beowulf because our self-conscious arbitration imitates the condition of the subject. or the Satanic evil of Revelation.” therefore. (3077a–83b) Many an earl must often suffer ruin for the desire of a single man. as the poet also proposes. Despite the potentially negative sense of “lofgeornost. Moreover. however. the narrator does not intend to relieve any of our doubts. swa us geworden is. The most explicit criticism of Beowulf emerges when Wiglaf protests Beowulf ’s decision to fight the dragon. we should recall. What most bedevils readings of the dragon episode is the absence of any Christian horizon that previously guided the reception of Beowulf ’s fight against the Grendelkin. is the dragon simply an animal with a correspondingly bestial disposition? It sniffs round the barrow like a dog. the overall impression remains that Beowulf ruled well until one final ambiguous incident. it seems clearly allied to insatiable greed and immoderate vengeance. was a laudable king until he ventured to Frisia in search of glory. We could not teach our dear prince. dwell in the precincts until the world’s ending. Taken together.” Yet willa + genitive does not mean “for the sake of. “many an earl must often endure pain for the sake of one man. the need to bring a warband but not to let them engage.” 2345a) the dragon’s might (presumption?). In the case of Wiglaf ’s accusation.” 2766a) any man (greed?). critics have undercut or undermotivated the statement because they see Beowulf as a figure whose virtues the poet applauds. did Beowulf seek an unnecessary quarrel (“sohte searoniðas. just as he had infused uncertainty into Beowulf ’s success against Grendel by an unknowable “historical” precedent: the cosmic feud between God and the descendants of Cain. his criticism is merely one observation highlighting Beowulf ’s potential oferhygd. which seems to have jeopardized the nation’s defense. Wiglaf cannot entertain the proposition that Beowulf died not from oferhygd but from the lingering effects of pagan witchcraft. John Niles (following Klaeber) proposed that “anes willan” could mean “for the sake of one man” and that “wræc adreogan” really describes the present condition of grief. Ignorant of the spell. that Wiglaf ’s position has to be correct. the signs of oferhygd as voiced in Hroðgar’s “sermon” pervade the dragon episode. Of course. Other accusations and exonerations derive from the circumstances and the narrator’s commentary. The poet invokes the curse simply to compound the uncertainty over Beowulf ’s motivation. The poet’s deliberate ambivalence explains a whole series of textual challenges in the dragon episode: God’s ability to lift the curse (was it lifted?). about which Wiglaf can know nothing. the assertion that Beowulf “oferhogode” (“scorned.a contested BEOWULF 51 Again. While Wiglaf condemns Beowulf for fighting the dragon. not even the spell answers all the questions about Beowulf ’s motivation for fighting the dragon in the first place. the casual reading is the right one: Wiglaf deplores Beowulf ’s decision. however. For example. the claim that gold can easily “overcome” (“oferhigian. In fact. the argument they manifest embodies the contrapuntalism that characterizes the poem’s implicit argumentation: Is the dragon a persistent or one-time threat? If a one-time threat. He would translate. the reason for the retainers’ flight. Once the vacillation between oferhygd and heroism is recognized. for the poet deliberately complicates our judgment of Beowulf ’s actions. The poet achieves this goal in large part through the curse on the treasure. the poem is seen to encipher an irresolvable tension. My view does not mean.” and wræc is what nations commonly endure from kings given to oferhygd.” 3067a) out of pride? Or was vengeance called for? Is the . . While he does speak knowingly of the treasure’s origin and of the curse. is it for himself or for his people? Does Beowulf unfairly involve his retainers in an impossible fight? Why would he bring them and make them stay in hiding? Does Beowulf thereby acknowledge that he may be endangering them unnecessarily? Do they need to fight for him in such a lopsided encounter? Does the dragon fight enable Wiglaf to achieve greater courage than he would have otherwise? Would any other man have done as well? Or does Wiglaf act because of loyal kinship? Does Beowulf die from the curse? If so. “Hygelac’s Raid. . therefore. he 96 On a possible historical context for this raid see the remarks in Storms. He concludes. Or was his judgment poor when he hit the dragon’s head in the first place? The poet formulates these questions to guide reflection on Beowulf ’s potential oferhygd. as he does with Grendel.” . Or do they? This passage in particular harks back to Hroðgar’s warning that a succession of ever greater victories often leads to oferhygd. One at a time Beowulf recalls his successful battles in a way that makes him seem presumptuous. // . which the narrator had earlier said was undertaken “for pride” (“for wlenco. he does not draw the dragon as God’s adversary. To heighten the uncertainty he omits any coincident Christian overlay. could he then be said to die from oferhygd? Perhaps Beowulf merely dies because he was too strong and broke his sword. Beowulf likewise recalls Hygelac’s ruin on a foolhardy raid. Beowulf justifies his decision to fight the dragon in a long meditation which suggests both lingering doubts and moral judgment. but he also interposes other kinds of evidence for and against Beowulf ’s overconfidence. But if God can lift the curse.96 Yet Beowulf ’s reprisal for Hygelac’s death reminds his men that even the foolhardy deserve vengeance. and possibly prefigures his own motivation in fighting the dragon. First.” 1206a).52 introduction dragon merely an animal. None of this evidence proves oferhygd. or is it consciously evil? Is Beowulf overconfident when he “scorns” to seek the dragon with an army? Doesn’t Beowulf show restraint when he wields an iron shield and refuses to enter the dragon’s lair? Is Beowulf seduced by the gold? If so. fæhðe secan//mærðu fremman” (2511b–14a). his death could not necessarily be attributed to oferhygd. so will I seek out this feud and earn glory” (“Ic geneðde fela// guða on geogoðe. Instead. “I ventured many wars in my youth. as the poet piles vagueness upon nuance in the dragon fight./gyt ic wylle. Wiglaf ’s criticism. that the limits of heroic excess are debated in these bivalent terms. Unprecedented? No. it explains why the fight itself should be depicted so ambiguously. while we are invited to assess the relative merits of Beowulf ’s decision to fight the dragon. Yet I sense that this procedure represents exactly half the strategy intended by the Beowulf poet. the admixture of potential virtue and skepticism. sounds like an inconceivable poetic strategy. In the poem’s first half Beowulf could be said to reveal a potentially harmful immoderation. Yet it is important to recall that both portions of the poem defy certainty. the double death of Beowulf and his adversary. as an intermittent danger or a chronic one. the magical curse. Beowulf ’s doubts. the eccentric detachment of twelve fighters. Heroic Parallels The dual motivation that I see in Beowulf ’s dragon fight. This reading of Beowulf ’s dragon fight has two significant advantages. two of them adopt the strategy of juxtaposing ambiguous moral states and inviting resolution. First. Although there are only five heroic poems from pre-conquest England. . we are not meant to reach any consensus about his motivation. The alternative view is to acknowledge the possibility that Beowulf expressed oferhygd and that his death resulted from reckless self-confidence.a contested BEOWULF 53 invites us to regard the sniffing dragon either as a serpent or a Satanic enemy. How could one manage the competing arguments for Beowulf ’s ambition and justify either? The answer is. The dragon fight then poses the question whether Beowulf succumbs to the kingly reflex of excessive ambition called oferhygd when he confronts the dragon and dies. I claim that the Beowulf poet’s strategy occurs elsewhere in Old English heroic verse. In this event the contrary case in favor of oferhygd and against Beowulf ’s virtue would need to be made. The second advantage conferred by reading a morally ambiguous Beowulf stems from the thematic unity it provides for the entire poem. and the immolation of the vast treasure make little sense if the poet had proposed only a positive context. and by doing so qualifies Beowulf ’s motives as arguably righteous and just as arguably compromising. which is suppressed through Hroðgar’s instruction. One would have to find reasons (as scholars have done) to dismiss the narrative elements that do not support a virtuous Beowulf. the anticipated extinction of the Geats. . for the English faced years of Viking onslaughts and extortion afterwards. His choices of fighting or buying off this horde closely resemble Beowulf ’s choices of engaging or ignoring the dragon. They may be right that certain details of “men dying with their lord” come from Norse traditions.” The willingness to die for one’s fallen lord is unmotivated in Tacitus. After Byrhtnoð’s death the retainers act heroically like Wiglaf or gutlessly like the “shirkers” in Beowulf. influenced the tradition of warrior sacrifice in Maldon. and definitions range from “highmindedness” to “pride. but the situational parallels suggest to me that his models were not obviously Scandinavian drápur. subalterns in Battle of Maldon stand in opposition to Byrhtnoð. where the glosses to superbia in the Anglo-Saxon psalters are collated. Wiglaf ’s intervention is no rescue. taking a stand against a fiendish Viking enemy. but the trope itself functions in Beowulf ’s dragon fight.54 introduction Like Beowulf. Readers will recall that Byrhtnoð is said to suffer from “ofermod. see the table following page 140 in Schabram. and the sacrifice of his men. Beowulf. One verbal parallel between Maldon and Beowulf has always stood out.97 Scholars have had trouble defining OE ofermod in Maldon. or woefully unprepared to face the enemy. I shall argue that the ethic of “dying with one’s lord” motivates Wiglaf. I would be reluctant to allege that the Maldon poet knew Beowulf. Byrhtnoð seems to act like a glory-seeking warrior rather than a king—or at least a king’s 97 On the apparent interchangeability of oferhygd and ofermod. whose men are arrogant. the praise he receives from the narrator and characters.” The natural impulse to translate “ofermod” in a positive sense and exonerate Byrhtnoð comes from his apparent Christian humility (so argued).” a term parallel in morphology to OE oferhygd. Even the specter of national calamity ensues from the failed Maldon campaign. especially in court poems called drápur. Yet as in Beowulf internal contradictions defy any positive meaning for the term. “Earl” Byrhtnoð. who expects to face certain death alongside his own lord. Furthermore. For reasons of homology scholars have assumed that Scandinavian analogues. A problem in Maldon criticism has always been the treatment of an ancient warband ethic described in Tacitus’s Germania: the case of “men dying for their lord. insouciant. and in Maldon it has always been deemed both sacrificial and derivative of the obligation for vengeance. Battle of Maldon describes an old leader. evokes the whole context of the cursed treasure in Beowulf: has God lifted the curse and still made Beowulf lose his life? Similarly. retroactively. on the narrated events and their relationships during the course of the telling. The characters’ realization of transience imitates their deliberation: why should malevolence occur. reflects his aim to manifest conduct and motivation comparable to Beowulf ’s.a contested BEOWULF 55 ealdormonn. 87. or the failure of his men might function in just this way. Accusations and exonerations are so carefully managed in both poems that the obfuscation of ethical motivation must represent a prominent tradition of Anglo-Saxon heroic verse. is always a matter of retrospection and re-interpretation. the heathen curse. especially the tendency to interweave flashback and anticipation. For example. Throwing his victory open to God’s intervention. explaining why Beowulf himself might not be thoroughly guilty of oferhygd. Beowulf ’s Doom: Reflections on the Final Achievement of a Good King Only a potentially negative Beowulf is suggested in this book. . It has seemed to me that others may have observed the same potential in other ways. why has God bestowed victory on pagan Vikings and death on the Christian Byrhtnoð? Byrhtnoð’s “mistake” in generalship does not. however.”100 I prefer to see it as one of ethical judgment. It might be said that they gull Byrhtnoð into a state of ofermod. for the Beowulf poet has engineered a deliberate equivocacy—an indeterminate text in Köberl’s parlance. Ibid. for which reason he might be exonerated. and what can be done about it? How do 98 99 100 Lapidge. compromise his long and successful career. “that the poet intended the audience of the poem to reflect. “Beowulf and Perception” 87.”99 While Lapidge connects the distinction between “physical perception and mental realisation” to an “awareness of transience. For Beowulf the broken sword.” he continues. 88.”98 “There is no doubt. in fact. The Beowulf poet’s idiosyncratic narrative style. in an article on narrative technique in Beowulf Michael Lapidge has reasoned that “knowledge . . . Ibid. A major confusion in the ofermod complex comes from Viking deceit. although it does illustrate the manner of his death. 311. Beowulf stands in a generically and ethically complicated position”103 reflects exactly my own view of the poem. though it is also in this middle range that choice is most difficult and full of risk. volition (the enactment of choice) drives the poem’s contemplative polarity. The ambiguity of motivation surrounding Beowulf results from deducing his motivation only from his choices rather than from the poet’s omniscient judgment. . for. Galloway 203.102 For Galloway. We must perceive Beowulf ’s deeds. The delicate and sometimes imperceptible boundary between moderation and recklessness represents the moral crux by which Beowulf ’s choices ought to be judged. which in turn drives political success in the world of the poem. while surviving heroic literature reveals choice. hear the opinions of other characters. Galloway attributes this idiosyncracy to Christian attitudes concerning moral deliberation: It is precisely by means of what seems to us to be choice in the political realm that Beowulf offers a mediation between the heroic and the devotional traditions of choice. Galloway demonstrates how anomalous it is that choice is dramatized in Beowulf. choice and consequence rather than a flatly causal relation among them. For me.”101 In his article. 101 102 103 Galloway et al. in other cases one must consider the way concepts of choosing and perceiving intermix.56 introduction men’s acts influence mutability? Andrew Galloway has posed this same question perceptively in an article emphasizing the “varieties of choice” in Beowulf. This process of judgment of course arises from Beowulf ’s preeminence. and determine Beowulf ’s motivation and potential. he explained his intention “to trace the slippage between ideas of perception and choice in a number of medieval and ancient languages and to note that although in some cases a root sense of ‘perceive’ in words for ‘choice’ explains this . both to achieve and to judge. the choices facing Beowulf do not necessarily emerge from compelling political contexts but rather from moral distinctions made about heroic motivation. The poem demonstrates the interaction of context. . In a published reply to comments made on his paper. The right kind of attitude (the mechanism of volition) always fosters the right kind of choice. 204. Ibid. This middle range bridges inner ethical struggles with their contexts and consequences in the social world. and his statement that “with this perspective on choice. with one exception. . it rarely discloses the mental process of choosing. By analogous story Beowulf is counseled to remember the duty he has towards the warband and. group cohesion. It would . but at the price of any moral respectability. Convincing evidence of Beowulf ’s moderation can be found. where lavish generosity yields power. He earns glory. second that elements of Old English wisdom poetry emphasize Beowulf ’s potential recklessness. and his potential downfall in the re-appearance of the heroic failing he once arguably controlled. my argument expresses a straightforward trajectory: the emergence into responsible kingship of a man perhaps expressing the incipient traits of a wrecca. expand. the tribe or nation. in poems like Maldon or the Iliad. is the manifestation of what I designate the “subaltern” voice. The reality is that heroic poetry is not about “heroes” in the modern sense but about ambitious men trying to achieve the glory of enduring reputation in a fatalistic world. In short. but I will spend little time rehearsing Beowulf ’s virtues. Extraordinary. but Patroclus also falls in an unanticipated reaction to Achilles’ defiance. but most often anonymous poets or commentators. more practically. and fourth that during the dragon fight Beowulf may have relapsed into the ambition he repressed under Hroðgar’s tuition. admittedly. the expression of the ordinary soldier or warband member. by extension. Instead. Criticisms of Beowulf are made in the digressions which act as commentaries or exempla. Kings defend. Parallels could be made between Achilles’ potential ate and Beowulf ’s potential oferhygd. I show first that excessive ambition could compromise Beowulf ’s presumed virtue. it will be found in heroic literature generally. Wisdom curbs their otherwise reckless ambition and blunts the edgy rivalry they convey at the expense of reason and. As men they are immune neither to criticism nor to doubt. and rule nations by the strength of a warband.a contested BEOWULF 57 his implicit depiction as the greatest hero-king of his age and therefore most prone to a breach of conscience related to wlenco. third that Hroðgar works to suppress any potential faults deriving from immoderation. Sometimes a named critic like Hunferð. One appreciates in the Iliad the moral bivalence of martial “heroism” in the figure of Achilles. The heroic character therefore challenges moral virtue. so thoroughly and convincingly have they been expressed. both in the Germanic secular sense and in the Christian one. Not only do multitudes of Greeks have to die for Achilles’ rage. If my argument for Beowulf has a more generous context. if not actually unique in Old English poetry. admonish Beowulf for the kind of leadership that could endanger the group. and the soldier’s competition with his fellow warrior should not be extended into kingship. Beowulf chooses the kind of fame associated with kingship. To a Christian the kind of pagan moral conflict that obsessed the Germanic peoples looks more like degeneracy than probity. . and for the poet earns a kind of secular glory thought secondary in the heroic setting but foremost among those interested in deeds of statecraft. that Beowulf ’s pagan virtue is not somehow influenced or molded by Christian ideals. and makes something magnificent of it by a single-minded pursuit of it. Complex. personal secular glory and the rule of men. or whether he chooses one course rather than another of two that are hateful to him. “Wyrd and Providence” 6. knowing that his death is ordained. The division between the two ideals. and certainly chaotic attitudes of individual-versus-collective—of ambitionversus-restraint—separate the two spheres. in fact. clash in Beowulf ’s competing motivations. as Bertha S. Phillpotts observed over seventy years ago: “Fame is for the man who has the courage to choose: whether he chooses resistance to the uttermost against hopeless physical odds. 104 Phillpotts. and the anxiety felt for his status as a potential wrecca and as a potential tyrant reflects the poet’s aim to represent a Germanic exemplar. interconnected.”104 The Beowulf poet has manipulated a literary paradigm and depicted a character that balances the irrational with the humane.58 introduction be hard to doubt. is depicted as an exile-paragon whose conduct is worthy of emulation.CHAPTER ONE THE WISDOM CONTEXT OF THE SIGEMUND-HEREMOD AND HUNFERÐ DIGRESSIONS I examine two episodes in this chapter. glorious but mostly solitary and full of dark suspicions. The singer makes clear that Heremod’s behavior should be avoided. which leads to tyranny and national annihilation.” and especially the notable silence on the notorious incest central to the Volsung legend make us wonder whether Beowulf has the potential for such deplorable behavior. Sigemund’s behavior is distinguished by successes like Beowulf ’s: encounters with men and monsters. but in telling the story of a king-turned-wrecca.” Beowulf could take Sigemund’s path. Here I must be scrupulous in saying that darker traits some characters detect in Beowulf are merely implied through comparisons to Sigemund and Heremod. yet it is exactly what Heremod does not do. I sense.” New research on the office of þyle enables us to theorize that intricate verbal features of Beowulf ’s retort to Hunferð parody the language of native wisdom . One proviso stands out. or Heremod’s path. Sigemund’s venture therefore seems creditable for a wrecca. since the poet aims for uncertainty. The anonymous scop specifically stresses that Sigemund’s “nefa” Fitela does not accompany him to the dragon fight. he suggests that Beowulf has the potential to be like Heremod. Notwithstanding these possible faults (they are as deliberately vague as Beowulf ’s). The Sigemund-Heremod digression. But the ambiguity surrounding Sigemund’s “fyrene” or “crimes. This brief interlude in the narrative apostrophizes the question of Beowulf ’s potentially vainglorious motivation explored in Hunferð’s challenge. especially the kind of self-restraint or moderation so often advocated in Old English “wisdom literature. As seen from the perspective of the anonymous poet “mindful of gidd. including a dragon. Supreme achievements (one might call them “reckless”) like the dragon-slaying presumably require a solo action. I speculate. Sigemund. Hunferð would have taught the etiquette of wisdom. predicts Beowulf ’s destiny by describing two paths for the potential wrecca that Beowulf represents. As Hroðgar’s þyle. First. talk. “dignity” encouraged. adventurer vs. From an examination of these poems and related models in the Scandinavian tradition. reticence. For a king. hard life vs.”2 In heroic terms. the disputes themselves pivot on identifiable but dubious “moral” categories: “action vs. “action. but their relevance to Beowulf implies that wisdom verse might just be native. but Beowulf ’s rhetoric still seems excessively malevolent. and moral behavior individually and in the warband—native “wisdom” could be easily adapted to Christian teachings.” even for a proven warrior.” even when “action” might be barbaric or reckless. By these terms. “Pride” is zealously discouraged. which lies open to scrutiny from the internal and external audiences. tribe. the flyting winner might be called a dogmatic troublemaker.” and “adventure” always trump “talk. warband.” or to derive from Christian teachings. combatants in the flyting disputes often betray the fierce temperament of mercenaries. stay-at-home. “moderation. This is not obviously true of the Old English maxims. at least as it is presented in Beowulf. becoming responsibility for the group: the family. Yet ever since Carol Clover’s eminent paper on the flyting context of the Hunferð episode. humility transcends self-awareness. of course. and the winner is often the more vehement. Vainglory. This catch-22 exactly reflects Beowulf ’s indeterminate virtue. I find reason to believe that Beowulf ’s moral position is not so clearcut. we can deduce what Hunferð honestly thinks of Beowulf: he is a conceited boaster.60 chapter one found in poems like Precepts and Vainglory. could elicit blame. say. These poems are generally considered “monastic. Our confidence in Hunferð’s objection is compromised by his own jealousy.1 critics have wanted to validate Beowulf ’s speech because he has “won” the debate. soft life. Furthermore. etc. this humility approximates self-awareness and moderation in one’s enterprises. but in re-visiting the flyting evidence in Scandinavian sources. and elements of The Wanderer and The Seafarer detail modesty perfectly in keeping with heroic tradition. Here I must emphasize that the evidence does not validate Hunferð’s opinion of Beowulf—but neither is it invalidated. . The poet imparts a balanced view of Beowulf ’s motivation. The victory may be secure. 454. From another perspective.” the “hard life.” Ibid. but Precepts. Judging from the themes of such wisdom poetry—pride. For a warrior. since the flyting commends 1 2 “Unferþ Episode. . one assumes. in which half-lines amplify each other .the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 61 action. “Beowulf ” 157). drawing on legendary figures in the mode of comparison. the story 3 The warrior who recites the Sigemund-Heremod digression found “another mode of expression bound by truth” (“word oþer fand//soðe gebunden. 4 While Howlett represents the spell as a distinct genre in Beowulf (as indeed it may be).” a store of legend appropriated to the present circumstances. mix. “mindful of gidd ” (“gidda gemyndig. and even George Jack’s recent edition proposes “[he] composed a new poem correctly linked in meter” (78. scramble. Klaeber himself thought that “words truly bound” (he interpreted soðe as adverbial) referred to alliterative conventions (Beowulf 158.” 869b): prepared to boast about Beowulf ’s feats. These half-lines could be construed in reference to the “ealdgesegena.” 870b–1a). see Stanley. note to lines 870b–1). in keeping with the poet’s deliberate ambiguity—the subtle effect of his contrapuntalism—Beowulf might be said to express the humility revealed earlier in his discourse with the coast-warden.” 867b) narrates the stories of the legendary Germanic hero Sigemund and the equally legendary but reckless Danish king Heremod on the morning after Beowulf overcomes Grendel. Arguments will be made on both sides of the proposition. his exaggerated put-down compromises our confidence in Beowulf ’s generous motivation.” 868b). reaffirmed in Klaeber’s Beowulf.” the Sigemund/Heremod digression itself cannot with certainty be designated a gidd. Hence. This anonymous thane is said to be “laden with boasts” (“gilphlæden. to be “summarized” in the poet-narrator’s voice. “Beowulf ” 157. not prudence.” OE wrixlan means “to stir. and familiar with ancient tales (“ealdgesegena.4 In other words. while Beowulf manages to shame Hunferð into silence. I say “exaggerated” because a new model of flyting oratory I propose here betrays how Beowulf viciously distorts the “facts” of Hunferð’s kin-killing.” as Klaeber acknowledges. The Exploits of Sigemund In the Sigemund-Heremod digression Hroðgar’s nobleman (“cyninges þegn. moreover. The encomiast uses the expression “wordum wrixlan” to describe his mode of narration. spel. and it appears. Stanley acknowledges that this view is rejected by Klaeber and Else von Schaubert: “there is nothing that might lead one to the view that old traditions in new words represent an ideal among the Anglo-Saxons” (Stanley. Opland 458). Interpreting these lines means solving a semantic ambiguity: the long-stem neuter monosyllable “word” has an endingless plural. yet the forms of oþer and gebunden are singular. And yet. the narrator suggests that this “spel” served as a gidd for the Danes. .” 868a).” and it has been taken to indicate the appositive style. and the expression varies “wrecan . Not all translators have interpreted the phrase “he found other words bound by truth.3 Labeled a “spel” or “narrative. 5 A close parallel can be found in The Wife’s Lament: “Ic þis giedd wrece/bi me ful geomorre” (1) or “I recite this gidd about myself. “I have recited this gidd about you” or “in respect to you.”7 The irony. Hroðgar claims. and not devoid of a slight dramatic irony.8 Bonjour suggests both “immediate” and “anticipatory” functions for the Heremod digression as well: in variation. although Bonjour emphasized Sigemund’s other exploits as a giant-killer. Adrien Bonjour addressed the Sigemund/Heremod digression in 1950. In my view. interpreting “hæfdon eal fela/eotena cynnes//sweordum gesæged” (883a–4a) in the manner of “they had utterly dispatched many kinds of giants by swords. 8 On the grounds that Beowulf does not belong to the same class of ancient heroes represented by Sigemund. perceive the virtue of a man. Furthermore.” 6 Digressions 47. see Stanley.” he specifically calls it a gidd: Ðu þe lær be þon.” not “for your benefit. materializes in Beowulf ’s failure to live long enough to enjoy his treasure. Wise in years I have recited this gidd about you. (1722b–24a) Teach yourself by this. when Hroðgar brings up the story of Heremod a second time in his “sermon. . In the blandest terms. and I shall draw on both in my discussion of Heremod. Köberl suggests that Beowulf cannot be expected to dispatch his dragon alone (Indeterminacy 104–14). Bonjour regarded the moment as a “consecration. On the punctuation of this passage.62 chapter one heard by the audience is not undeniably the fictional one heard by the retainers in the world of the text.” asserting that each narrative encodes “a parallelism and a contrast.”6 Sigemund’s role as a dragon-slayer predicts Beowulf ’s future. of course. fully wretched. gumcyste ongit. reaffirming Hoops’ opinion that the whole passage summarized a single “lay” in honor of Beowulf. “Notes on Old English Poetry” 330–4. partly explicit. partly implicit.” as many translators say. 7 Ibid. ic þis gid be þe awræc wintrum frod. the story of Sigemund appears to ground Beowulf in the universal context of Germanic heroism.5 On account of this recapitulation some commonalities between the two episodes might be discernible. the þegn who commemorates Beowulf ’s deeds analogizes the hero’s accomplishments by interweaving a recent happening into the context of legendary narrative. consistently praises Sigemund’s “famous deeds” and faults Heremod’s “notorious crimes.14 H. whereas Heremod’s are not. “Narrative Art” 175. Clemoes. Malone. leaving us disappointed that Beowulf did not achieve Sigemund’s status and relieved that he avoided Heremod’s fate.16 From this connection Chadwick concluded: “As Digressions 48. whereas in “Hákonarmál”—allegedly derivative of “Eiriksmál”—Hermóðr and Bragi perform the same function.” “Eiriksmál.13 In fact.” “Haustlöng. Stanley. 14 See also Jess H. Bandy 243. a sadistic tyrant.”10 Fred C. Clemoes. He gave helm and mailcoat to Hermóðr. 11 Chickering. the idea is developed in North. 13 “Beowulf in Literary History” 20. Dual Language Edition 318. M. Munro Chadwick. Robinson and others find Heremod an unworthy standard. Robinson maintains that Sigemund’s successes are paradigmatic of Beowulf ’s. in contrast to Heremod. In celebration of Beowulf ’s deeds. Scandinavian sources link Sigmundr and Hermóðr consistently but not in obvious contrast. Let us pray to the Father of Hosts that he keep us in mind. 181 and passim. 12 Palmer 16. Beowulf 91.15 In Eyvindr Finnsson’s “Eiriksmál” Sigmundr and Sinfjötli are said to welcome the slain at Valhöll.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 63 Here the ‘immediate’ purpose of the parallel is the reference to Heremod’s former strength and courage (‘eafoð ond ellen’)—in which he doubtless matched the greatest heroes—the anticipatory part is that his sorrowful end was not to be Beowulf ’s lot. Heathen Gods 102. 16 Chambers. a 9 10 . Sigmundr a sword and Hermóðr a byrnie and helm. and Sigmundr received a sword. The Fagrskinna scribe acknowledged the indebtedness. Beowulf scholars have almost unanimously adopted Bonjour’s position. Joseph Harris makes the point that Norse panegyrics that might be compared to this passage of Beowulf (“Ragnarsdrápa.9 For Bonjour Beowulf ’s future appears to hold neither fame nor infamy. Neckel and Kuhn 288 (str. deeming Sigemund glorious. enn Sigmundi sverð at þiggia.” “Hákonarmál. In “Hyndluljóð” both men receive weapons from Óðinn. “Coming Back” 1296 (“complete opposites”). Chadwick concluded that both figures were celebrated in Odinic warrior cults. Ryan 476–7. 2): Biðiom Heriaföðr í hugom sitia! Hann geldr oc gefr gull verðugom. gaf hann Hermóði hiálm oc brynio. Barton Palmer calls Heremod’s behavior the “end-product of a transformation which is the mirror image of Beowulf ’s. He gives and grants gold to servants. 15 H. Jackson.” “Hyndluljóð. Cult 51–2.11 R.”12 Nevertheless. Thought and Language 195. for example.” and “Sigurðardrápa”) have no contrasting archetypes. “Sigemund’s fæhðe ond fyrena. but because of protests recently voiced by Fred C. 19 Robinson. . Griffith suspects Sigemund’s moral ambiguity. S. He presents some evidence of a negative Sigemund as definitive and some as conceivable. says Óðinn. main reason why Eyvindr is thought to have earned the moniker “Skáldaspillir” or “The Plagiarist. While the language of the Beowulf passage is telegraphic (perhaps because it belongs to the narrator’s summary of the warrior’s recitation). ‘greet the warrior at the entry’. from “Hákonarmál”: “Hermoðr ok bragi. ibid. 175). 1. Griffith has reasoned that the Beowulf poet knew the story in something like its later form. Later Scandinavian sources lead us to quarry the Sigemund digression for evidence of Sigemund’s ambivalent heroism. where they appear to be leading residents! In light of such close literary affinities.1..”17 The heroes share traits that earn them both a place at Valhöll. Nevertheless. 18 Some additional evidence for knowledge of the dragon-slaying may come from Aethicus Ister’s Cosmographia.64 chapter one the former poem [“Hákonarmál”] is modelled on the latter.18 He argues that Sigemund and Beowulf actually deviate in temperament. Sigemund satisfies his reckless ambition in killing a dragon. just as Beowulf expresses a morally indeterminate ambition.19 I will present all of his cases as conceivable but not definitive. From “Eiríksmál”: “Sigmundr oc Sinfiatli. 1. In one of Griffith’s examples. but M./risit snarlega/oc gangit i gongu grame” (“Sigmund and Sinfjötli. pp. whereas Heremod takes the route of warrior-king and enlists his nation in support of ambitions identical to Sigemund’s.) On the connection between “Eiríksmál” and “Hákonarmál. the secg tells “whatever” (“welhwylc.” . this fact tells decidedly against the view that the association of Hermóðr and Sigmundr is merely accidental. the actions of Griffith’s Beowulf square with the pseudo-Christian decency that the poet fabricates. By contrast. rise quickly and greet the warrior at the entry”. Sigemund can be seen to express equivocal virtues that demand reflection as potentially reckless. .” (“ ‘Hermóðr and Bragi’. see Alan K.” 17 Origin 139 note 2. vol. 66–7. Robinson and because of my own position on Beowulf. perhaps the Beowulf poet considers Sigemund and Heremod to express the same identity in different social environments. Finnur Jónsson vol. since Sigemund’s exploits publicize some disreputable aspects of heroic character.” see Marold. The offensively raw Sigemund legend as told in Scandinavian sources may differ from the presumably “sanitized” version transmitted in Beowulf.” 874b) he has heard. The idea is that. p. Sigemund still exhibits a prototypical heroism that Beowulf should emulate if he would earn fame like Sigemund’s. Brown 442–3./qvað hroptatyr/gangit i gögn grami . ” Although his translation “extreme need” for “fyrenðearfe” (Beowulf 14b) and for “firinum tharf ” in Heliand 204 calls to mind the Modern English usage “I have a terrible [extreme] thirst.” 885b) earned by such a venture. Grendel]. One wonders not whether the Anglo-Saxons knew about the incest. 879a). perhaps “influenced by late Latin nepos in the sense of ‘illegitimate son (especially of an ecclesiastic).”21 but the pejorative sense “sin” is available and contextually suitable.) and the concept of self-judgment (terminating a feud through a payment assessed by oneself or one’s allies) occur sporadically in Old English verse. . according to Mezger. and three times in Beowulf. Sigemund’s exploits are called ellendæd (876a.23 Finally. it may be their defining characteristic. The oversight seems pointed. and Robinson raises yet another objection (“Sigemund’s fæhðe ond fyrena” 202). 22 The Latin influence is so slight as to be unlikely. Sigemund’s own (an “audacious act”: “frecne dæde. 20 On this collocation. his travels (and.” etc. slayer of all her brothers except Sigmundr. by extension. One wonders whether the poet pretends that a “wronged” Sigemund is entitled to vengeance. 23 The expression “selfes dome” (“agen dom. “fæhðe ond fyrene” in Beowulf 2480a. Griffith finds reason to think that Sigemund’s ellendæd are “brazen deeds” rather than “bold” ones. 900a). “shows the least degree of relationship to the ancient institution of self-judgment (109).” 895a).” “an dom. the scandal of greed (plundering the treasure “selfes dome” or “on his own terms. onslaught.’ ”22 In Norse legend Sigmundr’s sister Signý conceives Sinfjötli (= OE Fitela) with her brother as a hoped-for avenger on Signý’s husband. see Kahrl 192. Even by Robinson’s reasoning. but why they should not know of it.e. his reputation) are widespread.” 889a) shares in multiple equivocacies: the secular “glory” (“dom. Robinson objects to the supposititious translation “crimes” for “fyrena. When compared to Beowulf ’s dragon-slaying. Kahrl alleges that feuds have a bivalent character depending on motivation: “The distinction is that which we regularly make between the reckless courage of the criminal who has abandoned all hope and whose actions are purely selfish [i. the hero’s potential for recklessness. Sigemund and Fitela are also said to . feud and crimes” (876b. Sigemund’s incest with his sister Signý may be suggested in the subtle connotations of OE nefa.e. My examination of OE wrecca (below) shows the identical admixture of violence and eminence. There is no reason for these terms to be unequivocally pejorative. For Griffith.20 Fred C. and the selfless courage of the hero who places the good he is defending before his instinct for self-preservation [i. In fact. . Yet the concept in Beowulf. 21 In “Sigemund’s fæhðe ond fyrena” Robinson says that “sufferings” might be as secure a rendering as “crimes” for “fyrena. Siggeir. but they can raise doubts about Sigemund’s behavior. Beowulf ]” (191).the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 65 including “many unspeakable things . still refers to an enemy’s unexpected.” Robinson is ultimately right. Deliberate or unintended violence apparently characterizes wreccan like Sigemund. and possibly unjustified. descriptive of the “suffering caused by Ongentheow when he attacked the Geatas” (205). “Significance of Names” 51–2. a plausible case could be mounted for Sigemund’s potentially equivocal virtue. Danish and Anglo-Saxon genealogies suggest that Heremod could have been Scyld’s immediate ancestor.e. but Griffith denies that Beowulf could ever be designated a wrecca like Sigemund. Pride and Prodigies 49 (“war-spirit”). The poet. Orchard. Robinson seems to accept Karl Müllenhoff’s gloss “kriegerischer Mut” or “warminded” (Beovulf 51). pp. that Sigemund actually betrays a dubious Germanic morality. the most famous examples of which are Lucifer and Cain. Sigemund may express an exile’s misery and aggression. . 163–6). The Rapacious King Heremod Griffith’s article does not treat Heremod. but the actions of a despot who brought ruin on his population might answer the condition of “terrible need” even better. who is just as intrepid as Sigemund but more obviously detestable.” which Griffith is disposed to translate “Jute” but which I think means either “enemy” or “giant” (below. Meaney 11 ff. In some discussions Heremod has been connected to the figure Lotherus. 24 Chambers calls it a “close parallel” but he equivocates: “assuming the stories of Lother and Heremod to be different stories of the same original . as I theorize. Overall. which.” 14b) right before Scyld’s advent. see Sievers 175–80. . offers authoritative analyses of the genealogical evidence and onomastic equivalences. Jutes) and therefore “innocent. On the connection between Lotherus and Heremod. For this reason Griffith thinks that Beowulf and Sigemund are subtly contrasted in the episode.24 Had Heremod’s death followed a time of interminable national warfare. mentioned in Saxo’s Historia Danorum as the father of Scyld. One must always bear in mind the aptness of Heremod’s name. In emphasizing Heremod’s “pugnacious. Griffith claims. . cruel disposition” (51). has deliberately under-reported or camouflaged Sigemund’s offenses to distinguish Beowulf as a secular pre-Christian (“a noble pagan”). Being “aldorlease//lange hwile” or “without a king for a long time” (15b–16a) could be considered a dire misery. however. differs from Beowulf ’s unequivocal rectitude.” (Beowulf 90).” but the dual sense of OE eoten still confirms the ambivalence Griffith attends in the passage. he alleges. he asserts.66 chapter one there is the problem of Sigemund’s status as a wrecca. not “War-Minded” per se but “Army-Minded.”25 lay low a number of “eoten. Robinson. Griffith asks whether Sigemund’s enemies were human (i. 25 Björkman 63–5. it would explain the Danes’ “fyrenðearfe” (“terrible need. the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 67 Heremod’s viciousness is paralleled in Saxo’s account of King Lotherus. The story itself clarifies the sense of comp. Another may be represented by Sigebryht deposed by Cynewulf in the 755 Chronicle entry. He judged those whom he had held equal in rank to be enemies of the state. who “was no more tolerant as a king than he was as a soldier” (“sed nec Lotherus tolerabiliorem regem quam militem egit”). Saxo’s aperçu that Lotherus “was no more tolerant as a king than he was as a soldier” not only imparts how to read the Sigemund/Heremod digression but also highlights the substance of Beowulf as a work obsessed with the incompatibility of heroism and kingship. “Geoweorþa” 332–5). siquidem illustrissimum quemque uita aut opibus spoliare. adopted by Chambers. the first Iugurtha. the poet named “Deor” expresses sympathetic misery with the men whose lived under the tyrant Ermanaric (lines 21a–7b). patriamque bonis ciuibus uacuefacere probitatis loco duxit.28 While Sievers’ summary of the Lotherus/ Heremod story. Humblus learns to accept his loss of honor as a blessing (“beneficio”). tolerabilior. ut plus splendoris.26 Lotherus savagely killed his own high-born men or robbed them—exactly as Hroðgar alleges Heremod did in Beowulf:27 . ita minus securitatis aulis quam tuguriis inesse. adj. since Lotherus dispossesses his modest brother “Humblus” to gain the throne. who reigned ca. The Lotherus story even echoes the fratricidal theme of Beowulf.” 29 Other examples of the arrogant king can be found in Anglo-Saxon sources. 705–716 (see Whitelock. as described in the “Ælfredian” Orosius (see Stanley. observing that there is more splendor but less security in a king’s hall than in a fisherman’s hovel. for reasons of security he undertook to despoil the most illustrious men of life or riches. regni emulos ratus. . “Poetry and the Historian” 77–8). the narrative contrast in Saxo emphasizes the humble and the arrogant.” 27 Ibid. includes a “weakling” elder brother and deposed king. In Beowulf Heremod kills his own beodgeneatas (“table-companions. He did not bestow rings on the Danes (1719b–20a). .: “documentum hominibus prebuit. Indeed. 26 . 28 Ibid. More specifically. quos nobilitate pares habuerat.29 Holder 11. Finally.” 1714a). A third is Osred I of Northumbria.” 1713b). which can mean either “tolerable” or “tolerant. and to empty his homeland of its leading citizens. his eaxlgesteallan (“men stationed with him shoulder-to-shoulder. The singer’s hearers. Though the poem is set in the pagan past. and guests commemorating Beowulf ’s victory? What is the thane’s objective in telling the Danes this story and not another? Like so many other digressions in Beowulf. Geats. He is a noble pagan. conflicts. Clearly. hence indispensable to each other 30 Griffith 40. a sublimation of this past. strange encounters (“uncuþes fela.68 chapter one By themselves the parallels from Germanic literature do not explain why a Danish thane would compare Beowulf either to Sigemund or Heremod right after Beowulf has killed Grendel. the stories of Sigemund and Heremod evaluate Beowulf ’s success against Grendel and predict his fate. since only the Beowulf poet’s audience. the poet does not see his hero as a pagan. the potential in Heremod’s behavior is as negative as it is prodigious—as much as critics might be dismayed to hear it. and not the unidentified singer. Beowulf ’s Future Foretold Let us first consider Sigemund’s unquestionable glory. For the singer Beowulf resembles both Sigemund and Heremod in conviction and “potential” as a precocious champion. his deeds are done in this past. and not at this single narrative moment.30 But what function does the episode serve for these Danes. but the observation is much less relevant for the Danes.” 882a–b). but his nature is not entirely of it. the inhabitants of Beowulf ’s world. Griffith concludes. and wide travels—his “fæhðe ond fyrena.” 876b). While Griffith admirably draws together the verbal parallels in depictions of Sigemund and Beowulf. . can discern that future. The narrator specifies that Sigemund’s companion Fitela participated in and witnessed Sigemund’s ellendæd. It is undeniably true that Beowulf ’s dragon fight differs from Sigemund’s. Yet the alleged function of historical analogies anticipates the comparison. the past as the poet dreams it might at best have been. “necessary comrades in every hostility” (“æt niða gehwam/nydgesteallan. the thane remarks.” as it were. would detect an implicit application to Beowulf of the Sigemund/Heremod exempla. They were. his argument contextualizes the digression in the poem as a whole. who is without question the subordinate partner in Sigemund’s adventures. that Sigemund accomplished his deed without risking Fitela. The absence of Fitela in Sigemund’s dragon fight documents the thematic relevance of Heremod’s tale as one of two possible futures for Beowulf: “scrupulous” heroism or infamy.” he will cite him as someone afflicted with oferhygd and teach Beowulf to recognize any similar recklessness in himself. that Sigemund earned the greatest honor when he fought the dragon single-handed in this dangerous attack. because multiple digressions warn against one’s susceptibility to oferhygd (as a king) or excessive ambition (as a warrior). From this story Beowulf learns one trait that will make him an exemplary champion: not to involve other. of course.” . Verse 889b is highly unusual. A second possibility also seems feasible./ne wæs him Fitela mid” (“he ventured an audacious deed alone. Sigemund concedes the liability of his nefa. “Postpositions” 543.31 The secg could be suggesting. his otherwise indispensable comrade. is especially important for leaders. it turns out. restrain his ambition (the “arrogance” Saxo speaks of ) and acknowledge a duty to his subalterns. When Heremod became king. When Hroðgar discusses Heremod again in his “sermon. Saxo ultimately supplies a clue to understanding the episode. or would not.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 69 except in the case of the dragon. since it must bear stress on “Fitela” and “mid. most recently. In fact. From my analysis emerges the picture of Sigemund as the ideal warrior (of implicit moral ambivalence) gaining glory on his own and Heremod as the worst tyrant sacrificing his own men for reckless vanity. less capable men. we should expect to find charges of recklessness in the Heremod analogy. This trait. Michael Lapidge supplies a list of such postponed adjectives in “Postponing of Prepositions. Heremod fails to confront the limitations of his men dependent on their loyalty. This special kind of “tyranny”—a king’s failure to restrain the impetuosity associated with heroic self-regard—is called “oferhygd” in Beowulf.” a circumstance which accents the importance of Sigemund’s solo venture. in a possibly disastrous undertaking. in his most reckless encounters. Fitela was not with him. The poet not merely conveys but emphasizes the remarkable technicality that Sigemund fought a dragon alone: “ana geneðde//frecne dæde. Only as a kind of Sigemund would it be acceptable 31 On this archaism see the discussion in Wende and. he failed to put aside the soldier and became “tyrannical” because he could not. For all his theoretical failings.” 888b–89b). in Lehmann. 34 “ ‘Seeds of Sorrow’ ” 3. Sigemund makes off with the treasure by himself: “he was able to enjoy the ring-hoard on his own terms” (“he beahhordes/brucan moste// selfes dome. .” 894a–5a). extended in his “sermon. The anonymous singer relates Heremod’s iniquity in the vaguest terms: “whelming sorrows oppressed him too long” (“Hine sorhwylmas//lemedon to lange.v. a recognition of the unpredictability of fate . ealdorcaru: “mortal grief.” 33 OE lemman literally means “to lame.” 906b) who should rather have offered his nation comfort. the possibility of a change of fortune for the better. [withdrawal] from the world of social interaction—language. Heremod views wealth the way Sigemund does: earned by himself without concession to his warband.33 These “sorrows” go unspecified. The poet remarks that “in former days many a wise man often lamented the wilful man’s ‘course’ or ‘venture’ ” (“swylce oft bemearn/ ærran mælum//swiðferhþes sið/snotor ceorl monig. 5. cf. and then only alone. The editors of Klaeber’s Beowulf emend to “lemedon.” and Anglo-Saxon poets often described sorrow as paralyzing. This future could await Beowulf.70 chapter one for a man to attack a dragon.36 In Beowulf OE sið means either 32 Stressing the poet’s own observation of Fitela’s absence. So could Heremod’s ruin.32 Heremod is likewise unwilling to share glory with his retinue by rewarding them. perhaps ‘life-long anxiety’ ”. After fighting the dragon.”35 Heremod’s misery derives from a failure to limit his own ambition and to embrace the warrior’s consolation mentioned above. but this vice is mentioned only in Hroðgar’s gidd. . DOE s. . . My justification for this view comes from an examination of verses in the Sigemund/Heremod digression. see Klaeber. 36 Cf. One could be “bound” by sorrows ( gebunden) or “roped” by sorrows ( gesæled ). however.”34 This is a philosophy of Germanic fatalism. or else by the frustration of his heroic ego. The failed warfare of his comitatus may also explain Heremod’s famous stinginess. and one clear parallel between him and Sigemund involves material honors. . . Ruth Wehlau frames a warrior’s consolation in three related expectations: “an awareness of the brevity of worldly joy . 35 Ibid. Lucas 108–9 calls Sigemund’s deed “an individual act of heroic proportions. Heremod cannot give up soldiering.” 907a–8b) and that Heremod became an “aldorceare” (“life-sorrow.” Prone to oferhygd. gift-giving and feuding. although one senses that his paralysis is caused by repeated military defeats or Pyrrhic victories.” but on the singular verb form with plural subject. While it might be true for Wehlau’s precedents that “the failure of consolation revolves around a failure of exchange . lifcearu in . “Textual Interpretation” 259.” 904b–5a). Genesis A (“sagast lifceare//hean hygegeomor. . specifically the massacre of Hæðcyn’s army. . and.” 878b–9b.” 2937b).” 1427b–8b (following a description of Andreas’s sufferings). .” 1206b) when he ventured to Frisia. “Death is far more preferable to me than this life-long misery. OE wea itself may simply mean military annihilation.” 421a) who have “asked for woe” (“wean ahsodon.”38 but it is used elsewhere in Old English explicitly to describe exile or extermination. The phrase “wean on wenum” has generally been translated “in expectation of woe. lament their king’s “banishment”? In fact. and the Israelites in Exodus await a national extermination at the banks of the Red Sea: “orwenan/eðelrihtes . Punished by exile. the specific designation “many a wise man” evokes the wisdom tradition of warrior moderation in opposition to recklessness.” 423b). his shore party was lost. . in expectation of woe. course of action. they wonder. 37 Read wenum for wenan. in his expression that many men lamented Heremod’s “sið. . 38 Whitbread. Cain lays his tracks “in expectation of woe” (Genesis A 1026b–7b). Therefore.39 This biography therefore illustrates the kind of belligerence that could have led to Heremod’s exile. .” 206–7. Hygelac “asked for woe” (“wean ahsode. The language resembles that of verses in Deor: “sæt secg monig/sorgum gebunden. Wise men “lament” the actions of a despot who brings them (or has brought them) to ruin./þæt þe sie hrægles þearf .37 Here the tyrant Ermanaric governs the Goths with such ferocity that his own men lament their king’s warfare and expect genocide. “Four Text-Notes.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 71 “journey” or “venture.” 211a–13a). at least in the abstract. exploit.” and some readers have been unable to establish the sense in this context. “wretched and disheartened you call it a ‘life-long care’ that you have need of raiment”) and Andreas (“Is me feorhgedal//leofre mycle/þonne þeos lifcearo”. but the following statement that Heremod cut down his own men (1713a–14a) seems to specify the preceding acts as murder. with the exception of Beowulf. Similarly. Often paired with “exile” in Old English verse. wean on wenum” (“deprived of a right to a homeland . Do Heremod’s men. including Beowulf. The expression “Deniga leodum” could imply that Heremod endangered his men in unnecessary conflicts.” the secg may imply a fact intimated in Hroðgar’s “sermon”: Heremod’s behavior endangers his men and even his nation. In Beowulf Ongenþeow has promised “woe” for the Geats (“wean oft gehet. in expectation of woe.//wean on wenan” (“many a man sat bound by sorrows. . Beowulf punishes a race of giants (“eotena cyn. too. 39 In lines 1711a–12b: “ne weox he him to willan/ac to wælfealle//ond to deaðcwalum/Deniga leodum” (“he did not grow to accommodate their desires but for the slaughter and massacre of the Danish people”).” 24a–5a). in Andreas 1619a–b. Bately. To be quickly “forsended” means to die right away. quickly subdued. . “mid eotenum” becomes important. snude forsended. and Juliana characterizes martyrdom as an exile in “Juliana” 438a–b: “Þonne ic beom onsended/wið soðfæstum”. The agent goes unstated. unto death. most have seen Heremod betrayed by his own Danes.” Finally.” where Heremod’s worst offense is to risk national well-being out of jeal- Heremod’s “exile” has been inferred from the following lines: He mid eotenum wearð on feonda geweald forð forlacen. The expression “forð forlacen” is varied by “snude forsended” (“quickly exiled”).40 This reading finds further support in Hroðgar’s “sermon. and the adverb is difficult. “Interpretations and Emendations VIII” 117. cf. By this logic. see Afros 436. cf. Like Grendel.” as in Beowulf 2265b–6b: “Bealocwealm hafað//fela feorhcynna/forð onsended!” (“Baleful death has banished the lives of many men!”).e.” 613b–14a). Orosius 120 (line 18). one attestation in Andreas reveals that fate also “deceives” or “seduces”: “Hie seo wyrd beswac. if we construed eoten (“giant”) as a locution for “enemy. (Blake unnecessarily suggests that “on feonda geweald” describes the Christian hell. however. and OE forsendan (attested only seven times) does describe banishment. 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). . A. where “feorð biþ on siþe” (“his spirit is/will be on a journey”) is said of a dying man.” which elsewhere seems to describe Grendel’s spirit passing to hell after his combat with Beowulf: “se ellorgast//on feonda geweald/feor siðian” (“the foreign spirit/guest traveled far into the power of enemies. and particularly on the account of Lotherus from Saxo. but the locution may simply mean “he died” [“Heremod Digressions” 284]). This reading of OE forsendan explains a second difficulty in the passage.22). Kock has compared the half-line to a clause in the Old English Orosius: “hie sendon . Heremod metaphorically “travels” in death. The phrase “wearð forð forlacen” is modified by a circumlocution “on feonda geweald. on the simplex lacan. þone consul mid him mid firde” (“they sent the consul against him with an army”) (“Interpretations and Emendations VIII” 117).“Heremod Digressions” 284. resp.72 chapter one On the evidence of lines 902b–4a from the Sigemund/Heremod digression. Heremod might therefore have been betrayed into the hands of devils by death. Ernst A. Blake. The Martyrology also confirms that. Kock and Malone propose that Heremod fell under the power of his “enemies”. In the Old English Martyrology the collocation gast + onsendan commonly describes death. a figure confirmed in Fortunes of Men 26b. (902b–4a) Most interpret “wearð forð forlacen” as “was betrayed” or “lured” by his people.” 807b–8b). While OE forlacan is attested only four times.’ Here mid Eotenum is a variation of feonda. i. Yet adverb snude suggests that forsended may express Heremod’s ultimate “exile”—death. “Ealhhild” 268: “ ‘he was betrayed into the power of his enemies the Euts. cf. deceived and misled. interpreting the passage “wearð forð forlacen” as “was betrayed” or “lured away” by his people. If to be “lured away and quickly dispatched into the power of fiends” describes Heremod’s death as an exile. in the case of the tyrant Þeodric.” Another reading of “on feonda geweald” is suggested below (337 note 90). one could be “sent off” into “everlasting fire”: “Þæt wæs swiðe riht þæt he from þæm mannum twæm wære sended on þæt ece fyr þa he ær unrihtlic ofsloh in þyssum life” (Kotzor My 18. the effect of being “lured forth. To be “betrayed forth” or “lured away” may mean to be utterly betrayed. 40 . “When I am exiled amongst the righteous”).//forleolc and forlærde” (“that destiny betrayed them.” we could read: “among his enemies he was betrayed right away into the power of fiends. but only Sigemund’s course is thought to affirm Beowulf ’s. but the thane contemplates Beowulf ’s future from the subaltern vantage of the Grendel fight. However. In the preceding description of Sigemund. . ellendædum —he þæs ær onðah— siððan Heremodes hild sweðrode. This anonymous poet. Beowulf could rival Sigemund.) He became his men’s rival. but finds only three wreccan in Beowulf: Sigemund. For reasons I shall develop. detects in Beowulf a streak of reckless condescension that might evolve into arrogance towards a warband. These retainers in turn banished their king. actually a warrior seemingly versed in traditional wisdom poetry. In other words. whose life is one that Beowulf should live up to but whose own achievement expresses an important heroic limitation. under different circumstances (presumably the right circumstances). (898a–902a) 41 This I take to mean that Heremod was the most famous wrecca before his death. Griffith does not mention the possibility. and Hroðgar has the same worry. . Hengest. as if he were competing with them for honors in the warband setting. he alienated the warriors who would support his ventures and ensure his own glory.” Sigemund and arguably Heremod are identified as wreccan in Beowulf. Heremod’s story therefore teaches Beowulf that men like Sigemund could become tyrants like Heremod. (The sermon is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3. It seems surprising that Beowulf could be thought of as imperious. susceptible to vices like oferhygd. after Heremod’s war-strength failed”:41 Se wæs wreccena wide mærost ofer werþeode. and Eanmund (38). inasmuch as we are told that Sigemund was “the most famous of wreccan . should he become a king. “wreccena mærost” varies “wigendra hleo. eafoð ond ellen. Identity of the Wrecca in Beowulf and Old English Verse The principal reason why Beowulf could become an arrogant king derives from his profile as an exceptional warrior with the latent tendencies of a wrecca or “exile.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 73 ous resentment. By killing his own men and failing to share his riches. this encomiast expects that Beowulf could turn out like Heremod.”a phrase used of Beowulf in lines 1972b and 2337b and of Hroðgar in 429b. wigendra hleo. both stories offer comparisons to Beowulf. not that Sigemund was the most famous in the time after Heremod’s demise. . Perhaps an exile like the Wanderer and Seafarer is the dispossessed king. The contrast implies that Sigemund supplanted Heremod as the most celebrated wrecca.42 If the later Scandinavian sources are any guide. although the reason for her isolation is unknown. The anonymous woman in “The Wife’s Lament” is identified as an “exile. neither the Wanderer nor the Seafarer lives as a fugitive committing fæhðu or fyrene. the protector of heroes.” OE wrecca is related to a host of Old English nouns and verbs with meanings of “force” or “misery. a verse from Maxims I attributes misery to isolation in general. He had so prospered. almost certainly in exploitation of the exile trope in poems like The Wanderer and The Seafarer.” that is a man “driven” or “expelled” (from his people) and consequently “suffering” in exile. The Beowulf poet.74 chapter one After Heremod’s war-strength failed. At the same time. A second type of wrecca. will be wretched. . or like the Last Survivor in Beowulf (2231–70). 42 The woman in The Wife’s Lament also calls herself a wrecca (10a) and twice speaks of “wræcsið” (5b.” ostracized from the kindred for reasons unknown. Often translated “exile” or “fugitive. and since Beowulf is compared to Sigemund and Heremod. [Sigemund] widely became the most famous of wreccan among the nations of men. however. Sigemund may belong to this category because Siggeir slaughtered his family and kept him exiled out of enmity and fear. In fact. 38b). explores a different emphasis in the wrecca identities he contemplates. She represents a different kind of outcast. his might and courage. lives in “exile” because war has taken their lord and companions. “Comitatus-Ideal”). destiny is decreed for him. and confirms the duality of OE wrecca as “exile” and “wretch”: Earm biþ se þe sceal wineleas wunian. for his deeds of glory. hafaþ him wyrd geteod. The Anglo-Saxons distinguished many kinds of wreccan. (172a–3b) He who must live alone. ana lifgan. dwell friendless. In such terms a warrior’s loyalty towards an earthly lord compares to a believer’s faith in a heavenly king. for example. he may be thought likely to join their company. The Exeter Book lyrics seem to have reworked familiar topoi of warrior “exile” to express a Christian perspective on worldly mutability. perhaps erotic. like the Wanderer or Seafarer in the Exeter Book poems. represented. in the very late Chronicle poem “Death of Edward” (16a–21b) and in Aldhelm’s Prosa de uirginitate (see Jones. the other explicit wreccan in Beowulf. One has the impression that Onela pursues them to Geatland because he does not want his mutinous nephews to join forces with Heardred. nearly precipitating a national invasion (“herebrogan.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 75 A less familiar type of wrecca found in heroic poetry refers to warriors who. They are not fighters who 43 Hickes’s printed texts reads “wrecten. fled to Denmark (presumably sparing his own homeland). More plausibly.” 459b) amongst the Wylfings. or to roaming warbands in commission of what today we might call piracy. In the Finnsburg Fragment. They rebelled against their king Onela and fled to Heardred for protection. and the identification may even allude to his role as the founder of the English nation.” emended as above. cf. have been exiled for different reasons entirely. Finally. and Hengest. 44 North. it has to be conceded that Hengest has joined Hnæf ’s warband as a foreigner in pursuit of glory. While the reasons for Hengest’s exile are never stated. on account of violent action or betrayal. have been exiled from their homelands. “Tribal Loyalties” 14. for he allegedly “killed” his brothers and now lives abroad in Hroðgar’s court.” 462a). and the sons of Ongenðeow are never called wreccan in Beowulf. Of these figures. Eanmund and Eadgils are called “wræcmæcgas” as well. The standard edition is that in ASPR VI 7–16. Hickes 192–3. Hnæf has recruited other foreign fighters. In other words. Ecgþeow. Such men can attach themselves to royal comitatus in defense of far-flung kingdoms. three characters are: Sigemund. wreccan are foreigners with a history of aggression compelled to seek environments where they can. Dictionary definitions of OE wrecca as a voluntary exile (“soldier-of-fortune. .” “glory-seeker. Simply on the basis of the Wylfing feud. he also calls to mind the social identity of the wrecca. Beowulf ’s own father Ecgþeow caused the “greatest feud” (“fæhðe mæste. and settled in Geatland.” 25a). only Hengest could be identified as an “exile” in the terms I describe above. Hunferð evokes it.” “adventurer”) rely largely on this attestion (see Griffith 37–8). irrespective of its precise cause. Heremod. The Beowulf poet explores this identity.44 Sigemund and Heremod. as it were. Sigeferþ was exiled involuntarily and joined Hnæf ’s company.” “mercenary. express their ambition and belligerence.” to use the euphemism.” probably in error for “wreccen.43 and he is a “prince of the Secgan.” It seems plausible. and on his itinerancy. therefore. While Hunferð. that Sigeferþ and Hengest have joined Hnæf ’s warband either for national defense or for an “expedition. the man Sigeferþ calls himself “a wrecca known widely” (“wreccea wide cuð. too. Sigemund goes on to commit acts of violence that characterize other exiles like him. and . Apart from his professed loyalty. Beowulf generates the reservations associated with ambitious strangers. he is greeted by the foreigner Wulfgar. the uncoupled loyalties expressed by foreign fighters engender profound anxieties about personal ambition relative to group welfare. and especially the most ambitious. not at all because of exile” (338a–b). comrades. and this ambivalence is especially worrisome when they are endowed with exceptional strength—the usual case with such men. Heremod. the “feuds and crimes” that would perhaps yield a less disparaging reputation in a warband context. Beowulf seeks glory. Both the voluntary fighter (a specific kind of mercenary) and the compulsory exile share similar traits: ambition. In a world where one’s identity derives largely from relationships within a kindred. As a man who has left behind his lord. As an unknown foreign fighter. a supreme victory that will afford him an enduring reputation. yet it characterizes a latent ambition in Beowulf detected by some observers in the poem’s Germanic setting. This absence of natural affiliations by institutionalized reciprocity is the essential distinction between a native warband member and a foreigner like Beowulf. who concludes that Beowulf has come “for reasons of glory. Sigemund lives in exile because of Siggeir’s hostility and not from any violence that earned him expulsion. and impaired loyalties. All foreign fighters therefore have a liminal status. as we have seen. He is a special case. This calculated appraisal frames the ambiguous terms of Beowulf ’s arrival. Nevertheless. the potential for unchecked zeal. Not every foreign fighter could be called a wrecca. His exile at the hands of his own people—probably the members of his retinue—recalls the motivation of warrior appetites that he failed to suppress. tribal allegiance. different from the native members of a royal retinue whose motivations would hinge on kinship ties. was exiled for his behavior as a warrior-king. When Beowulf reaches Heorot. but many. some of whom are wreccan. As far as we can tell from evidence and inference. have the potential to become wreccan. aggression. and the patronage of long-term gift exchange. The Beowulf poet’s fascination with the wrecca identity has rarely interested critics. and some of whom might become wreccan. The wrecca exemplar that Heremod represents therefore describes a psychopathy related to the unrestrained ambition that causes a warrior’s banishment.76 chapter one attach themselves to warbands. His rule began well but turned violent in the expression of untempered ambition and jealousy. and family to confront monsters abroad. On these attributes see the wrecca context proposed in Hanley. Central to this potential failing. While Cain is typically viewed as a “criminal” exiled as punishment for his violence. Even in Saxo’s Gesta Danorum. a hostility that made him livid (“blatende nið. Hence. the Beowulf poet examines Beowulf ’s heroic motivation in just these terms. The intradiegetic comparison of Beowulf to wreccan and the men who resemble such exiles suggests that Beowulf may share their identity. He describes an exile’s distinctive mentality and its reflexes in multiple social environments as a way of discovering the proper. “aldorbanan. They know that ambition unbounded by the duties and respect owed to a king or to comrades can produce wreccan. the figures of Beowulf ’s world work to quash any latent recklessness he seems to exhibit. he goes on to found a nation with a distinguished lineage. a surge of temper (“hygewælm”) rose from his breast (980b–1a). the limits of his ambition. All wreccan who are not bereft of lords plausibly exhibit Cain’s cynical jealousy and impetuous rage to some extent.46 This event would explain his presence in Heorot.” 588a).” 1033b. aggression. in light of his exceptionality. and Old English writings document this failing as ambition.” 1097a). his enmity is figured not only as improper jealousy of a (moral) superior (cf. implicated in the deaths of his chief kinsmen (“heafodmægum. Cain’s violence is a sudden. uncontrollable fury. Both Cain and Lucifer are identified as wreccan in Old English biblical poetry. Beowulf betrays no evident ties to Hroðgar or to the Danes. are the subjective authorities who confront Beowulf ’s promise. Perhaps the same could be said of Hunferð. but as the overthrow of the humble by the arrogant—the terms used of Lotherus in Saxo’s Heremod parallel. and impaired loyalty. In my view. for which reason his motivation “for glory” may be seen to worry his hosts.45 Moreover. In the absence of confident knowledge. ethical limits of heroic action. who distinctly resembles Sigemund (and Beowulf ) in social identity. and the motivation is of special significance: “anger” lay heavy in his heart (979b–80a). of course.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 77 Hroðgar’s contact with Ecgþeow. In Genesis A Cain is described as a “wineleas wrecca” (1051a) for having killed Abel.” 981b). “ordbanan. Comparisons of Beowulf to wreccan real or apparent suggest a specific heroic vice to which Beowulf may be prone. the legendary Starkaðr. the “hero” must be cautioned to suppress any possible venality in awareness of the potential for moral and political depravity. has been described as an “alien within 45 46 . duguðum bedeled. (119a–24a) Lowly and wretched. a crime against the “æðelinga ord” (“chief of princes. unjustified entitlement characterizes wreccan like him. pp.” 386a–b). Arrogant. 48 On this image of the devils’ darts as featured in Hroðgar’s “sermon.” 387a) oppose the “fædera lare” (“teachings of the patriarchs. “Starkaðr” 170.” see below. By confronting his own lord./worn geþenceþ//hinderhoca. mostly involving murder. and the identification of Satan-cum-exile is fully developed in Christ and Satan:47 Forðon ic sceal hean and earm hweorfan ðy widor. when mixed with fanatical daring. Andreas describes Matthew’s imprisonment in terms of exile. wadan wræclastas.” 393a). .” 33a–4a). The devil’s presumptuous challenge of God’s supremacy justifies the punishment of exile. Stemming from Viking or troll ancestry.48 Some warriors are given to vainglory. 180). wander all the more widely. leading to foolish undertakings (“dyslice/dæd gefremedon” (“you committed foolish acts. possess no joy on high amongst the angels. The devil in Juliana is a “wræcca wærleas” (“disloyal exile. wuldre benemed. 185 resp. 203–10.78 chapter one The notion of Satan as the chief wrecca is widespread in Old English literature. God “makes a home of exile” for the disloyal angels in Genesis A (“Sceop þam werlogan//wræclicne ham. nænigne dream agan uppe mid ænglum. the ruler of creatures. society. The Exeter Book poem Vainglory condemns the hall-life of warriors as a secular distraction and warns against the “flying spears” of pride.” 388a). “Disloyalty” in these passages imparts the treachery of rebellion against an established superior. deprived of glory and divested of honors. because I had said that I alone was the governor of the skies.” 1381a–b). Satan disavows the covenant (“wær”) of a sacred oath or implicit social harmony. cheat and scheme (“Wrenceþ he ond blenceþ. for every lifetime he is given to live (ibid. The height of this arrogance is the Crucifixion. Similarly. this cruelty.).” and as having an “implacability and non-restraint” (Ciklamini. 47 See also 186a–b: “þæs ðe ic geþohte adrifan/drihten of selde” (“because I intended to drive my lord from his throne”). In Elene 386a–93a the Jews—called “cursed exiles” (“werge wræcmæcggas. þes ðe ic ær gecwæð þæt ic wære seolfa swægles brytta.” 36a–7b). He commits three crimes or níðingverk. They plot. and the lesson is carefully elaborated in the Old English Vainglory.” 351a). one perfidious act. for Matthew “scorned the heavenly king’s instruction” (“ðu forhogedes/heofoncyninges word. commonly describes the socially marginal “heroes” of many Icelandic sagas. Any figure who challenges his lord’s supremacy becomes identified as an exile. wihta wealdend. I must traverse the paths of exile. ” 109b–10a)—in terms of the wrecca’s savagery: Oþer hyne scyhte. Multiple homilies treat human existence as a kind of exile. This same attitude could be attributed to Satan as well as other infamous “exiles” in Old English poetry.51 Grendel 49 Krapp and Dobbie end the gidd at line 77a.50 and unnaturally violent—incapable of restraint.78–80. 61b).” 48b). The exemplum of Lucifer in verses 57a–66b illustrates how the proud shall be cast down. but I end it at 66b for structural reasons. including kinsmen. Willard 83. Wulfstan 1–3). confined in hell.g. butan hy þy reafe rædan motan. “Grendel the Exile” 380: “[The poet] demands that we see Grendel as both wicked monster and wretched man. made wretched. unless through them they may learn about plunder. swa doð wræcmæcgas þa þe ne bimurnað monnes feore þæs þe him to honda huþe gelædeð. it has not been suggested that Grendel could be deemed a displaced marauder in search of a duguð. to hell. especially Grendel. The angels “forsawan hyra sellan” (“scorned their betters”) just as the proud man “boð his sylfes//swiþor micle/þonne se sella mon” (“boasts that he is much greater than the better man. contemptuous of their superiors.” As far as I am aware. Napier.49 This gidd compares the predicted fall (or damnation) of a proud warrior in terms matching the fall of the angels.” 31b.” 49a. Yet the context of OE wrecca can suggest as much. (127a–32b) Another [devil] urged him to seek out at night a party of raiders and through daring to strive after worldly goods. in other words. þæt he sceaðena gemot nihtes sohte ond þurh neþinge wunne æfter worulde. The fallen angels and the proud man resort to deceit (“swice. “Theme of ‘Exile’ ”.” 55b). since Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden for their rebellion against God (e. “niþer gebiged.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 79 they live a shameful life (“hafað fræte lif. The poet of Guðlac A describes the devil’s temptation of Guðlac—a man who “loved many audacious deeds” (“gelufade//frecnessa fela.” 28b–9b). Old English texts consistently document the nature of wreccan as arrogant. The angels and the proud are literally brought low (“grundfusne gæst. 43b. . and held firmly in torments. just like exiles do who do not care for the lives of the men at whose hands they gain booty. Baird. 50 The Old English Orosius mentions a certain Lacedemonian “wreccea” named Damerað who commited treachery against his kin (“se þæt facn to his cyþþe gebodade”) (Bately 46. and both parties are afflicted by oferhygd (23b. The analogy compares the fallen angels to the proud thane. By repudiating loyalty and honor.9–10). 51 Greenfield. the wrecca fosters these sociopathic impulses. 58b). ” 168a–9b. Hill perceives Beowulf ’s voluntary aid to Hroðgar as a generous commitment. asserting that “glory has yet to enter into this developing equation [the “free warrior duty-call . a heroic virtue which begets Sigemund’s and Heremod’s supreme distinction in both their social environments. “for metode” has been retained in Klaeber’s Beowulf. nor could he know the devotion of it. unlike Beowulf. as predicted by the thane’s comparison of him to Sigemund and Heremod. .”54 Certainly. 53 Robinson. . Greenfield contemplated an opposing argument that Hroðgar may not approach the gift-throne. but Greenfield had not considered the meaning of OE gretan that Robinson elucidates. He may well share his father’s constitution as a glory-seeker. In this case Hill retains Klaeber’s reading “for Metode” and understands Grendel “coming not as a guest but as something ghastly” (ibid.80 chapter one especially fits the profile of an unnaturally irascible “warrior” who “could not pay respect to the gift-throne” or even “know the devotion of it.” and it seems logical that Beowulf might earn the same status. famous.). and traveling to Denmark to fight Grendel. killing giants in an unspecified location./ne his myne wisse”. I see in these terms the same parallel of Grendel as an anti-thane. Pride and Prodigies 62.”53 Such a “lawless retainer” could be described as a wrecca. into whose special guardianship the hall has been given. Yet more than “mere” courage suggests that Beowulf ought to be viewed as having the disposition of a wrecca. Stanley B. for the suggestion of Grendel as a lapsed retainer. this partisan view of Beowulf ’s enthusiasm for the 52 “No he þone gifstol/gretan moste. valiant proposal” to battle Grendel]. . nor would he have known of Bammesberger’s reading “formetode”. 54 Narrative Pulse 21. Wulfgar. My translation “pay respect to” for OE gretan follows the argument in Robinson. We are led to believe that Beowulf ’s contest is unmotivated . and illustrious lord. John M. “Gifstol. The motivation for such acts is not likely to be high-minded. theorizing that Grendel does not have Hroðgar’s royal permission as well as his “welcoming or questioning or expectant thoughts” (10). Baird. see Howren and Orchard. Beowulf is praised for an unyielding ferocity or ellen (“courage”). “Nor could he pay respect to the gift-throne (he despised treasure or he despised the precious thing). as a lawless retainer who refuses to respect civilized customs. as few have assumed.” The reading “formetode” was proposed by Bammesberger.”52 At lines 168a–9b “Grendel is portrayed . . a status explaining why Hroðgar might endure “wræc micel” or “great torment” (170a): this particular wrecca cannot lay claim to the dignity of service in Hroðgar’s warband—unlike other foreign “exiles” (arguably Hunferð. “Five Beowulf Notes” 243–8. “Gifstol” 258. and Ecgþeow) who joined the Danish retinue. see “ ‘Gifstol’ and Goldhoard” 111–12. challenging Breca in Norway. unless it is implicit in his desire to help a glorious. Some celebrated heroes of Germanic legend are called “wreccan.//maþðum formetode. “Grendel the Exile” 378–96. Hill has addressed this concern again in Narrative Pulse. John M. Beowulf has yet to be admired as “mildust” (3181a). This crucial ambivalence explains the required indeterminacy of Sigemund’s glory.55 At the start of the poem. the Sigemund exemplum would suggest a moral ambivalence for Beowulf.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 81 Grendel fight contravenes Danish skepticism for Beowulf ’s readiness. it must be said. none of whom. innuendos and feints that. Is Beowulf Responsible for Hondscioh’s Death? Beowulf has come to Heorot to face Grendel—hopefully to slay Grendel. an assessment in any event arguably reminiscent of “de mortuis nil nisi bonum.” or in competing versions of the Volsung legend. however. but fears darker traits that confer both fame and infamy. His men. Yet direct reference to these acts in a comparison of famous wreccan to Beowulf would confute Beowulf ’s potential virtue. an oblique representation that the Beowulf poet aims to preserve. “Germanic Legend” 90. for men known as wreccan will commit acts of ambiguous virtue. Unless we follow Griffith’s line and imagine that the poet depicts Beowulf differently from Sigemund. Old English Verse 29. “monðwærust” (3181b) and “leodum liðost” (3182a). in sum. The secg who sings about Sigemund and Heremod therefore praises Beowulf ’s heroic profile. and perhaps their by ambition and that Beowulf ’s willingly risks his (present and future) obligations to Hygelac as well as his life to face a foreign king’s diabolical enemy. This coyness is quite deliberate. are much less capable. he seems able to handle the challenge. At the outset at least. Shippey. however.” Let me not impugn Beowulf. On the contrary. Being compared to wreccan puts Beowulf in the company of heroes of pan-Germanic eminence. abandoning one’s homeland to fight Grendel sounds far more like ambition (the “wlenco” that Wulfgar acknowledges) or exile (the motivation that Wulfgar rejects). he aims for a deliberate ambivalence. . undermine one’s complete confidence in Beowulf ’s magnanimity. have unimpeachable morals. a susceptibility to the transgressions implicit in the thane’s coy parlance of “fæhðe ond fyrena. Based on his confidence and strength. His game is suggestion. Rather like Achilles among the Achaeans. 55 Frank. for any inflexible criticism would misrepresent the poet’s own objectives. the Danes admire Beowulf ’s daring and mistrust his potential volatility. 58 I will ask you now. prince of the Bright Danes. “Poetic Phrases. now that I have come thus from afar.” 59 Hill reads this “spectacular boast” as an act that would gratify Hygelac. eodor Scyldinga. nu ic þus feorran com. 58 The verdict is still out on the meaning of “ðing gehegan. a single boon. cf. that I might alone—o band of my earls and this hardy troop—cleanse Heorot. On Beowulf ’s “egocentrism. On the one hand. Heorot fælsian.59 Just before the fight Beowulf will repeat his pledge to kill Grendel alone: Bazelmans 82 note 59. brego Beorht-Dena. “wilgesiðas” or “willing companions. lord of the Scyldings. the narrator attests that the men went “on wilsið” (216a. for reasons of fairness (Narrative Pulse 30). protector of warriors.” cognate with OHG OS āno and OIcel ān. He contends that “minra eorla gedryht/ond þes hearda heap” is vocative (“Textual Note”). Beowulf ’s comitatus seems not to have much standing with him: apart from manning the ship. the emendation has been accepted in Klaeber’s Beowulf. the adversary and giant. Beowulf emphasizes his own valor and refers to his men in passing:57 Ond nu wið Grendel sceal. [I ] shall settle the dispute alone. Beowulf may seem reluctant to endanger the men in this notional “warband.” but the legal context of the phrase and related locutions could imply that Beowulf speaks ironically and therefore glibly about settling disputes by assembly. lord and prince of the people. see Stanley. Beowulf wants to cleanse Heorot without weapons and alone.82 chapter one leader’s “confidence” may be attributed to the “dangerous individualism of the heroic ethos. the way a risky venture should be handled. one wonders why they have come at all. Ic þe nuða. wið þam aglæcan ana gehegan ðing wið þyrse. Alfred Bammesberger argues for the manuscript reading in which ond follows gedryht.” 23a). By choice they joined a potentially reckless campaign. þæt ðu me ne forwyrne. (424b–32b) And now against Grendel.”56 In fact. wigendra hleo.” see Lehmann 223–4. that you not prevent me.” When greeting Hroðgar. biddan wille. freowine folca. anre bene. Lucas remarks on the “tension between the hero and the group of Geatish retainers to which he belongs. Lehmann suggests that “ana” might disguise an otherwise unattested preposition meaning “without. þæt ic mote ana. minra eorla gedryht ond þes hearda heap. the wrecca’s solo adventure is deliberately set against the king’s responsibility for his men in the fight with Grendel. On the other hand.” but he concludes on the basis of 56 57 . 83 swebban nelle. a reading that requires the narrator’s interjection (698–700a) that “the action is to be carried out by the loner for the benefit of the group” (109–10). The phrase “under færgripum” would then describe Beowulf ’s own attack.” which derives from “selfunderstanding” (97). þeah ic eal mæge. The narrator states conclusively that a “spell” prevents swords from biting Grendel’s flesh (lines 801b–5a). By this logic Beowulf unsympathetically exploits his retainer’s death. his “warband” joins the fight and uselessly battles Grendel with swords. Beowulf appears to watch Hondscioh get devoured in a moment that has seemed gratuitous to critics who find Beowulf consistently honorable.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions forþan ic hine sweorde aldre beneotan. however. Reinhard 96–102 voiced this same conclusion. which is almost universally thought to refer to Grendel: Beowulf “beheld” how Grendel would “proceed” with a surprise attack. Yet the central question remains: why would Beowulf ’s men try and defend him against Grendel when Beowulf ’s beot implies action independent of the warband? The insinuation that Heremod mistreated his own men connects Heremod’s deeds to Beowulf ’s. the poet simply shows Beowulf ’s inattention to Hondscioh. For a summary of debate on perceiving Beowulf as an individual and therefore responsible for his actions. Translators disagree on how to take the prepositional phrase “under færgripum” (“in his sudden attack”). but no champion in past years had any luck with swords. Alternatively. see Clark. with a sword. although it is important to recognize that the retainers know nothing of the enchantment. since Beowulf is thought to bear responsibility for committing his “warband” to a dangerous exploit for which he alone was suited. (679a–80b) Therefore I will not kill him. During the Grendel fight. Despite Beowulf ’s own pledges here.” . “The Hero and the Theme. (736b–8b) The mighty kinsman of Hygelac observed how the evil-doer would perform in his sudden attack. deprive him of life. the poet apparently confirms Beowulf ’s hesitation as tactical: mæg Higelaces under færgripum Þryðswyð beheold hu se manscaða gefaran wolde. Knowing that Beowulf fights righteously in the context of God’s feud against Cain’s kin. though I may do so. They might presumably have helped. Reinhard excuses Beowulf ’s boast as “heroic superiority. 64 George Clark imagines that “Grendel’s victims slept helplessly. in which event Beowulf is still impeached for unnecessarily losing Hondscioh. This is the view of Lord as well.”67 The problem remains that Hondscioh is not “defending” Beowulf.”69 Beowulf exploits the subaltern’s duty as 60 See DOE s. less likely. 74. be-healdan sense B1 and ge-faran sense II. reading is provided by Greenfield. Arthur K. . . Grendel’s first attack .62 Still other critics have proposed that Beowulf intends to ambush Grendel and that Hondscioh’s death is a necessary element in Grendel’s rout.84 chapter one re-translating “beheold” as “considered” and “gefaran” as “manage” or “act”:60 Beowulf considered how the monster would manage under (Beowulf ’s own) surprise assault.A. 68 Ibid. W. regarding Hondscioh’s death as “the earliest instance in English literature of the practice of expendability in a military situation. 66 Ibid. 61 Epic Tradition 176. 65 Beowulf 74–5.”61 R. . Lawrence proposed that “the younger hero had to wait until his older or more renowned companions had fought and died. Chambers likewise believed that the poet had insufficiently worked out the folk-tale structure.6.”66 Two critics have gone so far as to claim that Beowulf ’s men owed him their lives because he was their captain.68 T.v. Hondscio died so that the poet’s audience might have final demonstration of the hideous power and fury of the foe whom the hero must now face . he is asleep. . . He is simply taken off guard. Moore’s charge that “the followers must act to preserve the leader” does not apply to these circumstances. Moore cites Tacitus: “all are bound to defend their leader .” 64 Foley 231–42. .v. Greenfield argues that Grendel is simply quicker than Beowulf and seizes Hondscioh before Beowulf can react. . . Another. W. 67 Moore 168 (citing Moore’s reference to Tacitus). may represent a victory of his will over Grendel’s power. a display of cannibal brutality. . W. 69 Pearce 170. . . passively into death”: 65 “the monster’s approach may have had the power to charm his intended victims to sleep and Beowulf ’s wakefulness . Beowulf ’s reaction to Hondscioh’s death does not come across as disinterested in this less likely reading. . was too swift to permit Beowulf ’s intervention. 62 Beowulf 64. 63 Brodeur. . Pearce followed this line but went further. “Three Beowulf Notes” 169–70. Art of Beowulf 92–3: “. M.63 They also appeal to the folk-tale context. Early critics appealed to folk-tale archetypes to explain Hondscioh’s death. the slaughter of Hondscio is the culminating horror in an ascending sequence . the poet’s description of Beowulf as “snotor ond swyðferhð” (“wise and stout-hearted. Robert L. and the expendability that Pearce alleges may be owed to less valiant motivations. In Kindrick’s view. He pledges to do so twice.” a view he derives from observing Beowulf ’s “wisdom” throughout the poem. whereas Æschere’s death magnifies the value of kin for the Danes. The secg who recounts the Sigemund/Heremod lay implies that Beowulf has just committed a deed. leadership might. one must accept the Danish outlook: they have a détente with Grendel. Their solution does not prevent some men from risking an attack on Grendel: anyone brave enough may try. “Hondscioh and Æschere” 643 and 650 note 31. Finally. I likewise see the deliberate ambivalence surrounding Hondscioh’s death and anonymity as a potential criticism of Beowulf ’s behavior.” To grasp the situation. Kindrick concludes that Beowulf shows himself to be a “tactician. 70 71 . It only means that they will not be forced to lose more lives. The comparison to Heremod therefore reflects the view that Beowulf ’s sið may have been acceptable for him. 72 On some further arguments exonerating Beowulf.” 826a) after killing Grendel implicitly justifies a wise decision leading to Hondscioh’s death. however great. ended with someone else’s death—just the sort of “woe” that Heremod may be accused of as an “aldorcearu. see Biggs. but not for his more vulnerable followers. 645. By these terms they manage to stay alive. 171. 73 Ibid. and he acts out of necessity. Can we not Ibid.”73 He takes the line that Hondscioh’s death minimizes the importance of kin ties for the Geats. should Hroðgar entrust Heorot to them—and accept responsibility for the outcome. “what was the valor required for Beowulf to refrain from helping Hondscioh as he must have somehow struggled against the foe?”70 The poet never says that Hondscioh struggled. who inhabits Heorot at night.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 85 Moore evaluated it. Kindrick 9. Pearce makes a virtue of necessity and asks. Yet the mitigating factor is clear: Beowulf intends to fight on his own. Biggs attends an “uneasy sense that Beowulf cares little about his retainer. Kinship does not fail. as Beowulf does when he risks his own men in an unequal match.71 Why does Hondscioh go unnamed until Beowulf reports to Hygelac?72 Frederick M. In fact. Sigemund’s venture against his dragon exposes the objection as well: a solo endeavor earns glory but endangers no one else. which. ” The Hunferð Digression The ambivalent Beowulf that the anonymous singer anticipates emerges most visibly in the poem’s digressions. soldierly king could lead men to destruction.86 chapter one find reason to exonerate him? In fact. The other future. Moreover. this explanation of the subaltern attitude exists in the larger context of Germanic wisdom. Beowulf ’s riposte to Hunferð betrays the potential egotism that the Danish secg mentions in his recollection of Sigemund and Heremod. Yet the “Hunferð digression. and Hunferð’s jealous hostility and background as a kin-killer demolish his prestige. is Grendel’s defeat: he is a monster cursed by God and can only be eradicated by God’s chosen adversary. true. Their essential proof. appears more dire. Sigemund can be admired for solitary daring but not for generosity or moral virtue. The stories spoken by a thane “mindful of gidd ” imply that Beowulf could become a solitary warrior. but the poet raises the broader issue of how to tell sincerity from conceit in a man who could lead his companions to disaster. Beowulf is credited with heroic greatness. jealous of his reputation and a threat to his followers. Hunferð will accuse Beowulf of the same malfeasance. . a wrecca bent on personal glory (“þrym”). Even before Beowulf fights Grendel. shows Beowulf ’s decisive heroism. Whether Beowulf is such a man depends on his motivation. a condition of self-restraint held to be “wise. Unfortunately. In no way does the singer claim these outcomes as inevitable. and they object to Beowulf ’s interference. the Danes are completely unaware of Grendel’s lineage and Beowulf ’s fortuitous “moral” alignment against God’s enemy. if not for Beowulf ’s fight (1055b–7a). heroic Beowulf in the poem’s first half. but he sees a potential in Beowulf. As I shall demonstrate. the king’s path. that critics have often disregarded. the Hunferð episode situates Beowulf ’s potential recklessness in the context of warrior moderation. Sigemund’s. none more so than Hunferð. since an ambitious. Hunferð’s resentment may compromise his judgment. involves supreme self-regard leading to violence and glory. of course. In fact. Admittedly. Two futures can be predicted for such a man: the hero’s path. I propose. the best exoneration is the poet’s own somewhat weak allowance that other men would have died. but the wreccan he resembles seem to commit offenses that qualify their fame. I will have more to say shortly about specific episodes. but I need to answer the critics who allege only a positive.” my opposition says. R. vol. Yet Ida Masters Hollowell points out that OE hof can also mean “temple” (“Unferð the þyle” 251). printed in Napier. 36. p. R5=London. s. either “spokesman” or “jester”: ORATORES] þylæs76 RETHORICA] þelcræfte R5.” 1456b). Old English glosses give a neutral or negative denotation.” see Patricia Silber. 22). 471. but the obvious pun on ferð/ferhð (118) makes it seem that “un”+“ferð” was transparent. prophet”)80 and 74 “Unferth and his Name. Prosa de uirginitate. Shuman and Hutchings 219). Fulk has lately shown that “Hunferð/Hunferþ” (the manuscript spellings but with ū)—rather than an alleged poetic coinage “Un-frið” (“Discord”) or “Un-ferhð” (“Folly” or “Bold”)—is attested in Germanic tongues. Prosa de uirginitate. This is from II Sm 6. ca. 1078). 79 A scratched gloss from Oxford. Yet other Old English translations of orator also include “spelboda” (“messenger.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 87 Reservations bedevil analyses of Hunferð’s character.” as Robinson (“Personal Names”). Marijane Osborn observes that “the poet himself later provides an etymological gloss which cannot be ignored . .has been interpreted as preposition of (translating Latin “de”). Bibliothèque Royale MS 1650 (Canterbury. 124A. .e. Gwara. “Hard Old English Words” 232). (Exeter. .vii. s.75 a puzzling word with myriad translations. 34). þelcræ O77 DE SCVRRIS] hofðelum78 HISTRIONES] fæðelas79 In classical Latin orator means “(public) speaker” and rhetorica designates the art of forensic speaking. 78 Stryker 145 (no. þelcræft Bc. “Emendation. p. x1/4). Old English Glosses 204 (no.” 1165b–6a).20: “nudatus est quasi si nudetur unus de scurris. see Roberts. whether the name means “Discord” has even provoked discord. concord”) which led to the translation “Mar-Peace” (see.” Most recently.74 Hunferð’s “official” position in Hroðgar’s court is also disputed. suggesting a priestly function for the þyle. Robert Boenig has implied that the name is deliberately ambiguous (“Morphemic Ambiguity” 280).. 75 “Swylce þær Hunferþ þyle//at fotum sæt frean Scyldinga” (“Likewise. “ðyle Hroðgares” (“Hroðgar’s ðyle.” Many readers have accepted Hunferð as a form of Unferhð and translated “Folly. O=Oxford. gehwylc hiora his ferhþe treowde . 124A. 456. since he is twice called a þyle (even Hroðgar’s þyle). The context is from Aldhelm’s Prosa de uirginitate: “. spokesman.62. Bodleian Library MS Digby 146 (Canterbury. vol. 2). John’s College MS 28. 80 Hessels 86 (O240): “oratores: *spelbodan.” While the element hof. Bc=“Hand C” of Brussels.g.” . e. On the sense that I have interpreted as “Bold” (i. BL MS 6 B. St. Early on it was theorized that “ferð” disguises “frið” (“peace.” as “ðelas attached to a court” (Meritt. . D. “Very Courageous”). . Fulk’s objection to these doubles ententes is linguistic. 77 Gwara. Each of them [Hrothgar and Hrothulf ] trusted his ‘ferth’ ” (“Some Uses of Ambiguity” 24). . it may also mean “court. 76 Stryker 334 (no. ut disertissimi oratores tam sagax uirginibis ingenium alterno experiri conflictu uererentur”. Hunferþ the þyle sat at the feet of the Scyldings’ lord. xex). followed by others. For the view that “Hunferð” could give “Hun-spirited. cf. in Latin it denotes a subordinate. too. qui sectari quempiam solet cibi gratia”. Latin ridiculosus and ridiculus can mean “facetious” (in a mild sense). alternatively a “scold. The word is probably identical to the first element (or word) of “lewis plega” (?<lewsa “weakness”) recorded in the “Harley Glossary” 65 (C652). and pantomimus.” Finally.” “qui res ridiculas dicit et facit. ioculator. Die althochdeutschen Glossen: “ioculator uerbosus. or attendant. D. The Epinal-Erfurt gloss reads “leuuis. clownish fellow who accompanies gentlemen in Roman comedies. Felix’s Life). Rosier drew attention to other unflattering Latin glosses to scurra from the Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum: “parasitus. Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar 302. 86 Ibid. Gwara. for which argument see Meritt. The first three attestations come from the same context in the Carolingian Abavus Glossary. 82 In Ælfric’s glossary (Zupitza. and Alan Kelsey Brown. which describes the “scurrarum dicta” as senseless criticism. but excepting “parasitus. cantor. “Epinal Glossary” 802 (note to S264).152). 87 As in Isidore’s Etymologiae (Lindsay X.” not “absurd parasite. Prosa de uirginitate. passages from Aldhelm’s Carmen de virginitate and Epistola ad Heahfridum reveal that to speak “scurrarum more” is to denigrate or criticize for the purpose of ridicule. It may be “leas” (“deceitful”). the last one from the Ab Absens Glossary. X.88 While Aldhelm expresses irritation with his critics.”86 There is no context for the glosses from the Abavus and Ab Absens glossaries.” “subtilis inpostor. hanger-on.255: “scurra.” but the term has not be satisfactorily explained.” “qui incop<r>iatur. note 77. 470. vol.83 By this evidence neither OE gligman nor Latin scurra is intrinsically negative.” “bilinguis accusatoris.”84 and James L. 81 Gwara.85 and from SteinmeyerSievers.81 Latin scurra designates an urbane. see Pheifer 125 (note to 977a). 35. Old English glosses elsewhere render scurra by “gligman” (“entertainer”). the gloss scond to scurra in the Corpus glossary may mean “a shameful man.9: “mimus ł scurra gligmann”).” “subsannatoris. iocista. p.87 The expression “parasitus ridiculosus” may therefore mean “facetious attendant.” “qui res ridiculas dicit et facit”. for the sigla. 84 Hessels 106 (S165).” The gloss “leuuis” to scurra in the Épinal and Erfurt manuscripts has been interpreted as a form of OE leas “scurrilous” (Pheifer 125: “*lēawīs”).345–6: ORATORES] wordsnotere Bcd O. he acknowledges their competence. Fact and Lore 4. . In Felix’s Vita Guthlaci Guðlac is said to have paid no attention to the “falsidica parasitorum frivola” or “frivolous lies of attendants” (Colgrave. 124A. see above. and while “parasitus” may remind us of a freeloader. 83 Bjork. “Hermeneutic Circle” 137.” the senses are negative.” “parasitus ridiculosus. Nevertheless. 88 Ehwald 365 line 285 (where Elisha has cursed the children who called him “baldy”) and line 2835. mimus.” and “parasitus ridiculosus.88 chapter one “wordsnoter” (“word-wise [man]”).” “ioculator uerbosus. 85 “Design for Treachery” 2.82 which also translates the Latin terms musicus. v. 90 Fact and Lore 4. see Clarke.” quite possibly the sort that would recite the vernacular poetry Alcuin denounces: “Melius pauperes edere de mensa tua. an Odinic priest responsible for sacrifice and for teaching Germanic wisdom: The þulr emerges as one in a special profession. cf. 5 (147–8). fiþeleras) was made in Napier. The Toronto DOE does not accept fæðelas as adjective + noun. B. but one Old English gloss renders histrio as “trumpeter” (“truþ”). but Ida Masters Hollowell reviewed the same passages some years later and sustained a now widely accepted view of Hunferð’s office. but reveals that histrio itself need not be negative: one must add fæ to make them “wicked. 93 Ehwald 166. See now Biggs. “Hermeneutic Circle” 134–5.”91 James L. one might interpret Alcuin’s statement (quoting “Augustine”) that “great a crowd of unclean spirits follows [ histriones]” to mean that some ill-will might be generated by their performances. Yet Aldhelm describes the histrio in his De metris as a speaker of “ridiculosa commenta” or “facetious remarks.89 Herbert Dean Meritt interpreted fæðelas as plural adjective fæ (<OE fah “criminal”) plus plural noun ðelas.95 Hollowell proposed that an Anglo-Saxon þyle probably reflected the function of a Norse þulr.” Norman E. Fact and Lore 148.”92 Alcuin does not affirm that histriones are bad but that they do not belong at the monks’ table. with a special place from which he functions on occasion . fiþela s. 94 Dümmler 290: “ ‘Nescit homo. (where one would expect pl. Rosier has found evidence from Alcuin’s famous letter stating “Quid Hinieldus cum Christo?” that histrio means “entertainer. .25. for a translation of Alcuin’s letter “Quid Hinieldus cum Christo?” consult Bullough 122–5.. quam istriones” and “Melius Deo placere quam histrionibus.2.94 Rosier adduced some Old Icelandic evidence to bolster his negative picture of Hunferð as a scurra. Lords of Battle 81. From context Ælfred rendered histriones in this passage as “yfle gliigman”. qui histriones et mimos et saltatores introducit in domum suam. 92 Rosier. Old English Glosses 204.”90 The context from Gregory’s Pastoral Care describes wicked histriones. “Anglo-Saxon Pedagogy” 115 (line 105). the suggestion fiþelere (giving pl.”93 At a minimum.’ ” 95 On the lineage of reading OE þyle as a religious figure and purveyor of Germanic lore. see Dümmler 183 and 439 resp. “Design for Treachery” 2. “Blame Poem” and Evans. therefore “wicked jesters. 91 Meritt. 89 Kindschi 152.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 89 Latin histrio designates an actor in a play. . He is familiar with reading. staining. fiþelan). . quam magna eos inmundorum sequitur turba spirituum. for the text. cf. where those speaking “iocistÍe scurrÍeque ritu” do so “dicacitate temeraria. Bjork. Eliason proposes that the Anglo-Saxon scop was “privileged to utter jesting scurrilities” (“Scop Poems” 190). being apparently the repository of countless wise adages in verse form. he was learned for his time.”100 Such “traditional lore” seems to be represented by gnomic utterances like those in Maxims I and “Hávamál. and. a mnemonic device consisting of a “Unferð the þyle” 247./þat er gamlir qveða . While “Hávamál” is indeed a series of lists. . such an application of the word is consistent with what we have seen to be the associated meanings of þyle in Old English. he deals in sacrifice and augury. . Rhodes 119. Ibid. with an ear for god and man. thus.”98 In reaching this conclusion. 99 A convincing refutation comes from the “Loddfáfnismál” 134. where a “gelæred þyle” is said to speak “in few words”:97 gelæred þyle fela spæca mid feawum wordum geopenað doctus orator plures sermones paucis uerbis aperit A learned speaker discloses many pronouncements with few words.96 In support of the connection between the Old English and Old Icelandic evidence.”101 Caroline Brady recognized that “the Old Norse feminine noun þula denotes one of the oldest types of Germanic poetry. Rosier overemphasized the negative connotations of OE þyle summarized above. runes. 101 These texts are actually quite different. Hollowell elucidated an obscure gloss in the Liber Scintillarum. “Maxims” 31–4. Elizabeth Jackson has lately reaffirmed that the þulr “acted as the mouthpiece of Óðinn and as both the repository and the transmitter of traditional lore concerning counsel. 96 97 . and . having an encyclopedic knowledge of mythological lore. 252. better. “Design for Treachery” 3.90 chapter one and carving runes. 100 “Seat of the Þyle?” 186. he seems fitted for the role of adviser to his king and clan. it actually records gnomic lore of some “moral” or “truth” value. as this implies. he can be considered an intermediary between gods (or. and charms. he is a man of wisdom. one god. in which Loddfáfnir is told not to laugh at an aged þulr because “what old men speak is often good” (“opt er gott.”). . Hollowell rebutted Rosier’s position that “the person designated as þulr is treacherous. .99 In refining Hollowell’s work. of which the large number in the Hávamál is illustrative. 98 Rosier. and probably carried historical material in his mind together with genealogies of importance to his people. with incantation and magic. see Larrington 15–72 and Shippey. Óðinn) and men. “Disclosing many pronouncements with few words” suggested to Hollowell the apothegmatic wisdom such as that transmitted in the Old English maxims and catalogue poems. “Maxims” 31–3. procure good provisions. tribes.”106 and the précis to “Reginsmál” attests that Reginn “instructed” Sigurðr.” she notes.5.:109 á fialli eða firði ef þic fara tíðir.1 (the opening of the “Loddfáfnismál” section) claims to have gathered his wisdom directly from Óðinn.” Óðinn sits at Sigurðr’s feet and asks “if he would take any advice. 142.g. dwarfs etc. and the anonymous character who sings “from the seat of the þulr” in strophe 111. On maxims about travel. e. runic lore.. 9): “inn gamli þulr. Starkaðr is the only other þyle we know of from the Germanic tradition (so-called in Gautreks Saga. fástu at virði vel. .” as well as that of a harpist in Fortunes of Men: “Sum sceal “ ‘Warriors’ ” 222. .” The verbal contest between the giant Vafþrúðnir and Óðinn involves the recitation of arcane lore. 108 Ibid. Jackson goes on to claim that þular impart three types of warrior wisdom: gnomic instruction. Fáfnir the dragon calls his deceitful brother Reginn a “hára þul” or “old þulr. 109 Neckel and Kuhn 35. and according to a recapitulation of the scene in “Norna-Gests Þáttr. Ibid.”102 Brady likewise drew attention to “Vafþrúðnismál. heroes. and spells or charms. see Jackson. .”108 In the “Hávamál” Óðinn is called a “fimbulþulr” (“mighty þulr.105 As a kind of Germanic sage. (str.107 In disguise Óðinn also instructs Sigurðr. 102 103 . “Seat of the Þyle” 184. In the Eddic poem “Fáfnismál. kings.”104 For “sage” one might read þyle. Hunferð’s position at Hroðgar’s feet (1166a) recalls Óðinn’s in “NornaGests Þáttr. in lists.5). 116) Should you wish to travel over fell or firth. The earliest extant þular are in Widsith. “ ‘Not Simply Lists. The “wisdom” of this þulr (if one can call him that) is wholly proverbial.” almost certainly a wry comment on the þulr’s silenced counsel at Uppsala.’ ” 106 The same appellation “hoary þulr” is found in “Hávamál” 133.” in which Vafþrúðnir the self-described “old þulr” trades arcane questions with the supreme “old þulr. 107 “Seat of the Þyle?” 186. Here Starkaðr is called a “þöglan þul” or “silent þulr. 104 Jackson. 105 For a taxonomy of lists in Old English and Old Norse wisdom contexts. the þulr actually “taught” this wisdom. Neckel and Kuhn 46 (str.” Óðinn. often metaphorical.” 80. sometimes rhymed or alliterative. of gods. see Shippey.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 91 running list.103 Jackson imagines a context in which the statement “Gleawe men sceolan gieddum wrixlan” (Maxims I 4a) might precede an “exchange of wisdom between one sage and another. Ranisch 32 line 17). even vainglory as Unferth’s always seems to be?” 115 Earl R. I suspect. Anderson has proposed that “ironic verbal echoes are a conventional feature of heroic flyting” (“Flyting” 199).” However. legalistically and ethically minded giant-slayer is in question. in my view) or Hroðgar’s inquisitor (less likely). Lönnroth. Yet historian Michael J. If Hunferð is responsible for preserving and reciting Germanic “wisdom. Like Jackson he portrays Hunferð as the master of traditional wisdom and closely connects him to the Odinic religiosity of the warband. Hroðgar uses Hunferð to test Beowulf. Widsið and other poems like Order of the World and Vainglory. 114 Hill.111 and I would allege that Norna-Gest’s anecdote of Sigurðr’s deeds functions like the story of Sigemund in Beowulf. components of which arguably survive in Maxims I.113 By his reasoning.110 No competing view of OE þyle has received more attention. Furthermore. I find echoes of a different sort in Beowulf ’s exchange with Hunferð. see also Baird. a “morale officer” responsible for egging on the men. 112 “Warband Context” 313. The position was first proposed by Adelaide Hardy. Narrative Pulse 35: “Although Unferth may be a sanctioned challenger. Beowulf actually parodies the formal language of wisdom that Hunferð. Margaret Schlauch and Lars Lönnroth have already made the claim that elements of Norna-Gest’s lore resemble aspects of Widsið. Maxims II. “Unferth the Þyle. .112 Yet Enright also sees Hunferð as a prominent warband counselor and spokesman for Hroðgar.” OE scop (“poet”) belongs to a word-family that includes OIcel skap “abuse. Could his real motive be glory. for which reason he imagines that the Beowulf poet belittles Hunferð. The þyle’s repertoire may have included so-called wisdom literature critical of ambition. In fact. one of his offices then being to goad strangers into revealing themselves.92 chapter one mid hearpan/æt his hlafordes//fotum sittan” (“one ought to sit at his lords’ feet with a harp. “Warband Context” 310.” Related to ModE “skoff. 111 Respectively: Schlauch. Enright has gone even further in identifying the role of Hunferð at Heorot.114 Whether or not Hunferð was a prominent officer (quite likely. Precepts. we might speculate that Hunferð served as an oracle of traditional gnomic wisdom. should have pronounced. the poet motivates him personally as well.115 110 The reference to a harp in The Fortunes of Men suggests that Hunferð may be a poet of sorts. and Vainglory. “Hjálmar’s Death-Song” 4. On the basis of this evidence. Hunferð’s resentment could be justified by gnomic wisdom codified in The Wanderer. Why? I suggest that just here Beowulf ’s posture as a foreign but entirely friendly. In fact.” 80a–1a).” 113 Enright. Robert Fulk’s recent deduction that “Healgamen” in Beowulf 1066a is the name of Hroðgar’s scop suggests the þyle and scop did not share the same duties (see “Fragment and Episode” 195–7). Some Germanic poets seem to have been conventionally “disparaging.” he plausibly reacts to Beowulf in ways that evoke his social calling. it seems natural for him to criticize Beowulf. ne to hrædwyrde.” not too “hasty in speech. which applies to all the situations in this passage.” the term “elegy” to describe a group of Old English poems has lately gone out of fashion as a Victorian invention. 118 Shippey. ne to feohgifre ær he geare cunne. is later amplified by the clause “whither the thought of his breast will turn.”119 One proverbial passage in The Wanderer exposes the “proverbiousness” ostensibly staged in Beowulf. framing or juxtaposition. nor too reckless (neither too cautious nor too confident). allows one to say the common/recognised/accepted/socially-valued thing. nor too weak a warrior. by alteration.116 We need hardly invoke Scandinavian sources like “Hávamál” to understand why Beowulf ’s boasting sounds arrogant. A. Lords of Battle 83: “heroic poetry was used to reinforce those values and beliefs that tended to strengthen the warband’s structure. Although The Wanderer has been called “elegiac. oþþæt collenferð hwider hreþra gehygd Wita sceal geþyldig. nor too greedy nor too ready to boast before he knows 116 Evans.” 119 Ibid. Shippey’s remarks apply as much to Beowulf as to The Wanderer: “ ‘Proverbiousness’ . indicate an attitude towards the socially acceptable which is quite different from mere parrot-repetition. (65b–72b) A wise man ought to be patient. Beorn sceal gebidan. . . cunne gearwe hweorfan wille. .” 117 Mora 129–39. “The Wanderer and The Seafarer. for The Wanderer supplies one felicitous context for Hunferð’s challenge. þonne he beot spriceð. In The Wanderer a “wise man” ought to be “patient.117 Enigmatic poems like the “elegies” are troublesome to categorize. ne to wanhydig.118 T. nor too hasty in speech. but at the same time. not too hot-tempered.” specifically in reference to boasting: ne sceal no to hatheort ne to wac wiga (ne to forht ne to fægen). while condemning those acts that would have had a detrimental effect upon it.” and especially “never too eager to boast until he readily understands. ne næfre gielpes to georn. but one critic has quite recently proposed that The Wanderer conveys “proverbious” features of Old English wisdom poetry.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 93 The wisdom contexts that I draw on here specifically denounce arrogance in terms descriptive of Beowulf ’s behavior. 152. which could threaten warband security by jeopardizing martial collaboration.” The ambiguous expression “geare cunne” (“readily understands”). 94 chapter one for certain.” but I think the expression “to ær fægen” clarifies the meaning of “to fægen. T.” a sense first attested in Lagamon’s Brut. but OE forht is not attested in this sense.121 “Optimistic” is clever indeed. “Forht and Fægen. I argue that OE fægen in The Wanderer anticipates the semasiological development. OE fægen yields ME adj. nor too despairing. it has frequently been translated “happy. On the complication that “too” may mean “not at all.”)122 It seems here that being “too arrogant and too boastful” defines the state of being “too ‘happy. Shippey alters to “ærforht” and “ærfægen. 122 Bethurum 184. A man ought to wait whenever he speaks a boast until. see also “De septiformi spiritu”: “ne biþ on gefean to fægen ne on wean to ormod” (“Do not be too ‘happy’ in joy.” While OE forht may also mean “formidable” or terrifying. nor too despairing in woe”). J. “to ær fægen” in the “Durham Proverbs” is translated by the Latin “nec ilico arrigens” or “not quick to rouse”—lacking any hint of “happiness. he readily understands whither the thought of his breast will turn. .” on which compounds see Bryan. forht” and “wanhydig . A. stout-hearted. fægen” would be lost. Arngart 293 (no. Bliss propose “too cringing.e. Dunning and A. P. for it can mean “expectant” or “happy in the prospective fulfillment of desire. Interestingly. cringing. 185. optimistic)”: “Ne sceal man no to ær forht ne to ær fægen” (“A man should not be afraid or ‘happy’ too soon”). sycophantic’ ”). 23). Wulfstan’s “Sermo de baptismo” condemns premature exuberant “happiness” (i. and even though “fægen” in 68a should correspond to “wanhydig” in 67b.” see Bruce Mitchell. Shippey rendered a similar expression from the “Durham Proverbs” “glad-too-soon (i.” “reckless”) in a list of antitheses. nor right away too ‘happy’. “overconfidence”: “færinga to fægene”) alongside arrogance (“rance”) and enthusiasm for boasting (“gylpgeorne”) as traits to avoid: “ne beon ge to rance ne to gylpgeorne ne færinga to fægene ne eft to ormode” (“do not be too arrogant or too boastful. servile. since the opposite of “cautious” (“too fearful”) ought to be “overconfident. according to the dictionaries.) In a related passage. The locution “ne to forht ne to fægen” appears to vary “wac” (“weak”) and “wanhydig” (“thoughtless. . and the arguable parallelism between “wac . ibid.e.” “Happiness” becomes acceptable when it is not heedless.” almost certainly the implicit meaning of “too happy.123 120 For a summary of the positions.’ ” A wise man in The Wanderer should therefore recognize the risk attending an exploit.” Hill points out (“Unchanging Hero” 248 note 24) that “to ær fægen” differs from “to fægen. “Some Syntactical Problems” 112–17 (translating “to fægen” as “sanguine”). cf.” (Alternatively. OE fægen would not be its opposite. the opposite of happiness ought to be sorrow. fain or “eager. see Thomas D. .”120 T. Hill. . . 123 Nolan and Bloomfield 503.” 121 “The Wanderer and The Seafarer” 150. “Unchanging Hero” and Gwara.” just the opposite of what one should expect (117–18 and 49: “it seems then not quite impossible that fægen should mean ‘fawning. or death could result from reckless promises. quite possibly the only independently verifiable experience of Beowulf ’s. for which reason so much Old English and Old Icelandic wisdom poetry coaches warriors in proper behaviors or attitudes. “Proud warsmiths sit at a feast in the wine-precincts. Beowulf has fought monsters before—a “race of giants” (420b–1a)—and by this experience he may perhaps be qualified to fight Grendel. In fact. possibly in reference to the contest with Breca. 125 Biggs. losing the contest with Breca is the best prediction of the outcome in the Grendel fight.” 526a–7a). Beowulf ’s boast to face Grendel contradicts the evidence of experience. he does not know that Grendel cannot be cut by swords. fierce warfare” (“ðeah þu heaðoræsa/gehwær dohte. From Hunferð’s position.125 While these credentials sound like the right “experience. If it were known that swords could not bite Grendel’s flesh. yet a second locus from the wisdom poem Vainglory explains why he might also consider Beowulf ’s impetuous boast to be the swagger of a man exhibiting pride (“on oferhygdo. does Beowulf ’s enthusiasm for challenging Grendel contravene this advice. Beowulf ’s manner ought to be cautious. for the imagined hypocrite depicted in Vainglory boasts before a warband in a hall. not that he cannot be injured by them. The situation in Vainglory almost perfectly matches Beowulf ’s own circumstances.124 Nevertheless. By this measure. Now. “Nine Nicors” 318. by his own admission.//grimre guðe.” Hunferð believes that Beowulf lost a contest with Breca. that one should never be too eager to boast before experience can teach the wisdom of moderation? Experience tempers ambition and makes a warrior understand that shame. Instead.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 95 The question is.” 421b–2a). But where experience is lacking. wisdom poetry can substitute. since he has never seen him. Beowulf does not “know for certain” what Grendel is like. In this declaration to Hroðgar Beowulf also adds that he “slew water-beasts on the waves at night” (“on yðum slog//niceras nihtes.” the poet states (“wlonce Beowulf says that Grendel “does not care for weapons” (“wæpna ne recceð. just the opposite of “wisdom” in this Anglo-Saxon binary. 124 . Even though Hunferð concedes that Beowulf has “everywhere survived the onslaughts of battle. so that his bare-handed encounter without armor sounds even more reckless.” 23b). Beowulf ’s retainers would not have hacked at him uselessly. his boast conveys intemperate eagerness and immature haste. Hunferð concludes that Beowulf is reckless.” 434b). injury. ich habbe i vestned seið iob foreward mid min eien. “their minds were so concealed that the servants held themselves from barely weeping. On the meaning of OE winburg as “stronghold” rather than “hall.” 19b).” 14a–15a).127 the clamor (“cirm. “deildusk hugir. The verbal context of “dalum gedæled” is that of men with hidden intentions (compare the formulation of Latin discretio < discerno “separate”).” 20a).//sittaþ æt symble.129 In “Helgaqviða Hiörvarðzsonar.//micle ond mæte” 52b–53a).” 20a) of their various speeches resounds among the host (“on corþre. The Ancrene Riwle of London. and ME dēlen “to deal” kept this rare sense “to dissemble” into early Middle English. In 53b–4a the statement “Is þes middangeard//dalum gedæled” is followed by a disclosure of God’s perspicacity: “Dryhten sceawað//hwær þa eardien/þe his æ healden” (“The Lord knows where those men dwell who keep his law.” 126 127 .xiv records. deila I. pepigi fedus cum oculis meis ut ne cogitarem du uirgine. v.e. [speak] cautious conversation. British Library MS Cotton Nero A. subdue her emotions. 128 Day and Herbert 27 lines 20–3.4 are mistaken. by re-assignment of the adverb. 129 References in Cleasby and Vigfusson s.” 54b–5b). “Iob seide. nales breahtme hlud. not loud chatter.”128 Relevant in this context are certain Old Icelandic expressions with cognate “deila” and related vocables. (60a–1b) Some men want to bear the fame of this calling in words but not perform the works. In Guðlac A God perceives those holding good or bad customs (“hadas cennað. þ ich ne mis þenche. At this moment the narrator remarks that “their minds will be divided into parts” (“swa beoþ modsefan//dalum gedæled.” see Del Pezzo. v. The Lord also perceives those who do not keep his law (56a–9b). as well as the hypocrites who keep his law in word but not in deed: Sume him þæs hades wegan on wordum hlisan willað ond þa weorc ne doð.96 chapter one wigsmiþas/winburgum in. Probably a circumlocution for thoughtless boasting. svá at húskarlar héldu varla vatni” which is translated “their minds were so distraught that the house-carles could hardly forbear weeping” should mean.” Helgi tells Sváva to “divide her mind. A warrior firm in wisdom ought to think inwardly. an idiomatic way of saying that they are not all sincere. deale.” i. Thus. see Precepts 57a–8b: Wærwyrde sceal wisfæst hæle breostum hycgan.126 and as their revelry mounts (“Breahtem stigeð.” 21b–2a). the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 97 since his death is inevitable: “Hug scaltu deila. the articulation of insidious jealousy (“æfþonca.” 130 The expression resembles one from “Guðrúnarqviða II”: “Lengi hvarfaðac.” 130 131 . here “arrogance” more than “recklessness. deila sense I. Ibid. Grettir is criticized for not being a “skapdeildarmaðr.” 24a) and swells with an immoderate spirit (“þrinteð him in innan//ungemedemad mod.” 24b–5a). during which ordeal she “divided (concealed) her thought.” In other words. Thomas D. see Pickford 23 note to line 25. one man on behalf of another who divides (conceals) his passion.” When the illicit love-affair between Oddrún and Gunnar is exposed in “Oddrúnargráttr. and in the poet’s conceit a “certain one” expresses oferhygd (23b). synia aldri þar er munuð deilir. . “noblemen are unalike. Zoëga s.”131 For a long time Guðrún waited for Sigurðr to return. The preceding stanza clarifies the sense: Mælto margir mínir niðiar. . 133 Cleasby and Vigfusson s. 134 On “ungemedemad” (<(ge)medemian).133 In Vainglory men are said to be different (“sindon dryhtguman// ungelice”. þenceð þæt his wise welhwam þince eal unforcuþ.4. Grettir cannot camouflage his discomfiture and is easy to anger.” 26a): Boð his sylfes swiþor micle þonne se sella mon. Neckel and Kuhn 149 (str. deila. (28b–31a) He boasts of himself much more than the better man does.v.” 22b–3a). qvóðuz ocr hafa orðit bæði. . 24).134 This inflated ego in turn leads to boasting.” the poet states how hard it is to read a man’s mind when he intends to dissemble over love: Enn slícs scyli maðr fyr annan. 237 (str. 6). “Unchanging Hero.” This man’s mind presses with majesty (“þrymme þringeð. 40). Hill./lengi hugir deilduz.v. it seems to him that his manner [wise] would appear completely brave [unforcuþ] to everyone.132 No one should speak with certainty. 132 Ibid. The proposed meaning of “distressed” in each of these passages ignores the essential context of dissembling. Finally. enn mic Atli qvað eigi myndo lýti ráða né löst gora. 225 (str.” translated in the dictionaries “master of his temper” or “hardened man. ” Beowulf realizes that Hunferð is charged to instill counsels of wisdom and that he would be most qualified to assess the courage and loyalty of Hroðgar’s own men and guests.” 589b). Beowulf answers Hunferð ironically. By no means does the poet gratuitously mention Hunferð’s status as Hroðgar’s “þyle. In the passage cited above. someone who “boasts about himself more than the better man. Beowulf offends Hroðgar’s þyle. these terms are paralleled in the expression “gif þe deah hyge” (“if your mind is strong”) from Precepts 48b. But obviously. Hunferð thinks he has seen through Beowulf ’s. the subjunctive “þince” (“his manner would appear completely brave”) supposes that some “strongminded” warrior might see through the proud man’s bluster. “ðeah þu heaðoræsa/ gehwær dohte” (“though you succeeded on every occasion in the assaults of war.” 526a–b) when he says “þeah þin wit duge” (“though your mind is strong. too. but he also appears to inflate his own ego the way an arrogant warrior might boast to companions in a hall. more is at stake than Breca’s reputation. In so doing. and his celebrated hæftmece suggest that he might be one of the “better” men implicitly faulted in Beowulf ’s opening speech to Hroðgar. then. native sententiae that chastise recklessness and pride would be found to compliment the Hunferð digression. Beowulf exhibits the insolence of an arrogant braggart.” The “better man” in this context could be Breca. If scholars were willing to acknowledge the perception—not necessarily the reality—of Beowulf ’s arrogance.” 1489b).98 chapter one This observation is relevant to Beowulf ’s situation because Hunferð believes that Beowulf lost his competition with Breca. appropriating Hunferð’s own “professional” idiom to ridicule him.” Uttered after claiming that Hunferð will suffer torments in hell for slaying his brothers. To Hunferð. the winner of the match in Hunferð’s estimation. who arguably imparts the kind of heroic reticence espoused by a “wita” (“wise man”) in The Wanderer and by the narrator in Vainglory who has been taught by a “wita” (1a). Having a “doughty intellect” is specifically linked to “wisdom” as the capacity to perceive good and evil: . and explicitly impugned in Beowulf ’s retort that Grendel would not have committed so many atrocities had Hunferð (and the Danes!) been as brave as Hunferð implies by his pique (590a–601a). Beowulf sneers at Hunferð’s presumed mastery of “wisdom. Beowulf appropriates Hunferð’s mockery of Beowulf ’s self-proclaimed mastery in battle. Hence. Hunferð’s standing in Hroðgar’s court. Beowulf not only seems to issue a reckless boast. Other evidence of “proverbiousness” suggests as much. his conspicuous fame (“widcuðne man. Therefore. A man must steer with strong mind.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions ‘Ongiet georn ond toscead simle in sefan þinum A þe bið gedæled. Storm oft holm gebringeþ. although the man may stand securely. Fiercely will fallow waves begin to advance from afar towards the land.” which I have translated as “ever will it be concealed from you” recalls the clause “Swa beoþ modsefan//dalum gedæled” in Vainglory 21b–2a. as implied in The Seafarer: Stieran mon sceal strongum mode. onginnað grome fundian fealwe on feorran to londe. The Seafarer compares the mariner’s business of battling the wind (or tacking) to moral self-guidance. and always foster good in your heart. ondgit yfles.136 Being “measured” (“gemet”) 135 The DOE suggests an idiomatic rendering (s. 1. and you will know right away the appearance of evil [or: an evil man]. ond þu wast geare heald þe elne wið. wunað wisdom in. feorma þu symle 99 hwæt sy god oþþe yfel. and hold it on course. to know. the ocean in cruel seasons. and choose the better one.” 136 Compare these lines to Maxims I 50a–2b. always distinguish them in your mind with keen insight.’ (45a–51b) Recognize zealously what is good or evil. The phrase “ondgit yfles” (50a) could mean “the appearance of evil” as translated here. Zealously guard yourself against it [or: him]. geofen in grimmum sælum. A storm will often bring a storm. wisum clæne scyle monna gehwylc mid gemete healdan wiþ leofne on wið laþne.ii): “to have knowledge of.v.135 but the alternative “intention of an evil man” is equally possible. Equating moderation with rectitude. in þinum ferðe god. Constant in promises and pure in his ways. in which context some men are said to conceal their arrogance. every man should hold himself in moderation both towards friend and foe. (109a–12a) A man should steer [ his boat and himself ] with a strong mind. hwæþer he fæste stonde. ond þæt on staþelum healdan. having a strong mind means discerning concealed evil and choosing concealed good. wisdom will dwell in you. specifically constancy and continence. The expression “a þe bið gedæled. For the AngloSaxons. gif þe deah hyge. where storms batter the shipman: Styran sceal mon strongum mode. scearpe mode ond þe a þæt selle geceos.b. ond gewis werum.” hence “you will have knowledge of evil. . If your mind is strong. Ever will it be concealed from you. Ic þæt gehyre. 138 Shippey.100 chapter one therefore defines the moderation associated with patience and restraint. “þylas” or “witan”) therefore discriminate between honesty. The wise (arguably poets. condescension. which ensue from “oferhygd” (in Vainglory at any rate). the general “yfel” which the “wise” man must fathom may be defined even more precisely. and humility—qualities characterized blandly by the word “god”—and deceit. Klaeber’s Beowulf retains the comma. I imagine—occurs also in the watchman’s assessment of Beowulf. courage. se þe wel þenceð. (287b–91a) A sharp-witted shield-warrior (someone who thinks well) must have an understanding of each thing: of words and of deeds. both passages emphasize the discernment of intentions. Somewhat earlier the coastwarden regarded Beowulf ’s honor in terms nearly identical to those in this same passage of Precepts: Æghwæþres sceal scearp scyldwiga gescad witan worda ond worca. the possibility of deceit is raised when the coast-warden says that Beowulf seems not to be exalted by weapons alone—unless his appearance belies him: “næfne him his wlite 137 Accepting the deletion of Klaeber’s comma after “witan. since this “proverbious” cant—the “professional” jargon of the þyle. þæt þis is hold weorod frean Scyldinga. and “understanding” in Beowulf (“gescad”) sounds much like the “difference” (“toscad”) of Precepts. whereas the second from Beowulf highlights the concealed intentions of aggressive foreigners. whose “boastful” words could mask dishonesty. and vanity. The one from Vainglory evaluates the concealed intentions of boasters in a hall.” as proposed by Bammesberger. I hear that this is a troop loyal to the Scyldings’ lord.138 “He who thinks well” recalls the capacity of having a “strong mind” able to perceive a man’s true thoughts. “Maxims” 34 note 9. The Coast-Warden Reads Beowulf ’s Intentions This concealed intent. Most significantly.137 The “sharp(-witted) shield-warrior” of Beowulf recalls the “sharp mind” of Precepts. In fact. “Coastguard’s Maxim” 4. . From this context.” 250b.139 In this instance. but applied it to the wrong context. It would also mean assessing Beowulf ’s modesty.” distorts the exchange. not spies. for “empty words” are exactly what the watchman is trying to intuit. a feature of his discourse so often attended here. he appraises Beowulf ’s words. but never provided the linguistic justification. Baker’s theoretical position that “a phrase like ‘empty words. This is also the sense in Pepperdene 416. concluding that Beowulf and his troop are “hold” (“loyal”) to Hroðgar. but Shippey then takes the watchman’s own deeds as the focus of judgment. Baker surmised. too. We 139 For an interesting historical discussion of weapons and status in this passage.141 Greenfield thought that the watchman was gauging whether Beowulf would be able to kill Grendel and deduced that he would indeed fulfil his pledge: “ ‘the sharp-witted shield-warrior must learn to tell the difference between ‘empty’ words and words which have the resolution and capability of deeds behind them. In 1988 Peter Baker accepted Greenfield’s context. one might assume that “Æghwæþres sceal scearp scyldwiga gescad witan worda ond worca” should mean that the coast-guard has determined that Beowulf does not intend to raid Denmark. T. Rejecting Shippey’s interpretation.” 140 Beowulf 14. Stanley B.”143 While this statement is arguably true. even on inadequate evidence. just before claiming that Beowulf ’s words were analogous to deeds: “the coast-guard has taken [ Beowulf ’s] words as virtual equivalents of the feats he is going to perform. 51. but without elucidation. seems foreign to Old English literature. 143 “Beowulf the Orator” 10.’ so typical of mainstream western thought with its anxiety about language that lacks substance. . as he did the Geats’ bold landing. Shippey came very close to this sense in 1978 when he summarized the maxim. Klaeber and others before him proposed as much. he sizes up Beowulf ’s appearance. “Beowulf as Seldguma. Somewhat later. A.”140 The watchman concludes from Beowulf ’s words that the Geats are neither pirates nor spies. however. Hill.” 142 Ibid. “it is the duty of a sharp-witted shield warrior to decide correctly.’ ”142 The confusion over context is understandable. The watchman cannot assess Beowulf ’s deeds. see Thomas D.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 101 leoge. Greenfield popularized a slightly different reading of the maxim. Assessing the truth of Beowulf ’s statement about his mission would mean evaluating whether he had a chance of defeating Grendel. 141 “Words and Deeds. 102 chapter one need only read the verses that immediately follow the watchman’s maxim to learn that he has judged Beowulf ’s intent: “I hear that this is a troop loyal to the Scyldings’ lord” (290a–1b). E. Having a gescead of words and deeds generally means discerning good and evil intent and should probably be translated “moral discrimination. R.’ . Kaske had reached this conclusion in 1984.”146 Unfortunately.” Even in the late tenth century. that gescead witan should be contextualized in the Anglo-Saxon wisdom tradition. in a note that generally confirmed Shippey’s understanding of the maxim: ‘The keen-witted shield-warrior who thinks effectively must be aware of the differing conclusions that can be drawn from observing words and works. .. he remarks that a dependable watchman must bear in mind the quite different impressions that can be created by different modes of perception. “Coastguard’s Maxim Reconsidered.” 290b) emphasizes Beowulf ’s sincerity.”145 Baker went on to allege that “gesc(e)ad witan” and “gesc(e)ad cunnan” should mean “to have knowledge of. with the translation “know fully. “worda ond worca” is a partitive genitive dependent on the pronoun “æghwæþres. having now had that opinion reversed or modified by listening to words (Beowulf ’s speech). to understand. making “worda ond worca” dependent on “gescad” (“the difference between words and deeds”).144 As Baker pointed out some years after Kaske’s piece. nor can it be ignored. the coast-warden has decided that Beowulf intends to confront Grendel and that he is capable of confronting him—and that he will not plunder the interior. apparently independently.147 It seems to me. Ælfric used OE gescead as the 144 145 146 147 “Coastwarden’s Maxim” 18. a crucial feature of his maxim. . have complete knowledge of ” rather than “know the difference between. The adjective “hold” (“loyal. “Beowulf the Orator” 7. the coastwarden has been initially misled by observing only ‘works’ (the apparent audacity of the Geats’ landing). this etiolated rendering fails to communicate exactly what kind of “knowledge” or gescad the watchman claims for himself. (of ) words and deeds”). see Bammesberger.” for the “idiomatic phrase” gescead witan. Alfred Bammesberger has lately joined this camp. Ibid.” .” and should mean “of both words and deeds. Rather. however. In other words. Linguistic Notes 84–5. the genitive “worda ond worca” does not vary “æghwæþres” (“to know the gescad of each. and Ælfric describes the function of gescead elsewhere as policing temptation:151 148 149 150 151 In Ælfric’s “Nativity of Christ” (Skeat. this moral choice is not always transparent. a thane with gescead. it refers to a moral distinction between “good” and “evil. Lives of Saints 16 lines 107–8). that helps one choose Christian virtue. gescead enables one to overcome evil partly through patience: “Þæt [the sin of anger] bið soðlice oferswiðed þurh geðyld 7 þurh þolomodnesse 7 þurh andgytlic gescead ðe God onasæwð on manna modum” (“Truly [anger] is overcome through patience. forbearance and the clear moral discernment that God implants in the minds of men. Such Christian knowledge or “good” is sometimes described as contingent on humility or self-restraint. The evidence for gescead as “moral intuition” is widespread in the corpus. though a man should ask it of him properly.” often figured as the “knowledge” of Christian virtue.43a–48b. rihtwislice gif he awuht nafað mycles ne lytles ne geradscipes?149 How may anyone find an answer to anything. Basil’s “Admonitio ad filium spiritalem”). if he has no righteousness and prudence for small or great matters in his mind? This passage refers to one’s personal judgment in making a decision about moral virtue. Second. In an anonymous Vercelli homily. Norman 40 (from St. þeah hine rinca hwilc æfter fringe on his modsefan rihtwisnesse andsware findan þegen mid gesceade.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 103 prime characteristic of soul that separates man from animal. Meters of Boethius 22. The Ælfredian Boethius suggests that righteousness and discretion direct one’s gescead: Hu mæg ænig man ðinga æniges. First. and gescead identifies a process of deliberation that distinguishes good from evil.”)150 Here one senses that patience confronts intemperance. Szarmach 12 (lines 99–101). .148 Attestations of gescead in the Old English corpus suggest two things about the gescead that Ælfric appreciates. He specifically thought of gescead as an instrument of personal judgment and moral guidance: “Gescead is ðære sawle forgifen to gewyssienne and tó styrenne hire agen life and ealle hire dæda” (“Moral discrimination is given to the soul to understand and to guide her own life and all her deeds”). The Rule of Chrodegang states.” (“Your little ones and the children who do not know the moral distinction of anything.” 152 . Heptateuch 336. credibile est quia iugum Christi et ipse portet et uobis portandum offerat. Rule of Chrodegang 74 lines 35–7 (translating “Ebriosus . . it is to be supposed that he himself bears the yoke of Christ and is offering it to you to bear.152 and a passage from Deuteronomy affirms the same of children: “Eowre lytlingas 7 ða cild ðe nyton nanes ðinges nan gescead ne godes ne yfeles . sin autem inmitis ac superbus est. in which representatives of various British churches practicing Irish heterodoxies must judge whether Augustine was a true “man of God”: Si ergo Augustinus ille mitis est et humilis corde. Relevant in this context is a passage from Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica. and ðæt heo gitsunge forhogige and beo hire eaðhylde. Dt 1.” Qui rursus aiebant: ‘Et unde uel hoc dinoscere ualemus?’ If this Augustine is meek and lowly of heart. . . Now. cf. The soul’s power is that she herself subdues the body’s desires to the moral discernment of the mind. engendering a general distinction between right and wrong. neither good nor evil . 153 Crawford. . “Se druncena ne .’ Once more they said.”). . and give in to temptation because they cannot resist it. and such that [the soul] despise concupiscence and be satisfied in herself. the Old English version of Bede’s History translates “inmitis ac Napier. . A state of moral blindness exists among drunks and children because they lack self-control. gescead ne can betwyx gode 7 yfele” (“the drunk does not know the moral distinction between good and evil”). it follows that he is not from God and we have no need to regard his words. .153 Having gescead for oneself can therefore mean exhibiting humility. . such that one’s moral discernment might be stronger than the evil temptation. but if he is harsh and proud. ðæt ðæt gescead beo wylldre ðonne seo yfele gewilnung. et filii qui hodie boni ac mali ignorant distantiam .104 chapter one Ðære sawle miht is ðæt heo sylf ðæs lichaman lustas underðeode ðæs modes gesceade. but using it to judge others might mean determining their motivation as humble or arrogant. neque nobis eius eius sermo curandus. . ‘But how can we know even this?’ Implicit in the counselors’ ethical judgment of Augustine is the difference between humility and arrogance (“mitis et humilis corde” vs.39: “Parvuli vestri . . “inmitis ac superbus”). constat quia non est de Deo. . neque inter bona et mala discernit”). . see Clemoes. talks of the man with “god ingehyd” or “good conscience.155 He also alleges that gescead applies to truth and deceit in his homily “De septiformi spiritu”: “And se hæfð god ingehyd . OE gescead explicitly designates a knowledge of hidden intention: arrogance or humility.” 270 note 9). asks to be given 154 Colgrave and Mynors 138–9. Quite similar to this position is the laconic observation by Mackie. words and deeds in Ælfric’s homily on the circumcision: “we sceolan of deaðe arisan. .” Based on this evidence. just the attitude needed to defuse the situation. This gescead judges thoughts. . “a þe bið gedæled” or “ever will it be divided for you. the Danish watchman judges the “moral quality” of Beowulf ’s words and deeds. . . þe . and worda 7 weorca (“we must rise from death and yield to God the moral judgement of all our thoughts. of course.” 267a). Beowulf has come “with loyal intent” (“þurh holdne hige. “Notes upon the Text” 517. the Geats’ presumptuous appearance on Danish shores (Beowulf ’s “deeds”) alarms the coast-guard. but Robert E. as it seems to in the contexts cited above.” who “knows the moral distinction between truth and falsehood” (“can him gescead betweox soðe ond unsoðe”). which reads “þises gescead” (“the moral distinction of this. who has to satisfy himself that Beowulf has come for his stated purpose—his “words. either humility or pride (“Coastwarden’s Maxim” 17). . 7 agyldan gode gescead ealra ure geþohta. In Vainglory evil explicitly designates arrogance. Miller 100 lines 29. for the Old English passage. 156 Bethurum 186 lines 42–4. In the context of wisdom literature like Vainglory one can understand why the watchman in Beowulf finds Beowulf ’s words reassuring. Catholic Homilies 227 lines 100–2. 155 In his sermon “De septiformi spiritu”: Bethurum 186 line 44. words and deeds”). They are not simply decorous. but conspicuously submissive. the watchman discerns Beowulf ’s honesty by his humility.154 In this passage. as the father in Precepts declares when he says. Corpus Christi College MS 41.” and the sentence “Et unde uel hoc dinoscere ualemus?” with the expression “be hwon magon we þis gescead witon?” (“How can we discern this moral distinction?”). too. so that god’s own son embraces humility.” He determines that Beowulf tells the truth. as so many have noticed. 31. but if “truth” derives from humility or self-restraint. Kaske rejected Greenfield’s obviously correct view that “þises gescead” refers to Augustine’s demeanor. can him gescead betweox soðe 7 unsoðe” (“He has a good conscience who knows the moral distinction between truth and deceit. cf. Wulfstan.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 105 superbus” as “unmilde 7 oferhygdig. Greenfield (“Words and Deeds”) cited Cambridge. while the devil’s spawn practices arrogance. As Kaske has said.”)156 One’s moral choice is often concealed. specifically in respect to humility and arrogance. offers to teach Hroðgar “counsel” through magnanimity (“þurh rumne sefan/ræd gelæran. . the jeer “þeah þin wit duge” follows on Beowulf ’s verdict that Hunferð will suffer punishment in hell for killing his brothers: “þæs þu in helle scealt//werhðo dreogan. In Vainglory the arrogant man is described as the fiend’s own 157 “Beowulf the Orator” 10–11. . Second. The poet’s “proverbious” exploitation of this wisdom topos invites a further examination of Beowulf ’s attack on Hunferð’s position as a þyle.” 273).106 chapter one advice (“Wes þu us larena god!” 269b). and they react suspiciously. acknowledges the watchman’s superior grasp of the situation (“Þu wast.” 588b–9a.” and therefore they can discern “evil. the judgment of Beowulf ’s behavior.157 Yet Beowulf ’s resolution (in the expectation that he alone can defeat Grendel.” 270b). Men with “wit” or “hyge” have a penetrating intelligence: they have “strong minds” or “think well. Beowulf ’s retort “þeah þin wit duge” challenges Hunferð’s role as þyle in command of the social customs of Germanic wisdom. Baker terms Beowulf ’s speech “understated and deferential” but grants that Beowulf does flaunt his own strength.” 282a–b). Because kin-killing is such a fundamental abomination in Beowulf. Are Beowulf ’s other statements compatible with provisions of Old English wisdom verse? Significantly. The Jealous Þyle To return once more to my premise. grants that the old king is wise and good (“frod ond god. Though presumably Hroðgar’s wisest retainer. at least one subaltern concludes that Beowulf expresses the right degree of humility.” 279a). First. characters in the poem are liable to misjudge Beowulf ’s actions as arrogant. . comprises a central concern in much of the poem. As I shall argue throughout. From the passage one can draw two conclusions. it has escaped notice that hell also happens to be the domain of the proud (cf. Cain). Hunferð does not reach the same conclusion as the watchman about Beowulf ’s intent to face Grendel. gif hit is .” 278a–b). proposes a “great mission” (“micel ærende. the potential misunderstanding of his words and works. lines 280a–5b) is consistent with the hero’s need to state his unwavering intent. and shows concern for his suffering (“cearwylmas/colran wurðaþ.” the symptoms of arrogance. Know by these few preceding narratives that that man is the devil’s own son clothed in flesh and that he will have a shameful life.” It recalls the biblical verse. wite þe be þissum feawum forðspellum. hine sylfne . in þa sliþnan tid up ahlæneð. þæt þæt biþ feondes bearn flæsce bifongen. for example.” a circumlocution for death. 158 . but for the arrogance that led him to commit murder. See. pressed by serpents. ‘bent downwards’] after death.” Because the expression “in þa sliþnan tid” is accusative. gif þu þyslicne þegn gemittest wunian in wicum. . se sceal hean wesan niþer gebiged. who exalts his proud ego [scil.11: “quia omnis qui se exaltat humiliabitur et qui se humiliat exaltabitur.158 Beowulf does not simply condemn Hunferð for murder (or cowardice). æfter neosiþum wunian witum fæst. Beowulf 136 note to lines 184–6. therefore. Elene 855b–6a “Rodor eal geswearc//on þa sliðan tid”. . wyrmum geþrungen. (44b–9b) Now you may understand should you meet such a thane dwelling in the precincts. grundfusne gæst gode orfeormne . and should probably describe the manner of punishment. This reasoning explains the accusation that Hunferð “killed” his “heafodmægum”—his “chief kinsmen” or older brothers—a wrecca’s crime that Beowulf insinuates would be motivated by Hunferð’s jealousy. The narrator concludes that warriors given to oferhygd always end up in hell: Se þe hine sylfne þurh oferhygda ahefeð heahmodne. Guðlac B 991b–2b: “ac him duru sylfa//on þa sliþnan tid/sona ontyneð. the proud man should be thought to incline himself towards “the time of cruelty.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 107 child. . shall be wretched. Lc 14. as Klaeber. heahmodne]. Only with some strain can one capture the metaphor that depends on ahlænan “to lean towards” and gebiged “bent downwards. a spirit eager for hell and useless to god. “Hell” may be an alternative to “death. must dwell fast in torments.” The expression in Beowulf 184a “þurh sliðne nið” (“through cruel enmity”) describes men destined for hell.” for which see Andrew 401–10. a concealed devil clothed in flesh whose life will be useless to God and destined for hell: Nu þu cunnan meaht. hafað fræte lif. the “fire’s embrace” (185a). humbled [ lit. . (52a–6b) He who inclines himself towards that time of hardship through reckless ambition. or else preempts Beowulf ’s upcoming fight with Grendel.”160 but John C. §3246. sing.”162 Pope’s terms certainly mitigate Hunferð’s resentment—competitiveness is the source of his jealousy. or mæðel as its direct object and means ‘to hold (a meeting)’.” in which event the passage could be translated “he would not concede that any other man might ever have given more thought to honors under the heavens than he himself had. spræc. we could take (ge)hēdan in its root sense “give thought to.) giving “he would not allow that any man under the heavens would achieve more glory . Pope likewise exposed two common mistakes in reading this passage. Hunferð “not only cared a great deal but had deluded himself into supposing that nobody on earth could ever have cared more. care more for glorious deeds [“mærða. . that Hunferð thinks himself the better man.108 chapter one Of course.v. “Elements of the Marvellous” 31.” logically refers either to Beowulf ’s fight with giants. mærðo. the Beowulf narrator explains that jealousy motivated Hunferð to mention the Breca episode and predict that Beowulf would not crush Grendel: forþon þe he ne uþe. the first exacerbated by Klaeber’s glossary. Second. . even if derived from gehēgan.”159 Robinson interpreted this statement of Hunferð’s jealousy as a “Falstaffian attitude toward heroic deeds. “he would not allow that any man under the heavens would have achieved glory .” The translation. the form gehedde is a preterite (likely subjunctive) and. But it may also portend that. where “mærða” is queried as a genitive plural—unprecedented for predicate gehēgan—and often mistakenly construed with “ma” (acc. The editors of Klaeber’s Beowulf have revised the glossary to reflect the verb gehedan + genitive obj. ought to be translated “would have achieved. 2. see Mitchell. æfre mærða þon ma gehedde under heofenum þæt ænig oðer man middangeardes þonne he sylfa (503a–5b) . . Robinson proposed that Klaeber’s gehēde ( gehedde MS). because he would not grant that any other man would have given more thought to earthly honors under the heavens than he himself had. .” impossible to construe with the MnE translation “achieve”.” since every occurrence of (ge)hēdan in Old English is collocated with “þing.”161 In other words. . Alternatively. Old English Syntax.” should rather express (ge)hēdan “to heed. s. Fred C. carry out.” 504a] than he himself did. however. vol. Ibid.” instead of the (correct) adverbial usage “þon ma. . . . seonoð. theoretically derived from OE gehēgan “to perform. 161 “Beowulf 505” 180.” This probably means exactly what Pope conveys. 162 Ibid. 159 160 . Pope has proposed a positive rendering for it: “[Unferth] would not grant that any other man on earth could ever . Hwæt.” 34a–b). þu worn fela. the drunkard “deceived by wine” (“wine 163 Appositive Style 77. Beowulf ’s harsh reply could therefore be attributed to Hunferð’s infringement of social dignity and group cohesion.163 In his new volume Beowulf: An Edition Robinson extends this reading to the Hunferð passage cited above. but the claim that “to translate druncne as ‘drunk. my friend Hunferð. . moreover.v. drunk on beer. in the glossary s. but Beowulf assumes. In Vainglory. wine min Hunferð. So in Precepts the father warns his noble son. In a characteristically clever argument. Hunferð thinks himself to be the better judge of Beowulf ’s fitness to assail Grendel than Beowulf. and the prospect that Hunferð is being accused of inebriation. (530a–1b) Well. again divulged by wisdom verse.164 perhaps because accusing Hunferð of being drunk sounds indecorous. 164 Mitchell and Robinson. and the narrator confirms. On the reluctance of scholars to acknowledge “inebriation” in the Germanic hall. beore druncen ymb Brecan spræce . Robinson explains that “beore druncen” in Beowulf 480b should mean “having drunk beer” and therefore having participated in a ritual that elicits trust. “keep yourself from a drunken and foolish statement” (“druncen beorg þe/ond dollic word. Hunferð’s “jealousy. you have spoken very many things about Breca. Hunferð thinks Beowulf is not ready to fight Grendel. Robinson compares the Beowulf locus to “dreore druncne” in Andreas 1003a. Coming from someone responsible for teaching men how to achieve heroic deeds in moderation—as the “morale officer” Enright envisions—Hunferð’s sanctimony would befit the context of wisdomas-moderation that motivates the digression as a whole. Beowulf: An Edition. Beowulf says. that Hunferð abuses his office to discredit Beowulf ’s ambition. “Courtliness and Courtesy” 93. not shame. In Beowulf 480b Hroðgar implies that drink induced his retainers to make reckless boasts they could not fulfil and so his bencþelu or “bench-platforms” (486a) ended up “blode bestymed” or “drenched in blood.” I allege. . Fred C. see Stanley. inebriated’ is logically impossible in the Andreas passage” seems overstated. Yet the accusation that Hunferð is “drunk on beer” (confirmed in “wine druncen. Just after Hunferð recites the Breca story.” I do not find Hroðgar’s remark “inappropriate” in the context. has a specific context.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 109 having reflected on honor more than anyone else. . drincan.” 1467a) connects directly to wisdom verses in which drunkenness should be avoided specifically because it causes one to utter offensive and therefore reckless words. ” 41a) “maliciously [or deceitfully] lets his words flow out” (“searwum læteð . þurh byreles hond þonne he gemet ne con mode sine. 12. this explanation accounts for Beowulf ’s taunt that Hunferð had uttered “very many things” (“worn fela. word ut faran. secgas nemnað. therefore. bið ær his worda to hræd. the wisdom poem Fortunes of Men explores the vice of warrior drunkenness at length. . he accuses Hunferð of violating a cardinal axiom of warrior virtue that Hunferð would be responsible for promulgating among Hroðgar’s troops. deprived of joys. Elsewhere in Vainglory 18b–19a “drink” incites a man’s spirit and engenders jealousy. (48a–57b) On the mead-bench the sword’s edge will crush the life from another one. gemearcian his muþe ac sceal ful earmlice dreogan dryhtenbealo ond hine to sylfcwale mænað mid muþe on meodubence ealdor oþþringeð. 19. suffer supreme destruction.110 chapter one gewæged. 131). meodugales gedrinc.” 40b–1b). . He had been too hasty in his words. ‘mod. Then he will not know moderation. dreamum biscyred. One in his cups will become a mead-flushed fellow through a server’s hand. because a sot cannot moderate his speech: Sumum meces ecg yrrum ealowosan were winsadum. Finally. Vainglory alleges that a proud man’s “immoderate spirit” (“ungemedemad mod”) will become “filled with the fiend’s darts of jealous irritation” (“bið þæt [leg. Hroðgar’s þyle sounds much like a boastful drunkard and loudmouth himself ! The narrator seems to confirm the wisdom topos of drunken boasting in the motivation for Hunferð’s challenge. see Larrington 24–5. str. It can be fatal. how to limit his mouth with his mind. Sum sceal on beore meodugal mæcga. For all his wisdom. ealdre linnan. These passages reveal how fundamental it was for a wise retainer to control his speech while drinking. 11. Hugh Magennis argues counter-intuitively that Hunferð’s “drunkenness provides an acceptable pretext for his verbal attack on Beowulf. Appropriate to this context are verses 18 and 47 of “Lokasenna” as well. a way in which such an attack can be accommodated to the prevailing standards of hall courtesy without implicating the whole company” (163). a wine-sated man. Men will call him a suicide and lament with their voices the intoxication of a man flush with mead.’ 165 On warnings against drunkenness in “Hávamál” (Neckel and Kuhn. according to the Fortunes poet.” 530a)—an excessive amount. Beowulf does not merely accuse Hunferð of being drunk. but full pitifully will give up his life and. .165 Indeed. an angry ale-talker. but in the warband community it may have designated a man one could rely on for aid. friendship may have been a social institution (loosely defined) in which peers took on risks and 166 Hill. it seems relevant that Hunferð expresses “micel æfþunca” or “extreme jealous irritation” (502b) over Beowulf ’s venture. Beowulf calls Hunferð “my friend” quite sarcastically. beore druncne. brought them to strife.” The noun is related to OE ofþyncan. I offered anger from a cup. and Cynewulf ’s Juliana confirms that the psychological state of “æfþonca” originates in drinking: Sume ic larum geteah. Hunferð displays the jealousy of a hypocrite. through the sword-stroke. chagrin. First. they might revive old annoyances. Beowulf implies that drink causes a second breach of decorum. the poet seems to confirm the opposite: at this moment at least. As far as I am aware. . sarum gesohte. to geflite fremede. Hunferð’s “æfþunca” should probably be situated in the context of convivial drinking and possible drunkenness. OE æfþanc/æfþanca is often translated as “vexation. þæt hi in winsele þurh sweordgripe sawle forletan of flæschoman fæge scyndan. when drunk on beer.” 26a–7a). Cultural World 99.” but here I prefer “jealous irritation. displeasure. in war as in peace. From these Vainglory and Juliana passages we can deduce two things about Hunferð. þæt hy færinga ealde æfþoncan edniwedan. In light of the Vainglory passage describing the boaster whose spirit becomes completely filled with jealous irritation. Drunkenness among a company in the hall specifically engenders such pompous selfregard. sought out by wounds.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 111 25a] æfþonca/eal gefylled//feondes fligepilum. In his mocking reaction to Hunferð’s challenge. that in the wine-hall they might let their souls be parted from their doomed bodies. Ic him byrlade wroht of wege.166 In other words. In this digression the poet describes a kind of irritated envy directed at unworthy interlopers. there is no evidence that OE wine or freond had a specific legal definition. Second. annoyance. so that. used in Beowulf to describe the irritation felt by the Heaðobards when members of the Danish retinue flaunt captured Heaðobard weapons (2032a). (483b–90a) I prompted some by my advice. rancor. although Hunferð thinks that Beowulf is arrogant and reckless. a life among wolves: “Wineleas.” 37b). and Precepts records that one should never tolerate sin (“man”) in a friend or kinsman: “ne næfre freonde þinum. 1704b). .169 However appropriate this maxim might be. Perhaps the old father’s advice (in Precepts) that his son be neither “too reproachful” nor “too doubting” (“Ne beo þu no to tælende. quite treacherous beasts. (30b–1b) Do this with conviction. “Poetry and the Historian” 91.” see Larrington 28–9. On “mockery” in “Hávamál.” 146a–7a). “wine min Beowulf” (457b. wonsælig mon/genimeð him wulfas to geferan. “Hávamál” shows a particular obsession with honest and dishonest friendship congruent in many respects to that of Anglo-Saxon wisdom verse. 90a–b) contextualizes Hunferð’s exchange with Beowulf. Maxims I also warns “earm se him his frynd geswicað” (“wretched the man whose friends fail him. as well as the old retainer’s insinuation to his young “friend” in the Heaðobard digression (2047a). Beowulf ’s taunt “wine min Hunferð” expresses the breach of a social taboo. 52–7. freonde þinum. Dorothy Whitelock has pointed out. miserable man takes wolves for companions. in reference to a passage from Maxims I. but injunctions against deceitful friendship are commoner in the Anglo-Saxon wisdom corpus./ne to tweospræce.168 In the wisdom context appropriate to a þyle. Finally. that exile entailed friendlessness. that betrayals of friendship were offenses against the honor of the comitatus. Later. wisdom literature expresses contempt for betrayals between friends. the “father” tells his son never to be deceitful against his friend: þæt þu næfre fæcne weorðe Ræfn elne þis. in the Beowulf passage cited above Beowulf blames drunkenness for Hunferð’s breach of etiquette.//felafæcne deor” (“A friendless. and Beowulf implies that Hunferð violates this voluntary “friendship” with his criticism. 167 168 169 Larrington 29–35. If so.112 chapter one responsibilities for each other as sacred obligations. that you never become deceitful towards your friend.//mæge man ne geþafa” (17b–18a).167 Like “Hávamál” Maxims I recommends cultivating friendships (lines 144a–5b). Because trust motivates friendship. Beowulf acts as a “friend” to Hunferð in fighting Grendel on behalf of the Danes. This may be the context of Hroðgar’s address to Beowulf. ’ ” The primary sense of OE bregdan is indeed “pull” (>MnE “braid”). 173 The remarks by Geoffrey R. but he also criticizes Beowulf ’s overconfidence. Fulk has offered convincing evidence against the “rowing” hypothesis: first. “does not mean ‘pulled quickly with your hands’ . more recently. even when Beowulf is later said to be in the water. R. that Unferth’s remarks . .170 Some considerable dispute has centered on whether Beowulf and Breca row or swim. are perfectly true and that Beowulf indeed failed in the swimming [sic] contest. Apparently taking Breca’s side in the matter. that swimming skill was often contested among nobles. for as the Dictionary of Old English suggests. “soð ic talige” (“I maintain the truth. “fleotan. R.174 Although Nelles thinks the Breca contest involved boats. so the meaning is precise: “pull with hands. the expression “earmum þehton” would not describe rowing. Fulk. but swimming is almost certainly intended.173 William Nelles has recently championed the view that the Breca contest was one of endurance: neither boy can part from the other until one of them concedes.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 113 Beowulf ’s Competition with Breca The insults that Beowulf directs at Hunferð deflect the problem that Hunferð’s challenge seems entirely creditable. I cannot agree with Nelles’s interesting conjecture that Breca drowns. I disagree with his analysis of the variand: “mundum bregdan. as lines 541b–3b seem to portend. Wentersdorf. a point Beowulf makes when he says. To these positions I would also add that boating seems tame as a competition. Frank. wrap.” an action that could describe rowing. rather damages the case for rowing than supports it.” he avers. “Elements of the Marvellous. . 171 The boating argument has a clear critical pedigree: Robinson. of course. ‘row. the argument of wisdom against folly. .” 543b) suggests the endurance scenario.172 second. if arum bregdan means ‘move (across water) by means of oars. Earl. embrace.” he proposed that one’s arms would “embrace” the “eagorstream” (“sea-current”) in swimming more likely than in rowing (“Semantic Space” 461). which seems to have entailed endurance. “Semantic Space” 463 note 20.171 In a recent article of extraordinary importance. 170 Gingher 19 note 1: “It is possible. . and the parallel arum bregdað . . Nelles 302–3. susceptible to any rash challenge.” 532b).” 542b] from him. that it means “natation. . D.” See. . 174 Beowulf ’s phrase “no ic fram him wolde” (“not at all did I want [to float. 172 Since OE þeccan means “cover. D. may contextualize the Breca incident. boats are never mentioned. his emphasis on endurance strikes me as the right deduction—when applied to swimming. third. Fulk has lately proposed what has to be the final word on the semantics of OE sund. “Sea Changes”.’ or ‘swim.’ then mundum bregdan ought to mean ‘move (across water) by means of hands. analogous swimming matches abound in Scandinavian sources. see also Jorgensen. because it is highly important that the victory be disputed. “Rowing Match”.’ that is.” later developing the sense “sea” (“Semantic Space”). Russom (“Germanic Concept”). Nagy 21. Hunferð establishes uncertainty about Beowulf ’s success. not racing. Nelles’ argument is quite close to the proposition by Wentersdorf. ” and the water-monsters at Grendel’s mere are said to enter on “sorrowful ventures” (against sailors. land of the Brondings. but in the morning they would be dead” (446). burh ond beagas. the inclusion of Breca in the charge ( git) implies that the journey was indeed sorrowful because it was a futile. characteristic of headstrong but foolish boys. would boast about what they would do to Grendel.” 509a) made out of “recklessness” (“wlence. “Themes of Death” 261–4. 176 Paul Beekman Taylor.” best translated as “a venture that brings sorrow. 1429a (of the water-monsters at Grendel’s mere). freoðoburh fægere.177 Hunferð makes the incident sound insane by stressing the rushing current. leof his leodum. lond Brondinga. “Beowulf ’s reply to Unferth twists the latter’s terms of abuse into descriptions of his own heroic deeds” (263). Eliason proposed that dolsceaða (“foolish combatant”) in 479a can refer to Hroðgar’s men rather than Grendel (“Beowulf Notes” 446–7). 262: “. a point similar to that made by Hygelac about the Grendel expedition. OE dolgilp may be derogative in just this way. esp. his fair peaceful fortress where he ruled a nation. He grants Breca secular responsibilities by emphasizing Breca’s triumphant return to the “fair peaceful fortress where he ruled a nation.” his “fortification. that sorhfull sið describes any venture likely to end in death. Heremod himself neglected precisely these symbols of responsibility: 175 Norman E. his fortification. Neither Beowulf ’s friends nor enemies could dissuade him from the challenge (511a–b). presumably). Significantly. as narrated by Beowulf to Hygelac). an inimical trait for kings. the man dear to his people. Taylor identifies the expression as a “type E whole-verse formula” (261) which the Beowulf poet alone uses.” and “treasury”: ðonon he gesohte swæsne eþel. 177 Klaeber. open water. 2119a (“siðode sorhfull”: of Grendel’s mother. silly. and vain exploit. Grendel’s mother undertakes such a “sorrowful venture. þær he folc ahte. lines 1278a (of Grendel’s mother’s attack on Heorot). (520a–3a) Whence he sought his cherished homeland. Yet Hunferð also criticizes Breca for recklessness. . primed with beer.114 chapter one He says the venture resulted from a “stupid boast” (“dolgilpe. rather. Beowulf. Breca’s kingship is independently confirmed in Widsið 25a: “Breoca [weold] Brondingum” (“Breca ruled the Brondings”).”176 The Beowulf poet uses the expression “sorhfullne sið” consistently to represent deeds likely to end in death.” Taylor suggests that because the nicors suffer death. . . and his treasury.175 Hunferð remarks explicitly that both youths made a “sorhfullne sið. and winter weather. I think. He supplies a context for “God eaþe mæg//þone dolscaðan/dæda getwæfan!” (478b–9b): “The men.” 508a) and abetted by stubbornness (510b–12b). and that “it was granted” that he slew his foes sounds much like the “humility” he expressed towards the coast-guard. Beowulf ’s admission that his act was youthful bravado (“on geoguðfeore. Beowulf established this rhetorical misdirection by observing that he and Breca held naked swords (539a). . Beowulf risked his life on a stunt that should have brought disaster to himself and his companion. Second. . his people could have suffered the “fyrenþearf” (describing the lack of a ruler) bemoaned by the Danes at the opening of Beowulf. folc gehealdan/hord ond hleoburh .the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 115 “scolde .” 910b–12a). In fact. we now credit Beowulf ’s conviction. But while Beowulf ’s sword-play may guarantee his readiness and confirm his ability. Of course. to undertake a mad escapade. yet again. present and future. .178 The accusation calls into question Beowulf ’s responsibility. . . treasury and defensive fortress. // . // swa deorlice/dæd gefremede// fagum sweordum” (“Breca has never yet in battle done such a bold deed with shining sword.” Hunferð implies that the Geats may lose Beowulf this time for swearing. Beowulf lost to Breca and failed to live up to his boast that he could last longer at “natation.” 537a). an example of linguistic implicature (“on Beowulfe”) that subtly features what else was heard but not attended. 178 179 . . and therefore their competition involved defense against predators (540b–1a). First. Perhaps this passage may be elucidated by remarks made in Shippey. . Many have been misled by Hroðgar’s response to Beowulf ’s put-down. his motivation “for wlence” and his victory against Breca stand unresolved. . . that his war-gear saved his life in the Breca match.179 Bazelmans 134.” 583b–6a). . “Principles of Conversation” 111–12. We are meant to infer that Hunferð’s jealousy may have affected his judgment. Had Breca died. Hunferð’s message is twofold.” (“He should have ruled his nation. but Beowulf defends his masterful sword-play: “Breca næfre git//at heaðolace . Hunferð has charged Beowulf with reckless boasting. and deflects Hunferð’s trenchant criticism. but the narrator’s precision should give pause: the old king “heard in Beowulf a firm intention” (“gehyrde on Beowulfe . Beowulf ’s hitherto unknown killing of nine sea-monsters (during a storm!) transforms the terms of victory in the match from “natation” to self-defense. and Beowulf certainly implies that Hunferð misjudges him.” 609b–10b). which Hroðgar applauds. // fæstrædne geþoht. But he goes on to demean Hunferð in the way I outlined above.180 As I have been emphasizing all along. but none is validated. Yet the poet has also engineered an opposing position in the context of the Germanic flyting.” just as Hroðgar “hears” in Beowulf ’s invective a “firm intent.” Beowulf ’s righteousness. As we have seen. that Beowulf claims for himself. It may be true that Beowulf ’s defense of the swimming contest with Breca and his protest of Hunferð’s acrimony vindicate Hroðgar’s judgment. and substantial evidence supports their intuition. Beowulf represents an ambivalent figure: either a man like a wrecca prone to arrogance and recklessness. the flyting context so often invoked for the Hunferð interlude presupposes Beowulf ’s susceptibility to wlenco. etc. amity. Beowulf ’s victory in the flyting limits any confidence we might have in his virtue. and excessively vicious. 180 Peter Baker claims. and Beowulf ’s put-down could be thought to affirm the warrior virtues of courage. At the same time. the attack seems excessive. On the flyting. consult Lönnroth. Harris.” Had Beowulf stopped with his vindication. which he does not exceed. Many have thought so.” . the ambiguity of his “confidence” would not raise as many suspicions in the “flyting” or verbal debate context. “here the insults seem quite in order. and his rebuke sounds too defensive. “The Senna. Hunferð’s insecurity conditions his own appraisal. which does not disprove.116 chapter one The verb hyran almost certainly expresses just this kind of intuition in Old English. wisdom. or a warrior of surpassing virtue who has recognized the limitations of his strength. Although many have praised Beowulf for “winning” this dispute with Hunferð.). The coast-warden “hears” that Beowulf is “loyal. and everyone (perhaps even Unferth) seems to be pleased by their vehemence and the elegance of their delivery” (“Beowulf the Orator” 17) and “downing Unferth is the same kind of task as killing Grendel” (ibid. In fact. De Dubbla Scenen 53–80. Individual characters contribute assessments of each potential. The Wisdom Context of the Hunferð Digression: A New Theory of Flyting Rhetoric Critical approbation for Beowulf ’s “victorious” response in the Hunferð dispute has done away with an equivocation implicit in the flytings or verbal debates attested in Old Icelandic sagas and Eddic verse. but rather “complicates. In 1978 Geoffrey R.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 117 In an impressively perceptive paper Carol Clover once alleged that the Hunferð episode impersonated the Norse mannjafnaðr or “mancomparison.”184 It could be said that the flyting typically justifies violence. the general bias . “Unferþ Episode” 463. Clover summarizes the flyting contestant’s rhetorical skill and delineates three categories of insult: Inferior contestants (Þórr. Ericus Disertus. while the first-rate performances of Ófeigr.”182 She reiterates this very same symptom only a few pages later: “Travel and adventure are otherwise unanimously favored over domestic pastimes. I will suggest.181 The flytings could be described as ritualized abuse. hard life vs. The flyting form has multiple variations.” figured as cowardice. Hárbarðr. and reveal how flyting discourse misrepresents truth. stay-at-home. 183 Ibid. use classical rhetorical techniques. soft life. then.” 11–13). however.185 181 Clover. 456. she sides with Lönnroth against Harris.” a quarrel over the heroic qualities of two combatants. or infamy. the Odinic warrior capable of the greatest violence or most reckless deeds. and rape. who classified the episode as a senna. identified as action (fighting and winning. Russom proposed that the flyting between Hunferð and Beowulf was a device the poet used to highlight Beowulf ’s abilities (“Germanic Concept. . Clover maintains that “boasts have to do with manly virtues: defeat of mighty adversaries. but many follow a broad pattern in which one participant accuses the other of “dishonor.”183 And she noted the identical emphasis in an earlier article on “Hárbarðsljóð”: “. While scathingly contemptuous. Within the prevailing opposition of action-versus-passivity exemplified here. participation in military campaigns. and Sinfjötli) tend to be random and excessive in their remarks. and Skarpheðinn are carefully proportioned. 182 Clover. the flyting still incorporates a sophisticated sarcasm that generates deep humiliation. “Unferþ Episode” 453. that the flyting more subtly exploits moral ambivalences to generate shame. in other words). . and build on a few standard oppositions: action vs. malingering. 185 Clover. . talk. 184 Clover. . Byggvir. the flyting “winner” is often the dogmatic troublemaker. “Hárbarðsljóð” 129. an objective it shares with the OIcel níð. “Hunferþ Episode” 454. adventurer vs. . Even from a native perspective. victory in contests of strength. consistently and unambiguously favors martial heroism over all other activities. Grep. versus honor. 453. stay-at-home. er á Sælundi felldak bræðr böðharða. malicious.”186 The flyting combatants commonly denigrate each other’s position: the “adventurer” accuses the shiftless “layabout” of being a jeering coward. Brand ok Agnar. even though Þórr chases him out of the hall where he has managed to insult nearly every god and goddess. Underappreciated in Clover’s study is the type of combatant engaged in such flytings. or when “cowardice” (so named) should be espoused as a social good. By contrast the “hall-dragger” puffs up his own deeds. you were lying at home in the king’s hall. Ásmund. skauð hernumin. but the term skauð (as she explains. “action vs. failings of honor (unwillingness or inability to extract due vengeance. you weren’t there on Zealand when I felled the battle-hard brothers Brandr and Agnarr. and attacks his opponent’s self-proclaimed prowess. Oddr interprets King Sigurðr’s rule as malingering and craven: Sigurðr. Ásmundr and Ingjaldr. “Sigurðr. This is Clover’s translation. “honor” conceived as campaigning vanquishes “cowardice” construed as shiftlessness. and Álfr was the fifth. He is often belligerent. One could conclude that accusations of shiftlessness come from murderous adventurers. heroic failure (losing a battle). Álfr var inn fimmti.e. a captive gelding. skrökmálasamr. p. full of tall stories. “hall-dragging”) and action. hostile relations with kinsmen).118 chapter one Within these distinctions. soft life. Ingjald. talk. vart eigi. adventurer vs. and trade peace for glory. en þú heimi látt í höll konungs. 186 187 . His vituperations certainly lack delicacy: Ibid. even when action is reckless or unjustified. re-open settled feuds. and doctrinaire. who enact strife. the kind of “cautious” or conscientious behavior that might arguably derive from wisdom. domestic indulgences.”187 In many examples of the flyting such as this one. As treated in “Lokasenna” the rebellious Loki clearly has the last laugh.” specific accusations can include “acts of cowardice (deserting a battle). A passage from Örvar-Odds Saga perfectly documents this most basic opposition between passivity (i. 457 note 39) is far more ribald than “gelding” suggests. trivial or irresponsible behavior (pointless escapades. hard life vs. sexual dalliance). ’189 Thor is powerful but not brave: out of terror and fear you squeezed yourself into a glove. deadly accurate: the art of the boast lies in creating. oc þóttisca þú þá Þórr vera. Clover professed that “they argue interpretations. the worst possible version of the event.191 Clover’s multiple examples convey her sense of these competing “versions. and the art of the insult lies in creating. Ibid.’188 Hush now. at least in the hands of the chief practitioners. alleviated by touches of toilet humor: ‘Þórr á afl œrit. By no means could Loki’s insults be justified by his own moral conviction (Njöðr. svá at Fialarr heyrði. Having laid out the taxonomy of flytings. 34).the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 119 ‘Þegi þú. Because of your terror you did not dare sneeze or fart lest Fjalar hear you. but he is the clear victor in the verbal debate. the best possible version of the event. and verbal abuse! This is no contest between gentlemen but a way of establishing superior ferocity between competitors. Ibid. within the limitations of the facts. seductions. hvárki þú þá þorðir fyr hrœzlo þinni hniósa né físa. 26).’ flyting charges are. Clover.” One “stay-at-home” who actually wins a contest with an “adventurer” is the patently Christian King Eysteinn in Magnússona 188 189 190 191 Neckel and Kuhn 103 (str. and pissed in your mouth. fathered the beloved god Freyr in captivity). is Óðinn. Hárbarðr (Óðinn) takes pride in his own assaults. 459. “Unferþ Episode” 458. not facts”:190 Far from being ‘unfounded taunts. and none would have thought you were Thor then. in fact. too.” but his verbal duel with Þórr compares escapades of ever-escalating rapacity. af hrœzlo oc hugbleyði þér var í hanzca troðit. within the limitations of the facts. Hymir’s maidens used you like a urinal. Njörðr! You were sent by the gods as a hostage east of this place. Hymis meyiar höfðo þic at hlandtrogi oc þér í munn migo. the flyting champion in “Hárbarðsljóð. . So. 82 (str. Njörðr! þú vart austr heðan gíls um sendr at goðom. enn ecci hiarta. 457. en þú sazt heima meðan sem dóttir föður þíns” (“It is commonly thought that my expedition abroad was rather princely. Ibid. er ek fór ór landi. each flyting competitor tries to show that his opponent’s factually true event is somehow immoral.192 King Sigurðr denounces his brother King Eysteinn as a “hall-dragger”: “Þat hefir verit mál manna. 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 Ibid. 458. 458–9. weak. I sense. while you in the meantime sat at home like your father’s daughter”). Ibid. Ibid.120 chapter one Saga from Heimskringla. . Ibid. churches. Ibid. Clover clarifies.199 A problem with Clover’s perspective is her insistence that the opponents concede that the “facts” are true. but its significance or practical value. Is it morally superior to campaign or build churches? For Clover.194 Yet Sigurðr’s brother Eysteinn has a crushing reply: he stayed home to govern the nation while his brother globe-trotted: “[I] built hospices. . It is not. This is the “interpretation” that Clover claims for the flyting. 455–7. 459. Ibid. it constitutes a major and serious plot event in which the moral character of the participants is at stake.”198 King Eysteinn claims to have more knowledge of the law. on the contrary. Ibid.”195 Clover deduces. . but his brother Sigurðr says that he only knows more legal tricks and that his smooth but empty words only flatter those around him. “Eysteinn challenges not the substance of Sigurðr’s boast . at ferð sú. a question of factual true and false but of moral plus and minus. reflects her view of the ethical valence of each participant’s behavior. 456. when he boasts about his travels and conquests in the Holy Land. beacons. a royal hall. towers. harbors. in other words. and she furnishes an example from Magnússona Saga which “epitomizes both the method and the rhetoric. væri heldr höfðinglig.”196 She goes on to observe how the flyting in general establishes “moral character”: “If the flyting refers to actual events or behavior.”197 While shrewd. founded a monastery and annexed Jämtland. when.193 Sigurðr harps on his valor again. Clover’s argument about “fact” and “interpretation” (voiced in terms like “significance or practical value”) dislocates key ambivalences in the flyting genre. or pointless. roads. The “moral plus and minus” that Clover observes in the flyting. Each potential ally observes Skarpheðinn’s obvious doom. the worst possible version of the event. among other dodges. Sigurðr acknowledges his brother’s expertise but alleges that Eysteinn uses it maliciously. Brennu-Njáls Saga 298: “Who is that man. 106: “His grin is a blatantly brazen.”200 Yet this view cannot be true. they are acknowledged. . in OI glott [trans.” that Eysteinn’s self-proclaimed skill is mere trickery. This aspect of the flyting—that the “facts” are distorted to suit the claims—can actually be proved from other flytings that Clover analyzes. harðligr ok trøllsligr?”201 Few could doubt that Skarpheðinn has become more troll than human. and Starkaðr. . er fjórir menn ganga fyrri. For Clover.” 200 201 . his monstrosity and his ugly face. . a victim of his own unnatural truculence and cold tenacity. the fifth one in the line. In this case Sigurðr actually challenges “fact” when he argues against Eysteinn’s legal proficiency. at least in these terms. stay-at-home” type. idle words and false promises made to sycophants. Far from conceding the “fact” of Eysteinn’s competence. cruel. luckless. huge. pale-looking. ibid. At the Alþing Skarpheðinn travels from booth to booth and seeks support from various chieftains for his unpopular case.202 When turned down in his demands for assistance.: “consummate defiance. even when the flyting combatant does not typically refute the alleged slander. he argues a different kind of “interpretation. Low 102: “. cf. Skarpheðinn slanders his prospective allies in the Norse equivalent of a flyting. within the limitations of the facts. The brothers debate the “fact” of Eysteinn’s knowledge of the law. whose unjustified murder ends up causing cataclysmic violence. Grettir. Clover classified Skarpheðinn’s flyting from Njáls Saga as “a first-rate performance” of the “adventurer vs. The foregoing claim and counterclaim exemplify the method. the tone is one of contempt for fools not suffered”. In just this way Clover imagines that “the art of the insult lies in creating.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 121 the facts are actually distorted to create the flyting accusations. inappropriate facial expression for a man who is soliciting support for a bad murder”. . mikill maðr ok fölleitr ok ógæfusamligr. He accuses Skafti Þorodsson of cowardice for escaping his enemies by hiding in flour-sacks. “Skarpheðinn’s charges at the Alþing are not denied. as Skafti Thorodsson: “Hverr er sá maðr . Sveinsson. 459. Of this moment Clover writes. one after Ibid. “grin”] there is none of the warmth of shared amusement. and troll-like?” 202 The malicious grin that Skarpheðinn sports is a feature of trolls and giants—the literary ancestry of Beowulf. The Njálssons seek allies to defend a charge for the killing of Höskuldr Hvítanessgoði. ” but he asserts without any shame that taunts cannot move him: “Margir hafa þat mælt áðr . but they can be in one other gibe. in Snorri’s case.”203 In fact. ok mun ek ekki við slíku reiðask. for Gíslis Saga documents that Snorri’s maternal uncle killed Snorri’s father. Snorri was born after his father’s death: the only father he knew was Börkr. in fact. How could one doubt this scepticism for the Anglo-Saxons. who held that “soð bið swicolost” or “truth is most deceptive”?206 The “interpretation” imputed to the flyting does not therefore derive from the absolute morality of an opponent’s deeds but from the humiliating indecency one contrives in exploiting their moral ambiguity. and I am not angered by such things.” The circumstances backing the insult directed at Skapti cannot be confirmed in extant sources. This position will become clear when I turn to the Hunferð digression. tacitly or directly. Sveinsson.” which complicates Snorri’s vengeance. 203 204 . 206 See Robinson. an examination of Skarpheðinn’s charges shows how the flyting actually exploits ambiguities of “fact” disguised as “truth.”204 Skarpheðinn’s charge reveals his own disgraceful intemperance. The imprecision of fact yields the opposing positions that define the flyting. “Old English Wisdom Verse.” 205 Benedikt Sveinsson. since he would have to murder a man whose relationship to him was.” when they really amplify half-truths. Although “Unferþ Episode” 458. Skarpheðinn’s flyting at the Alþing reveals yet even more about the flyting combatants in the context of action versus passivity. Þorgrímr had murdered Vésteinn in an act called “launvíg” or “secret manslaughter. The importance of the half-truth lies in its capacity to be factually “true” (as Clover detects) but contextually false and therefore deficient as evidence of moral debility. The flyting generally hinges on such equivocal “facts” that contravene expectations for action. Saga Gísla Súrssonar 34–6 (chapter 16). the difference between having legal skill or exploiting a technicality.205 Snorri’s revenge would be highly objectionable. This delicate equivocacy misled Clover into thinking that accusations had to be “true. what goes unstated is that such vengeance would be obscene and therefore impossible. in Germanic societies. While it is a “true fact” that Snorri has not avenged his father. Snorri’s answer acknowledges the “fact. .122 chapter one the other. by the men in question.” From the context Robinson conceives of this maxim as demonstrating the corruption of lucre. Brennu-Njáls Saga 300: “Men have said that before. as close as that of father. Skarpheðinn alleges Snorri Þórgrimsson’s moral and physical weakness in failing to avenge his father—presumably a “failing of honor” in Clover’s scheme. What is more. . His greatness rests on keen judgment and a willingness to compromise. and þyle. Clover. Skarpheðinn’s aim to uphold a contemptible murder shows just how dishonorable the flyting champion can be. . Snorri and men like him are universally esteemed for their tact and diplomacy. answers that the incident validated his swordsmanship. . . . and while maligned for being epicene. not on a jealous disputing of honor . The moral valence of this opposition complicates Beowulf ’s response to Hunferð. Beowulf. warrior) and Unferþ the hall-dragger. . rather the contrary . . the sagaman admires his discretion and condemns Skarpheðinn’s “heroic” temerity. “Unferþ Episode” 463. . Andersson has elucidated in a study of honor in the family sagas: . coward. the most illustrious and successful diplomat in the sagas is Snorri goði . . It does prove “a jealous disputing of honor. . as Theodore M. Even though Njáls Saga is late in the literary tradition relative to Beowulf. Yet in Clover’s scheme. I believe that anyone wishing to prove that the mild-mannered man is more highly esteemed in the sagas than the ójafnaðarmaðr [?arrogant man] would have little difficulty. Hunferð yet suggests with authority that the Breca incident proves Beowulf ’s recklessness in fighting Grendel. does not prove virtue. .”208 Yet I have alleged that Hunferð is neither a “hall-dragger” nor a coward but a man who 207 208 “Displacement” 581–2. and culturally distant. I would argue. an imprudent troll who urges men to violence even in the most compromising circumstances. and Njáll himself only supports his sons because it would dishonor him not to. Snorri is no gallant viking nor a memorable hero but a skilled tactician .the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 123 maligned. Moreover. By Anglo-Saxon standards of warrior virtue—wisdom and war—which of them offers a “moral” position? Clover points to Skarpheðinn’s flyting when she highlights “the opposition between Beowulf the adventurer (sword-wielder.” in Andersson’s terms. it highlights a dominant Germanic opposition between passivity and action.207 In this episode of Njáls Saga one could not say that the “just cause” belongs to the flyting winner. Skarpheðinn’s “wins” the debate by “silencing” his opponent. Victory in this flyting. Njáll frequently counsels restraint and negotiation. I fail to find any evidence that the Odyssean Snorri was less highly regarded than his more Achillean compatriots. While motivated by jealousy. and in Njála this sort of reckless “courage” opposes Njáll’s own sagacity. . however. The chieftains detect Skarpheðinn’s luckless imprudence. meanings derivative of its originary sense “natation. Polanyi.) and judged that he had “great courage” (“mod micel. The poet himself mentions that the Danes “trusted” (“treowde. measured the ocean-streets. What good can anyone do against this foe? While Beowulf has been said to “win” this debate. especially if he had deliberately created a ‘gap’ of indeterminacy by employing ‘sund’ in both its poetic and prose senses simultaneously.” Is the duel with Grendel any different? Having made this point. like many other Danes. Bjork. Beowulf ’s insinuation of Danish cowardice seems insensitive. When Hunferð says that Beowulf and Breca “thatched the sea-streams with their arms. pulled with limbs.210 Nearly two decades ago Roberta Frank adopted Clover’s approach to the flyting and suggested that Hunferð denigrated Beowulf ’s match with Breca by exploiting an ambiguity in the meaning of OE sund. “Speech as Gift.” he hopes to ridicule their “adolescent exertion at the oars in terms suitable to poodles paddling furiously in Greenfield.” 507b). Hunferð expresses annoyance at Beowulf ’s presumption.209 it has not been thought that winning could imply intemperance. keeping a handle on the truth while insinuating something quite different. glided over the main. Interpretation of Old English Poems 130–1. 209 . “Rhetorical Powers”. as in the case of Skarpheðinn. Frank proposes. 211 “Sea Changes” 160.124 chapter one has realistically assessed his chances against Grendel. Furthermore. yet Fulk’s implicit reading “competed at natation” makes better sense (“Semantic Space” 465–6). Hunferð appears to mean “swimming” when he remarks that Beowulf “ymb sund flite” (“contended around the sea. “the quarrelsome thyle would have been delighted at the controversy he initiated. “centers on the courage and capacities essential to the fulfillment of such commitments” as boasts or vows.” ibid. either “swimming” or “sea” (>MnE “sound”).” 1167a). Silber. and the Breca episode perfectly articulates his criticism: the Breca duel was frivolous. I want to re-open the way Hunferð’s challenge should be interpreted as a flyting. which..”211 In other words.212 Supplemental to this ambiguity is Frank’s charge that Hunferð depicts rowing as swimming. a “sorhfullne sið” made “for wlence.” 1166b) Hunferð’s “fighting spirit” (“ferhþe. because the poet confirms that swords cannot harm Grendel. 212 Frank’s translation. ibid.” 210 Verbal Dueling 47.” With characteristic ingenuity. according to Ward Parks. R. Fulk has argued that “sund” means “natation. Frank was led to imagine that Hunferð’s ridicule would have to discredit the Breca feat itself as somehow morally deficient. . on which each flyter imposes “Sea Changes” 161. from the real to the disguised. Yet Ward Parks unwittingly contested this approach in his remark that “Beowulf and Unferth recall their differing versions of the swimming adventure because they think it reflects on Beowulf ’s likelihood of success against Grendel.” and could apply as much to swimming as to rowing.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 125 a pond. What is more.” since OE reon “never has the sense ‘to swim’ outside of Beowulf. The text in Klaeber’s Beowulf reads: Þær git eagorstream earmum þehton. Influenced by Clover’s formulation of the flyting.”217 For Parks. 213 . 215 “Sea Changes” 161. While “rowing” might strike anyone as obvious in the context. the ambiguity of OE sund as “swimming” or “sea” has only recently been resolved. Hunferð admits. Beowulf himself admits that he “rowed” in the ocean (“wit on sund reon. Frank thought Hunferð depicted Beowulf as a “poodle. Nelles 301. (513a–15a) 214 Frank. “the progression in Unferth’s speech from rowing to covering with arms. flinging hands. OE reon does mean “row” in the context of 512b.”213 Antecedent to the accusation stated above. “Sea Changes” 160. 216 “Semantic Space.). Beowulf and Hunferð dispute the facts: “The Beowulf-Unferth exchange. .216 This research has important ramifications for the Hunferð episode because it resolves a tension of the flyting. In Frank’s terms. but it fails to impress. Beowulf at least engaged in a feat against Breca. and gliding is a movement from specificity to ambiguity.” 217 Verbal Dueling 49 (my emph. glidon ofer garsecg. In other words. where OE sund is not likely to mean “swimming. mæton merestræta.” 539b). however.” the “interpretation” of his drama as mere dog-paddling and therefore spurious proof of success against Grendel. OE reon can only mean “swim” in Beowulf if we accept the premeditated ambiguity that Frank senses in the passage. Hence. “devotes much of its bulk to the rival versions of a particular episode in Beowulf ’s career . spanning. and she goes on to remark.” he says. what starts out as rowing sounds much like swimming by the end. D. “git on sund reon” (“you two rowed on the sea”).”215 In other words.”214 In fact. mundum brugdon. he makes Beowulf appear reckless. .126 chapter one his own interpretative bias. Beowulf admits that he “lost” the contest because of this storm and its effects in stirring up water monsters—not because of any failure of strength or will. In the first.” For this reading. Beowulf lost to Breca. 107. Important to this debate is the lack of resolution in the charges. These extenuating conditions answer my definition of the flyting as an exploitation of a circumstantial ambiguity. . In concession to the poet’s 218 Ibid. the flyting distorts the truth. What goes unregistered in Hunferð’s accusation is the fierce storm that drove Breca and Beowulf apart on the fifth day. Unferth wishes to characterize the adventure as a contest. but Beowulf denies that there was any match to be lost. a charge answered when Beowulf confesses that he was immature. His wording (“rival versions of a particular episode . but why he lost necessitated the defenses he just supplied. and his assertion that he was “spirited” in his youth hardly dispels Hunferð’s charge of recklessness in the Grendel confrontation. still acting from youthful insouciance when he defied Breca (537a). A second ambiguity in the Hunferð digression pertains to the contest itself. “Senna” 68: “disingenuous characterization . Beowulf is still publicly untested against a human adversary. . both of which Beowulf immediately refutes. Hunferð accuses Beowulf of losing a match. its moral equivocation lying in a coy misdirection. Hill. Breca lasted seven nights on the waves (517a) and won the competition. .”218 In a footnote to this quotation Parks elaborates: “Specifically. Parks’ resolution to the Breca incident may be idiosyncratic. see Kuhn. “Hrothgar’s Noble Rule” 172–3. Hunferð exploits two ambiguities. but it correctly re-orients the flyting debate to a clarification of half-truths. Although claiming to have battled water-monsters. and away from an “interpretation” of “facts. According to the argument I made above. the essence of Hunferð’s accusation.”219 By this reading.” 523b–4b).220 Yes. 220 On this straightforward reading. John M. “Beot eal wið þe//sunu Beanstanes/soðe gelæste” (“Beanstan’s son truly fulfilled his entire boast against you. . Beowulf denies it with a correct version of the story. Some in the Danish audience might not have gathered this detail from Hunferð’s accusation. whereas Beowulf does not. My reading of Parks’ implicit position actually derives from arguments made in his book. “Life of Beowulf ” 109.” 219 Verbal Dueling 205 note 20. interpretative bias”) discloses his misunderstanding of Clover’s argument regarding “interpretation. In fact.” This way of reading the Hunferð digression dominated until Clover’s paper was published. see Harris. Given the exaggeration that characterizes such exchanges. These terms convey why Beowulf used the expression “to banan wurde. . as. s. adventurer” flyting. OED. Yet Beowulf ’s accusation sounds much like the insult Skarpheðinn leveled at Snorri. OE to is often translated as expressing certitude: “you were your brothers’ slayer.” But the simile could be expressed. tó sense I.” 587a–b). why should Beowulf ’s accusation that Hunferð slew his brothers be any more valid than Hunferð’s accusation of Beowulf ’s loss to Breca? Calling attention to the fratricide theme in Beowulf. for. long the subject of scholarly questions. in this case at least. The opposition between Beowulf and Hunferð reflects that between two parties in a “stay-at-home vs. .’224 221 222 223 224 On this possibility. as I have stated.” with OE to “marking the position occupied. the purpose fulfilled by an object. as Beowulf accuses: “ðu þinum broðrum/to banan wurde” (“you were murderer to your brothers. see Morey 39–42. “Unferþ Episode” 459. “he [Hunferð] his magum nære//arfæst æt ecga gelacum” (“he was not dutiful/honorable to his kinsmen in battle.5 (f ) (991). as circumstantial: “you acted like a slayer to your brothers. . form a major theme in the genre. to. we have shown. the narrator remarks vaguely. The duplicate charge in [“Helgaqviða Hundingsbana I”] (“[ Þú hefir] þínum brœðr/at bana orðit”) is verified elsewhere.” 1167b–68a). Bosworth and Toller. and it is a rare flyting that does not exhibit at least one such accusation.221 The poet’s confirmation of Hunferð’s “jealousy” makes the hypothesis even more attractive. Ibid. however. deadly accurate”:223 Recourse to the Norse context brings into sharper relief Beowulf ’s charge of fratricide. critics appear certain that Hunferð killed his own brothers.” Beowulf ’s accusation of cowardice would therefore reflect a distortion of the “facts”—a reading. .the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 127 liminal heroism. While the circumstances alluded to in this insult are never confirmed.v. . and there is no reason not to take the Beowulf poet at face value when he later says that Unferþ was not ‘honorable to his kinsmen at sword play . but none unconditionally discounted. The Norse sources thus appear to substantiate Unferþ’s fratricide. accusations of overconfidence have been made. Clover.”222 In this sense. that Clover discounts in concession to her premise that “flyting charges are . 463. Kinship crimes. It may furthermore be concluded by extrapolation from documentable examples that such insults tend as a group to be true—true at least with respect to received tradition. Siggeir. at Siggeir’s hands. I simply contend that Beowulf ’s “victory” in the flyting does not prove Hunferð morally bankrupt. Guðmundr’s remark. Lawrence and J. . “Breca Episode”. 229 Discussed below. torture. brœðr þínom/ at bana orðit”225 accuses Sinfjötli of murdering his (Sinfjötli’s) “brothers. 226 Lawrence. D. where Hæðcyn accidentally “murdered” his brother Herebeald. 259–60. Appreciating the poet’s ostensible tact. While Hunferð’s charge of Beowulf ’s failure in the Breca 225 Neckel and Kuhn 135 (str. In Völsunga Saga Signý brings the boys to Sinfjötli. Sinfjötli killed his half-brothers. Nor does it prove Beowulf morally virtuous. Even if Hunferð had killed his brothers. in the context of the most celebrated retaliation in Germanic legend. and murder of Sinfjötli’s other half-brothers. Ogilvy 370–5. But while Sinfjötli’s killings are indeed “true facts. “þú hefir .229 By no means am I trying to pardon Hunferð’s jibe. and it may even signify just the opposite. W. A. too.” as they imagine.” they are ameliorated. this Norse expression parallels Beowulf ’s formulation. as Chambers advocates. Sigmund’s sons. and sons of his mortal enemy. but most critics. 36).226 This strikes me as the obvious solution but not the only one. and commands their deaths in vengeance for the treacherous capture. kinslaying might “[serve] the purposes of the commonwealth. which I understand to reflect both jealousy and wisdom. “wine min Hunferð. W. Others have been tempted to think so.” which criticizes a man who has failed friends and kinsmen. have been beguiled by granting Beowulf ’s virtue as the “winner” of the debate. Ogilvy reasoned that Hunferð “killed” his brothers by failing to help them in a crisis. if not sanctioned.” as Nagy proposes. who are also his nephews (via the incestuous relationship with Signy).” In fact. This reading contextualizes Beowulf ’s quip. By these terms. how could he trounce his opponent with half-truths? Yet the Beowulf poet excuses Hunferð by praising his fighting spirit and by referring to his “murders” in such conscientious terms.227 or. 228 Beowulf 28.”228 Or had Hunferð’s brothers simply undertaken a campaign that he wanted no part in? Certainly the best parallel to this alleged “murder” comes from Beowulf itself.128 chapter one This claim is misleading. like Clover. 227 Nagy 25. Guðmundr’s accusation obviously capitalizes on a notable ambiguity in the Volsung revenge. If Beowulf were the “hero. . pp. might reflect the “tragic complexities of heroic life. In just this way Beowulf ’s own accusation against Hunferð might be distorted. . Very recently.232 In this aspect of his work. responsible for baiting guests into publicizing their intentions. The argument depends significantly on the kind of military hierarchy one wants to theorize for the poem. which owes allegiance in exchange for status and material wealth.” Beowulf now belongs to the rank of men like Skarpheðinn. so much of which has been idealized out of existence. but it highlights a common anxiety of the warband. and the god Óðinn. 299. Enright has challenged views of a negative Hunferð by alleging that the þyle holds an important warband position as the king’s official spokesman. security-conscious. One of Enright’s significant contributions has been to formulate a “realistic” picture of warband behavior. whose books The Cultural World in Beowulf and The Anglo-Saxon Warrior Ethic offer a detailed psychological portrait of comitatus membership. “Warband Context” 310. .231 Enright’s best parallels emerge from Irish sources.’ and a good deal of Beowulf scholarship thus seems to lack bite: it discusses the characters in the poem without analyzing their roles in the harsh. and it is uncanny to observe how similar such military offices can be in heroic societies.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 129 episode appears discredited. The king. who value “action” at all costs. This hierarchical relationship could resemble the 230 231 232 Nagy 23. dictates to his retinue. Enright follows the lead of John M. Following his lament that “the warband context is still much neglected. Ibid. Having perfected the “art of the insult. Hill. Scholars rarely question the practical organizational requirements of such a group in ‘gritty reality. predatory military organization to which they belong.” he naturally opines.230 the implicit accusation of recklessness goes unresolved. Scholarship in much of the last century backs Enright’s view of a “vertical” relationship between king and retainers. Ófeigr. that is. Potential Recklessness and the Apprehension of the Warband Hunferð’s accusation against Beowulf has seemed “mean-spirited” to many. Michael J. The “gritty reality” that Enright speaks of in this context refers to his own view of Hunferð as Hroðgar’s adjutant. Hunferð would have a legitimate obligation for later making amends with Beowulf by loaning him a famous sword. Narrative Pulse 34. Such a social institution sounds much less like a modern military organization.234 My argument need not imply that an “independent” Hunferð capable of confronting Beowulf on his own jeopardizes Hroðgar’s authority.” “sergeant-at-arms. Hunferð’s criticism is personal. Hunferð speaks for the warband as a conscientious officer (þyle). there may be some unease over Beowulf ’s vehemence. even though. Hill. if we surmise that within the military hierarchy of Beowulf some latitude was granted to senior members of the comitatus. Lords of Battle 66–7. 1470b–71a). Bazelmans 4. Hunferð could only act as Hroðgar’s spokesman when he tests Beowulf ’s resolve with his challenge. The king could hardly order more men to their deaths. 233 234 235 Ibid.”233 If this hierarchy were as rigid as that of the modern military. the comitatus has an arrangement with Grendel that nevertheless humiliates Hroðgar. reputation for courage.130 chapter one modern military establishment that Enright evokes when he speaks of “sergeant. Most problematic.” 278b). Admittedly jealous. That is why he is said to express joy when Beowulf trounces Hunferð. although confronting Beowulf is not an “official” act. Correspondingly. and to Beowulf ’s presentation of his pledge to confront Grendel (“ræd. 310. defensive. 304. nor does it suggest the warband had a “horizontal” relationship with the king. It goes too far to allege that a “horizontal” relationship best fits the context of Beowulf. to Wulfgar’s laconic demand that Beowulf be heard. The case has been made quite cogently by Stephen S. . Evans. however. Another view of Hunferð’s behavior is possible. as I have said.” and “morale officer. and no doubt shared. who calls attention to the advice Hroðgar receives from counselors in lines 171–4. warband security is assured in the current détente with Grendel. is the poet’s statement that Hunferð gave up his honor by loaning the sword Hrunting: “þær he dome forleas// ellenmærðum” (“he lost glory.235 Having lost so many lives already. but he condones Beowulf ’s intervention because he sees that Beowulf might be capable of killing Grendel. A “horizontal” relationship would mean that the king and retinue are co-dependent. One cannot imagine Hroðgar condoning this humiliation. issuing joint decisions and policies. but a sympathetic conception of “co-dependence” could explain why Hunferð challenges Beowulf. In other words. In fact. recognize the limits of the warband after being crowned. He suggests that Beowulf overemphasizes his own accomplishments. and interferes in a situation that the Danish warband has resolved. by which the Danes abandon the hall for Grendel’s use at night. in other words.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 131 In some sense.” Hunferð speaks for the subaltern when he chastizes Beowulf. then. the moral sanction for Beowulf ’s fight comes only from outside Beowulf ’s world: he prosecutes God’s feud. Hunferð expresses a majority opinion—not the view of cowards or rogues but of Hroðgar’s fighting men—that engaging Grendel is foolhardy. even when he does not know the stakes. Nevertheless. When Beowulf says that he intends to cleanse Heorot. or like Heremod who plagued his people. From Hunferð’s point of view. or cannot. Many have grappled with this “inconsistency. As Saxo says of Lotherus. and we are left merely with a coincidental validation of heroic action. “he was as intolerant a king as he was a soldier. Beowulf disrupts the compromise at Heorot. embraces recklessness. more an adventurer than a king—a man like Sigemund. that a king must learn to accommodate his warband. He may endanger others for his own glory. Hroðgar himself steers Beowulf away from vanity by setting Ecgþeow’s “moral” and financial debt against Beowulf ’s self-promotion. In this respect Beowulf ’s attack on Hunferð has an equivocal justification. The word “accommodation” simply means that kings have to ascertain how much valor their men are capable of—or could legitimately be expected to perform. When contextualized in the flyting tradition. In fact. a king who (as described above) destroyed his own retinue and compromised the Danish kingdom. . or does he reveal what Beowulf really thinks but cannot say openly during such traditional introductions? In fact. we see Beowulf as a potential instigator. the king’s pretense creates a secular justification for Beowulf ’s attack on Grendel. Beowulf cannot be aware of this serendipitous moral alignment.” Is Hroðgar restating Beowulf ’s reason for sailing to Denmark in humbler terms. One has to understand an important emphasis in Beowulf. however unhappily. a breaker of truces. reason enough to break the current détente. Hunferð speaks to Hroðgar over Beowulf ’s head when he invokes the Breca affair. The antitype is represented by Heremod. It is an egregious fault of men like Heremod that they will not. wanting all glory for himself. Hroðgar retorts that Beowulf is repaying a favor owed to Hroðgar for defending Ecgþeow years before. Beowulf ’s boast to kill Grendel without weapons sounds more like arrogance than confidence. hordweorþunge hnahran rince. drunk on beer.236 Elsewhere Hroðgar seems to belittle his men when rewarding Beowulf for killing Grendel: Ful oft ic for læssan lean teohhode. Robinson. In both of these quotations. Lady with a Mead Cup. not to mention Hroðgar’s expression of joy following the Hunferð incident. he mentions that his drunk “pledgers” very often boasted about meeting Grendel “with the terror of their swords”: Ful oft gebeotedon ofer ealowæge þæt hie in beorsele Grendles guþe beore druncne oretmecgas bidan woldon mid gryrum ecga. Hroðgar expresses. Hroðgar sets Beowulf up as heir in direct competition with his own kin. sæmran æt sæcce. the old king appears to express disappointment with his men. (480a–3b) Very often my pledgers.237 Wealhþeow’s objection to Beowulf as Hroðgar’s heir indicates her position as spokeswoman for the retainers’ candidate. in the opinion of many. She reverses Hroðgar’s decision to appoint Beowulf. a whiff of annoyance that his warband could not handle Grendel’s threat. Hroðgar may simply be warning Beowulf that beer will not make bold in this case. Such pointed remarks sound insensitive. (951a–3a) Very often have I bestowed a reward for less. First. If Enright is correct to see a strong relationship between Germanic queens and royal retinues. Appositive Style 67. but the loss of Æschere questions Hroðgar’s leadership in allow236 237 Magennis 161. hoard-honor to a lowlier warrior weaker in battle. Hroðgar’s support for Beowulf seems undercut by Æschere’s death. Hroðgar minimizes the effectiveness of his own retainers and suggests that he has over-rewarded them. Hroþulf. would boast over the ale-cup that they would await Grendel’s assault in the beer-hall with the terror of their swords. I have argued that Beowulf could be deemed responsible for Hondscioh’s death. . in my view.132 chapter one Although reconciled to his current circumstances. a perfect equivocation for the old Scylding’s exuberant advocacy. yet behind these words Hroðgar seems to be claiming that his own men often failed to fulfil boasts like Beowulf ’s. Of course. Moreover. But Beowulf ’s ambition still gainsays his promise. too. and his victory confirms a greatness that Hunferð refuses to welcome. but at least he endangers no one else in the dragon fight. The Sigemund/Heremod digression investigates the fate of wreccan. God favors Beowulf against Grendel. and of indefinite virtue. Instead. group cohesion. however. the alternate destiny that awaits kings with Beowulf ’s potential.the sigemund-heremod and hunferð digressions 133 ing Beowulf to pursue what might amount to personal glory. depending significantly on the subaltern evaluation of the Grendel fight. even when Beowulf emerges victorious in a verbal contest that typically exalts action over passivity. no matter the risk. Casting its shadowing over Beowulf ’s future is Heremod’s war-mongering. the poet wishes to evaluate why or whether they were right by appraising the consequences of their deeds for the men who did not decide to fight Grendel. The strategy of comparison found in the digressions I have discussed is also found in the poem’s most elaborate episode. My own view is that Æschere’s death has to be viewed as the consequence of Hroðgar’s support for Beowulf ’s intervention. In Finnsburh. although many would disagree on its relevance in the poem. It seems to me that Beowulf and Hunferð are rival opponents—one endorsing a fight. the other a truce—and that the poet intends to balance these competing impulses in evaluating how self-knowledge and intent separate courage from recklessness. The loss of Æschere proves that even a king’s concession can unwittingly imperil the warband. The frank exploration of loyalty. It cannot be doubted. Was Grendel’s death an adequate trade for Æschere’s? Few could doubt that Hroðgar’s loss is significant. that Beowulf ’s potential excess is thought to contravene Germanic “wisdom” in the Hunferð episode. one wrecca who acted properly. In my view. Beowulf is compared to the wrecca Hengest in the Finnsburh digression. glory-seeking ambition. for whatever reason. Æschere represents the warband as its figurehead—more so than Hunferð—and the savage decapitation of Hroðgar’s chief counselor raises the question of reparation. Sigemund may be reckless. suggesting that Beowulf might become as famous as Sigemund. One should not instantly accept that Beowulf and Hroðgar were right to confront Grendel. and . A distinctive polyvalence emerges from the foregoing discussion in which Beowulf may or may not express excessive. the subject of the next chapter. just as Hondscioh’s death results from Beowulf ’s resolution to fight Grendel. which largely criticizes ambition as a dire fault of kings. Beowulf is subtly disparaged as a foreigner. Yet Hunferð’s own jealousy may discredit his authority as a judge of Beowulf ’s motivation. I think. but Hengest does not respond until forced to by his own party. illuminates my allegation of Beowulf ’s potential moral ambivalence. His willingness to disregard even a sacred duty. Motivated by the highest regard for his stake in the joint rule of Frisia. Hengest would leave the Danes humiliated by their service to Hnæf ’s killer. the narrator concludes that Beowulf might also direct his rule towards a private ambition and away from responsibility for the warband. Presumably based on his own observation. the obligation of revenge that one’s retainers hold to be righteous.134 chapter one power which emerges in a scop’s performance exemplifies Beowulf ’s unfitness for ruling Danes. . Hnæf ’s murder cries out for vengeance. The specifics will matter a great deal because the tale answers charges of recklessness and indifference made against Beowulf prior to the Grendel fight. who has come to command a group of Danes. To exemplify the Danish position. he dismisses their own experience of Grendel and ultimately says nothing of Hondscioh’s death. Hunferð sees in Beowulf a threat to the warband: Beowulf ’s allegiance to his men extends only as far as it intersects with his ambition. a Jute or Angle I argue. eager for glory. Details of the episode in Beowulf are notoriously baffling mostly because the story is conveyed so telegraphically. to honor the sacred duty owed to his own retinue. Risking his men in what looks to the Danes like certain defeat. In such a situation vengeance would not simply be imperative but righteous or “jural. the accusations will cut even deeper. In the Grendel fight Beowulf has shown himself to be potentially ambitious and callous. In the case of Finnsburh. I suggest that the Beowulf poet broadens this perspective in the Finnsburh digression. Now that Beowulf is exalted by Hroðgar’s adoption—he becomes a surrogate “son”—there is a risk that the foreign Beowulf could compromise the dignity of the Danish people. As I have proposed.” among the most sacred . another wrecca implicitly like Beowulf. however. where Hengest’s righteous loyalty to a Danish tribe is tested. probably a marauding company joining up with King Finn in Frisia. and scornful of the ordinary man’s abilities against an inhuman adversary. and express an unresolved worry that a king’s ambition might compromise the nation’s security. the Finnsburh digression spotlights the foreign Hengest. allowing the Danish leader Hnæf to lie without vengeance. The central figure Hengest is accused of an irresponsible dereliction.CHAPTER TWO THE FOREIGN BEOWULF AND THE “FIGHT AT FINNSBURH” Antitheses in the digressions of Beowulf converge on a fundamental distinction between the warband and leader. In the following pages I spend considerable time explaining what I take to be a very simple tale of reluctant revenge. Hnæf died because of Frisian treachery. The Finnsburh poet exposes the failure of Hengest. As a foreign warlord. a host of Danes. a recurring figure in the episode. for the Fragment attests that the fighter Sigeferþ was likewise a “wrecca widely known” (“wreccea wide cuð. The sacred obligations of one’s retainers. but Hengest cannot bring himself to suborn even a righteous act because he has retailed his loyalty to the Frisian king Finn. the Finn episode in Beowulf concerns Hengest’s compliance with an indisputably honorable duty that the warband should undertake in direct conflict with their leader’s sworn oath—and personal ambition.” to use the euphemism for piracy. Sigeferþ and Hengest may plausibly have joined Hnæf either for national defense or for an “expedition. under which circumstances a “retinue” could be said to have volunteered its support for their wrecca-leader. In fact. Only when his Danish cohort threatens mutiny does Hengest finally concede the warband’s charge. Hence. The warband suffers from Hengest’s delay in vengeance. Infamy is averted only after the stalled vengeance is consummated. but the Finnsburh poet has made his point that foreign leaders like Beowulf can subordinate even the most righteous instincts to their ambition. Hengest has become the Danish commander and Finn’s adjutant. This identification underscores the makeup of Hnæf ’s band. if not from the very compromise that drove them into service to their lord’s killer. seem incidental to the foreign war-leader’s political objectives or alliances. Yet no longer does the poet’s attention rest on Beowulf ’s fight with monsters. Finnsburh belongs in Beowulf at this place because it exemplifies yet again the conflict between a foreign leader (Hengest) and his retinue. Not in the Finnsburh episode. the grief of the Danish noblewoman Hildeburg. moreover. the Finnsburh poet has indicted Beowulf for his likely failure in promoting the unambiguous duty of his men. the essential contrast between Hengest-asBeowulf and a hypothetical warband rests on the designation of Hengest as a “wrecca” (1137b).136 chapter two obligations for kin and retainers.1 The term has a fateful resonance for Beowulf ’s own unformed identity. . Hengest may have no duty to avenge the fallen Hnæf.” 25a). With Hengest as his model. although he ought to recognize the duty of Hnæf ’s Danes to do so. In this gidd. 1 George Hickes’s printed text reads “wrecten. The Danes demand blood.” probably in error for “wreccen” (Thesaurus 192–3). and even then the planned revenge must accommodate Hengest’s sacred oath of allegiance to Finn. constantly reminds us of the conspicuous duty for vengeance. Wyatt-Morris. by Heyne. Holder. ‘Hæleð . Bugge. 1068 forms the commencement of the quotation in Ettmüller. an epithet explicitly linking audience and characters. and Gering. the old Heyne-Socin text (1903) with 1069. and Grundtvig—the latter assumes a considerable gap after Scyldinga—print no signs of division or of quotation. the Scylding Hnæf is called a “hæleð Healfdena” (“hero of the Half-Danes. Holthausen.” (“Opening” 777–8). a triumph which all agree should compliment Danish resolve.” and a lavish celebration honors the hero. Gummere has no marks of quotation. Tinker (based on Wyatt’s text). .” 1069a). 30. In fact. Wyatt.. Horse races are held. Tinker. Child. Grein. “Beowulf 1020b”. a poet recites Finnsburh “fore Healfdenes/hildewisan” (“before Healfdene’s warriors. as he does Healfdene’s saddle. War-leaders from surrounding territories follow Grendel’s tracks to the mere. Mitchell. cit. by Ettmüller. As against all of these. Sedgefield. Holthausen. now boiling with gore. Köberl brilliantly suggests that such “referential ambiguity” collapses distinctions between past and present (Indeterminacy 160). loc. Wyatt. . 1069 in Lesslie Hall. Wülcker. Grein. 1068.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 137 Reading Finnsburh as an Analogy More or less covering lines 1071a–1159a (not counting the introductory verses). and Clark Hall begin with 1068. Hroðgar’s father. Its context may be summarized briefly.” 1064a–b). and Danes gawk at Grendel’s arm. before l. l. but a simple indentation in l. Among the translators. whilst Kemble. 3 Some (Klaeber included) have questioned whether Beowulf actually gets Healfdene’s sword. ‘Finnes . . by Schücking and Holthausen. “Tragedy of Finnsburg” 399–400). Schücking with 1071 Nē hūru Hildeburg. Alexander Green later elaborated: “Marks of quotation are placed before l. On the way back a warrior sings of Sigemund and Heremod. . . the Episode is generally printed within marks of quotation. Earle. Hroðgar acknowledges Beowulf as an adoptive “son. Watanabe. . . ‘Nē hūru Hildeburh . Beowulf has mortally wounded Grendel.2 Finnsburh comprises the longest and most intensively studied episode in Beowulf. Socin and Trautmann. Child. 1069 . The tale commemorates a Danish victory over Frisians. Klaeber emended MS brand Healfdenes “Healfdene’s sword” of 1020b to bearn Healfdenes “Healfdene’s son. p.” This brand of Healfdene’s is almost certainly the weapon once owned by Heorogar and given to Hygelac (2155a).3 Immediately following the bestowal of these gifts. Clark Hall. . “Sword of Healfdene” and “Further Thoughts”. 1071 in Gering. and Chambers. . which has been hung from a beam in Heorot. 1069. so also Trautmann. 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. Hæleð Healfdena. Sedgefield begin this quotation with 1068 Finnes eaferum (or eaferan). whose name engendered the . . Lesslie Hall with 1069” (Lawrence.4 2 Few agree on where the digression begins: “. Arnold. and Trautmann. and 1. Thorpe. Gering. just before the episode opens. l. “Final Words. Garnett. before l. 1071.” Opposed to this emendation are Kuhn. 4 Healfdene was a Danish king. Kemble.” He repeats the same position in Heathen Gods 65–77. that raised the first doubt of Hengest’s identity . Niles (“Locating Beowulf ” 98) is more direct: “To take this Hengest to be the Hengest of the Migration Myth seems only natural. Hnæf must be her brother. 5 See Aurner 57–8: “In the earlier translations of [Beowulf and the “Finnsburh Fragment”] it was generally taken for granted that this Hengest was identical with the well-known figure in the chronicles. Hengest with the Hengest (of Hengest and Horsa)” rests on highly tenuous evidence (“1947–1987: Forty Years On” 338). . however. Its main figure Hengest arguably inaugurated the Anglo-Saxon migration. Joseph. see Tolkien. 24–7.” See also Van Hamel. Turville-Petre. Hawkes. . although John D. It was this translation apparently. Grundtvig. In the following précis the Finnsburh versions in Beowulf and the fragment have been reconciled to provide a schematic outline of events. . not all of which will enjoy universal agreement: dynastic term “Half-Danes”.”7 and the events recounted in Beowulf formed the subject of an independent lay now designated “The Fight at Finnsburh.” 8 Klaeber’s Beowulf 283–5. de Vries.5 The earliest versions of Hengest’s deeds in sub-Roman Britain are chronicled in Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica and the Historia Brittonum of “Nennius. that the “modern identification of . 7 Line 27: “Fin Folcwalding/Fresna cynne [weald] . . Historia Brittonum §§20. making them tell of the death of Hengest . Here I must mention the judgment of Bruce Mitchell.” Richard North accepts the identification unconditionally in “Tribal Loyalties. 150.”6 Elsewhere Widsið records that “Finn son of Folcwalda ruled the Frisians.”8 In fact. . . This understanding of Hengest’s identity was not only accepted but was definitely reaffirmed by Price and Kemble. . . changed the translation of the important lines 1142–1144. Hoc is father to Hildeburh in Beowulf 1076b. 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. although omissions in the digression and the fact that two men share the same name in the lay make the plot of both subject to ample disagreement. the first to give a complete interpretation of these passages. Dumville. neither telling conflicts with the other except in the names Ordlaf (fragment) and Oslaf (Beowulf ) and in one other detail (discussed below). assumed as a matter of course that the Hengest in the tale was the only Hengest referred to in heroic tradition . 6 Colgrave and Mynors 50. and since Hildeburh is deprived of a brother and son (1073a–4a). the audience plausibly knew of some events rehearsed in the digression.138 chapter two Even if the Anglo-Saxons did not all share details of the Finnsburh episode as narrated. . Nicholas Howe avers “the Hengest of Beowulf may be the Hengest who led the Anglo-Saxon Migration” (Migration and Mythmaking 145). Finn and Hengest 37–45.” Klaeber has alleged that Hnæf and his party represent “a minor branch of the great Danish nation” (“Observations” 544). Although Widsið 29a calls Hnæf a leader of “Hocings. since the story was popular. . . is also killed. Finn Episode 15–16. see R. Hengest engineers the dissolution of his vow. reciting a gidd at their funeral pyre. D. Hnæf falls during the fight. Hengest stays on. the conflict cannot be resolved. Campbell suggested that evidence of an underlying lay of Finn could be observed in the scop’s summary (“Epic Style” 13–26. Finn has married Hildeburh. Gold is produced: Either Finn’s oaths are sworn on the god Ing’s sacred relics. . Apparently goaded by his own party and given a sword by one Hunlafing (“son of Hunlaf ”). or Finn pays wergild for the slaughtered men. possibly a Jute or Angle. Given Hengest’s advantageous position and Finn’s losses. Finn. Just prior to the performance the narrator admits that a gidd was often recited (“gid oft wrecen.” 1065b) at the gathering. . see also Frank. . “[be] Finnes eaferum” (“about the sons of Finn. Williams. and the fragment concerns the Danish defense of Finn’s hall. The digression represents the narrator’s abridgment of the scop’s performance.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 139 A Dane named Hnæf travels to Finnsburh—a stronghold of the Frisian king. “Cruces in the Finnsburg Fragment”. Finn’s retinue disperses for the winter. a conjecture accounting for a number of missing details that might otherwise clarify the scenario. Fulk has proposed that “Healgamen” is the name of Hroðgar’s scop. becomes leader of the Danes. The Frisians apparently attack Hnæf ’s retinue at night.” 11 Fulk. “Hildeburg and Hengest” 261: “had to lament the hall-play along the mead-bench. A. 9 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 Hroðgar’s hall.” 1066a–7b).9 The Beowulf poet undoubtedly intended his audience to identify Finnsburh as a gidd and./æfter medobence/mænan scolde. correspondingly. R. “Germanic Legend” 101). Finn shares his hall with Hengest and the Danish squad. accepting Hengest as bondsman and the Danes as co-equals with his own Frisian retinue. Hnæf ’s sister.11 No matter one’s translation. Hildeburh laments the killing of brother and son. when the poet “had to recite the hall-joy along the meadbench” (“healgamen . A. 10 Malone. to have it bear a prophetic meaning deducible from the narrative. and Hengest. who fought either with the Danish party as Hnæf ’s foster-son or with his father. An uneasy truce is established: Finn’s party may not taunt Hengest’s over the indignity of following their lord’s killer. the emendation is adopted in Klaeber’s Beowulf. the manuscript requires emendation in the next verse. and Finn swears binding oaths. probably to reconcile a feud between Frisians and Danes. kills Finn and takes both Hildeburh and the Frisian treasury to Denmark.10 More creatively. This is a common rendering.” 1068a). Finn’s unnamed son. however. . “Observations” 547–8. hwilum gyd awræc 12 Klaeber. cf.”12 Because one commonly recites a gidd about (“be”) someone. Beowulf appears to realize that Finnsburh is a gidd. gomela Scilding. “the poem. Kemp Malone sees multiple performances leading up to the recitation of Finnsburh and attributes them to “amateurs or lesser artists” (“Hildeburg and Hengest” 260). the end of that lay in Beowulf makes it clear that this kind of narrative can be called a giedd (as well as a leoð)” (363). from which he draws a lesson when addressing Hygelac./gleomannes gyd. “gidd oft wrecen. feorran rehte. While the Anglo-Saxons learn that Finnsburh is a gidd. Beowulf reports that gidd were recited in Heorot (“Þær wæs gidd ond gleo. “Competitive Narrators” 210–12).” 1159b–60a). the singer’s gidd. cf. this emendation—among the earliest ever proposed—is contextually satisfying.” 1065b):13 Þær wæs gidd ond gleo. hearpan wynne. cf. felafricgende hwilum hildedeor gomenwudu grette. . . On the other hand. the poet acknowledges the genre by concluding. Alexander Green wrote extensively on this emendation. A “gid wrecen” could acknowledge the narrator’s omniscient reporting. On the one hand. “By Finn’s battle-fighters . a problem lies in determining whether the characters in the world of Beowulf recognize it as one. The scop “Healgamen” either laments “about” Finn’s kinsmen or else an anonymous poet recites “hall-joy” (“healgamen. was fated to fall” (ibid.” a poem) about them. 268. Old English Syntax vol.” 2105a) specifically in celebration of Grendel’s end. Directly following the Finnsburh digression. Finnsburh apparently represents the “gleomannes gyd” just referred to.” see Orchard.140 chapter two apparently in need of a preposition to govern “Finnes eaferum. 1. Yet “[be] Finnes eaferum” creates anomalous meter.” 13 On such examples of “incremental repetition. . §§ 1371–8. Kelly 244. Reichl 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. and that more than once a gidd was uttered (“hwilum gyd awræc. was sung” (“leoð wæs asungen.” The problem that “eaferum” should means “sons” and not “men” is resolved in Klaeber’s Beowulf by the emendation to eaferan.” 2108b. Green suggests that eaferum in 1068a is a “dative-instrumental of personal agency” (“Opening” 770) and translates. Hnæf of the Scyldings . Mitchell calls the emendation “disputed” and voices doubts about the formulation. 792). It has often been noticed that Beowulf ’s recollection seems muddled (see Waugh. After he returns to the Geats. which requires the subject “Healgamen. Critical Companion 58 note 10. first proposed by Benjamin Thorpe as adopted in Kemble’s 1835 edition. . we may simply assume that the poet’s use of the word gidd implies as much. and an ambiguity whereby the poet may lament “about Finn’s men” (one frequently recites a gidd about (be) someone or something) or may lament that Hnæf was destined to die “by Finn’s men. Klaeber still concedes. In fact. the narrator describes the “gomenwudu greted” (1065a) just before Finnsburh. the) battle-brave man greeted the play-wood. gioguðe cwiðan. The editors of Klaeber’s Beowulf have reformulated Klaeber’s questions. . sometimes he recited a gidd. bound by age. and the verb cwiðan (“lament. his war-strength. rehte æfter rihte hwilum eft ongan gomel guðwiga hildestrengo. although he does recite at least one gidd in his “sermon. not the scop’s. and Beowulf ’s recollection might memorialize Hroðgar’s performance.” 2112b) is often collocated with gidd.14 “The old battle warrior began to lament his (lost) youth and war-strength” evokes the content of gidd. in Beowulf the collocations “gomenwudu gretan” and “gidd (a)wrecan” describe only the scop’s performance of Finnsburh and Beowulf ’s recapitulation of the entertainment at Heorot. Furthermore. true and sorrowful.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” soð ond sarlic. eldo gebunden. hreðer inne weoll. “was the gyd recited by Hrothgar?” (ibid. . he recalled so much. complete the portrait of him as a warlord” (note to lines 2105 ff.). Sometimes.” 2105b). Beowulf ’s reflection on the “gidd ond gleo” in Heorot comes directly after his narration of Grendel’s death. “big-hearted king” (“rumheort cyning. Even so.” While the phrase “gomela Scilding” may refer just as much to “an old Scylding” 14 On this conundrum see Opland 455–7 and Creed 47. sometimes the big-hearted king recited a marvelous story according to custom.” Klaeber punctuated in a way that attributes all of the recitations to Hroðgar. worn gemunde. Sometimes (a. Heeding the syntactic parallelism of “hwilum. wise in years. Citing Kock and Hoops.” (“gomela Scilding.). suggesting that Hroðgar’s “skills as a singer and musician . One naturally assumes that Beowulf has Finnsburh in mind when speaking of gidd—the only one we know to have been recited at length.” 2112a). the “old Scylding. þonne he wintrum frod 141 hwilum syllic spell rumheort cyning. . The editors of Klaeber’s Beowulf have retained this punctuation. His breast welled up from within. the old battle-warrior began to lament his (lost) youth. Earlier in his note he posed the question. (An.” 2110b). and “old battle-warrior” (“gomel guðwiga. The) old Scylding recited things inquired of from far back in time. harp’s joy. modern editors adopting this punctuation implicitly identify Hroðgar as the “hildedeor” of line 2107a. “hildedeor 2107 may be taken as an epithet relating to an unnamed retainer” (Beowulf 205). (2105a–14b) There was gidd and mirth. whenever. The problem arises that we have not seen Hroðgar play the harp before. such as the coast-warden.” Linking Hengest to Ingeld.16 Bonjour reasoned: “The Wealhtheow scene is thus.15 The indebtedness could be important because Beowulf seems to acknowledge Finnsburh when he tells the Heaðobard digression. Freawaru. After the killing. in a way. Ayres 289: “The tragic situations both of Hildeburg and of Freawaru are keenly present to [the poet’s] mind. Describing Hroðgar as “battle-brave” seems incongruous. the general situation underlying both stories [Finn and Ingeld] is much the same” (“Tragedy of Finnsburg” 382). and Wealhþeow are to be equated. Ingeld’s love for Freawaru will cool and hostilities resume. At the wedding a Danish attendant wearing a captured Heaðobard sword will offend the Heaðobards. The murderer runs away.” is used seven other times in the poem. and events in the Heaðobard feud might elucidate obscurities in Finnsburh. especially when hildedeor so often denotes anonymous but distinguished and youthful fighters. and that of Wealhtheow’s daughter Freawaru in the Heathobards Episode. 834a.” elsewhere it does describe Hroðgar (1792a). and in both cases the aspect 15 Riley identifies this singer as the anonymous reciter of the Sigemund/Heremod digression (189). Many readers have drawn connections between the Finnsburh and Heaðobard digressions. no clear solution to this problem presents itself. Yet OE hildedeor. Adrien Bonjour’s analysis. Ingeld’s tragic dilemma is almost the exact counterpart of Hengest’s. A brief summary of the Heaðobard digression is necessary: Beowulf observes that Hroðgar’s daughter Freawaru will marry the Heaðobard king Ingeld to settle a feud. As I see it. even though the Heaðobard episode is not a gidd.142 chapter two as to “the old Scylding. 1816a. 2183a). An old warrior will then incite a young Heaðobard to kill this offender and take the sword. “so far as the woman is concerned. but Beowulf may be attributing the gidd mentioned here to an anonymous warrior. three times of Beowulf (1646a. used twice. three times of unnamed warriors (312a. The related compound heaþodeor. ultimately derives from William Lawrence’s views that Hildeburh.” . refers once to Beowulf (688a) and once to Beowulf and Grendel together (772a). and once of Wiglaf (3111b). Bonjour extended his findings: Beowulf ’s prophecy concerning Freawaru is in fact but another effective illustration of the theme of the precarious peace. 3169b). which equates Hengest’s situation with Ingeld’s. which means “battle-brave (man). the link connecting—in their striking analogy—the situation of Hildeburh in the Finnsburh Episode. see also Girvan. 16 Lawrence reasoned in 1915. Finnsburuh 15. ” 2065b–6b. as Beowulf says: “ond him wiflufan//æfter cearwælmum/colran weorðað. in which Danes are visiting their rivals. Second. meant the decisive ‘call to action’ resulting in the victory of the urge for revenge and the outbreak of fresh hostilities. but he is now connected by the bonds of marriage with Freawaru. Ingeld will be forced into confrontation because the murderer of the young Dane cannot be found and punished.” 2063b) recalls “on twa healfa” of Finnsburh (1095b). and (one imagines) the animosity grows on both sides. the Frisians. the fact that Danes are visiting their national enemies the Heaðobards closely matches the events of Finnsburh. Digressions 61–2. and such bonds render the dilemma even more tragic. describes Freawaru’s attendant flaunting a sword taken from a defeated Heaðobard warrior named “Wiðergyld. as Bonjour. In Finnsburh Danes and Frisians are said to share a “fæste frioðuwære” (“firm compact of peace. Both do so with supreme reluctance because each confrontation means voiding a sworn treaty. . whereas the Heaðobard digression refers to a “freondscipe fæstne” (“firm friendship.” 1096a). The Heaðobards and Danes are sworn enemies. The central moment in the Heaðobard digression. as if he had been married to a Frisian princess. 17 18 . in context with Hama. 19 The name is elsewhere known only from Widsið 124a. again emphasizing how fateful indeed was a renewal of the enmity between the two tribes. It takes time for the humiliation to become intolerable. My final parallel is frequently alleged. his father-in-law.” 2069a). say a daughter of Finn! And yet vengeance triumphs. because. to a certain extent. First. Ingeld’s represents an even greater concentration of the dramatic element: not only does the claim of vengeance force him to break the compact with the former enemy.17 The situations are similar: Hengest parallels Ingeld in the Heaðobard digression. . both Freawaru’s and Hildeburh’s marriages confirm truces made between Danes and their nonDanish adversaries. if compared with the situation of Hengest. Furthermore. both Hengest (as I shall argue) and Ingeld are constrained to honor the wishes of their men in a situation of shame. but my reading of its significance differs from others’. the Danish princess. It is. Three other parallels are obvious. Hengest must fight his king and benefactor Ingeld.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 143 of the sword . extending for over twenty lines.”19 Because Hengest receives a sword in Finnsburh and. as in Hengest’s case. since both men are now confronted with breaking a truce. We said ‘almost’.18 At least one collocation in the Heaðobard episode clearly evokes the Finnsburh context: “on ba healfe” (“on both sides. Beowulfstudien 246). the connection was first proposed by Mead 435–6. .” 21 The syntax here is strained. . ruled by Eanmund’s brother Eadgils (ibid. cf. I think the parallel answers an enduring crux. Girvan. Cronan rejects the position in “Wiglaf ’s Sword. Bonjour also expatiates on the swords in both episodes and connects them to Wiglaf ’s sword. The Heaðobard Digression Ingeld and his thanes are said to dislike (“ofþyncan”) the marriage to Freawaru. . ./duguða biwenede” as a loose appositive to þæs (2032a) particularizing the annoyance to Ingeld and his troop and referring to “him” (2036a): “noble sons of Danes. and the delicate alliance. flaunts it. Since a sword will re-ignite the enmity of Danes and Frisians in the Finnsburh digression.” 2037). Wiðergyld (“Retribution”) may not be the Heaðobard’s father’s name. Ayres 293: “Suppose. the motivation for the wedding itself. to exhibit discomfort over an enforced peace. 38).” (“heard ond hringmæl/ Heaða-Beardna gestreon. now. the Danish dryhtbearn or “noble sons” sport the “gomelra lafe” or “heirlooms of elders. I prefer to take the line “dryhtbearn Dena. however.” 20 Huppé. now in Wiglaf ’s hands. Possibly because Grendel has killed all the experienced warriors.” the accompanying (or “honored”) mentioned in Beowulf 1198b. details from the Heaðobard digression have particular relevance for Finnsburh. 274). will induce a conflict with the Swedes. The attendant is murdered on account of this sword. the former Heaðobard owners were once “dear companions” (“swæse gesiðas. He expects that Eanmund’s sword. review of Hoops. Beowulf (the narrator) contrasts the immaturity of the Danish owners with the glory of the former fallen possessors. . their weapons “hard and ring-adorned treasures of Heaðobards. these boys are “duguða biwenede.20 In fact. Some read dryhtbearn as singular and connect it to “fæmnan þegn” of 2059a and “he” of 2034a because of the repetition of fæmne and of “on flett gæð” (2034b) and “on flet gæð” (2054b) (Huppé. Either reading works well with the solution I propose here: singular dryhtbearn may be an equivalent of dryhtguma or dryhtealdor in the sense “bride’s attendant” (Green. honored hosts—on them the weapons of elders shine . . “Reconsideration” 221.” “He” therefore refers to Ingeld.” 2040a). .144 chapter two I shall argue.21 Slain in war by Danes. 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 .” not of Danes. “Reconsideration” 220. the swords themselves are strong parallels in both episodes. . disintegrates. Escalating the humiliation. Such a hint would do much to teach Hengest his course. Carolingian Lord 270. but of Heaðobards. see Mitchell. The æscwiga calls him a byre or “lad” of unknown parentage: “a lad of I know not which of those slayers” (“þara banena/byre nathwylces. The old champion claims that the young Dane “boasts of the murder”: “morðres gylpeð.” 2055a. as well as the irony. Beowulfstudien 246.24 The weapons shine on the Danes and unavoidably attract the eye. The Beowulf poet calls Ingeld the “glæd son of Froda” (2025b). Two verbs linking this section with the Finnsburh episode are myndgian “to remind” and (ge)munan “to recall.26 Thus. OE morðor does not typically describe a “noble” battlefield killing but (as mentioned above) a deceitful. The phrase “duguða biwenede” is difficult. specifically used in context of the oath: a disgrace someone should not call to mind or hostilities would erupt. The verb gladian means “to shine” in poetry. and his youth and dubious birthright emphasized. and took the sword from him as a prize.23 Beowulf uses the locution “on him gladiað” (2036a) to describe the gear. anonymous one.” The veteran “remembers all” (“eall geman.” 2057a). Grendel is hremig in his Danish corpses (124a). The unnamed Danish boy’s father killed the Heaðobard’s father Wiðergyld. “Two Syntactical Notes” Huppé. attested as myndgiend wære (“calling to mind. they must be deliberately taunting the Heaðobards by wearing such trophies. and here Beowulf deploys the adjective “hremig” typically used of booty in Beowulf. underscoring an ironic appreciation for his marriage to Freawaru.” 1105b).” 2053a–b). 23 24 . a sword in particular. The humiliation annoys the Heaðobards. “ ‘Gracious’ Hrothulf ” 4–5. 25 This Heaðobard is described as “fæmnan þegn” or “lady’s thane.”25 A young Dane is singled out. but other meanings common to prose overlap. “to gratify” especially.”22 Unless we see the Danish youth as particularly callow. An “old spear-warrior” (“eald æscwiga.” 2042b) and “reminds” (“myndgað. review of Hoops. Beowulf underscores the deliberate indignity. and Beowulf hremig in the twelve treasures awarded by Hroðgar (1882a). In Beowulf OE myndgian is found only here and in Finnsburh. 26 Riedinger 309–11 (310: “a thematic formula whose function it is to signify ‘the victor’s reward’ ”).” not “untried warrior” as Malone proposes (“Ingeld” 259) but the warrior accompanying a bride. “Reconsideration” 223. The boy is said to “exult” in the trappings.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 145 “senior retainers.” 2042a) then “begins to test the spirit of a young fighter through the thought of his breast. see Girvan. Owen-Crocker. where se fæmnan þegn is compared to Bede’s description of Bishop Paulinus as comes copulae carnalis (Colgrave and Mynors 164). In the Heaðobard digression the cempa or “warrior” emphasizes the 22 297. the specific moment in Hroðgar’s hall. Since 1915 nearly every critic reflecting on the Finnsburh episode has analogized its characters and plot in just this way. explains precisely what happens in the Finnsburh episode and incidentally explains how Finnsburh functions in its dramatic context. For the time being. and more general questions concerning political and social order” (317). Green calls it an “interlude” (“Opening” 782). gathered together in Heorot. underscores the persistence of feuds (Grendel’s mother). The young Heaðobard should own the sword “mid rihte” (“by right. they wonder whether in any other hall such a game had e’er been played as Beowulf played there with Grendel.” 27 The earliest commentators saw no relevance in it. He paraphrased: “Now in the evening. “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 (“Finn Episode” 171). Malone queries. . the hall. So highly is vengeance prized that peace always fails in the face of any incitement. Grendel’s mother is said to indulge in the blood feud in a way analogous to Hengest’s inevitable retribution. we must turn from the Heaðobard episode. 28 Bruce Moore proposed a number of parallels between events in Beowulf ’s purview and in the scop’s narrative: “treachery and its association with the world of monsters. including sworn reconciliation. and Æschere—Hroðgar’s “runwita” (“counsellor. Moore compares Hroþulf ’s duplicity to Finn’s. A. no matter how trivial.146 chapter two disrupted inheritance. Finnsburh parallels its context. which emphasizes Bonjour’s “precarious peace”.” 2056a). or else deemed it an example of Danish resolve. Can any other hall compare with theirs as the scene of events so momentous?” (Finn Episode 10–11). suggesting that the poet wished to describe “momentous events” in another hall. treasure. and reflects on the negative value of treasure-giving as a kind of institutionalized bribery. This situation. Our poet introduces the Episode simply as an illustration of the songs which furnished entertainment for Hroðgar’s feasting warriors” (“Design and Motive” 41–2). and predicts how the situation might evolve.27 Two widespread interpretations have emerged. therefore. as a social imperative revenge supersedes all other claims.28 Grendel’s mother’s forthcoming attack prompts the first. kinship relationships (particularly those between uncle and nephew). I shall argue. Proposed Functions of the Finnsburh Digression As a digression. Williams went further than most of the nineteenth-century philologists. which still shows plain traces of the terrific struggle. He ultimately kills the Dane—an act predicated on an event from a previous generation that nevertheless results in the dissolution of Ingeld’s marriage. Brodeur wrote “the circumstances under which the minstrel sang his lay have no bearing whatever on the interpretation of the Finn Episode. R. siþþan hy forwræcon wicinga cynn ond Ingeldes ord forbigdan. a rivalry that apparently involves Hreðric and Hroðmund:32 Bonjour. for Heoroweard did not rule after his father Heorogar’s death.31 In fact. forheowan æt Heorote Heaðobeardna þrym. Saxo calls Røricus the “son of the covetous Bøkus. calls this Røricus “Hrærek Hnauggvanbaugi” and records his succession after Rolf (= Hroþulf ). Sarrazin 144–5. Chambers expounded on this evidence for Hroþulf ’s treachery in the Historia Danorum. slew a king named Røricus. Chamber’s clever speculation is ultimately unnecessary to demonstrate Hroþulf ’s intentions. wene ic þæt he mid gode/gyldan wille//uncran eaferan” (1184a–5a). Here the suffering of Hildeburh must stand for the suffering of all the collateral victims of the revenge ethic. . Chambers asserts that the genealogy identifies Hrærek as Hroðgar’s son and further reasons. The second argument made about Finnsburh heeds the tension between Wealhþeow’s sons Hreðric and Hroðmund and her nephew Hroþulf. and his argument (Beowulf 26–7) deserves summarizing. R. a genealogy of the ancient Danish kings. as in post-migration England. Wealhþeow’s expectation that Hroþulf will support his cousins after Hroðgar’s death sounds apprehensive. pp. a name identical to OE Hreðric. (45a–9b) 29 30 .e.” 1326a)—dies for this sterile heroism. generally followed on seniority and often generated strife between uncles and nephews. Digressions 62.” Coincidentally. Hroðgar himself seems to have shared in this tradition. the poet adumbrates discord between Hroþulf and Hroðgar. For the subtleties of Wealhþeow’s reply.” 1325b). “Hrærek has been moved from his proper place in order to clear Rolf of any suspicion of usurpation” (Beowulf 26 note 3).” hypothetically translating the Old Icelandic epithet hnøggvanbaugi or “?greedy for rings (i. see Owen-Crocker. Drawing on the now lost Bjarkamál. The succession in Germanic lands.” 61b). the Langfeðgatal.” whose name is identical to OE Hroþulf. However. W. “ ‘Gracious’ Hrothulf ” 4–5 and below. 179–80. Bonjour closes his argument by reading the dragon’s “revenge” as symbolic of “the great epic prophecy of the downfall of the Geatish people”29—a consequence which the poet himself never confirms. Saxo reports that “Roluo. a situation that Saxo Grammaticus records in a fuller but more convoluted form:30 “.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 147 1325a). 32 These words mirror the ominous tone in Widsið. “rædbora” (“herald. and “eaxlgestealla” (“close warcompanion. . The poet specifically mentions Beowulf ’s receipt of Heorogar’s sword. for the intimations in Beowulf and Widsið present the case convincingly enough. son of Halga “the Good” (“Halga til. 31 Hroþulf is Hroðgar’s nephew. and the “precarious peace” becomes universalized. treasure). Gerald Morgan disagrees with Hroþulf ’s implication in treachery. where Hroðgar and Hroþulf are said to have held their peace until after they had “devastated Ingeld’s army”: Hroþwulf ond Hroðgar heoldon lengest sibbe ætsomne suhtorfædran. Not yet had the Scylding countrymen prepared malicious plots. Hroþulf will ultimately kill his cousins. (1014b–19b) Their stout-hearted kinsmen. John M. Hroðgar ond Hroþulf. and Wealhþeow will suffer. Because (the argument goes) human relations will always deteriorate and because even the sincerest pledges will fail.34 This particular reading of the situation has been mapped onto Finnsburh. Again. The same theme is again expressed . Critical Companion 180–1. having drunk [the royal mead]. Cultural World 100–4. fægere geþægon magas þara on sele þam hean. Heorot innan wæs nalles facenstafas þenden fremedon. . Camargo summarizes. 35 Orchard. made to confirm the view that the Beowulf poet condemns heroic brutality: The disaster at Finnsburg casts its pall over Wealhtheow’s ministrations. this moment has been universalized. This future stands in ironic juxtaposition to the present hall-joy and Wealhþeow’s (misplaced?) trust in her nephew. 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). . especially Wealhþeow’s appeal to Beowulf to serve as an ally to her family instead of its king. On Wealhþeow’s status. joyfully relished many a mead-cup in the high hall. “the function of the Finn episode. . Hill explains how Beowulf carefully negotiates the competing interests in the scene. Þeod-Scyldingas . in short. .148 chapter two medoful manig swiðhicgende Hroðgar ond Hroþulf. 33 34 .36 “Danish Succession”. Alfred Bammesberger’s interpretation of “druncne dryhtguman/doð swa ic bidde” (1231) as “oh retainers. Yet Hill has admirably shown that Wealhþeow is not “a passive onlooker in a much wider and more vicious game” (“Danish Succession” 181). in Beowulf ’s later prophecy concerning Freawaru and Ingeld. Hill. Wealhþeow’s gift encumbers Hroðgar’s plan to enthrone a foreign mercenary and highlights the conviction that her native children have more trustworthy allegiances than an outsider.35 Hroðgar’s adoption of the Geat Beowulf is then seen as enhancing the dramatic irony. see the remarks of Thomas D. do as I ask!” (Bammesberger’s brackets) accords with this view (“Conclusion of Wealhtheow’s Speech”). “Foreign Slave” 106–12. Heorot was filled with friends within.33 Her bestowal of a precious torque counters Hroðgar’s gift of family heirlooms. freondum afylled. which features the “precarious peace” between Finn and Hengest. creating an ironic distance between her hopes for the future and the bloodshed that every member of the audience knows will follow. 36 Camargo 127. hwæt wit to willan umborwesendum ær gyldan wille gif he þæt eal gemon. Albano would go further and implicate Hildeburh in the revenge. these voices radically impugn the status of the digression as Danish triumph. but Wealhþeow thinks Hroþulf is a better candidate. Both solutions are incompatible with the poet’s dual perspective. Yet Fred Robinson. . “Hero and the King. . arna”) once bestowed on him: “I believe that Hroþulf will reward . senses anxiety in Wealhþeow’s statements. failed to understand the extent to which Hildeburh’s bitter appropriation of the funeral pyre is a mute demand for retribution.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 149 Berger and Leicester had made much the same case: “As the Finn and Ingeld episodes suggest . ond to worðmyndum arna gefremedon. if he bears 37 Berger and Leicester 43. See also Leyerle.” Robert A. that Hroþulf might forget the honors (“hwæt . arum healdan . .38 In one respect a serious problem compromises these two readings of Finnsburh. . . since they focus on the narrator’s point-of-view and neglect the reason why Finnsburh might be relevant for the Danes. wene ic þæt he mid gode uncran eaferan. for reasons of obligation. glædne Hroþulf. . . sooner or later peace-weaving will become war-making. In this context OE glæd has recently been translated “appreciative. . . if he bears in mind all that: what honors we two awarded him as a child. .” Wealhþeow therefore highlights Hroþulf ’s consideration: he appreciates Hroðgar’s generosity to him when he was a boy and is obliged to reciprocate. . . “ ‘Gracious’ Hrothulf ” 4. Hroðgar wants to appoint Beowulf as a regent. 39 Owen-Crocker. (1184a–7b) I expect that he will reward our kinsmen with kindness.39 Wealhþeow’s trust mitigates the suspicion implied in the second quotation. both for his desire and his glory. (1180b–2a) Ic minne can þæt he þa geogoðe wile I know that my gracious Hroþulf intends to treat the youths honorably . . .”37 Insistently trained on Hildeburh’s sorrow and consequently suspicious of revenge.” 38 As John M. among others. The first claim is unambiguously optimistic: Wealhþeow knows (“can”) that Hroþulf intends (“wile”) to act honorably (“arum”). . Hill acknowledges in a different context (Warrior Ethic 67): “We have . these critics envision Grendel’s mother’s revenge as symbolic of Hroþulf ’s future treachery. and . In effect. Wealhþeow here stresses Hroþulf ’s duty to protect her children in return for Hroðgar’s past generosity.) The dramatic irony could not be plainer: the narrator confirms Hroþulf ’s present loyalty. . Wealhþeow’s coy remarks about Hroþulf in lines 1185–7 become unusually apprehensive in light of the poet’s comments. Wealhþeow does not know that Hroþulf will inevitably usurp Hreðric’s place. she observes that the foreigner Beowulf cannot “bear in mind” any longstanding debt of personal generosity. . not yet had those Scylding countrymen prepared malicious plots. what is the relevance of the “precarious peace” imputed to Finnsburh for the Danish audience? The chances are remote that the scop reciting Finnsburh intended any comparison between Hildeburh and Wealhþeow as failed peace-weavers. . . Valkyrie Tradition 128. . each loyal to the other. .41 Inevitably. the poet further justifies Wealhþeow’s confidence in him: “Heorot innan wæs//freondum afylled” (“Heorot was filled with friends within. she finds Hroþulf more trustworthy because he is an appreciative kinsman and socially indebted to Hroðgar. .” Nor do the Danes expect retaliation from Grendel’s mother.40 a benefit that Beowulf cannot lay claim to. since the parallels are too inexact. Although some misgivings have been conceded.150 chapter two in mind. æghwylc oðrum trywe. nalles facenstafas þenden fremedon. . and Þeod-Scyldingas . (1163b–5a) .” Secondarily. In fact./swa hit agangen wearð//eorla manegum” (“they did not know of their 40 41 Ibid. At that time they were still united in goodwill. If Wealhþeow expects no betrayal. . where the two good men [Hroðgar and Hroþulf ] sat. uncle and nephew. sæton suhtergefæderan. (my emph. . þær þa godan twegen [Hroðgar and Hroþulf ] þa gyt wæs hiera sib ætgædere. . (1018b–19b) . .” 1017b–18a). Damico. who takes them completely by surprise: “Wyrd ne cuþon. On the contrary.//geosceaft grimme. . Hroþulf ’s expected betrayal therefore does not emerge from Finnsburh as an example of the “precarious peace. for example. Notwithstanding Hildeburh’s emotional agony and Finn’s duplicity. Finnsburh subtly reflects a grave unease over Beowulf ’s appointment as Hroðgar’s heir—a worry that Wealhþeow responds to. In order to clarify this moment and its relevance for the Danish audience. As I shall argue. Hengest) either to the predatory retaliation of a cannibal monster or to a contest between blood kin from different family branches (Hreðric and Hroðmund vs. we need to investigate the episode more closely. Hroþulf )?43 From such a comparison are we to posit the inevitability of violence? The proposed analogies I have discussed ignore the primary comparanda in the Finnsburh episode.” 1233b–5a). . The 42 Donald K. Are we really invited to compare the situation of national enemies trapped in a fragile détente (Finn vs.” . the whole “precarious peace” derived from the episode seems unrealistic. . All the same. . Details of the Finnsburh Episode Finnsburh concerns a dishonorable night attack on guests and an honorable defense leading to a sworn truce between Hengest and Finn. but not entirely for the reasons that have been presented hitherto. their grim destiny. the Finnsburh recitation may pertain to him and his motivations. Whenever a monster appears.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 151 fate. the Finnsburh digression could not warn of any “precarious peace” relative to her revenge. Fajardo-Acosta. . Since Beowulf is the central figure of the narrative throughout and especially at this moment. the action in Finnsburh clearly concerns Hengest. a whiff of crime hangs in the air. in the same way that the Sigemund/Heremod and Herebeald/Hæðcyn digressions do. sunu deoð wrecan. 43 The monsters in Beowulf are popularly metaphorized as human evils. Beowulf is being compared to Hengest. [Grendel’s mother] too introduces herself to the Danes predatorially . In fact. who should be compared to another hero of similar renown and not stand for an abstract principle. Fry avoids the problem of perspective by alleging that Grendel is expected to return (“New Interpretation” 2).”1277b–8b) but her method predation (“Prey Tell” 13): “In keeping with the habits of her clan. while her behavior is predatory. as it had been ordained for many an earl.42 Unless it could be shown that the Danish scop foresees Grendel’s mother’s “inevitable” vengeance. Ward Parks reveals the poet’s opinion that the mother’s aim was revenge (“wolde . see. her motives are not”). “Intemperance. where enemies accept quarter from attackers. “Tragedy of Finnsburg” 403. the poet explains why the settlement is reached.” 1146b). . . If Finn’s men were too few to prevail over the Danes. the Danes would appear to have wronged Finn by disregarding his “innocence” in the clash—leaving us with a besmirched Danish victory. to boot (“æt his selfes ham. and the narrator explains that Finn cannot conclude his war against Hengest: . but frec is often attested in Beowulf. Much back-pedaling and special pleading disappear.” 1147b). according to Germanic ideas. asserting that he was the dupe of a Jutish faction in his warband rather than the principal conspirator. that he (Finn) might not at all win his battle against Hengest in the meeting-place.g. . “Ne huru Hildeburh/herian þorfte//eotena treowe” (“Indeed. Hengest’s retinue is called a “woeful remnant” (“wealaf. highlights Finn’s death as retributive.” or “dangerous. 44 45 .” 1071a–2a). Brodeur: “[Finn’s] failure to make adequate preparation for a surprise attack suffices to establish a probability against malicious intent” (“Design and Motive” 37) and “[Finn] had been compelled to support his troops once the battle at Finnsburg had been joined” (ibid. And finally. Hildeburh did not have need to praise the faith of the eotena. 39). called Hnæf ’s bana (“slayer.” “terrible. . if we simply acknowledge that Finn attacks his Danish guests duplicitously.152 chapter two truce has often seemed suspicious: “.” 1146a) Finn seems to have been deserved. To return to the “problematic” truce.” 1084a and 1098a) after the fight. however. after all. during which span it is hardly conceivable that King Finn could not manage his own retinue. . belying Lawrence. was in the highest degree dishonorable?”44 Chambers likewise questioned Finn’s complicity in the attack. e. According to the Fragment.46 In Chambers’ argument.45 He is. . retribution meted out to the fierce (“ferhðfrecan. Yet Chambers also bases his interpretation on the meaning of the word eoten in the verses. (1082a–3b) . .” The repetition of begeat (“befell. I shall defer my discussion of this word momentarily. and in his own home. used to describe Finn’s attack against Hnæf (1068b). this deduction stems from Chambers’ examination of Germanic story. þæt he [Finn] ne mehte wig Hengeste on þæm meðelstede wiht gefeohtan . . why did the latter assent to a condition which. the battle lasts five days. 46 OE ferhðfrecan is a hapax.” 1102b). Many others have alleged Finn’s innocence. In part. On the one hand. while I show why Finn must be the leading villain in the tale. where it can mean “fierce. 50 Malone. Finn offered the Danes the best of terms because.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 153 the evidence of the fragment that few Danes had been killed.” (Bethurum 253. and (2) for the highly favorable nature of these terms.” (1080b–1b). “Narrative Art” 177. banan folgedon þa him swa geþearfod wæs . see also Stanley. In this case the Romans give treasure and land. For a highly heterodox view of lines 1085b–96a. 49 “Finn’s Stronghold” 85. see also Diller 18. The poet relays the unique situation by the verb and Danish blamelessness by the passive construction. and nothing but the circumstances dictated their truce. .23b–25a). A very close verbal parallel is narrated in the Old English Meters of Boethius. . see Gray.68–71). he did not wish to drive them to desperation: as desperate men they could do him the gravest damage. . (1102a–3b) Though lordless they followed the slayer of their ring-giver.47 But because Finn has lost so many men (1080b–1b).22a–23a). OE geþearfian is exceptionally rare in Old English. 51 “Tragedy of Hengest”. “Hildeburh and Hengest” 267: “the poet gives Hengest credit (1) for the fact that the Frisians offer terms of peace at all. when it was necessary for them to do so.48 Kemp Malone supplied one possible interpretation of the facts:49 Finn could not expel the Danes from the hall by force and could not set fire to the hall without destroying his whole burh. A passage from Wulfstan’s homily “Be godcundre warnunge” confirms the sense of a diminished war-band: “And þonne land wyrðeð for synnum forworden 7 þæs folces dugoð swyþost fordwineþ.51 since he follows his “Wig ealle fornam//Finnes þegnas/nemne feaum anum . and he negotiates the peace which they are constrained to accept:50 ðeah hie hira beaggyfan ðeodenlease. and swear oaths—the same capitulations that Finn has to make: “giomonna gestrion//sealdon unwillum/eþelweardas. 47 48 . above all. Hengest emerges as leader of the Danes. The Danes had to compromise at an impasse. . þonne fehð seo wealaf sorhful 7 sarimod geomrigendum mode bemænan 7 sarlice syfian . the Danish survivors cannot be “dislodged” ( forþringan) from their defensive position. occurring just this once in verse. Brodeur 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” 7). In 1917 Henry Morgan Ayres declared that the Finnsburh digression precipitated a tragic situation for Hengest.//halige aðas” (1. The Goths demolish the Romans: “Ne meahte þa seo wealaf/wige forstandan//Gotan mid Guðe” (1. . . who argues that the Danes offer terms to Finn. Arthur G. the Danes could not hold out indefinitely because in time they would run short of food and drink . . .” In fact. ” 1107a–8a) to refer to an oath sworn on a golden artifact (“Tribal Loyalties” 32–8).52 The poet affirms. “Time Markers. this emendation has been retained in Klaeber’s Beowulf. “Tragedy of Finnesburg” 406 note 22). it seems most convenient to speculate that wergild is being paid out. S. Rosier summarizes the history of this reading in “Unhlitm of Finn and Hengest”. D.” 1107a). (1089a–94b) 52 North has argued that Finn pledges on the god Ing’s sacred relics. “Unhlitm of Finn and Hengest” 173. Rosier once noted: “unceases [<un+ceast] að” = “oath setting aside quarrel” and “aðas unfæhða” = “oaths renouncing feud. sacu. and some prefer to read “unhlitme” here.” as in “with undisputed zeal” instead of “with zeal renouncing dispute.” OE flitm is no doubt related to flitan “to compete. “those on the two sides trusted in the firm compact of peace” (“Ða hie getruwedon/on twa healfa//fæste frioðuwære. Coming right after the oath (“að wæs geæfned. 124A. rixas uel cæsa”). R.”53 and North underscores two legal parallels—both from Ine’s Laws—which James L. 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. “Beowulf 1130” 357–8 and Boenig. Finn and his men will not compete adversarially for superiority with Hengest and the Danes. . folcslite] uel æswicung. The context makes it clear that an oath sworn “unceas” would mean that no guile would be tolerated. . that Finn will encourage (“byldan”) the Danes just as much as (“efne swa swiðe”) his own men: . 53 Not all agree on the meaning. ceast”) and ceas in Aldhelm glosses (Gwara. a stipulation that reinforces terms of the agreement. Klaeber emended að “oath” to ad “pyre” and translated “the pyre was prepared” (Beowulf 173). “Tribal Loyalties” 22 (“Finn would thus forswear vengeance for his son by cancelling him out with Hnæf ”) and Rosier.154 chapter two lord’s killer after swearing a binding oath. 430: “insectationes i. persecutiones. The language is exotic. Fulk has also suggested that icge and incge disguise idge “shining” (“Old English icge and incge”). but see now Taylor. The oath is solemnized “elne unflitme. and the reading suggests how unflitme has almost universally been thought to modify “ellen. Mackie (“Notes upon the Text” 521) proposed emending unflitme to *unflitne. An oath of “unfæhð” means forgoing vengeance. p. but ceast is attested in the Antwerp Glossary (Kindschi 64: “Seditio.” W.” 1095a–6a). ond æt feohgyftum dogra gehwylce Hengestes heap efne swa swiðe fættan goldes. hringum wenede sincgestreonum swa he Fresena cyn byldan wolde.” In other words.”54 Finn’s oath is sworn “with zeal renouncing competition. He understands the lines “Að wæs geæfned/ond icge gold//ahæfen of horde” (“an oath was performed and [Ing’s] gold was taken from the treasury. flocslite [leg. Prosa de uirginitate. vol. possibly a boaridol taken from the Frisian treasury.” 54 North. on beorsele Folcwaldan sunu Dene weorþode. . Hengest must break his oath to Finn . . about which the editors of Klaeber’s Beowulf comment.61 55 I realize that the usage of “benemdon” in this passage is disputed. 58 “Role of Women” 4. and even then he seems to doubt his plan. . .” 61 Although Hengest takes his oath so seriously he will not break it. then there is no dilemma. 57 “Role of Women” 4. 60 Such as Fry. and plated gold just as much as he would encourage Frisians in the beer-hall. would ennoble them with rings.” his argument contradicts what we know of oaths. the difficulty for Hengest becomes whether and how to escape the truce. 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). such loyalty would last indefinitely” (4). “ ‘Hengestes heap.”58 This argument evokes Brodeur’s regard for the frioðuwær as the “mere abstract sanctity of an oath. Hengest’s heap. . “New Interpretation” 10: “I interpret Hengest as awaiting his chance to avenge Hnæf .55 Few critics doubt that the oath is binding—indeed. given all the evidence to suggest that Hengest does not want to break the truce. Finn must have been a fool to trust Hengest’s oath. on the sanctity of Germanic oaths. but he arrives at his decision to act with the greatest reluctance. “a conspicuous example of litotes.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 155 And in gift-giving the son of Folcwalda [Finn] would honor the Danes. see North.’ ” . every day. cf. Albano thinks “the Anglo-Saxons would break any pledge if the greater commitment to revenge was already in force. “if Hengest sees himself as doing his duty and by doing that duty there is no breach of ethics. . No cavil endangers this agreement.56 Beowulf says. Other remarks of Albano’s cannot be substantiated either: “Once a bond of loyalty was established in either Anglo-Saxon or Old Norse culture. . this position renders Hengest despicable.60 No. Lines 3074–75. that breaking oaths in general is unendurably disgraceful. “Gold-Luck. jeweled treasures. but I agree with Alan Bliss’s reasoning as laid out in “Beowulf. 59 “Design and Motive” 38. “Tribal Loyalties” 32–3. “Ic . OE benemnan “to solemnize” is used only twice in Beowulf.57 Albano finds vengeance “ethical” and concludes. 56 Renoir. here and when the ancient warriors “solemnly declared” their intentions for the treasure later claimed by the dragon (3069b). Stanley. These critics and others would deny any heroic choice for Hengest. By this reading. references to him as a “traitor” are somewhat overstated.” Although Robert A.”59 If so. “Heroic Oath” 237–66.” and with Tanke. ne me swor fela//aða on unriht” (2736b–9a). ” 1101a–b: “nor would ‘they’ ever mention it through malicious cunning.” The referent of the unstated plural subject “they”of gemænden (1101b) has been disputed. “Searoniðas” 114–15.” 1096b–7b. the sword’s edge would afterwards settle it. 65 Klaeber’s “seðan scolde” (1106b) has been emended here in consideration of R. Fulk’s reading “syððan scede” (“Cruces in the Finnsburg Fragment”). the passage as a whole focuses on Finn’s oath. He must hold everyone accountable. but that the stated pronoun hie then refers to Danes. .63 Emphasis also justifies the reading: no Frisian would break the agreement in word or deed. see Taylor. “þonne hit sweordes ecg/seðan scolde. Pogatscher 261–301. my italics). 2. Frisians.64 Furthermore. The passage naturally concludes by discussing a Frisian violation: gyf þonne Frysna hwylc ðæs morþorhetes þonne hit sweordes ecg frecnen spræce myndgiend wære. however subtly. and metrical expectations are far superior. .” 1098a–9a: “that Finn would govern Hengest’s retinue honorably according to the judgment of his (Finn’s) counselors”.” meant that “the man [“guilty of trouble-making”] will be put to death” (“Finn Episode” 163. Malone thought that the Klaeber’s original formulation. where “scede” is the preterite subjunctive of OE scadan “decide. North thinks it refers to Danes because the stated subject hie of 1102a certainly does. (1104a–6b) If any Frisian should ever recall the murderous hatred with bold speech.” This emendation has been incorporated into Klaeber’s Beowulf. however. nor would they even mention it. syððan scede.65 “Tribal Loyalties” 23.”1099b– 1100b: “that no one there would break the covenant by word or deed”. D. but the fact that the “sword’s edge” should settle “it” rather 62 63 .62 It makes sense. already under discussion. but the syntax. Thereafter follow the stipulations: 1. “ne þurh inwitsearo/æfre gemænden. The sense is not substantially changed from that of Klaeber’s reading. phrasal parallelism. “þæt ðær ænig mon//wordum ne worcum/wære ne bræce. “þæt he þa wealafe/weotena dome//arum heolde. aðum benemde” or “Finn solemnized it with oaths to Hengest.156 chapter two The articles of the oath are given in detail. Since he perpetrated the assault on Hnæf. that the unstated subject of 1101b refers to the subjects. 64 The element searo denotes skillful artifice. 3. he is under pressure to prove that no such attack would ever take place again. and in prose always has a negative sense. The poet emphasizes the Frisian side of the agreement: “Fin Hengeste . ” 1086b) confirms this sense: Finn will “clear” one of two platforms for Hengest and the Danes. .” not because the crime was secretly committed but because it was both heinous and motiveless. because he is an indiscriminate killer without motive.67 Hildeburh’s grief likewise reminds the Danes of their suffering and humiliation. . as John Hill points out. Wisdom and Learning 130 note 6. Warrior Ethic 64–5. . as well as her innocence: she is portrayed purely as a victim. one for which no culprit or motive can be identified. Retention of syððan would yield “it will be left to the sword. Although binding. the editors cite this passage under sense 2 (“dwelling. as Orchard has concluded in Critical Companion 177–8: “The Beowulf-poet is a particular pains to highlight her impotence and passivity. the truce becomes deeply shameful. Indeed.” OE morþor usually has a precise meaning: a pointless or random killing.” keeps us in mind that these are the terms of Finn’s oath to Hengest.” Hengest and the Danes now obey a new lord—Finn—since half of Finn’s hall is given over to the Danes. 68 Hill. The second attestation comes during the Herebeald/Hæðcyn digression: Hæðcyn’s killing is called “murder. a situation that compromises Hengest’s allegiance to the Danish retinue.” as part of Finn’s terms it has a specific meaning: the platform of a hall where retainers eat and sleep.v. Cultural World 26. Nothing suggests that Finn fails to treat the Danes like his own men. On compounds with the second element in -bealu.” 136a).” . While OE flett can mean “hall. in light of many cogent parallels. and Finn dispenses treasure to them as he would his own Frisians. the poet unconditionally condemns Hnæf ’s death. loyalty to this oath means serving Hnæf ’s killer. flett sense 1. Here the ingenious solution proposed by Robinson (“Textual Notes” 111) should also be mentioned. hall”). the sort of risk that would prevent any baiting. so that “ænig man” (1099b) means “any Frisian.66 The verb “gerymdon” (“made room. For the Danes. however. A common impulse has therefore been to exonerate Hengest whose service to Finn dishonors Hnæf ’s memory: “one cannot blame the Danes overmuch . see Shippey. house. 67 OE morþorbealu and its morphological equivalent morþbealu are used only three times in Beowulf. unheroic though their submission to Finn undoubtedly implies that the entire episode of “morþorhete” would be settled by all-out war.68 It has to be a sign of profound reluctance that any provocation endangering such a precarious detente will be punished by death. Many have observed how central Hildeburh is in the digression but without noting that her appearances manifest the extent of Danish distress and absolute necessity for revenge. calling it “morþorbealo” (1079b) or “grief resulting from murder. .” 66 DOE s.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 157 The concluding phrase “Frysna hwylc . Grendel commits “more murderous destruction” (“morðbeala mare. part of an extensive argument questioning the pointlessness of dying with one’s lord in revenge. H. Rebutting the allegation of Hengest’s impiety. the claim responds to the episode’s triumphal mood as entertainment for Hroðgar’s company. Green. the conditions of which he and Finn understand to be completely secure. “Hildeburg and Hengest” 270. Others have also suggested that the truce is only temporary (e. presumably leaving him only a bodyguard: Gewiton him ða wigend freondum befeallen.” see Bammesberger. a “mercenary” warrior or “gist” (“guest. Yet as I shall argue. Mitchell rejects Bammesberger’s position in “OE befeallen in Beowulf. to see Frisia (now bereft of friends). 69 70 . but I prefer North’s argument (“Tribal Loyalties”) that Finn intends to supplement his diminished warband with Hengest’s recruits.”69 In part. The words of D. Finn is vulnerable. “New Interpretation”.” Malone conjectured that the Danes were allowed to wander about Frisia. who has written extensively on early Germanic lordship. One explanation bears on his ambitions. Therefore. but the locution “hamas ond heaburh” would then make little sense: why would Danes wish to see their enemies’ homes? (“Finn Episode” 165). his revenge already planned. “Ideal” 69 71 Ibid.g. that his service must be a temporary expedient.70 The claim imposes a positive slant on Hengest’s behavior. Hengest has competing allegiances as a wrecca (1137b). 71. 72 On this reading of “freondum befeallen. William Lawrence has questioned why Hengest accepted the brokered compromise.” 1138a). perfectly Malone. “OE befeallen”. and Finn takes advantage of Hengest’s self-interest.72 homes and high-dwellings. “Time Markers”). Hengest’s reluctance to break the oath not only exposes him as dishonorable but calls into doubt his role in accepting a shameful peace in the first place.71 The case cannot be true. (1125a–7a) wica neosian Frysland geseon. since Finn trusts not only the wording of the oath but also Hengest’s allegiance to it. His men have gone home for the winter. Rosemary Woolf identifies an “ideal of effective vengeance” in the Finnsburh episode. Boenig. Hengest never intends to break his oath. but the episode sidesteps this issue entirely and asks instead why he should abide by the oath at all. hamas ond heaburh. however.158 chapter two remains. The warriors departed to seek out the towns. another on his nationality. Fry. siþðan grimne gripe Guðlaf ond Oslaf æfter sæsiðe sorge mændon. in thus cutting across the boundaries between tribes the war-band was also a disruptive force in Germanic society. to co-equal with one of the celebrated kings of Germania. However. the chief Danes in Hengest’s retinue: Swylce ferhðfrecan Fin eft begeat sweordbealo sliðen æt his selfes ham. ætwiton weana dæl . . Hengest must be feeling gratified by his fresh prominence. The verses following Finn’s death describe the complaints of Guðlaf and Oslaf. just as Hnæf ’s Danes seem to exhibit annoyance over following Finn. idem. . “Finn’s Stronghold” 85 (“the whole wealaf presumably left Frisia with them”). “Hildeburg and Hengest” 282. Tolkien. “Design and Motive” 26. Two problems have puzzled readers here. . Hroðgar’s Danes may be unhappy with this situation (at least Wealhþeow and Hunferð are). Other parallels between Hengest and Beowulf emerge. (1146a–50a) So [such?] cruel sword-killing again befell the bold Finn in his own home once Guðlaf and Oslaf lamented the sorrow—the grim assault—following their sea journey.74 This is entirely unnecessary if we accept these lines as a recapitulation and consider “æfter sæsiðe” in reference to the original sea-voyage that brought Hnæf ’s party to Finnsburh. “Tragedy of Finnsburg” 415–16. see also Malone. who advances from untried foreign “mercenary” to great hero to royal heir. . 73 74 . Like Beowulf.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 159 describe Hengest’s role in Hnæf ’s retinue: “a leader who had proved successful could attract warriors from outside his own tribe. Brodeur. Lawrence reasoned that Guðlaf and Oslaf had traveled home to Denmark and returned with a larger force. and Beowulf waits to be elevated now that Grendel is dead. In a single enterprise Hengest vaults from subaltern. Hengest ultimately becomes a leader of Danes in a time of crisis. when Hnæf is killed. However. my reading of their reaction to Hengest’s delayed retribution derives from a context for which the chronology requires justification.”73 Finnsburh depicts such a disruption. to Danish warband leader. Finn and Hengest 138. and censured the number of their woes. In such a way æfter could simply mean either “following” or “attendant to/following Language and History 108. lured by the prospect of further success . “Formulaic Typescene Survival” 295. Phillip Pulsiano attempts to show that Danes especially were known for verbal duplicity. 79 “Tribal Loyalties” 31. but his general observation on duplicity as a Danish national attribute could imply that Guðlaf and Oslaf come up with the plan that Hengest adopts. 77 Old English Verse 25. Earl R.”76 but here Shippey imagines that Hengest breaks the oath: “Hengest goes back on it by attacking Finn as treacherously as Finn attacked Hnaef. The Danes should be praised for a just action.7 “subsequent to and in consequence of.C. Girvan also dislikes the duplicity. 78 Klaeber. Brodeur. that Danes actually break oaths. Jutes and others to fall on the Frisians. because of. Some readers have seen them prematurely breaking Finn’s truce by enticing the Frisians to break their oath.”79 The problem with such readings as these is. to Finnsburg” (Brodeur’s italics). If they had sailed home for fresh recruits.160 chapter two from”:75 Guðlaf and Oslaf bemoan the sorrow following their sea-voyage to Frisia. Pulsiano nowhere alleges. as Lawrence and others alleged.78 These critics read “ætwiton weana dæl” in reference to Finn. but the suggestion that the episode praises the Danes disturbs him more (Finnsburuh 11).1 “following (someone/something) in succession. sense II. “Design and Motive” 27: “Guðlaf and Oslaf cast in Finn’s teeth all the woes that had befallen them since that first fateful journey across the sea. that Guðlaf and Oslaf baited Finn and therefore broke the agreement. Critical Companion 185–6. where else are the fresh recruits mentioned. however. why would Hengest exhibit such scruples over the truce. . the problems with this reading abound. Fry suggests that “Guthlaf and Oslaf embolden the Danish spirits by reciting all their woes since the original voyage to Frisia” (“New Interpretation” 12). Of course. succeeding. the choice to act lies with Hengest all along. First. and is Finn so utterly naive that he never suspects a Danish reprisal of such magnitude? Second. A further complication concerns the subject of Guðlaf ’s and Oslaf ’s complaint. sense II.” 76 Old English Verse 25.”77 In fact. making their taunts. but how can betrayal ever be praiseworthy? 75 DOE s.v. In this event. Anderson.C. Orchard. they do not acknowledge that breaking a sworn truce would be reprehensible.. that Guðlaf and Oslaf “lament” their woes in a performance given before an assembly of Frisians and Danes: “without warning they chant of the ‘fierce attack’ the treaty forbids them to mention. Hengest would need no urging to make up his mind. Beowulf 176 note to lines 1148 ff. again. as a result of. then break it so flagrantly? Tom Shippey suggests that “genuine Heroic Ages often throw up a streak of cunning and ruthlessness disliked in gentler eras. however. after”. and signal to Danes. North proposes. Guðlaf and Oslaf must be lamenting to their Danish friends. the “sea-journey” to Frisia. ham siðie . “Beowulf 1130” 358. such as Kemp Malone: “A Hengest who hangs back. Ne þurfon me embe Sturmere wordum ætwitan. Guðlaf and Oslaf accuse Hengest of the worst dereliction. This is also the opinion of Taylor. has no proper place in heroic poetry. OE ætwitan describes the reprehensible behavior of a retinue that fails to avenge its fallen lord. if Guðlaf and Oslaf break the truce. now that my lord lies dead. even poetry not contemporaneous with Beowulf. and that their criticism is piercing. 81 “Hildeburg and Hengest” 278. what good could be said of Hengest. as in Maldon:80 Ne sceolon me on þære þeode þæt ic of ðisse fyrde eard gesecan. that I would go home lordless now that my friend has fallen. 80 . þæt ic hlafordleas stedefæste hælæð nu min wine gecranc. see also 282–3.45). For the sake of argument. Some have seen Finn’s There are only five occurrences of OE ætwitan in verse. Admittedly polysemous.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 161 Furthermore. forheawen æt hilde. and in the passage it varies OE ætwitan “to reproach”: Guðlaf and Oslaf reproach Hengest for the number of woes they have suffered. Hengest decides to bring about a conflict only after complaints from the highest quarters. (249a–51b) Steadfast heroes from Sturmer need not reproach me with words. OE mænan generically means “bewail” in Beowulf. In vernacular poetry. (220a–3a) þegenas ætwitan feran wille. Guðlaf and Oslaf therefore recount the sufferings that follow on their venture. .”81 Furthermore. Yet agreeing that the Danish party criticizes Hengest means agreeing that Hengest has earned their reproach. nu min ealdor ligeð Retainers among my countrymen shall not reproach me. It translates exprobraverunt (“they accused”) twice in the Paris Psalter (73. cut down in battle. Finn’s apparent trust in Hengest—he must be utterly devoted to the Frisian camp for Finn to suspect no retribution—further impugns Hengest’s character. . that I intend to leave this host to seek my homeland. 88. whose role as agent provocateur has been diminished? Another view may be easier to accept. Yet this criticism of Hengest has dismayed some readers. reluctant to take action and in need of prodding by his more heroic fellows.16. let me suggest that Hengest’s vacillation disgusts them. I think he has. lordless. of their blood. principal to Guðlaf and Oslaf.” Rather. Storms. 83 The point is emphasized in the expression “þeodnes ðegne” (1085a) in reference to Hengest. .”85 Perhaps this fact explains why the Cynewulf and Cyneheard episode from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle poorly reflects the motivations of Finnsburh. The Danes still follow Hengest. Finn places his trust in the solemn oaths that Hengest swears. by extension. that Hengest seems to hold sway over the Danes as more than a leader in name alone. just as feud does on the kin. 85 “Tribal Loyalties” 25.” (“although. 86 Ibid. Allegiance to one’s king could apparently override duty to one’s kin. “there is no evidence in this text that Hengest has any duty to avenge a leader who was not a blood-relative. maybe even of a mercenary band. While I do not follow his argument about the transfer of power. Hengest is quite clearly the leader of Danes. ties making revenge imperative. his remarks on Hengest’s role in the confederacy are germane. of course.”82 the present circumstances of Hengest’s followers. see Carleton Brown 181–3. 84 Evans. 18. he has everything to gain from an alliance with Finn. 28.” 1102a–3a). OE ðeodenlease can be translated “lordless. As Richard North acknowledges. and as I have pointed out. neither a member of their ðeod nor. Lords of Battle 68. The problem is.84 Hengest’s position becomes confrontational within his own faction. Yet Hengest has no tribal. especially Chambers—one obvious reason why Hildeburh is thought to have no faith in “Jutes.86 82 Just as dryhten means leader of a dryht (war-band). Since Germanic national revenge devolves on the ðeod. see Green. ðeoden means leader of a ðeod (nation or tribe in a quite restricted sense).” but it literally means “without a national leader or head of the ðeod. Yet Hengest is no king but a war-leader. “Subjectivity” 178. Language and History 126–7. North suggests that Hengest transfers power and responsibility for the oath to the Danes. Bazelmans 3. who demand revenge. even though it is frequently used to support claims of Hengest’s duty to avenge Hnæf. .83 Like Beowulf he may be said to be “elþeodig” or “belonging to another ðeod” (336b).162 chapter two innocence in his trust of Hengest. . they followed their ring-giver’s slayer. The explicit terms of the sworn oath reveal Hengest’s position: “ðeah hie hira beaggyfan/ banan folgedon//ðeodenlease . let alone blood. eotan. as Alan Bliss proposed on the evidence of the Historia Brittonum (Tolkien.87 Bede tells that Kent was settled by Jutes and that Hengest ruled in Kent. would claim Hengest as a Jute on the basis of evidence from Beowulf and Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica. eotum. I contend. Although weak eote (“Jute”) is morphologically distinct from the strong eoten (“giant”). edited by Alan Bliss: Orchard. so by inference Hengest could have been a Jute. All three come from the Finnsburh digression: “eotena treowe” (1072a) and “eotena bearn” (1088a.” is found only four times in Beowulf. at the very least. Suzuki 103–21. as stated in Bede. and twice in the Trinity College Psalter. and it makes sense that he could be an Angle. eotena.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 163 Jutes and Giants in Finnsburh As impossible as it is to know Hengest’s nationality. Eric Stanley facetiously proposes “Jutish giants” in his translation of “eotena cynnes. The Old English word for “Jute” was the weak feminine eote. 1141a). see Myres.v. 89 Chambers. The archaeology supports Bede. giant”) and compound noun eotonweard (“watch against a giant”). On the impossibility of discovering facts of Anglo-Saxon settlement history from the written sources.” 883b (“Notes on Old English Poetry” 333). Finn and Hengest 168–80). where it glosses Latin “gigas” (“giant”). However. gen. Widsith 237–41. some critics deduce that Hengest was an Angle.90 As Robert Kaske observes. Klaeber marks this word with the symbols denoting its exceptional rarity in prose (s. he cannot be Danish. are nowhere mentioned in Beowulf.89 OE eoten.). eotena.v. I would argue that. Critical Companion 183.” Just how this happened can be summarized from the commentary in J. a noun denoting a creature like a “giant. some still allege that eotenas in Beowulf means “Jutes. 87 88 . Relying on the testimony of the Historia Brittonum./acc. see DOE s. R. see Sims-Williams. three additional attestations preserve the grammatically ambiguous genitive plural form. and neither is Hengest’s nationality. Yet Jutes. Most. see Bandy 240. designating a relatively small tribe occupying the territory of present-day Angeln. 90 In Beowulf. however. alongside the adjective eotenisc (“made by giants. it seems certain that Hengest is the originary Germanic settler of Kent. and much has been made of its meaning. eoten.88 In fact. Hengest is never called a Jute. The matter has been thought important. Tolkien’s posthumous lectures on Finnsburh. On the poet’s linguistic precision in using eoten and gigant. R. with plural forms: nom. and dat. because the word eotena (“of the giants/Jutes”) appears throughout the Finnsburh digression. between the Schlei river and Flensborg Fjord. North likewise argues that the terms of the treaty include establishing a second “hall” where Hengest would rule the Jutes in Finn and Hengest 53–4. and that Finn’s Jutes attacked Hnæf ’s. Tolkien tried to rationalize the genealogical evidence with the philological—supporting the form as a late morphological development along the lines of OE oxnum93—but even Alan Bliss demurred in a footnote: “Actually. .” 1095b) describing the truce. gotna. with the identification of Heremod and the explanation of the dark allusions in Beowulf 898–915 and 1709–1722. who had been deposed by his barons for belligerence in Saxo’s Gesta Danorum. Tolkien then invoked Messenius’s remark in the Scondia Illustrata that Lotherus had been driven “in Jutiam.” both here and elsewhere in Beowulf. almost certainly “heal. Messenius.164 chapter two I have no hesitation in saying at once that ‘Jutes’ are undoubtedly referred to. men”). Campbell. sensing that the poet could not say “on ba healfa” (“on both sides”) because more than two parties were involved. Tolkien (and many others besides) have seriously complicated the action in the Finnsburh episode.95 Tolkien made much of the phrase “on twa healfa” (“on the two sides.” 97 Thorkelin first identified the eotenas as “Jutes” in his 1815 translation of Beowulf: “Jutorum foedus/Injuste fuit/Fractum adversus dominum. no such late forms are found . The argument on which this conclusion is based is essentially bound up with the identification of Hengest—and also.91 By a chain of association. . This incipient loyalty to Finn is the “Eotena treowe” that Hildeburh should not have trusted. 93 Cf. .”92 He concludes that eotenum therefore means “Jutes. 96 This does not seem to be the case. Richard North extended Tolkien’s observations. 95 Suzuki 116–17. 94 Finn and Hengest 62 note 64.” The genitive singular adjective “healfre” in the phrase “þæt hie healfre geweald . in Beowulf 1305a (“on ba healfa”). for all these problems are intricately bound up with traditions concerning early Danish history. North imagines Finn’s Jutes to have been resident in Frisia long enough to have adopted a Frisian identity. describing the Danes’ and Grendel’s “sides. gotnum (“Goths. . however. with proper nouns. which seem now to have been widely accepted. Old English Grammar § 619. Bliss does offer an unlikely parallel in OIcel gotnar. agan moston” modifies a feminine noun.96 It has therefore been theorized that Jutes served with Hnæf and Finn. Tolkien identified Heremod as the Danish king Lotherus.”94 By reading eoten as Jute.” 91 92 .97 Thus. We learn in Beowulf that Heremod had been driven “mid eotenum” (902b). Stuhmiller concludes with an observation similar to mine: “it is no less important to acknowledge that Beowulf himself. but the Danes have eradicated whole hosts of them in the past. .the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 165 both factions. see also Holthausen. and exemplifies the heiti with a verse. 98 99 .102 Þjóðólfr of Hvinir’s late ninth-century “Haustlöng” deploys the phrase “enemy of Thor” “Tribal Loyalties” 21. and the familiarization seems as natural as calling someone a “devil” today. the men of King Finn. an eoten of sorts. for our poet. “Eotenas in Beowulf ”. “Zu altenglischen Denkmälern” 180.” 101 Her point is that “the Geats may have vanquished this particular eotena [Grendel]. from a Danish viewpoint at least. . 102 Kaske. however. the Old Icelandic cognate of eoten. is a rapacious eoten of sorts” (12). Yet another recension of the text claims that a man can be called a “jötunn” (“kent er ok til iøtna”). Kaske’s work was less context-specific.” 1087b–8b). observes that Beowulf has just trounced Grendel. Kaske argued that eoten throughout Beowulf means “giant. against tremendous odds” (11). . and from that we may infer that the treachery was on the Frisian side. . He noted that “Skáldskaparmál” attests that “giant terms” (“jötnaheiti”) are insulting designations for men. who alleges that “eorðcyninges” in Beowulf 1155b and “eorðbuendra” in the Fragment 32b denote figurative earth-dwellers or giants.98 Unfortunately. an unlikely position.101 She suggests that Beowulf. Euts and Frisians are equivalent terms. who are also called Eotenas .100 Jacqueline Stuhmiller. . that Finn could be absolved of responsibility for Hnæf ’s death. Lawrence. . the complications of reading eotena bearn as “sons of the Jutes” in the episode means. Frisians. first. like Hengest. In 1967 R. E. as North translates the verses “þæt hie healfre geweald//wið Eotena bearn/agan moston” (“in such a way that they were allowed to have power of half [the hall] facing the sons of the Jutes. if Hengest took revenge on Jutes rather than Frisians.” either “enemy” or “Frisian” and that Hengest’s Danes ridicule the Frisians with the epithet. why would Finn have to die? Killing Finn would make the Danes appear unprincipled.”. A competing interpretation of OE eoten disregards “Jutes” altogether and greatly simplifies Tolkien’s complex version of events in Finnsburh. Malone. Kaske’s view has gained some recent strong support from John F. “Eotenas in Beowulf ” 289. Hnæf ’s and Finn’s. is an eoten-slayer.” 100 “Eorð-Compounds. Second. “Tragedy of Finnsburg” 393: “. Vickrey. moreover. “Finn Episode” 161: “.99 Giants were the traditional enemies of the Æsir and Vanir in the Scandinavian cosmology. . not that Hengest left Finn’s court. however eager. Hengest’s Resolution Malone does observe. OE eoten could mean “giant” in the Finnsburh contexts. “Liber Monstrorum and Beowulf ” 463. 107 Brodeur is especially dismissive of the view that Hengest “made no [heroic] choice at all . “á fjalla Finns ilja brú minni” (“on my bridge of the foot-soles of the Lapp [= “Finns”] of the Fells”). While the Danes censure Hengest for following Finn. for all the wrong reasons. .” very tentatively identified as Frisians. Hengest does find a solution to his predicament. the runic “Rök Stone” seems to refer to a man as a killer of “giants. 69.” 103 104 .104 “Finnr” has to mean “giant” here. Whitbread. Backx 61. not that he took vengeance. but that he had it in mind to bring one on. and his own weak irresolution”. Ultimately. Finally.”103 Interestingly. In this context. He must choose service to Finn or vengeance for Hnæf regardless of the cost to his personal reputation. Hengest. If so. 56. . 105 See the comments of Russchen 351 and Wilts. . Here I must mention that details about Hygelac in the English Liber Monstrorum have been attributed to Frisian oral tales—perhaps accounting for the morbid interest in the dimensions of Hygelac’s bones. should one wish to emphasize the minuscule evidence of Frisian gigantism. Kaske brings forward some medieval Italian references to the height of Frisians—implying that Frisians were known in Dante’s circles for their size. the Frisians seem to have been reputed for their size. “Beowulf and King Hygelac”. Ibid. Hengest’s position is “tragic”—as Brodeur alleges. . who protects himself from the god Thor by standing on his own shield.105 To continue.107 the poet’s accusation of Hengest’s “failure”: . one that preserves his honor. Haustlöng 8. then.106 On the basis of Kaske’s Norse evidence. was unable to fulfil his obligation of taking vengeance . but that he thought of North. not that he brought on a battle. refers to the giant Hrungnir. see “Design and Motive. between duty linked with desire to avenge . 106 Magoun. . but that he was eager to leave. Hengest can either break a sworn oath or deny vengeance to his lord. it may denote an “enemy” or specifically a Frisian.166 chapter two for “giant. Kaske observes that Þjóðólfr’s expression. We are told. reading eoten as a Frisian or enemy fits the context I furnish for the poem. . . þeah þe he [sic MS] meahte on mere drifan hringedstefnan —holm storme weol. . The editors of Klaeber’s Beowulf adopt the following emendation of 1128b–29a: wunode mid Finne. “Inner Weather. Brodeur. although he could not drive his ring-prowed ship on the sea. Ibid. . even though he is unable to make amends. 171. 257. 110 “Design and Motive” 23.108 Malone calls Hengest a “sinner.111 Hengest ða gyt wælfagne winter wunode mid Finne [ea]l unhlitme.” 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. This is surely apologetic material: the poet lays so much stress on his hero’s good intentions that we must suspect the hero of failing to carry them out. . (1127b–33a) “Finn Episode” 168. Hengest’s resignation incriminates his resolve. the trust and comradeship which he had shared with them were dissolved.”110 Determining how Hengest feels about his conflicting obligations and especially his contemptible deference can be found in the passage equating his wintry mood with the bleak weather of the sea in winter. won wið wind. however. As Brodeur avers. Yet it seems imprecise to allege that unhlitme (“not by lot”) has lost its originary sense and simply means “eagerly. “Poetic Diction” 252. not Hengest. Yet Malone reasonably detects Hengest’s equivocation.” in the sense “he fondly remembered. He eagerly remembered his homeland.). as some evidence discloses Hengest’s hesitation to pursue vengeance for Hnæf. (1128b–31a) [Hengest] dwelled with Finn. Burlin. winter yþe beleac isgebinde .” a judgment raising the issue of blame for Hengest’s delay: “The poet warms to him . as Hnæf ’s avengers. . . þeah þe ne meahte on mere drifan hringedstefnan .” The negative adverb ne in 1130a seems more defensible: Hengest remembered a homeland but could not leave. he unhlitme eard gemunde. because he repents of his sin. 108 109 . “Hengest’s followers were separated from him by an abyss of incomprehension and mistrust. 111 Stanley.”109 Malone makes this claim because he sees Guðlaf and Oslaf.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 167 taking it. . eard gemunde. but he does make amends in my reading of the episode. thinks that Hengest resolves to break his oath. Vickrey further argues that Hengest’s revenge is implicated twice in the telling. but his private feud takes precedence. and Vickrey extends the case by reading eard gemunde as “ ‘bore in mind’ where disaster had befallen his lord. the ice-fetter. the] homeland. winter locked the wave. Fulk therefore accepts the emendation ne < MS he in 1130a. . the winter squalls set in.”115 North connects the curious expression to Gildas’s remark that the Germanic invaders read omens before venturing to Britannia. would imply ‘choice’ in the sense ‘decision pursuant to lots and not to one’s desires’. 113 Finnsburh 22. it means ‘unwillingly’. the last two words being translated “not at all by lot.” he applies “unhlitme” to the following half-line “eard gemunde. share”. . Vickrey renders it “not by necessity. Fry takes eal unhlitme as “voluntarily”113 and John F. “on hlytme.” 115 “Narrative Structure” 95.” .” partly because the subsequent verses about the winter weather suggest the impossibility of travel. I do not think that the verses on the winter weather need to explain the reason for Hengest’s predicament. the second records the details of revenge” (101). therefore he does not look for omens . . One could intuit. These suggestions have been incorporated into Klaeber’s Beowulf. [he] plans to settle a new land [Britain]. ‘fondly’ ” (“Six Cruces” 199). Hengest’s growing discomfort with his position is demonstrated by the expression “eard gemunde” (1129b): Hengest “remembered [his. “Hengest stayed happily. even though he could sail home . and shows that -hlitm here is really taken to imply ‘free choice. as the punctuation (a dash) implies.”112 Donald K. records that Hengest was forced 112 While many have offered reconstructions of the text. 116 “Tribal Loyalties” 27: “Hengest does not sail. as Fulk implies in his treatment of the term as “ ‘not reluctantly’. Orchard translates “ill-fated” (Critical Companion 186). lot. The winter Hengest spends with Finn is “wælfag. choice pursuant to one’s desires. struggled against the wind.168 chapter two Hengest then voluntarily dwelled with Finn for a slaughter-stained winter.” The translation “voluntarily” may be euphemistic.”114 They jointly argue that Hengest willingly stays in Frisia to avenge Hnæf. the solution “(Finn) eal unhlitme” has found favor. But the translation ‘having no choice’ means much more than this. In proposing the clause onset. Gildas’s words are “omen” and “auguria. ‘casting of lots’. cf. The ocean weltered in storm.” Beowulf 3126a. a. although he might drive his ring-prowed ship on the sea. Given the telegraphic style of the passage. 114 “Narrative Structure” 91: “Any hlitm. . Vickrey claims.). he also recommends emending eal to he. ‘eagerly’. he recalled a homeland.” The precise meaning of eal unhlitme has been contested (the manuscript reads “finnel unhlitme”).” This reading connects unhlitme to OE hleotan “to cast lots” and OE hliet “chance. Having accepted the sense “eagerly. “Hengest meditates a dire revenge” (ibid.”116 Historia Brittonum. 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. however. but nearly all views connect it to OE hlitm and translate “not by lot.” stained by the remembered slaughter. as lines 1137b–9b suggest: 117 118 119 Dumville. Consuetudo nanque in patria nostra est ut. Given Geoffrey’s celebrity for invention.118 We were expelled from our homeland for no other reason than that our nation’s custom required it. a Germania in exilium expulsae. casting lots. although omens as such are not mentioned: “Interea tres ceolae. Bryttanniam aduenerunt. translating “eal unhlitme” as “not at all by lottery” could refer to the circumstances that made Hengest a wrecca: exile from his (Anglian or Jutish) homeland and service with Hnæf. From the parallels in Gildas. so that the homeland where they were born may be freed from an inordinate multitude.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 169 to leave his homeland. the nobles commanded that they adhere to the custom by ancient decree. Taking “not by lot” as “voluntarily” perfectly captures the sense of the expression. selected the youth which you see in your presence. the sentiment may express nothing more than his impulse to amplify Gildas’ remarks. our princes. Historia Brittonum 82. preceperunt ut consuetudini ab antiquo statute parerent. North ingeniously suggested that Hengest recalls a homeland: Britain. For the custom in our land is that when there is an abundance of men in it. Historia Regum 65 (emending “et” to “ut”).”117 Geoffrey of Monmouth seems to have embroidered the tradition of Hengest’s exile by adding details of a “lottery”: Fueramus etenim expulsi a patria nostra nec ob aliud nisi quia consuetudo regni expetebat. Since a superabundance of men has lately befallen our homeland. . cum habundantia hominum in eadem superuenerit. and the powerful and strong choose those who will seek out foreign kingdoms to earn their bread.119 Presumably Hengest stayed on to consummate his revenge. If the “lottery” reflects an actual tradition. the nobles from various districts meet and command the young men from the whole kingdom to come before them. “Tribal Loyalties” 26–7. however. Neil Wright. conueniunt ex diuersis prouintiis principes et totius regni iuuenes coram se uenire precipiunt. Superfluente igitur nouiter in regno nostro hominum copia conuenerunt principes nostri sortemque proicientes elegerunt iuuentutem istam quam in presentia tua cernis. The fact that Hengest stays eal unhlitme in this instance could mean one of two things: no lottery compelled Hengest’s service to Finn or no lottery forced him to leave. Deinde proiecta sorte potiores atque fortiores eligunt qui extera regna petituri uictum sibi perquirant [ut] patria ex qua orti sunt a superflua multitudine liberetur. Lots are then cast. if he could engineer an angry meeting.” OE inne has occasionally been emended to irne (“with iron”). inne gemunde.122 On the contrary. For some reason. 122 Fry. see Taylor. . The sense “flickering. meeting. but he engineers an angry meeting where he goads the Frisians into breaking it.170 chapter two gist of geardum. . however. Notwithstanding his ambitions. . an indecisiveness about proper behavior. Hengest does not intend to break the oath.” In describing Beowulf ’s action with the dragon I will suggest that the term wæfre describes a psychic paralysis. “New Interpretation” 11.” Kemp Malone simultaneously makes the verb reflexive and writes Hengest out of the Danish revenge. The hapax legomenon torngemot consists of elements torn “angry. he to gyrnwræce þonne to sælade . .121 Yet Hengest’s uncertainty finds direct expression in the clause. He thought more about vengeance than his sea venture. he is trapped in Finnsburh. Hengest thinks more about vengeance than any sea venture.” but the negation should be rejected. indignant” plus gemot “counsel. The wrecca was eager to set out. swiðor þohte Fundode wrecca. that he might remind the sons of the giants within. 121 “Finn Episode” 159. In the end Hengest cannot restrain his “wæfre mod” (1150b) or “hesitant disposition.” The semantic problem here is twofold: the meaning of adverb “inne” and of verb “gemunde. but inne may 120 The half-line “þeah þe he meahte” has often been emended to “þeah þe ne meahte.120 Something is holding him back. Translating the clause “ne meahte wæfre mod/forhabben in hreþre” (1150–51a) as “the restless spirit [of the Danes] could not restrain itself in the breast. Frisians] within [“inne”]. . While he had the opportunity to go home. Others have translated wæfre more vaguely by attributing an indistinct “restlessness” to the Danes. “Tribal Loyalties” 26.” Others have interpreted torngemot as I do. (1140a–1b) . but these critics insist that the Danes intend to hold such a meeting. the guest from those precincts. . assembly. gif he torngemot þæt he eotena bearn þurhteon mihte.” as of igniting a flame (“Daniel 240b) or “gutturing” might also be defended here. . . he continues to honor his pledge to Finn. “Beowulf 1130” and North. In this way “he might remind the sons of the giants [= enemies. ” but how would one “remember the sons of giants/enemies”?127 The collocation recalls Norse expressions meaning “take revenge.” 124 “Tribal Loyalties” 19–20.”128 since the Beowulf poet uses gemunan to denote the promise of compensation for acts committed or pledged./inne in ræcede//mid werum wunige” (“Inside the building prudent men are eager to know where the battlefield will be among their peers. but a translation would be crabbed: “might have remembered. The context of inne “inside the hall or barrow” has to be inferred. one does not remember a person (as in Beowulf ) but his doings. 127 Orchard suspects that gemunan “remember” can also mean “call to mind” (Critical Companion 186). 126 Lines 390b. 1281b (adverb of motion).the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 171 stand as an adverb of position. It has to be conceded that in all the Old Icelandic citations. 1866b. 125 An excellent precedent for the sense “mental state” can be found in Beowulf 2113b. It occurs solely in the b-verse.v.” 16b–18a). muna sense 2. 642b. but this sense would require justification if it meant “call to (someone else’s) mind. where he can press an advantage. A further parallel from Vainglory shows that inne can mean in a hall: “witan fundiaþ//hwylc æscstede.”126 The best parallels occur in 1866b. The phrase is highly formulaic. “Ic þe þæs lean geman” (“I will remember a reward for you for that”) says 123 The emendation proposed by Trautmann.” The form gemunde appears to be preterite subjunctive. 3059b refers to the dragon’s lair. Hengest makes Finn’s hall the scene of his revenge. . where Hroðgar is said to have bestowed gifts “inside” (“inne gesealde”) and in 3059b. Bruce Mitchell offers a discussion of this line in his “Two Syntactical Notes.” 128 Cleasby and Vigfusson s.” Yet Orchard’s reading of the verb would solve multiple problems in the passage! In Beowulf OE myndgian is used for the sense “remind” or “call to mind. and in five of these it means “inside a hall. too. In the Heaðobard digression the eald æscwiga “remembers all” and goads a youth to murder (2042b).”124 although “inwardly” (of a mental state) could make sense. One “remembers” (humiliations or miseries) just before seeking revenge in Beowulf 1259b (Grendel’s mother remembers “yrmþe” or “humiliation”) and 2488b–89a (Eofor’s hand remembered feuds). Adverb inne can be found seven other times in Beowulf. 1570b.125 Yet the context is more specific: inside the hall. since mention of either location is several lines away. This is exactly the circumstances of the passage in Finnsburh. and three times in Beowulf (I count “inne gemunde”) inne is found with a preterite verb form having prefix ge-. Hengest intends to remember (“gemunan”) the sons of the giants/ enemies inside the hall.123 North alone has argued that inne here means “within the nation. 1800b. OE gemunan generally means “to remember. where the dragon is said to have hidden his treasure “inside” (“inne gehydde”). ” which correspond exactly to Hunlaf. ceteri vero in Germania armis et rebus bellicis claruerunt. Beowulf col. the notion of an heir seems implicit). Surgentesque populi et naciones per totam Europam consederunt.172 chapter two Wealhþeow in 1220b when she asks Beowulf to protect her sons. perhaps even Hnæf ’s. 139v. and from an important reference in Cotton Vespasian D.e. regnum barbarorum et germanorum exortum est. To this end. . Danmarks Heltedigtning vol.130 The emphasis on the sword’s edges—not on the common Old English metonymy ecg for a sword in general—implies violence. p. 1. . Waltef et hame. but Brodeur seems to have resolved the question to the extent that it can be (“Climax” 330–54). alii in britannia. . Oddlaf (Ordlaf/Oslaf ). review of Heyne and Schücking. This reading is arguably preferable.” 2391b) for Heardred’s death: “Se ðæs leodhryres/lean gemunde” (“he remembered a requital for the prince’s [or: nation’s] fall. 999): “In diebus illis. 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. IV fol. and Guðlaf )”. Girvan. the Frisians]”: “þæs wæron mid eotenum/ecge cuðe. 68. Horsi et Hengisti. Elsewhere Beowulf “remembers a requital” (“lean gemunde. Gunnleifus. since it has lately been established that the Beowulf poet uses eoten consistently for post-diluvian creatures. a heterodox one revived by Friend. imperante Valentiniano . Hoc testantur gesta rudolphi et hunlapi. Clark Hall) known from the pages of the lost Skjoldunga Saga epitomized by Arngrímur Jónsson in his Rerum Danicarum fragmenta (“Hunleifus. this sword may have been used to kill Frisians in the surprise attack. 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. Malone.” Various readings have been proposed (for which see Klaeber’s Beowulf note to lines 1142–4). gemunde.” that he “means to remember the Frisians inside the hall. The understatement euphemizes Hengest’s determination and makes the scene of his suffering the arena of his vengeance. thereby making it “known. Unwini et Widie. deriving from an anonymous history “de Bruto et Brittonibus secundum Bedam” (Imelmann. While Kaske interprets this passage to mean that the sword was old—known among the ancient race of giants—he suggests the alternative “known among Frisians” as well. quorum quidam in Italia. On the one hand. quidam in Gallia. Oddleifus. . Two questions arise if we accept the reading Hunlafing: Is Hunlafing the name of a sword (Olrik.”131 On 129 This character is the son of “Hunlaf ” (see John R. “Hunlafing”) or a person? The question arises whether one can call a son “Hunlafing” without a full first name. Girvan perversely identified Hengest as Hunlafing: “it was on his own lap he laid and wore the sword” (Finnsburuh 24). 131 Although this is not the only explanation: Van Meter recalls an earlier explanation (i.” he intends to pay them back for their earlier attack. . and the ambiguity of the sword’s history. 130 Bandy.” 2391).” 1145a–b. When Hengest says “eotena bearn . the Danish Hunlafing129 presents Hengest with a sword whose edges are known “among the giants [that is. see also “Finn Episode” 167. which in turn affects Ingeld’s marriage. one I am prepared to argue for. This is exactly the circumstances of Hunlafing’s sword. Brodeur alleges. . writing. In short. The anomalous sobriquet “Hunlafing” or “son of Hunlaf ” emphasizes this important distinction. making punishment or compensation for the slaughtered Dane impossible. While the boy’s name is irrelevant. Frank. Malone (“Hildeburg and Hengest” 276) proposes that receiving the sword signifies Hengest’s intent: “On this earlier occasion the Eotens had got well acquainted with his sword. . the sword may have an even older history. literally “to pull through” but here “to effect. presents Hengest with a famous sword with the stipulation . This strategy answers the detail that Hengest wanted to provoke a torngemot or “angry meeting. Recall that the perpetrator escaped. it restored him to unity with them. the verb þurhteon. Finn would not want one of his own men to breach his well-constructed treaty over an event from the distant past that had nothing to do with the Danish-Frisian feud.133 Hence.” The point is to make the Frisians remember grievances against Danes. his parentage is not. and neither is Klaeber. Hunlafing presents the sword not to bait Hengest but for him to wear it and precipitate an incendiary reaction among Frisians in the hall. despite Ingeld’s best efforts to prevent any breach of trust. and ended his tragic isolation” (“Design and Motive” 24). it almost seems as if the sword were a gift—or bribe. In the Heaðobard digression. Like Ingeld. .” Frank is not quite clear how the sword prompts Hengest. For Klaeber. for which reason the poet emphasizes the Frisian oath. an insensitivity recalls a past conflict. One must not Hanning 6. since he expects the treaty to be breached by infuriated Frisians.” highlights Hengest’s ostensible conspiracy. 8. 132 133 . But to be faithful to the terms of the treaty. “Hunlafing . already passed down from the previous generation. Hengest would want just this eventuality.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 173 the other hand. a byre provocatively wears a Heaðobard sword captured in a battle that had been waged in a prior generation. “Germanic Legend” 90: “The silent placing of a sword on Hengest’s lap screams out vengeance.132 The sword was passed from father to son. that the vengeance he is brooding over is to be carried into execution” (“Observations” 547). “acceptance of the sword was a promise to Hengest’s men. he is intent on having them renew this acquaintance”. From the parallels between the two episodes we can conclude that wearing the wrong weapon can arouse enmity over a past event which has no bearing on a present one. . My claim for the function of the sword in the episode derives from the parallel I noted above between the Finnsburh and Heaðobard digressions. .” It has been suggested that Hunlaf fell in the attack on the hall and that his son received the father’s sword. the essential reason why it is “known among giants. but the pledge is broken in his reading. Hengest transfers his power and responsibility for the oath. and one from Saxo). but the past is not off limits. North follows some readers who allege that Hunlafing receives Hengest’s rule over the Danes by placing his sword in Hengest’s lap. whereas in Finnsburh a subordinate (Hunlafing) hands it over. is an attack ethical by heroic standards? Why should the young Hunlafing become “king” and not Guðlaf or Oslaf ? Why are the sword’s edges “known among giants”? Two more questions emerge as well: Of what parallel relevance is the detail of the sword-wearer in the Heaðobard digression—if it indeed echoes Finnsburh? If the Danes could slaughter Finn with impunity. in yielding power does Hengest capitulate in his duty to seek revenge. why do they need Hengest to cede power? He need not break the oath if they assaulted Finn on their own. it would violate the oath to bring up an issue related to the current feud. a locution different from alicgan + on in 2194a–b (“. . On the basis of four episodes (two from the sagas. . on Biowulfes/bearm alegde” or “laid in 134 “Tribal Loyalties” 28–9. which generally means “put on” in Old English. North alleges Hengest’s reluctance to break the oath. however. This seems unlikely. Hunlafing would therefore have to be a king already—a status the alleged ceremony preempts. Hunlafing’s sword must have had a transparent history if Hengest is using it to make the Frisians speak of remembered killings. presumably to Hunlafing.174 chapter two say anything related to the settlement.134 In this way. since the prominent Hunlaf is not made the object of vengeance. a king delivers the sword. Handing over the sword is described by the idiom don + on. Finally. North reasons that receiving a sword indicates vassalage. as Malone charged. In each of North’s cases. in effect turning over the responsibility to his subalterns and diminishing his own status? The moment seems unusually heightened not because it implies a transfer of authority but because it initiates Hengest’s plot. North’s incongruent parallels yet raise as many questions as they answer: Why should the oath be binding only for Hengest and not for his troops? If Hengest yields power to Hunlafing. one from Beowulf. More likely. but it might all emerge if emotions can be provoked. “Second Language Acquisition” 14.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 175 Beowulf ’s lap”). (1104a–6b) If some Frisian should call to mind through audacious talk the murderous hostility. so that he may exploit this provision and “settle” the dispute honorably. syððan scede. Interestingly. complain of it. then the sword’s edge would afterwards settle it. Its edges are hypothetically “known among giants” because Hunlaf either killed many “giants” with it or took it from “giants”—Frisians. where a sword worn “innocently” provokes a murder.137 Hengest wears the sword as provocation. and not on Hengest’s lap. almost certainly inherited from Hunlaf. this strategy answers the specific clause in the treaty between Finn and Hengest: gyf þonne Frysna hwylc ðæs morþorhetes þonne hit sweordes ecg frecnen spræce myndgiend wære. The context (as well as the dative of position) here indicates that the sword be attached to the bearm. too. Collinder 20–1.136 Most plausibly. “a king should give rings in his hall” (28b–9a).135 The phrase “on bearm” could mean “on his lap” by synecdoche but could equally represent attaching a sword to a baldric. 137 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 67). Hengest expects that a Frisian will see the sword. The parallel is being exploited: a sword is being used as provocation in a scene like that in Finn’s hall. the sword mentioned in the Ingeld digression had been taken from Heaðobards at some time prior to the marriage settlement. in other words. by not breaking the truce himself. So. recall a fatal incident unrelated to the current delicate situation. “a gem should stand in a ring” (23b–4a).” This occurs in a long section patterned “X sceal on Y” describing where men or objects should be positioned. Hengest remains leader of the Danes throughout but only earns respect by making the Frisians break the oath—a situation Gwara. The expression simply suggests why Frisians would react when they see the weapon. thereby preserving the letter of his oath. In the Heaðobard digression the tauntings of the eald æscwiga and the murder that incites war trigger this reaction. Hengest makes the Frisians resort to such audacious talk. and there is every reason to think that Hunlafing places the sword where it belongs. and thereby bring up the feud. 135 136 . In fact. Thus. This moment has a strong correlate in the Ingeld digression. was Hunlafing’s sword. Hunlafing puts his own famous sword—perhaps Hunlaf ’s own (?captured) sword—on Hengest. A verse from Maxims II 25b bears on this question: “sweord sceal on bearme. “a mast on a ship’s keel must support a sail-yard” (24b–5a). Hengest has been elevated to Burlin. Malone then proceeds to vitiate his own theory when he says. made sacrifice of his honor. see DOE. stipulation.” “custom of the world. evokes the “tragic” sense often seen in the digression—that he is compelled to act against his better judgment (or self-interest) and break a truce.v.” All suffer humiliation. law. For a summary of the earliest suggestions.”140 To my mind. “Tragedy of Finnsburg” 418. decree” and should be translated “counsel of the world. However. which is often uselessly emended to “weorodrædende” (“host-ruler. folcræden: “public policy” (Gifts of Men 42) and “national legislation” (Cleopatra Glossary 1. the world’s counsel could be as vague as “duty” or as specific as “vengeance. Hunlafing’s act ultimately coincides with my reading of the passage mentioning Guðlaf and Oslaf. 328–9. when he entered Finn’s service. all the Danes were in the same boat. “Climax” 313–30.” sinræden “widespread counsel. 3807).” but many have offered other suggestions: “what pertains to the world. s. in cases like landræden “law of the land.” “worldly duty. it is not his peculiar personal property.” “condition.” “retainership. Why should he hesitate for so long? First. 140 Ibid. no. For this reason. he is not a Dane and therefore not compelled to exact revenge to the extent the Danes are.” and folcræden “national law. but neither does he embrace it actively.” “universal obligation. Even so. king”).” “way of the world. “Inner Weather” 83–4. 143 Garmonsway 141. 141 Lawrence.” 144 Malone’s view (“Hildeburg and Hengest” 267) holds good in one respect: “In truth. the element ræden functions as an abstract suffix.”141 “revenge and destruction.144 Second. see Klaeber’s Beowulf note to line 1142b (189) and Sanderlin 501 note 1: “worldly intercourse. 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).” the second element retains its meaning “counsel. 142 Burlin. The tragedy of Hengest is representative.138 Arthur Brodeur’s paper on “The Climax of the Finn Episode” brilliantly clarified the meaning of woroldræden and demolished competing emendations. His hesitation.139 In nearly all Old English compounds terminating in -ræden.’ ”143 Hengest apparently scorns a duty that the world demands.176 chapter two identical to Ingeld’s. “In my reconstruction. the other Danes became unjustifiably suspicious 138 139 .” “destiny. Every man of them. but only the Danes represented by Guðlaf and Oslaf insist that the oath must be voided. Hengest does not refuse “the counsel of the world” or “woroldrædenne” (1142b). Hengest can be faulted for making his decision only after Danish intimidation.”142 “the course ‘suggested by public opinion. which North also envisions. “Inner Weather” 83. Just as the tyrant laments for his homeland in a way that compromises his duty. Beowulf the Foreign King of Danes This reading of multiple parallels between the Finnsburh and Heaðobard digressions not only eases difficulties in Finnsburh but also has the added virtue of greatly simplifying the plot. someone “elþeodig. Finn gigs Hengest’s ambition with precisely these expectations.xiv (s. so that its meaning for the poem’s internal audience of Geats and Danes becomes transparent. Even when an obviously righteous choice lies before such a man.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 177 a supremely high rank and capitalizes on his status. 145 Cox. “Dicts of Cato” 15. . and the sorrow of his spirit will be for his homeland. and made their escape without him. The episode dramatizes the ethical consequences of electing an ambitious outsider. eager for treasure and pitiless—for his own rapacity will be among the people. my italics). Hengest may miss his people. under the leadership of Guthlaf and Oslaf ” (284. and Hengest redeems his vacillation.145 Woe to the nation that has a foreign king—immoderate. Hengest sacrifices Danish honor for his own self-interest. London. he cannot imagine how the oath could be violated without an accusation of perfidy. xii med. In essence Finnsburh describes reluctant but eventual revenge. feohgeorne.) alone preserves this aphorism. A maxim transmitted in the Vespasian manuscript of the Old English “Dicts of Cato” and untranslated from any Latin source actually describes the calamity of foreign leadership voiced in the Finnsburh digression: Wa þære þeode þe hæfð ælðeodigne cyng—ungemetfæstne. Ambition and duty are its key terms. 7 his modes gnornung on his earde. 7 unmildheortne—for on þære þeode byð his gitsung. Third. By staying with Finn Hengest starts to resemble the rapacious foreign king. But Guðlaf and Oslaf make Hengest see his duty. British Library MS Cotton Vespasian D. 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.” to defend the interests of one’s people. his duty to his sworn allies will be compromised by the prestige and wealth garnered from—astonishingly!—a treacherous enemy. and he abuses the trust of his Danish subalterns—the men whose trust he supposedly of Hengest because of his failure to act. ironically. all formerly owned by 146 Hill. mailcoat. or honor motivates him from the start. The scop’s narrative archetype Hengest must choose between two conflicting obligations. Only Danish complaints force Hengest to retreat from his seemingly ironclad treaty. Hroðgar’s scop compares Beowulf to Hengest. me for sunu wylle heald forð tela Now I. his mother only. and Hengest’s choices disclose hesitation and compromise. murder. Beowulf ’s position as heir becomes solidified politically. Hengest defends his own reputation. Beowulf. and sword. Beowulf is a new son in sentimental terms. This factitious comparison applies to Beowulf. son—confirms Hroðgar’s strong feelings. the Finnsburh scop chooses to presage Beowulf ’s ostensible ambition. implicitly identifying Beowulf as a wrecca—a trusted outsider whose sword and counsel are valued even above those of native kinsmen. niwe sibbe. me. þec.’ ” . Hold well this new kinship henceforth. not the dignity of his men. (946b–49a) Nu ic. And. and he must devise a plan that will not contravene his sworn allegiance to Finn. but he centrally features a foreign-born leader whose interests lean towards self-promotion rather than an expected good. to be sure.178 chapter two safeguards. “Danish Succession” 182: “The thought of Beowulf ’s parent. He receives five items: a standard.146 Hroðgar promises an emotional tie resembling fosterage: secg betsta. Beowulf. The allegiance to Hnæf seems forgotten. in fact. While Beowulf belongs to this class of warriors more in imagination than fact. Having praised Beowulf ’s mother (lines 942b–46a) for producing such a man as Beowulf. In fact. though not yet a political successor. will honor you in my heart like a son. he opposes ambition to loyalty in a scenario analogous to Beowulf ’s present circumstances as Hroðgar’s protégé. that supreme glory rather than loyalty. But when Hroðgar’s dynastic treasures are distributed. In the same analogous terms that characterize all the Beowulfian digressions. best of men. may have led Hroðgar to offer himself as a ‘father. freogan on ferhþe. helmet. kinship. Through this extended parable the scop imaginatively critiques Hroðgar’s intention to adopt Beowulf as his son and heir. and humiliation. The Finnsburh poet poses questions of revenge and feuding. The very notion that he goes on to conquer territory in sub-Roman Britain suggests. you. The choked expression—I. the natural retaliation for betrayal. Queen Wealhþeow registers her own doubts about the Geat’s throne-worthiness. In other words.” 3182b). the way heroes are recognized. Hill reads suspicion and distrust in Wealhþeow’s reaction: “She seems to imply that Beowulf. and Wealhþeow may be seen to respond sympathetically. After all. Most significantly. 184. much favored. 186–90. 130). 150 Contrary to the opinion of Damico (Valkyrie Tradition 129) that Beowulf is a superior candidate for the kingship. Damico proposes that “an adjustment of Wealhtheow’s relationship to Hrothulf from that of aunt to that of aunt-mother helps to demystify the queen’s behavior” (ibid. see Orchard. Wealhþeow suggests rewarding Beowulf with exceptional treasures received in tribute or won in war. so it seems—and Hroðgar’s war-saddle. Suspicious of Beowulf ’s standing as Hroðgar’s designated heir. “lofgeornost” (“most desirous of praise. even at his death. Finnsburh intervenes before Wealhþeow presents her counter-offer.150 147 Ibid. Hill observes how Wealhþeow discerns Hroðgar’s intent to thrust Beowulf into the succession and that she counters the king’s gambit with a competing offer and admonition. Bazelmans makes the important point that “the valuables presented by the lord to his retinue are not to be regarded as a mercenary’s wages” (111).148 For Hill. and the same consideration applies equally to Wealhþeow.149 Beowulf. who does not pay Beowulf “cash” in any sense. Critical Companion 226. however. but as their leader he might fail to heed the “world’s counsel” and become that rapacious foreign king mentioned in the Vespasian maxim. that he might commit deeds against their interest and against his own present fame” (190). she observes. Her remonstration is a disjunctive moment in the poem and in my view a direct reaction to Finnsburh. has no long-standing debt of gratitude and reciprocal obligation that would tie him to Hroðgar or the Danes. which rehearses the circumstances of potential Danish disgrace at the hands of a foreign leader. . he should be honored as a champion. the foreigner Beowulf is unknown to any of them. To the Danes celebrating Grendel’s defeat. the Finnsburh scop recites a poem full of anxiety over righteous duty. 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. 148 Ibid. Apparently Beowulf keeps the saddle.147 These status objects confirm Hroðgar’s intention to promote Beowulf as regent. 186. John M.the foreign beowulf and the “fight at finnsburh” 179 Heorogar. and this alarming development poses a threat to the social cohesion of Heorot and especially to the solidarity of the Danish warband. might be unkind to her sons. 149 Ibid. and he is. Having instead committed a glorious deed. Beowulf is an extraordinary fighter. one reason why he later recites the Heaðobard digression. Finnsburh analogizes a pattern of oath-breaking. by the heat of a boy who covets his father’s sword. or at least far less than Hroþulf has. . the Heaðobard digression confirms Beowulf ’s percipient appropriation of the Finnsburh gidd. but for a Danish faction that includes Wealhþeow its relevance chills their conviviality. In fact. He tacitly rejects Hroðgar’s offer of kingship but acknowledges the role of “son. Just like Finn.180 chapter two The gidd of Finnsburg may criticize the “revenge ethic.” In the renunciation of kingship it could be said that Beowulf takes the advice of a court poet as a much as that of a queen. He applies the scop’s lessons to Ingeld’s predicament when he anticipates how a past incident could ignite a feud. then. the Finnsburh digression represents the first time in English literature that characters can be shown to evaluate and react to intradiegetic narrative that analogizes their circumstances and guides their conduct. Betrayed. Beowulf ’s loyalties may lie with strangers or adversaries and not with the nation to which he has little allegiance.” as many imagine. To his credit. and the relevance of the Heaðobard interlude for Finnsburh as I theorize it derives from Beowulf ’s recollection of King Hroðgar’s court entertainment. even when Ingeld’s marriage was intended to settle hostilities. Ingeld expects that his alliance is secure. For this reason. Ingeld will come to experience unforeseen violence. however. For Beowulf. Beowulf perceives this warning and understands the implications of the Finnsburh parable. In fact. Elsewhere it often translates Latin superbia.1 Nowhere are Hroðgar’s misgivings more transparent than in a passage popularly called “Hroðgar’s sermon. Hill. it also details how oferhygd emerges from prosperity. What we have here is the anxious love of an old king for a retainer whom he would have as his son. At birth one’s endowments can create the ambition to extend god’s favor. until an inevitable and cataclysmic reversal occurs. Nevertheless.CHAPTER THREE THE RHETORIC OF OFERHYGD IN HROÐGAR’S “SERMON” Wulfgar. chiefly in the glossed Psalters and Gospels and in the Paris Psalter. . and where experience could not provide guidance. and then a little more. Beowulf ’s arguable impulsiveness and inconceivable success portend a susceptibility to oferhygd. fear of which explains “wise” (1698b) Hroðgar’s anxieties over Beowulf ’s future conduct. especially 123–9 for occurrences in verse. for example: “Readers have responded to Hrothgar’s speech in various ways. strange reversals can and have occurred” (“Hrothgar’s Noble Rule” 177). but not fully enough in the sense that this ‘warning’ is no hint about Beowulf. literature could. as John M.” As I have explained. Not only does the sermon reveal Beowulf ’s potential for oferhygd. the precise Beowulfian meaning of OE oferhygd is awkward to document in contexts outside of the poem. One might be tempted to seek a little more divine favor. Beowulf is fully exemplary and fully dedicated to the good at all times throughout the poem. who announces Beowulf to Hroðgar. seems to conclude that Beowulf has come to Heorot for wlenco or “glory. and how it may be avoided by a practice of moral introspection. especially when profound success or robust health foster a sense of invincibility. in Beowulf OE wlenco can describe potential recklessness related to oferhygd.2 In 1 By no means is mine a prevailing or popular view. where “snyttru” frequently counters arrogance. Most critics will try to disarm any potential criticism. The world is not a friendly place and weird. many of the terms associated with Beowulfian oferhygd can be documented in wisdom poetry.” which includes a recapitulation of the Heremod story (1709b–24a) described by Hroðgar as a gidd (1723b). For this reason the Anglo-Saxons believed that lessons of moderation could be drawn from personal or military defeats. a king’s indulgence in risk. incipiently criminal in some way. 2 See Schabram on the distribution of the term in the Anglo-Saxon sources. snyttru. the source of superbia in the Christian tradition. In most cases. specifically Genesis A and Daniel. Oferhygd seems to have been a literary fixation in these early texts. Lucifer’s rebellion in Genesis A equates arrogance with warband sedition rather than with a rejection of morality conceived as ece ræd or “eternal counsel. wlencu/wlonc. the context reflects the fall of Lucifer. woh/wom. Hroðgar and the “Ancient Strife” of Giants After returning from Grendel’s mere. egesa.” Oferhygd in Beowulf therefore represents the kind of moral corruption documented elsewhere only in Daniel. The psychology of overconfidence drawn in the sermon establishes the terms by which Beowulf ’s actions in the dragon episode should be weighed. . a term which lacks the nuance encountered in Beowulf. “Meaning of The Seafarer” 8. all that remains of the sword he used to kill Grendel’s mother and decapitate Grendel. and Daniel all deploy a distinctive lexical taxonomy for the sin portrayed as superbia in Christian teachings: bealunið. weorc gewinnes. Far from being a pointless digression. While the vices of soldier-kings seem to have been a preoccupation of poets and even churchmen. Genesis A. Hroðgar’s discussion in Beowulf has a specific relevance for the poem’s inconclusive ending.182 chapter three homilies. However. gram. weorðmund. inasmuch as the same locutions for oferhygd in Beowulf characterize Lucifer in Genesis A and Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar in Daniel. the nature of which is important because Hroðgar self-consciously 3 Smithers. oferhygd and related vocables commonly render superbia. The hilt bears an enigmatic inscription. betera/selra. Beowulf presents Hroðgar with an ancient hilt. Yet in a few departures from the trivialized sense of “pride.” the Anglo-Saxon oferhygd psychosis expressed in Hroðgar’s sermon shares conspicuous lexemes and collocations with other Old English texts. Anglo-Saxon poets had a notably coherent picture of oferhygd as the mental state of tyrants. forðgesceaft. it actually explains how Beowulf ’s final venture explores whether he heeds the virtues that Hroðgar has imparted. too. ece ræd. Hroðgar’s speech elucidates the dragon episode as a test of Beowulf ’s potential oferhygd.3 In other words. Beowulf. gebolgen/bolgenmod. They probably represent the adaptation of a native theme: the tyrant’s moral degeneracy. fremde. eorðan wynn. dreamleas. 4 The audience is told that the “origin of an ancient conflict” (“or . the content of the sermon . Waugh contends that “morality . This race was “alien to the eternal Lord” (1691b–2a).” (Waugh. Osborn. they committed audacity. giganta cyn. and that the conflict preceded a “flood” (“flod. 8 Cramp. þæt wæs fremde þeod him þæs endelean waldend sealde. . “Great Feud” 977.5 While the narrator says that the owner’s name is carved in “runstafas” (“secret letters. runic letters. I would propose that images 4 Although not everyone thinks so: “If [Hroðgar] cannot decipher the story. could not convey such information concisely.” 1695a) on the sword-hilt are to be seen as indecipherable Hebrew (“Giant’s Sword-Hilt” 141–7).” Hroðgar’s knowledge of it must be assumed. . he fails to mention whether the story of the giants is recorded in words. Since details in the sermon so aptly evoke this history of giants and a retributive “flood. That nation was estranged from the eternal lord. .” 1690b). does not seem suitable for the celebration of Beowulf ’s victory over Grendel’s mother” (ibid. . “King-Poet Relations” 307). symbols. slew a race of giants. and whether Hroðgar can even understand the carving. whether or not he can “read” the hilt’s script or language.6 It has been typically assumed that Hroðgar is reading a runic message with an accompanying pictograph. would seem to suggest that the mere possession of the object adds wisdom to Hrothgar’s speech-making .” see McNelis 179–80. the ruler gave them a final retribution through the rising water. Afterwards the flood.). 5 Dennis Cronan proposes reading syðþan (1689b) as adv. and he gave them a “final retribution” (1692b–3b): fyrngewinnes. or images. Beowulf 189–90 note to lines 1688–98. “Beowulf and Archaeology” 66. and the poet says specifically that the owner’s name was recorded in “runstafas. .” 1689b) that wiped out a race of giants (“giganta cyn.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 183 responds to it. gifen geotende frecne geferdon. fyrngewinnes. . 7 Klaeber. ecean dryhtne. . For the sake of argument. þurh wæteres wylm On ðæm wæs or writen syðþan flod ofsloh. 6 Schrader concludes that the “runstafas” (“secret.” 1688b) on the hilt.7 Engraved letters alone. (1688b–93b) On it was carved the origin of ancient strife. On the difficulty of interpreting the hilt. . . the rushing ocean. “afterwards” in “Ancient Strife. and the possibility of a magical inscription based on a passage from the poetical “Solomon and Saturn.” 1688b–9a) was “carved” (“writen.”8 Yet this minor controversy over the engraving may be irrelevant. the argument goes.” and the suggestion has been adopted in Klaeber’s Beowulf.” 1694a–8a). but that only the owner’s name is given in (possibly unreadable) runes. it may be that Hroðgar is drawing such a conclusion while inspecting the hilt. 9 10 . . McGalliard examines every instance of such expressions and others of similar arrangement.”13 God’s “feud” with the giants ultimately validates a warrior’s “Great Feud” 973. Greenfield avoids discussing this phrase in “Authenticating Voice” (60). “a reminder of Beowulf ’s own monster-killing deeds . or a whole poem” (“Sentences” 152). . who avenged himself on them with a “flow of water” (1693b–4b). Robert W. the transitoriness of all life” (“Poetic Emblems” 3). More consequential is the problem of audience occasioned by the reported speech. and the information with which the poet provides us during this pause gives a scriptural context for the wisdom that Hrothgar subsequently reveals about the recurrent feud with mankind’s enemy within the human breast. that bound by the secular world of the poem and that perceived from our initiated Christian perspective.”9 While construing the engraving as a narrative.” 1304b. a direct speech. Hideki Watanabe has lately concluded that expressions of the “þæt wæs” type represent a “formula employed to end various units of a body of text: a verse. not an accidental “retribution. Hroðgar may suspect a calculated divine punishment for the drowned giants.11 Concluding that Hroðgar never comprehends the carving. 12 This seems to be the position of Allen J. Furthermore. the poet “has distinguished between two levels of knowledge.184 chapter three of warfare and of the flood are engraved. a fitt. “Poet’s Comment” 244–51. Marijane Osborn alleged a “contextual allusion. Hanning proposes. “Great Feud” 978.”12 Just as God perpetrates a feud against giants. i.” Elsewhere in the poem the expression “þæt wæs . Hroðgar may be incapable of interpreting it as Christian history. but see McGalliard. . rarely in the voice of the characters.e. since it is merely looking or seeing rather than ‘cutting through’ and offers no exegesis.” 13 Osborn.10 But in this case. “Ne wæs þæt gewrixle til. As Marijane Osborn has observed. and that the poet expresses the king’s thoughts. a stanza.” a malicious force mentioned in Hroðgar’s sermon: “[Hroðgar] gazes upon the hilt. the comment that the giants were “alien to the eternal Lord” (1691b–2a). Stanley B. “King-Poet Relations” 304. men confront the “soul-slayer. . . Frantzen as well in “Unreadable Beowulf 347: “Hrothgar’s reading of the hilt is likewise closed. . If so.” A problem has been to intuit what Hroðgar gathers from this inscription. especially in the use of pronoun þæt: “that was a race estranged from the eternal Lord.” commonly occurs in the poet’s own voice. sounds much like the poet’s own interjection. 11 Some interpretations of the hilt are summarized in Waugh. the sad end that may await the Geatish hero . not as an administered 14 15 16 17 3–6. While the narrator makes Hroðgar’s suffering bearable in the (Christian) cosmic context where the pagan gropes blindly for moral purchase. A Germanic fatalist might argue that destruction occurs merely from an unpredictable incident the giants endure. She dismisses the purely secular reading of Hroðgar’s sermon proposed by Michael D. . “Great Feud” 978. the highest conduct of Germanic heroes is not in opposition to that of any hero aligned with God’s forces in the Great [cosmic] Feud.” I infer. On political “wisdom” in the poem as a reflex of moral behavior see Kindrick Osborn. . “supports the will of God.”14 The “highest conduct” turns on the heroic virtue of generosity: “The Germanic ethos of wise magnanimity. although this part of the argument becomes slightly problematic. a Boethian ruler of the universe. Hroðgar remains unaware of a scriptural context for the hilt inscription. The sermon suggests as much.”15 Osborn therefore sees Hroðgar embracing a natural wisdom that confers (or entails) spiritual knowledge. for a similar position see Hamilton. The sermon validates this moral decency. Cherniss (“the duties and proper conduct of Germanic lords”). because a remote divinity grants men the capacity for stable interactions through gift exchange.17 Because the inscription alludes to Genesis and is therefore inaccessible to Hroðgar as Christian history. Their behavior does not precipitate a retributive flood. she theorizes an impaired moral intuition: “Hrothgar’s vision reaches beyond the bounds of the heroic world until he seems able to accept (if not precisely to imagine) a generous God superior to wyrd.” Osborn proposes.”18 Hroðgar’s god is “Boethian.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 185 spiritual struggle against unheroic temptations (excessive aggression or stinginess. I do not see how Hroðgar can intuit a “generous god” without having read the hilt inscription and connected the giants’ behavior to their destruction. Ingeld and Christ 149. and Grendel’s descent from these giants corroborates Beowulf ’s heathen righteousness—the nobility of his cause: “. as Osborn sensibly theorized. 18 Ibid.16 thinking that propriety ensues from spiritual as well as political instincts. I make out a different “Boethian” premise behind the giants’ drowning. for example). My objection to Osborn’s reading therefore centers on the perception that Hroðgar does not respond to the carving in his sermon. even in a mutable world. While. . Ibid. Hroðgar cannot fathom figurative interpretations. which approximates Hroðgar’s predicament as a “reader.”20 Riddle 42 analogizes bind-runes for “cock” and “hen” quite literally as the image of a cock treading a hen. As detailed in chapter 3 “The Riddle and the Book” (97–125). one accessible only to a learned coterie: “[Riddle 42] asks us to hold two potentially competing sets of interpretive environments in mind. a set of common experiences drawn from farm life or from men at their wine.”19 He believes that Hroðgar reads the incised markings—pictographs and runes—and he concedes the poet’s reference to cosmic feud as Osborn defines it. Christian or not. figuratively speaking. . . 19 20 . a kind of riddle. For Lerer. ecean Dryhtne” or “estranged from the eternal lord” could belong to Hroðgar’s level of consciousness as the basis of a theorized punishment. a set of heightened literate skills drawn from runology or scriptural interpretation. In this respect. Furthermore. the poet’s remark that the giants were “fremde . From Lerer’s perspective. We might do well. But Hroðgar seems to infer that a conscious will. he credits Hroðgar with an understanding of lines 1691b–3b. A god. suborns one’s actions. then it is a riddle on a par with the inscribed chalice of Riddle 59. 119. Seth Lerer espouses quite a different view of Hroðgar’s “sermon. or more generally. 116. 22 Ibid.186 chapter three punishment. “establishing a governing distinction between things hidden and things apparent.” 21 Ibid. see the remarks. Lerer’s position emerges from an analysis of Riddle 42 (solution: “Cock and Hen”). the one. however. the other. the cock and hen exhibit no more than barnyard antics. 122. p. The bind-runes representing the animals (since these runes also encode the animals’ names) derive from the different hermeneutical environment of writing. [Riddle 42] ostensibly sets out to oppose everyday experience with learned runology. to consider Hrothgar’s sermon as a solution to the riddle of the hilt. with the self-conscious ‘reading’ riddles explored in chapter 3. but clerics perceive how writing could encode an image of copulation. Literacy and Power 158–94. which I also ascribe to Hroðgar’s level of consciousness.”21 The description of the copulating chickens expresses a visual hermeneutical experience open even to “drunken men. governs events that might otherwise appear random. therefore. In many respects.”23 For Lerer’s illiterate “men at their wine” in Riddle 42.”22 In other words. rather than destiny. commoners understand what the chickens are up to. 173: “If the hilt presents. as it were. 23 Ibid. Hroðgar’s sermon cannot decode the symbolism of the flood. he reads . . then. . .26 My argument. . . In this concern with governance. . As a response to the runic hilt. The Beowulf poet could attribute reading skills to Hroðgar 24 25 . The old king responds with a superficial.”24 Lerer emphasizes the “order” evoked by runic artifice as Hroðgar’s response to the hilt inscription: . the runes make no hermeneutic statement. the speech responds to the report of challenge and retribution written on the hilt. Ibid. the memorial conventions of the rune master. one might say—as “reverence” and “order. in fact.25 Lerer’s opinion derives from his understanding that the poet has depicted the pagan Hroðgar’s “reading” natively—literally or superficially. say) as a “mythology” of literacy. Ibid. it seems highly plausible that the poet endows Hroðgar with more sophisticated interpretive strategies that Lerer associates with literacy. a runesmith who rightly sets his text. both the text and the speech address problems in the order of the world and in the place of social remembrance in the reverence of divinity. “literal” acknowledgment of the object as correctly fabricated: “What Hrothgar ‘sees’ . He disenfranchises the læwed or the pagan not only from Christian knowledge but from the interpretive strategies suggested by “reading”—that letters can represent sounds that represent things. . The hermeneutical skills Lerer obviously associates with literacy are metaphor or analogy. the acquired code or “key” for an abstract hermeneutical system. a king who wisely governs his own and his peoples’ impulses—these are the interests that yoke together the run and ræd and which render Hrothgar’s sermon an informed response to the specifics of the hilt. the speech answers the hilt’s story of strife and challenge . . pagan representations of memorial inscription and interlace design . Christian or runic. 173. . A god who overpowers giants. . are these Continental. . . . 26 Here I must acknowledge Lerer’s more persuasive claim that Christian readers depicted (invented) acts of pre-Christian “literacy” (reading and writing. . To speak more generally. a familiar object of memorial epigraphy . the sermon solves the hilt by answering its enigmatic story of a war with a precise account of a divinely governed peace . can be universalized to include the gidd embedded in Hroðgar’s sermon. 171. it posits a political and moral world where everything turns towards God’s will .” In fact.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 187 For men without access to writing. . mostly in the specific context of Christian book-learning. . 28 On the “gifts of men” topos. Hroðgar exclaims how mysteriously God bestows “snyttru” (“wisdom”). a help to warriors. Hroðgar does not know this Christian history. but he at least recognizes that the drowned foes are giants.//mægen mid modes snyttrum” (1705b–6a). þæt geond þas woruld witig dryhten wendeþ geneahhe. One may then reflect that throughout this world the wise Lord frequently brings changes. of a man bent on dignifying his characters. In its list of ideal heroic attributes The Wanderer makes clear that the wise man is “geþyldig”: “Wita sceal geþyldig” (65b).” The Beowulfian passage 1724b–7b resembles that in Deor 31a–4b: Mæg þonne geþencan. “ic þis gid be þe//awræc wintrum frod” (“Wise in years. the deliberate dodge. (Of course. as well as land and nobility. obtain. either through Angels or the children of Seth. to many a nobleman he shows mercy. whose birth. As he says. I would say. 27 Klaeber suggests “steadily” for geþyldum (“Textual Interpretation” 459). The text answers how one can be “fremde” or “alienated” from the “eternal Lord” in the expression “frecne geferdon” (“they behaved audaciously” or “they committed an audacious thing. The term “betera” recalls the antediluvian giants. see Russom “Germanic Concept. bring about” . Yet Hroðgar simultaneously ponders the once-promising race of giants that lost their lives in a “flood. 29 OE geferan occurs five times in Beowulf in the sense “reach. afforded them supreme strength. a reputation for judgment.28 He expects that Beowulf will be a comfort to his people.188 chapter three Hroðgar’s Anxiety over Beowulf ’s Excellence Hroðgar’s sermon responds to the hilt explicitly. and acknowledges that his reputation will spread throughout the Germanic world. that Beowulf was born “betera” or superior (1703a). wislicne blæd. The king begins with an edgy affirmation.29 The verb “geferdon” (geferan) may be translated “behaved” or that resemble Christian modes of reading. to some a share of woe.” 1691a).” and introduces Heremod as a link between them and Beowulf. Hroðgar is prompted to recite the gidd of Heremod precisely because he has just “read” the story of an ancient strife involving giants swallowed by the ocean. sumum weana dæl. eorle monegum are gesceawað. as Lerer and others assert. I have told this gidd about you!” 1724b–5a).) Hroðgar self-consciously claims that Beowulf controls his giant strength steadily (“geþyldum”) through “sagacity of mind”: “Eal þu hit geþyldum healdest.27 The wisdom context clarifies Beowulf ’s “steadiness” as self-restraint or moderation. ” The DOE documents the sense “behave” for feran (sense II. that the giants mentioned on the sword hilt committed perilous deeds without fear of any future consequence.” 1712a). intransitive). Behaving frecne means inviting death.” . frecne in this verse is still regarded as a neut. citing two attestations from Beowulf.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 189 “brought about. Beowulf ’s dragon.” One could reasonably conclude.” However. either an adverb or adjective. and terror.v. There are four attestations of a noun. “Beiträge” 329–39. The editors of Klaeber’s Beowulf supply the rendering “they fared terribly.” which varies “sið nesan” (“to survive a journey”). where the verb in the passage is identified as ge-feran “bring about. translating “they acted boldly” or “they fared terribly. Beowulf 738b “gefaran wolde” in which Beowulf observes how Grendel “would behave. where the verb in this Beowulf passage is translated “they suffered” or “they behaved” and frecne noun where it is rendered “pass through” or “travel.” 1711b) and “deaðcwalum” (“violent death. adjective in the glossary. and the inflammatory speech of Frisians suggests. In this context. cf. The DOE editors suggest the noun form (s. similar in tone to the “sorhfullne sið.”suggesting that frecne modifies “fare” in the sense “drowning” rather than “behave” in the sense “audaciously. frecne noun) in the same collocation from Andreas 516a “frecne geferan. audacity. sing.v. frecne adv.v. Lines 958a–60a describe Beowulf ’s assault on Grendel and could be translated. 22 of an adverb. speech that incites retribution in the Finn digression. OE wælfyll is used elsewhere in Beowulf to describe Grendel’s (Klaeber’s Beowulf 375 s.” depending on one’s understanding of frecne. and the path leading to it. as Sigemund’s killing of the dragon. see also DOE frecne adv. then.e. whether or not one settles ultimately on a precise translation of the line. to “accomplish something audacious” (or “to fare boldly”) describes crossing the sea “earfoðlice” (“with difficulty”)’. Klaeber deemed frecne a substantive adjective in this line.” In this case “frecne” in 959b would vary “ellenweorc” in 958a. Hroðgar observes how these deeds endangered the whole race. just as Heremod (he mentions) endangered the Danes by “wælfealle” (i. Grendel’s mere. Definitions of OE frecne in Beowulf are confused. and in Beowulf it describes death (twice). In all these instances OE frecne emphasizes peril. The path to Grendel’s mere and the mere itself are frecne because they portend death. ge-feran). see also Förster. Beowulf ’s attack on Grendel.”30 OE frecne (adj) can refer to a daring act or a fatal presence. but some (including the editors of Klaeber’s Beowulf ) have opted for the adverb. and 75 of an adjective. the strength of an unknown foe.” 30 DOE s. acc. To these attestations of the adjective I would add an alleged occurrence of adverbial frecne in Beowulf. “we ventured a perilous thing [“frecne geneðdon”]. Sigemund’s act of killing the dragon. wælfyll: “slaughter-death. The DOE records this sense for the past participle gefered (sense IV). [God] gave them a reward for that” (“þa wið Gode wunnon//lange þrage. and the cruelties committed by such reckless warriors.34 Emphasizing superbia or “pride.” The fyrngewin designates the ongoing feud between God and monsters. In Genesis A 1523b–8a. Charles D. lines 1689b–93b are narrative commentary. By this logic. His evidence augments that first brought to light in David Williams 19–39 and elaborated in Mellinkoff. micel mon ældum.190 chapter three prize of thirty men (120a–5b) and the contemplated extinction of the Geats (3152b–5a). . Wright confirmed how “social discord and treachery” originated “in the first murder. This ancient strife seems to include Grendel’s assaults on the Danes. . On the problems of the giants’ paternity.” now fulfilled once again by Beowulf (“Necessity of Evil” 84).” 195a–6a). committed in the context of an ostensibly cooperative and brotherly observance.32 described as “wæpna gewin” (“strife of weapons. 32 “Un’allusione” 85–98. monstrosities associated with miscegenation.” 199a).”33 Andy Orchard explains the patristic. but Orchard’s position elegantly affirms the possibility. By Hroðgar’s implicit analogy. OE deaðcwalu similarly denotes violent death. and apocryphal origins of “recorded” histories of antediluvian traditions. the gigantism resulting from unions between the kin of Seth and Cain. According to Beowulf 1689a. Kaske. However. “wællfyll” also describes the class of homicides—unnatural or vindictive killings. 34 Pride and Prodigies 58–85. 33 Wright 17. although it may also describe murder. the giant’s behavior in the commission of audacious deeds may have resembled Heremod’s. and in Genesis A 2565a to characterize the extinction of Sodom. descendants of those “giants” wiped out in the cataclysm. and the evil that has escaped Beowulf ’s own retribution and that.31 God’s indignation began with Abel’s murder. biblical. “. not its end. the Beowulf poet earlier confirmed that the “giants” (“gigantas.” 113b–15b). where Cain’s murder of Abel awakens national enmities.” Orchard calls the story of 31 Frantzen 348: “Thus the sword hilt is not a story of endings but of beginnings: it tells of the beginning of an evil line. and in Beowulf it serves to establish continuity between the curse of Cain. Patrizia Lendinara established a connection between antediluvian “giants” and violence in Maxims I 192–200. will destroy him. cf. Earl appreciates that the inscription represents the “divine judgement upon the race of Cain. of the sort encountered in battle.” James W.” 113a) “strove against God for a long time. . Cronan challenges the view that a “giganta geweorc” could refer to the flood (“Ancient Strife” 65). Dennis Cronan (“Ancient Strife”) proposes that the fyrngewin depicted on the hilt must be the murder of Abel./he him ðæs lean forgeald. an “ancient conflict” or fyrngewin followed on from the extermination of giants in a “flood. the descendants of creatures who escaped the flood. in the form of the fire dragon. But in terms reminiscent of the hilt passage. enmity mixed with malice for many nations./monegum þeodum//bealoblonden niþ” (“a serious crime for men. ” 37 Orchard.”35 In fact. Pride and Prodigies 78–9.xxi attributes tyranny and violence to these antediluvian men. et sui. For the poet “overweening ambition” takes the form of aggressive action. . uiolentissimi. . .38 A comment in Philip the Presbyter’s Commentarium in librum Iob calls all giants “proud. sense. even admiring.” and “Book of Enoch. that a divine will governing nature punishes their arrogance by a flood. de illis ergo quemadmodum diximus filiis Seth et filiabus Cain nequiores filii procreati sunt. They simply “frecne geferdon. regum . . and work destruction on the earth . oppress. on one’s might. attack. the commission of frecne.37 A reference to “gigantes” in Job 26.36 Alcuin calls these giants “uiribus superbi. 36 Petschenig 240: “. propter superbiam translato nomine gigantes nuncupantur. Diabolus quoque. it seems. correspondingly. This profound. and obstinate men. however. mentions the “tyrannical glory of kings” (“tyrannica .the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 191 the giants as inscribed on the hilt a “depiction of overweening ambition laid low. . 39 Ibid. destroy. 38 Ibid. . the poet stresses that by acting “frecne” the antediluvian giants became alienated from god. For Hroðgar.” (cited from Kaske.” Osborn shows how the audience of Beowulf realizes that the giants wage war against God in a “cosmic feud” and. although Orchard alleges a plausible link to post-diluvian traditions of superbia through the orthographical confusion of “Cain” and “Cham. . and the Beowulf poet may indeed have had such models in mind. do battle. gloria”) in reference to giants drowned in a flood. ibid. One reason why Hroðgar recalls Heremod in reaction to the sword hilt therefore derives from the inscription about an extinct race of giants bent on committing “frecne. rebelles et contumaces. the accident of birth. called “giants” on account of their size and cruelty. predicated.” The apocryphal “Book of Enoch” confirms the view of giants as destroyers: “And the spirits of the giants afflict. war-mongering. .” Cassian’s Collationes VIII. 80. 35 Pride and Prodigies 67. 425). 81: “Gigantes autem appellat scriptura diuina homines superbos. god-given strength was abused for the purpose of glory. qui pro inormitate corporum uel crudelitatis atque malitiae gigantes nuncupati sunt.” but “superbus” in this way almost certainly means “outstanding” in a neutral. few sources refer to pride per se among the antediluvian giants. ac truculentissimi uiri. Implying that wlenco or oferhygd (“pride” in Orchard’s terms) might be one motivation for the giants’ aggression. qui fuerunt robustissimi uenatores. the giants did not commit atrocities against god.”39 Orchard imagines a cross-fertilization of concepts between the (postdiluvian) proud hunters like Nimrod.” .5 amplified in the Hiberno-Latin poem “Altus Prosator” with an accompanying scholion. Osborn’s deduction that Hroðgar “seems able to accept (if not precisely to imagine) a generous God superior to wyrd.192 chapter three Hroðgar may be seen to impute their downfall to wyrd. that vainglorious provocation begets its own “penalty. some “accidental”: sickness.” 1764b). war. might represent the poet’s synopsis of Hroðgar’s own reaction to the giants’ history.”43 Now handled by the “gigant” Beowulf.” a “fate” potentially attributable to a god’s judgment. 42 Osborn. Concerned that recklessness (“oferhygd”) could master Beowulf./þonne his ellen deah!” 572b–3b). . Described as “ealdsweord eotenisc” (1558a) and “giganta geweorc” (1562b). That is why verses 1691b–3b. 44 Orchard’s Pride and Prodigies has. and flood (“flodes wylm. As I see it. a rare example of erlebte Rede or “narrated internal monologue. beginning “þæt wæs fremde þeod//ecean Dryhtne . behind which may lie (as he supposes) a divine reprisal. In other words. Hroðgar therefore appreciates that aggression resulting from oferhygd could be “impious. Cross alleges that these modes of death are Christian in origin (“The Wanderer Lines 80–84” 99–100). partially realized in gift-giving. a man’s courage in evading violent death may be looked upon as the action of fate—a god’s protection—even when survival appears circumstantial. Hroðgar proposes a logical deterrence in narrative: a king victimized by oferhygd will destroy his own people through ambition.” His gidd about Heremod promotes such “wise magnanimity” in its emphasis on humility and self-restraint. The marvel of the colossal sword itself also inspires Hroðgar’s sermon. E. settled any dispute over Beowulf ’s affini40 41 . “Great Feud” 978. flame. J. a Boethian ruler of the universe”42 could be applied to Hroðgar’s indistinct sense of divine retribution for the giants’ arrogance.”40 When speaking only somewhat later about one’s corruption by “oferhygd.41 “Flood” is a conspicuous choice here.” but only through this intuition would he advocate what Osborn expresses: “the Germanic ethos of wise magnanimity supports the will of God. Hroðgar alleges a passive (or “Boethian”) morality. 43 Orchard (Pride and Prodigies 66) describes apocryphal and biblical traditions that may have led to the attribution of metal-work to Cain’s descendants. This is precisely the sentiment characterized by Beowulf ’s gnomic expression “fate often saves the undoomed man if his courage is strong” (“Wyrd oft nereð//unfægne eorl. the weapon was indisputably forged for a “giant. .” (“that nation was estranged from the eternal lord”). I think. Harris’s example is Beowulf 2419b–20b.44 survivor of a “flod” (Grendel’s Harris. “Beowulf ’s Last Words” 25.” Hroðgar lists certain forms of death. i. . “The battle was all but settled.47 His impaired judgment might then induce him to tackle ever greater risks.46 In attributing his success to god. 45 See Eliason. “the ruler of men granted that I saw a huge ancient sword hanging bright on a wall” (“ac me geuðe/ylda waldend//þæt ic on wage geseah/wlitig hangian//ealdsweord eacen. Beowulf credits “god” with an even greater intervention here than in the Grendel fight. an idea felicitously described in the poetic Solomon and Saturn: Dol bið se ðe gæð se ðe sund nafað ne fugles flyht. grund geræcan.” which may also evoke Grendel’s mere. In fact. but the giants’ story yields the obvious solution. Louden 357. Beowulf has admittedly acquired some of Hroðgar’s “wisdom. in my mind. 46 Garde.” 1740b) as Hroðgar’s sermon implies. full dyslice. on deop wæter. (225a–9b) Foolish is he who ventures into open water without any swimming skill. where the “metod” merely failed to impede Grendel’s escape (967b). .” OE flod bears the primary sense of “flowing water.” Beowulf says in 1657b–8b (“ætrihte wæs//guð getwæfed. “Heroic Ideal in Beowulf ” 165./nymðe mec God scylde”). “Beowulf Notes” 452–3.45 Of course. In some respects Hroðgar’s misgivings of Beowulf ’s future qualify his enthusiasm for Beowulf ’s killings. or sailing ship or bird’s capacity for flight. and the acknowledgment of god’s intervention in the attack. if god had not shielded me.e. the eagerness with which Beowulf took on the challenge of Grendel’s mother. or who cannot touch bottom with his feet. he tests God.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 193 mere). The relevance to Beowulf ’s position lies in the difficulty with which Beowulf subdued Grendel’s mother. the powers of the Lord. ties to “giants. the hilt makes Hroðgar wonder whether Beowulf could perish for the same wrong that afflicted its original owner. 47 Bazelmans 82: “[Hroðgar] warns against the temptations that accompany success. in utter folly. especially. against the advent of pride and avarice . Hroðgar gives expression not to Christian teaching but to a secular wisdom with which the poet is sympathetic.” 1661a–3a).” . He explains.” Yet Hroðgar broods that Beowulf might be tempted to extend his record and alienate god’s favor. ne gesegled scip ne he mid fotum ne mæg huru se godes cunnað dryhtnes meahta. one could speculate at length why Hroðgar suspects that Beowulf could become the victim of “oferhygda dæl” (“some over-confidence. .” Heremod is characterized as “bolgenmod” (“enraged”). although “gebolgen” describes Beowulf when he fights Grendel’s mother (1539b) and the dragon (2550b). both times in Beowulf: here and where Beowulf calls himself and his men Hygelac’s “table-companions.v.”48 Heremod’s obvious viciousness results in isolation (“ana. where gefremede means either “promoted” or “advanced.” was endowed in strength: “. hine mihtig god/mægenes wynnum.” a word used only twice in the corpus.//eafeþum stepte/ofer ealle men” (“mighty God advanced him in the joys of power. a condition which afflicted the young Beowulf. where both “idols” (“hergas.” 1711a) and towards the violence implied in the terms “wælfeal” and “deaðcwalu. a word used elsewhere in Beowulf to describe only Beowulf (709a. 2304a) and water-monsters at Grendel’s mere (1431a).” 1714b). Heremod has turned from “mondream” (1715b). It translates extermino “exterminate” in the Vespasian Psalter. OE breotan occurs two other times (in verse). of strength. and which characterizes Sigemund and Heremod in the Sigemund/Heremod digression. He might then endanger his people with an unforeseen consequence.” Hroðgar then describes a turn away from the Danes’ desire (“him to willan. . as I have argued. A Condition of Germanic Tyranny Ancient giants given to audacity and Beowulf ’s potential as a giant inspire the gidd of Heremod. and most contexts suggest extreme violence. and depicts the dragon (2220b. In a state of utter rage. Hroðgar mentions how Heremod. Heremod is said to “breat” (1713a) or “crush” his “beodgeneatas.” Juliana 16a) can be “smashed. awaiting Grendel).” Christ B 485b) and “the learned” (“boccræftge.” The contrast of violence and calm sociality emphasizes Heremod’s ferocity. like Beowulf and the “giganta cyn. as in Fortunes of Men 16b: “sumne guð abreotan”. . over all men” 1716a–17b).194 chapter three The prospect for oferhygd in Beowulf ’s case is especially sinister because Hroðgar predicts that Beowulf will one day become a king and have to disregard his own ambitions—as Hroðgar did in the Grendel affair. The verb “stepte” is varied by “forð gefremede” (1717b–18a). see DOE s. a divine retribution. just as Grendel has (1264b). as it were. Lucifer’s punishment in hell likewise entails 48 OE abreotan is better attested. five of which refer to harm caused by the first element: cwealm-. OE mondream. humans condemned to hell suffer þeodbealu. cf. OE leodbealu resembles OE þeodbealu and folcbealu. which the loyal angels enjoy (81b).” suggests the delights of civilization associated with peace. 50 Shippey.“seems to have lost its primary meaning of ‘of or belonging to a people’ ” (286). . Yet the variation with “leodbealo” implies that the “affliction for that strife” means a national calamity. F.”50 Now. Fulk. that “harm”derives from the loss of the first element in the -bealu compounds. and hreþerbealo (1343a) describe harm afflicting the first element. is caused by having lost the first. The terms ealdorbealu.” In Christ C 1267a–b. Wisdom and Learning 130 note 6.” This meaning is attested likewise in Menologium 125b. malice. morðor-.49 Therefore. for which it has been suggested that “the sadness of the second element .” In Beowulf there are ten compounds terminating in -bealu.” including “destruction. feorhbealu.” 49 N. morð-. While the term may mean “great affliction”—as Klaeber once alleged for Beowulf—it seems to imply “affliction caused by a nation. Similarly. at which moment Peter and Paul endure public martyrdom. For example. wigbealu.” adding “widespread affliction. in Andreas 1136a the term þeodbealu describes the possible murder and cannibal devouring of a young boy.” but the reading needs justification. OE weorc actually disguises the Anglian form wræc and should be translated “pain”.” This evidence suggests that context alone will determine the meaning of leodbealu in Beowulf. “life” or “breast. referring to “anguish experienced by a people [hell-dwellers].” 1720b). whether “affliction experienced by a nation” or “affliction caused by a nation.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 195 the loss of “dream” (Genesis A 56b).//leodbealo longsum” (“he suffered pain for that strife. It is not consistently true. literally “joy of men/mankind. a long-lasting national tribulation. . however. an “affliction caused by a nation. a situation linked to the undefined “pain for strife”: “þæt he þæs gewinnes/ weorc þrowade. “OE weorc” (in response to Frank. sweord-. a possibility that Blake wrongly dismisses when he argues that leod. emotion. OE leodbealu occurs only in this passage and one other in Beowulf. assault”—the “harm” or “affliction” that Klaeber alleges. “Aspirin”). OE bealu has a range of meanings beyond “sadness. either. and the meaning is uncertain. Blake has translated “þæs gewinnes/weorc” as “hell” on the basis of attestations from Genesis A and Christ C (“Heremod Digressions” 285–7). Heremod is said to be “dreamleas” (“joyless.”1721a–2a). . The editors of Klaeber’s Beowulf have retained Klaeber’s “harm to a people. While Hroðgar elaborates on the consequences of Heremod’s belligerence in his gidd.51 Both possibilities seem apt. the evidence is unclear.52 51 See DOE svv.” rather than “in recognition of a retainer’s glory” (“Interpretations and Emendations IV” 113–14). note to line 1720. Presumably this torment is the sorhcearu that “lamed” Heremod for so long.2 (bis.” This reading accommodates lines 905a and 907.” OE breosthord means “treasure-house of the breast. 138. fails to reward his men even in defiance of his own destiny (“æfter dome.196 chapter three Heremod suffered “þæs gewinnes weorc” (“pain for that strife”). “uiri sanguinum”).” we are told. Kock takes the view that “æfter dome” refers to the giver. Finally.” 629a) just before fighting Grendel. Beowulf is likewise “hreoh” (1564a) when he seizes the large sword from Grendel’s lair. but ferocity for blood differs from these other usages with respect to objective: Heremod is bloodthirsty. by contrast.” 58a). an expression that occurs elsewhere only in Genesis B (“worc þæs gewinnes.23 (trans. a notion that could support Heremod’s exile. Yet this harm is described as “longsum” or “long-lasting. OE blodreow is unique. trans.” 904a).” for which reason it seems more likely that the nation despaired for a long time and that the nation’s hopelessness was Heremod’s undoing. OE ferhþ means “spirit. or “the seat of affections. “uiri sanguinum”).” a cognitive part of the intellect associated either with speech or emotion. The “breosthord” in Heremod’s “ferhþe.” 296a). that he did not have a “hreoh sefa” (2180b).” 1720a).” attested four times in the Paris Psalter). he also describes Heremod’s emotional disintegration. Beowulf as “wælreow” (“slaughter-fierce. . in a locus that may reflect Heremod’s condition of “blodreow. If “þæs gewinnes weorc” denotes punishment for “pride. where it describes the punishment of Lucifer for “ofermede micel” (“great arrogance.” leodbealu may describe the harm inflicted by a people. and Paris Psalter 54. although it may disguise *blodhreoh (“blood-fierce”) or blodhreow (“bloodthirsty. Heremod.” the narrator establishes that Beowulf never slew his hearth companions. “de uiris sanguinum”). Heremod: “for Heremod’s own glory. which imply Heremod’s long rule. Healfdene is described as “guðreouw” (“battle-fierce. as well as the remark that his death was quick (“snude.” 293b). grew “blodreow” (1718b–19a).” either “the seat of wisdom or knowledge” as the Toronto DOE defines it. 52 Ernst A. The phrase “on hreoum mode” (2581b) describes Beowulf when he fights the dragon and Hroðgar when he learns of Æschere’s death (1307b). On the important parallel in the Old English Rune Poem. The strife Heremod endured was an “affliction experienced by his people. 58. see Klaeber’s Beowulf.17 (trans. “Hrothgar’s ‘Sermon. and nobility and then imagines a king with just these attributes. the rational defenses associated with humility. 35b). however. 198–9. “forgyteð ond forgymeð” (1751a).”53 More specifically. and successive victories:58 53 Solomon Complex 61–7. The passage bears a number of homiletic traits. 61. land. the expression of an ideal king’s virtues. and “forsiteð ond forsworceð” (1767a). incorporating elements of an earlier article. The condition of unsnyttru results from good health. 58 Deor may supply an example of inwitsorh in the occurrence of “on sefan sweorceð” .the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 197 Hroðgar proceeds to analyze his gidd about Beowulf and to define the symptoms of a king’s failure in lines 1724b–57b.” see Trahern 172. but on the basis of parallels in Precepts Elaine Tuttle Hansen has called it “parental wisdom. no emotional dread (“inwitsorh”). such as “weaxeð and wridað” (1741a). although this part of the argument is largely undeveloped.” most likely mortality that would terminate his joy.” 1730b). 198 note 59. a prince. see Orchard. she describes the “father” as a king speaking to his son. Hroðgar declares that God endows men with wisdom (“snyttru”).’ ” One homiletic trait is paired alliterating verbs. 56 On the pun intended by OE scyld. youth. although one could not extrapolate in this context any link between the sermon and the “elegies. specifically a kingdom (1731b–3a).55 In characterizing a “shieldless” state as one of psychological vulnerability (8a. 54 Ibid. A number of extant poems share parallels. which means both “shield” and “guilt. and the topos of the devil’s darts turn up in Vainglory 34b–5a and Christ B 779b. or wisdom.56 Finally.57 Yet in his “unsnyttrum” (“folly” or “ignorance”) the king does not acknowledge his “ende. 64. pp. one possessed of “earthly joys” (“eorþan wynne. 57 Kaske’s claim in “The Sigemund-Heremod and Hama-Hygelac Passages” 492. On this formulation of God’s endowments. The admonition to “choose the better” can be found in Precepts and Christ B.54 I prefer to interpret Precepts as a special kind of parental wisdom: warrior wisdom.” Wisdom as Moral Defense Against the Devil’s Darts Hroðgar’s analysis of his gidd has a structure that one can intuit from language and situation. see Andreas 317b–20a and below. Vainglory describes an assault against judgment as a devil’s shaft breaking one’s spiritual armor. judgment. some vocabulary in the sermon proper is replicated in The Seafarer. 55 Ibid. Pride and Prodigies 51. ealle forlæte. lest he for arrogance. oþþe ecghete feorh oðþringeð. should turn from moderation and despise those of less success. . . Heorrenda. a result of “dread” in Beowulf 1737a. (68a–71b) Likewise at each opportunity before one’s time comes. (1735b–8a) Neither sickness nor age mislead him. (18a–26b) No one in this life advances so mightily through powers of sagacity to the leadership of a nation that the Guardian of Peoples would send him here wise thoughts and secular powers through his holy grace. He has been deprived of his “londryht” (40b). The Seafarer makes it clear that ecghete means “wound received in battle”: Simle þreora sum ær his tid aga. in which a king endowed with wisdom is never given too much lest he despise the unfortunate “for wlence”: Nænig eft þæs swiþe in þeode þrym forð gestigeð. adl oþþe yldo fægum fromweardum þinga gehwylce. to tweon weorþeð.” 30a–b) due to unexpected reversals. one of three things will be in doubt: disease. In Deor a man whose “mind darkens” imagines endless sorrow (“þæt sy endeleas/earfoða dæl. nor does battle offer sword-hate anywhere . full of glorious gifts and strong of mind. This misery could describe any of the characters Deor mentions in his lament. or Deor himself. of gemete hweorfe heanspedigran . ne gesacu ohwær ecghete eoweð . which was bestowed on a rival scop. . nor does dread darken his mind. þurh his halige giefe wise geþohtas under anes meaht þy læs he for wlence mon mode swiðe ond þonne forhycge þurh snyttrucræft þisses lifes þæt him folca weard hider onsende ond woruldcræftas. While some have argued that gesacu parallels ecghete. . . age or sword-hate will crush the life out of each man doomed to depart hence. . (29a). Much of this passage approximates remarks made in The Gifts of Men. and relinquish all of them to the control of one man. . wuldorgeofena ful. ne him inwitsorh on sefan sweorceð.198 chapter three no hine wiht dweleð adl ne yldo. to despair.60 Ultimately.59 In Hroðgar’s “sermon. A close parallel to the construction “hig wigge beleac manigum mægþa” comes from a Psalm fragment in MS Junius 121: heald me herewæpnum wið unholdum and wige beluc wraðum feondum þe min ehtend ealle syndon . Hroðgar claims that oferhygd steals upon a powerful and successful king.” 65b) to be neither “too fearful nor too ‘happy’ ” (“ne to forht ne to fægen”).”61 He connects heroic apatheia (“equal indifference to joy On this prepositional phrase. Having been awarded glorious gifts (wisdom. Hroðgar’s imagined tyrant comes to despise the less successful when he fails to reward his men “on gylp” (“for their pledge. p. Underlying the proposition is a view that too much happiness could lead to overconfidence and. following a reversal. possibly the simple repetition of one’s duties. (1769a–73b) So I ruled the Ring-Danes for fifty years under the heavens. and this “false confidence” derives from a sense of one’s invulnerability.” Hroðgar claims folly for himself when he states that “he counted no enemy under the sky’s expanse” (1773b–4b)—a condition occasioned by subjugating his territorial enemies for fifty years.” 1749b). In a study of The Wanderer 68a. that I did not reckon anyone my adversary under the sky’s expanse. and nobility). with spears and swords. þæt ic me ænigne under swegles begong gesacan ne tealde. Right after the sermon he claims. The expression translates “effunde framea[m] et conclude aduersus eos qui me persecuntur. “fate”) or “god’s will. . he compares this state of ignorance to the “sleep” of a “soul’s protector” or “guardian” (1741b–2a). (34.e.” the tyrant does not “know the worse” precisely because the world proceeds in accord with (but not because of ) his will. see below. Thomas D. “Knowing the worse” means enduring agonies that disclose either the world’s indifference (i. æscum ond ecgum. Hill concludes that “a warrior cannot let himself become too attached to comfort and well-being if he is to maintain his status as a warrior.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 199 The temptation to wlenco comes from a deficiency of snyttru. and secured battle against hateful foes who were all my persecutors.” 61 “Unchanging Hero” 249.3) I held myself in battle-weapons against the disloyal. 211. 59 60 . which advises a wise man (“wita. and secured them in battle. Swa ic Hring-Dena hund missera weold under wolcnum ond hig wigge beleac manigum mægþa geond þysne middangeard. . Hroðgar’s own thoughts on Grendel are vague. land. from many tribes throughout this earth. qui aduersa tolerare non didicit. if not fatal. wisdom derives from pain or loss—or from their literary evocations. sorgleas blissað.” Holder 143. Gwara.” Hill relies on Saxo Grammaticus for evidence of apatheia—as he calls it—but in passages of the Historia Danorum that he does not cite.” and traces the “stoic” convention of moderation to classical sources. Preterea omnis bonorum usus post agnita gracius mala percipitur. In the Germanic tradition.” 54a) has experienced sorrow: Seldan snottor guma swylce dol seldon ymb his forðgesceaft. as I hold—and lack of suffering makes for rash behavior because one has not learned to expect setbacks. 237. drymeð sorgful nefne he fæhþe wite.62 For this same passage I have proposed that “to fægen” means “overconfident.200 chapter three or sorrow”) to the “related theme of stoic self-control . the figure Ericus Disertus explains how too much happiness actually inhibits moderation: Nemo modeste se in prosperis agit. and when he finally loses. An undefeated.” and that the wise warrior is advised to avoid recklessness. “Forht and Fægen. this statement recalls line 1735a from the sermon: “Wunað he on wiste. that a wise man (“snottor guma. Iocundior est uoluptas. unless he is experiencing violence. que rerum amaritudini succedit. . Furthermore. . Precepts expresses this very philosophy. overconfident warrior is more likely to take risks. that it is necessary for an honorable man to conceal his feelings. Pleasure which follows the bitterness of things is sweeter. (54a–6b) Seldom does a wise man rejoice without having experienced sorrow. 240 resp.” Hroðgar’s imagined tyrant lives “in abundance. the result of “overconfidence. . the defeat may be unbearable. In deriving snyttru from painful experience.64 No one behaves humbly in prosperity who has not learned to endure hardship. Nor do I think that the attitude stems from classical antecedents. I have to disagree that “too much happiness” involves concealing one’s feelings or relates to apatheia.” not “too happy.”63 While Hill ingeniously detects that excess happiness was condemned as an Anglo-Saxon heroic failing. the entire benefit of good things is received more gratefully after known evils. likewise the foolish man full of sorrow will seldom rejoice over his destiny. 62 63 64 Ibid. by contrast. asks why “the young will not struggle for wisdom” (388a–90b) by discussing the problem of “fate” (wyrd) versus “warning” (warnung).66 Corollary to the poet’s expression of “relief ” for misery is the function of guidance. in a more negative way. or the “gomela ceorl. “along with this goes a concern. the speakers insist that experience of one’s own is a necessary prologue to wisdom.” whose son is hanged in Beowulf ’s story of his own personal grief (lines 2444a–62a).” T. The problem sounds “Boethian”: does foreknowledge imply providence? Citing Bosworth’s dictionary. for “wisdom” is not only the capacity to expect or endure change67 but also to create change in behavior. . In Beowulf. It has long been recognized in the Old English wisdom verse how experience of sorrow furnishes snyttru or “wisdom. Carolyne Larrington translates OE warnung as “prescience.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 201 Insipidus est. because he has only lifes wyn gebiden in burgum [experienced the joys of life in human dwellings]. as she concedes.65 He is a fool who never tasted the cup of sorrow. and to give men relief through the expression of its lessons. Nemo dura non passus temperanter facilibus utitur. or to endure them when they happen. 143–4. a rout in battle. to endure bitter experience. Ibid. The alternating styles of The Wanderer reflect the two traditional duties of the poet.” He continues. The poetic Solomon and Saturn. .68 In fact. but for the past as a guide to future events” (ibid.” but the sense is unique. Wat se ðe cunnað [he knows who makes trial of it]. 65 66 . Anglo-Saxon “wisdom” poetry teaches moderation in order to ward off the disasters that arrogance fosters. Shippey notes. No one who has not suffered hardships enjoys ease in moderation. 67 Shippey describes this function admirably as “the abandonment of personality for a general historical perspective. Old English Verse 59. Shippey’s evaluation of two “elegiac” poems expresses Hroðgar’s view about how his imagined king’s success could lead to unconscionable oferhygd: In both The Wanderer and The Seafarer (and in several places elsewhere).) 68 Larrington 152. A. qui numquam meroris poculum degustauit. This despair recalls the inwitsorh that afflicts a tyrant like Heremod. . not for the past alone. The Seafarer presents three times the figure of ‘the man who does not know. who little believes’ what others have gone through. observes The Wanderer. prosperity without self-control or moderation can lead to tyranny and thence to despair. In Saxo the easy life makes Frode (Froda) suicidal at Ericus’s lesson in humiliation. a poet like Deor. him mæg wissefa/wyrda gehwilce// gemetigian” (440a–1a). . and “the spirited nobleman should not reject this [advice]” (“ne sceal þæs aþreotan/þegn modigne. OE rædfæst is a penitential term that could be parsed “firm in counsel.11) Your good spirit has led me in wisdom.” 13a) can moderate their behavior. pride. but between Germanic destiny and foresight. therefore. denied the connection to strict Boethian philosophy. drihten usser. Clearly. .202 chapter three Robert J. Menner.” 70 The Paris Psalter expresses the connection between OE rædfæst and righteous living: Me þin se goda gast gleawe lædde.” (“Although he who is swift and resolute in everything that is right may bestow victory . . for naman þines neodweorðunge.” 18a) should “fasten lessons in his mind” (“[scyle] . where Waldere says.” Order of the World later states that a “thoughtful man” (“deophydig mon. . . often opposed to one’s willa or “(base) desire. desire. our Lord. the advice of the wise—a “warnung”—is difficult to put into practice. . . and. (142.” II. or other moral weakness. 7 ond se is wita geteald þe wyle rihtwisnysse” (Clemoes.” 19b–20a). In the compelling honor of your name. but can “moderate. Solomon (who represents the Christian point of view to Saturn’s pagan one) concludes that a wise man cannot change. and anyone who wishes righteousness is considered a prophet”). The link between “riht” and “rædfæst” is also confirmed in Waldere B. Warriors in Order of the World and the young in Solomon and Saturn especially need 69 Menner 138: “The antithesis is not between Boethian fate and providence.”70 and the implicit advice is righteous. do me halne. OE rædfæst in these passages indicates the will to abide by proper (or promised) conduct—what is “riht”—not to falter in one’s actions out of fear.”69 From Menner’s perspective a verbal warning (in poetry. nor between Augustinian predestination and free-will. that I might live resolute in your righteousness. from the Christian perspective. since in every other occurrence OE warnung means “admonition. and involves choice.” his fate(s): “. wordhordes cræft//fæstnian ferðsefan.174–6: “Blessed is that people who have wise leaders if those desire what is right and are resolute. foremost editor of the poem. Catholic Homilies 540.” 21a–b). humility. in which only “rincas rædfæste” (“men firm in counsel. . make me safe. . say) can bring about a change in attitude and therefore an alteration of fate. þæt ic on ðinum rihte rædfæst lifige. One recalls at this moment the context of Order of the World. (Translating Ps 142:10–11) Ælfric’s Catholic Homily 17 (first series) confirms the connection between prophets who declare what is “riht” and the “rædfæst” men who follow them: “Gesælig bið þæt folc ðe fela witan hæfð gif hi riht wyllað and rædfæste beoð. “Ðeah mæg sige syllan/se ðe symle byð//recon ond rædfæst/ryhta gehwilces . þæt ic on rihtne wæg reðne ferde.25a–26b). Being rædfæst is purely mental. that I traversed the cruel in your righteous way. temptation. Hroðgar seems to admit to oferhygd. and the “sleep” specifically derives from one’s “daily cares” (bisgum). 7 ryhtes geleafan scyld 7 godra worca scild . Current glory predicated on past success. can make some men feel invincible—just as he felt before Grendel’s appearance. “Archer” 112 investigated the archer on the Ruthwell Cross and reached a similar conclusion: “the archer is best interpreted as an inimical figure.” 533b) in describing the condition of one’s mutable prosperity (“læne dream. . Ærest is an scyld wisdom 7 wærscipe 7 fæstrædnes on godum weorcum.” 677b). . for þam þe Godes englas bioð mid þam scyldum gewæpnod to feohtanne wið þam awirgdum gastum. and Hroðgar seems to offer pseudo-pagan wisdom of comparable substance. 7 þone scyld nimen us to wige wið þam awyrgedan deofle þe lufu hatte. as the inexperienced. The poetic Solomon and Saturn contextualizes the struggle between “fate” and “warning” as a Christian one.” 489a–b and “him wlenco gesceod. but I disagree that the hypothetical king is endowed with sapientia at all. . þæt we hæbben þa scyldas þærongean þe dryhten us hæfð gesett mid to scyldanne. but even if this guardian is to be thought of as ‘conscience. Pride and Prodigies 103–4. Kaske proposes “to interpret the weard . wondrous commands of a cursed spirit” (“wom wundorbebodum/wergan gastes. precisely the trait of the arrogant warrior in Vainglory 43b and of the giants on the sword hilt. 7 mildheortnesse 7 eaðmodnesse scyld. men þa leofestan. Vercelli Homilies 103. lines 308 to the end.’ ‘intellect.71 (So I conclude from the testimony that the dart is fired when the “soul’s guardian” is asleep.’ its sleep represents a turning away from sapientia coincident with the growth of pride” (“Sapientia et Fortitudo” 281). Mark Atherton has lately made a connection between scenes of the devils’ darts and Psalter illuminations. sawele hyrde (1741–2) as sapientia itself put to sleep by pride.” In the poetic Exodus the collocation “wommum awyrged” (“cursed by depravities. Hroðgar imagines them.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 203 the kind of advice that sages give. Scragg notes that there is no Latin source for this passage: “it is possible that the final section. 72 R. Farrell. He specifically warns Beowulf against oferhygd (1760b).” 1747a–b).)72 Vercelli Homily 4 uses exactly this metaphor to describe the “shield” (in Beowulf the term is “helm”) needed to protect against “accursed spirits”: Þonne is mycel þearf.’ or ‘reason. The soul’s protector could be any of Kaske’s suggestions. either by failing to anticipate Grendel’s attack or by sacrificing so many men in his feud with Grendel that his status declined. Ne mæg þonne nan synsceaða þa þurhsceotan. Describing oferhygd (and even wlenco) as injurious occurs elsewhere in Daniel (“þam æðelinge/oferhygd gesceod. E. Hroðgar reasons. I think. Hroðgar describes the origin of oferhygd as an assassination (or wound) of the soul through a “bitter dart”—allegorically pictured as the “depraved. is from a .2. .73 71 For an Aldhelmian locus see Orchard.321–104.” 533a) varies “wreccum alyfed” (“yielded to exiles. 73 Scragg.” 532b). No sinful enemy may pierce it. halig of heahðu. . which could lodge “under banlocan” or “in the flesh” (769b). when the bringer of enmity sends forth amongst God’s people the bitter dart from his drawn bow. Because Christ A documents that “exiles have cursed spirits” (“Habbað wræcmæcgas/wergan gæstas.” As in Beowulf.” Each “shield” protects against a cursed devil (“awyrgedan deofle”) or cursed spirits (“awirgdum gastum”). for God’s angels are themselves armed with those shields to fight against cursed spirits. Cynewulf used it in Christ B. which the Lord has set amongst us for protection. ond þæs sellran gefeon. wunde gewyrcen. Holy. (756a–65b) Therefore we should ever despise vain desires—the wounds of sin—and rejoice in the better. the shield of firm belief. this metaphor of the devil’s darts is widely paralleled. uninfluenced in the context by his Gregorian source: Forþon we a sculon synwunde forseon.” 363a–b). hider onsendeð. he sends his messengers from on high who will shield us against the terrible volley of our enemies. wið sceþþendra þi læs unholdan þonne wrohtbora forð onsendeð biterne stræl.204 chapter three Then there will be great need. This ambush (later called “devils’ darts” or “deofla strælas.” 779b) is vernacular source independent of that which provides the main part of the homily” (89). that we hold our shields. .” 768a). We will have the almighty father in the heavens as our comfort. the shield of good works . fæder on roderum He his aras þonan. Habbað we us to frofre ælmihtigne. The first shield is wisdom and prudence and resolution in good works. against it. þa us gescildað eglum earhfarum. The “wounds of sin” are precisely “idle lustas” or “vain desires. Interestingly. in folc godes of his brægdbogan idle lustas. having such an affliction may presuppose a state of exile. And let us carry that shield called Love to war against the accursed devil. . dear men.” Cynewulf urges all to hold out against the poisonous point (“attres ord. and the shield of mercy and humility. Presumably the shield of wisdom in its reliance on “mildheortnesse ond eaðmodnesse” defends from attacks of arrogance. one ought to reject one’s lusts and embrace “the better. and demands the conviction of “fæstrædnes. we later learn. OE þrym could be at least equivocal if not pejorative as an inducement to violence.” 770a). not intellectual. Her confidence is intuitive. I translate wlenco as “recklessness” because the maxim seemingly pairs it with þrist “rashness” and states that rash men battle impetuously. the reason why “treacherous deceits” varies “the devil’s flying spears. The suggestion that oferhygd might be glossed “majesty” from the perspective of the arrogant man recalls the potential sarcasm of Wulfgar’s remarks to Beowulf: “I suppose you have sought Hroðgar for ‘glory’— ‘majesty of mind’. ungemedemad mod.” 338a–9b). penetrate this warrior’s defenses simply because of his (moral) inattention: “læteð inwitflan//brecan þone burgweal” (“He allows deceitful 74 While OE higeþrym is often considered positive (i. The psychological wound happens from within. Þrym sceal mid wlenco. as symptomatic of vainglorious men carousing in a beer-hall: þrymme þringeð. The image of the “flying spears” of pride also recurs in the Exeter Book poem Vainglory.” 25a). his treacherous deceits. þriste mid cenum sceolun bu recene beadwe fremman. a state different from general boastfulness characterizing the other warriors. and deem their actions to be justifiable. . The devil’s disguise proves that victims of oferhygd in Beowulf may be blind to their moral benightedness. oferhygd in Vainglory is said to derive from immoderation (“ungemedemad mod. Maxims I attests. Too many are like that! That vexation is entirely filled with the fiend’s flying spears. rash men with the bold must both quickly do battle. Sum on oferhygdo þrinteð him in innan sindan to monige þæt! eal gefylled facensearwum. bið þæt æfþonca feondes fligepilum. where an “exiled” devil concealed as God’s righteous angel tempts the saint to marry the pagan Eleusius. his immoderate spirit swells from within. “majesty of mind”). (23b–7b) A certain man given to arrogance brims with majesty./nalles for wræcsiðum//ac for higeþrymmum. (60a–1b) Glory goes with recklessness.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 205 specifically “the sudden cunning of fiends” (“feonda færsearo.” These darts. as it were—and not because of ‘exile’ ” (“Wen’ ic þæt ge for wlenco.e./Hroðgar sohton. Only Juliana’s prayer saves her from succumbing to the devil’s temptation.74 More conclusively. This metaphor is fully explored in Cynewulf ’s Juliana 225a–88b. BL MS Cotton Vespasian D. þæt he his costunga attor wide todæleð. (127a–32b) 75 Gonsor 120. see also p. nihtes sohte wunne æfter worulde.52–5. þa þe ne bimurnað þæs þe him to honda butan hy þy reafe þæt he sceaðena gemot ond þurh neþinge swa doð wræcmæcgas monnes feore huþe gelædeð. Because Guðlac was once a warband leader.206 chapter three darts to break the shield-wall. that he might widely propagate the poison of his temptation. He noticed in himself vainglory checked only by a devotion to humility and isolation from the temptations of campaigning. He had then so spread the poison of his evil and savagery that he had wounded the human heart by it. 18–40 (s. The Old English prose “Life of Saint Guðlac” likewise preserves the image of the poisonous dart of a cursed spirit (“mid þære geættredan streale gewundod wæs þæs awerigedan gastes”).75 but it leads to despair rather than arrogance. þæt he mid þan þa menniscan heortan wundode. just as if he had straightaway fixed an arrow of temptation from a drawn bow in the soul of Christ’s warrior”). He is now vulnerable to an affliction he cannot perceive. 119. it might be possible to see in his vita the struggle to suppress the kind of arrogance that he turned from by becoming an anchorite. þa semninga swa he of gebendum bogan his costunge streale on þam mode gefæstnode þæs Cristes cempan” (“Then the ancient enemy of mankind traversed the grassy area like a roaring lion. Mid þy he þa his yfelnysse mægen and grymnysse attor teldode. Guðlac A has a more attenuated image: “feonda færscyte” (“sudden shots of fiends. Bodleian Library MS Laud Misc.” 186a). xxi fols. at least.” 37b–8a). 119. xi2). these demonic blandishments tempt Guðlac to trade his saintly “exile” for that of a wrecca: Oþer hyne scyhte. Guðlac’s “ormodnysse” results from a wound to his human heart (“menniscan heortan”). too. (167b–9b) The fear of God was greater in his thoughts than for him to wish in his mind to receive human glory.76 Temptations (“costunga”) are consistently proffered by a “cursed spirit”.46. 509 + London. Guðlac A. . 76 Ibid. rædan motan. cited from Oxford. In the poetic Guðlac A. The Vercelli translation has a nearly identical reading. suggests just this impulse: mara in gemyndum þrymme æfter þonce him wæs Godes egsa þonne he menniscum þegan wolde.39–50: “þa se ealda feond mancynnes gengde geond þæt græswang efne swa grymetigende leo. cave tibi foveam. fili carissime. apud comites suos splendide epulantem malignus spiritus. in quo notos et commilitones tuos videbas strangulatos et presentem vitam et futuram perdere. fili carissime . si multum.” Tangl 146–55 (no. Adtende tibi a laqueo insidiatoris. . Praeterea. in quam vidisti coram te alios cecidisse. id est in stupratione et adulterio nonnarum et fractura monasteriorum. . . In Asser’s Vita Alfredi Regis the striking phrase “diabolico instinctu” describes a “discordia” that afflicted the Northumbrians ca. monstraverunt. 744 × 747) to Æþilbald of Mercia (d. . unless through them they may learn about plunder. . Et in istis peccatis commorantes. . Noli talium ad perditionem exempla sequi . Quapropter. si in iuventute adolescentiae tuae putridine luxoriae inquinatus et foetore adulterii involutus et voragine libidinis quasi puteo inferni demersus fueras. centum anni. . . ‘Quid nobis profuit superbia. Nam Ceolredum . . . The depravity of this behavior lies in the absence of humanity in the single-minded pursuit of plunder: wreccan do not care for men’s lives. 757). ut imaginem Dei. quia indecens conprobatur. Crawford first revealed this significance of this epistle in 1931. iam tempus est. J. iusto iudicio Dei damnati de culmine regali huius vite abiecti et inmatura et terribili morte preventi a luce perpetua extranei in profundum inferni et tartarum abyssi demersi sunt. 73). . . Et alias: ‘Numerus dierum vitae hominis.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 207 Another [devil] urged him to seek out at night a party of raiders and through daring to strive after worldly goods. Cave tibi iacula antiqui hostis. just like exiles do who do not care for the lives of the men at whose hands they gain booty. 867 (Stevenson 77 78 . Hi duo reges [Ceolred and Osred] haec duo peccata maxima in provinciis Anglorum diabolico instinctu . quasi parvula gutta de magno mari deputatus est’ [Sir 18:8] . when he called attention to multiple parallels in Hroðgar’s sermon:77 Et memor eris. . maligni diaboli converteris et tu—quem non propria merita sed larga pietas Dei regem ac principem multorum constituit—te ipsum per luxoriam servum maligno spiritui constituas. qui eum ad fiduciam dampnande legis Dei suadendo pellexit.78 “Beowulfiana. . Desere vitia et studium inpende sacris virtutibus adimplendas. aut quid divitiarum iactatio contulit nobis?’ [Sap 5:8] Transierunt omnia illa tamquam umbra . . . . quae in te creata est. This reputation likewise describes tyrants. The specific connection between the devil’s darts and a king’s tyranny is found elsewhere only in Beowulf and in a letter of Boniface (written ca. . per que propinquos proprios coram te vulnerators cadere vidisti. per luxoriam ad imaginem . ut sine penitentia et confessione furibundus et amens et cum diabolis sermocinans et Dei sacerdotes adhominans de hac luce sine dubio ad tormenta inferni migravit . peccantem subito in insaniam mentis convertit. ut memor Domini tui a diaboli laqueis resipicas . S. condemned by God’s judgement. And wallowing in these sins. had beguiled him to lose faith in God’s law. . a tyrant (“tyrannum”) outside the royal family. and what has the pomp of riches ever brought us?’ All those things will pass like shadows. And you. cast down from the kingly heights of this life and cut off by a premature and terrible death. they sank in the depths of hell and the perdition of the pit. in sexual filth and lust of nuns and dispossession of monasteries. exiled from the perpetual light. Keep yourself from the noose of the deceiver. are no more than one hundred years. as if measured as the merest raindrop from a vast ocean’. paternal advice Lines 1724b–27a [Beowulf ’s “adoption”] 22 [§27 line 2]). suddenly turned the sinner Ceolred. God-given prosperity 2. beware the pit into which you saw others fall before you. who had been feasting splendidly among his thanes. King Osberht was deposed in favor of Ælla. And elsewhere: ‘the number of a man’s days. if great. For an evil spirit. Through a demonic influence both those kings manifested these two great sins in the lands of the Angles. that is. towards derangement of mind. Moreover. if in the immaturity of your adolescence you had drowned—polluted by the filth of wantonness. whom not your own merits but the generous will of God established as king and prince of many men—you confirm yourself through lust as a servant to an evil spirit. Avoid these vices and devote your ambition to the holy virtues which ought to be cultivated. Boniface warns Æþilwald through historical exempla—the conduct of Ceolred and Osred—and the letter captures multiple Beowulfian affinities: Boniface “non propria merita sed larga pietas Dei” “fili carissime” Beowulf 1. that you turned the image of God in which you were created to the image of the wicked devil. As in Boniface’s letter and Beowulf. which. by which your nobles and fellow soldiers were strangled and lost both present and future life. through persuasion. that without penance or confession. On which account. and enveloped in the filth of adultery and in the vortex of desire as if in the pit of hell—it is now time that you recover yourself from the devil’s snares. enraged and delusional (speaking with devils and cursing God’s priests) he doubtlessly made his way from this light to the torments of hell. ‘What has pride profited us. dear son. Beware the darts of the ancient enemy. the expression connects tyranny to diabolical instigation. because it is affirmed obscene. Do not follow the example of those men to perdition. immersed in the stink of lust.208 chapter three And you will recall. dear son. the 79 On the concept of Homeric ate see Doyle 7–22. ate seems to be the silent term by which Achilles’s rage is evaluated as justifiable or excessive. Both in outline and detail Beowulfian oferhygd resembles Homeric ate.) Boniface “iacula antiqui hostis” “luxoria” “diabolico instinctu” “subito in insaniam mentis convertit” “in profundum inferni et tartarum abyssi” “superbia” “Numerus dierum vitae hominis.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 209 Table (cont. ruin” or the like but whose root sense is “blindness. si multum. the devil’s darts 4. We learn from this reflex that the moral failing Hroðgar describes afflicts kings. folly. the exhortation to avoid sin and embrace holy virtues Line 1745a–b Lines 1738b–9b Line 1747a–b Line 1746b Lines 1750b–2b Lines 1748a–50a Lines 1753a–7b. an unexpected possession 7. potential damnation 8. the sin of desire 5. the inevitability of death 10.”79 In the Iliad especially. the focus on pride 9. not just churchmen. the demonic prompting 6. centum anni” “Desere vitia et studium inpende sacris virtutibus adimplendas” Beowulf 3. 1761b–8b Lines 1758a–61a There emerges as well an arresting acknowledgment that youthful luxuria could be excused but that mature leadership demands more stringent moral principles. . delusion. Ate represents a moral debility that afflicts one’s thymos. a term often rendered “madness. ” The use of fyren in the context of Hroðgar’s sermon recalls the undertakings of Sigemund and Heremod described earlier. the surest sign of ate is a character’s acknowledgment of it. other observers condemn his abnormal passion as a failure of restraint and duty. or even the goddess Ate.” The guardian represents a faculty like conscience that resists wrongdoing that might stem from arrogance. where heroic action and oferhygd seem practically coextensive. the domain of emotional life. One might say that Guðlac controls his malaise by being “rædfæst” or “firm in (wise or righteous) counsel. This divine possession leads to the “blindness” of disproportionate erotic passion or excessive rage. a daughter of Zeus. Independent of the narrator’s confirmation. and slays the “guardian. The Geats simply do not know how to fathom their king’s motivation. a reason for the bewilderment that follows Beowulf ’s dragon fight. for example. Homeric ate removes the agent from complete responsibility for immoderation. He imputes injury to the soul (OE sawol)./þæt he lange heold” (“what he long held seems too little to him. the possessed man (or woman) will not perceive the immoderate nature of his desires—he is figuratively blind to his obsession.210 chapter three seat of the passions. Even in the prose “Guðlac” the saint’s “despair” sounds much like the dissatisfaction afflicting Hroðgar’s fictitious king immediately after the attack: “þinceð him to lytel.” 1748a–b). the fury that Achilles exhibits. Interestingly. At the same time. his generous gifts manifest some degree of culpable excess. which is consistently vulnerable to arrogance—Cynewulf ’s “vain lusts”—in Old English wisdom literature.” 1744b). “Maliciously” discharged (“fyrenum sceoteð. As a fatalistic concept. In other words. and while his capitulation to Achilles is no formal apology. In Homer it is figured as an external daimon.” 35b–6a). the missile Hroðgar describes penetrates the hreðer. however. including Achilles. Agamemnon admits to having ate in Book 9. the man afflicted by arrogance “does not know guilt for the crime he committed” (“He þa scylde ne wat//fæhþe gefremede. In Vainglory. The arousal of oferhygd . These generous analogues in Homer and Old English verse not only substantiate the obsession with oferhygd so prominent in Beowulf but also allow some latitude in reconstructing Hroðgar’s attitude towards temptation and sin. and diminished glory frequently results from ate. especially the allegation that fyren “entered” Heremod (915b). Homeric ate is difficult to attribute to characters. Such a man contravenes the expectations of responsible behavior without realizing it. and this uncertainty characterizes Beowulf ’s dragon fight. ” Hroðgar’s fictional king quite appropriately “forgets and neglects” (“forgyteð ond forgymeð. Right after becoming “gramhydig.” 65a)—specifically “heresped” (“military success.” resulting in his cupidity: he no longer bestows rings for the fulfillment of pledges (“on gylp. the fall of the angels. Hroðgar proposes a definable limit to aggression.” 144a–b) or the Paris Psalter 118: “Gearo ic eom symble. The oferhygd of Hroðgar’s imagined king ultimately destroys the nation. specifically a “weorðmynda dæl” (1752b) or “share of honors.” 1751a) the destiny (“forðgesceaft. Once the soul is wounded.//þæt ic betst cunne/þine bebodu healdan” (“I am ever ready.60). in other words. “did not know audacious deeds” prior to their fall: “Synna ne cuþon. Describing a state of ferocity most often associated with combat. These “justified” honors seem limited to political consolidation.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 211 elicits the fyren the anonymous secg condemned in the Sigemund/Heremod digression. and Hroðgar enjoyed “wiges weorðmynd” (“honor in warfare./nalæs grames modes.” 1749b). the king becomes “gromhydig. that I may best know how to obey your commands. where Lucifer and his angels. OE gramlice describes Belshazzar’s boastfulness in the Old English Daniel. not at all of fierce mind.” Lucifer’s rebellion seems to have been a locus classicus of oferhygd in the biblical tradition.” 8b) until his neighbors submitted to him. The gidd of Lucifer in Vainglory 57a–66b characterizes oferhygd as a revolt against righteous authority which results in a “national” calamity. Being “gram” (“fierce”) often entails “forgetting” one’s duty or obligation. OE gramhydig matches Heremod’s condition of bolgenmod.” 118.” 713a–b)./firena fremman. beyond which a king could express oferhygd. the “gromhydge guman” (14a) who rule become deceived by the “guardians of sins” and “seek hell” with their hosts (16a–17b). as in Exodus: “Ealles þæs forgeton/siððan grame wurdon” (“they forgot all that after they became fierce. afflicted by oferhygd. In Judgment Day I. A corresponding association between oferhygd and fyren arises in Genesis A 18b–19a. .” 64b).” In reference to kings in Beowulf OE weorðmynd describes national campaigns: Scyld Scefing prospered in honors (“weorðmyndum þah. This fyren derives from the “cursed spirit” mentioned both in Guðlac and the Vercelli passage. and being “fierce” as an aspect of oferhygd answers the proud angels’ description as “reðemode” in Genesis A 47b. the “share” (“dæl”) that god bestows. right at the moment of his utmost arrogance: “gealp gramlice/gode on andan” (“He boasted pompously in hatred for God.” 1750b) which god had given him. ”83 The dragon.” the sense of the term in Beowulf.82 Beowulf promises aid to Hroðgar should his neighbors threaten “egesan” (1827b). and corpse-felling [hrafyl. .” humiliations [hynðo]. Reviving John F. Given this constellation of concepts centering on national “terror. see Whitesell 146.212 chapter three Hroðgar divulges that an imagined successor to this vainglorious and bloodthirsty king would freely distribute treasure and “forgo” egesa.” Hroðgar may conceive of Heremod’s offense as unjust invasion or assault of a terrifying magnitude—exactly the kind of bellum iniustum decried by Church authorities. Cross has compiled and analyzed evidence showing 80 81 82 “Egesan ne gymeð.” 2093b) and a “þeodþrea” (“national threat.” 178a). both national “terrors. which spouts unnatural and deadly flame. In the consolidation of his kingdom. 83 On the possibility of puns on hrafyl/wælfyl.” Pride and Prodigies 53. OE egesa occurs six times in the poem. wælfyl]” (276a–7a) endured by “Scyldings. and the Geats fear a time of “egesan” (3154b)—of countless wælfyll or “national slaughters. alongside the compounds gledegesa (2650a). Scyld did not merely “terrify earls. “Textual Interpretation” 263. thereby establishing the Danish nation. The sense of the compounds may be quite different. See also þeodegsa from Christ B: Þeodegsa bið hlud gehyred bi heofonwoman cwaniendra cirm. Finally. in sorrow they will grieve before the sight of the eternal judge. Beowulf proclaims that no neighbor risked “egesan” (2736a) while he ruled the Geats. he invaded or exterminated his enemy earls. and enforced slavery (3154a–5a)—once news of Beowulf ’s death becomes general. this seems to be the underlying sense of “egsode eorlas” in 6a.”81 Alternatively. J. shame [hynðu]. ligegesa (2780b) and wæteregesa (1260a). a gledegesa and ligegesa. too. Both “humiliation” and “slavery” indicate genocide. his “unnatural violence. Other occurrences of egesa describe Grendel or the dragon. Vickrey’s reading of egesa as “timor Domini.” As one of the first Danish warlord-kings.” The cry of Grendel.” 2278a). is an egesa heard by “North-Danes” (783b–8a). the noise of those lamenting.”80 Andy Orchard affirms in Heremod the failure of “Christian reverence. Three of the simplex forms occur in the context of national warfare. loud national terror will be heard. is a national enemy (“ðeodsceaða. see Klaeber. E. a “leodsceaða” (“national enemy. cerge reotað fore onsyne ece deman (833b–6b) In a heavenly tumult. cp. Heremod’s successor may not care for “national warfare. 84 I see no reason why Hroðgar does not also warn Beowulf against such expeditions. an affirmation of Beowulf ’s moral virtue and exceptional promise. They “love fasting” and “seek prayer. Germanic Warrior Wisdom: A Counsel of Restraint in Consideration of Virtue Hroðgar concludes his narrative at line 1757 and immediately applies the story to Beowulf. Hroðgar calls Beowulf the “best man”—not the “better” man—and urges him to “choose the better” (“þæt selre geceos. After the dragon burns Beowulf ’s hall. it describes the poison that has penetrated Beowulf ’s body. In the Kentish Psalm. Hroðgar demands that Beowulf protect himself (“Bebeorh. Beowulf is said to inquire “whence the hostility [ fæhðu] arose. the seat of emotion. In Guðlac A the collocation “beorgað him bealoniþ” (“they protect themselves from rancor. Solomon Complex 75.” 1759b). Just after this warning. and “rancor that leads to strife” is perhaps the best translation.” 154a).” On the “better” man see also Hansen.” a snare from 84 85 “Ethic of War.” a phrase which varies “bealonið biorna” (2403b–4a).” 809a) occurs in a list of accomplishments committed by those assured of heaven. Recalling the fictional king who did not know how to protect himself (“bebeorgan”). Specifically “wounds of the spirit” (“gastes wunde. From this passage we might conclude that OE bealunið describes an act that initiates strife. the exiled David is said to have relieved a “hoard” of bealunið with a humble conscience (“mid eaðmede/ingeþance. “Choosing the better” in Precepts 47b means choosing between good and evil—a fruitless injunction when over-confidence distorts one’s judgment. Most significantly.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 213 that the Anglo-Saxons condemned wars waged for glory.” 152a–b).85 In 1703a Hroðgar lavished praise on Beowulf and called him “better born” (“geboren betera”).” OE bealunið occurs only six times in Old English. or humility. asceticism. the “attor on innan” which wells up from within and causes death.”1758a) from “bealonið. these bealunið are said to afflict the “ferðe” (“spirit. both in their poetry and religious writings.” deeds which suggest that avoiding bealunið might call for self-restraint. In Beowulf Hroðgar advises Beowulf to “choose the better” by protecting himself from “bealonið. “Choosing the good” is impossible for Hroðgar’s fictional king. three times in Beowulf. .” 153a). and prefer the reading of Thomas D.e. searoniðas fleah//Eormenrices. and the editors of Klaeber’s Beowulf note that “feolan. Hill that searo.” What could this mean? Thomas Hill has explicated the compound searonið as a hostility hatched by men—malicious plots or wars of aggression—and every context in Beowulf supports this reading. . it certainly represents a good chosen. 87 Kaske. 88 Ibid. He had fled a curse on treasure as well as the malefic power of Eormenric himself.” 1739b).” and many have compared this collocation to the choice of “ecne ræd” that Hama made in Beowulf 1201b: “[Hama] . but the attempt by Hintz to retain the scribal form seems highly strained. intricate. “they certainly represent an evil avoided. At this moment the “better” is varied by “ece rædas” or “eternal counsels. . Otachres nid” in Hildebrandslied 18 (Klaeber’s Beowulf 340). “ecne ræd”) by professing a monk has been discredited as “false to the context of the episode.”87 In fact.” Kaske insisted. whatever the ecne ræd may have been.” 1200b–1a)./geceas ecne ræd” (“Hama fled Ermanaric’s plots. I do not perceive the connection between searonið and magic. Almost fifty years ago R.91 The Beowulf poet could therefore be imagining the moment 86 The matter is still further complicated by the collocation “floh .’ is elsewhere only intrans. 491. about which Klaeber stated in the third edition of Beowulf. 89 Ibid.86 Yet the notion that Hama earned “eternal life” (i. “The Sigemund-Heremod and Hama-Hygelac Passages” 491 note 3. which actually means ‘enter. he chose eternal counsel. Klaeber regarded this article as “hazardous” (Beowulf 179 note to line 1200b–1201a).214 chapter three which Hroðgar’s imagined king does not know how to protect himself (“he þæt wyrse ne con. or artificial and that searonið denotes a manufactured hostility—one instigated by men (“Confession of Beowulf ” 173).90 making Hama’s flight from Ermanaric’s “searoniðas” a “good chosen. Most critics interpreting this passage cite the thirteenth-century Icelandic Þiðreks Saga af Bern. penetrate.” 91 Paul Beekman Taylor proposes. “Hama had fled searoniðas to save his life.” 1200b–1b). which states that Heimir (= Hama) entered a monastery after “fleeing” from Erminrekr (= Ermanaric). . . the Beowulf poet supplies his own calque on “ecne ræd.” stating “searoniðas fleah//Eormenrices” (“he fled Ermanaric’s planned enmities.” 88 “Whatever the searoniðas Eormenrices may have been. 490. whose searoniðas marks him as one of the monsters” (“Searoniðas” 124).”89 Kaske’s reading demands that “fleah” be interpreted “fled” (and so the passage is universally interpreted). Kaske suggested a contrast between Hama’s “flight” and Hygelac’s loss of the collar given Beowulf by Wealhþeow on a “daring and presumably needless expedition. E. “Odoacer’s place as the adversary of Theodoric was afterwards taken by Ermanaric” (Beowulf 179 note to line 1200b–1a). 90 The reading fleah emends MS fealh.means man-made. . who “became in heroic poetry the type of a ferocious. and the good warrior Hildebrand and many other fine fighters. he literally “fled. ok þína bróðursonu Egarð ok Áka léztu hengja. . 96 Thus.” According to the saga.” a way of saying that Hama earned “ecne ræd” by fleeing depravity. you have committed great ill against your kinsmen. Friðrek ok Reginbald sendir þú fyrst sjálfr til dauða. You first sent Friðrek and Reginbald to their deaths. . Legends 166. Yet the expression “fled conspiracies” may also be figurative. esp. . 2. cf. Hama may have fled Ermanaric’s habitual “conspiracies. specifically the false charges leveled against Þiðrek: Heimir gengr nú á fund Erminreks konungs með reiði mikilli ok mælti: ‘Þú. and his son . æfste 7 andan” (“flee recklessness and vain words. . and treacherous tyrant. . OE searoniðas perfectly describes the general conduct imputed to the legendary Ermanaric (i. Brady. . covetous. ok hér á ofan hefir þú á brott rekit ór sínu ríki þinn frænda. en suma brott rekit . as well as Þethir and Úlfráð. And now you have exiled your kinsman King Þiðrek from his kingdom. some [of whom] you have killed. and constant harassment of his enemies did Heimir earn a place at Þiðrek’s court. Erminrekr konungr hefir margt illt gert á þínum frændum. Vercelli Homilies 357 (lines 92 93 . . p. Þiðrek konung. ‘King Erminrek.93 Heimir did choose exile over dishonor. 162. Þiðrekr]. Erminrekr). especially in reference to moral offenses. and then you killed the young Samson. Legends 149–68. þinn systurson.e. since OE fleah can mean “shunned” or “rejected” in prose or poetry. Ashdown 327. only after long exile. ok Þethir ok Úlfráð. perpetual readiness for ambush. and oppresses Theoderic [i.”94 Frederick Klaeber summarized the highlights: “[Ermanaric] causes the fair Swanhild to be trodden to death by horses. Guðni Jónsson vol..’ Although we cannot be sure the Anglo-Saxons knew the story as transmitted in this saga. spite and anger. .96 Hama may simply have rejected Ermanaric’s tyranny. Brady.”95 By this reasoning. he slays his nephews .e. 388. and you had your nephews Egarð and Áka hanged. . . your sister’s son.” in Scragg. 95 Ibid. ’92 Heimir went to meet King Erminrek with great rage and said. ok inn unga Samson draptu. “oferhygde fleoð 7 unnytt word. and not any specific malice. ok inn góða dreng Hildibrand ok marga aðra góða riddara. Vercelli Homily 21 states. Alternatively. to be hanged at the instigation of his evil counselor . and some exiled . 94 Klaeber. Beowulf 178 note to lines 1197–1201. suma drepit.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 215 known from Þiðreks Saga when Heimir denounces Erminrekr’s tyranny. supremely favored./þonne he mon flyhð” (“for him will every gift be multiplied in goodness. he is said to have accompanied a band of seven other heroes that persecuted a “grome þeode” (“hostile or 139–40: the text is repeated in An Exhortation to Christian Living).//metodes miltsa” (“we should never lack for good conduct [or: community].” and Lot is said to have fled (“fleah”) “þære mægðe monwisan” (“the criminal ways of that people. The Sodomites practice “ecne unræd. As the objective of wisdom. Moses teaches the exiled Israelites his “ece rædas” in the poetic version of Exodus. just as Hama did. He enjoys wisdom who for love of his soul ever warns himself off iniquities of word and deed in his spirit. and Precepts 81a–2b: “bið him geofena gehwylc/gode geyced. R. Farrell defines “unræd” as “the totality of all that is most ill-advised” in Daniel and Azarias 57. When one flees crime (“mon”).” 30a–b). and hell becomes their “rædleas hof ” (“home without counsel. dictionaries consistently treat OE monwise as “men’s ways. one’s gifts will be multiplied. fortify the nation: “we gesne ne syn/godes þeodscipes. Athough Hama “fled Ermanaric’s plots” and chose “ecne ræd”—a kind of Germanic righteousness—critics have defamed him. an expression which varies “facen and fyrene” (“treachery and audacity. when he flees sin”). note 98. 98 The advice sounds much like that in Precepts 78a–82b: Snyttra bruceþ þe fore sawle lufan warnað him wommas worda ond dæda on sefan symle ond soþ fremeð. Lot chose exile. supremely favored.” 1941a). in fact. the full context is given below. designates what the angels obeyed before their fall (24a). 97 In deference to context.” 529a–30a).216 chapter three Whatever sense may be imputed to the expression “searoniðas fleah// Eormenrices.98 Moreover.” but the first element may likewise be construed as “man” (“criminal”) without any injury to sense or meter. þonne he mon flyhð.” 44b). .//meahtum spedig. as snyttru becomes that which always “warns” against “sins” of word and deed in one’s mind. and holds truth.” 1939a–b). in other words. when he flees sin. OE þeodscipe surely means righteous living. OE ræd. the commission of unræd specifically marks Lucifer’s lapse into oferhygd in Genesis A: “þe þone unræd ongan/ærest fremman” (“which first began to undertake folly. A pun may also be intended. and these counsels. The “soul” is specifically affected.97 The poem elaborates on the consequences of Lot’s choice: “þeah þe he on þam lande/lifian sceolde” (“although he had to live in the land. the Measurer’s mercy. Finally. for him will every gift be multiplied in goodness. meahtum spedig.” Genesis A appears to offer a close parallel for the “ece rædas” Beowulf is urged to embrace. when internalized in the soul. T.” 1940a). Called a “wrecca” in Widsið 129a. bið him geofena gehwylc gode geyced. ” Þiðreks Saga af Bern does attest that Heimir pillaged the Goths.” a compliment on his liberality. the minster at Glastonbury is also said to be “bright”. the Goths expect that Ermanaric’s behavior could lead to national extermination. the Huns. At the risk of being too literal. 2. once in The Ruin. 101 Brady. “Eormanric of the Wīdsīð. As I have already discussed in reference to the phrase “wean on wenan” from Deor 25a. Legends 161–2. Unfortunately. twice in Beowulf.//sigle ond sincfæt” (“the torque of the Brosings. gleam.” 1199b–1200a) to some “bright town” (“to þære byrhtan byrig. no reference conclusively links the Brosinga mene to Ermanaric. In fact.99 This cruel nation was plausibly identified in the preceding lines as “Ætlan leodum” (“Attila’s people. The adjective “bright” describes other towns and dwellings. especially because of Ermanaric’s reputation for vast wealth. and is carried off by Hama. cf. In the details of his career.”100 Nothing in Beowulf convincingly links Hama to this “theft. Helen Damico (231) has proposed a mythological context that conforms to this hypothesis. 103 Brady. and once in The Riming Poem. 172–3. (In a West Saxon genealogy text. line 6). Ermanaric’s cruelty resembles Heremod’s rapacity and the betrayal of his own men. we judge that Hama had robbed Eormenric of the famous collar. for example. either. Wright and Halliwell vol. brooch and jeweled setting.101 Furthermore. Kaske draws attention to the loss of Wealhþeow’s necklace on Hygelac’s raid (where Hygelac “sought hostilities” (“ahsode//fæhðe.” 128b).” 311a) of Heorot itself is said “to shine over many lands” (311a–b). the Brosinga mene is in the hands of Eormenric.” 1198b) the “Brosinga mene. .” 1199a).” 23b) is described as having a “wylfenne geþoht” (“wolvish temperament. Widsið 33. Beowulf 54.” 99 100 . in Beowulf. Hama seems to be an ideal king in Beowulf. 102 OE þære has been emended from “here” (“army”).103 Ermanaric’s tyranny is known from Deor. . the view of Hama as a fugitive “robbing” Ermanaric inspired Chambers and Klaeber. Widsið 129a–30a confirms that he “ruled men and women with twisted gold. the “leoma” (“light. the text states that Hama carried off (“ætwæg. the detail that Wudga and Hama fight together with six other men “of þam heape” suggests a battle waged against Attila rather than an expedition of “exiles” against Ermanaric.102 The unspecified “bright town” may be Hama’s own or Ermanaric’s. Klaeber’s opinion has been retained in Klaeber’s Beowulf 193: “Reading between the lines of the Beowulf passage.” 22a). By contrast.” arguably contradictory to the “ecne ræd” that Hama chose. in which the “grim cyning” (“savage king. to suggest that Hama stole the Brosinga mene from Ermanaric: “.” 122b). p. among others. But in all events.” 1207a–8b Chambers.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 217 cruel nation. Maxims II 61b). Hroðgar calls attention to his own arrogance in predicting Grendel’s advent as a failure to imagine an enemy (1772b–3b). unlike Hama. .” 62a). In the story of the hilt. the passage from Maxims II observes that one’s forðgesceaft (61b) is “digol ond dyrne” (“hidden and secret. and the preservation of wealth and life through wisdom. flood. etc. blindness. In Precepts.104 I see the contrast somewhat differently: Hygelac endangered the Geats in his pointless expedition. In fact. The best strategy is therefore to avoid rancor in situations where one might be tested needlessly by being drawn into a fatal challenge. and this is clearly the injunction to foresee one’s positive “forðgesceaft. terms which evoke what a nobleman ought to ask of a wise man in Order of the World: “dygelra gesceafta” (“hidden destiny. How Hroðgar elaborates on the expression “ece rædas” confirms my reading of Hama’s probity. to dramatize two parallel but different themes: the preservation of fame through prowess and courage. 1761b and 1763b resp. the father bemoans that so few obey the “fyrngewritu” or “ancient writings” “Sigemund-Heremod and Hama-Hygelac Passages” 491: “. . will eventually “over-power” Beowulf. Hroðgar warns Beowulf against trusting his strength in the same terms used of Heremod (mægen and eafoþ. revealed to warriors in days past through story. Mastering such ambition means being snottor (“wise”) or having snyttru (“wisdom”). the SigemundHeremod and Hama-Hygelac passages both employ the device of a positive followed by a negative example. wounds. too. Just after stating that Beowulf ought to choose “enduring counsels.218 chapter three among the Frisians) and emphasizes that Hama preserved wealth whereas Hygelac squandered it. and while it could mean “afterlife” (cf.” 105 OE forðgesceaft occurs only seven times in the lexicon. the sense of secular destiny is suggested here. At the opening of Order of the World a stranger asks a “prophet” about his “forðgesceaft” (3b). In the Kentish Psalm a penitent asks that Christ might guide him to his “forðgesceaft” (“an forðgesceaft/feran mote. and he emphasizes the physicality of Beowulf ’s power with the verb oferswiðan: sickness. This specific kind of “wisdom.). OE gyman likewise characterizes Heremod’s penchant for egesa.” either “destiny” or “promise. which a more liberal king would not heed (“gyman”) but which Heremod chose. who fastidiously avoided the behavior imputed to Ermanaric and rewarded his men with gold. this false security led the giants to their deaths in a flood. neglecting (“forgyman”) his destiny.” he announces that oferhygd ought not to be heeded: “oferhyda ne gym” (1760b).” 18b). The reason not to heed oferhygd is completely material.” quite clearly derives from admonition and narrative.”105 by a kind of moral readiness. 104 .” which might be termed “moral.” 52a–b). 34a–38a also draws on the typology of Germanic tyrants: Nalles sorgode hwæðer siððan a mihtig drihten ametan wolde wrece be gewyrhtum wohfremmendum. not ‘loud noise’ ”: Wærwyrde sceal breostum hycgan. courage cools. “they have nothing for it” (“ne habbað wiht for þæt. and discipline falters” (“him hyge brosnað. (57a–8b) For a successful king who has never experienced a reversal.106 By neglecting the ancient writings. .” 431b–2a). wisfæst hæle nales breahtme hlud. The “fyrngewritu” of Elene 560b.” 431a) if the true cross were ever discovered.107 those who do not hold with the fyrngewritu in Precepts commit crimes (“wom”) against the Measurer’s command (“meotudes bibod”).” 561a–2b). ac he on ferðe fægn facnes and searuwa wælriow wunode.//ellen colað. And Precepts concludes. Like the king who cannot protect against oferhygd./be godes bearne. A. In Precepts. Shippey astutely showed how memory functions in the Old English “elegies” as a recollection of past personal experience manipulated 106 The Jews in Elene fear the decline of their ancient ways (“fyrngewritu. “Wite be þissum” (“learn from this”) we hear from the speaker in Vainglory in reference to his story of the proud and humble. possibly like the moral lessons imparted by the “father” in Precepts. we observe how “the wise hero must think ‘cautious speeches’ in his breast. This must be the way in which Hroðgar intends his own gidd and “sermon” to be internalized and recalled. refer to prophecies about the Incarnation (“hu on worulde ær/witgan sungon. The term fyrngewritu is varied by “fæderlican lare” (“paternal or traditional instruction.” 70a). 107 King Ælfred’s description of Nero from Meters of Boethius 9. “the mind decays. Precepts explicitly links ignorance of “ancient writings” to the onset of “wom” or evil.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 219 (67a–8a).” 93b–4b). bizarre commands (“wom [<woh] wunderbebodum”) of a cursed spirit (1747a). but he remained slaughter-fierce. In lines reminiscent of Hroðgar’s imaginary king who follows the “perverted. happy in spirit for enmity and plots. T. By no means did Nero grieve that the mighty lord would ever afterwards mete out vengeance for those perverse iniquities. “gemyne//frode fæder lare/ond þec a wið firenum geheald” (“remember your father’s wise teachings and always keep yourself from crimes. a term which evokes the “ece rædas” the wise are enjoined to observe.//gasthalige guman.” 68b–9b). however./idlað þeodscype. narrative is the only warning against oferhygd. Endowed with strength. his wisdom.” those “eternal counsels” or ece rædas associated with moderation and self-restraint. bizarre commands of an evil spirit. his “earthly joys” or eorðan dreamas. Hroðgar’s “ece rædas” or “eternal counsels” could imply ethical mandates potentially contravened and “punished” by a “Boethian” deity.220 chapter three to “stir up passion” so that it may be “bridled” through “restraint. fact and illusion. fails to curb his zeal. largely the maintenance of his boundaries and the disbursement of the nation’s wealth to his comitatus. in contention with the practical demands of a wrecca’s heroic ambition. and some Beowulfian gidd specifically. As I see it. . tyranny can ruin nations and ultimately discredit one’s heroic reputation. By not suffering any defeats. While culled from disparate contexts.” The king becomes “gram” or “fierce” and now cannot heed “the better. a divine endowment. This statement resonates with Hroðgar’s own unconfirmed sense of divine morality. The king cannot check himself because he does not “know the worse. Ibid. He becomes complacent in his duties.” and he seeks to extend his fortune as his ambition grows.” the poet says of Scyld’s funeral ship. since much of it is directed at one’s false sense of immunity from adversity. once protected by a “shield-wall. the king enjoys political and military success (“weorðmynd”). Practically speaking. he starts to obey the “perverted. an aristocratic genealogy.”108 He describes this operation as an “anguished struggle in the mind between outburst and repression. Then his empathetic or rational faculties. present and past. he becomes “too happy. not only as entertainment but also as philosophical reflection from which one draws consolation. It seems more restrictive. however. a “dart.” 108 109 Old English Verse 58. function the way memory does in The Seafarer. and metaphorically of his soul (50b–2b).” become wounded by a psychological affliction. Old English wisdom literature teaches that curbing one’s ambition and forgoing glory may be both practical and ethical.”109 Anglo-Saxon wisdom literature generally. the foregoing analysis yet enables us to reconstruct the Germanic tyrant’s personality and descent into oferhygd. “Men do not know who received that load.” Succumbing to rancor (“bealonið”). the stages of corruption are reasonably transparent. He neglects “the better.” Moreover. It is often remarked that Scyld’s funeral proves the characters’ skepticism in their (imagined) pagan afterlife. and rule of a nation. but he cannot do any more than offer advice. One emphasis in the sermon on Heremod’s abuse of his retainers adverts to Beowulf ’s own apparent indifference to what The Gifts of Men calls the heanspedigran or “those of less success” (26b). Beowulf expresses traits that resemble those stemming from oferhygd. “heroic” bias. He imagines that he can achieve greater glory. and subalterns object far more strongly to his meaner. Hroðgar’s “fatherly” counsel—wisdom for Germanic noblemen—is simply to identify the symptoms of oferhygd so as to recognize them. A Demonstration of Oferhygd in the Old English “Daniel” The tyrant represented by Heremod and by Hroðgar’s imagined king in the “sermon” is depicted elsewhere in Daniel. most studies of 110 111 Fulk. He seems susceptible to vice of this kind.” For reasons I have outlined in the preceding chapters.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 221 Counsels cannot sway him.111 Both poems express a profile of kings given to oferhygd. He lives alone and comfortless. As hard as it might be to accept. and eventually kills them out of jealousy or fear. since he now believes his decisions to be righteous. neglects to reward them for their loyalty. a focus that has never been stressed enough in the critical tradition. Metrical tests support the case that Beowulf and Daniel are more or less coeval110—written between 725 and 800—although a recent lexical study is inconclusive. Old English Meter 391–2. Yet Hroðgar has also taught him moderation. Whether Beowulf evades oferhygd is a question raised in the dragon episode. In his arrogance the tyrant commits reckless deeds (“fyren”) and either national invasions or hostile acts of extreme terror (“egesa”). Hroðgar sees in Beowulf the potential for this self-destructive oferhygd. Cronan. Is the old king satisfied that lessons have worked? His “warning” suggests faint apprehension. he scorns his own men. and intend to augment in pages to come. . Instead. Otherwise. Beowulf at least seems to crave ever more renown. possibly because of an insuperable defeat that has left his nation bereft. and avoid Heremod’s appalling fate. flee overconfidence. “Joyless” (“dreamleas”). He dies alienated from god’s favor and from men’s praise. “Poetic Words” 48–9. the entire sermon seems otiose as a “general” caution against “pride. He forfeits his higher destiny (“forðgesceaft”). earthly bliss and eternal counsel. and the vainglorious presumption.”113 He goes on to describe oppositions (enhanced by verbal repetitions) between God’s law and devil’s cunning.115 Caie describes the poet’s depiction of a proud “society” (Israel before the captivity) and of two proud Babylonian men. Beowulf cxi (theorizing the indebtedness of Beowulf to Daniel ). 161b. Brodeur.118 On two other occasions the poet reinforces Nebuchadnezzar’s Craigie.116 A slight adjustment to Caie’s scheme changes the poet’s focus from proud men to proud kings.” 151). though rebutted in Klaeber’s Beowulf clxxvii.222 chapter three Daniel rehearse multiple departures from the biblical narrative. of considering one’s good fortune the result of own’s own endeavors. Betty S. 117 Among the earliest to expose the linguistic overlap between Daniel and Beowulf was P. 118 See Caie 4. 268a. Farrell. 114 Ibid. Art of Beowulf 209 (“The parallelism seems superficial to me”). 605a). Caie comes closest to my own view of the Daniel poet’s concern to illustrate biblical kings afflicted by oferhygd: The poet’s aim is to warn his audience in times of prosperity of the dangers of wlenco and oferhygd. such as Lucifer’s. 34–5. Farrell describes the thematic emphasis as a conflict “between Daniel and the Three Children in their struggle against Nabuchodnossor and his line. 449a. Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. 2. tyrants whose reckless behavior endangers entire nations. Alison Jones.” Consistently “swiðmod” (100a. 115 Caie 1.114 In stressing “pride” Graham D. and the poet’s account of him invokes the linguistic symptoms describing Heremod’s rashness. 494a) after the three youths predict no lack of abundance for him and his troops (102a– 3b). “Possible Source. Interestingly. see also Klaeber. 112 113 . Cox 150–1 (“merely a common AngloSaxon recognition of superbia as the weightiest of sins and a common use of it as a topic in Old English poetry. they have never been examined as a linguistic taxonomy describing oferhygd. wisdom and pride.” Daniel and Azarias 30. Thomas. Although vocables shared by Beowulf and Daniel have been noted before. G. just as Heremod is “blodreow.112 Robert T. 528a. Nebuchadnezzar’s portrayal as “wlancan” (96a) at the opening leads to oferhygd (297b. respectively the pride which results from the abuse of worldly gifts. 489b.117 At the opening Nebuchadnezzar is called “wælhreow” (53a). 116 Ibid. Nebuchadnezzar possesses the exact characteristics and fortune of Heremod and of Hroðgar’s imaginary tyrant. ” 1725a) likewise “allows” (“læteð”) the nobleman in Beowulf to experience joy or “lufan” (1727a–8b). Wearð him on slæpe soð gecyðed.” 111b) on unequal terms. þætte rices gehwæs reðe sceolde gelimpan. that the end of every kingdom would happen cruelly. . and lordship. later adding that the king had no rivals at the time of his death (668a–b). “Nis þe wiðerbreca. the tyrant immediately becomes “terrifying to men” (“egesful ylda bearnum. Learning of his prosperity. Nebuchadnezzar becomes “bolgenmod” when defied (209a) and “hreohmod” (“ferocious.” 1724b). how the world was mysteriously created dissimilar for men until its renewal. .” 241a) when he sees the youths unharmed in the furnace. the poet departs from the biblical source by omitting the prophecy. as gifts in Nebuchadnezzar’s world are mysteriously awarded (“wundrum. We learn from the story of the Israelites in Daniel that the Hebrews “had joy and wealth as long as the Measurer allowed them to” (“hæfdon lufan. eorðan dreamas ende wurðan.” 565b–6b). Daniel assures him. and while Daniel interprets the dream.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 223 invulnerability. . The allocation of fortune. Nebuchadnezzar refuses to acknowledge the “wisdom” that Hroðgar approves in own dilation on oferhygd (1724b–34b): . hu worold wære wundrum geteod ungelic yldum oð edsceafte. In Daniel the cruel end of every kingdom is explained in the following line as the end of earthly joy.” 56a–b).” 1730b) but also defines it metonymically 119 I have removed commas after geteod (111b) and dreamas (115a). the termination of earthly joy would occur. com on sefan hwurfan swefnes woma. The truth was made known to him in his sleep. “Mighty god” (“mihtig God. the disturbance of a dream came to roam in his mind. is “mysterious” to relate (“wundor is to secganne. lifwelan/þenden hie let metod. ./nymðe metod ana” (“No man on earth is your adversary but God alone. (110a–15b)119 . says Hroðgar. Hroðgar not only remarks that god bestows “earthly joy” (“eorþan wynne.” 106a) and lives “in oferhygde” (107a).//man on moldan. . Hroðgar describes precisely how the world is “unequal to men”: some have greater wisdom. His irrational reaction is to sharpen his cruelty by heaping more fuel on the fire. land. The details of Nebuchadnezzar’s first dream go unreported in lines 110–15. Uncanny verbal details from this first dream occur in Hroðgar’s sketch of an imaginary tyrant. This “counsel” is said to be “wisdom. ended his earthly joys. .121 In Daniel the “langung eorðan dreamas” (“desire for earthly joy”) repre120 Thomas. . .” 28a–b) only briefly. the same locution used of Hama and the condition which Beowulf is enjoined to choose.” 18a). The failing entails disloyalty (16a) and brings about exile. and Nebuchadnezzar in fact gains nothing from the wisest refugees whom he appoints as his teachers: . .” the other. too. not that he could or would recall that he should thank God for those gifts which the lord had bestowed on him for his power. .” but the Jews believed in the “truth of that wisdom” (“þære snytro soð. “Earthly joy” is opposed to “eternal counsel” (ece ræd). and “longing for earthly joys. 975: Her geendode eorðan dreamas Eadgar.” 18b).224 chapter three as a stronghold of men (1731b)—a kingdom in other words. nales ðy þe he þæt moste þæt he þara gifena þe him þær to duguðe oððe gemunan wolde gode þancode drihten scyrede.” 17a). (85a–7b) . ceas him oðer leoht . The expression “earthly joys” apparently refers to worldly power. Note. “ ‘Beowulf ’ and ‘Daniel A’ ” 537. how this pride enters one’s consciousness through “drunken thoughts” (“druncne geðohtas. elucidating a point not found in the source. not happiness. the “devil’s power” (32a–b).120 The Israelites committed “unriht” (“wrong. Nebuchadnezzar will not acknowledge any authority outside himself and needs to “remember” what he had “forgotten” with the experience of defeat.” the narrator claims. At this moment the text becomes vague. prompted by a “devil’s deeds” (“deofoldædum.a. 121 See the Chronicle poem “Edgar” s. he chose another light for himself.” 23b). King of the English.” 25b) God sent to the Israelites just before Nebuchadnezzar occupied their kingdom. . “seduced them from eternal counsel”: “hie langung beswac//eorðan dreamas/eces rædes” (29b–30b). Moreover. Daniel’s multiple warnings approximate the “lare” (“counsel. . The formulation harks back to the expression “hine fyren onwod” (Beowulf 915b) that described Heremod and seems one way of speaking about moral negligence that degenerates into crime. The Israelites suffered moral blindness and subsequent enslavement because “recklessness entered them (“hie wlenco anwod. he specifically mentions that a foolish king would not imagine his own “ende” (1734b). Hroðgar alleges that no counsel succors a man afflicted by oferhygd. Engla cyning. (1a–2b) Here Edgar. The one is the “lord’s decrees. ” Exile ultimately proves fortunate for Nebuchadnezzar. unriht dyde” (“the estranged nation performed unrighteous deeds.122 More significantly. discontent with one’s position. OE dreamleas occurs only in verse.” 540a) disclosed in the vision: the king is to be sent “on wræc” (“into exile. plunder.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 225 sents political ambition. the second of which predicts his exile.” 123 The population is said to have despised the condition of a holy life (“had oferhogodon/halgan lifes. ece ræd. Daniel had previously predicted that Nebuchadnezzar will be “dreamleas. OE langung in particular expresses “unsatisfied desire. It has not escaped notice that Nebuchadnezzar’s exile follows his acclaim for the Tower of Babel.) complicates the identification of a conversion paradigm in Beowulf. which I have discussed above. in whose “spirit” (“in gast.” 609b): he imagines himself completely safe in his “eard ond eðel” (“dominion and homeland. . Daniel reveals the “egesan” (“terror.” By contrast. a place of “exile. . At this point he is said emphatically to be “alone in his recklessness over all men” (“ana on oferhyd/ofer ealle men.//unræd efnde .” 23b) and “wommas” (“crimes.” 650b) a “rædfæst sefa” (651a) lodges afterwards.” 568b) where he will not recall “mandreame” (570b).” 24a).” 611a). suffers Grendel’s attacks after building his own colossal hall. The term recalls those “rincas rædfæst” in Order of the World who alone benefit from traditional wisdom. must be what the Israelites refuse in abandoning the law (19a–b). Nebuchadnezzar ignores the warning in both dreams. the seduction of kingship. Bosse and Wyatt cleverly identify a “conversion trope. All of this leads to national destruction. I propose that the poet describes how oferhygd is “reproved.” 614a–b). and enslavement. Hroðgar. as their lord had done. built in celebration of earthly “honors” (“to wurðmyndum.” like Heremod (Beowulf 557b). Reminiscent of the “willa” (1739a) which subverts Hroðgar’s imagined king.” 1627b) as an appellation for hell.” 185a–7b). my emph. too. Nebuchadnezzar’s people become “fremde” (185a).” 22b). ./swa hyra frea ærest. Yet the anachronism of Christianity and “reversion to idol-worship” (257. although I would not compare Hroðgar to Nebuchadnezzar as prone to oferhygd. Attested three times in the lexicon. turning towards “gedwolan” (“error.123 when they worship idols: “Fremde folcmægen.” 299a–b). in Christ C it modifies “hus” (“dwelling.” a process of humiliation leading to acceptance of new beliefs. Nebuchadnezzar’s nation is promised an “endelean” 122 Bosse and Wyatt 265–7. committing “unriht” (“unrighteous deeds. the Daniel poet connects national extermination with Nebuchadnezzar’s leadership. like the race of giants depicted on the sword’s hilt. In this context tempting God (“godes frasode. and 124 DOE s. he knew that the “ealdormen” were living in impiety (“in unrihtum. sense a. but it is a national vengeance.v. Daniel insists that Nebuchadnezzar atone for his behavior by saying that “the measurer often allows many nations to make a remedy when they themselves so desire to atone for sin by fasting”: Oft metod alæt wyrcan bote.” 694b) is expressed by OE frasian. Nebuchadnezzar builds his altar. exactly the sort of retribution the giants warranted. Daniel concludes with the downfall of Belshazzar and his Chaldeans specifically because of wlenco (677b). (589a–91a) monige ðeode þonne hie woldon sylfe. Even after Daniel’s warning. whereupon the angel delivers the warning of disaster. Moreover.226 chapter three (“final reward. A warning against oferhygd in the first dream follows a deed (enslavement of the Israelites or “exile”). OE endelean occurs uniquely in these passages of Beowulf and Daniel. but their seven-year preservation is unusually emphasized. One could not call this a genocide like that of the giants depicted on the hilt.”124 Like Nebuchadnezzar and Heremod. after which arises a second warning (dream of the tree). and onmedla (747a). Belshazzar’s enemies overcome him as a matter of fate. As far as the text goes (it ends defective). with its own “warnung” about the dangers of God’s displeasure. The emphasis on the shared fate of the king and his people is prominent throughout Daniel. fyrene fæstan . The Babylonians do not undergo such privations under Nebuchadnezzar. The leader of the Medes then “became confident” (“gehogode. oferhygd (678a). which is then followed by the imagined tower and exile. . Hroðgar imagines the same for the giants and Beowulf. Nebuchadnezzar’s history in Daniel has a structure that replicates that of Beowulf and suggests why Beowulf is episodic. .” 686a) that he could overthrow Babylon. While God allowed the Chaldean “blæd” to flourish.” 187a). Belshazzar performs a deed predicated on his presumed invincibility. Then Belshazzar begins to “tempt” God by eating off the vessels ransacked from the temple. construed as a “Boethian” directive. see also frasung sense 2.” 684b). The verb is emended from frea sæde. Belshazzar’s downfall follows. which could mean “to test by making a demand. . a deed passively “sanctioned” as punishment for the Jews or Babylonians. Beowulf ’s rejection of Hroðgar’s throne reveals a political maturity that Hengest never demonstrated. While it is universally agreed that Beowulf expresses this readiness in his gracious modesty towards Hygelac. but their exposition in the context of oferhygd shows at least one wisdom function that a counselor may have been thought to hold in a Germanic hall like Hroðgar’s. In fact. In this context one is constantly reminded of Daniel’s role as the purveyor of “Germanic” wisdom. For them Beowulf resembles the ambitious Hengest who did not acknowledge the “counsel of the world” until his men threatened to revolt. The sermon culminates Beowulf ’s apprenticeship. Although he has trounced Grendel and Grendel’s mother. Hroðgar’s not-so-subtle guidance begins at Beowulf ’s introduction and peaks with the sermon. Beowulf has managed to suppress not his arrogance but any potential arrogance others. They commonly envision a static Beowulf who has always been generous and trusting. Nevertheless. many critics have wrongly extended this conduct backwards into the Danish adventures. Daniel’s prophecies go unheeded. He seems to be the kind of warrior who would sell out his own men or the kind who would selflessly defend their interests against the worst odds. In the sermon Hroðgar affirms his faith in Beowulf ’s virtue but warns against any failure of moral vigilance. right or wrong. The sermon seems especially troublesome for . In my view. The Analogy of Fremu and Beowulf ’s Emergence into Responsible Kingship Hroðgar and his Danes express anxiety over Beowulf. one senses the poet’s adaptation of source material to the progression of Germanic oferhygd. for which reason they will be puzzled by the anxieties I have been emphasizing. and how to govern the men who make the kingdom strong. or else judged his own competence to a nicety. The Finnsburh episode reveals the disapproving position held by Hroðgar’s retainers. the righteous interpreter of gidd.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 227 Belshazzar’s unrepentant egomania. and the poet concludes Beowulf ’s youthful adventures with a homecoming that proves his readiness for rule. In the case of each king. The old king who has himself experienced oferhygd contemplates Beowulf ’s susceptibility to this fault. he either risked his life and the lives of others unnecessarily. whose standing among them is ambiguous. detected in him. Hroðgar has instructed Beowulf by example and by advice how to moderate behaviors that are potentially reckless. by the end of the Danish section of the poem. the homecoming is exceptionally important in documenting Beowulf ’s self-restraint. wisdom.127 Like any good queen (or lord). . but it also presents a neglected digression that confirms Beowulf ’s “education. Beowulf sails home. Of course. Hygd was not “lowly” (“hnah”) because she had spent few years among Geats.228 chapter three those who resist Beowulf ’s status as a man given to ambition. just recently. Just as he arrives in Geatland.”125 In fact.126 His name means “Impetuosity” or the like. Kaske. Yet the view that Beowulf earns respect in Geatland has no countervailing position: Beowulf ’s loyalty is never impugned in this section. nor too sparing of gifts. “hnah” typically describes male status. Hygelac’s queen. In fact. this neglected digression subtly documents the “education” that I have theorized for Beowulf. nevertheless she was not lowly. Hill has tendered the view that the digression “underlines Beowulf ’s victory-enhanced movement. Hygd (her name means “Thought”) balances her husband Hygelac’s arguable temerity. and humility. of precious treasures for the people of the Geats. Ibid. and. nor does he ever display a whiff of ambition. .” 1926b) but politically mature (“wis wel þungen. . As we have seen. someone who could end up a wrecca.” and the claim that Hygd was not stingy recalls the criticism directed at Heremod. but before I discuss its relevance I want to lay out the evidence of Beowulf ’s kingly accomplishments. who did 125 126 127 Narrative Pulse 66. the casual but copious remarks made about a queen formerly thought to be “Modðryþ(o)” were deemed to emphasize Queen Hygd’s generosity. (1929b–31a) næs hio hnah swa þeah. the poet has shown Beowulf ’s “consecration” (the term is Bonjour’s) in an unparalleled magnanimity followed by a swift summation of Beowulf ’s unprecedented success as a king. the poet anticipates his meeting with Hygd. Geata leodum. Described as “very young” (“swiðe geong. . “ ‘Hygelac’ and ‘Hygd’ ” 201. The Old English hapax legomenon gneað means “stingy. 205. Having taken leave of Hroðgar.” 1927a). generosity. The dragon fight will debate whether Beowulf ever falls from these heights.” In the past. John M. she generously rewards the Geats with treasure: ne to gneað gifa maþmgestreona. The association with Heremod gains prominence when the poet introduces another famous queen right after commending Hygd’s liberality. the nominative form “modþryðo” is unrecorded (hence the common emendation Modþryð). however.130 circumstantially explaining why “modþryðo” was taken to be a personal name. the evidence is stronger that Fremu represents the name of Offa’s queen. Ongan æfþancum agendfrean halsfæst herian.’ ” 129 This passage describes Hagar’s arrogant behavior towards Sarah when Hagar discovers Sarah’s pregnancy: Hire mod astah þa heo wæs magotimbre be Abrahame eacen worden. “modþryðo wæg” has a close parallel in Genesis A 2240b “higeþryðe wæg. In the past the digression concerning this has been thought to pertain to “Modþryð” or “ Modþryðo. in which Offa of Mercia’s queen has a profile identical in many details to the wife of Offa of Angeln in Beowulf. committed dreadful atrocities”). On balance.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 229 fail to reward his men./firen’ ondrysne” (“Modþryðo. wæs laðwendo.” Sources confirm that Offa’s queen was named Cyneþryð. and the episode known as the “Offa-Modþryð(o)” digression ought therefore to be called the “Offa-Fremu” episode.”129 and. (2237a–43b) Her attitude inflated when she became pregnant with a child by Abraham. the expression “firen’ ondrysne” would seem to suit the context as a consequence of “modþryðo. that she “committed modþryðo” or “wilfulness. Fulk has revived Ernst Kock’s proposal that the queen’s name is actually “Fremu” and. Studies 41 note (ii). on the view that “Fremu” is actually Hygd. she began to show supercilious wilfulness towards her lord and owner. . and is identified first as Drida and later as Quendrida. “ ‘Thryth-Offa Digression. see Eliason.”128 Klaeber’s Beowulf now reads: “Modþryðo wæg//Fremu. Key evidence in Fulk’s analysis stems from three observations. Drida and Quendrida disguise the element “þryð(o). Lately. Sisam. exhibited arrogance.” Set against Fulk’s analysis is evidence from the twelfth-century Vitae duarum Offarum. lustum ne wolde þeowdom þolian. Stiffnecked. she would not willingly endure servitude but audaciously began to strive mightily against Sarah. became hostile. ac heo þriste ongan wið Sarran swiðe winnan. folces cwen. terrible atrocities”). following Sisam. famous queen of the people. R. “Offa’s Queen” 623.” on the basis of lines 1931a–2b in Klaeber’s third edition of Beowulf: “Modþryðo wæg. third. D. First.//fremu folces cwen. 130 Fulk. “Offa’s Queen”./firen’ ondrysne” (“Fremu. The nomenclature 128 Fulk. higeþryðe wæg. the people’s queen. Second. Fremu used to accuse members of the comitatus (“nænig . where the arrogant man does not respect the “better. used against his rivals.” “ligetorne.133 Hroðgar pictured how Heremod perpetrated “leodbealo longsum” or “long-lasting national slaughter” by killing his own men. which seems like feminine arrogance: she thinks that the men staring Hieatt 182. swæsra gesiða. I take the liberty of substituting the name “Fremu” (in quotes) for Modþryðo when referring to these scholars’ still valid arguments. Mary Dockray-Miller has proposed alternative readings of multiple terms in this passage: “handgewriþene.” 1933a–4a) who “stared” at her during the day of (presumably) a sexual crime.”131 Like Heremod and other wreccan.” Before becoming Offa’s queen. which spring from a self-indulgent vanity.” “mundgripe. Fremu plausibly kills men who might dominate or desire her. and use brackets identifying Modþryðo as Fremu in quotations.” 1946) after her marriage. The men are subsequently executed. as I cite critics who heeded Klaeber’s argument that Modþryðo was Offa’s queen. not any intradiegetic one of Geats or Danes. . .230 chapter three will appear inconsistent in the following pages. Hieatt reasoned on the basis of significant verbal parallels that “Fremu” was a “feminine reverse-parallel to Heremod. Over two decades ago Constance B. King Offa stopped Fremu’s atrocities. The parallel “higeþryð” from Genesis A 2240b describes Hagar’s supercilious treatment of Sarah in terms reminiscent of Vainglory.132 Having members of the retinue dispatched (“cwealmbealu. one imagines. Unlike other digressions in Beowulf. When reporting that Fremu “committed fewer national killings” (“leodbealewa/læs gefremede.” which can only be construed as “false anger. The poet condemns Fremu’s “ligetorn. “Fremu” commits “fyrene” (1932b).” similar to the trumped-up charges of treason that Heremod. the poet uses the same noun leodbealu that characterizes Heremod’s actions. and she presumably acquired the “cwenlic þeaw” (“queenly custom”) mentioned in 1940b. the newly restored “modþryðo” of 1931b. The intrusion has created the impression among scholars that Fremu’s story has no purpose except to magnify Hygd’s liberality. the Fremu episode only acknowledges the Anglo-Saxon audience.” among others.” 1940a) recalls Heremod’s deaðcwalu inflicted on the duguð (1711a–12b). 131 132 . and this fact alone compromises its narrative function. Yet Fremu’s husband Offa curbs her behavior. 133 Hieatt 182. as Heremod feared being overthrown. . signifies a change in Beowulf. Moderation emerges from the warrior community of the hall. her change from jealous virago to peerless queen. Ibid. it may be more complex than that. but Hygd serves merely as an excuse to introduce Fremu. and this seems very likely. Ibid.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 231 at her are contemptible. It seems disjunctive to mention Beowulf ’s landing and then move swiftly to Hygd and Fremu. is like the first Heremod episode in more than one way. Some could object to the comparison of Beowulf to a woman. Hieatt 177. What kind of change does Beowulf undergo? Hieatt treats “Fremu’s” conduct as an analogue of Beowulf ’s “unpromising youth. In my view.”135 although she denies that Beowulf ever engineered the deaths of men through vanity. 179. with Beowulf also drawn in as another slow-starter on the road to success in life. the Offa-Fremu episode illustrates the parallelism characteristic of the genre. but. for the poet may be making a triple comparison of Hygd/ [Fremu]/Heremod as he earlier made one tripling Sigemund/Heremod/ Beowulf. one who unlike [Fremu] was never at any time guilty of the blood of his companions. whose marriage to Offa answers Beowulf ’s homecoming. Hieatt has to find the analogy with “Fremu” asymmetrical: The [Fremu] episode. the Fremu digression recalls one feature of Hroðgar’s sermon and attests that one’s sociopathy can change. The poet emphasizes the moderation she acquires after leaving her father’s court. By this poetic model.134 In Fremu’s rehabilitation one perceives the poet’s objective to imply Beowulf ’s own transformation from ambitious young warrior to sage ruler. While never called a gidd. like [Fremu].137 Arguing that Beowulf “was never at any time guilty of the blood of his companions” disregards the possibility that he may be directly responsible for Hondscioh’s death and indirectly for Æschere’s. but Deor likened his own situation to that of the pregnant Beaduhild and of Mæðhild. then. the correspondences between Fremu and Beowulf are worth venturing.” as her name implies.136 I sense that. Fremu’s reformation. In my view. Through Offa’s intervention Fremu becomes “splendid. Or. Is it too impressionistic to draw a connection between Fremu’s and Beowulf ’s audacity? The poet remarks that Fremu’s plots were no 134 135 136 137 Kroll 119. having plumped for Beowulf ’s virtue. deprived of Geat’s love. on the other hand. and her customs afflict the warband. and Wealhþeow says that Hroþulf will re-pay his cousins “with good” (“mid gode.” 1184a).” 1950b–1a). Ibid.” 956a). a woman esteemed for good.” the infraction (“hit sceadenmæl/scyran moste. to assume his paternal virtue (“fæderæþelum onfon. “hit sweordes ecg/syððan scede”). the sword “ordained” (“mece geþinged. and the expression “swæsra gesiða” (“[of ] dear companions. 753a. 965a.” 647b). 1106a–b. Due to what sounds like arrogance. 380b.”138 Fremu has left a father for a husband in new relationship emphasizing political responsibilities. while alive. (1951b–3b) There [in Offa’s court] afterwards. cf. The poet describes the execution of these men as a conflict with Fremu. handsome”). 1534a). the entire context sounds “martial”: bondage described as “mundgripe” (“hand-grip.” 911a). On three other occasions in Beowulf (29a. In fact. lifgesceafta ðær hio syððan well gode mære. Andersson has also sensed in the digression: “whatever the exact relevance of the account.” 908a). Yet Fremu heeds her father’s council and moderates her conduct: “be fæder lare//siðe gesohte” (“by her father’s counsel she sought her course. lifigende breac . 2518a). Fremu exhibits extreme sensitivity to insults of honor. .” 1938b. My alleged parallel between Fremu and Beowulf highlights a personal transformation which Theodore M.140 “Tradition and Design” 102. the damascened blade settling “it.” 251a). In general dispensing “good” is the political behavior of a king.” 1938a.232 chapter three “queenly custom. it illustrates that the most startling changes are possible. 182. 140 The noun “god” in Beowulf entails liberality to some extent: a young prince should work “good” with gifts (20b–1a). The poet stated earlier that Heremod’s men wished him to follow a different course (“sið.” OE ænlic means “peerless” (hence “beautiful. cf. “no dear companions” dared approach her. “swæse gesiðas” refers to the most trusted members of one’s retinue. 138 139 . 2040a. an adversary.” even if she were “ænlicu. and it recalls Heremod’s leodbealu.” 1933a–4a) evokes the warband setting. and the only other occurrence in Beowulf describes the coast-warden’s reaction to Beowulf ’s “peerless visage” (“ænlic ansyn. she well achieved her destiny on the throne.139 Fremu’s role at Offa’s court fulfilled her promise: in gumstole. God dispenses favors (“gode. . “hilde geþinged.” 1939a–b. cf. Heremod fails to listen. an experience of political training. and friendship to Hreþric. one might say. producing an heir to lead Offa’s kingdom. However. In fact. Fremu fulfills her promise because she was turned from despotism and vanity. therefore. With Hroðgar’s advice Beowulf learns to moderate behaviors that resemble Heremod’s. dispensing of treasure from a throne. the poet seems to say.” as lifetime accomplishments) recalls the “forðgesceafta” (“destiny. we discover that Fremu bore a famous warrior son. Beowulf has just promised alliances between Geats and Danes. While Beowulf ’s resemblance to Fremu may once have reflected Hunferð’s evaluation of him. “hæleðum to helpe” (“a help to warriors. earning a reputation for generosity. OE onhohsnian derives from a noun “hamstring. Finally.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 233 The term “lifgesceafta” (“destiny.” 1961a). The poet alludes to Beowulf ’s own ambition as a glory-seeker. Beowulf ’s justifications for fighting the dragon will remain unknown to his retinue and second-guessed even after his death. corresponds to Beowulf ’s “education” under Hroðgar. a success acknowledged at their parting: “ne hyrde ic snotorlicor//on swa geongum feore/guman þingian” (“I have not heard men at such a young age negotiate more wisely.” 1842b–3b). who “onhohsnode” (1944) her spiteful behavior. One is struck forcefully by the political nature of these accomplishments: fulfillment of a royal destiny. Eomer. Hroðgar’s campaign to teach Beowulf wisdom has paid off. The “gumstol” or throne represents a political office. In this case Fremu’s marriage to Offa.” as future promise) that Hroðgar’s anonymous king neglects when he turns to oferhygd. not the characters. The change in Fremu’s behavior came about through marriage to Offa.” so that Offa did not simply “check” but “hobbled” Fremu’s violence. What has Beowulf learned from the time spent at Heorot? Is there any evidence that he has acquired the self-restraint that he may have . Beowulf. since the Fremu digression is spoken to the audience. of begetting an ideal king. now that his potential for arrogance has been hobbled. meeting the expectation. All along the poet has reinforced the opposed perspectives of retinue and king. from which position one dispenses the “good” to men. even while his own judgments might be said to favor Beowulf. Beowulf ’s rehabilitation transforms him from possibly callow fighter into levelheaded king. Hroðgar himself expects Beowulf to become “hæleðum to helpe” (1709a) as well. just as Fremu did when she joined her husband’s foreign court. will fulfill the same promising destiny as Fremu. only the narrator confirms Beowulf ’s modified attitude. ” 2080a) to whom “battle was fatal” (“hild onsæge. and for whom Hroðgar has paid compensation.” 141 For the following passages John W. Furthermore. That he is eloquent enough to praise the man [Hondscioh] for whose death he may have felt some guilt. returning Hunferð’s sword—finding no fault with it and even thanking Hunferð for his generosity (1807a–12a)—bestowing a sword on the coast-warden. promising troops to Hroðgar. 142 Edward B. Being first to fall was high praise for one’s courage. 359. . Among Geats. They suggest that he was overcoming an earlier reputation which the narrator refers to at the end of the scene” (146). in Narrative Pulse 58.” 2079a).142 Beowulf ’s education can be observed in many significant actions: having his men wait on the edge of Grendel’s mere. Irving suggests that Beowulf is Hroðgar’s and Hygelac’s model rather than vice versa (356. reminding Hygelac that warriors fall in battle. a “champion” (“cempa. then. whom he had never mentioned before. 360–1). Irving. the consequence of wisdom. Naming a man’s killer. do the details in Beowulf ’s long speech to Hygelac suggest? That Beowulf used his speech to warn. That he is eloquent enough to stress his own valor in defeating an otherworldly foe of gigantic proportions. and a “beloved man” (“leofes mannes. here in the first half of the poem . manner of death. which seems rather to usurp Hygelac’s prerogatives. [These observations] merely suggest that the young Beowulf was still finding his place. or at least to hint. however. by the time he leaves Heorot. Beowulf honors Hondscioh’s death at Grendel’s hands in lavish terms: a “famous young nobleman” (“mærum maguþegne. Hondscioh now earns praise for “fighting”—even though he was snatched in his sleep. Hroðgar has taught Beowulf how to lead men—the duguð—by which force a king magnifies the influence he earned as a fighter. 143 Hill has investigated the complexities of Beowulf ’s astonishing treaty. . and deposition seems to have been customary. Anonymous and apparently expendable before the fight.” 2078a). Schwetman has suggested views completely opposite to my own: “What. Jr. having come home. proposes that characters are made to emulate each other in heroic poetry (“Heroic Role-Models”).234 chapter three lacked in the Hunferð confrontation?141 The Fremu digression suggests that Beowulf has developed a political sensibility. of a size hardly hinted at by the narrator’s description. . Hondscioh was first to fall (2077b).” 2076b).143 and declining to meddle in the Danish succession. that the Danes might once again stand in need of aid (though not mentioning that he had pledged such aid). And that he has become a hero vital to the survival of another people . That he desires to appear wise to his own people as he has to the king of the Danes. so Beowulf describes Grendel as a muðbona or “devourer” (2079b) and remarks that Hondscioh’s remains were not recoverable: “[Grendel] swallowed the whole body” (“lic eall forswealg. . Beowulf compliments Hondscioh. . Beowulf ’s flattering remarks. In other words.” 1330b). “Horror in Beowulf. Beowulf requited every death that Grendel caused. and escalation will inevitably result as Ingeld’s love for his wife “grows cool” (2066b). In my mind it predicts a moment when Hygelac and the Geats might be called upon to fight for Hroðgar. since the murderer he foresees will have escaped. He has learned generosity. that a sword worn by a Dane in the Heaðobard episode actually resolves the complication of the sword bestowed on Hengest. We recognize the gambit from Hroðgar’s reception of Beowulf. In these terms Beowulf explains why a traditional service—with a pyre. the war unjustly provoked. see Owen-Crocker. a Heaðobard invasion matches the circumstances under which Beowulf has promised a thousand Geatish 144 On the relevance of Beowulf ’s comment.144 Moreover. from Hroðgar’s reaction to Æschere’s death: naming the hero. In the previous chapter I mentioned how Beowulf patterns his narrative on the Finnsburh digression.” 1827a–b). On the one hand.” . I think. Beowulf likewise honors his men the way a king would honor his duguð. On the other hand. Beowulf has successfully completed an apprenticeship. but mature enough to be betrothed and to serve men in the hall. The Heaðobard digression is yet another demonstration of Beowulf ’s acumen.” 2082a). the killer of Hondscioh’s “bloody-toothed slayer” (“bona blodigtoð. including Hondscioh’s: “ic ðam leodsceaðan//yfla gehwylces/ondlean forgeald” (“I made requital for every evil on that national scourge. specifically settling the Wylfing feud. Beowulf plants the first seed that the time for Hyeglac’s aid may not be far off: Freawaru is still too young for marriage. which honor a man who died without lifting a sword. Beowulf asserts that Hroðgar’s position will be defensive.” 2093b–94b). Beowulf committed a Geatish force specifically to repulse invasion: “þæt þec ymbsittend/egesan þywað” (“that your neighbors intend invasion. when the old king re-contextualizes Beowulf ’s journey to Denmark as reparation for Hroðgar’s consideration for Ecgþeow. praising his warfare.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 235 2080b). as many have observed. reveal a new motivation for Beowulf ’s fight: vengeance rather than glory. perhaps—did not take place. Alternative justice will not be possible. Much has been written about the Heaðobard episode but little on its function in Beowulf ’s speech. Beowulf casts himself in the role of avenger. identifying Grendel’s mother as the handbana (“bare-handed killer. In respecting the fallen. . (2152a–7b) He commanded the boar figure. þæt ic his ærest ðe eaforheafodsegn. Van Meter has persuasively affirmed that “the artifact is the tangible and intergenerational source of status and power for a bloodline. est gesægde. and to transfer the artifact to an heir is to assert the societal rank 145 Reichl 363. owned it for a long time. Afterwards Beowulf recited a message: ‘Hroðgar the wise king gave me this battlegear. hare byrnan. David C. breostgewædu. Beowulf has called Hygelac “young” (1831b) but willing to support Beowulf. In his remarks and actions Beowulf both acknowledges his newly acquired prestige and minimizes his ambition at home. gyd æfter wræc: Hroðgar sealde. possibly ‘wise words’ ”145 ignores the implicature of Beowulf ’s utterance: cwæð þæt hyt hæfde leod Scyldunga no ðy ær suna sinum hwatum Heorowearde. lange hwile. though Heoroweard was loyal to him. He is likewise seen to understand the magnitude of Hroðgar’s adoption. lord of the Scyldings. and it seems likely that Beowulf has begun to educate Hygelac on a beneficial alliance. By no means would he give such breast-ornaments to his own son.236 chapter three spears (1826a–35b). a leader’s standard. Beowulf ’s distribution of Hroðgar’s dynastic riches constitutes a final illustration of Beowulf ’s political intuition and royal apprenticeship.’ Karl Reichl’s reasoning that “gyd cannot mean ‘poem’ or ‘song’ here but must have a more ‘neutral’ meaning. þeah he him hold wære. a battle-tall helmet. an exemplum by which Hygelac can appraise Hroðgar’s esteem: Het ða in beran heaðosteapne helm. He said that King Heorogar. and to follow Hroðgar’s plan of delivering the Danish treasures to Hygelac with a specific codicil. to be brought in. grey mailcoat. blessed Heoroweard. syllan wolde. (2158a–62a) Hiorogar cyning. Me ðis hildesceorp snotra fengel. splendid battle-sword. guðsweord geatolic. The narrator claims that this speech comprises a gidd. sume worde het. He commanded that I first say a few words to you about the magnanimity of it. Hill suggests that Beowulf ’s explanation of Hroðgar’s generosity is false (Narrative Pulse 72). Beowulf publicizes that he will not become a usurpatious nephew or. In the most extravagant and convincing terms.” 2159b) suggests a precocious aptitude for war that may have led to Hroðgar’s own “election” as king. 146 147 . 149 “Danish Succession” 181. Beowulf reveals the value of accomplishment and Hroðgar’s estimation of him not merely as a loyal “son” (Heoroweard’s status) but as great fighter. a despicable tyrant. He remains Hygelac’s nephew and thane. Oddly. I see no reason why Hroðgar could not have spoken privately to Beowulf about the disposition of these treasures now that Beowulf will not become king of Danes. Hill has reasoned. he does not undervalue Hroðgar’s adoption. Beowulf understands the “gyd” of the sword’s bestowal.149 Relevant in the implicit wrecca context that I have theorized is Beowulf ’s profession of loyalty. Beowulf accepts Hroðgar’s designation as “son” but yields this status to Hygelac.148 Apparently. affirmation of retainership. a man prepared to challenge his own kin for supremacy. he wants Hygelac to appreciate the value of his loyalty in the sacrifice of such material and relational benefits. Beowulf both flatters Hygelac and analogizes his renunciation of the Danish throne. See Kaske. and exceptional “son” worthy of rule. On such terms he situates himself in this analogy as comparable to the unworthy nephew “Heoroweard” who remained loyal to the rightful king. Beowulf minimizes his own political allegiance with the Danes as Hroðgar’s retainer and heir. That Heorogar owned the sword for a “long time” (“lange hwile. “Weohstan’s Sword. loyal servant. awarding Heorogar’s sword to Beowulf evokes all three of Van Meter’s explanations for transferring weapons: legitimation of an heir. and reward for service. wielder of a dear father’s weapon. In bestowing the sword on his own king. This exaggerated gesture yet brings out what had earlier been thought of Beowulf as a potential wrecca. but this passage rather implies that kingship is earned and conferred.147 In telling this analogy. Moreover. Heoroweard did not show the same promise as Hroðgar. Like Van Meter 178.the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hroðgar’s “sermon ” 237 and authority of a bloodline into another generation. then. Beowulf instead will leverage them to become a sub-king of Geats. As John M. the history of the sword recounted in Beowulf ’s brief gidd proclaims the terms by which Beowulf rejects these magnificent gifts and implicit mutuality.”146 In this case. Astonishly. by extension. and his gesture radiates goodwill.” 148 It has been suggested that Hroðgar has usurped Heorogar’s claim. oðrum swiðor side rice þam ðær selra wæs.” 2181b). Beowulf secured prosperity and fame.150 The poet closes with a summary of ideals associated with kingship. [ruled] a more extensive realm. this conspicuous humility disarms any anxiety attending Beowulf ’s triumph. Those who see Beowulf as a Fürstenspiegel perhaps come closest to appreciating the poem’s movement as one of apprenticeship and initiation.” as the poet maintains: Him wæs bam samod on ðam leodscipe lond gecynde. not weave a malicious trap for another kinsman by secret plotting.238 chapter three the meeting with the coast-warden. some of which I have discussed elsewhere. Because Hygelac is superior in rank. This final reckoning answers Beowulf ’s characterization in youth as an “æðeling unfrom” (“cowardly nobleman. as we learn. but [Hygelac]. Beowulf rejects the ambition that would ensue from supreme accomplishment and embraces loyalty—even though the Geats had mistreated him earlier. In acknowledgment of the Heremod stories. in territory and in jurisdiction. (2196b–9b) They both ruled the land together. The passage underscores Beowulf ’s deflection of heroic egotism and does not celebrate heroic virtue per se. preparing death for a close comrade. Beowulf avoids the spiteful plotting against a superior that afflicts the reckless man full of oferhygd in Vainglory 33a–44a.” 2188a) by charting his progress from an ambitious fighter to a beloved king. a “very loyal nephew” (“nefa swyðe hold. who was the better man there. 150 . Beowulf is said never to have slain his drunk hearth-companions or expressed a savage disposition. He becomes.151 He ruled with the greatest skill (“mæste crafte. oðrum bregdon deað renian So should a young kinsman behave. By alluding to Heoroweard’s situation as Hroðgar’s complacent nephew. 151 Palmer 11. eard eðelriht.” 2170b) and ultimately fulfills the dictum that Heremod neglected: nealles inwitnet dyrnum cræfte. he is the “better man. (2166b–9a) Swa sceal mæg don. hondgesteallan. The poet’s emphasis could not be more transparent: by avoiding the vices of Heremod and Fremu. invite us to weigh the prospect of 1 John M. first as a series of approximately twenty arrivals and departures (that include “approaches and returns or exits. or tyrannous. traditional readings of Beowulf ’s demise have nearly always tried to downplay any hint of criticism. his deliberate coyness is meant to frustrate any conclusive evaluation of Beowulf ’s decisions and behavior. those of Beowulf. the poem’s coda. Beowulf ’s homecoming. Hroðgar predicts Beowulf ’s future kingship. offensive. The dragon episode. extends this reflection on heroic restraint by inviting a final assessment of Beowulf ’s wisdom. in my view. Beowulf exhibits the self-discipline and leadership he acquired abroad. He emerges into a responsible kingship that values the warband and its stake in political stability. for which he is readied by Hroðgar’s counsel and the earnest warnings implicit in the old king’s admonitory gidd. Innumerable and irresolvable ambiguities continue to impart for us the nature of Beowulf as potentially immoderate. in elaboration of the hero’s presumed virtue.CHAPTER FOUR BEOWULF’S DRAGON FIGHT AND THE APPRAISAL OF OFERHYGD Often divided into halves.). With few exceptions. To a large extent the dichotomy between heroic action and kingship motivates the dragon-fight. achieves an improbable balance of countervailing judgments. In the second part of the poem. and in fact. structural views of Beowulf ” in Narrative Pulse in two ways. Hill summarizes the “large-scale. the whole scope of Beowulf as presented here. a king whose actions may be indecorous. and second as a work in two parts: “the extended account of the Danish dynasty” (3) and the “awakening of the dragon” (ibid. . but in this final appraisal of Beowulf ’s leadership. his warband. and the narrator. But the conventions of oferhygd.1 In the first the young Beowulf may be thought to display either warrior virtue or the ambition associated with wreccan. Although the poet discloses multiple contours of oferhygd as laid out in Hroðgar’s sermon. The expression of Beowulf ’s motivation. Beowulf falls more naturally into three parts.” 4). the poet also contemplates Beowulf ’s potential for oferhygd. however glorious. My own position on Beowulf ’s dragon fight partially coincides with that of John Leyerle.” (81).” Beowulf wants to perform a heroic deed by killing the dragon. was apt to be a mortal threat to his nation. with some vital exceptions. 93. it would be erroneous to say that the Germanic king has to imperil his people. but society requires a king who acts for the common good. However. He imagines that. Rereading Beowulf 80–1: “[Leyerle] blames Beowulf for personal vanity and insufficient attention to his people’s needs. although the Beowulf poet suggests that such rulers may betray a passionate urge to win glory. Leyerle quotes Leyerle.”3 Citing the Heremod exempla. 4 Ibid. whose underappreciated article. “Beowulf the Hero and the King” proposed a “fatal contradiction at the core of heroic society”: “The hero follows a code that exalts indomitable will and valour in the individual. First. the nature of a pagan curse on the treasure.”4 Although critics have been slow to welcome Leyerle’s views. 2 3 . the splintering of Beowulf ’s sword. and the innumerable passages declaring Beowulf ’s potential recklessness (all examined here). “Hero and the King” 89.”6 unless it were under the most dire circumstances. 97 resp. let alone concede them. I do not think that “heroic society inevitably encouraged a king to act the part of a hero. Ibid. Leyerle’s treatment of Heremod manifests this deterministic approach to heroic kingship. not for his own glory.240 chapter four a ruinous failing. Once we admit the mere possibility that Beowulf succumbs to oferhygd. 98. and perceive his own self-doubt. the double death of Beowulf and his adversary. Carolingian sources on royal power.”2 Leyerle asserts Hroðgar’s misgivings over Beowulf ’s “tendency to unreflective confidence in his own strength” and reasons that “the heroic king. he concludes. This is a way of distorting meaning by implying the presence in the poem of options that do not exist . maintaining that Beowulf brings ‘dire affliction’ upon them by his unnecessary death. because Heremod died “killing giants. the more likely his tendency to imprudent action as king. . . the conspicuous vice of oferhygd. 5 See the remarks of Irving. we can appreciate the social or literary context for the poem’s anomalous incidents: the decision to enlist only a handful of exceptional warriors but to leave them out of the fight.5 they coincide with those I present here. 6 “Hero and the King” 97. The greater the hero. “men who had been accustomed to conduct suitable to an individual hero could not adjust to the rather different conduct suitable to a king. Irving. Magoun. compare Brodeur’s sentiment. Edward B. then. Swanton’s book makes a strong case for the negative Beowulf but does not allow for the virtue which I think is equally emphasized. “Béowulf B. Andersson envision a “rhythm of sorrow and relief ” (the terms are Andersson’s) leading to redemption. he chooses to do so.” 9 “Monsters and the Critics” 32. “Tradition and Design” 102. Beowulf may undertake a reckless deed because he cannot reconcile his own ambition with “mondream.7 Finally. oferhygd itself should not be defined as the expression of heroic behavior by kings but rather as the unconscious subversion of kingship by the appetites of powerful. but I would emphasize the opposite: a concern for continuity and prosperity. see Swanton.10 Again. arguably reckless men like wreccan.12 In emphasizing community as the “controlling theme” of Beowulf. no ascertainable social expectation or imperative of Germanic kingship compels Beowulf to fight the dragon. John Niles suggests that 7 On the position that oferhygd afflicts Beowulf. 11 A Reading of Beowulf 205. From my perspective.”11 Others are not so pessimistic: Phyllis Rugg Brown and Theodore M. for example. Does the brilliance of youth in the Grendel fight contrast the decline of age in the dragon section. I do not contend that Beowulf must be guilty of oferhygd. One of the exceptional merits of Leyerle’s article has been to harmonize the first two parts of Beowulf—the Grendel fights and homecoming—with the enigmatic single combat of the dragon episode. 12 Respectively “Cycles and Change in Beowulf ”. the “shadow of ineluctable doom” (Art of Beowulf 83). for reasons of oferhygd or national security. The abrupt transition at line 2200 has prompted more than a few critics to think that the dragon episode represents an afterthought of sorts. of “mondream. Crisis and Development 140–54. only that he could be guilty of it: the poet gives evidence on both sides.” and his prestige displaces the national interest. 8 See. one in which the dragon episode represented “the slow erosion of [heroic] identity by time. Jr. 10 Structure of Beowulf 26.” as it is known in Old English verse. . as Tolkien alleged?9 Tolkien’s Oxford colleague Kenneth Sisam posed the same contrast—“the two parts of the poem are to be solidly bound together by the opposition of youth and age”—but he found Beowulf triumphant. proposed a reading in general accord with Tolkien’s.8 Those who wish to connect the dragon and Grendel episodes disagree on what links them.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 241 a letter of Alcuin’s stating “mors regum miseriae signum est” in illustration of the consequences he foresees in heroic kingship. The poet has formulated equally opposed. reasons why Beowulf may or may not exhibit oferhygd in the dragon fight. O’Loughlin concludes that the dragon episode of Beowulf concerns “the settlement of feuds in conflict with kings and people who will not or cannot come to terms. neither can be proven. My own view is that Beowulf ends with an invitation to judgment in an incident of excruciating complexity. but they consistently resolve it in Beowulf ’s favor. impressionistic “themes” generated by twentieth-century Formalism.”14 Some positions are negative in a different sense. Niles posed four questions pertaining to Beowulf ’s responsibility in a chapter. but as Niles develops the chapter. outlining the precise issues that would impugn Beowulf ’s judgment. but delicately expressed. where Beowulf expresses either courage by killing Grendel or recklessness by jeopardizing his men. Among the best of these was contributed by John Niles.”15 Fidel FajardoAcosta determines that the dragon’s attack punishes Beowulf for the “past crime” of killing Grendel and Grendel’s mother.16 Resolutions like these most often express grand. . Du Bois 401. The impulse to exonerate Beowulf from any whiff of oferhygd has entailed some scrupulous readings of this episode. “The Fatal Contradiction. N.” from his book Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition.242 chapter four the dragon fight discloses the “continuing vulnerability of human society. a result of overconfident pride and careless sloth leading to a debasement of Geats. who intuited key intricacies of the dragon fight. his method perfectly maps the poet’s intentional equivocations as I draw them. rather than the restoration of communal order. In the dragon episode it must be pointed out that others have observed Beowulf ’s potential for oferhygd. By no means would I imagine Beowulf ’s motivation to be obvious or simple.” J. 13 14 15 16 Beowulf 230. ambitious heroes. L. and frequently entail the reduction of awkward conundrums to manageable intelligibility. as a symbol of arrogance. While both positions have formidable evidence. Arthur E. Du Bois made the case that the dragon. The heading “Fatal Contradiction” at least gives a nod to Leyerle’s position. This proposition perfectly harmonizes with my reading of the Grendel fight. or by just facing Grendel and Grendel’s mother.”13 Having found that the digressions emphasize “presumptuous. implicated Beowulf in a national failure: “his fault is originally similar to Hroþgar’s. Condemnation of Heroism 106. O’Loughlin 13. . Wiglaf testifies.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 243 Niles’s answers to these contradictions betray an unalloyed optimism for Beowulf ’s virtue. . lete hyne licgean þær he longe wæs. Ibid. a position he continues to hold in his contributions to the influential Beowulf Handbook. the interpretation has been removed from Klaeber’s Beowulf. . Klaeber proposed “for the sake of ” in this single instance (s. tried to dissuade Beowulf from an attack: Oft sceall eorl monig anes willan wræc adreogan. The Nature of the Dragon Niles first asks the paramount question posed in the dragon fight: “Is Beowulf ’s decision to fight the dragon imprudent?”17 Evidence for this alleged imprudence comes after Beowulf ’s death. Ne meahton we gelæran leofne þeoden. showing just where the poet intended us to intuit Beowulf ’s virtue. “ ‘Until the Dragon Comes . The lengths to which distinguished critics will go just to exonerate Beowulf always surprise: Mitchell.”18 As far as I have been Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition 235–47. and the retainers. We could not teach our dear prince. rices hyrde ræd ænigne. But this is not vital. 17 18 .’ 8: “the anes could well be the thief who first plundered the dragon’s hoard . dwell in the precincts until the world’s ending. 238. . he questions whether the phrase “anes willan” means “through one man’s will” or “for the sake of one [person]. I will be resisting Niles’s positivism. Wiglaf criticizes Beowulf ’s retaliation. protector of the kingdom. wicum wunian oð woruldende. First. In this dialogue. probably because he found Wiglaf ’s potential criticism inconsistent with his view of Beowulf ’s heroism. I intend to answer its questions just as he dealt them. just let him lie where he had been for so long. But because his volume Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition has dealt so thoughtfully with the subject of Beowulf.” These comments ignore the context apparent in my translation above. any counsel that he not meet the gold-guardian. (3077a–83b) Many a nobleman must often suffer agony for the desire of a single man. Niles challenges Wiglaf ’s apparent disapproval on two fronts. as has happened to us.v. and where he otherwise rendered more disparaging (or at least equivocal) symptoms of a darker trait. swa us geworden is. willa). þæt he ne grette goldweard þone. 19 Narrowly interpreted. But this answer is not acceptable. . the worst pain. such as Hroðgar’s agony over Grendel’s unabated hostility in line 170a. see also Irving. . Nor I do not think it possible to read OE mæst as an adverb. Beowulf. Warrior Ethic: “. Beowulf ’s decision precipitated this crisis. but paradoxical for the angry and wakeful” (31).” Second. but Klaeber’s assignment of the genitives makes better sense. Nor is this Wiglaf ’s only criticism of Beowulf. while seeming to set their plight as an outcome of something like high willfulness or tyranny on the part of one person.). . willfulness presumably rendered Beowulf deaf to the offstage advice (ræd) Wiglaf and others offered that he. good advice for sleeping dragons. especially in light of the subsequent statement that Beowulf did not heed the retainers’ advice. . but not the Geats generally.” therefore. because he performed the most famous deeds of men. While OE wræc means “pain. the expression “swa us geworden is” (“as has happened to us. mærða gefremede. . . my emph. .” Irving is reluctant to acknowledge what he deems “inconsistent” (127). who were unable to deter him from the irrational venture. But OE wræc can denote extreme suffering. (2642b–6a) . the most reckless acts.20 19 See Hill. þeah ðe hlaford us ana aðohte folces hyrde. should leave the enraged dragon alone . Niles’s argument that “wræc” means present (emotional) suffering over Beowulf ’s death rather than future national suffering strikes me as partial to his optimism. “Wiglaf has identified himself with them and them with him. OE willa always means “desire” or “gratification.” and comparable expressions with OE willa plus genitive never mean “for the sake of. Rereading Beowulf 126–7: “We could conclude that the Geatish nation has been ruined because of Beowulf ’s arrogant folly in daring to fight the dragon. for in line 2646b he calls his lord’s assault on the dragon “reckless” or even “foolish”: þis ellenweorc to gefremmanne. Hill likewise presumes that “Wiglaf and the nobles” suffer this pain. 20 It is possible to translate “mæst” apo koinou. and he concedes. . Niles and Irving (Rereading Beowulf 126) follow McGalliard in deriving this statement from Wiglaf ’s grief. . the retainers “suffer pain” not just for Beowulf ’s death but for a host of anticipated conflicts which have just been foretold by the messenger.” 3078b) seems like it could refer only to Beowulf ’s death. although our lord intended to perform this deed of courage alone. His conceited and inflexible willa has destroyed him and with him his people. but I have tried to show that such liminality is consistent in Beowulf ’s character. his “destiny was too firm”: “wæs þæt gifeðe to swið” (3085b). in this case Beowulf ” (Narrative Pulse 86. .244 chapter four able to determine. forðam he manna mæst dæda dollicra. 24 While OE dol and related terms are always pejorative. 23 Ibid.” betray the anxiety of critics who find Beowulf consistently virtuous. 26 Ibid.”23 Precepts conveys that drunkenness gives rise to “dollic word. The only other occurrence of OE dollic.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 245 A problem lies in construing OE mæst (“most.” which I have rendered “reckless.”22 Frisby notices an important detail.” with the sense “superior. Robinson defended the position of Norman E. Frisby. from Wulfstan’s “Institutes of Polity.” He implicitly intended: “because he performed the greatest number of glorious deeds of men.” but “the most reckless acts. i. who concludes that “dol and dollic have the same purpose in prose and in poetry: to express disapproval.” rather than “of men. scholars have tried ingenious ways of neutralizing Wiglaf ’s criticism of Beowulf ’s deeds. in saying that “the bitter irony in Wiglaf ’s usage turns the pejorative sense against the cowardly retainers rather than against Beowulf.”25 In brief remarks on this passage Eliason rendered “mæst” in the approving sense “superior” rather than the potentially unflattering way suggested by the superlative: “among men he achieved the greatest of glory and of foolish deeds.” rather than the superlative of OE micel. 455. 60.e. . of foolhardy acts. “Beowulf Notes” 454–6. which Klaeber interpreted as the superlative of OE ma “more. not praise. 25 Robinson. “biggest.” which he parses either as a genitive plural (as here).v. Eliason. wenn er sich selbst zum Kind macht durch törichtes Tun oder Benehmen”). s.” as the glossary documents. or an accusative plural with singular meaning. 24 Jost 267: “þæt næfre ne geriseð/to geonclic wise/ne ealdan esne/þæt he hine sylfne/on dollican dædan” (“noch ist es für einen alten Knecht [Gottes] ohne Tadel. In a reply to Frisby’s article.21 Although OE mæst plus genitive is frequently translated as “greatest of. Fred C. Eliason. Eliason seems to have translated “manna” as “among men.” suggests that “dollican dædan” suit children.” 2645a).”26 Robinson at 21 The editors of Klaeber’s Beowulf retain Klaeber’s interpretation “ma. The relevant attestations have been gathered by Deborah S. “Further Word” 12.” dependent on “mærða.” here it should be expressed straightforwardly by the superlative: Beowulf could be said to commit not “the greatest of reckless acts. greatest.” Translations of “dollicra. that being “wise” (“snottor” and “wis”) occasionally challenges being “dol.” the kind of thoughtless gloating that identifies vainglorious boasters. 22 Frisby 59.” Yet the context presupposes “greatest”—Beowulf intended to fight alone because he had always performed the most eminent deeds worthy of praise. who are irresponsible and incapable of self-restraint. Narrative Pulse 87. the dragon . Rather. The “tyrant” disregards his warband and gambles his own and his men’s lives on expeditions for glory that imperil the entire nation. and perceived. and were chosen for this expedition. . then. dispels Wiglaf ’s potential arrogance (in resigned acknowledgment of the challenge they faced).28 In fact. 29 Frisby 61. as Wiglaf acknowledges. This and the expression “anes willan” recall the earlier description of Heremod in Hroðgar’s sermon as satisfying his own “desires”: “ne geweox he him to willan” (1711a) and “him eal worold//wendeð on willan” (1738b–39a). half resigned and half resolved. In one sense. Wiglaf ’s attitude. . They swore oaths. the retainers do not find it expedient or necessary to provoke the dragon. ‘One’ could refer to Beowulf.” Yet Wiglaf ’s protest does not. most occur- “Further Word” 11–12. . relieve the retainers of their duty. not the Geats’ territory. and endears them to Beowulf: “he always was attracted to danger . a central feature of the oferhygd complex. that Wiglaf does not disparage the retainers in ignorance of Beowulf ’s potential folly.246 chapter four once impeached Frisby’s reading and upheld Eliason’s by invoking the diversity of an audience’s “perceptiveness and sensitivity”—that we moderns (i.”29 The comitatus gains glory from loyalty. Hill. Wiglaf ’s “assessment” of Beowulf ’s deeds as reckless reveals what Eliason and Robinson could be said to perceive. the man who first plundered the hoard .e. . Frisby poses the better solution: “That Wiglaf should have such a moment of critical thought need not detract from his loyalty. .” 3083a).” 2639b). in theory. divulges the rift between king and comitatus.”27 Yet to dismiss Wiglaf ’s reproach of “mæst dollicra dæda. even if the king acts recklessly. Wiglaf will mention that Beowulf chose the retainers for the dragon fight “sylfes willum” (“at his own desire. Wiglaf says they counseled Beowulf to let the dragon lie—let him dwell in his precincts (“wicum wunian. felt. indeed. Beowulf: An Edition 157 note to line 3077: “ ‘through the will of one’. The term “wicum” here refers to the dragon’s lair. Clearly. his loyalty is enhanced when we see it complemented by a keen assessment of Beowulf ’s actions. In fact. accepted treasures. . 27 28 .” No mention is made of the context. Frisby) have yet to divine how “discerning and sensitive people in other times thought.” Robinson must also defer the grievance implicit in “anes willan”—a suspicion that goes unanswered. or wyrd. See Mitchell and Robinson. that retainers tried to dissuade Beowulf from the fight. Accusing Beowulf to the warband validates the retainers’ fear. ”30 the witan’s proposition to let it sleep in its barrow forever must represent a legitimate solution to the crisis. as it has done since awaking. The dragon may attack the Geats nightly. however. The scenario resembles that of Danes at Heorot: joyless lives of dread and humiliation. Grendel and the dragon act at night. But while Beowulf ’s dragon is figuratively Hroðgar’s Grendel. We cannot therefore suspect that the Geats would let it drive them to extinction without hazarding a reprisal. only that they both came to power. and its behavior may be unpredictable. these passages do not mean that both enemies expressed the same kind of power. Pace Hill. who “was powerful” (“rixode. The Nature of Beowulf ’s Dragon While Niles has concluded that “the poet does not specify the dragon’s intentions. . In this unlikely scenario. the dragon looms so much larger than Grendel ever did. no doubt mortifying but tolerable when compared to the alternative. But could the Geats expect a mitigation over time? The dragon’s behavior is not drawn finely enough for us to judge. of something he and the remaining nobles attempted but which of course they did not. which “began to be powerful” in Geatland (“ongan . But what if such a reprisal were thought suicidal? The risk of death has to be weighed against the prospect of the dragon’s attacks. Beowulf 240. the dragon could re-awaken at an unspecified date. ricsian. These remarks invoke a parallel commonly drawn between the dragon. Even the Danes attacked Grendel—for a time. . Perhaps some Geats even hoped that the dragon was satisfied in its fiery retribution and that it had gone back to sleep for three more centuries. To escape Grendel’s raids Hroðgar and his men only need to sleep in the outbuildings. Narrative Pulse 87: “Wiglaf here raises the fiction of counsel.31 As a national scourge.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 247 rences of OE wic in Beowulf refer specifically to Grendel’s abode. but the retainers’ counsel to let the dragon lie implies that its threat could be accommodated.” 30 31 . In Beowulf OE ricsian (rixian) is used only in these two passages.” 2210b–11b) and Grendel. The dragon seems quite different from Grendel. the retainers resist engagements. led in expectation of future relief. The parallels seem indisputable: Beowulf and Hroðgar are old.” 144a) in Heorot. but since the theft of a cup aroused him in the first place. especially in respect to warband security. Beowulf ’s decision. evaluating the evidence for Hunferð’s perspective (restraint that looks like “cowardice”) or Beowulf ’s (action that looks like “recklessness”). one should approach the dragon fight like the Hunferð digression. see Reading of Beowulf 155. or has he finally exceeded his capacity and tempted God’s favor? Both views are held at one and the same time. and death. Of course. fighting Grendel decimated their ranks—until Hroðgar came to understand the magnitude of his expectation and relented. but he accommodates their position by stationing them in the woods and enlisting their aid under the strictest terms. Beowulf ’s decision to fight the dragon may rest in no small part on his perception of it as sentient and evil. Hroðgar faced a (mere) troll. Their policy towards the dragon resembles Hroðgar’s towards Grendel. Beowulf ’s plan still puts his men in jeopardy. Beowulf thinks that he will prevail and that his men will not need to risk their lives. The central conflict pits the king against his warband. admittedly. Because it inflicts greater ruin more widely. and both are justified on the basis of deliberate equivocacies and contradictions. As I shall propose. and even though Beowulf may be thought greater than Hroðgar. 32 . for example. Therefore. Hroðgar did not fight Grendel directly. perhaps unfairly. Beowulf disavows the advice of his own retainers. even if they reject proposed solutions to them. the way Beowulf fights the dragon. Beowulf ’s act may bring about exactly what it was intended to forestall: devastation.248 chapter four one has trouble imagining unmotivated periodic attacks. Is Beowulf ’s fight proportionate to his accomplishments. however. Worse.32 Yet as I shall show. and the risk greater. seems to face a choice at least more exaggerated than Hroðgar’s. At the start. One thinks ultimately that Irving has argued that Beowulf ’s scenario lets the individual decide whether to attack. and when. however. none of these questions is actually voiced in Beowulf. The decision whether and when to risk their lives will be theirs alone. he faces a dragon. accommodate their enemy. since the dragon besets the populace as a whole rather than the warband alone. since his men abandon their hall every night for twelve years instead of confronting him. the imperative to kill it seems stronger. evokes the context of “wisdom” learned from Hroðgar in the first half of the poem. yet critics rightly sense that they underlie the whole dragon episode. with the exception of Beowulf. exile. It seems to me that. Beowulf. the Geat subalterns think they can. and should. A great deal of space in the poem is devoted to exploring Grendel’s thoughts. Calder conveniently summarized the symbolic readings of the dragon in this article at page 33: “the dragon is death [Nora K. a ‘feond mancynnes. Daniel G. In certain ways. .” He separates these approaches from the Christian. the dragon has to threaten the survival of the Geats. .” 35 John M.” which he parses as an “evil omnipotence” (Cultural World 137). “Sapientia et Fortitudo”]. 36 resp. . though he may be evil. he is not Evil. nothing of the sort is ever said about the dragon. Calder extended the symbolic reading of the dragon’s “evil”: “What the existence of the dragon implies is the presence of an eternal force for evil and destruction that does manifest itself within time.34 his view allows for some evil on the dragon’s part (“though he may be evil”). and that jeopardy is not certain.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 249 any attack on the dragon is as much retaliatory as strategic. This is an aspect of Tolkien’s position. . This alone may justify Beowulf ’s reprisal. even the heroic forces of humanity are doomed . We look at the dragon’s external behavior rather than at his thoughts. of a similar order and kindred significance’ [Tolkien. Hill suggests that “in the dragon we have the primal infant’s first. Jr. For this position to be true. like Grendel. the Grendel race is named repeatedly as Cain’s descendants and God’s enemies. contrasts Grendel’s consciousness with the dragon’s bestiality: . The witan arguably counsels Beowulf not to engage the dragon either as an animal independent of the social conventions of feuding—a dog whose tail has been trodden—or as a tolerable evil. The dragon . . internal versus external evil (Grendel) [Kaske. the sort of “evil” one could associate with even non-sentient dragons. he is presented as a living creature of the same general sort as any lion. there is nothing personal about what he does . because the dragon has no thoughts: he is an animal. an expression of the evil of a debased society [Du Bois 391]. . My regard for the dragon as a tolerable evil may suggest that Beowulf fights it for reasons of principle. but very little is given to explaining the dragon’s motivations or feelings. only more fearsome” (Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition 25). Chadwick]. Edward B. Irving.35 As the narrator says. and the obvious parallel is Grendel. and the essence of John Niles’s: “From the first time he appears. which he calls “allegorical. purest and most uncomprehending. and. 33 34 .33 Although Irving observes that the dragon behaves like an animal when it sniffs around the lair to find a scent. . Burning down Beowulf ’s hall appears to be an excessive. bear. is the force for negation at once present as fact in the world and eternally present in the universe” (35. There is an amoral aspect to him. “no ðær aht cwices//lað lyftfloga/læfan wolde” (“The hateful flier did not intend to leave anything alive. In some sense. “unjustified” reprisal. Yet I have trouble Reading of Beowulf 214–15. the next (hopefully final) stage of a feud. or other wild beast. . the dragon may be considered evil . Yet. to be sure. alien and remote. . In confronting this symbol of eternal and unknowable evil. unrelenting rage. .). “Monsters and the Critics” 276].” 2314b–15b). alien and remote” image. . .” 2221a–22a) broke into the lair—and out of distress to boot (2224b). R. the dragon should present a baleful threat. Either the dragon’s attack is like fatally startling a poisonous snake (the “only an animal” position). one that depends on the dragon’s motivation. The narrator’s opinion that the dragon wrongly (“unrihte. Innocent desperation may explain why the cup was stolen and may therefore vindicate Beowulf ’s defiance. however. . but the poet has already predicted. But it would present a greater danger. and confuted. and a threat of a different magnitude. Such precise details seem gratuitous until we realize that they relate directly to our judgment of the dragon’s malice. But Germanic warriors still understand that even “innocent” theft can earn terrifying reprisals under the terms of feuding. For Beowulf to appear virtuous in light of Wiglaf ’s criticism. this argument against Beowulf ’s reprisal. has to be assessed relative to the motivation for its rage. cosmic malice that ultimately obligates and ennobles Beowulf ’s . sylfes willum.” 2223b) “unintentionally” (“Nealles met gewealdum . a vague.” the possibility that Beowulf ’s dragon is evil through its intentions despite its “amoral . By contrast. as Irving implies of Grendel. Yet the view of Beowulf ’s dragon as sentient depends significantly on a Christian association between the dragon and the devil that Beowulf could not share with his Christian audience. or to Beowulf ’s own motivation in the duel (monsters intending Evil must be exterminated). being “Evil” amounts to having consciousness. malicious beings have no scruples). . the grounds for its provocation. Its menace.250 chapter four dissociating Irving’s “evil” (because of its harsh reprisal) from “Evil. if it embodied Evil like Grendel did as Cain’s kin. whose murderous thoughts necessitate intellect. The narrator says that “someone’s slave” (“þeo nathwylces. or else it behaves maliciously because it is Evil and intends malice. For Irving the dragon can be evil the way any animal can be instinctively harmful. This dichotomy goes straight to the matter of the dragon’s future threat (animals instinctively strike when threatened.” 3059a) held the treasure and the slave’s unintended offense make a case for the dragon’s evil nature. He offered the treasure to his lord in settlement for the unstated offense that earned him a beating (2281b–2b). Tolkien invoked draconitas. Theft of the dragon’s precious cup seems a defensible reason for the dragon’s rampage. Irving’s appraisal of the dragon’s nature as “evil” (a consequence) but not “Evil” (an intention) conjures one of the poet’s deliberate equivocations. R. J. To explain the Evil of Beowulf ’s dragon. The narrator calls Beowulf ’s enemy a “hostile dragon” (“niðdraca. “the hateful dragon intended to repay with flame the precious cup. Chadwick had espoused much the same view in 1959. who proposes that Onela turns into the dragon (12). greed. and his wall. although some of the examples of dragons she remarks on belong to the mere animal class. see also the possible intentionality in seeking out his adversary. 37 More About the Fight. This position differs from Niles’s and Irving’s. the poet wants us to debate whether the dragon can intend evil. “the hoard-guardian recognized a human voice. beginning with the biblical: “Traditionally considered the most pervasive of intertexts for the medieval literary dragon are the descriptions of dragons and other monsters found in the Bible. . thoughtful enough to trust in his barrow (“beorges getruwode. where the dragon appears as a direct manifestation of Satan and therefore 36 “Monsters and the Critics” 17: “a personification of malice.” 2273a). it seems to have more than animal sense.36 For Tolkien. “he trusted in his barrow.” 2288b).” In “Monsters Crouching” Adrien Bonjour rejected the opinion of T. and Joyce Tally Lionarons elucidated the Christian resonances. dragons were Evil by nature.//wiges ond wealles”. lines 2294b–5b). Jonathan D.e. to name only two critics interested in the dragon as an effect or consequence.” 2305a–6a. as a villain” (100).and antiheroic—i..” 2554b–5a). Tripp. deviousness. and unnatural violence. though potentially semi-divine. and I think the mere hint of malice is quite deliberate.” On the basis of Norse dragons.” 2322b–3a). None of this evidence proves the dragon’s sentience. Raymond P. his warfare. Evans has proposed that the dragon’s “characteristic behaviors distinguish it as non. M. supported the theory that Beowulf ’s dragon was originally a man turned into a dragon because of greed. Other critics have proposed that Beowulf ’s dragon intentionally evokes the Devil. Chadwick and Tripp seem to be responding to the apparent sentience of the dragon: while it is an animal. who saw no reason to universalize the dragon as anything other than a “human foe. who envisioned a secular story. but it could suggest more than mere animal nature. Gang. see also Jensen. destruction (the evil side of heroic life). “strong-minded” (“stearcheort. a hateful avenger (“wolde se laða/lige forgyldan//drincfæt dyre”.37 Nora K. On the level of physical animal nature. and hostile to the voice of man (“hordweard oncniow//mannes reorde”. In concession to this potential.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 251 attack. Jr. ”44 but details in some sixty dragon fights from hagiography sustain Fred C.41 and James Carney has gone so far as to suggest that the Beowulf poet may have drawn from the “Life. Samson” shares common elements with the episode in Beowulf. but need not necessarily.9 (“proiectus est draco ille magnus serpens antiquus qui vocatur Diabolus et Satanas”) and adds. that the dragonslaying in Aldhelm’s treatment of Saint Victoria proved the Beowulf poet’s familiarity with Aldhelm’s Prosa de uirginitate (“Source of Beowulf 2523”). see the creature in its full complexity.252 chapter four takes on connotations of absolute evil. Alan K. 18.”42 Most recently Christine Rauer has sketched even stronger parallels between two lives of Saint Samson and the dragon fight in Beowulf. Samsonis and Vita II s. Brown proposed that a dragon fight in the “Life of St. 142. Rauer makes an intriguing case for the Beowulf poet’s knowledge of the Vita I s. an identification which led the Church Fathers and their medieval descendants to the subsequent glossing of virtually all the Biblical monsters as types of the devil. both printed and translated in her “Appendix A” (154–9). concluding that “a theory of hagiographical influence on the dragon episode can. 19.40 What may be even more important to the alleged Christian intertexts of Beowulf ’s dragon fight is the medieval saint’s life.” 38 39 . “here the dragon is explicitly identified as Satan. Lionarons also explains why some dragons do not conform to the diabolical archetype (19). Robinson’s contention: So carefully does the poet maintain this two-leveled portrayal of the monsters [Grendel and Grendel’s mother] that in the last part of the poem he need only introduce a monster with well-established credentials in both worlds—a dragon—and trust that the audience will. the dragon. see also 57: “no single hagiographical tradition has so far been identified which would present detectable evidence for direct influence [on Beowulf ].” Lionarons shows how this allegorical depiction of the Savior fought against its only natural enemy.”39 In drawing attention to the Exeter Book poem called “Panther. Samsonis.”43 Rauer insists that “the poet may have used religious source material for emphatically secular contexts in Beowulf. These hypotheses succeed the speculation of Cook. It is on one level of perception like the dragon that Sigemund slew. on another it Medieval Dragon 17. 41 “Firedrake” 443–4. 44 Ibid. 43 Beowulf and the Dragon 141. have implications for the symbolic content of Beowulf. 40 Ibid. Ibid.” 38 Lionarons refers to the originary locus from Apc 12. 42 Carney 124–5. without further prompting. Lionarons therefore posits my own view. but he is not therefore Satanic . it is Rauer who gathered and analyzed sixty-three dragon fights from the hagiography in Beowulf and the Dragon 52–86. Brown. he drew a conclusion quite different from hers: To make this distinction between the spiritual evil of the Grendel creatures and the physical threat of the dragon is by no means to diminish the dragon’s stature. Instead we are shown the heroic end of a heroic life. It is simply to clarify his character . In fact. Of course.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 253 has those connotations of Satanic evil with which Bible and commentary had long invested it. 45 Appositive Style 32. by the time of the hero’s combat such terms of moral opposition have ceased to apply. not demonic. . Putnam Fennell Jones. . However essential the contrast of good versus evil or God versus Satan may have been in the first part of the poem. He is evil in the sense that an earthquake or tornado is evil when people are in its path. . One has to recognize that.”47 Niles preceded Lionarons in this deduction. Gang compared the dragon to a disease (6). that “[the Beowulf dragon’s] challenge lies in the peculiar lack of interpretive indicators within the text to guide an audience to a conclusive interpretation by confirming or disputing contradictory elements with the audience’s horizon of expectation. dragons in the saints’ lives that Rauer examines are more obviously animal..48 but by denying any Christian resonance for the dragon.49 In my opinion. Beowulf li note 2 and 217 note to line 2596ff. “Firedrake” 454.” when an arguable “spiritual dichotomy” may actually motivate the dragon episode. 47 Medieval Dragon 28. and regard for the dragon as mere animal discourages any conclusive identification.45 But while the Christian resonances must be present for the poet’s symmetry to work. If we fail to make this distinction—if we do precisely what he does not and identify the dragon with Satan—we risk distorting the meaning of the end of the poem by polarizing it along the lines of a false spiritual dichotomy. . 46 Klaeber. Niles has judged the case in asserting Beowulf ’s “heroic life. 27. McNamee. Of course the dragon is frightful. I do not sense that the “connotations of Satanic evil” have to be conclusive. unless one appeals to Christian allegory of Beowulf as Christ.” 49 Ibid. only latent. . 48 Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition 26: “The moral neutrality of the Beowulf dragon stands out clearly when one considers how easily the poet could have associated him with the Christian devil.46 the poet himself never identifies his dragon as God’s enemy. In support of the view that the dragon is God’s enemy. the poet discloses little information about the dragon’s nature. Beowulf 130–1. the Christian audience can have no absolute faith that Beowulf is confronting a malevolent being. prince of Geats planned vengeance against him for that. even if the dragon does not intend Evil. Yet this reading legitimates Beowulf ’s dragon fight only as a matter of practical or strategic importance. or even of a sentient evil being. it may yet intend evil in Irving’s or Niles’s terms.50 As demonstrated in Chapter 1. whether or not it is merely an animal or may be thought to have a rudimentary consciousness like dragons transformed from men.254 chapter four Refusing to call upon his omniscience. How Beowulf ’s decision may be justified as essential or reckless then motivates the ambiguities and contradictions of this section. Heroic Confidence and Oferhygd The poet invokes the oferhygd complex when he remarks that Beowulf “oferhogode” or “scorned” seeking the dragon with a large army: 50 Clark. Beowulf ’s success against Grendel and Grendel’s mother seems validated mostly for this reason. and that Beowulf ’s fight was therefore righteous. God’s natural adversary. nor does Beowulf allude to the dragon as Evil. . it could not be said with assurance that Beowulf rids Geatland of Evil.//Wedera þioden/wræce leornode” (“The battle-king. even if Geats and Danes in the world of the poem do not perceive Grendel as the Christian God’s enemy.” the fight may be deemed either sensible (or essential) in disarming a threat (or taking vengeance).” 2335b–6b). even if Beowulf had been motivated by inordinate ambition. the automaticity of his vengeance: “him ðæs guðkyning. or reckless because it is strategically dangerous. or even a saint’s enemy. Tanke 377–9. however. one has to account for the opposing evidence that challenges the expedience of Beowulf ’s retaliation. In this silence. however “evil. the poet evokes in his audience the moral blindness that Beowulf experienced in the Grendel fight. Recognizing this “fatal contradiction” not only legitimates Wiglaf ’s criticism of Beowulf but also evokes the context of oferhygd. If the dragon is merely an animal. Of course. in which potential recklessness has to be gauged by a critical intuition. By this reading. Beowulf could be said to fight righteously when he challenges Grendel. In the dragon fight. right before fighting the dragon. but they are in fact the reason why Beowulf scorns the dragon’s power: “forðon he ær fela//nearo neðende/niða gedigde” (“because. the poet enumerates the “niða”52 and “hildehlemma” that Beowulf has hitherto triumphed in: killing the Grendelkin. risking constraint. Heremod. . nor did he care one whit about the dragon’s combat.51 Beowulf ’s potential overconfidence is transparent in his attitude: “ne him þæs wyrmes wig/for wiht dyde. ne him þæs wyrmes wig for wiht dyde.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 255 Oferhogode ða hringa fengel þæt he þone widflogan weorode gesohte. scorn” and to oferhygd. eafoð ond ellen. It might be objected that the narrator lists Beowulf ’s feats. He did not fear the battle.” In case we missed it the first time. (2345a–51a) The prince of rings then scorned to seek out the wide-flier with a troop. 51 52 . . contemn.//sliðra geslyhta . Etymologically OE oferhogian “to despise. . he had survived many hostilities. it could manifest arrogance and forebode irresponsibility that would engender aggression and national annihilation. braving many straits. no he him þa sæcce ondred. Beowulf will recall his victories in similar terms: “Ic geneðde fela//guða on geogoðe” (“I ventured many battles in my youth. battle-clashes. . The poet will emphasize Beowulf ’s achievements at the conclusion of his list by alleging “Swa he niða gehwane/genesen hæfde. the victim of oferhygd cannot foresee any defeat because he has never experienced any loss. sidan herge. disdain. Tallying Beowulf ’s past victories like this raises the specter of oferhygd. svv. its strength and courage.//þæt ic wið þone guðflogan/gylp ofersitte” (“I am confident in my heart that I will fulfil my boast against the battle-flier. forðon he ær fela nearo neðende niða gedigde. each terrible onslaught. The citations come from Bosworth-Toller. In consideration of the oferhygd complex.” 2397a–8a). Like Nebuchadnezzar.” 2349b–50a). When a king “despises” a fire-breathing dragon. Furthermore. disdain” is related to OE oferhycgan “to despise.” 2511b–12a). because he had previously endured many assaults. and Hroðgar’s fictional king.” 2527b–8b). contemn. with the result that Beowulf now does not fear fire-breathing dragons at all. hildehlemma . and helping Eadgils kill Onela. avenging Hygelac. scorn. Beowulf will repeat his confidence just before the fight: “Ic eom on mode from. Each accomplishment led to more substantial success.” (“so he had survived each hostility. a big army. . 53 54 . and unriht leads to extermination for both peoples. The passage recalls Hroðgar’s surprise at Grendel’s attack. First. In Daniel the Israelites and Chaldeans commit “unriht” (23b. showing rulers’ lack of restraint and inability to attain the ends they desire . vaguer kind of right action may be intended: the counsel of pagan moral virtue explicitly opposed to oferhygd. Sedgefield. Boethius 7. Without knowing about the stolen cup. and his dark thoughts probably stem from helplessness in the face of defeat./ecean dryhtne//bitre gebulge.” 2330b). The heretic Þeodric “promised Romans his friendship such that they could keep their ancient customs in honor” (“He gehet Romanum his freondscipe. which seems countered in Beowulf ’s reaction to the attack.” 2331b–2a). the eternal Lord. Beowulf tries to imagine why the dragon attacked him.256 chapter four Yet the poet merely evokes the question of oferhygd in Beowulf. we are told that Beowulf. a “law” of sorts. Order of the World describes gieddinga (“sober narratives”) as revealing what is “ryht” (13b). contrary to the prophet’s advice. even in the tyrant’s ensuing “dark thoughts”: “breost innan weoll//þeostrum geþoncum” (“His breast welled inwardly with dark thoughts. The poet’s terminology sounds mildly Christian (“ecean dryhtne.” 2329a–31a). Beowulf thinks he has failed to uphold an expected behavior or duty..7–8. over an ancient custom” (“wende se wisa/ þæt he Wealdende//ofer ealde riht. expected that he had bitterly enraged the Wielder.” 34a). but I propose another. “Patristics” 39–41. however. but his role as a figure lacking self-control overshadows other meanings” (80). or Heremod’s loss in battle. Nero may represent Theodoric. including the pre-Mosaic ‘pagans’ of the Old Testament. 55 In reference to Nero Nicole Guenther Discenza remarks. the “custom” Beowulf imagines offending is undoubtedly a pagan one.55 Guðlac A discloses that doing “ryht” (32b) means holding “divine commandments” (“halig bebodu. even if the Old Testament resonances are valid. Offending an “ealde riht” is the badge of a tyrant in King Ælfred’s Consolatio Philosophiae. quite often the lessons of moderation comprising ece ræd. “anecdotes about the kings themselves also illustrate the necessity of self-control. Heremod suffered from such wrack as well. Sinaitic) law but natural law which was implanted in the hearts of pagans. “the leader. but Morton W. 187b respectively).54 but instead he persecuted the nation. Bloomfield has proposed that ealde riht “refers not to Old Testament (i. swa þæt hi moston heora ealdrihta wyrðe beon”).e.”53 In keeping with my own strict narratology. . or that his “soul’s guardian” has slept.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 257 too. since he searches his own past for present miseries. the evidence would appear convincing that oferhygd has not mastered Beowulf. just like Hroðgar did. In this case Beowulf ’s anxiety proves his virtue. which opposes national arrogance. In fact. He fights the dragon because he thinks it is right to do so. he “cannot protect against it. Hroðgar’s sermon envisions an act of conscience in avoidance of oferhygd. this “conscience” engenders many of the tensions that I identify in the dragon episode. oferhyda ne gym” (1758a–60b). but to a Boethian divinity theoretically in charge of “moral” punishment. Nevertheless. “Bebeorh þe ðone bealonið . warns Hroðgar. After the dart poisons the king’s mind.” but Beowulf ’s ostensible compunction belies any rashness. . then. but Beowulf ’s reaction implies conscience. In his sermon Hroðgar identified the inevitability of oferhygd once it steals upon a king asleep in his cares. By these terms the narrator depicts Beowulf ’s reaction to Hroðgar’s warning of oferhygd. Yet he still decides to fight the dragon . for Beowulf himself may suspect that confronting the dragon could be irresponsible. Beowulf reaches no conclusion about transgressing an “ealde riht. in other words. The arrogant king would give in to bealunið or “rancor. Beowulf arguably attributes the dragon’s rage not simply to fate. Similarly. and this conscience indicates that he has not yet fallen prey to oferhygd. Beowulf ’s thoughts on the “ealde riht” invoke humility. From the depictions of arrogant kings in Old English literature we can be reasonably confident that Beowulf ’s introspection is not the reaction of a tyrant. Beowulf could be said to respond explicitly to Hroðgar’s warning and to wonder whether he has already been infected by oferhygd.” The afflicted king follows the perverse. At this moment. wondrous commands of a cursed spirit in utter ignorance of his recklessness. Confronting the dragon seems reckless. the overconfidence a people derives from longstanding security. In these terms we could not say that Beowulf has been blind to the insinuation of oferhygd. Nevertheless. “Punishment” in this case can mean either conflagration in Geatland and/or Beowulf ’s death. On the contrary.” and the silence surrounding his reasons for fighting the dragon creates multiple awkwardnesses that go unresolved. We understand that Beowulf has thought about his decision but not why he has made it. who suggests that vigilance may inhibit the complacency that leads to arrogance. The parallels suggest that Beowulf has acquired Hroðgar’s semi-enlightened outlook on fatalism. . While oferhygd can distort self-awareness. but we have no way to evaluate his rationale. raging” and denies that Beowulf is “hesitant” (143–6). Seemingly in doubt of his decision. sundur gedælan His spirit was doleful. they become the miscalculations of a benighted warrior. lif wið lice . not someone given to oferhygd. “Etymologies” col. se ðone gomelan secean sawle hord. . hesitant and eager for battle. Beowulf ’s Lament Beowulf ’s own attitude towards the dragon fight—the expression of his conscience—is voiced in a long passage which I think of as “Beowulf ’s lament.258 chapter four and irrationally scorns its strength. In light of the wrong motivation. In the Finn digression Hengest cannot restrain his “wæfre” spirit. Beowulf ’s earlier scorn for the dragon has disappeared. and vows that he will not seek the dragon in its lair (2514b–15b). however. (2419b–23a) Him wæs geomor sefa. or can. that would meet the old man and seek out the soul’s hoard. “Meaning of The Seafarer” 103. however. The poet relates: wæfre ond wælfus. a vacillation deriving from the uncertainty of his position. . “Necessity of Evil” 96 note 15.56 OE wæfre is a difficult term because of its rarity: attested only four times in Old English. avenge himself at all. Smithers. it occurs three times in Beowulf. he takes steps to ensure that his behavior cannot easily be impugned. .” see James W. these decisions sound like they come from a cautious man. Klaeber interprets the word as “vagans” (“Christlichen Elemente” 256): “Garmonsway argues that OE wæfre means “furious. the fate immeasurably close. but one senses that the retainers do not perceive his reservations. Absent any motivation to fight the dragon. He orders a metal shield to be made (2337a–41a). Both “hesitant” (“wæfre”) and “eager for slaughter” (“wælfus”). In line 1331a Hroðgar says that a “wælgæst wæfre” (Grendel’s mother) slew Æschere—a detail actually confirmed by the poet’s remarks: 56 Wood. divide asunder life from body. Beowulf vacillates because he doubts whether he should. On wælfus as “bound for death.” Right before the dragon fight Beowulf slips into a reverie that clarifies his uncertainty and corresponding resolve. The question of Beowulf ’s conscience in the context of oferhygd therefore highlights Beowulf ’s possible moral ignorance. Earl. 98. gretan sceolde. wyrd ungemete neah. 60 Even in 1939. 60 “Beowulf 2444–2471” 198–9: “. Beowulf turns to a story to reflect on a pivotal childhood incident as an evaluation of his present circumstances. a usage common in Old Norse but otherwise unknown in this sense in Old English”. and his reasons for doing so stem from the narratives he tells right before encountering the dragon. Herebeald’s death was considered “accidental. I think. feore beorgan.” 2439a) with a bowshot.58 Hreðel’s eldest son Herebeald dies “unfittingly” or “inappropriately” (“ungedefelice. Beowulf the Storyteller In my view. Frank. . “wavering. Heathen Gods 199–203. 59 Frank.” Yet the vehement language implies that the The other attestation of OE wæfre occurs in Daniel 240a. 170. the same indecision expressed in the ModE reflex. see above. 259 wolde ut þanon.59 The incident is called a “feohleas gefeoht” (2441a). 58 See. which draws vaguely on the legend of Baldr and Höðr from Norse mythology. see also Frank. where it has to mean “flickering” or perhaps “guttering”. . most recently.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD Heo wæs on ofste.” The historical precedents come entirely from the Germanic. It seems to me that these polar meanings could express the ambiguity of the “crime. James H. Morey makes the allegation of murder in “Fates of Men” 30–1. He recounts the history of Herebeald’s death at his brother’s hands. which Dorothy Whitelock described as a crime ineligible of composition.” either “murder” (hit the “target”) or “accident” (miss the target).”57 The poet. Whitelock cites evidence collected by Liebermann that “vengeance could not be taken for a slaying within the kindred” (199). law-codes.” 2435b) when his brother Hæðcyn misses a target (“miste mercelses. þa heo onfunden wæs (1292a–3b) She was in a hurry. “Memorial Eulogies” 11. Dronke. p. “Skaldic Verse” 132. confirms Beowulf ’s hesitation when he says that “he himself did not know what form his parting from this world should take” (“seolfa ne cuðe//þurh hwæt his worulde gedal/weorðan sceolde. wanted to get out of there and protect her life after she had been discovered.” 3067b–8b). O’Donoghue. Yet Beowulf resolves to fight. not Anglo-Saxon.” an opinion formed partly from the Scandinavian parallels to Baldr’s death and partly from the expression “miste mercelses. “Skaldic Verse” 132: “the Beowulf poet inserts what seems to be a Nordicism: missan (ON missa) “to miss. In Beowulf to be “wæfre” means to exhibit hesitation. Three other works are important: North. the accidental nature of the slaying would not in itself have saved the perpetrator from the penalties of homicide. 57 . not hit” with a genitive of the object. therefore. 65 De Looze calls this the only fictional moment (243). however. The Mildryð legend records how King Egbert of Kent ceded land to his cousin Mildryð in compensation for killing her brothers Æðelberht and Æðelred. Clearly.” 2435a. 2439b). something the “Ruler of men” could not accuse him of. “ ‘Seeds of Sorrow.61 Hæðcyn strewed a murder-bed (“morþorbed stred. like Laurence N. cf. secretive act. who became estranged from him (“him leof ne wæs. but the poet in fact dramatizes Beowulf ’s narration in response to the hero’s circumstances. Wehlau. “æðeling. 700 shows that kin can pay wergild for relatives they have slain. De Looze proposed one way the hero analogizes his situation. the episode debates accountability for a potentially excusable crime: is vengeance appropriate at the cost of further personal sacrifice—the agony of Hreðel? Hæðcyn’s suspicious killing of Herebeald seems an odd recollection at this moment. but Hroðgar’s story of a king seduced by oferhygd is also fictional. Ultimately. Morþor is a deliberate. an act “mindnumbing” (“hygemeðe.” 2443a). as Beowulf ’s last words (2742a).”64 Observing that the old man’s story is a central fiction in Beowulf. causes King Hreðel to despair.63 Hreðel finds himself unable even to hate his son. brother (2440a).’ ” 64 De Looze 243. lethal hit (“ofscet. 63 It is often assumed that Hreðel cannot expect compensation for his son’s death. to examine them more objectively. Rollason 49–51. Many readers of these paired anecdotes acknowledge that they comment on Beowulf ’s current situation. but a historical parallel from ca.” 2436b) for his lord.” 2439b) with a bloody spear (“blodigan gare. kinsman (2436a. Hæðcyn pierced Herebeald through in a direct. and to resolve the Hamlet-like question of whether—and how—to act or not to act.” 2467a).” 2438a). The event. De Looze: “This ‘heroic simile’ is a fictional projection which allows Beowulf to distance himself from the class of obligations facing him.260 chapter four killing was the equivalent of murder.65 A synopsis of the Swedish-Geatish wars (lines 2354b–99a) which immediately 61 The best examination of the poet’s ambiguity in this passage is that by Georgianna.” 2467b). .62 friend (“freawine.” 2440b). In it Beowulf recounts an old man’s grief at a beloved son’s execution.” 2442a) and “loathsome” (“laðum. 62 The collocation “morþorbealo maga” is found both in the Finn digression (1079a) and. The same ratiocination continues in the parable of the gomela ceorl or “old man” that follows the story of Herebeald and Hæðcyn. and heir to the kingdom (“yldestan. described as a fyren (2441b). the language describes a jealous rage as much as an innocent accident—in which event Whitelock’s parallels may not apply. 247–8. however. “there is the obligation on Beowulf to take vengeance for the dragon’s attack on his realm. “elegiac” comment on Beowulf ’s death in the dragon fight (ibid. 247. De Looze explains: “the two extremes of inaction (Hrethel’s response) and excessive (re)action (characteristic of the [Swedish-Geatish] wars) . 70 Ibid. Hygelac undertakes a “rash action” in Frisia. According to Stanley B. an obligation which is indifferent to the effectiveness or the ultimate consequences of such action. The evocation of human misery—Hygd and Heardred are feasceaft. 67 De Looze 246. 68 Ibid. Greenfield. “Geatish History” 122). “Survival” might be one focus of the passage.). For Greenfield. . especially because he singles out his vengeance for Hygelac as a moment of glory. . lead to doom. which in turn prompts attacks from Swedes.”69 By insisting that the dragon will continue marauding. Either retribution or toleration. De Looze will later make the staggering claim.”70 66 As De Looze sees it. Eanmund and Eadgils wræcmæcgas—blunts Beowulf ’s moral goodness and obvious maturation “from warrior to king” (Greenfield. see Kahrl 196. De Looze also proposes that “the historical analogue chosen by Beowulf literalizes the patriarchal relationship of Beowulf to his realm. De Looze will keep returning to this expectation as a key position: “the passive course would leave both the Swedes outside the Geatish realm and the dragon inside to be dealt with after Beowulf was gone. Beowulf a thoughtful one at the dragon’s lair” (244). . Yet only the narrator recounts the Swedish feud. but a second covers both the historical background of events succeeding Beowulf ’s death and the inevitable uncertainty of outcomes. Heardred. Onela. 250. .).the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 261 precedes the Herebeald/Hæðcyn exemplum illustrates how Beowulf ’s decision whether to fight the dragon is closely tied to the Geats’ future.” an ironic. .”68 Attacking the dragon becomes a matter of urgent practicality. Eadgils .66 Herebeald’s accidental death leads to Hreðel’s incapacitation.”67 He continues: “[Beowulf ] can let the dragon destroy his realm. or he can enter into a battle which may claim his life and leave his realm to be ravaged by the Swedes. and one wonders how immediately it impacts Beowulf ’s thinking at this moment. but the poet deliberately avoids saying whether the dragon plans any further raids. would generate identical misfortunes. Beowulf ’s own death would cause as much instability. Beowulf ’s miraculous escape from Frisia evokes the theme of “survival. the father is unable to save his charges through effective action” (ibid. and Wiglaf ’s criticism of Beowulf ’s fight is implicitly dismissed. Beowulf. the narrator first “recapitulates the engagements Beowulf has lived through since he cleansed Heorot of the Grendel clan” (“Geatish History” 121). 69 Ibid. The poet depicts telescopically the slow rise and brisk fall of kings: Hygelac. Much hinges on De Looze’s speculation that the dragon poses a continuing threat. too. of a harrowing inability to act. but imagining the gomela ceorl dying from grief even without vengeance. “Horror in Beowulf ” 86. Beowulf manufactures a projection. the other that he take no action because his son was a condemned outlaw. if uncontrolled. rather than mourning. as does Beowulf. 73 Ibid. of Kahrl: “The poet. he thinks that the ceorl actually has the option of reprisal!73 Furthermore. provides a release for emotions of hate that are sufficiently powerful. expressed in Hill’s words: “Hrethel cannot avenge himself on one son for the death of another. Owen-Crocker asks whether this byre is a “criminal or sacrificial victim.” 72 De Looze 249.”74 By these terms he subtly argues that Beowulf ’s reliance on heroic attitudes discloses a moral impoverishment related to heroism generally. through Beowulf. De Looze claims.”72 Vengeance conflicts with duty. 74 De Looze 248. this time as an old man without progeny. 71 Ibid. Like Dorothy Whitelock. These expressions of impotence. . see also Owen-Crocker. “Beowulf again projects himself as a father figure. “the father of the condemned criminal finds himself subject to two strong social demands: one that he take vengeance for his son’s death.” The position. and he then universalizes the ceorl’s sentiment and concludes. Unlike Whitelock. The position is shared by many.262 chapter four De Looze suggests that the gomela ceorl story matches Beowulf ’s circumstances more realistically.: “The lamenting father can choose the societal obligation by which he will be bound. appears to be stating that killing the murderer of one’s kinsman or friend. to destroy not only the peace of mind but even the life of the individual governed by such emotions” (195). are terrible because there can be no satisfactory or allowable revenge in either case” (Warrior Ethic 14). In fact. De Looze imagines that the old man represents the state. 249. especially vengeance: “In destabilizing or confusing the categories of innocence and guilt. The argument resembles Linda Georgianna’s. that a father would suffer who must bear the death by hanging of his outlaw son. which stressed the same failure of heroic idealism. Beowulf pursues retribution regardless of the personal consequences. just as Beowulf would need to set aside personal vengeance (fighting the dragon) in respect of a duty owed to his folc (not fighting). for whom the passage affirmed a second kind of inexpiable occasion—legal execution for a crime—De Looze appreciates the story of the gomela ceorl as a comment on revenge. Thus he suffers sick at heart in much the same way. victim and villain. De Looze then reasons. “the poet depicts a culture whose social institutions are strained almost to the breaking point.”71 Hence. since Hreðel could not demand vengeance and the dragon’s appearance could not be attributed to chance in the way the accidental shooting could. Beowulf imagines. In other words. the old ceorl must respect the social justice that penalized his heir. 79 We learn how passionately and disastrously this Georgianna 841.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 263 insider and outsider.” the term used by Georgianna. I find it unlikely that Beowulf would tell the tale of Herebeald’s death and then supplant it with a more cogent analogy. however. thinks of Herebeald’s death as accidental and of the old man’s predicament as resulting from frustrated revenge.213. in deference to Whitelock’s article. the poet begins to undo the basis of heroic action as it is represented in the poem’s first half. In her arguments and De Looze’s. . but because Whitelock thought such killings inexpiable (at least in Anglo-Saxon sources). too. that the old man can take vengeance for a state punishment (against whom?). the sort of taunt to which a youth might quickly react. 78 Bäck 66. and he further exonerates the byre who wears the sword: “. the poet tells us. the poeticism byre occurs seven times in Beowulf. Specific to De Looze’s position.”77 and. where it generally implies the thoughtless impetuosity of youth. The exempla of Herebeald and the old ceorl actually portend Beowulf ’s retribution against the dragon. It has escaped notice.”76 This view strikes me as wholly accurate. however. 77 De Looze 249. most will treat the byre as a “felon. Beowulf 177. She. Brunner suggested that the gomela ceorl was Hreðel himself. Whitelock noted that this position advanced that by Brunner I. In the part of this digression Hæðcyn is seen to commit “murder” and go unpunished. unending conflict by the deliberate confusion of social categories for which no action is viable. that OE byre (“lad” best captures the sense) is contextually significant. she did not pursue Brunner’s (or Sedgefield’s) reasoning. in the Heaðobard feud the old agent provocateur slanderously pictures a Danish “byre” wearing a sword taken from a “murdered” father. Brodeur has made the case that the killing at his home almost certainly displeased Ingeld (Art of Beowulf 167). but that 75 76 . Often in collocation with geong (“young”). and that Beowulf ’s predicament should be universalized as a criticism directed against his society.78 For example.”75 Georgianna proposes the poet’s condemnation of disastrous. not that the young Dane was slain for any deliberately provocative conduct of his own. De Looze reasons that the byre mentioned in the ceorl’s tale is a “condemned criminal. I am troubled by the expectation that the dragon’s threats must be intolerable. but with a different application. . 79 The language Beowulf uses when depicting the scene is deliberately outrageous. whereas in his fiction Beowulf reflects on what would happen if he (or someone like him) had been punished. In 1910 Walter Sedgefield suggested that the story of the gomela ceorl reflects “the sorrow Hreðel would feel if Hæðcyn expiated on the gallows his slaying of Herebeald. . . fictional byre undoubtedly corresponds to Hæðcyn. Dorothy Whitelock recounted that in certain old Germanic law codes the state punished unintentional murder. So the entire conflict . Andersson (“Thief ”) that stealing the cup was criminal might be contradicted simply by context: the dragon is no “owner” in any moral sense. (2625b–7b) In two other places Wiglaf is also called “byre Wihstanes” (“Weohstan’s boy. //. It sleeps but can be woken. . In fact. it is monstrously sensitive to the slightest of injuries . at worst. This anonymous. and that killing calls for killing. and no one would dare take responsibility for the theft.” 2016b–18a). OE byre reveals that youthful irresponsibility probably motivated the son’s offense. too. T. 169). in the episode of the gomela ceorl. In fact. Yet executing him for an ambiguous crime still leads to a paralyzing grief identical to Hreðel’s. but unlike Hæðcyn he gets punished according to tribal custom. bædde byre geonge. whose motivation for such widespread ruin was the mere theft of a cup. This comes close to an exoneration of deliberate offense. Certainly the son of that Heaðobard who originally owned it shows no knowledge that it had once been his father’s. A. for whom Wealhþeow seeks a guardian in Hroþulf. The reason for the young Dane’s death is not simply that he wears the sword of a slain Heaðobard. but did it for “þreanedlan” (“dire necessity.80 One could not fail to call this devhe was killed fore fæder dædum. Wiglaf was very young.” 2223a). engaging in his first battle: geongan cempan mid his freodryhtne Þa wæs forma sið þæt he guðe ræs fremman sceolde. Shippey metaphorized the dragon’s hostility: “The dragon is like Revenge. or. not just her own sons but her sons’ friends. These nested stories operate analogically and describe Beowulf ’s attitude towards the dragon. The view of Theodore M.264 chapter four boy reacts. a capital crime for which one can bear only restricted blame. and the boy’s hanging bears all the hallmarks of a state sentence. he may have been ignorant of its provenience. until the old spear-warrior brings the fact to his attention.” 2907b and 3110b). it is that his father had slain that Heaðobard. When Beowulf recalls this episode in his recapitulation to Hygelac. . he may have worn it in careless forgetfulness. “Byre” describes Hroðgar’s two immature sons. It was natural enough that he should wear a sword which he had inherited from his father. he says that the queen “urged on the young boys” (“cwen . Therefore. . . But the killing would not have occurred if a vengeance-hungry veteran had not been present to point out to the son of the slain Heaðobard that splendid weapon which should have been his inheritance but is now being worn in his presence by the son of his father’s slayer” (ibid. Reflecting on the origin of the sword that Wiglaf carries. 80 For this reason it is important for the audience to know that the thief betrayed no malice when he stole the dragon’s cup. the poet remarks that Weohstan bestowed it on his “byre” when Wiglaf became capable of heroic deeds. reflects the outcomes of punishment versus non-punishment in the dragon episode. while a nobleman might not be. These narratives therefore stand for Beowulf ’s theoretical reactions to the choices forced upon him. Yet ignoring vengeance does not conform to social expectations. means continued rule but (like Hroðgar’s situation) a life of humiliation and misgivings. . a calamity that terminates his bloodline. I think. Yet the story of Hæðcyn involves no such extermination. and the father bewails his barren future.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 265 astation an over-reaction. see also Kahrl 195. unthinking boys—rendered their deeds morally ambiguous. As readers have consistently stated. This future. this carnage may represent the unintentional over-reaction of a provoked animal. as if he observed himself in two imaginary roles. the options of excusing crime and punishing it both lead to a paralyzing grief for the father. but Geats mourn the failure of reciprocal vengeance. swinging from one frightened or vengeful reaction to another” (Old English Verse 48–9). Hæðcyn goes on to rule. but in each case the grief stems from a different cause. Punishing the anonymous byre asserts retribution (if not justice in the Germanic sense) but begets a different kind of self-inflicted misery. since Hæðcyn and Hygelac survive Herebeald. and Hreðel’s grief derives from a paralyzing. Unpunished. irremediable shame.82 The disparity. it has been pointed out. but. Failing to punish Hæðcyn—like leaving the dragon alone—comes down on the side of expedience. as it would amount to the same impossibility as revenge. even worse.81 Exacting wergild is no option. avenging the dragon’s raid may be just as paralyzing for Beowulf and the Geats. the fictional lad dies without issue. 81 It seems fair to say that Beowulf tells the story of a “ceorl” simply because a ceorl could be punished for such a crime. Peculiarly. Staying alive. closely resembles the bleak national extermination in the digression of the [between Beowulf and the dragon] is an accident from the start. on the one hand. In Beowulf ’s story of the gomela ceorl retaliation still brings grief because provocation and impetuous rage mitigate responsibility and because retaliation will bring about a more egregious loss. or else get away with a fine. “Thief ” 507 (“metaphorical elaboration of civil disorder”). Andersson. Two similar “criminals” were Hæðcyn and the anonymous byre. since Hæðcyn is the æþeling and will be king. whose involuntary “malice”—the actions of immature. This is Hroðgar’s fate against Grendel. Punished. the repercussion of a “moral” obligation. 82 Bragg 82. Beowulf ’s narrative describes a father who loses his only son. Yet again. and possible genocide. “Deserted Chamber. the termination of his bloodline. a windy grave devoid of cheer.” 2243a). no joy of the harp or play in the precincts: Gesyhð sorhcearig winsele westne. Or he could take action and endure a different self-inflicted grief. The episode of the gomela ceorl concludes with the tropes of “exile” appropriate to the sole survivor of a clan: an empty hall.84 Although we cannot prove that what follows in lines 2450a–9b constitutes a synopsis of the grieving man’s gidd. gomen in geardum. the riders sleep.” 2262b–3a) can be heard. reote berofene. It would seem fitting that the survivor utters a gidd.” 2256b). in his son’s chamber. Like the gomela ceorl who laments “an æfter anum. heroes in their graves.” . There is no harp-song. play in the precincts. He conceals the treasure on a headland (“be næsse. it seems contextually logical to imagine that Beowulf voices not only his future conduct but also the finality of his lineage in a narrative. as there once had been. (2455a–9b) The grieving man looks upon. The exemplum of the gomela ceorl universalizes the sad (“geomorlic. Neither harp-joy nor play of the lyre (“Næs hearpan wyn. The gidd arguably uttered by the gomela ceorl reflects the survivor’s language as well as his despondent mood: “giomormod/ giohðo mænde. that attacking the dragon could ensure his death. The lament concerns the wider context of Beowulf ’s fated death and the outcome of his vengeance.” 2267a–b. nis þær hearpan sweg. like Hreðel. ridend swefað. Schrader. hæleð in hoðman. He could ignore the dragon and endure self-inflicted grief. an empty wine-hall. Readers like De Looze and Georgianna allege the inadequacy of heroic 83 84 Ibid.” 2444a) experience of any man who laments the death of his only son by reciting a gidd: “he gyd wrece” (2446b).266 chapter four leaderless Last Survivor (2231b–70a). This sober reflection on responsibility shapes Beowulf ’s conscience. Its polishers sleep (“feormynd swefað.83 Beowulf understands. riders who sleep./gomen gleobeames. therefore. I think. swylce ðær iu wæron. windy resting-place deprived of joy.” the last survivor mourns “an æfter eallum” (2268a). a “sarigne sang” (2447a). on his suna bure windge reste. heroes in the tomb. Earlier in Beowulf the earl who buried the dragon’s future treasure issued a lament very close in phrasing to this one. bloodline. but I cannot agree that Beowulf ’s action is reprehensible because it is thought to be necessary according to a social prescription. and John Leyerle make this claim persuasively. I sense that. Even after a long meditation that lays out his options. Many adages in the poem support Beowulf ’s decision to attack the dragon. it would be supremely important for Beowulf to appear to fathom his heroic choice. Marshall Leicester. and nation: Fate often saves the undoomed man—if his courage endures: “Wyrd oft nereð/ unfægne eorl. In light of the equivocacy I am arguing for. The Measure of a Man The second question Niles poses about the dragon episode motivates the unconformity of Beowulf ’s strategy: “Should the hero have accepted help?” Beowulf ’s scheme to bring twelve retainers only as back-up. has generally seemed normal to .” 1384b–5b Death is better for every nobleman than a life of shame: “Deað bið sella/eorla gehwylcum/þonne edwitlif. The audience has to determine why. but the narratives do not justify it. and they profess a categorical denunciation of vengeance as a social institution. Beowulf appreciates that his choice to fight the dragon entails doubt. This self-consciousness personalizes Beowulf ’s choice of heroic action. the prospect of oferhygd cannot be ruled out as a competing factor in his resolution. the constituents of which are coextensive with vengeance as a cultural obligation. he does not endow him with motivation. Beowulf understands what both choices entail. In spite of Beowulf ’s mental distress and apparent self-doubt. even at the expense of his life. For this reason./þonne his ellen deah!” 572b–3b It is better for everyone to avenge his friend than mourn much: “Selre bið æghwæm/ þæt he his freond wrece/þonne he fela murne.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 267 retribution to resolve Beowulf ’s dilemma. Beowulf never lets on why he prefers fighting to not fighting. while the narrator endows Beowulf with conscience. Beowulf plausibly sets aside the responsibilities of kingship to take up arms. Jr. although I doubt that the poet intended any firm conclusion on the matter of Beowulf ’s culpability. the risk of death for himself and jeopardy for his leaderless people. and for the audience to rationalize it. They and others extend this rejection to the entire heroic ethos.” 2890b–1b Action is the essential protocol of heroic life. But because the poem also turns on Beowulf ’s worthiness to rule others. with an additional force in reserve. Critics Harry Berger. perform a noble duty. (2529a–35a) byrnum werede.” 2638b) and “fyrdgesteallum” (“army companions. it should be thought highly unorthodox. nefne min anes. protected by mail-coats. too): “onmunde usic mærða” (“[Beowulf ] considered us worthy of glories.” 2642b–4a). This is not your venture. Wiglaf admits that Beowulf chose them because the old king thought they were worthy of glory (perhaps they wanted it. Beowulf orders his men to “await which of us two can better endure his wounds. ne gemet mannes þæt he wið aglæcean eorlscype efne. men in armor.” The assumption has always been that if battle favors the dragon. otherwise. But the passages “on herge geceas” (“he chose us from the army. Lines 2532b–5a in this passage have been the subject of a rather neglected article in which Raymond Carter Sutherland explains 85 For the Beowulf poet’s indiscriminate use of OE here and fyrd. Await in the woods. eofoðo dæle. which of us two can better endure his wounds after the attack.” 2640a). the retainers should assist Beowulf.85 The byre Wiglaf has never fought in battle before. nor is it fitting for any man but for me alone to dispense might against the foe. including the eccentric decision to bring twelve handpicked men to the dragon’s barrow. see Pulsiano and McGowan. but to leave them in relative safety. hwæðer sel mæge wunde gedygan Nis þæt eower sið. Beowulf tells this select squad to stay in the copse and observe the outcome of the duel. for at least one of them would not have belonged to the duguð: Wiglaf.268 chapter four readers when. æfter wælræse uncer twega. . which he claims as his sole duty: Gebide ge on beorge secgas on searwum. Wiglaf later confirms Beowulf ’s plan to act alone when he says “þeah ðe hlaford us//þis ellenweorc/ana aðohte//to gefremmanne” (“although our lord intended to perform this courageous deed alone. they are to let him do the killing. in fact. Beowulf ’s nephew.” 2873b) may be quite accurate. Niles’s inverse proposition: “Can Beowulf defeat the dragon alone?” Beowulf ’s awareness of oferhygd explains all of the most intractable contradictions in the dragon fight. Another formulation of the question befits the context I propose. Some of these fighters may have been conscripted from Beowulf ’s warband and owed him the greatest debts of loyalty. and to heofnum up strengum stepton ofer monna gemet.” in having a “spirit mightier and thoughts in his heart greater than was moderate” or “gemet”: 86 87 Sutherland 1134. beyond what men should hope to achieve in moderation. outside the bounds of warrior wisdom. Furthermore. . J.” Sutherland argues that OE monn in such heroic contexts describes a warrior to whom security is owed. Yet I think that the expression “gemet mannes” has a significance contrary to Sutherland’s proposition. . the “measure of men”: .’ i.87 The expression “gemet mannes” in this passage would therefore mean not that Beowulf alone can defeat the dragon (the sense “fitting for no man but me alone”).” 1673a). And they raised ladders to the heavens.e. Striving beyond the “monna gemet” expresses the same eagerness for glory (“mærða georne”) that Beowulf arguably admits to. men eager for glory erected with their hands a mighty stone wall beyond the measure of men. when Nebuchadnezzar ignores Daniel’s warning in Daniel. the narrator accuses him of “oferhygd. but that no retainer should have to face it. opportunity for winning renown and gold) but is his eorlscype. Acting beyond this capacity. In Genesis A the Shinarites build the Tower of Babel out of arrogance (“for wlence. that “every man should hold himself in moderation towards friend and foe”: “scyle monna gehwylc/mid gemete healdan//wiþ leofne ond wið laþne” (111a–12b).”86 Contrary to Sutherland’s view.” as M. that this is no sīð (‘venture. for which reason the dragon fight could be called sacrificial.” and multiple texts prove that exertion beyond one’s measure denotes heroic action or even arrogance. “the inferior of a contractual relationship. Beowulf sees this venture as a duty commensurate with his eorlscipe. Beowulf here calls his own participation in the dragon fight a “sið. (1675a–8a) hlædræ rærdon. stænenne weall mærða georne. Swanton terms it. hæleð mid honda. . Crisis and Development 67. In other words. The wise man of The Seafarer proposes a behavior associated with the cultivation of warrior wisdom. presumably means performing “beyond one’s measure.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 269 that “eorlscype” denotes an “office or duty” of responsible kingship: “[Beowulf ] says that facing the beast is no mission of warriors. (27a–30b) It is not within the compass of a man—of earth-dwellers—that he may see in his heart a noble deed. His extraordinary proviso emerges from the injunctions of the wisdom genre not .” why were Beowulf ’s retainers ever involved? On the one hand. The passage expresses a personal limitation even to virtuous action. His spirit became mightier and the thoughts in his heart greater than was meet. oferhygd gesceod. . that he might have maintenance for his body”: in his modsefan eorþan æhtwelan þæt he his lichoman Ne sceal Dryhtnes þeow mare gelufian þonne his anes gemet. The problem lies in grasping the right kind of noble motivation in the pursuit of what is “gemet.” Beowulf expects injury or death. an attitude so compelling in Beowulf ’s dragon fight. but if this fight is not “gemet mannes. Saint Guðlac confronts his tormenting demons with a similar acknowledgment of excess. and he establishes a means of rescue. (488b–91b) He did none the better.e. God’s own commandment. “wisdom”). sometimes seen as a divine grace. his heah geweorc þonne him frea syle godes agen bibod. Perhaps Beowulf ’s orders are explicit enough. lade hæbbe. the plan reinforces Beowulf ’s self-doubt. it also expresses Beowulf ’s uncertainty about committing oferhygd in the dragon fight. but arrogance injured the prince [Nebuchadnezzar]. In Order of the World an individual is warned that a great deed (“heah geweorc”) can have ignoble motivations unknown to its perpetrator. that “the Lord’s servant should not love in his heart more earthly wealth than is a single man’s portion. one could gamble recklessly.” Without the moderation promoted in wisdom verse. (386b–9b) In heroic terms the “measure of a man” was an allowance of glory appropriate to his discretion (i. as attested in Order of the World: Nis þæt monnes gemet þæt he mæge in hreþre furþor aspyrgan to ongietanne moldhrerendra. the condition of being “wæfre.270 chapter four ac þam æðelinge wearð him hyrra hyge mara on modsefan No þy sel dyde. . On the other hand. any further than the Lord allows him to see. and on heortan geðanc þonne gemet wære . the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 271 to jeopardize one’s men for personal glory. Hygelac died in a raid undertaken for wlenco, Hroðgar flung his comitatus at Grendel, and Heremod destroyed his Danes out of oferhygd. But Beowulf self-consciously resists sacrificing his men, and he isolates those most indebted to him from a fight he feels uncertain about winning. In fact, he does not expect to use his back-up. Yet Beowulf is realistic, too. Should he be injured or die in the dragon fight, he trusts that his men will be motivated by vengeance, and this expectation can be inferred in a passage coming just before the dragon fight. Subsequent to the story of Hreðel’s death, Beowulf describes his own and Hygelac’s deeds. He emphasizes revenge at desperate odds. In line 2478a–b Ongenðeow is said to have often committed “eatolne inwitscear” or “hateful, vicious slaughter” against the Geats. Having killed Hæðcyn, Ongenðeow plans to exterminate the remaining Geats at Ravenswood, but Hygelac charges Ongenðeow’s troops and avenges his kinsman’s death (“mæg oðerne//billes ecgum/on bonan stælan”; “one kinsman avenged another with sword’s edge,” 2484b–5b). It has often been pointed out that the messenger seems to contradict Beowulf ’s account of the Swedish threat when he says that “for onmedlan/ærest gesohton//Geata leode/Guð-Scilfingas” (“The people of the Geats first sought the Battle-Swedes out of arrogance,” 2926a–7b). According to J. E. Cross, Beowulf “clearly refers to an earlier stage of the struggle when he speaks of the sons of Ongentheow making war across the lakes at Hreosnabeorh.”88 In fact, it seems that Geatish hostility led to a peace with Ongenðeow that Ongenðeow’s kinsmen later failed to honor. Both the indeterminacy and the enormity of the Swedish violation are important. No matter the origin of the feud, or Ongenðeow’s culpability, vengeance is still demanded for the breach and for Hæðcyn’s death. Yet one other detail is highly relevant to Beowulf ’s last speech. The killing of Ongenðeow for Hæðcyn’s death fell to another man, Eofor, presumably unrelated to Hygelac. Precisely because Eofor remembered “feuds enough” (2489a), he did not fail to deliver a fatal blow against Ongenðeow. Subsequent to Hygelac’s rescue of Hæðcyn, Beowulf recounts Hygelac’s death and his own vengeance in lines 2490a–2509b. In this second of three re-tellings of the Swedish feud, Beowulf recounts slaying 88 “Ethic of War” 279. 272 chapter four Dæghrefn, probably Hygelac’s killer.89 Beowulf recalls that Hygelac gave him treasures and land, that he had no need to seek out a worse warrior among Swedes, Danes or Gifðas, an East Germanic tribe. Beowulf claims that he was always in the vanguard, even when (the implication is obvious) Hygelac recklessly attacked the Frisians.90 Beowulf avenged Hygelac on Dæghrefn, the Frisian standard-bearer, by crushing him to death. If the emendation “Frescyninge” is accepted, Beowulf prevented Dæghrefn from carrying off Hygelac’s “breostweorðunge” (Wealhþeow’s jewel, presumably). Quite obviously, Beowulf analogizes his present circumstances—but not in the way Stanley B. Greenfield, for example, imagines. For him, Beowulf ’s “vatic admonition”91 describes his own dedication to vengeance against the dragon, though thwarted.92 Interpreting the Herebeald/Hæðcyn digression and the gomela ceorl exemplum as illustrations of frustrated revenge, Greenfield would emphasize “old age and deaths unavenged” in contrast to “youthful vengeance.”93 The contradictory details in Beowulf ’s recollection of the Swedish-Geatish conflict suggests that Beowulf propagandizes. Greenfield casts Beowulf ’s revenge against the dragon in ironic terms by alluding to “deaths unavenged,” but if Beowulf simply affirms his proven valor by summarizing his past successes, or implies his own determination to seek vengeance (by Greenfield’s equivalence, in which Beowulf answers to the rescuer Hygelac or to himself as Hygelac’s avenger), the implicit parallels between the Frisian raid, Ravenswood, and the dragon fight become submerged. Moreover, Beowulf ’s “wæfre” state and his intuition that death is nigh become inexplicable, and the emergence of an ostensible successor is clouded. In fact, Beowulf has another gambit in mind. Rather than 89 Klaeber’s Beowulf note to lines 2501 ff. (248). Even if Beowulf were wrong to attack the dragon, it could be argued that he has earned vengeance for himself. Eight nouns describing violence punctuate the description of the Swedish hostilities apparently led by Ohthere and Onela: “synn ond sacu” (“crime and war,” 2472a), “wroht” (“assault,” 2473b), “herenið” (“enmity of an army,” 2474a), “inwitscear” (“hostile attack, 2478a), “fæhðe ond fyrene” (“feud and aggression,” 2480a), “guð” (“battle,” 2483b). The messenger blames the Geats (2922a–7b) for this strife, but Beowulf blames the Swedes (2472a–8b). As Greenfield remarks (“Geatish History” 123), Ongenþeow’s sons did not want to honor the peace: “Ongenðeowes/eaferan . . . freode ne woldon” (2475a–6b). 90 Cross, “Ethic of War” 278. 91 “Geatish History” 125. 92 Ibid. 123. 93 Ibid. the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 273 justifying his own decision to confront the dragon, Beowulf urges his retainers to act like Hygelac, Eofor, and himself: to recover a desperate moment, in other words, and fight for their injured or fallen king. An avenger could either be a retainer like Eofor (who kills Ongenðeow) or a kinsman like Beowulf (who kills Dæghrefn). Furthermore, the ambiguous pretext of the Swedish invasion and the folly of Hygelac’s raid “for wlenco” answer Beowulf ’s uncertainty in the dragon fight. Although he cannot be sure he is justified in attacking the dragon, Beowulf yet affirms his expectation for the most extreme retribution on his behalf. Hygelac’s raid “for wlenco” did not prevent Beowulf ’s retaliation, the obligation of a loyal retainer. Just as Hygelac gave Beowulf land and treasure (2490a–3a), Beowulf rewarded his men’s loyalty with honors. Mentioning such gifts in light of his own devotion to Hygelac, Beowulf implicitly dares at least one of his men to emerge as an avenger, however they wish to interpret his motivations. In fact, while Rosemary Woolf maintains that the prospect of dying for one’s lord exists only in Tacitus’s Germania, Beowulf appears to voice it here. I shall have more to say about this famous conundrum later. For the present it is enough to claim that Beowulf expects his men to die for him but does not demand it. It almost seems as if he does not even look to it. Wiglaf will endorse vengeance, too (2650b–2b), and state that leaving Beowulf to die does not “seem fitting”—to him, at least: Ne þynceð me gerysne eft to earde, fane gefyllan, Wedra ðeodnes. (2653a–6a) þæt we rondas beren nemne we æror mægen feorh ealgian It does not seem fitting to me that we should bear shields back home, unless we should first fell our foe, protect the life of the Geats’ king. In this context shame becomes an implicit motive to rescue Beowulf, and Wiglaf reiterates the retainers’ disgraceful failure of duty when addressing them after the fight. “Unloved” (“unleofe,” 2863b) at this time, their fault lies in not having honored the social debt implied in Beowulf ’s generous gifts, which Wiglaf emphasizes as “the most splendid that could be found anywhere” (“swylce he þrydlicost//ower feor oððe neah/findan meahte,” 2869b–70b). The narrator confirms Wiglaf ’s appraisal by calling the retainers “tydre treowlogan” or “cowardly oath-breakers” who “did not dare to engage with spears in their lord’s serious need” (“ða ne dorston ær/dareðum lacan//on hyra 274 chapter four mandryhtnes/miclan þearfe,” 2848a–9b). He focuses, moreover, on the war-gear they bear from the woods, where they had fled to safety:94 . . . ac hy scamiende guðgewædu scyldas bæran, þær se gomela læg. (2850a–1b) But, ashamed, they bore shields and battle-gear where the old man lay. Admittedly, the retainers owed Beowulf service for the oaths they swore and the goods they received—being “hold” (“loyal”) was their duty—but perhaps not against such impossible odds. The implicit question “should the retainers fight?” ought to be posed as “could the retainers fight?” Incentives for defending Beowulf in his ostensibly hopeless conflict with the dragon become contested when Beowulf is imperiled. But Beowulf ’s duty to the warband may confound his generosity. Although Beowulf thinks that he has earned vengeance, his men were paralyzed by terror even though they comprised his most capable squad.95 To what extent do Beowulf ’s men, his kinsmen and “friends,” owe him loyalty for his generosity? Does their failure engender Beowulf ’s death? By no means are these questions theoretical. Merciless critics, however, find no grounds to pardon the retainers (they do not try very hard). Most simply accuse the retainers of cowardice, although explanations of this complaint appear from time to time: the folk-tale plot requires the retainers’ failure of will, Wiglaf ’s virtue is shown to be greater in light of general cowardice, the Geats are constitutionally weak as a nation.96 Excessively condescending towards the subaltern position is Kemp Malone: “How well he took the measure of his retainers! When put to the test, all but one fled the field, hardly to their lord’s surprise.”97 Yet as we have seen, a king who succumbs to oferhygd would sacrifice his own men for personal glory, in blatant disregard for their desires or capacities. Despite Beowulf ’s decision to safeguard his warband, his expectation that the men avenge him criminalizes any malingering. The retainers will be compelled to face near-certain death by avenging Beowulf on 94 “They turned to the woods and protected their lives” (“ac hy on holt bugon,// ealdre burgan,” 2598b–9a). 95 Markland 341–3. 96 Putnam Fennell Jones 300–1; Lawrence, Epic Tradition 227–8. 97 “Beowulf the Headstrong”143; see also Irving, Rereading Beowulf 111: “Obligation is the theme of the crystal-clear paradigm of ideal behavior that Wiglaf delivers to the runaways. They are free to carry out the obligation he reminds them of. We know they could do so, for Wiglaf does so, but they choose not to.” the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 275 the dragon. This position contradicts John M. Hill’s contention that Wiglaf ’s “aid is a free gift given that Beowulf has just told them all to stay put, safely out of harm’s way.”98 In no respect can Beowulf expect his retainers to act freely, for they are duty-bound to defend him and cannot be excused from their sacred obligations. This cruel dilemma—escaping or facing a dire enemy in a conceivably pointless engagement that perhaps only a warrior of immoderate ambition would undertake—suggests that Beowulf is abusing the obligation of the duguð. Since the duty is absolute, the dire options seem clear: fight and probably die, stay safe and be branded a coward. Yet the poet never settles for absolute judgments. Regardless of Beowulf ’s potential oferhygd, his expectation for vengeance strikes me as the litmus test of the retainer’s glory, to avenge the king’s death even if loyalty meant one’s own. In condemning Beowulf ’s men, the narrator also sees a failure of loyalty, at least in theory. The ideal of retainer loyalty therefore comes under scrutiny in the dragon fight. Does a retainer owe his life to a king victimized by oferhygd, if the retainer’s glory entails a death predicated on the king’s suicidal impetuosity? The answer to this question depends on whether Beowulf is reckless, but one demonstration of his overconfidence may lie in the retinue’s flight. They imagine that his chances are hopeless, that he will “fall in battle”: þæt næron ealdgewyrht, Geata duguðe gesigan æt sæcce; (2656b–9a) Ic wat geare, þæt he ana scyle gnorn þrowian, I know for certain that his former deeds were not such that he alone among the hosts of the Geats should suffer sorrow, fall in battle. Like the retainers in Battle of Maldon, Beowulf ’s men have to embrace what looks like suicidal loyalty, in aid of what looks like suicidal impetuosity. If Beowulf ’s best retainers, his most “heroic” companions, are too terrified to face his foe, Beowulf arguably expects far too much for whatever honors he once bestowed. His men, I would argue, are no more “cowardly” than American GIs who recently balked at reconnoitering the Baghdad Airport road without armored vehicles. In answer to Beowulf ’s oferhygd, my critics will assert that the untried byre (“lad”) Wiglaf entered battle when Beowulf ’s experienced retainers 98 Narrative Pulse 82; see also 79: “[Beowulf ] has both their welfare and his sense of duty close to heart.” 276 chapter four quailed.99 Pledges made in the mead-hall, Wiglaf imagines, are reason enough to fight for Beowulf, but the narrator clarifies that such pledges alone do not motivate Wiglaf. Leaving Beowulf behind does not “seem fitting” to him because of their close kinship, something the other men cannot claim:100 sefa wið sorgum; wiht onwendan Hiora in anum weoll sibb æfre ne mæg þam ðe wel þenceð. (2599b–2601b) The spirit in one of them welled with sorrows. Kinship may never spurn anything in a man who is well disposed. Right-minded kin never spurn anything, even a dragon fight, and without a kinship claim, one wonders whether Wiglaf would have assisted Beowulf. The issue seems important for two reasons. First, it could be said to pardon the “cowardly” retainers, at least marginally. Even though they earn scorn and exile among Geats, there is reason to understand why they could not have shared Wiglaf ’s motivation. Second, Wiglaf ’s consanguinity with Beowulf answers why he fought “beyond his measure”: “nevertheless I began to help my kinsman beyond my ability” (“ongan swa þeah//ofer min gemet/mæges helpan,” 2878b–9b). Wiglaf ’s remark establishes that desperation (or alternatively: battle) can make one surpass the “gemet mannes,” an obvious human capacity little discussed in Old English criticism. Exceeding the “manna gemet” can express the condition of proud wlenco, as Genesis A 1673a–8a reveals. The Shinarites build the Tower of Babel “ofer monna gemet” and venture on arrogance and recklessness (“for wlence/and for wonhygdum,” 1673a–b). Wiglaf ’s claim confirms Beowulf ’s own assertion that the dragon fight went beyond the “gemet mannes” and proves that the combat was perilous, even suicidal, but survivable. The evidence from Genesis A suggests that such action may also have been deemed arrogant. In theory, any man could have exceeded the “gemet mannes” if he were willing to risk his life. But when criticizing his companions, Wiglaf fails to concede that kinship motivated him to transcend a limit that Beowulf had staked for Niles, Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition 246. This point is made convincingly in Evans, Lords of Battle 51–2. The reading of “sibb’ ” (= sibbe) in Klaeber’s Beowulf translates the noun as acc. d.o. of onwendan with wiht as subject: “A thing may never change kinship.” Reading wiht as d.o. and sibb as subject, Klaber suggests “kinship can never change anything,” from which he derives “kinship will always prevent a change of heart.” OE onwendan often means “turn” or “turn from,” so the translation “kinship never turns from anything” seems more fitting. See Klaeber’s Beowulf, note to line 2600b f. (251). 99 100 the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 277 himself. His criticism, I might add, recalls Beowulf ’s arrogant remark, that Grendel would not have been so destructive had Hunferð shown more courage. The measure of a man should not be gauged so disdainfully, and Wiglaf for this reason has exhibited a behavior associated with youthful assertiveness. To return to Niles’s question whether the hero should have accepted help, my own position generates a series of irreconcilable contingencies: 1. theoretically owing Beowulf for his generosity, the Geats fail in their arguably sacred duty in a combat that they counseled against and which was, in Beowulf ’s judgment, his own to prosecute; 2. yet the untested Wiglaf manages to help Beowulf and fights “beyond his measure”; 3. but Wiglaf is also motivated by kinship, which may explain his surpassing heroism, and the greatness men can achieve by facing risk; 4. but such “surpassing heroism” resembles suicide. One perceives deliberate paradoxes in this evaluation—not a wholesale dismissal of heroic ideals, but a searching critique of their ultimate effectiveness, and of a king’s accountability, in a potentially hubristic engagement. Worried that his fight could be reckless, Beowulf brings his best men but stations them out of danger. He hopes that stories of vengeance might motivate them to aid him, if necessary. War and Wisdom in the Dragon Fight Couched in the terms befitting oferhygd, Beowulf ’s behavior in the dragon episode evokes the context of Hroðgar’s sermon, the prospect that Beowulf has fallen victim to oferhygd. Alienated from this wisdom context, Niles poses what looks like the same question, “does the hero act for his own glory, out of pride?” This question defines the essence of oferhygd in Beowulf, the motivation of a hypothetically ambitious soldier-king who may have enlisted his men in a quest for personal glory. Predictably, Niles denies that Beowulf acts for personal glory, since he finds Beowulf the winner of a treasure from which his people can benefit. Niles’s whole case turns on a dichotomy advanced by John Leyerle, “a desire for personal glory rather than the common good,” and he concludes that Beowulf fights for the common good—having rejected Wiglaf ’s claim that the dragon may not harm the Geats anymore!101 Yet it cannot be a common good for the Geats to “suffer 101 Niles, Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition 242. 278 chapter four ruin” (“wræc adreogan,” 3078a), as Wiglaf states categorically. Niles is unwilling to concede that “wræc” could refer to the national wars, slavery, and exile that the Geats expect to endure because of Beowulf ’s death. On the contrary, he is ultimately attracted to Ritchie Girvan’s reasoning that the dragon fight was “a moral act which [Beowulf ’s] honor compels him to undertake.”102 Girvan’s emphasis on individual honor comes close to “personal glory” and turns Beowulf into Ahab, in consideration of the dragon-as-animal position. But even if Beowulf ’s vengeance were practical—the elimination of an “evil”—it must still answer the charge of necessity. Girvan’s stance implicitly renders Wiglaf and the other retainers self-serving or even ignominious in their advice. If Beowulf ’s “compulsion” were as indisputable as Girvan alleges, why would Beowulf ’s closest companions question his motives? I have already suggested that they consider him potentially reckless. Ultimately, Niles’s alternatives, “glory” and the “common good,” pose the fundamental question in the dragon episode, answerable only by the most searching appraisal of Beowulf ’s motivation. In analyzing Beowulf ’s kingship, my answer will continue to replicate what I take to be the poet’s own logic. The Intentional Fallacy might these days betoken the height of folly, but I sense that the questions scholars have posed about the dragon episode are exactly the ones they are meant to. The Terms of Heroic Greed Beowulf ’s attitude toward the dragon’s treasure has always been raised as a sign of his moral virtue in the dragon fight, and it influences any evaluation of Beowulf ’s potential oferhygd—or whether he fights for the “common good.” In the past critics have thought that Beowulf ’s cupidity could only derive from “presumed parallels between Beowulf and exegetical commentary,” but this attitude is fallacious.103 The implicit accusation of oferhygd, the pretended failing of a pagan king, taints Beowulf ’s pursuit of gold—the reward for heroic achievement—as an act of personal glory over national security. Eric Stanley concluded that Beowulf was motivated by greed in seeking the dragon hoard,104 and Ibid. 243. Greenfield, “ ‘Gifstol’ ” 115. Randolph Quirk suggested a secular background to these same anxieties (168–71). 104 “Hæþenra Hyht.” 102 103 ” The emendation (universally adopted) would be translated “each brought an end to his transitory life. and his final boast concludes with the remark. since bereafod.” i. “through the action of each. by the action of each it brought an end to this transitory life. “Three Beowulf Notes” 482–3. Beowulf asks Wiglaf to convey lavish treasures from the mound. Go in haste so that I may see the wealth of old.e. just before he succumbs. ende gefered For Beowulf a surfeit of precious treasures was paid for by death. Bammesberger concludes that MS “æghwæðre” should here be read as instr. þæt ic ærwelan. the gold 105 Translating OE gegangan here is difficult. when interjecting that Beowulf traded his life for gold: dryhtmaðma dæl hæfde æghwæðre lænan lifes.” We learn.” 2509b). for it must be “venture” or “fight for” rather than “win. rather pointedly. The editors of Klaeber’s Beowulf retain the emendation.” 106 Bammesberger. (2743b–51b) Dear Wiglaf. (2842b–5a) Biowulfe wearð deaðe forgolden. Nu ðu lungre geong under harne stan.” Bammesberger suggests that “dryhtmæðma dæl” ought to be the subject. He finishes his recollection with the pledge to fight for the hoard (“ymb hord wigan. goldæht ongite. “more peacefully”: hord sceawian Wiglaf leofa.” 2404b–5b). gearo sceawige þæt ic ðy seft mæge min alætan þone ic longe heold. “I shall reach the gold through courage”: “Ic mid elne sceall//gold gegangan” (2535b–6a). so that the old king could die “the softer. sing.105 The poet seems to confirm that winning treasure was indeed Beowulf ’s aim. æfter maððumwelan lif ond leodscipe. Bio nu on ofoste. swegle searogimmas. nu se wyrm ligeð.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 279 the poet confirms Beowulf ’s interest in the “heathen gold. now that the dragon lies dead—sleeps sorely wounded and deprived of treasure—go quickly and look upon the hoard under the gray stone.” rather than emended to “æghwæðer. The poet insists on highlighting this unfathomable wealth when emphasizing Beowulf ’s curiosity in the hoard.106 Moreover. . that Beowulf received the stolen cup: “him to bearme cwom//maðþumfæt mære/þurh ðæs meldan hond (“the famous cup had come into his possession by the hand of the informer. swefeð sare wund. 108 Yet the phrase “hyde se ðe wylle” seems to indicate that all men will seek out riches if they learn of them. The poet never says that the vast riches of the dragon hoard seduced Beowulf. Relevant to Beowulf ’s heroic motivation is the poet’s obscure remark that treasure can easily “overcome” any man: gold on grunde. Greenfield made this same point in “ ‘Gifstol’ ” 115: “descriptive of what Wiglaf sees when he enters the mound at his dying lord’s request. since “strive beyond” may be translated “overcome” or “overtake.” not in the sense “come upon” but “overpower. For this reason.” and at least once in the pursuit of lucre: “Se ðe æfter ðæm higaþ ðæt he eadig sie on ðisse worulde. hide it who will. and it should not be doubted that the warrior bent on personal glory would take an interest in his prize. To die “the softer” implies that killing the dragon is not enough for Beowulf. here or elsewhere. Sinc eaðe mæg.9 (translating “qui festinat ditari”).” 107 108 . and look more eagerly upon the brilliant cunning jewels. too. Beowulf ’s curiosity about the hoard has earned reproach as materialistic. so that I may more peacefully give up my life in the lordship which I have long held on account of the richness of that treasure. or to Wiglaf ’s momentary shock at the accumulated wealth. but attestations of the simplex higian betray the sense “strive” or “hasten. The personal glory sought by a warrior and manifested in riches seems here to trump the king’s duty to his nation. Nevertheless. The hapax oferhigian has been the subject of some dispute. it seems essential to the poet’s paradox that Beowulf receive the stolen cup (2404b–5b). Beowulf might have sounded more kingly in boasting that he rid Geatland of a menace. A passage once thought to prove it can be found in lines Sweet 44. Beowulf ’s “greed” cannot be substantiated.” The seduction of treasure in these lines may refer either to the whole context of the dragon fight. gumcynnes gehwone hyde se ðe wylle. and the insinuation would suit Beowulf ’s potential oferhygd. he has to have the treasure.”107 The root sense solves any complication. oferhigian. (2764b–6b) Treasure—gold in the earth—can easily overcome any man. no matter how well guarded they may be.280 chapter four possessions. but he could imply as much. //agendes est. the Geats themselves enchant the treasure—and that Beowulf ’s desire for the riches was honorable. “Næs he goldhwæte/gearwor hæfde. 110 See now Gwara./ær gesceawod.110 these words come at the end of a description of a “curse” laid down on the treasure by its previous owners. kindness) had before (or. .” from which the following argument derives. .’ ”112 For each of these two options. . “he had by no means more readily 109 Based on arguments in the following paragraphs. Cooke is thinking of the modern tall <f> in offering this conjecture. the one) eager for gold. but the readings of Tanke and Fulk (which follow) have the virtue of retaining the manuscript reading “næs he. 219. and William Cooke. The discussion in Klaeber’s Beowulf summarizes Fulk’s treatment of the passage (“Cruces in Beowulf ”). . but his work must have been accepted for publication before Fulk’s and Tanke’s articles appeared.g. 223 note 50). . The error of “ne” for “he” is plausible. first) more readily (or. the race of men represented by the “Last Survivor. <f > has no ascender. R. Restoring the manuscript reading “næs he” and taking the implied subject to be Beowulf. it was emended: MS næs he (“not at all”) was altered to næfne (“unless”). as “a loyal servant of the supreme good God. 113 Ibid. “Beowulf 3074–75. In the vernacular alphabet.”113 By these terms Beowulf has earned the dragon’s hoard.” . since he makes no mention of them (e. 112 Cooke 218. in fact.”109 The subject of considerable reflection in recent articles by John Tanke. However. ‘unless the one eager for gold had first quite clearly respected the Ruler’s favour.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 281 3074a–5b. Klaeber translated his own emended verses as “unless God’s grace (or. ‘unless he had first quite clearly respected the Ruler’s gold-rich (or ‘gold-bestowing’ or ‘gold glittering’) bounty’ .” Partly because this statement was thought to incriminate Beowulf. Cooke concludes that the scribe misread <f> for tall <s>. Tanke translates. I have removed the comma after goldhwæte and added those following hæfde and est. we can adopt and the text that Pätzig and Klaeber proposed but construe and interpret it differently .”111 William Cooke has re-affirmed the general tone of this translation: “. The complex arguments that Cooke adduces here are thoughtfully considered in detail. Fulk. D. . thoroughly) favored those (or. Cooke explores competing interpretations of lines 3074–75 in exceptional scholarly detail. Cooke accepts the emendation “næfne” as a variant of OE nefne/nemne (as elsewhere in Beowulf ) but errs in the paleographical conclusion reached about sigmoid <s> in the manuscript reading næshe. Cooke begins with the position that Beowulf is not cursed—that. John Tanke explores a very different solution to these lines. 111 Beowulf 227 note to lines 3074–5. writing sigmoid <s> in his copy. and its lower hast sits on the bounding line. that I might see the gold hoard.”114 Tanke proposes to read “agend” (“Owner”) as “God” and the term “goldhwæte” (< *goldhwatu) as “luck with gold. expects to lose this fight: “Though he had no idea how he would meet his death in this encounter (i. in Tanke’s opinion. First. and that gearwor could mean “rather. . he had not expected much good from it. the Owner’s favor.”115 Beowulf. occasioned by an unknowable curse. who translated it “as a substantive . he must also see it”:119 Bio nu on ofoste. “it is not enough for [Beowulf ] to know that the treasure is now his.” In fact. 363. “Beowulf by no means had sought out (or contemplated?) a curse on gold. ‘readiness about gold.’ ” later “liberality” (“Interpretations and Emendations IV” 123–4).” which he quite reasonably modifies to “good luck with gold.120 but the precedent Tanke’s translation (362). but OE gesceawian typically means “observe” or “look.”117 He translates.” Alan Bliss drew attention to the collocation “gearo sceawige” in verses 2747a–9a and speculated.”118 In this reading Fulk emphasizes the irony attending Beowulf ’s death. rather the owner’s (God’s) favour. swegle searogimmas .. either. I find this passage to be more circumspect than Tanke or Fulk do. since OE galdor “spell” is sometimes paired with OE hwatu.”116 Extending Tanke’s conjectures. Fulk suggested that *goldhwatu could indicate the curse placed on the gold. 116 Tanke 367. the ancient treasure. Bruce Mitchell discounts any meaningful parallel between this passage and verses appearing some three hundred lines later. and look avidly upon the bright crafted jewels. goldæht ongite. 120 “Damnation of Beowulf ?” 32. þæt ic ærwelan. “Cruces in Beowulf ” 362. .282 chapter four foreseen good luck with gold. . gearo sceawige Hasten now. 119 “Beowulf. 117 Fulk. this verse might as easily be rendered “they observed their fortune. 118 Ibid. 114 115 .e. Tanke derives a sense “foresee” for OE gesceawian on the analogy of Beowulf 204b: “hæl sceawedon” (“they foresaw good fortune”). . Lines 3074–75” 58. and my own view modifies three aspects of Tanke’s reading. The proposal *goldhwatu was first made by Kock. that he would come up against the cursed gold and not merely the dragon). “Hæþenra Hyht” 199–200. “Beowulf 303 ff. 123 Tanke 363–4. V. rather the owner’s (God’s?) favour” (363). er vorher ganz des Eigentümers goldreiches Erbe’ (geschaut). For multiple reasons—none ultimately convincing—Tanke considered but rejected the dragon as the “owner” referred to.122 This reference.” Kemp Malone’s impossible punctuation of the last line of this citation (“agendes. In fact. Finally. . but that the dragon may be considered a hypothetical one. est. . I believe that no specific owner is referred to here. “when the author tells us that Beowulf did not see the dragon’s generosity very well. Tanke ingeniously parses “goldhwæte” as a feminine noun *goldhwatu.’ ”125 His translation 121 R. “Dragons never grant anyone their favor where gold is concerned.” 2157a–b). “means something like ‘bestow on. Moreover. . Fulk interprets it as “spell” in reference to the curse. in the sense “God’s favor. Fulk (“Cruces in Beowulf ” 359–63) has proposed that “gearwor” here means “rather. not the feminine accusative singular adjective modifying “est. Second. D.” an unattested sense in Old English. see Imelmann. und der Satz liest sich fortschreitend natürlich: ‘und nicht .” 3066b) with which Beowulf has sought strife. 125 Smithers 79. . Smithers criticized the prevailing assumption that the adjective “goldhwæte” (modifying “est”) could mean “brave” or “cursed. “Beowulf by no means had sought out (or contemplated?) a curse on gold./he viewed the dragon’s liberality no sooner” (“Notes on Beowulf ” 5–6). He explains. attested in the expression “est ahwette” from Andreas 339b.” as most other commentators claim. indeed. und 3074 f. est. where est can mean an inanimate object (“his . gesceawod”) made for a crabbed translation: “Beowulf beheld the owner’s bounty no better. In a seminal article G. collocations of godes/metodes + est can often be found. he challenges Tanke’s reading “luck” for hwatu.” Only in Beowulf do we find genitive + est. derived from hwæteadig. . he means that Beowulf did not see his generosity at all” (6).” Only with some strain can “agendes est” in this context mean “God’s favor. 124 Smithers 79–80. He elaborates: “The existence of an OE noun meaning ‘luck’ [hwæt.”124 He argued instead that the element -hwæt meant “bestowing. or noun . Elene 1195] suggests that the factitive verb had senses corresponding to all those proper to the adj. and that we may therefore . First. goldgierig scheidet aus. ær.” since OE ahwettan.” and may possibly mean “destiny” in Old English (as it did in Middle English).” since the dragon has been alluded to as the “biorges weard” (“guardian of the barrow. . .” Fulk translates the verses. lifes/sigores/swegles/wuldres + agend designate “God” in five Old English poems.” 337: “goldhwæte ist nach Analogie anderer Adjektiva zu deuten also goldstark oder goldreich. 122 Stanley. . Hier ist alles klar und glatt. follows the earlier report that the “weard” slew Beowulf (3060b–1a). Although hwatu is attested in the sense “divination. Translating OE gesceawian as “seek out” or “contemplate.”121 A second issue in Tanke’s scheme concerns the referent to “agend.”123 he explained when he presumed “God” to be a more fitting owner. .the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 283 in Beowulf does prove that “gearo gesceawian” can simply mean “look eagerly. Beowulf examined the dragon’s cache more closely than any other gift he had ever received. This moment perfectly expresses the poet’s own studied ambivalence. however. of avarice.). the gold-bestowing favour of God” (59).”127 In other words.128 Beowulf could therefore be reproved on Stanley’s grounds. however.” Adverb ær has to be translated “before” in this context and would not represent the marker of the pluperfect (Bliss 56–7). and unmistakably savours of avarice” (58).v. 129 “Hæþenra Hyht” 203. Beowulf ’s eager attention to the gold may either satisfy him in the reward for a great accomplishment (“heroic greed”). Beowulf ’s receipt of the cup after his resolution to fight the dragon would not necessarily vitiate his potential rapacit y.284 chapter four “gold-bestowing munificence” gained wide attention. the term “generosity” ultimately eases the sense. sense 1b: “gracious/liberal gift. or exonerate him as hopeful of bequeathing an extravagant legacy. whereas lines 3074–75 show Beowulf ’s “irreproachable attitude . .’ perhaps derived from ‘cause to befall’ or ‘make fortunate’ ” (ibid. Hygelac’s imagined “staring” at (i.” my argument would not be significantly changed: “not at all had he looked more closely at the gold-bestowing munificence of an owner. an act of studied appraisal. that even if goldhwæt were translated as the adjective “gold-bestowing” modifying “agendes est.” OE est can mean “favor. . an owner’s generosity. evaluation of ) Beowulf ’s treasures (should Beowulf not survive the fight with Grendel’s mother. Hroðgar’s “staring” at Grendel’s head (1781b).” 2749b).” I would render the term “est” by “generosity” rather than “favor.” 2796b). even in respect to minute details like the stolen cup. a spectacle that should cue similar appraisals: men “staring” at Grendel’s arm (996b). Tanke. derailed the semantic development and emphasized the “fortune” of bestowal in his expression “luck.” In conjunction with Tanke’s translation of “goldhwæte” as “good luck with gold. therefore. that lines 2747a–51b exhibit Beowulf ’s “improper attitude towards treasure.”129 but the premise remains contested by Beowulf ’s need to die comforted (“ðy seft. 128 Greenfield exonerates Beowulf for this very reason (“ ‘Gifstol’ ” 109). but as an abstract circumlocution for “gift” in Beowulf and Andreas. and Bliss. 1485b).e. that he “showed himself eager to see the gold.” admittedly. .” 127 I must point out. and was guilty. As I see it. who has a more complex theory. Readers will no doubt be querying why the charge posit for ahwettan the hitherto unacknowledged sense ‘bestow on. 126 DOE s. For this reason Beowulf stares at the treasure (“on starie.” which would vary “agendes est. Because dragons seem to have been always associated with gold.126 A small matter of substituting the indefinite article for the definite lets the passage be read: “not at all had he ever before looked more intently at his own gold-luck. who (it is argued) at least feels that Respectively. Did King Beowulf need to earn it. heaped with the dragon’s gold.” In fact. in acknowledgment of an enemy’s defeat. The accomplishment of killing the dragon cannot be questioned (although Beowulf ’s death undermines it).” 2512b–14a). Cultural World 134–5. “Gold und Manneswert”. 130 131 . Beowulf responds to his obligations as a king should but to his task as a warrior” (135).” The reading I have been discussing restores an important equivocation: Beowulf ’s interest in the treasure may still be nothing more than a hero’s due bounty.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 285 “satisfy him in the reward for a great accomplishment” should be the negative term of this opposition. I sense that this equivocation represents a certain unresolved discomfort over Beowulf ’s fight. with the exception of Wiglaf. too? The term “greed” has too often hijacked the debate over Beowulf ’s motivation in the dragon fight. however. But the motivation can: heroes like Sigemund earn glory and treasure in this way. In focusing solely on the dimension of reward. intend to pursue the feud. labeled “heroic greed. killing the dragon is a transcendent accomplishment. “Progress of the Hoard” 475. A point explored in Greenfield. critics who treat the dragon’s treasure as Beowulf ’s legitimate reward appreciate that the narrator does not unambiguously discredit Beowulf ’s interest in it. some might call this obsession “greed. Although Beowulf dies in the duel. as Cherniss notes. automatically evokes the oferhygd complex.131 Any interest in the hoard.//mærðu fremman” (“I.//frod folces weard/fæhðe secan. the quest for transcendent deeds rewarded by enduring reputation and vast wealth explains heroic recklessness or arrogance. “not fearing combat or the dragon’s great strength. yet the poet poses Beowulf ’s “heroism” as the chief complication in the episode. Ernst Leisi and Michael D. nor can the reward. Cherniss have justified this view by acknowledging that treasures are earned as “the material manifestations or representations of the proven or inherent worthiness of whoever possesses them. Beowulf ’s retainers have not earned the dragon’s gold. Hill concludes. since glory-seeking warriors earn treasure for “mærðo. wise guardian of the people. By Cherniss’s logic. “ ‘Gifstol’ ” 108–9. From Cherniss’s perspective.” whereas kings secure prosperity. perform a glorious deed. Earning unparalleled riches validates the dragon fight as the “glorious deed” Beowulf imagined it would be: “ic wylle. see also the more complex reading of Hill. Greenfield supposes that Beowulf ’s eagerness to gain the hoard and see his winnings is positive (113).”130 Cherniss compares Scyld’s own funeral ship heaped with treasure to Beowulf ’s pyre. Beowulf ’s hope to “win the gold” sounds like an Olympian’s. After all. Beowulf 132 The disposal of the gold has also exercised Thomas A. who says: Ic ðara frætwa Wuldurcyninge ecum dryhtne. two others occur to me. their honour gone to rust. 134 Many critics have exonerated Beowulf ’s presumed “greed” by these verses. Now have I bought my fate with a hoard of treasures. but under these circumstances it would seem that the Geats should accept it. who imagines that one retainer (whom he identifies as the messenger) redeems his cowardice by proposing to inter the treasure with his fallen king. Yet there may be reason to think that Beowulf acted in the interests of national security rather than selfinterest. They suggest that because hoarding is vilified and sharing praised. mine bebohte In words I give thanks to the Lord. wordum secge. minum leodum swylc gestrynan. Beowulf is justified in freeing the treasure for distribution. 133 Greenfield. the eternal Lord. the king of glory. This view can hardly be credited under the circumstances I propose.132 Therefore. Wiglaf. Carnicelli. þe ic her on starie. Greenfield. one of his later utterances appears to moderate the suspicion of rapacity. cf. under a barricade. to ensure the Geats’ security: “With this wealth the new king of the Geats will be well placed both to hold his own thanes’ loyalty and to attract the bravest and best warriors from all the surrounding lands.” 3058b–60a). Wiglaf gathers what treasure he can carry and brings it to Beowulf.134 William Cooke has lately proposed that Beowulf leaves the treasure to his successor.”135 While this solution is convincing. “ ‘Gifstol’ ” 109–10. 135 “Who Cursed Whom?” 208. for all of the treasures which I look upon here.286 chapter four he has not earned it. First. the narrator contends that the dragon wrongly hoarded the treasure: “se sið ne ðah//þam ðe unrihte/inne gehydde// wrætte under wealle” (“the venture did not avail him who wrongly hid the treasure within. . . (2794a–2800a) frean ealles ðanc.” Hill proposes that the treasure constitutes Beowulf ’s wergild (Narrative Pulse 12). such as I could gain before my death-day for my people. Does Beowulf sacrifice his life to enrich “his people”? In support of Beowulf ’s action. he receives the precious cup only after resolving to confront the dragon.133 Furthermore. “ ‘Gifstol’ ” 113: “the rusted and ultimately useless hoard is an analogue for the cowards themselves. þæs ðe ic moste ær swyltdæge Nu ic on maðma hord frode feorhlege . . Why.” Indeed. Second. one inevitable reason why he was motivated to take revenge. 139 John Niles (Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition 244) explains this contradiction “pragmatically”: “Since the Geats deposit the dragon’s gold in the dead king’s barrow in lieu of tribal treasures. Narrative Pulse 88 (“use the treasure to look after the Geats”). Second. Greenfield. One final influential critic. just like the precious objects that accompany any funeral. See also Hill. The gold from the hoard lies in the ground ‘as useless to human beings as it was before’ (3186). from a purely pragmatic standpoint they are spared having to make a great material sacrifice at their king’s funeral. Rereading Beowulf 129: “gold is used as a measure of heroic effort”). the inheritors of it are his people by default. then. to earn treasure for “one’s people” magnifies Beowulf ’s own standing as ring-giver. did Beowulf trade his life for it? .139 Wiglaf probably expected Beowulf to enjoy this treasure 136 Similar to Irving’s proposition that the treasure was Beowulf ’s wergild (Reading of Beowulf 167. what else would one say in resigned acknowledgment of a mortal injury? If Beowulf cannot use the treasure himself. then they will know where the treasure must go now and who should be its present possessor.” The statement seems unlikely in two respects. Nevertheless. First. Rereading Beowulf 129. 138 Irving. has endorsed an impressionistic reading: “once the Geats have the proper feel of all this [the various “sensations” they have. the narrator’s statement that the gold was useless to men actually qualifies Beowulf ’s success: the gold lies with Beowulf.”138 For Irving. there was no expectation for Beowulf to receive the wealth of an entire nation at his funeral.136 This first reason sounds sacrificial. Wiglaf ’s decision to burn and then bury the treasure with Beowulf confounds Beowulf ’s generosity “for his people. he might imagine that the riches could be used to buy off his enemies after his death. the treasure is obviously Beowulf ’s. I would have said that the Geats are much poorer after the funeral than before. Irving. 137 Irving.. “ ‘Gifstol’ ” 112–13.” Is Beowulf then seeking to enlarge his reputation for liberality? Finally. First. Reading of Beowulf 208. see idem. Second. useless now and useless when the dragon had it. in light of a king’s ambition to be “generous. and “actions” they commit. multiple problems emerge in accepting Beowulf ’s presumed self-sacrifice. Jr. Edward B.137 Such settlements are known even in Beowulf.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 287 could be thinking that the dragon’s wealth compensates his losses.//eldum swa unnyt/swa hit æror wæs” (“where it now yet lies as useless to men as it had been before. the poet remarks that the treasure now buried with Beowulf was “as useless to men as it had been before”: “þær hit nu gen lifað.” 3167b–8b). They are no poorer after the funeral than before. after the dragon’s death]. ” In this context the “egesa.140 but the Christian narrator discloses the vanity of his heathen pietas. perceiving himself as a king. personal gear. “A Few Beowulf Notes” 15. . the inconsistency between his own perspective that he never sought out searoniðas and the narrator’s affirmation that he had done so against the dragon manifests a potential benightedness.” 2738a).288 chapter four in the afterlife. Cherniss’s neat equation that treasure equals merit evaporates when one considers that Beowulf.” perhaps unnecessarily. the narrator records that Beowulf “sohte searoniðas” (3067a) in the dragon fight. fehð oþer to. perceiving Beowulf as a warrior in pursuit of glory. The disarming contradiction recalls my earlier point: either subalterns misunderstand Beowulf ’s motivation. see Fabech. see Klaeber. a fact that fosters our preoccupation with Beowulf ’s “morality. thinks this treasure belongs to his folc. I sense. “Memorial Eulogies” 2–3. egesan ne gymeð. the former wealth of an earl. “Warfare and Ideology. 100–500 AD). In summarizing his achievements on his deathbed. Hill. and his death. whereas Wiglaf and the Geats. see Fabech. against the dragon.” which I have elsewhere translated as “national invasion. Beowulf says that he never “sohte searoniðas” (“sought contrived hostilities. 140 Frank. in which the elaborate and valuable deposits (weapons.” can characterize the “searonið” that Beowulf “sought. and he identifies this provocation as a possible reason for Beowulf ’s death.141 Hygelac himself “sought” a feud with the Franks when he (quite literally) “asked for woe” (“wean ahsode. 142 On the sense of the verb (“to ask for it”). 141 Thomas D. (1755b–7b) Another man will inherit who gives treasures.142 While Beowulf never confesses to a wrong decision.” Inhumations were also found alongside such Migration-era sacrifices (ca. “Confession of Beowulf ” 173. he will not care for national warfare. sometimes burnt. The moment obviously harks back to Hroðgar’s evocation of oferhygd: se þe unmurnlice eorles ærgestreon. Or perhaps the deposition represented a booty sacrifice. bury it with him. horse trappings) had been deliberately damaged. mounts. “Reassessment” 88 and 91.” 1206b). or Beowulf unknowingly misrepresents himself. without hesitation. However. madmas dæleþ. Beowulf certainly cared more for these treasures than Wiglaf. is being compared to Beowulf ’s. Cattle die. countless slaughters.” One might be able to draw this conclusion by translating lines 2884a–90a as Niles does (“all joy and love in your native land will cease for your people” > “all cherished joy of one’s homeland will cease for your kinsmen” . as “Hákonarmál” (ca. In fact. state of hostility. 143 According to Niles (Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition 245). .//wælnið wera” or “feud . . land and realm are emptied. In company they will pace strange lands as refugees (3019a–b).” 2886b) once their fear becomes known abroad. . not their hero’s death. and forced slavery”: þæt hio hyre heregeongas wælfylla worn. “every man will go bereft of his rightful domains among the tribe” > “every man of your tribes will be deprived of his rightful domains”). On the basis of references to Geats in Skaldic verse. 960): Deyr fé. . . eyðisk land ok láð. and enslavement. (3152b–5a) Sæide geneahhe hearde ondrede. devastation. Roberta Frank speculates that the Geats were not exterminated as predicted here.” 2887a-b) will lose their property rights (“londrihtes. Structure of Beowulf 55–9./.143 There can be no doubt that the misery predicted by the Geat messenger describes exile. she gathered evidence highlighting the anomalous doom forecast in the herald’s prophecy and the maiden’s lament.” 2911a). the slaughter-malice of men” (2999a–3000a). hynðo ond hæftnyd. a “fæhðo . humiliation. Wiglaf “singles out the Geats’ cowardice. although misery will befall them.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 289 A State of War While Beowulf ’s hoard may signify glory gained.” 2910b–13a). . Kinsmen die. as the source of their approaching misfortunes. the messenger declares that Beowulf ’s death will invite invasion: “Nu ys leodum wen//orleghwile. The woman who sings a “giomorgyd” at Beowulf ’s funeral “often said that she sorely feared invasions of hosts. . . 145 “Memorial Eulogies. but it seems to me that Wiglaf is precise: kinsmen of these retainers (“þære mægburge/monna æghwylc. 12). a warband’s terror. . an “orleghwile” (“time of war. Orchard’s proposed parallel with the messenger’s predicted annihilation in Judith may suggest the formulaic character of such doom (Pride and Prodigies 8. 144 “Skaldic Verse” 125. see Sisam.” On the identity of the “geatisc meowle” as a mourner. his real legacy is to expose the Geats to invasion. Wiglaf does not say that these men brought about national invasion. deyia frændr. werudes egesan.144 In an earlier article. feondscipe./syððan underne//Froncum ond Frysum/fyll cyninges//wide weorðeð” (“Now the people should expect a time of tribulation after the king’s fall becomes widely known among the Franks and Frisians. see Mustanoja.145 Old Norse erfidrápur disclose that a king’s death traditionally portends death. Beowulf had not exposed his people to excessive risk. why would the narrator confirm the messenger’s expectation that disaster awaits them? The messenger concludes his long oracle by predicting a feast for eagles and wolves (the traditional Beasts of Battle). then. “prophecies” (<*hwatu) rather than the wk. pl. since its origin has just been rehearsed in the recapitulation of Hygelac’s Frisian raid and the Swedish wars. Cited from Frank. as part of ritual lamentation.147 At least. masc. wyrda ne worda. and masculine.” 148 On reading “hwata” as gen. “eager” (<hwæt). 146 147 . women in the Icelandic sagas and Eddic poems were not given to the prediction of their own deaths and enslavement.146 One cannot escape the impression that idiomatic expressions of grief in Scandinavian (or Germanic?) eulogies influenced the apocalyptic ending of Beowulf. Yet research by Carol J. The tradition appears to be Skaldic.148 The Geats could hardly be unaware of their doom. If not a litotes.290 chapter four síz Hákon fór með heiðin goð mörg er þióð um þiáð. Is there enough distortion to exonerate Beowulf. see Tanke 360. Either possibility could substantiate the impression that Beowulf ’s dragon fight was not irresponsible. he did not lie much in his predictions or statements. (3028a–30a) secggende wæs he ne leag fela So the man was recounting prophecies. hateful tidings. that he was mistaken in some details. that the “geatisc meowle” is repeating a truth that the messenger had voiced? If it were true that the Geats’ “lament” merely expresses their desolation and does not predict actual massacre. after which the narrator adds: Swa se secg hwata laðra spella. Since Hákon fared to the heathen gods. n. however. “Hildigunnr’s Lament. Could it be possible. or national ruin. the expression “ne leag fela” could suggest that the messenger’s prediction was not completely accurate. one wonders? I sense here a deliberate ambiguity which hinges on the possibility that the messenger and “geatisc meowle” may be uttering a conventional Germanic dirge or at least exaggerating the consequences of Beowulf ’s death. “Memorial Eulogies” 5. many a people is enslaved. Clover into the origins of the OIcel hvöt (“incitement”) and erfikvæði (“dirge”) does not square with Frank’s conclusion. that Beowulf ’s death left his nation vulnerable to what the messenger predicts. . the Israelites in Daniel. the claim would divorce Beowulf from all responsibility for his people. massacre. In these terms. but conceivable. Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition 245. Moreover. could Beowulf be said to have acted like Heremod. in trading a possible destruction (as I argue the dragon represents) for a certain one. enslavement.” There are better reasons for exonerating Beowulf. and the Swedish wars. a detour: It has been argued that Beowulf was not responsible for the events leading to the expected Geatish tribulations. the “army-minded” king who killed his own people? Is it reprehensible for Beowulf to ask his men to avenge him. The poet has carefully created a situation in which the possibility of national annihilation exists for the two opposing judgments one may hold of Beowulf ’s behavior. Yet the possibility that Beowulf was negligent in fighting the dragon represents a viable alternative reading of this coda. the tyrant afflicted by oferhygd becomes a burden to his nation. Heremod’s Danes. Vital to the portents of doom at the close of Beowulf is the uncertainty so often imputed to them: the Geats’ presumed extinction is forecast but never confirmed. preemptively challenged. Even so. to engineer their intervention without demanding it? Is one’s own death an adequate proof of 149 Niles. a boy hitting his baseball into a picture window would say. In Beowulf ’s case. Nebuchadnezzar’s and Belshazzar’s Babylonians. Beowulf ’s conscience implies that he has reflected on an uncomfortable decision.149 This is patently untrue: Beowulf fought against the Franks and killed Dæghrefn. In pursuit of glory. and Satan’s angels all face disaster on a national scale: exile. one could not imagine a blacker sin: to confirm the Geats’ expected annihilation would be to accuse Beowulf of oferhygd. Because he did not lead an army to the dragon. in fact. and he supported Eadgils against Onela. Here I must insist that Beowulf ’s oferhygd is neither confirmed nor even likely. and. often because of rash but unnecessary military campaigns. Hygelac’s Frisian raid. “your house got in the way of my home-run. readers will recognize differences between Heremod’s campaigns and Beowulf ’s own. Ermanaric’s Goths in Deor. and the oferhygd complex reveals why the trope of national extermination is relevant. These fates are not mere expressions of grief but befall people bereft of kings. First. for which reason it might be said that he had not jeopardized his own men.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 291 The preceding rehabilitation appeals to critics who resist the alternative. 292 chapter four rashness? This question yields another observation. “Scyld Scefing” 39: “true kingship is given. i. “Fathers and Sons”.” 14a). and Fremu for bearing Eomer. a courageous man emerges who may yet become a king worth following. but Eadgils’s (or his descendants’) forebearance is 150 Tripp. Is it Beowulf ’s failing? Because Scyld is honored for fathering Beow. Beowulf “confers war-band leadership” (Narrative Pulse 83). but it resembles an investiture. unlikely to live much longer in aid of his people. Some critics have disputed that Wiglaf will become the Geat king. Wiglaf carries Eanmund’s sword.” 1961a). Beowulf has no heir. Hygelac. and Beowulf bestows his torque on Hygd. a perplexing complication in the poem. Moreover. and Beowulf wear such collars. it signifies the continuation of the blood-line and of the sublunary fame of his family” (161). Because either Eadgils or his descendants arguably command the Scylfing throne at Beowulf ’s death (fifty years on). Beowulf is quite old. In Beowulf Hama. but the expectation is natural: he is a kinsman. Critics have answered Beowulf ’s childlessness by proposing that sons cannot amend political instabilities. Although not as capable as Beowulf. Does Beowulf ’s death fighting the dragon therefore compromise Geatish survival any more than his inevitable death from old age? One might think that this observation should have no bearing on Beowulf ’s oferhygd. Bazelmans sees it differently: “When Beowulf passes his torque to Wiglaf and with it his ‘luck’. an inheritance from his father Weohstan and testimony that Wiglaf ’s family fought against the Scylfing refugees Eanmund and Eadgils. a “help to warriors” (“hæleðum to helpe.” 151 Some would deny that Wiglaf becomes king after Beowulf. ceremonially. Hill suggests that by bestowing the collar along with his words. Of course. it seems natural that conceiving a son was a king’s duty. sons of Ohthere. not won. but the poet intends it to bear centrally on Beowulf ’s motivation. Hama and Hygelac were kings. Hill. .e. Wiglaf might be considered an enemy. a “comfort to his people” (“folce to frofre. Thomas D.150 Just as Hroðgar made his champion Beowulf into a “son. but I do not know how it could be doubted. possibly in repudiation of the rank.” Beowulf looked to the dragon fight to yield an eligible and distinguished heir. Wiglaf ’s receipt of Beowulf ’s collar may be considered a reward for Wiglaf ’s help.151 And yet Wiglaf ’s advent as the Geat king will engender one of two central conflicts feared in the messenger’s speech. too. The dragon fight therefore solves the problem of merit-versus-lineage by establishing a test for rule. and already seems to be giving orders and disciplining the retinue. Beowulf materially helped Eadgils regain rule of the Scylfings in campaigns against Onela. none of which might be firmly attributable to Beowulf ’s own decision. Appealing to the poet’s interlace style. in explanation of the term “gumena” (“of men”). and not Wiglaf ’s legitimacy. however. Cooke sees no difficulty in transitioning from a statement about the treasure to one about its enchantment by its recipients.” 2233b) deposited the hoard. he reveals that death had taken all the other men who had assembled it (“Ealle hie deað fornam.” Brodeur. partly because of the blatant pagan overtones and partly because the hoard is itself incinerated. Yet from the messenger’s speech it seems that Beowulf ’s death itself. In 1958 Kenneth Sisam laid out three passages dealing with the dragon’s treasure and showed how impossible it was to reconcile them. having lost their reputations. Art of Beowulf 238–9. would arouse Swedish ire. He suggests that OE þonne (cf. but quite clearly these “illustrious princes” do not comprise Beowulf ’s duguð.” 3070a) who laid up the treasure and laid down the curse could not be the same as the Last Survivor. Knowing that his own death was drawing near. this would seem an otiose polemic. We learn that a certain man (“gumena nathwylc. that Beowulf ’s own Geats place the curse on the treasure. not “furthermore” (as some translators have interpreted it). his duguð (211). This heathen spell may have some purchase on Beowulf ’s heroic “greed. Would there be need to protect a rusted. I sense. and. an ambivalence suggesting that Beowulf ’s choice of fighting the dragon entails a concatenation of potential hardships. problematically.” if one wishes to spotlight cupidity as one of Beowulf ’s failings.” 2236b). Many.” and. who could hardly be described as “princes. 3051a) as clause-initial should mean “then” in a prospective sense.152 The tale of the last survivor seems to account for this curse. 152 153 . According to Cooke. The Unknowable and Unforeseeable Heathen Curse A further moment of ambiguity essential to the oferhygd complex is the curse on the dragon’s hoard. are in no sense illustrious (“mære”). the “þeodnas mære” of 3070a are Beowulf ’s men. a single survivor took the treasure “Beowulf ’s Fight with the Dragon.153 To critics favoring consistency.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 293 not likely to be transferred to Wiglaf. may not be quick to adopt this reading. We simply have no details which could explain the Geatish jeopardy. although it has been alleged that the “famous princes” (“þeodnas mære. I theorize quite a different function for this curse. burnt-out hoard from looters? Possibly. William Cooke claims. No consolation in Beowulf ’s dragon fight comes without this kind of engineered equivocation. Tripp. In fact. 154 John Tanke draws parallels between the hoard and sacrificial offerings deposited in sacred barrows depicted in Scandinavian writings (373–5). an ancient “hearg” filled with accumulated oblations: “the barrow where Beowulf met his death was no ordinary tomb. In the article cited above on “goldhwæte. While this explanation would sound artificial to some.294 chapter four to a barrow. synnum scildig. The curse invokes the situational background of oferhygd without condemning Beowulf outright. “Lifting the Curse.155 I do not think that the terms of the curse entail much obscurity. “hergum geheaðerod” (“confined in shrines.” John Tanke plausibly suggests that the dragon’s tumulus was probably a hallowed site. who would plunder that place. but rather an ancient shrine or cenotaph. the poet inflects the charge of oferhygd with an exasperatingly delicate proviso: a secret incantation which may or may not operate and which God may or may not have lifted could implicate Beowulf in recklessness. as Doig. He solves the problem between a single depositor and multiple procurers by reference to rune stones erected by multiple generations (374).” 3072b). firm in hellish bonds. .” 3072a) as a literal punishment because he would be “firm in hellish bonds” (“hellbendum fæst. it works for my purposes. call for the perpetrator to be “synnum scildig” (“guilty of crimes.”156 The explicit terms of the curse. paralyzed. and its hoard a sacrificial offering. some special pleading can be found in Niles.154 “Famous princes” collected the wealth and protected it with an incantation. or dead. 155 Recent critics have tried to dispel the curse in avoidance of Beowulf ’s presumed damnation. cruelly punished.” How can “hergum geheaðerod” be “wholly Christian”? 156 Tanke 376. se ðone wong strude. in or near the barrow: swa hit oð domes dæg þeodnas mære þæt se secg wære hergum geheaðerod. confined in shrines. hellbendum fæst. (3069a–73b) So the famous princes who put it there solemnly declared that until doomsday the man would be guilty in sin. Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition 93: “The ‘heathen’ curse that is set on the treasure is couched in wholly Christian terms. diope benemdon þa ðæt þær dydon. The criminal would be “wommum gewitnad” or “cruelly wracked” (3073a) because he would be trapped. wommum gewitnad.” To my mind. since the origin of the curse is immaterial. Tanke contends.” 3071b) because of the plundering. but one man alone deposited it in the barrow. benemdon” (3069a–b) “signal[s] the beginning of a new train of thought” (213) rather than being a correlative with “swa” in 3066a. which cannot hold out Beowulf or his emissaries because he enjoys the favor of God” (5). They try to enter “through cræft” (“mid cræfte. . Eadmundi. but perhaps the best one comes from Abbo of Fleury’s Passio s. . it happened to him just as the glorious chieftains who had put the treasure there had solemnly decreed it.201). with “hergum geheaðerod” characterizing one’s death at the tumulus.207–10]). Lives of Saints. “Swa hit . Alan Bliss has argued that “swa” in 3066a correlates with “swa” in 3069a. The narrator seems to imply that it operates in Beowulf ’s case. “Lifting the Curse” 2. or else pagan inhumation at a shrine. but not from the effects of a curse.’ ”158 but a dire bewitchment inflicted on a potential plunderer. died from “the inevitable dangers of treasure dedicated by heathen men” (ibid. formerly thought to invoke damnation. Doig thinks that “there is a hoard guarded by a spell. 43–4. anyone trying to take the gold would never escape the precincts of the “hearg. 328. By this supposititious reading “shrines” as “shrines of false gods. Two readings are possible. Doig has proposed that what 157 Ibid. and 59 (for the translation) resp. or seizure and hanging. all of these locutions could simply describe death. 373. J. First. Óðinn’s bonds of paralysis). In either case. an alternative possibility may be just as likely. each man as he stood laboring with his tools. and since “diope benemdon” means “solemnly declared. In Ælfric’s Old English translation eight thieves come to plunder Edmund’s tomb. . .157 Although this strikes me as the obvious reading. Tanke provides some illuminating parallels from Scandinavian sources and from the Vita s. Beowulf. . . . In Cooke’s reading. he postulates. a problem lies in its precise meaning. . Imagining that Beowulf is virtually Christian. . but “the holy man miraculously bound them. citing Doig 5.”159 While the correlative is undoubtedly correct.). “a spell aimed at ‘preventing entry to the hoard. Bruce Mitchell accepts Bliss’s reading of these lines up to this point (“Damnation of Beowulf ?”).). that.” the passage as a whole ought to be translated as correlative: “when Beowulf went to meet the guardian of the barrow . and they stood so until dawn” (“se halga wer hi wundorlice geband ælcne swa he stod strutigende mid tole þæt heora nan ne mihte þæt morð gefremman ne hi þanon astyrian ac stodon swa oð mergen.” Skeat.” They would be magically fettered and die in some unstated way. . ravening beasts. the curse is no mere prohibition. as Tanke proposes. 159 Bliss 47–8. not “bonds of hell” in any Christian sense. Wilfridi.” [328. the expression “hellbendum fæst” (3072b). F. points to “hellish bonds” (otherworldly bonds. through starvation.” Doig concludes that “only a Christian could take such a hostile attitude to the earlier religion” (ibid. Although Bliss’s argument has largely been accepted.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 295 In Tanke’s view. . 158 Tripp. such that none of them could commit that criminal act or leave the place. Doig translates the verse “hergum geheaðerod” as “kept captive in the shrines of false gods” (4). that Beowulf might simply endure effects resembling those imagined by the “þeodnas mære. On the one hand. for the “glorious princes” who laid up the hoard could not likely have foreseen a dragon as the instrument of their chastisement. swa” is not only correlative as an adverbial conjunction. . Beowulf ’s death may not result from the curse at all.” 2524b–5a). 6. but his understanding of what other critics legitimately call a curse suggests to me a different approach. expressing a simile “like (the men had solemnly declared). In just this way the effects of a curse do not comfortably explain the complication of Beowulf ’s broken sword. . The curse therefore tempers the accusation of oferhygd by ascribing Beowulf ’s death to a powerful 160 Doig 4. God intervenes to lift the curse. but also comparative. I find this view attractive as part of the intentional ambiguity surrounding the curse. . but that Beowulf had died in a way anticipated in its terms. it operated just as the princes had planned. Beowulf may have assessed his chances against the dragon. benemdon” (“so it was for Beowulf just like they had declared”). .”160 I disagree with many of Doig’s propositions. . . but he could never have contemplated such a malevolent spell. This possibility that the curse may not operate in Beowulf ’s case may also explain the incongruity that Beowulf ’s death seems to invalidate the curse. swa .” The Old English construction “swa . On the other hand. it might be possible to compare the intended effect of an ancient curse to what Beowulf experiences.” This position reflects the curious phrasing. Treating the passage that Bliss analyzes above as a “consequence” different from Doig’s. the poet suggests that the “curse” may not have caused Beowulf ’s death. In other words. . .296 chapter four Beowulf suffers at the barrow simply resembles the “consequences” of meddling with “heathen offerings that had received a solemn ritual dedication. it could be discounted as circumstantial. what happened to Beowulf was just like the glorious chieftains had once solemnly decreed. and translate: “. “swa wæs Biowulfe . . The function of the curse in Beowulf (if the curse actually operates in the poem) could be said to expose Beowulf ’s cupidity. but it seems more obviously the unknown variable in Beowulf ’s potential oferhygd. but from his duel with the dragon. Nor would any magical paralysis have influenced Beowulf ’s determination “not to flee a single footstep from the barrow’s guardian” (“Nelle ic beorges weard//oferfleon fotes trem.” In other words. The dragon. and second as the man who openly despoiled the barrow. nefne god sylfa. sigora soðcyning sealde þam ðe he wolde —he is manna gehyld— hord openian. did not “plunder” the treasure at all. þæt ðam hringsele hrinan ne moste gumena ænig.161 The thief is a special case. mostly because of semantic problems associated with OE openian “to open. some critics have denied that he “opened” the hoard. outlined above. I doubt that the thief could be said to “open” the hoard. he remarks that no man could reach (“hrinan”) the dragon’s gold unless the “true king of victories” allowed his agent “to reveal [openian] the hoard”: . Yet the poet debates whether God could have lifted this curse.” and the expression “reach the ring-hall” seems in some sense to vary “hord openian. to a Christian audience. This solution has the advantage of context. Yet Beowulf. This passage has always been the subject of much controversy. Wiglaf. By this argument. too. I think. Wiglaf carried the riches off quite safely. Although said to “hord reafian” or “rifle the hoard” (2773b). . . for the poet’s remarks about “opening” the hoard follow on the removal of the treasure that Beowulf ’s retainers undertake.” OE hrinan means “to reach or touch. (3053a–7b) . first as a retainer fighting side-by-side with Beowulf. efne swa hwylcum manna swa him gemet ðuhte. Nor would the dragon have opened the hoard simply by lying on it.” OE openian literally means “open. by contrast. that it afflicts anyone who “would 161 In ignorance of Bliss’s argument. In a final passage describing it. betray idolatry.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 297 enchantment that would. unless god himself. . or the thief have been proposed as having “reached” and “revealed” the treasure-mound. . allowed him whom he wished—only such a man as seemed fit to him—to reveal the hoard.” 2290a)—probably magical means or plain cunning—to gain a single cup.” Since Beowulf did not “reach” the ring-hall and did not literally reveal the treasure. that no man could reach the ring-hall. unless one thinks that the curse afflicted all the Geats. true king of victories (he is the protector of men).” but its figurative sense is “disclose” or even “make available. since the curse apparently did not operate on him: he used “dyrnan cræfte” (“a secret power. The poet records an explicit stipulation of the curse. may have “opened” the hoard. the dragon. Yet Wiglaf remains an obvious candidate as the one who both “reached” and “revealed” the hoard. . Jr. Critics like Irving have always tried to settle ambiguities in the wording of the curse by tackling the linguistic issues. Beowulf xxii: he “undertakes the venture primarily to save his people”.” 3073b). Since Wiglaf does not suffer any consequences from plundering the hoard. In some sense. I would say they are deliberately impenetrable. Irving. Beowulf traded his life for a vast treasury meant for his people.” and alleges that “ending the curse would then be a beneficial side-effect of Beowulf ’s victory.167 Although I find no justification for Irving’s more speculative assumptions (“victory”?). then.”165 He considers Beowulf ’s actions the “God-assisted defeat of a heathen power. He is not raiding and looting some enemy hoard but defending his own honor and his people’s lives. Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition 222. one has to conclude that. not to win the hoard”. 163 Pace Niles. Edward B. Rereading Beowulf 123. although he arguably “reached” its precincts and “revealed” the hoard by killing the dragon. many readers will conclude that Beowulf ’s death was sacrificial. like the cleansing of the polluted hall and mere in Denmark. Rereading Beowulf 127: “Surely in no literal sense does Beowulf move eagerly toward the gold. That fact seems indisputable. if the curse is operative. largely because the spell’s consequences for Beowulf seem impenetrable. one could legitimately 162 Tanke makes the same case for OE wong: “The worth of the hoard is transferred.”163 By this line of reasoning the curse (if operative) prevents Beowulf from “reaching” the barrow. Klaeber. metonymically. proposes just this interpretation of the spell. in lifting the curse. Taking this optimistic view of Beowulf ’s fight.298 chapter four plunder the place” (“se ðone wong strude.164 Sensing that death from old age was inevitable. 165 Ibid. “if the Christian God had not intervened to cancel its operation. 166 Ibid. For example. God would allow the hoard to be plundered. the curse is indeed dispelled.”166 If this were true.” 164 As Irving. it falls on Beowulf. but not to enjoy it. Beowulf ’s death would therefore imply that the “true king of victories” allowed Beowulf to open the hoard. Irving. . 167 Niles. Wiglaf ’s decision to entomb the riches with Beowulf certainly frustrates the intended “sacrifice” but may signify the Geats’ highest respect for his rightful ownership of the treasure. we could assume that. to the barrow as a whole” (374).162 The question of intent seems uncomplicated: Beowulf intends to claim the “offerings. Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition 220: “His primary purpose is to kill the dragon. The noun is deliberately elusive: not the hoard but its vicinity. we have no reason to assume it would not have continued to be efficacious. the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 299 claim, as John Tanke does, that Beowulf falls victim to the curse and suffers a death resulting from divine judgment: “. . . we are allowed to take comfort in the ascription of earthly justice to the will of God, forgetting, perhaps, that his will inevitably includes our experience of injustice as well.”168 In other words, God does not lift the curse. Tanke draws this conclusion first because he firmly believes in Beowulf ’s virtue, and second because he accepts Bliss’s argument that the curse operates against Beowulf and could not therefore have been lifted, for Beowulf at least. If the curse were not lifted and Beowulf dies because of it, we could justifiably accept Beowulf ’s death as unjust on Tanke’s terms—i.e. from the perspective of mortals. We might equally assert, then, that Beowulf ’s death was sacrificial and simply appears unjust in this Augustinian sense, the ironic impression of God’s epithet “manna gehyld” or “protector of men.” These claims would make Beowulf Christ-like.169 Yet I do not think this needs to be true, even in Tanke’s scenario. Throughout the poem God favors Beowulf with glory and life. Death seems an unlikely kind of divine indemnity, and in light of Beowulf ’s uncertain motivation, any positive reading of the dragon fight must discount the potential for oferhygd. If the curse actually works in the fatalistic world of Beowulf, Beowulf ’s death more than likely results from a repeal or limitation of God’s favor. Only if Beowulf were unequivocally righteous could we call his death unjust—unless we admitted the ostensible Christian mystery Tanke has foreseen in God’s dispensation of justice. As I have said earlier, however, Beowulf ’s certain righteousness can only be affirmed by understanding the dragon as Evil. Acknowledging what Tanke does not—that Beowulf may be wrong in facing the dragon—the opposite conclusion is also possible: God punishes Beowulf by not lifting the curse and thereby letting him die. We might then theorize that Beowulf ’s death terminates the curse—that it afflicts only one person and then dissipates on its own. If this were not true, and if we accept that the hoard is indeed “reached” and “opened,” a further implication of Tanke’s reasoning would be that Wiglaf opens it through God’s indulgence. The position is defensible, although I would still be inclined to think that Beowulf ’s death stemmed from God’s Tanke 363–4 and 378. Apparently in reaction to the dragon fight, Bazelmans notes “[the poet] portrays a development in Beowulf that results ultimately in a form of unselfish behaviour which, in the absence of Christ’s message, we would not expect of him. This does not make Beowulf a Christ figure, but he is, like Abraham and Job, a figura of Christ” (94). 168 169 300 chapter four authority, if not his intervention. Logically emerging from the foregoing discussion is a duality of attitude towards the curse on the gold, for Beowulf ’s death could be explained as Christian “self-sacrifice” or punishment. As I see it, exactly the same conclusion could be drawn if one determines that God chooses Beowulf to open the hoard. Since the hoard is “reached” and “opened,” it seems we must accept that the curse is somehow annulled, fully for Beowulf or Wiglaf, or partially for Beowulf. As I have already argued, Beowulf may also have “reached” and “opened” the hoard, inasmuch as he penetrated the “wong” and killed its guardian. Because I differ in my view of the lines on which Tanke bases his solution to the curse, I would rather say that God’s will here embraces what looks more like punishment than self-sacrifice. What has never yet been acknowledged in Beowulf ’s death is how carefully balanced between righteousness and oferhygd his venture appears to be. The curse makes Beowulf ’s “heroic greed” (the lust for treasure as the reward for glory) the cause of his death, for which reason God might not protect Beowulf in the divine role of “manna gehyld.” Yet it might be said that God, acting as the protector of other men, partially lifts the curse and permits Beowulf to “open” the hoard. In this event, God bestows victory over the dragon and allows the hoard to be plundered, though Beowulf ’s death qualifies the achievement. This argument differs little in outcome from the one in which Beowulf ’s death either voids the curse, or else God voids it for Wiglaf. The relevance of the curse lies in its potential as a punishment for Beowulf ’s behavior, an unforeseen contingency bringing death to the reckless. This polarized discourse over Beowulf ’s virtue ultimately reflects the contrived ambiguity of Beowulf ’s motivation, selfless or arrogant: he was either justified or unjustified in attacking the dragon, either rewarded or punished. One other view of the curse must be explored here. I have already suggested that Beowulf ’s fate may only resemble the curse declared by the ancient princes. In this event, it could be argued that God lifts the curse and that Beowulf ’s death could simply be ascribed to the operation of fate in the dragon fight. Beowulf finds himself at no supernatural disadvantage. This explanation makes sense—and in fact may make the most sense—because so many factors influence Beowulf ’s death: the very existence of the dragon as Beowulf ’s adversary, the alleged cowardice of his men, the shattering of Nægling. One wonders what kind of spell could direct fate so thoroughly as to entail all the influences leading to Beowulf ’s demise. This position would be relevant to the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 301 the outcome of the dragon fight because Beowulf ’s death could be deemed neither a punishment nor a grace but merely the execution of wyrd. The Christian God invoked in lines 3054b–7b (describing the divine intervention that could annul the curse) would then stand removed from the ken of mortals, or of mortal narrators. We could not securely attribute Beowulf ’s death to God’s will, but we could perhaps understand why Beowulf could be thought to “open” the hoard. If God had revoked the curse, he would also have countermanded the corresponding provision protecting the hoard from looters. By these terms, we need not posit any contingencies that the curse only operates once or that God allows Beowulf to die in exchange for rescinding the spell. What still nags, however, is the possibility that oferhygd caused Beowulf ’s death, which resulted either from heroic greed or from the duty implied in “eorlscipe.” Because of the complexity of the preceding argument surrounding the curse, it might be worthwhile to lay out once more the conceptual contradictions that I envision in the cursed treasure. First, the evidence suggests that Beowulf may or may not have encountered a curse which inflicts death on anyone intending to seize the hoard. The interpretation depends on our reading of causation in the lines, “it happened to Beowulf just as the men solemnly swore it would.” To say that the curse operates against Beowulf invokes God’s intervention in its consequences. The curse functions to prevent access to the hoard by bringing about a potential looter’s death. Because the hoard is “reached” and “opened,” it seems plausible, if not likely, that the curse is somehow annulled, either for Wiglaf or for Beowulf. If God does not lift the curse for Beowulf, it could still be said that Beowulf sacrifices his life for his nation by killing the dragon and opening the hoard. In this scenario God would not deliberately intervene to dispel the curse and would therefore suborn Beowulf ’s death. The view could make Beowulf a kind of savior in an enactment of the Crucifixion—an especially potent notion if one regards the dragon as the Devil, or Evil. In light of Beowulf ’s potential oferhygd, however, it is equally possible that God punishes Beowulf by not lifting the curse. In this event, the curse could automatically disappear once Beowulf dies, or else God could dispel it for another agent, Wiglaf. If God’s agent were Beowulf, however, and if God eases the stipulation of the curse that denies entry to the hoard, Beowulf ’s death could be deemed a punishment tempered by mercy. In this case, Beowulf ’s unresolved equivocal motivation would explain the ambiguity of this “punishment.” Finally, if God had actually 302 chapter four lifted the curse, which only looks like it engendered Beowulf ’s death, then we must conclude that Beowulf could be punished or rewarded, depending purely on his motivation in the engagement. God only takes the curse out of play, but the narrator has retained the same battery of complications that undermines Beowulf ’s confidence. The enactment or dissolution of the heathen curse might explain why Beowulf dies, but the poet does not allow Beowulf ’s motivation to be ascertainable from any single explanation. We have already seen that the “cowardly” retainers may have contributed to Beowulf ’s death. Wiglaf ’s remarks at least impugn them. Furthermore, when Beowulf ’s sword Nægling splinters, yet another explanation for Beowulf ’s death may be invoked. Rather than succumbing to the effects of a “curse,” Beowulf may be thought to have died merely because his weapon failed. However, even this disaster has both positive and negative valences. On the one hand, Beowulf ’s strength overmastered his sword—as the poet confirms in lines 2684b–6a—and no weapon could therefore have aided him.170 Weapons inhibit the deployment of Beowulf ’s full strength, as he confesses: Nolde ic sweord beran, wæpen to wyrme, gif ic wiste hu wið ðam aglæcean elles meahte gylpe wiðgripan . . . (2518b–21a) I would not want to bear a sword—a weapon against the dragon—if I knew how else I could grapple with my foe and fulfil my boast. One has to wonder why Beowulf handicapped himself by facing an enemy that required his use of a sword. We could conclude that Beowulf was either reckless or somehow sacrificial. On the other hand, the sword’s inadequacy may have had nothing to do with Beowulf ’s death. Beowulf may have mistakenly swung at the dragon’s thick skull, a fact suggesting that he might have been unprepared, and incautious, in fighting the dragon.171 In deference to the wisdom articulated in 170 See the eccentric conclusion of Taylor Culbert: “The sword lets Beowulf down . . . it betrays its own nature and violates its reputation for durability . . . if the responsibility for [Beowulf ’s] death is placed upon the sword, there is no hint of weakness or inadequacy on his part” (19). 171 For a summary of these two positions, see Keller 223. Kenneth Sisam has preempted criticism: “[The dragon] exposed his invulnerable skull and back while manœuvring so that his fiery breath prevented an attack on his vulnerable underparts. the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 303 The Wanderer, one has to ask whether Beowulf “readily knew” that he could handle the dragon, especially when he “scorned its war-strength.” Both incriminating and exculpatory aspects of Beowulf ’s judgment reside in the shattering of Nægling, which arguably circumvents the curse as the sole cause of Beowulf ’s death. As I have already proposed, the men who deeply solemnized the hoard could not likely have foreseen the enactment of their curse through a dragon’s ire or the shattering of a sword. The matter of Nægling is intentionally cryptic, then, another source of textual richness that exposes the ambiguity of Beowulf ’s motivation in the dragon fight. Its disintegration would not resolve Beowulf ’s potential oferhygd, but the sword must be accounted for in hypotheses of Beowulf ’s judgment. Oferhygd entails an unconscious recklessness that, in turn, engenders defeat as one overestimates the chances for success. Failure and especially death automatically condemn one’s actions as reckless. So it goes for all vainglorious, powerful men, that they continue to behave as if invincible because of secular status or personal strength—and risk unaccountable perils, like the drowned giants had done. The moment always comes when the tyrant takes a calculated risk with an incalculable eventuality, and dies from it. Beowulf, too, might have misjudged his encounter with the dragon. In light of this argument, it may occur to some why both Beowulf and the dragon have to die, a curious infringement on the hero’s honor. A man who kills his enemy could not be called reckless, since killing one’s enemy defines heroic prowess. In my view, the double death—of Beowulf and the dragon—confirms the poet’s exploration of Beowulf ’s ambivalent motivation. Had the dragon lived and Beowulf died, Beowulf would have been reckless by the conceptual definition. Had Beowulf lived and the dragon died, his survival would have justified the choice to fight. The Geatish retainers, including Wiglaf, would then have been legitimately impugned as utter cowards—though, depending on the circumstances, they might not have needed to fight at all.172 The double death, however, confirms nothing by leaving open the possibility that Beowulf died from venal glory-seeking that, to him, had the appearance of righteousness. The position explains why the curse is so disjunctive and supremely relevant. It is the single unknowable, Beowulf wasted two sword-strokes, not because he was ignorant [Baird, “Happy Hurt”], but because he could not get at the softer parts” (“Beowulf ’s Fight” 138). 172 The view of Malone, “Beowulf the Headstrong.” 304 chapter four unguessable, and arguably unfair contingency that influences (at least potentially) the outcome of the dragon fight.173 If heathen magic caused Beowulf ’s death, his innocence would be conclusive, except of course for upholding what we already know, that Beowulf wanted the treasure. That is why readers are expected to determine whether, and how, the curse might function, and likewise whether, and how, God might intervene in the dragon episode. As I have shown, however, nothing conclusive could be proved, nor am I sure that any argument is superior to another. The poet has provided all the necessary details so that his audience can decide of its own accord whether Beowulf is guilty of oferhygd. Native Parallels to the Dragon Fight For these reasons I think that the final question John Niles poses about Beowulf may be the ultimate question derivative of the other three: “Is the hero defeated, and does he die in vain?” Niles denies that Beowulf died in vain. With a few exceptions, he has made a strong case for the favorable bias towards Beowulf ’s “sacrifice.” In fact, we recognize most of the arguments backing Beowulf ’s virtue which I laid out above: “winning the gold is incidental”; “since the Geats deposit the dragon’s gold in the dead king’s barrow in lieu of tribal treasures, from a purely pragmatic standpoint they are spared having to make a great material sacrifice at their king’s funeral”; “one should not judge his success [as king of the Geats] by the events of a single last day”; “the Geats’ cowardice serves as an open invitation to invade the realm”; “Beowulf ends his mature life . . . with acts of splendid and uncompromising devotion to a code of conduct that places the good of others above oneself.”174 Nowhere in Niles’s analysis does blame stick to Beowulf for anything, and one cringes especially to hear the clamorous disapproval of the retainer’s “failure to act by the heroic ideal.”175 Yet I have made the poet’s case for the opposite readings of these same incidents and values, in the expression of Beowulf ’s potential for reckless self-confidence. It cannot be doubted, for example, that the dragon’s treasure may be 173 On the possibility that the curse resembles the one afflicting Grettir and that it may be a central feature of a theoretical archetype, see Orchard, Pride and Prodigies 146. 174 Niles, Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition 244–6. 175 Ibid. 247. the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 305 Beowulf ’s primary objective, whatever reasons he may have for desiring it. Although Beowulf ’s reign was exemplary, Beowulf is indeed being judged “by the events of a single last day.” In stalwart defense of his position, Niles makes it seem that the dragon fight should not compromise Beowulf ’s fifty years of kingship. The suggestion is never made, and should not be entertained, for the poet concentrates solely on Beowulf ’s immediate decisions, whether they were sound or flawed. On balance, Beowulf ’s behavior is uncertainly righteous in the dragon fight, although accusations of arrogance, recklessness, or over-confidence can only be leveled, never proven. In other words, Beowulf is not necessarily arrogant, but he is potentially and unknowably arrogant, despite his conviction, earnest soul-searching, and conspicuous piety. Without the literary contexts that illuminate the conventions of oferhygd, Beowulf ’s death cannot be understood or evaluated. It would otherwise seem strategically sacrificial, wise, and glorious, or at least due to the cowardice of frightened retainers, a broken sword, or an ancient curse. Yet the motivation for Beowulf ’s choice to fight the dragon is hardly transparent, and the stakes could not be higher: national survival competes against the king’s vacillating conviction. Beowulf ’s long meditation on Herebeald and Hæðcyn and on an old anonymous “ceorl” reveals conscience, I sense, but not incentive. Perhaps readers will resist my views of the dragon fight as “modern” or even outrageous, but I have an independent verification of them in two sources. The first can be found in an anonymous Vita S. Oswini written in a twelfth or thirteenth-century script and currently bound with the Old English Martyrology, London, BL MS Cotton Julius A. x.176 In 1985 Colin Chase noted a Beowulfian parallel in the amplified explanation of Oswine’s military disbandment during his hopeless campaign against King Oswiu.177 According to the vita, King Oswine declined to 176 The anonymous author probably wrote the vita ca. 1111 at Tynemouth, since Oswine’s remains were translated in 1110; see Raine viii. The material may derive from an Anglo-Saxon tradition, for heroic expressions like “melius est nobis mori in bello quam apud uulgus domini desertores in prouerbio cantitari” resembles proverbs in Beowulf and elsewhere (i.e. “Deað bið sella//eorla gehwylcum/þonne edwitlif,” 2890b–1b). 177 Chase, “The Hero’s Pride.” Bede simply records that Oswine disbanded his army to await a better chance for victory (Colgrave and Mynors 257: “Siquidem congregato contra inuicem exercitu, cum uideret se Osuini cum illo, qui plures habebat auxiliarios, non posse bello confligere, ratus est utilius tunc demissa intentione bellandi seruare se ad tempora meliora”; “Each raised an army against the other but Oswine, realizing that he could not fight against an enemy with far greater resources, considered it wiser to give up the idea of war and wait for better times.”) 306 chapter four fight because, he says, “I would prefer to die than that so many fine men should be endangered for my sake.”178 Continuing to address his warband (“suorum circundatus acie”), he pronounces, “that is a cruel and disloyal man who would try to destroy many for his sake when he is unable to avert the judgment of God.”179 The context of Oswine’s declaration concisely expresses the same ambivalence towards martial glory that I theorize for Beowulf: Praeclarus itaque Deoque acceptus Rex Oswinus, sciens quod uim ui repellere omnes leges omniaque iura permittunt, suorum circundatus acie, loco qui Wilfaresdun dicitur ei obuius uenit. Sanctissimus autem Rex Oswinus, uidens suos cum aduersariis unanimiter uolentes non solum contendere uerum etiam pro suo rege paratus occumbere, uoluens in animo discriminis horrendum facinus seque solum homicidii hinc inde passim committendi in causa esse, suis potius quam sibi parcendo pie consulens, sic eos alloquitur: ‘Congratulor, quidem, o fidissimi principes et strenuissimi milites, uestre militie et probitati, et gratias ago bone erga me uestre uoluntati. Sed absit a me ut me solius causa belli discrimen periculose quidem omnes incurratis, qui me quamquam iure dominum, pauperem tamen et exulem, regem uobis constitutistis. Malo itaque, sicut hactenus, ubi ubi cum paucis uel solus exulare. Immo potius diligo mori, quam uos tot et tales mei solius causa contingat quoquomodo periclitari. Impius, enim, et inhumanus est, qui cum Dei iudicium nullo modo possit auertere, plures sui causa conatur euertere.’180 The renowned and divinely favoured King Oswine, knowing that every law and right allow the meeting of force with force, and surrounded by his own troops, went to meet him [Oswiu] at a place called Wilfaresdun. But King Oswine, the holiest of men, though he was aware that all his followers were not only willing to fight the enemy, but even prepared to lay down their lives for their king, began to reflect on the cold-blooded evil to which this crisis had given rise and that he alone was the reason for the commission of so much manslaughter, near and far, and becoming sincerely concerned rather to spare his men than himself, addresses them in the following words: ‘O faithful thanes and valiant soldiers, I am very grateful to you for your service to me in war and for your honour, and I give you thanks for your goodwill toward me. But far be it from me that 178 “Immo potius diligo mori, quam uos tot et tales mei solius causa contingat quoquomodo periclitari” (Chase, “The Hero’s Pride” 192 note 9). The translations are Chase’s, except when I am citing passages that Chase does not quote. Transcriptions are taken from Chase’s article but have been checked against the edition by Raine 1835. 179 “Impius, enim, et inhumanus est, qui cum Dei iudicium nullo modo possit auertere, plures sui causa conatur euertere” (Chase, “The Hero’s Pride” 192 note 9; Raine 8). 180 Ibid.; Raine 7–8. or even by myself. quam ut populus tantae multitudinis deleatur pro uno. the typically forgone choice of Anglo-Saxon warriors. Oswine’s strategy is the choice of martyrdom. as I did once. it’s fitting that one man alone die for many. Raine 8. he enlisted their service in obligation of (unlikely) revenge—the “ideal of men dying for their lord. after you made me your king at a time when I was a poor exile.’ Oswine decides to face exile and save his army rather than expose them to irrational risk for his own glory. The Christian overtones could not be called subtle. I would prefer to die than that so many fine men should be endangered for my sake.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 307 you should meet the hazard of war only for my sake. indeed I do salute your integrity as much as I so often found in you. than a nation of such numbers be exterminated for a single man. et nichil est in uobis tarditatis aut ignauiae quod possit aut debeat reprehendi. quantum uos fortes in bello et strenuissimos persaepe reperi. In fact. But the enemy does not pursue you.” In these terms Beowulf ’s claim that the dragon venture was not “monnes gemet” recalls Oswine’s later remarks that his own death was sacrificial: O fidissimi milites. It illustrates the anti-heroic. Instead. uestrae quidem probitati congratulor. The vita exemplifies how “heroism” could be read as a kind of martyrdom. For that is a cruel and disloyal man who would try to destroy many for his sake when he is unable to avert the judgment of God. Struck by the “darker implications of Beowulf ’s decision to fight the dragon alone. and his decision owes as much to Christian mercy as to royal responsibility. Therefore. Expedit ergo ut unus moriatur pro populo. Sed uos hostis non persequitur. I am the cause of his persecution.” Chase recalled Leyerle’s position on the “fatal contradiction” implicit in the competing roles of hero and king: “a harsh and unrecognized error in judgment which confuses a military ethic with an ethic of sovereignty. I prefer to return to exile with a few of my followers.”181 Chase slightly exaggerated the relevance of this important parallel. .182 O most faithful warriors. an interpretation so often attended 181 182 Chase. Ego sum causa discriminis. just as Beowulf ’s decision to fight the dragon could be deemed sacrificial. I have been arguing that Beowulf did not directly engage his comitatus in an unwinnable battle. “The Hero’s Pride” 190. and there is no malingering or dishonor which you could or should be accused of. strong and ablest in battle. or at least unlikely victory. on the point of the sword. but they actually demand the honor in a direct appeal to the king’s heroic conscience: O rex insignis.” Not only are Oswine’s retainers said to be ready to die for him (“pro suo rege paratus occumbere”). Liceat ergo nobis cum hostibus instantis certaminis inire conflictum. win or lose. and to take the auspices of these evil times with iron. esto benignus. we beg you to be kind to us. on the point of the sword” invokes the unknown fated outcome of the battle and exactly parallels the uncertainty confronting Beowulf. an apparuimus alicubi in conflictu bellico tardiores? Hostium profecto cuneos securi persepe penetrauimus. O king worthy of the name of a king. If things should go badly for us in the fight. So we want you to let us fight against the enemy in this battle that is approaching. As Chase acknowledged. even though Oswine’s men hope to die for their king. . Oswine’s choice reflects the decision that Hroðgar makes but which Beowulf does not. Raine 8. “The Hero’s Pride” 192 note 12. Si fortasse nobis in pugna sinistre cesserit. Was there some time when we proved cowards or disgraces to our families.308 chapter four by Beowulf critics. In these terms the Christ-like parallels of Beowulf ’s dragon adventure recall the sacrifice of Christian martyrs. “Reading the viscera” refers to predicting the future in an animal’s entrails. Only Maldon has ever been said to invoke the same 183 Chase. though we are unworthy. the narrative seems to invoke the prominent Germanic ethic of “men dying with their lord” in terms similar to Beowulf. and reading the future with iron could only mean throwing oneself open to destiny. The curious expression “in ore gladii peruersae aetatis rimari uiscera ferro” which Chase has rendered “to take the auspices of these evil times with iron. Since Oswine’s men swear to die for him in the face of certain defeat. melius est nobis mori in bello quam apud uulgus domini desertores in prouerbio cantitari. or did you find us too slow somewhere in going to battle? In fact.183 O remarkable king. Numquid nos ignauos aut degeneres aliquando repperisti. regis nomine dignus. nobis indignis. many a time we passed unscathed through the enemy lines. it is better that we die in battle than become a byword for deserters among our people. petimus. In all respects the passage complicates Beowulf ’s resolution and validates the fear expressed by his retainers. et in ore gladii peruersae aetatis rimari uiscera ferro. One component of the Oswine narrative that Chase did not regard was the “ideal of men dying with their lord. as prefiguring the psychological liabilities attached to power in the failure of excellence. the cowardice of his retainers. Byrhtnoð and Beowulf were judged by universal standards of leadership contested in Old English heroic verse. demonic enemy. Maldon is a far superior analogue than the late medieval Vita s. Beowulf and Maldon could be said to evaluate the contentious relationship between leadership and heroism in exactly the same terms. But both works agree closely in general outline and attitude. unequivocally afflicts Byrhtnoð. as well as in specific constituents: Byrhtnoð’s advanced age. In fact. Oswini. For the most part. In making this claim. Differences there are. his faceless. In the following pages I analyze Maldon just as I did the dragon fight of Beowulf.the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD 309 ideal. I have refrained from drawing parallels between the dragon fight in Beowulf and Maldon. I do not assume that the Maldon poet knew Beowulf. his choice of fighting or ransoming. only that both relied on what must have been a representative idiom. the insistence on the hero’s virtue in the face of potential disgrace. and Maldon is the other parallel to the reading of Beowulf I am proposing. . the nested complications of Byrhtnoð’s decision. of course: “ofermod. while Beowulf ’s own motivation is disputed.” for example. but both texts share the same narrative typology. as well as the analysis of a supreme motivational complexity and of competing social obligations. . Simply put. For most readers the accusation of Beowulf ’s potential oferhygd will recall Byrhtnoð’s ofermod in Maldon. Not only are the mental categories identical.” or comparing Maldon “by conscious analogy or unconscious assimilation with other literary texts. 1 2 . and many would in fact argue for (and have argued for) the most congruent parallels. for example. Few today would seriously credit the “analogical error” that Clark sensed in Maldon criticism. R. F. Unfortunately. is mostly disregarded in favor of positions that make the ealdormonn sound less culpable. or Niebelungenlied. I will argue. but these were rebutted by Phillpotts in “Danish Affinities. 3 “Homecoming. While critics past and present have compared Maldon and Beowulf. The Christian allegorists like W. Sophus Bugge proposed parallels between Beowulf and Maldon in his Studien über das Beowulfepos. Maldon replicates the dragon fight in Beowulf. Richard Hillman propose that Byrhtnoð represents a type of Christ.CHAPTER FIVE KING BEOWULF AND EALDORMONN BYRHTNOÐ When writing about The Battle of Maldon. but the mises-en-scène of both works correspond in analogical detail. Tolkien’s remarks on Maldon amount to little more than this [that Byrhtnoth was ‘playing it down.”1 Made to support a heterodox reading of Maldon that contradicted a prevailing interpretation. see Bessinger 31. Here I propose an analogue in Beowulf ’s dragon fight. where Doane is quoting Cecily Clark.” On some mostly trivial comparisons. his oft-cited study of ofermod which confirms Byrhtnoð’s rashness. R. even though the words are etymologically (but not morphologically) distinct.2 J. in order to depict Germanic heroism with the more purity’]” (42 note 8). George Clark warned against “analogical error. this extravagant protest alienated the poem from its heroic corollaries: The Song of Roland. Bolton or. most recently.3 Some of these opposing positions are implausibly flamboyant.” One senses that the common view of Tolkien’s idiosyncratic essay is that espoused by Doane: “For all their authority and charm. “Byrhtnoth and Roland” 292). either (for Bolton) a reflection of Christ in the wilderness or “Heroic Poem” 56. My own views concern genre rather than lexicon. Tolkien alone made a convincing case for a generic affinity. One immediately sees in these propositions the corresponding portrayal of Beowulf as savior.5 The poet’s criticism of Byrhtnoð’s ofermod gets reinterpreted as the human view of self-sacrifice. not flee. not disengage. . Furthermore. not lords and retainers on whose lives the welfare of a nation depended. if righteous or dutiful choice. 7 Phillpotts.” On others who have held similar views. or whether he chooses one course rather than another of two that are hateful to him. the unyielding defense of a defenseless position. 6 “Heroic Style” 458. this conclusion would seem remarkable. Jr. making an appalling. Beowulf ’s dragon fight and Byrhtnoð’s defense can be profitably compared. “Wilderness” 483. By these terms. the latter a certain one. Hillman. 2. . as so many have alleged. . or (in triggering the heathen curse) Beowulf in forfeit of his life to end the dragon’s wrath. but none effectively addresses that Byrhtnoð’s “sacrifice” imperiled his own men. Byrhtnoð decides to fight. the former exemplifying a conceivable noble failure.”7 In both senses Irving’s generous assessment is true. the “pure essence” of Germanic heroism that Irving attributes to Maldon 4 Bolton.312 chapter five (for Hillman) Christ on the cross. 5 Bolton. It seems more natural to assume that Maldon exemplifies the “heroic code” tout pûr. Irving. Bertha Phillpotts elucidated the ideal in a famous article from 1929: “Fame is for the man who has the courage to choose: whether he chooses resistance to the uttermost against hopeless physical odds.”6 The “pure essence” could signify two conditions: 1. Edward B. once summarized the attitude of his day: “. “Wilderness”. two of them fragmentary (“Waldere” and “Finnsburg”). . and the retainers to avenge. . see the remarks in Bolton 481 and Hillmann 385–6. most studies like these focus on the hero-as-saint. has often been placed beside Tacitus’s Germania as the classic statement. the pure essence. But Phillpotts described heroes acting alone.4 Bolton’s remarks that “[Byrhtnoð] was called upon to show his strength by undertaking an exploit of foolish and irrelevant hazard” imparts the tangled logic of the Christological argument. of two ignoble alternatives. of the Germanic heroic ideal. this fragment of medieval journalism . “Defeat and Victory. Considering what few heroic poems survive from the whole Anglo-Saxon period. and makes something magnificent of it by a single-minded pursuit of it. and implacable courage in defiance of death. knowing that his death is ordained. Regardless of multiple incongruities. “Wyrd and Providence” 6. ” and “doomed through ofermod. two conditions in my account of Maldon will need defending: “dying for one’s slain lord. which has often been augmented by historical narrative. it seems logical that his “sodales” constitute a warband of sorts and that their pledge “that none should turn his back upon another in flight. . Rosemary Woolf has argued that the “ideal of men dying with their lord” demonstrates the uniqueness of Maldon. but that they would either win death with honor. 11 Ibid.10 She states. sed aut mortem cum laude aut vitam . or life with victory” (“inito consilio et pacto.”11 Woolf ’s statement camouflages the scarcity of vernacular heroic verse.” 10 “Ideal” 78–81. and following Bertha Phillpotts. it is a noble ideal” (499). “Ideal” 64. “Danish Affinities.” In all of Maldon criticism one could not have picked more divisive pronouncements. see Woolf. In fact. ut nullus ab alio in fugam terga verteret. although they are contentious for quite different reasons. perhaps even written in Old English. In fact. which are not of the retainers’ choosing. “this idea [of men dying with their lord] was not an ancient and traditional commonplace of Old English heroic poetry but was new and strange. the martial context of “dying with one’s lord” is often the desperate moment. Nevertheless. 9 Phillpotts. Because Wilfrid was a war-leader. Maldon illustrates the precise circumstances of men dying in vengeance for a slain lord who doomed them through ofermod.8 it has seemed unimaginable to some critics that the custom could have survived even as a literary convention from the first century to the tenth. which records Bishop Wilfrid’s defense against a pagan militia in Sussex. .12 Historian Steven Fanning endorses 8 Fehrle and Hünnerkopf 29 (xiv): “iam vero infame in omnem vitam ac probrosum superstitem principi suo ex acie recessisse”. To characterize the poem as the “pure essence” of Germanic heroism one would have to ignore the specific tension motivated by these circumstances. who affirms Woolf ’s position and offers at the same time the view that dying for one’s lord “is not just a natural urge to aid or avenge a fallen comrade .king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtnoð 313 becomes highly distorted. Wilfridi. In fact. A useful discussion of the Germania can be found in Toswell. 12 Among the most convincing illustrations comes from Eddius Stephanus’s Vita s.9 concluded that the author had been influenced by “Bjarkamál” or a late text similar in outlook. 81. Men Willing to Die for Their Lord: A Context of Recklessness While dying with one’s slain lord is mentioned prominently in Tacitus’s Germania. as Leyerle has pointed out. and Toswell shows that even the Romans believed in the same institution. “superstitem principi suo. but suicidal loyalty that might ultimately win a battle or earn vengeance for a fallen king.314 chapter five Woolf’s view and opines “it is difficult actually to find examples of the behavior of the Tacitean comitatus. . Fanning. Fanning suggests that “these are not retainers determined not to survive their leader in battle.” in Colgrave. but a group of clerics and armed men provided by the king of Northumbria supporting each other and ready to seek victory or death (and holy martyrdom)” (20). 14 Ibid.”13 By “Tacitean.” 13 Fanning 24.” Fanning means the comitatus actually described in the Germania and unromanticized in the scholarship. These sodales may be clerics. The ethic Tacitus imparts is not suicide. but they are also fighters under Wilfrid’s direction. “a survivor to one’s leader”) is offensive and disgraceful for one’s entire life. Running away in battle earns shame for men who have entered the lord’s service because they chose defeat.” Fanning has either translated “recessisse” as “survive” or omitted it entirely: “lifelong ill-repute and shame would be in store for warriors who survived a fallen chief in battle.” But “recessisse” means “to have retreated. habere mererentur.” lit. Surviving the lord’s death in victory presumably does not bring disgrace. therefore. Bishop Wilfrid 26–7). I intend to dispute Woolf’s findings in the spirit of Joseph Harris’s reflection: “The argument that the Maldon author intertwined the ‘ideal’ with other features of a heroic ethos in order to naturalize it is overingenious: in fact it is so intertwined because it exists only as part of a larger tradicum triumpho . Translating Tacitus’s remarks “iam vero infame in omnem vitam ac probrosum superstitem principi suo ex acie recessisse. Phillpotts defines the ideal: “The quality of a man is not known until he is sore beset. 15 “Wyrd and Providence” 5. only that it was a disgrace to survive him in retreat. . . The “praiseworthy death” sought in the engagement cannot be divorced from the heroic context (as “martyrdom”).”14 Yet Tacitus does not state that a retainer had to die for his lord. for which “to have retreated from battle when the king is dead (trans.” and the passage ought to be translated as Woolf gives it: “To survive the leader and retreat from the battlefield is a lifelong disgrace and infamy” (“Ideal” 63 note 1). This conflict against a vastly superior force invokes the ethic of “men willing to die for their lord” in Tacitus’s terms: men who refuse to flee and intend to die with honor. 31. and others have warped the context of Tacitus’s statement. so that the ideal of “men dying with their lord” sounds more like suicide undertaken simply to avoid shame than valor expressed to consummate a sacred obligation. and the real potential for flight bespeaks the trope of “men dying with their lord. Furthermore. which is often a dire sacrifice) even in the face of death. Adopting Woolf ’s contextual bias. Phillpotts has already demonstrated that Germanic heroism demands the “righteous” hateful choice (almost universally vengeance.”15 Woolf. but just around the corner. 19 On the language. Valerius Maximus. peers. . her notice of the ideal among Roman and Byzantine historianethnographers (Caesar. but at the very least the ancient tradition of “men dying with their lord” cannot be ruled out as a catalyst of the Maldon ethic.18 Her argument coincides so naturally with the idiosyncratic Scandinavianisms of Maldon that Scandinavian influence on the motif of “men dying with their lord” in Maldon would seem certain—if not for the nagging absence of a comparable ethic in Old English heroic verse. “Maldon Poet’s Artistry. and she gathers a range of parallels from sagas.” Frank does not mention the death of Stremwold at the battle of Watchet (s. O’Brien O’Keeffe. First. not backward through the mists to Germania. “Getting to Know the General” 5–7. one distinguished scholar writing for an audience of students has recently declared that “loyalty unto death seems not to have been the rule either in literature or in life. Woolf’s article has come to dominate perceptions of heroic behavior in Maldon.king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtnoð 315 tional package.”16 The “larger traditional package” is admittedly quite hard to discern in texts earlier than Maldon. In fact. 988 in the Chronicle).” 20 “Anachronism or Nouvelle Vague” 95–6. North. She then proceeds to challenge the evidence for this very specific position. Robinson. Plutarch.”17 Furthermore. 18 “Anachronism or Nouvelle Vague” 106: “Maldon . Skaldic verse. to an eleventh-century Europe. if not Skaldic. since she actually identifies it as (I paraphrase) men who willingly die with fallen lords to avoid the shame of surviving them.20 and this is my own position.” theorizing that the Maldon poet was not looking back to ninth-century notions of comitatus loyalty but projecting Scandinavian treatments of it that emerge in eleventh-century Skaldic sources. “Love and Death” 96–7. and chansons de geste to make the case that Scandinavian. . as reported in the Life of St. “The Life of St Oswald” 52.19 Others whom Frank mentions at the outset of her article have made the case for the continuity of Germanic tradition in Anglo-Saxon literature. Woolf ’s ideal of men dying with their lord in Maldon is hard but not impossible to establish for earlier native texts. Oswald (Lapidge. 55 note 11). For example. Roberta Frank reinforces the conclusion that the Maldon code is heterodox in Old English. see “Anachronism or Nouvelle Vague” in the passage cited below. Frank defends a twelfth-century date for “Bjarkamál. conventions influenced the Maldon poet. Sallust. Woolf’s treatment of “men dying with their lord” distorts the convention. Servius.a. “Heroic Values” 122. 16 17 . ” and the willingness to face death (“mori recusaret”) has bled into the embrace of death.”21 In other words. A second objection Woolf raises against the verisimilitude of the Tacitean ideal issues from the level of proof she demands for it.23 Woolf remarks. 21 22 23 “Ideal” 64. how his men fought to the death: “neque adhuc hominum memoria repertus est quisquam. like their leader. “it could mean no more than that in a situation where flight was impossible some fought so bravely that they seemed to welcome death whilst others were killed as they tried to escape. could have derived their knowledge of “men dying with their lord” from Sallust’s description of barbarian Celts in Hispania. Agathias) presumes that all of them. The ideal cannot simply be asserted as mere fanatical loyalty or desperation. and after Adiatunnus died. however. qui eo interfecto.” Woolf rejects this vignette as a prototype of the Tacitean ethic by calling it a “less spectacular and more practical [act] of loyalty”: “. though admired as brave. 65–6. the followers’ refusal to outlive their lord being in part or in whole an act of self-immolation. alternatively. is characterized by “foolish impetuosity. war-leader of the Germanic Eruli. and because Tacitus depicted a “primitive Utopia. For this reason. it may show the application to a particular event of Caesar’s account of the deaths of the Soldurii. . Aquitanian war-leader of the Soldurii.”22 A specious claim for “self-immolation” has supplanted “men dying with their lord.” Woolf proposed it as “quite possible” that Tacitus “borrowed this heroic ideal from Caesar and Sallust. mori recusaret. some of whom were. recklessly stormed a Roman siege. a freely chosen death has to be imputed to the avoidance of a shameful survival.” yet his men willingly (“ἐθελοντες”) sacrifice themselves after he has been slain. the custom. violently killed. Ibid. Fulcaris. Caesar recounted how Adiatunnus. was primarily seen as part of the fanatical and alien conduct of the barbarians and it is given a sacrificial colouring. For example. Ibid. cuius se amicitiae devovisset. even the convention we observe in Maldon might not be authentically Germanic. Woolf uses the same strategy towards another plausible example of the ideal from Agathias’ sixth-century continuation of Procopius’ Historia Gothorum. . .316 chapter five Ammianus Marcellinus. excepting Caesar. No text is safe from this skepticism. ac uuita im uuonian mid. . guod uuord for gumon.”24 While this sixth-century account looks exactly like Maldon in outline. dôian mid ûson drohtine. That is the retainer’s obligation. Furthermore. and not furthermore as the glamorization of fanatical barbarians. Woolf implies that the motivation for dying with Christ is mere “good name. ni lâtan ûse fera uuið thiu neba uui an them uuerode mid im. Than lêbot ûs thoh duom after. For Woolf the 24 Ibid. Woolf’s conviction that the ideal of men dying with their lord cannot be found in Germanic sources independent of Maldon becomes a yardstick for other Old English texts thought to illustrate the ethic. Wiglaf expresses the notion when the retainers fail to join Beowulf in the dragon fight. that ist thegnes cust. Caesar does not describe suicide among the Soldurii but heroic and therefore ostensibly sacrificial action. our reputation among men. Woolf disregards that “fighting bravely” and “welcoming death” amount to the same thing in the face of desperation. Let us value our lives as worthy of nothing unless we travel with him and die with our lord. however. that he together with his lord stand fast and die with him there in glory. possibly because the Crucifixion would preempt “vengeance. Then our glory will live afterwards. Duan ûs alla sô. follow him on the road. Woolf demands a contrived standard from the sources.” but suicidal loyalty entails collateral suffering. the motivation for loyalty lies strictly in shame. folgon im te thero ferdi: uuihtes uuirðig.king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtnoð 317 whilst others killed themselves. and only to escape the shame of survival. fasto gistande. 66. Let us stay with him and suffer with our lord. Let us do as much. avoidance of which brings shame and acceptance of which confers the glory of reputation. Woolf remarks. “Thomas speaks of the good name that the apostles will gain if they accompany Christ to Jerusalem”: thuoloian mid ûsson thiodne: that he mid is frâhon samad dôie mid im thar an duome.” One has to realize that Christ’s apostles are not a warband in any strict sense. In expression of the ideal of men dying with their lord in the Heliand. In Heliand. that men die suicidally with their fallen lord by choice and not circumstance. 3. 70. who will inevitably turn up in support of the dead Cynewulf. the retainers’ behavior in “Cynewulf and Cyneheard” could be motivated by the ideal of men dying with their lord. Cyneheard knows that killing these men would antagonize their kinsmen. A problem with Woolf’s formulation of the Maldon ideal emerges in the theory of “effective vengeance. Woolf reasons that men without obligations of family or estates comprised the comitatus.”25 Elaborating on Woolf’s conclusion. or to be in a “life or death situation. foolish or not. 27 This claim is only substantiated by the “symmetry” of the two offers. retainers owed their lives to the king regardless of his actions. These retainers could Ibid. and Cynewulf’s impulsive lunge against Cyneheard reveal Cynewulf ’s caliber. but the critics are not treating the Chronicle text impartially. 25 26 . His men have much to emulate. a distinction between dying with one’s lord and serving the killer of one’s lord simply cannot be drawn. The surprise. nothing in the literature suggests that one’s men have to be fighting side by side with their lord in order to avenge him. “While the first group of Cynewulf’s retainers are reported to have fought to the death. Finally.” An abiding shame would doubtless attach itself to Cynewulf ’s men if they had accepted Cyneheard’s payoff.” drafted in reaction to the Finnsburh digression in Beowulf and to the alleged implausibility of comitatus social organization and warfare. their alternative was to switch their loyalties to the slayer of their lord.”26 In the first instance (Woolf’s exact case).318 chapter five 755 Chronicle entry “Cynewulf and Cyneheard” exclusively emphasizes that “death is preferable to ignobly entering the service of the murderer of the lord. Steven Fanning makes three claims about “Cynewulf and Cyneheard”: 1. even if the passage suggests that Cynewulf ’s men would be made to follow Cyneheard. “Cynewulf’s death while in the company of his mistress certainly cannot be construed as the kind of death whose survival would bring shame to his retainers”. These arguments strike me as desperate attempts to erase Woolf’s ethic of “men dying with their lord” from the episode. The very fact that Cynewulf was “on wifcyþþe” made his retainers’ resolve all the more ennobling. In fact. the indefensible quarters. 2. not the avoidance of the shame attached to surviving one’s lord on the field of battle”.27 Against Fanning’s second charge. “the main group of retainers would not have been charged with abandoning their lord since they were not with him when he died nor were they in a life and death situation. Fanning 22. and even Beowulf’s men own lands and towns. not only (or exclusively) because they are following their lord’s killer but also because they survived a battle in which he fell. Furthermore. identified in later lines: corðre (3121a). see Evans.” too. Lords of Battle 123–6. Their “withdrawal” from battle would allow them the chance to avenge their slain prince later.” Finn would have to be a fool not to foresee the reprisal that Woolf thinks is planned for him. dying with one’s lord not only forecloses effective vengeance but also creates social anarchy and military collapse as one’s leaders are pointlessly slaughtered. Woolf thinks that these facts in Beowulf are anachronistic. we should contend that Beowulf’s retinue could own lands. Joining Finn shames the Danes. Hengest does not choose “effective vengeance.” 28 . and may not be realistic. On a theorized system of food-renders. Just because men cut and run does not mean they escape. Beowulf conscripts fighters from the entire force because he identifies those most interested in glory. the possibility that men in the comitatus have no spouses or lands is contradicted linguistically. Having defined the comitatus. Therefore. their motivation is revenge for Hnæf and redemption of the moral taint earned by serving Finn instead of killing him. and some members of the dragon expedition probably came from his comitatus. for the geoguð (“youth”) are theoretically the sons of the duguð (“the doughty”). Corþor. This position does not hold for Old English literature. For this reason it is no impediment to assume that the ideal of men dying with their lord would be socially anachronistic in Maldon. “Ideal” 68. she thinks that “Beowulf. when king.29 Instead of saying that Beowulf has no comitatus because his men own lands. heorðgeneatas (3179b).” whose constituents own lands. Ongenðeow’s action against the remnants of Hæðcyn’s army at Ravenswood makes the point in Beowulf. and that the conclusion of Beowulf does not describe a comitatus system. Sometimes men who “withdraw” from battle are hunted down and massacred. see Stanley.king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtnoð 319 realistically sacrifice themselves. it may simply mean “host. does not have a comitatus” because he draws his men in the dragon fight from the “here. In all events. but men with family and lands could not—and should not. Woolf ’s concept of “effective vengeance” in military expeditions cannot invalidate the shame imputed to retreat or surrender. 29 While OE corþer can designate the comitatus. As I have already argued in my reading of the Finnsburh digression. their nation plundered. “Old English Corþer.28 In fact. the suicidal loyalty that Beowulf displays in taking vengeance for Hygelac arguably represents the Maldon ideal. Beowulf was obviously willing to die in vengeance for his fallen lord.”31 Why. The dragon fight in Beowulf makes sense only in light of this ideal—men willing to die in vengeance for their fallen lord rather than facing shame through retreat. the Danes still find it intolerable to serve Finn. I have already argued that Beowulf indirectly asks his own men to do as much for him when he recounts this story of vengeance. exemplify the artificiality of Woolf’s standard. Killing Dæghrefn and carrying back thirty mailcoats was “effective vengeance” and not the suicidal loyalty of men dying with their lord. Tacitus supplied his own bland 30 31 “Ideal” 70. The motivation underlying the ideal of “men dying with their lord” is one that Woolf considers and rejects. “bravery” in the face of peril—even “certain death. In fact. in Finnsburh. These two examples. The generous terms Hengest negotiates and Beowulf ’s revenge and plunder represent the conditions under which one could be said to prevail when one’s lord lies dead. then. She claims that no shame followed Beowulf for leaving Hygelac dead. even when the retainers in Beowulf face exile and death because of their “desertion. and their ambush must mean that even Finn’s bounty does not satisfy the obligation for vengeance. the figure used in Beowulf for a great number.” as Woolf has it—is the expected action. . Woolf applies the logic of “effective vengeance” to Maldon. 71 note 1. Of course.” In fact. speaking of a “strategic withdrawal from the fight coupled with the hope of fighting another day.”30 She claims that “the possibility of retreat on foot to the safety of the wood is made clear by desertion of the cowards: the decision to stay and fight is manifestly one that is freely taken. Ibid. does Byrhtnoð drive the horses off ? Not to prevent retreat.320 chapter five Shame indeed! In justification of “effective vengeance” Woolf also recalls Beowulf’s deeds in requital for Hygelac in Frisia. Finnsburh and Hygelac’s Frisian raid. according to Woolf! Woolf seems to think that no shame should realistically dog a man who survived his lord through flight. but his revenge succeeded: he crushed Dæghrefn and killed “thirty” other men. for Tacitus makes the point that men need not die with their lord but that it is a perpetual disgrace to survive one’s lord through retreat. king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtnoð 321 interpretation of the ethic. In his Historia Langobardorum Paulus Diaconus describes the vengeance of a dwarf for the death of Godebertus—even though the dwarf knows he will be killed. they try to kill as many invaders as possible. //wrecan on gewinne/minne winedrihten. seem far more likely motivations. . tueri. Godebertus’s retainers would conceivably be more driven. vengeance is displaced and the ideal putatively unmotivated. . illum defendere. however. however. Instead. and the Danes take vengeance for Hnæf on Finn and his Frisians. sua quoque fortia facta gloriae eius adsignare praecipuum sacramentum est. even if success constituted multiple killings in exchange for one’s own life? Beowulf kills Dæghrefn and thirty other men in retaliation for Hygelac’s death. Godebertus. Yet Woolf conjectures that a retainer’s vengeance should be directed specifically at his lord’s killer. Eadweard the Tall is said to have honorably avenged his treasure-giver on the seamen: “oðþæt he his sincgyfan/on þam sæmannum//wurðlice wrec” (278a–9a). and Dunnere commands the men to avenge Byrhtnoð: “bæd þæt beorna gehwylc/Byrhtnoð wræce” (257a–b). Because no Viking leader has been identified. 32 . Soon afterwards Leofsunu speaks of avenging his lord (“ac wille . that retainers would want to take vengeance for a fallen lord. even in battle. and does lose his life. but where no single killer is identified. is admired for the loyalty he inspired in his followers. to give up their lives or avenge the dear man. “Ideal” 75: “. . it would be impossible for the troops to focus their assault.” 33 Waitz 176: “multis eum ictuum vulneribus occiderunt. Lines 207–8 in Maldon imply that the retainers fight entirely for revenge: “hi woldon þa ealle/oðer twega.”34 But history has never yielded any “distinct” claims of motivation for dying with one’s lord. Woolf seems to have substituted her own notion Woolf. “avenge Byrhtnoð or die trying”). . Nevertheless. suggesting that it arose from mere duty: “To defend and protect the king and to consign their foremost deeds to his glory is their sworn duty. and that vengeance in battle would mean achieving some measurable victory. in determining that vengeance should be directed against the lord’s killer and not an army.”32 Vengeance and the glory of securing it. How can it be doubted.33 Since vengeance stands out as a dwarf ’s imperative.e.” 247b–8b).” i.” 34 “Ideal” 76. too. Woolf believes that the poet has “blurred the historically distinct claims of vengeance and dying with one’s lord.//lif forlætan/oððe leofne gewrecan” (“they all wanted one of two things. while the second half concludes: . the approximate cause of his fall and that of so many others. and Beowulf fights his dragon. The contexts of such battles rate no mention in the critical discussion. Retainers who are willing to die for their lord can avenge their lord’s death through victory or merely by random killing. one expects the retainers to fight suicidally against the dragon (“loyalty unto death”). although Wiglaf presumes that Beowulf will die. . In Heliand. Jesus enters Jerusalem expecting to be executed there. Elsewhere in Arnórr Þorðarson’s drápa or “panegyric” on Haraldr harðráði. . is mentioned in stanza 13. yet they strike me as the most important features of the ideal. This is exactly the ethic that Bertha Phillpotts identified in her article on “Wyrd and Providence. Woolf rejects the motivation for the ideal stated in Maldon.” Furthermore. but she fails to consider that Godric’s flight sabotaged the enterprise. his ofrausn ‘rash magnificence’ . motivation of the convention. his death in battle is reported in the first half of stanza 15. In fact. Therefore. stanza 14 praises the king’s courage and swordplay. In Maldon Byrhtnoð commits ofermod. and Agathias’ Historia Gothorum actually records how Fulcaris impetuously raced into battle at the front of his men. Instead of concluding that suicidal loyalty could be enacted in vengeance.322 chapter five that shame motivates suicide. but the prospect does not keep him from displaying the “loyalty unto death” that Tacitus describes. In Caesar’s De bello gallico Adiatunnus attempts the desperate act of breaking the Roman siege. the formulation “men dying with their lord” ought to be rephrased as “men willing to die for their lord in vengeance. “consigning one’s foremost deeds to the king’s glory” could plausibly entail “suicidal” attempts at vengeance. the retainers might have won had they all shown the right kind of suicidal loyalty. it describes exactly what happens in Beowulf. Since retainers earn praise by being loyal to the king.” Even in Beowulf. and historical. he survives what he deemed a hopeless situation. Wiglaf anticipates that he himself will die. Although Wiglaf expects to die alongside Beowulf. when Wiglaf helps Beowulf fight the dragon. who died at Stamford Bridge. Roberta Frank observed a close parallel to Byrhtnoð’s ofermod: The king’s carefree uppganga ‘landing’ (Maldon 87: upganga) is described in stanza 12. In other words. to capture the principle that Tacitus reports. Sometimes one dies and sometimes not. Woolf is convinced that the Battle of Maldon could not have been won once the Vikings crossed the Pante. although shame in failing loyally to avenge a fallen lord sounds like a plausible. 35 36 “Anachronism or Nouvelle Vague?” 102. Perhaps because the king’s own deeds were reckless.”36 and while not obviously negative. Although rationalized as revenge.king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtnoð 323 heldr kuru meir ens milda mildings. grið. The ideal of men dying with their lord identifies the desperation of heroic action in these settings. 99. . an grið vildi. . even folc ‘battle. . 113. but this time with the vikings as good losers. which do not emphasize battles gone wrong or the accidental deaths of luckless kings. .’ 259). The dragon fight in Beowulf cannot be understood without invoking this particular value. it could be said to resemble OE ofermod. lidmenn. even though the war-leader may have recklessly endangered himself and his men. Cleasby and Vigfusson s. All of them immortalize reckless belligerence ennobled by loyal defense. . ceosan. If his cause be wrong. Arnórr’s drápa evokes the situation of a reckless king whose surviving warband rejects terms that would save them from annihilation.v. So my argument stands with Beowulf. or even the nation. that in the most “daring” action which could lead to death. presumption.35 OIcel ofrausn can be translated “over-boldness. . the ideal of men dying with their lord betrays a precise literary context in which reckless or desperate acts may be won or ennobled by a sacrificial death. we know enough if we know we are the King’s subjects. as it was observed in Henry V: BATES: . 35. our obedience to the King wipes the crime of it out of us. of folksnaran fylki falla liðsmenn allir. the retainers’ impulse is to achieve the highest duty in risking his own life for vengeance or victory. The half stanza is very much in the idiom of Maldon (cf. All the warriors of the generous ruler chose rather to fall around the battle-swift king than to accept peace. he expects his men to intervene and uphold the ethic of “men willing to die with their lord” in attempted vengeance. A retainer’s pledge of loyalty reified in gift exchange finds its supreme dignity in such moments of discipline. Yet Beowulf and Maldon expose the central conflict of the ideal. 164. Gordon 30–1. the King himself hath a heavy reckoning to make . ed. Swanton. “Literary Caveat” 443. Now if these men do not die well it will be a black matter for the King. V. Byrhtnoð is the regional “ealdormonn.1.” 40 Lapidge. the Vikings resemble a faceless pagan mob. 39 On the equivalence of OE eorl. “Getting to Know the General” 2. with the exception of the haughty messenger.324 chapter five WILLIAMS: But if the cause be not good. describes the same conflict between ambition and restraint explored in Beowulf. a detail confirmed in at least one Latin source. that led them to it. but an objection to one identification has been made in E.” 169a). Byrhtnoð is quite old by the time of the battle. In fact. . or does that responsibility lie with the monarch? The Shakespearean parallel. as I shall consider in subsequent pages. He has led a party to meet the Vikings. 143–6. I might add.131–5. this confederation of pirates intended to ravage the King Henry V. for the poet depicts him in heroic terms as the war-leader (“eorl”) of a comitatus.41 although the Viking leaders (probably Norwegians) can be named from extant documents.37 Are the monarch’s soldiers responsible for their own souls. 41 Britton 85–7. as pernicious an enemy as could be imagined in a pseudo-historical poem like Maldon. who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection. Craik 4. My hypothesis portends that Maldon and Beowulf ’s dragon fight have the same literary typology.40 Like Beowulf. It has been pointed out on multiple occasions that.38 As much as Byrhtnoð is King Æþelred’s legate. both texts share more than the ideal of men dying with their lord. OIcel jarl and OE ealdormonn see McKinnell. 42 North. 37 38 . Hart. we should think of him neither as a bureaucrat nor officer.39 Like Beowulf.42 Not simply a local threat. . Beowulf’s Doppelgänger While Beowulf is a king. “On Dating The Battle of Maldon. “Heroic Poem” 58. and the poet describes him as a “har hilderinc” (“hoary battle-warrior.” not a king per se but a surrogate responsible for administering and defending a huge territory. Byrhtnoð goes to face a spectacular foe at the end of his life.” Much has been written on this. that they express virtually identical perspectives on the values of heroism and responsible leadership. Clark. especially in McKinnell and Cecily Clark. “Life of St Oswald” 55. “On the Date. the English and the Vikings must both give up a certain number of lives on the battlefield in exchange for whatever they can take from it. he expects the English to quail. Death and Loyalty” 116. the Viking messenger does not offer to settle the matter of supremacy generously by inviting battle and letting the outcome be decided. “The AngloSaxon Chronicle. . the Viking messenger tries to corrupt these competing loyalties.45 In other words. 45 Ibid. “God.” 44 “Exchanging Battle” 267.44 Ryner states. he says that Byrhtnoð (“you”) should send “tribute” to the Vikings (30b–1a). they join in war.46 At first using the second person singular. they will gain in warfare. gold rings in return for [peace]”). By promising to inflict violence as the alternative to ransom.king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtnoð 325 entire coast. predicated on the English avoiding violence. In the second. Byrhtnoð’s troops are traditionally divided into two groups: trustworthy thanes (conceived as a “comitatus” in literary terms) and the local levies or fyrd. Ryner has lately explored the threat of war that the Vikings convey as an implicit formulation of “exchange. In the latter. In both models. and Ipswich. . . In the former. The messenger’s blunt intimidation yet has a coy dimension meant to erode Byrhtnoð’s support. 267–8. and his implication is clear. Bradley D. . Thereafter he switches into the plural: it is better for “you”—the assembled fyrd and retainers—to avoid 43 Keynes 88. 46 On this exchange see Clark. English defiance is not encouraged.43 The Vikings’ primary aim is extortion. beagas wið gebeorge” (“send . but what the invaders cannot get by threat. Sandwich. He says that the Vikings will attack if they do not get the ransom they demand (“dispensing battle”). “Heroic Poem” 64–5 and Robinson. confusion in the Chronicle dating is discussed by Bately. In the first model. the English must give up tribute while the Vikings must give up nothing more than the prospect of taking more treasure in battle. The messenger’s proposition that both sides should “hilde dælon” contrasts to his earlier proposition that the English should “sendan . It reports—not without confusion—that the Maldon Vikings had already sacked Folkestone. if the Chronicle is any guide to the poem’s mise-en-scène. the English and Vikings join in an agreement. As frequently observed. . they join in peace.” He makes the important point that “þonne we swa hearde/hilde dælon” (33a-b) is often thought to mean that the Vikings and English will “share battle.” when in fact the Vikings intend to “distribute battle” unless their demands are met. Byrhtnoð has been rhetorically isolated from the fighters for which he is responsible. (36a–7b) If you who are the most powerful [or: richest] here should determine that you will deliver your people . Death and Loyalty” 116–17.326 chapter five war (31b–3b). which Beowulf’s retinue resists. Yet the focus on instructing the men “how they should stand and hold their ground” (19a–b) implies their sloppy deportment. which he lets fly to the woods after learning that “the earl would not suffer shame” (“þæt se eorl nolde/yrhðo geþolian. but one wonders why it was brought in the first place and why it had not been released 47 48 Robinson. and exhorting them to brandish their shields properly (17a–21b). since the hawk is not recoverable. his troops. þæt þu þine leoda þe her ricost eart.” not simply “told. “Heroic Ethic” 292.47 The test of loyalty that Robinson conjectures should be situated in the context of Byrhtnoð’s ofermod as a reflection of Beowulf ’s alleged oferhygd. in fact or in theory. This fyrd is no troop of seasoned veterans. Robinson interprets the gambit as a test of loyalty which the English fulfill.” From this evidence some critics have deduced that Byrhtnoð attends his men and offers last-minute advice. . and the entire nation. Hill. . The verb “tæhte” (18b) almost certainly means “instructed” or “advised.” 6a–b). lysan wille . At the opening of the poem. . As defined by this herald. The lord and his retinue are at odds. Offa’s kinsman has brought a hawk. . Furthermore. that “we need not destroy ourselves” (“ne þurfe we us spillan. See Samouce. telling them “how” to stand and hold their ground.” At this moment. Byrhtnoð’s option to render the tribute is tied directly to the salvation of his people.” 34a) if “you” (again the plural) “spedaþ to þam” (34b) or “succeed in this. He remarks. the envoy reverts to the second-person singular and addresses Byrhtnoð: Gyf þu þat gerædest. The gesture shows either resolution or insouciance. . In Maldon the English may not be able to defeat the invader. “God.48 The retainers seem equally unqualified. they seem unprepared. When Byrhtnoð orders them to drive their mounts away (2a–3a). and Fred C. The Viking’s public alienation of the leader’s goals from those of his men resembles the suspicions surrounding Beowulf’s dragon-fight. Byrhtnoð “trims” his men. he obviously expects panic. For Byrhtnoð or for another Anglo-Saxon leader the threat of attack still remains. certain and immediate. but they do pose a threat in situ.49 The poet’s comment that Byrhtnoð would not suffer “yrhðo” probably means that he does not intend to earn shame by negotiating or retreating. or someone 49 In contrast to the arguments of Clark (“Heroic Poem” 62) and Blake (“Genesis” 127–8). Beowulf can intervene now. 50 For a different interpretation of “yrhðo geþolian. The demanded ransom may not offer security at all. then. and to assess his motivation as potentially selfish “heroic glory” versus security of the folc. or probable but distant. The ambiguity of the Viking threat and the competence of the militia are highly relevant to the way Maldon should be read as an exploration of ofermod and a critique of heroic judgment—not. And why not? Vast Danegeld would be paid just after the Maldon defeat. I should add. 51 Keynes 91. on the advice of archbishop Sigeric. One might want to bear the danger when the repercussions of facing it and losing are just as bad.50 Although they do not show it. The audience is invited to reflect on Byrhtnoð’s decision to engage the Vikings before he is afflicted by ofermod. or worse. It would be like allowing the dragon to continue its flights of terror. the poet invites us not only to admire the troops’ loyalty but also to establish in theory the competing ambitions of war-leader and subaltern. possible but near. the Vikings do not invade Essex because a treasure of theirs has been stolen. Valentine reasons that releasing the hawk was an “unbidden” act of resolution (“Offa’s The Battle of Maldon” 7). Buying off an attack would simply amount to a postponement. as a vindication of the heroic code. Of course.51 At this point. or (perhaps more likely) stay and fight anyhow. or may grant it for a time. as much as it safeguards Byrhtnoð’s levy. Byrhtnoð’s men could be tempted to think that the “ricost” man among them—their ealdormonn—could save their lives in a potentially desperate situation. If the Geats allowed the dragon to live. The Vikings would possibly take the silver and disappear to another part of the mainland. .king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtnoð 327 sooner. Whether they intend any of these alternatives is not clear. “Getting to Know the General” 6. but the general circumstances of their threat resemble the dragon’s. a less capable king than Beowulf would have to confront its hostility. Yet my expression “security of the folc” has multiple complications for Byrhtnoð’s decision.” see North. or go home and return to bleed Essex again in a few years. his unqualified self-confidence . 53 “Byrhtnoð’s ofermod Once Again” 150. Helmut Gneuss summarized six proposed interpretations of ofermod: 1. “magnanimity. “Lucifer’s ofermod. “over-courage”. runs blindly into destruction. “recklessness”. see Samouce. 3b. It seems clear. 2. and the fight is engaged. the implication of the famous ofermod crux. 54 George Clark reached this conclusion as well in “Hero of Maldon” 280–1. and that the term essentially described “pride. . The same may be said of Byrhtnoð: the old ealdormonn can fight now. 5. In Genesis B Lucifer the “engel ofermodes” or “angel of pride” (272a) imagines that through his own might he can challenge God’s supremacy. Gneuss reasoned that “ofermod” could be “great” mod but not “excessive” mod. but he modifies this finding to support Byrhtnoð’s humility! Elsewhere he alleges. the result is clearly overconfidence or recklessness in challenging God’s supreme power. In an important article from 1976. While the motivation sounds much like pride or arrogance. as much or more for Byrhtnoð’s men as for him. However. “pride”. . but an examination of three instances of the noun ofermod might reveal something more specific about the nature of “pride” implicit in the term. that the Viking threat cannot be crushed without taking these risks. however.328 chapter five else can intervene later. 4.” One has no reason to doubt the philology behind Gneuss’s conclusion.52 The question emerges whether Byrhtnoð sacrificed victory out of reckless pride. The détente would be shameful and perilous. too. Samouce argues an historical position and concludes that Byrhtnoð gave up a “cheap victory” by not attacking “at the time of crossing” (134). attacking the Vikings is subject to considerable risks. in Essex or elsewhere. and does not .”53 The first four of these are negative. He finds it doubtful that he would ever be God’s underling (“geongra”): “cwæð him tweo þuhte//þæt he gode wolde/geongra weorðan” (276b–7b). The battle turns when Byrhtnoð “for his ofermode” (89b) lets the Vikings control too much land (90a–b) on his side of the causeway. “overconfidence”.54 This sounds much 52 On Byrhtnoð’s defensive strategy. the last two positive. or perhaps another royal legate could try and repulse the Vikings. Samouce considers this eventuality to be a matter of honor. Byrhtnoð’s Fatal Mistake and its Consequences The ransom demand is rejected. “great courage”. His détente with the Vikings would be shameful and perilous. 3a. Blinded by oferhygd. the figures in classical drama who fall from high status to low. while Gneuss claims that there is no proof that ofermod means “recklessness. . 58 “Byrhtnoð’s ofermod Once Again” 157. or the blind error of a tragic king. 55 Rosier. Defeat and death do not catch Byrhtnoth unprepared and overconfidently counting on victory . (130) He who exalts himself too greatly out of ofermod will be wretched before God. neither Nebuchadnezzar nor Belshazzar could foresee any casual punishment for their impiety. either through overconfidence or the experience of an unexpected reversal.” which promotes over-confidence. the gloss cotvrnvs] ofermod from an eleventh-century manuscript presents a strange case.59 In this respect.” since it ought to represent a trait similar to the one Hroðgar describes in his sermon. where an inferior man exalts himself over his betters.57 The semantic evidence of OE ofermod and related vocables suggests to me that Byrhtnoð acted on account of “arrogance. every attestation of ofermod and oferhygd in the Old English glossed psalters could be translated “unrighteous or reckless overconfidence” as much as “pride. OE ofermod clearly resembles oferhygd as defined in Vainglory. the delusional recklessness of Lucifer. 59 By this reasoning. to swiðe ahefð he bið earm for Gode.king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtnoð 329 like a description of the “arrogant” man in the late Old English poem “Instructions for Christians”:55 Ac se ðe sylfne for his ofermode.”58 having the trait of ofermod yields recklessness as the consequence of arrogance or false superiority.’ ” 56 “Byrhtnoð’s ofermod Once Again” 155. see Schabram.34. . and this would also explain the use of ofermod in our OE glossary. Gneuss says that “medieval glossaries and dictionaries of medieval Latin leave no doubt that cot(h)urnus could be employed in the sense of ‘superbia’.” (“Heroic Poem” 70).”56 Yet Isidore explains that the coturnus—a special boot—was worn by tragedians. Finally. table following 140. a characteristic truly parallel Byrhtnoth’s ofermod. Hence. the engel ofermodes in Genesis B. Here OE ofermod seems to engender vanity. too. I do not intend to be “literal” in my view of Byrhtnoð’s “ofermod.5. It evokes the context of Daniel. 57 Lindsay 19.” which strikes me only as the most convenient euphemism in Modern English for a complex heroic fault. . “ ‘Instructions for Christians. 62 Kennedy 64. . “Byrhtnoth knows.”64 On the contrary. 63 In fact. see Swanton.330 chapter five failing of benighted kings. but as a virtue in keeping with heroic style. Byrhtnoð’s “expectation of victory” seems unfounded because of the few men he commanded. as some critics have proposed. This “overconfidence” corresponds to “pride” in Gneuss’s analysis. supremely confident of winning. “Getting to Know the General” 7–8: “Nimia animositas is probably a translation of ofermod. the position that Byrhtnoð betrays “arrogance” and therefore reckless overconfidence has still been subjected to 60 T. “Literary Caveat” 445. . . spe victoriae et nimia ductus animositate. . he would foresee neither his own death nor his army’s defeat.60 In fact.”63 Byrhtnoð wrongly thought he could defeat the Vikings en masse.”62 One has trouble entertaining much. Shippey has concluded that a clever alternation of indicative and subjunctive forms “seems . Byrhtnoð’s ofermod implies that. 61 Kennedy 64. but see also North. Byrhtnoð’s success in defending the causeway (the Vikings are slaughtered in numbers) explains why he felt confident enough to engage the Vikings hand to hand. . . Blake. later generations may have perceived ofermod in Maldon 89 not as blame. His determination not to suffer “yrhðo” could quite possibly represent a precondition for ofermod. many critics take the view that granting “landes to fela” means that Byrhtnoð mistakenly let the Vikings cross the “brycg”. if any. That is to say. or does he think that they will meet the threat in a moment of desperation? Surprisingly. iter ad bellum suscepit. and yet in the Liber Eliensis it seems to have no negative sense and conforms with the hyperbole surrounding. “that his opportunity to defeat the enemy depends on his willingness to risk defeat in a pitched battle on his side of the ford.” states George Clark.” The Liber Eliensis is edited by E. The decisiveness that Shippey attributes to Byrhtnoð’s wit may also be a symptom of over-confidence. . Even the Liber Eliensis (1169 × 1174) seems to describe Byrhtnoð’s ofermod as recklessness in the Beowulfian sense of not expecting defeat: “in audaciam concitatus . Has Byrhtnoð forgotten how ill-prepared his men seemed when he “trimmed” them.”61 Byrhtnoð was led to “audacia” by his unfounded expectation of victory and excessive (“nimia”) zeal. to destroy the argument that sinful immoderation is to be recognised in Byrhtnoth” in the Viking parley (“Boar and Badger” 230). A. What act did Byrhtnoð commit out of “arrogance”? The poet does not hedge: Byrhtnoð lets the Vikings have “too much land. approval in this account. A decision based on ofermod such as this would not entail calculated risk. and to oferhygd in Beowulf. according to the Ely chronicler: “cum paucis bellatoribus . 64 “Heroic Poem” 68. Calling ofermod “pride. ofermod establishes Edmund’s defiance: “Edmund acts cynelice as Byrhtnoth does mid ofermode.71 For Blake. and the poem locates the nobility of the English precisely in their excess. I think. 69 “Hero of Maldon” 277. 550 men]. Edmund.”69 similar to the proposition by Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe that “the realm of the heroic lies apart from the mundane. 340. in Ælfric’s version of the saint’s vita. 70 “Heroic Values” 123. Hill. and our poet’s ofermod becomes understandable. “Maldon Poet’s Artistry” 129–30. In light of Gneuss’s remarks. Byrhtnoth’s concluding words to the Vikings.”65 Even Gneuss thinks it improper that the accusation of ofermod was unavoidable because Byrhtnoð did not have enough troops to carry out his (desperate) plan. In Maldon ofermod causes Byrhtnoð to misjudge his own circumstances in a specific way: he acted heroically rather than strategically. Guide to Old English 245. it is worth recording O’Brien O’Keeffe’s view that “there is no indication in the poem that the English were outnumbered in the battle.” After inviting the Vikings over the causeway.67 Yet another suggests that Byrhtnoð wanted to draw the Norsemen away from Northey. that “the realm of the heroic lies apart from the mundane. a point implicitly raised in the preceding quotation by O’Brien O’Keeffe. if not desperate position as soon as the Vikings had been allowed to cross the brycg. is neither rational nor conscious.”70 Among the cleverest prevarications is by N. Blake. who compares Byrhtnoð to St. “Heroic Ethic.e. Byrhtnoð utters a final remark: “God Mitchell and Robinson.”72 Blake’s position evokes the context of self-sacrifice imagined for Beowulf if God does not lift the heathen curse.” 68 Robinson. or perhaps a rather smaller figure. F. is representative of the strength of the Anglo-Saxon fighting force at Maldon. which was probably inhabited and vulnerable.66 Another reading accepts Byrhtnoð’s ofermod as damning but makes it a literary trope that Byrhtnoð foolishly enacts as a consequence of his aristocratic social milieu. 67 Thomas D.68 George Clark suggests that the poet “[devised] a context forcing ofermod into an honorific sense. ‘god ana wat//hwa þære wælstowe/wealdan mote’ (94b–5b: ‘God alone knows who will control the place of slaughter’) suggests a perception that both sides were even” (“Heroic Values” 119). even though the ealdorman may have seriously hoped to be able to defeat the Vikings and thus to prevent them from further attacks. “Byrhtnoð’s ofermod Once Again” 161: “If this [i.king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtnoð 331 some equivocation. 71 “The Battle of Maldon. Quite the contrary.” Ofermod. He then appeals to an historically-based argument on the numbers of troops in each force. then it seems quite possible that Byrhtnoð’s men were in a very difficult. 65 66 .” 72 Ibid.” the editors of one textbook downplay it as “national pride and manly defiance. swa him gemet þince.” conveys more than the mere wish for God’s intercession.”77 Just like the social condition of oferhygd explored in the Heremod digression in Beowulf. 558. 558. Bloomfield’s theory suffers from a lack of evidence. the Measurer of each man. Death and Loyalty” 112.”73 Alternatively. In 1969 Morton W. or like the remarks Beowulf makes just before meeting Grendel: .//nergende fæder” (“Destiny is mysterious and secret.”75 It might be humble or arrogant to let God decide the outcome of a battle.”74 Bloomfield makes a case for Byrhtnoð’s arrogant expectation that God would honor his Christianity but concludes that “there is an ambiguity of mood. The utterance that “god alone knows . ond siþðan witig god on swa hwæþere hond. the Lord alone knows it. see Cavill. a failing which he conscientiously reports. . “God. but in Maldon the creator seems to have sided with the pagans.76 but one of his remarks suggests to me how the notion of iudicium dei applies to Maldon: “it is not a battle of champions. One suspects that “god ana wat .” 94b–5b).” sounds much like Beowulf ’s “swa unc wyrd geteoð//metod manna gehwæs” (“just as fate ordains for us two [Beowulf and the dragon]. 77 Ibid. Elsewhere Maxims II affirms that only the Lord knows one’s destiny: “Is seo forðgesceaft//digol and dyrne.” 2526b–7a). but of armies against each other. 558–9. . 76 Ibid. . . On this formula. Byrhtnoð is guilty of ofermod because he behaves like a warrior staking his own life and the survival of his nation on personal glory.” has been thought a “mere formula for acknowledging an uncertainty. Maxims I 29 approaches the mood of Byrhtnoð’s exclamation: “Meotud ana wat//hwær se cwealm cymeð” (“The Measurer alone knows where death will come./drihten ana wat. Approximately ten parallels to the expression “god ana wat” suggest the mystery of fate or the secrecy of knowledge. . 74 “Trial by Combat” 547.332 chapter five alone knows who will control the battlefield” (“god ana wat//hwa þære wælstowe/wealdan mote. Bloomfield suggested that Byrhtnoð’s resignation to God’s will could be seen in terms of medieval ordeal—specifically trial by combat—as “a tempting of God. . the redeeming father. Byrhtnoð pits his Christianity against Viking heathenism when he appeals to God’s dispensation in battle. 75 Ibid. (685b–7b) 73 Robinson. The expression in Maldon of “god ana wat . and at least four examples of “meotud ana wat” from Maxims I and Maxims II express this sentiment gnomically. . . .” 61b–3a).” 29b–30a). Maxims 53–6. halig Dryhten mærðo deme. Therefore. and afterwards let wise God. When Oswine’s men demand “to take the auspices of these evil times with iron. dispense glory on whichever side that seems fitting to him.” yet his comparison of Byrhtnoð’s behavior to Beowulf’s should have suggested how “chivalry” coincides with heroic (over)confidence. R. Tolkien argued famously that Byrhtnoð risked his men’s lives unnecessarily because of pride.”79 Calling Byrhtnoð “too foolish to be heroic. J. Notwithstanding this trivial proviso. R. my own argument follows Tolkien’s. “Heroic Ethic” 293: “Byrhtnoth’s gesture is a magnificent one. the holy Lord. . e. or death will take me. Thomas D. on the point of the sword.78 Tolkien treats Byrhtnoð’s ofermod (translated “overmastering pride”) as a self-conscious “chivalric” irresponsibility. in other words. and if it were not for the fact that more was at stake than Byrhtnoth’s own life and reputation.king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtnoð 333 . .” Tolkien later labeled ofermod a “defect of character. and I think this argument deserves some further reflection. for whom single combat reaps glory. Or like the remarks Beowulf makes just before fighting Grendel’s mother: dom gewyrce. on the point of the sword. it would have been an admirable one. Ic me mid Hruntinge oþðe mec deað nimeð. justifies the encounter in the face of desperate odds by an appeal to God’s judgment. Beowulf himself was fastidious in fighting Grendel on Grendel’s own terms: without arms or armor.g. (1490b–1b) I will either achieve glory with Hrunting. Byrhtnoð’s Germanic iudicium dei reflects the attitude of the glory-seeking warrior. It also recalls the passage discussed above in which Oswine’s men beg “to take the auspices of these evil times with iron. Other critics have followed at least this part of Tolkien’s claim. although Tolkien alleged that Beowulf jeopardized his own subordinates only by losing his life.” they insist on just this kind of futile encounter. In fact. in which “honour was in itself a motive. Hill.” 79 “Homecoming” 15. Oswini records the same perverse defiance of fate and arrogant expectation of God’s sanction in the utter hopelessness of the engagement with King Oswiu.” Oswine’s comitatus. The ealdormonn’s reckless expectation that God will decide the English fate confirms Byrhtnoð’s corresponding indifference to his troops’ vulnerability. The Vita S. Tolkien found his best corresponding example of reckless leadership in Hygelac: 78 “Homecoming” 13–18. . to the ruin of his purpose and duty.”81 Just as Wiglaf stands with Beowulf in the face of certain annihilation (as he sees it). As Professor Tolkien has shown. G. as well as his duty as a hero towards his own honour . Byrhtnoð’s retainers will fall alongside their lord. but at other people’s expense. . a true dilemma faces a leader in a situation such as this—such a dilemma as faces Beowulf when the dragon is ravaging his land. to annihilation if necessary. their gestures are stupid and they provoke comments of apparent criticism . Ibid. should in part consist of an assessment of an army’s capabilities. It was heroic for him and his men to fight. Rational human behaviour Ibid.” one imagines. but the authority to be obeyed on the spot. C. He says himself that it is his purpose to defend the realm of Æthelred. the people. Yet N. in the attempt to destroy or hold off the invaders. and he was responsible for all the men under him. 16.334 chapter five In Beowulf we have only a legend of ‘excess’ in a chief. . not throw away their lives except with one object. The case of Beorhtnoth is still more pointed even as a story. Here we have Hygelac behaving like young Beowulf: making a ‘sporting fight’ on level terms. to record the decisive valor of the men who stayed to fight: “in their situation heroism was superb. Britton (and Tolkien) propose that Byrhtnoð’s choice is a decision.80 Tolkien acknowledged Byrhtnoð’s responsibility to his men and established. In his situation he was not a subordinate. . A leader’s ofermod can beget nobility in his subalterns. Is he to act according to his heroic nature and tackle the dragon. but it is also drawn from real life by a contemporary author. He elaborated on Tolkien’s comparison of Byrhtnoð to Beowulf: Byrhtnoð has his own duty as a leader towards his men. 80 81 . Judged by the standards of rational human behaviour. the defense of the realm from an implacable foe. thus leaving his people leaderless? Or is he to act as a leader. F. but the poet seems to think it was not reflected on. and the land (52–3). who should be responsible for the troops under their command. and subordinate his own inclinations and opportunity for glory to his duty as a leader?82 “Duty as a leader. . Britton—one of the few critics heeding Tolkien—also concluded that heroic glory does not suit war-leaders like Byrhtnoð. I think. a significant purpose of Maldon. It was wholly unfitting that he should treat a desperate battle with this sole real object as a sporting match. 82 Britton 87. Blake excuses Byrhtnoð as typically “heroic”: We must remember that heroes are not ordinary men. Roberta Frank concludes that Byrhtnoð’s ofermod simply expresses a prevalent heroic fault. reflects the calculated. Yet based on the view of a general heroic fault. contrary-to-rule. and Beowulf: Sometimes. . Byrhtnoð’s conduct is excessive and blameworthy only if our standard is life and common sense. “[derive] their light and power from their captains. and she compares Byrhtnoð’s behavior to that of Hamðir. . with strong defenders stationed the landing. pointing out what is exorbitant. These terms explicitly challenge Tolkien’s reflection that Maldon lionizes the subaltern (whom Frank calls “the little man”)87 whose obedience opposes their lord’s wilfulness. Frank ventures that Byrhtnoð’s men.”88 Warriors “tempt fate” to gain glory. Ibid. Like Blake.83 The attitude in these lines seems to be registered in a critical consensus that Anglo-Saxon “heroes” cannot be judged. its inexplicable tension between what O’Brien O’Keeffe calls the “individual heroic ethic (in pursuit of valour and reputation whatever the cost) and the requirement for prudent aggression from an established army. . Odysseus. as in The Battle of Maldon. 83 84 85 86 87 88 “Genesis” 124. Igor.king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtnoð 335 does not provide the appropriate standard to judge by. the poet himself represents shared collective wisdom. Achilles. “Heroic Values” 122. they go up against odds that defy reason—even if they do ultimately overcome foes like Grendel. Ibid. Men die on account of his rejection. Generals should not contemplate the same handicap. and dangerous in his hero’s make-up . Ibid.”84 and others have since shared the same view. “common sense” defense that Byrhtnoð rejects. The missile barrage at the brycg. Heroes are greater than the rest of mankind and behave in a way that seems outrageous and excessive to us. as all subalterns. O’Brien O’Keeffe. Roland. Criticism of Byrhtnoð’s ofermod. “Battle of Maldon and Heroic Literature” 204. 125. I think it unlikely that Frank’s position on Maldon reflects the poem’s complexity. Blake reasons.85 Irrational acts are compatible with heroism generally—at least for warriors prone to the ambition of wreccan—but in a war-leader at a time of national calamity “life and common sense” should be paramount. betrays “despairing admiration.”86 In other words. Byrhtnoð’s heroic fault ennobled his men by enabling their own heroism. along with the defeat of his forces. perhaps—what seems to be an abandoned fortification. the Beowulf poet so carefully manages the evidence of Beowulf’s potential oferhygd that one cannot affirm Beowulf’s negligence. nor could Byrhtnoð be excused on account of ofermod. and in acknowledgment of his lord’s straits. Even so.89 The inhabitants appear and surround him: 89 The dimension of heroic adventurism is implicit in the expression “hrædlice þone weall self oferclom” (“he quickly scaled the wall alone”. The depiction of Byrhtnoð differs in that his death confirms his ofermod. as narrated in the Old English Orosius. To my knowledge. The defeat at Maldon could not be called glorious. the king as good as dead. Yet Beowulf ’s death is confirmed once his sword is broken and his body seared by fire (“sceolde ofer willan/wic eardian//elles hwergen. Orosius’s laconic account has been considerably expanded and refocused in heroic terms. which. and the retinue surely sees what the audience should: this battle is lost. Bately. gesigan æt sæcce. fall in battle.336 chapter five and Byrhtnoð’s supreme gamble relays his irresponsibility. . Of course. He expects to die alongside Beowulf: Ic wat geare. (2656b–9a) I know for certain that his former deeds were not such that he alone among the hosts of the Geats should suffer sorrow. þæt he ana scyle Geata duguðe gnorn þrowian. largely because Beowulf is not literally dead. may yet have been instigated by Viking treachery. the situation in Maldon is much like that of the dragon fight in Beowulf. right down to the behavior of the retainers. Wiglaf therefore acts “suicidally” in spite of his own fear. Nevertheless. heroic literature like Maldon looks to explain the lost engagement or the death of a prominent war-leader in the enactment of its values. Orosius 9–10). an overlooked parallel to Beowulf’s predicament may be found in one of Alexander the Great’s adventures. the custom of “men willing to die for their lords” has never been applied to Beowulf ’s duel with the dragon. On this occasion Alexander has penetrated—recklessly. þæt næron ealdgewyrht. As I have discussed. Beowulf both won and lost his own fight. In this function. and this outcome complicates the question of his oferhygd.” 2589a–90a). .king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtnoð 337 Ac þa him þæt folc swiðost anþrang. but nonetheless did not intend to fail in their assault on the wall and thereby fail to avenge their lord—although they found him exhausted and crouched on his knees.” Yet this scenario exactly describes the dragon fight in Beowulf. the very man who had shot him. Storming the breach to “rescue” Alexander. but because Alexander is not literally dead. Cornered in a potentially reckless encounter. which is suggested by the wound in his breast. The expression “on heora feonda gewealde” parallels the description of Heremod’s death in Beowulf 903a. þe eft þa him fultum com. “at their mercy. only imperiled in a situation that might ensure his death.” 903b) could suggest that they did not come to his rescue in a crisis he caused by reckless action. to be “in the power of one’s enemies” means to be imperiled.14–27 (emending an þrang > anþrang). or. the phrase may simply mean that Heremod died. The Orosius context perhaps supports a third interpretation.” That Heremod’s men “betrayed” him (“forð forlacen. the wounded Beowulf receives aid from a loyal thane who fully believes that his king is fatally injured. Beowulf does not need to be dead. In this way all the people were preoccupied with him alone so that none of them paid attention to the wall until Alexander’s thanes breached it alongside them and so entered there. their lord’s certain or anticipated death. þeh þe hie hiene meðigne on cneowum sittende metten. even when 90 Bately. þa gestop he to anes wealles byge 7 hiene ðær awerede. þe eft þara þegna angin þa hie untweogendlice wendon þæt heora hlaford wære on heora feonda gewealde. þæt hie heora hlaford ne gewræcen. As discussed above (72 note 40). Alexander’s thanes resolve to take desperate action in the face of either prospect. One instantly recognizes parallels with Byrhtnoð in Alexander’s retaliation against the enemy who wounded him. hu he ana wið ealle þa burgware hiene awerede. hu he þurh þæt folc geþrang þæt he ðone ilcan ofslog þe hiene ær þurhsceat. or the action of his thanes who fully expected that their lord was either alive or dead at the mercy of his enemies. In Alexander’s circumstances. oð Alexandres þegnas toemnes him þone weall abræcon 7 þær in comon. 7 swa eall þæt folc wearð mid him anum agæled þæt hie þæs wealles nane gieman ne dydon. There Alexander had been shot with a single arrow under his left breast. oððe cuca oððe dead.90 But when the people completely surrounded him. he gained the corner of a certain wall and there defended himself. We do not know which is a greater miracle: how he alone defended himself against all the inhabitants. in that press of people. when help reached him. þe þæt. þæt hie swaþeah noldon þæs weallgebreces geswican. the passage has not been thought to illustrate the custom of “men dying with their lord. Ðær wearð Alexander þurhscoten mid anre flan underneoðan oþer breost. Nyte we nu hwæðer sie swiþor to wundrianne. Orosius 73. how he managed to kill. for the poet felt obliged to invent some debatable exoneration of Byrhtnoð’s gullibility. . however. Alexander expects his men to reach him. and lead their infantry. second.92 In 1974 J. asked that they might have a landing. 91 92 . George Clark treats the ambiguity of the Vikings’ feint as an exoneration of Byrhtnoð in “Heroic Poem” 53–4. “Boar and Badger” 231. Much has been written on the lytegian crux. for Byrhtnoð’s culpability seems to endanger his men but not to destroy the English force. As T. a situation attributed to “ofermod. not yet deceased but gravely endangered. ongunnon lytegian þa bædon þæt hi upgangan ofer þone ford faran. travel over the ford. A. with exemplary implications for Beowulf’s own liability. dying. Just as Beowulf expects his men to “rescue” him when they perceive some unspoken peril.” I do not sense that lytegian is semantically problematic. They seem to inveigle Byrhtnoð: . feþan lædan. first. emphasized by the verb lytegian. mitigates Byrhtnoð’s decision to let the Vikings cross the Pante. is explicitly characterized as vengeance (“gewræcen”)—the motivation of “men dying with their lord. At this moment Byrhtnoð grants the Vikings “too much land” (“landes to fela. one looks to mitigate Byrhtnoð’s ofermod. to imply that Byrhtnoð was tricked but that he was also susceptible to “ofermod. agan moston. possibly reckless and. (86a–8b) Then the hated invaders began to use guile.” The Alexander passage requires a definitional re-alignment of heroic action in support of a lord who is. The thanes bring vengeance.338 chapter five they cannot verify his condition from their vantage point. laðe gystas. “the [Maldon] poet regarded Byrhtnoth with exaggerated favour. nowadays thought to be a benign heroic peccadillo. The circumstances of Byrhtnoð’s bad judgment need to be contemplated with detachment from its disastrous effects. or dead.” 90a). . Shippey has pointed out.” It seems an odd conjunction of motivation. The Vikings perceive that they have been trapped on the causeway and are being slaughtered by missile weapons and by the men Byrhtnoð has stationed at the approach. Viking Subtlety and Poetic Misdirection As in Beowulf. E. alive.”91 Viking guile. 97 “Homecoming” 15. Byrhtnoð would never have succumbed to the Vikings had they not unfairly targeted his heroic dignity. . Blake. Most now agree that the Vikings charged Byrhtnoð with cowardice. Tolkien and N. In other words. 98 Cross. charging Byrhtnoð with cowardice would plausibly have created a situation which engendered “ofermod” and subsequent recklessness. is one way of diminishing Byrhtnoð’s culpability for the English defeat. Elliott.95 From what we could deduce about such Viking groups and the straits of the Maldon Vikings. . R. F. 96 Hill. and that Byrhtnoð’s pride is wounded as a result. the rare verb portends that Byrhtnoð did not need to acknowledge the Viking “dissimulation”: they began “to use guile” but not “to deceive. the Vikings attempted to trick Byrhtnoð.94 Richard North has lately proposed that “lytegian” may involve accusations of effeminacy. “Mainly on Philology” 243. In the poet’s idiom. “Heroic Ethic” 294. “Byrhtnoth and Hildebrand” 59. the insult would have embarrassed Byrhtnoð’s dignity. 93 94 . Tolkien reasoned that Byrhtnoð never consciously acknowledged that his actions would jeopardize the English national defense. and he has already decided not to suffer “yrhðo. and their cheap stunt. He called Byrhtnoð’s motivation a “defect of character .98 The position grants Byrhtnoð the same moral blindness that “Mainly on Philology” 236–40. since he “acknowledges” and acts on the dissimulation. R.” 95 “Getting to Know the General” 9–10.”97 In these terms Byrhtnoð would not have recognized that his heroic virtue was being exploited but acted more or less unthinkingly. but moulded also by ‘aristocratic tradition’. Elliott. probably by failing to meet them in open battle. My own views are identical to those expressed in Battaglia 248: “The Vikings got Byrhtnoth to do something which his ordinary good sense had already told him he should not do. Yet it could also be said that ofermod alone did not undo Byrhtnoð. and he concluded that the term nearly always has a negative sense but nothing like “deceive. perhaps an alleged Christian weakness. however freely chosen.”93 In fact. “Byrhtnoth and Hildebrand” 59.king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtnoð 339 Cross thoroughly studied the sense of the OE hapax legomenon lytegian and related vocables. not only formed by nature.”96 This reading of the Viking ploy would accuse Byrhtnoð of ofermod. enshrined in tales and verse of poets now lost save for echoes. The opposing positions on the Viking guile are represented by J.” The verb leaves hanging the question of whether Byrhtnoð was deceived by such guile. Despite his honorable intentions. interpretations of which would clarify “Genesis” 125. feelings of invincibility.” Hill alleges. even though he knows that death awaits him. perfectly clarifies the opposing attitude (explained above). Only in the later Chanson de Roland and Niebelungenlied do Germanic war leaders sacrifice armies—even kingdoms—to their heroic vanities. In Blake’s reading of the lytegian crux. It strikes me that Guðrún’s extreme grief belies this reading and confirms Blake’s. the heroic overlaps the virtuous as it does in certain readings of Beowulf ’s dragon fight. either. for himself if not for his men. that nothing in Maldon actually resolves Byrhtnoð’s attitude to the Viking ploy. Byrhtnoð could exhibit these traits in some culpable degree. 101 Ibid. It is important to understand. Treachery is the natural lifestyle of people like this. however. Ibid.340 chapter five characterizes Beowulfian oferhygd. “Foreseen Wolf. And yet I shall show why a position censorious of Byrhtnoð also cannot excuse the English defeat! The Viking guile in Maldon is often mentioned in exasperation as an indecipherable conundrum. 99 100 . in which Byrhtnoð falls for the Viking taunts. and for the nation as a whole. Gunnarr cannot stay away in the face of a known threat without risking his honor. and bellicosity. N..100 Blake says. Gunnarr and the Burgundian princes in “Atlakviða” come alone. further to this claim see Thomas D. . There might have been a battle. . In choosing “honor” he also elected death. for the ealdormonn never concedes that his decision entails disastrous consequences for his troops. “the wolf is not dangerous if he is foreseen . . yet accept the terms or the proposal offered. and one cannot be confident of Byrhtnoð’s innocence. . too. Blake’s view. The “self-sacrifice” in these texts and in Maldon resembles oferhygd in Beowulf.101 This intriguing premise has parallels in Niebelungenlied. Even if Blake’s position explained Byrhtnoð’s behavior. They see through it. . If [Gunnar and Hogni] were expecting treachery there would be no tragedy. . Blake conjectures that Byrhtnoð recognized the Viking ‘deception’ but consciously chose to act on heroic principles. But the heroes are not deceived by it. it is only if one is unaware that the wolf is a threat . but there would have been no treachery” (676–7).99 In an examination of “Atlakviða” Blake remarks that Guðrún’s warning to Gunnarr of Atli’s treachery actually necessitates Gunnarr’s death. not with an army. By contrast. They have to for their honor . Hill. F. where blindness to the responsibility for one’s troops appears to stem from self-regard. I think. Byrhtnoð’s death can be attributed to ofermod. or in fact generated. Cecily Clark. 104 “Patristics and Old English Literature” 38. he continues to confound it. Cross showed how the poem’s secularism could be mistakenly construed as martyrdom in “Oswald and Byrhtnoth. 102 103 . “Ic eom frymdi to þe//þæt hi helsceaðan/hynan ne moton” (“I am beseeching you that hell-scathers [devils] are not able to touch it. but the poet will not solve his own riddle. or to Beowulf’s broken sword. nor even awareness that it is his ofermod that has been their death. Bloomfield. 106 Ibid. Fair contends with fear in Byrhtnoð’s mind. beginning with ofermod.”106 In other words.king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtnoð 341 Byrhtnoð’s behavior. but ofermod may have been exploited. E. “Byrhtnoth and Roland” 289: “Byrhtnoth . Like the ancient curse. the lytegian crux answers to the curse on the gold in Beowulf. the Vikings’ cunning erodes confidence in any unreflective solutions to the poet’s deliberate textual incongruities. Robinson explains this petition as a “specific allusion to the judicium particulare—a literal.102 In fact. .103 After thanking the Ruler for “worldly joys. or to any of the other nested contingencies that contribute to Beowulf ’s death and exonerate him from oferhygd.” 179b–80b). never shows concern for his men’s fate. . Byrhtnoð’s Christianity may have caused the accusations of cowardice that constitute the Viking guile. just like the Beowulf poet has done in the dragon episode. 105 “God. physical struggle between devils and angels for possession of the soul as it leaves the body of a dying man. Following this comes the peculiar expression.” he expresses the “greatest need” for the Measurer to grant him “(a) good”—that his soul might travel into the Lord’s keeping (173a–9a). Byrhtnoð’s loss at Maldon presumably reflects God’s will. but his final prayer may or may not acknowledge guilt. but J.”105 Robinson goes on to propose that the uncertainty of Byrhtnoð’s salvation “de-Christianizes the cosmic setting of Maldon and in so doing helps to create the conditions necessary for a heroic narrative. though human” (106). negating the prospect of Christian salvation restores the quality of “grim and terribly meaningful heroic See also Mills 25. In fact. Huppé once claimed Byrhtnoð’s utterance as a martyr’s prayer (Doctrine and Poetry 237–8). “Byrhtnoth and Hildebrand” 58–9. spiritual or temporal.104 Fred C. citing Elliott.” Cross discusses Byrhtnoð’s prayer as a variant of the commendatio animae (104–6) but concludes that it is “selfish. by the Vikings in defiance of righteousness. Death and Loyalty” 108.” Bernard F. admittedly. According to North. Following Morton W. Byrhtnoð’s Christianity may be a mitigating factor in his ofermod. In some respects. otherwise the exoneration would justify Beowulf’s behavior in the dragon fight. however—a situation parallel to the ambiguous external judgment of Beowulf’s own death. If this stance were true.” and the indefiniteness of line 3155b.”107 One might also ask. comparable to sins condemned in millennial sermons. Byrhtnoð may still have been benighted. The Outcome of Battle and the Judgment of History Byrhtnoð’s death at the hands of the Vikings conjures an important paradox reflecting Beowulf’s own death in the dragon fight: why would the Christian God betray Byrhtnoð and give pagan Vikings the victory? We could assume that Byrhtnoð is somehow punished for expressing ofermod.342 chapter five sacrifice for heroic ideals. Damon stresses Byrhtnoð’s status as an “almost-saint” and remarks: “Byrhtnoth represents an early example of the linkage between death in battle and sanctity. 107. He may not have been wrong in judging his men. 108 “Hero of Maldon” 265. but the lytegian crux precludes certainty. however. The ealdormonn might understand in his present condition why fiends would have purchase on his soul. the meaning of the “curse. hoping that desperation would have roused his men to exceptional heroism that put an end to Viking aggression. Alternatively. Byrhtnoð may have died sacrificially. whether Byrhtnoð seeks forgiveness. Yet George Clark’s alternative explanation for this curious ambiguity satisfies the condition of ofermod as a moral benightedness like oferhygd: “The hero’s last words indicate no remorse at his decision to undertake the battle. We do not learn the disposition of Byrhtnoð’s soul. despite his failure to achieve sainthood” (198). just the opposite may be true: Byrhtnoð may believe he has done nothing wrong. no sense of guilt at having permitted the Vikings to cross the Pante. Relevant to the present discussion is John Edward Damon’s percipient comparison of Byrhtnoð to saintly ealdormen. or is his soul merely dispersed in the “sky. in acknowledgment of ofermod or some other fault. “Heofon rece swealg” (“Heaven swallowed the smoke”). as I shall explore momentarily. .” the primary sense of OE heofon? The imputation of oferhygd to Beowulf must be unresolved in these spiritual terms. the Christian God may have allowed Byrhtnoð to die as a punishment for his arrogance or over-confidence.”108 While Clark believes that Byrhtnoð’s prayer implies a free conscience. since the lytegian crux necessitates the 107 Ibid. Has Beowulf earned some kind of divine compassion. Not only did Dæghrefn need to die but a great number had to as well. Correspondingly.109 In Beowulf only Beowulf ’s nephew Wiglaf comes forward to aid Beowulf. One should be led to wonder how Byrhtnoð’s ofermod could be doubted. just as Wiglaf. Godwig. The flight of retainers upon their lord’s death seems a key determinant of ofermod or oferhygd. to have depicted Byhrtnoð’s salvation would have voided the accusation of ofermod. a thane would be expected to avenge his lord’s death even when that death resulted from his lord’s disastrous overconfidence. Sworn oaths compel service. Byrhtnoð’s death does not necessarily cause the English defeat. casting it back. Both in Beowulf and in Maldon. questions of honor and duty. his love of Beowulf or his desire for glory. “History. then. Vengeance needs to be exacted on a number of men equivalent to the status of the slain. In fact. reminds the troops of this (anachronistic) heroic obligation. even though they would have sacrificed themselves in killing perhaps one or two invaders—or none at all. the extenuating circumstances he invents (the strategy of self-defense. Byrhtnoð dies when a spear pierces his body. Beowulf’s kinsman. As in Beowulf. was the first retainer to speak See George Clark. possible Christian deliverance) could absolve the ealdormonn of damnation. we are told that Beowulf transported thirty mailcoats back to Geatland. 109 110 . kills the man who threw it (149–58). some flee while others fight. while the poet accuses Byrhtnoð of ofermod.110 Godric. Ælfwine. the Viking deceit. The “cowardice” of the retainers—the best that could be found—is grounds for the recklessness of Beowulf ’s mission and affirmation of Wiglaf’s merit. who is not dead but certainly going to die—or so the onlookers think. Inseparable from the arguments pro and con of Byrhtnoð’s ofermod are the actions of his retainers. Godwine. When Beowulf fights Dæghrefn in vengeance for Hygelac’s death. This revenge does not suffice. when the Maldon poet intended perfect indeterminacy. including retribution. In other words.king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtnoð 343 ambiguity of his motivation. Poetry and Truth” 81–2. apparently. but as I shall argue. Byrhtnoð’s kinsman (224a). the retreat of one’s best men could indicate how badly a leader has miscalculated the risk of his mission. and members of the Anglo-Saxon host at Maldon therefore earned shame for their cowardice. and vengeance is a supreme heroic duty. but a “hyse unweaxen” or “young lad” named Wulfmær pulls out the spear and. any condemnation of Byrhtnoð would impugn his behavior and foreclose ambiguities central to the audience’s judgment. the more our strength declines. consult Locherbie-Cameron. (312a–13b) Spirit must be the harder.” He notes that Byrhtnoð’s body was hacked to pieces and says bluntly that Ælfnoð and Wulfmær (who had been fighting 111 On the problematic identity of Ælfwine. and Godwig would be condemned. þe ure mægen lytlað. ymbe heard gewinn. when we raised a boast about hard battle on the bench. While Tolkien noted that “[the heorðwerod’s] heroism was superb . The obsolete sentiment of these verses reflects Wiglaf’s observation that he performed “beyond [his] ability” (“ofer min gemet.111 As many have observed. 112 On byldan (“embolden”). and Byrhtwold’s famous lines attest that a desperate battle can ennoble men: Hige sceal þe heardra. heroes in the hall. . Some retainers rush out to avenge Byrhtnoð through sacrificial loyalty.344 chapter five up in support of Beowulf. see Irving. Earlier LocherbieCameron had proposed highly plausible reasons why the deaths of Byrhtnoð’s kin are especially significant (“Sister’s Son”). Ælfwine’s speech sounds much like Wiglaf’s: Gemunu þa mæla þonne we on bence hæleð on healle.112 In the Germanic heroic tradition. hwa cene sy. . The Maldon poet pretends that this courage is obligated through exchanges made in a fictitious “mead-hall” and solemnized by oaths of the sort one encounters in Beowulf. defiance of death amplifies a warrior’s resolve. Godwine. Now we will learn who is keen. (212a–15b) Remember the times when we often spoke over mead.” I would claim that Byrhtnoð’s “error” actually enhanced their heroism. . their duty was unimpaired by the error of their master. Yet the poet seems coy in expressing their “cowardice. “Heroic Style” 466. courage the greater. nu mæg cunnian þe we oft æt meodo spræcon. and the intensity of their courage magnifies their potential for valor—and remembrance. beot ahofon. ultimately defining his identity. mod sceal þe mare. Since the retainers’ suicidal loyalty is praised in Maldon. “Men Named in the Poem” 241–2 and “Ælfwine’s Kinsmen” 486–7. heorte þe cenre. one would think that the “disgrace” of Odda’s sons Godric. heart the keener.” 2879a) when he fought the dragon. What cannot be exonerated. . (237b–42a) 113 Godwine ond Godwig. His subdued reproaches temper the harsher criticism leveled by characters in the poem. As in Beowulf. earh Oddan bearn. fled to the fastness and protected their lives. but their flight seems only mildly offensive—not despicably shameless. On fighting for a reckless lord. flugon on þam fæsten and hyre feore burgon . Poetry and Truth” 81). the ones who stayed and lost their lives. however.” 186b) and “abandoned the good man” (“þone godan forlet.” Godric. þæt wære hit ure hlaford. scyldburh tobrocen. .” 187b). “Heroic Poem” 63. ac wendon fram þam wige and þone wudu sohton.” 185a–b.” 181a). is Godric’s escape on Byrhtnoð’s stolen horse. (192a–4b) 114 Not to mention Swanton’s observations that Byrhtnoð and his man Offa expected cowardice (“Literary Caveat” 448). “Maldon Poet’s Artistry” 129 note 22. These killings seem like pointless butchery. þa he on meare rad. .”113 This language does not register the scorn one would expect for deserters in Germanic heroic verse. possibly because the poet sets Byrhtnoð’s recklessness against the cowardice of Odda’s sons. an action that makes the English forces think that Byrhtnoð himself has fled. was “first in flight” (“ærest on fleame. Immediately afterwards the poet remarks that “men who did not want to be there bowed out of the battle”: “Hi bugon þa fram beaduwe/þe þær beon noldon. on wlancan þam wicge. ealle beswicene. forþan wearð her on felda folc totwæmed. Wende þæs formoni man. but blandness characterizes most of the narrator’s observations about the “cowards’ retreat. the “retainers” who bow out of the fight earn the greatest scorn from the men they serve with (Wiglaf. in Beowulf ).” too (“heowan. George Clark has made the case that Godric and his brothers may have fled treasonously because of their Scandinavian background (“History. Somewhat later the narrator announces that Godric’s brothers Godwine and Godwig “did not care for war. The remaining retainers condemn Odda’s sons for the consequences of the theft: Us Godric hæfð. we learn. see Robinson.king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtnoð 345 alongside Byrhtnoð) were “cut down.114 Yes. some men saved their lives by fleeing to the woods. guþe ne gymdon. The Maldon poet understands that Godric and his kin could be partially exonerated under the special circumstances of their lord’s ofermod. see also George Clark. departed from the battle and sought the woods. The expression “who did not want to be there” verges on trite. Christian transvaluation of retainer loyalty from a secular to a transcendental plane. given that Byrhtnoð bestows horses and gear on his men. seizing an unearned reward reverses the lord-retainer relationship and implies arrogance. by the time of the poem. compromised meaningful vengeance for Byrhtnoð and caused the general rout. the wretched son of Odda. 116 Warrior Ethic 127. When he rode on that horse. It could be said. Without the theft of the horse. that Godric’s shameful deed occasioned the betrayal redeemed by the suicidal loyalty of Byrhtnoð’s remaining thanes. very many men would have thought that it was our lord. the shield-wall smashed.”117 Obligation is fungible in this 115 “Hero of Maldon” 258. been broadened and transferred to an abstraction of lordship—an institutionalized entity: “[Byrhtnoð’s retainers] collectively internalize an injunction whereby the dead [Byrhtnoð] is allowed to be everything to them. Most importantly for the Maldon poet. for which reason the people were divided here on the field. in an evolving group action. Godric and his two brothers fled. but the others did not follow until after Godric rode off on Byrhtnoð’s horse. In one influential paper from 1979 George Clark wrote. possibly unforeseen by Godric. Godric’s theft might excuse Byrhtnoð’s ofermod as incidental to the defeat. declaring that when Byrhtnoth fell many men fled. If not for the parallels between Beowulf and Maldon that I propose. 112. . “Offa subsequently hammers the point home. has betrayed us all. then. 117 Ibid. These consequences.346 chapter five Godric. one might say. The poet can accuse Byrhtnoð of a vice that befalls kings in Old English verse. In this case.”115 The statement is too telegraphic. Hill’s ingenious explanation of transcendent loyalty in Maldon might convincingly explain the retainers’ suicidal vengeance in the face of Byrhtnoð’s ofermod.”116 Hill calls this “a politically inspired. one might conclude that Godric’s escape might not have mattered in the engagement. a transcendent group ego. eventually assume a new ideal. Hill proposes that the retainers in Maldon fight to the death because loyalty to one’s lord has. The argument has stood for years that Byrhtnoð’s fall precipitated the general disaster at Maldon. while they. Ryner proposes that the theft of the horse may be viewed as a “demonstration of [Godric’s] venality and ingratitude” (274). since he appears to excuse that vice as inconsequential to the aftermath of Byrhtnoð’s fall. on that proud steed. and defeated the English army. scattered. so many that the flight betrayed. John M. ”120 In part. in which a war-leader has committed his troops irresponsibly. Maldon extends the Old English literary environment as an authentic example of dubious heroism. Hill must grant Rosemary Woolf ’s position (with Roberta Frank’s provisos) on the scarce depictions of men dying with their lord in Old English literature. 120 Warrior Ethic 141. Finally. Critics like Elizabeth S. 121 “Rhymed Formulas” 409. we find no expressions of suicidal revenge. the phrase “past complexities” subsumes the lord-retainer relationship. one could reason that Anglo-Saxon literary tropes had not vanished and that they were “historical” to the Maldon era. and he would probably discount Wiglaf ’s aid to Beowulf as not obviously “suicidal” (since Wiglaf survives): “In Old English poetry. except for The Battle of Maldon. although I cannot imagine that anyone could mistake the poet’s words conceding Beowulf ’s death.” He perceives legitimacy and regicide as extraordinary motives for suicidal loyalty.121 In my view.119 The differences between Hill’s argument and my own hark back to the historical-versus-literary debate that frames Maldon criticism. The issue for Hill is different in “Cynewulf and Cyneheard. by a literary paradigm staging the death of an aged lord given to ofermod and the vengeance exacted for him by loyal thanes. communal embrace of his fate. we do not have (as Hill makes plain) a treatment of retainer-lord loyalty in “Cynewulf and Cyneheard” like that in Maldon. A degree of archaism in Maldon should be unsurprising. The debate over starkly contradictory opinions in Maldon criticism imitates the effect of reading Maldon as dialectical.king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtnoð 347 theoretical kind of thaneship: for Hill. For the idea to be viable. historically engaged Maldon in which “AngloSaxon heroic poetry and its past complexities will come to an end. Both the Beowulf and Maldon poets expect their situational complexities to be analyzed. 1000. I envisage a poem saturated instead by heroic archaism–in fact. the dragon fight in Beowulf comprises the sole parallel to Maldon and explains Byrhtnoð’s ofermod as well as the behavior of the retainers. for which reason the death of one’s lord engenders the immediate.” if not perhaps in this theme. Hill professes a contemporary. If Beowulf can be copied ca. and righteous loyalty. By these terms. the retainer owes obedience and service to an idealized proxy. 118 119 . contested obligation.”118 Nor is Beowulf literally dead at the moment Wiglaf reaches him. Sklar still assume that the poem “is essentially conservative in theme. the Ibid. the social institutions are themselves upheld. although the theoretical position is one of agency: “each of the warriors who vows to avenge Byrhtnoth’s death is afforded the chance to articulate his own subjectivity” (274). I hold the more complex view that Maldon explores the utmost limit of thaneship relative to the possible recklessness of leadership. irresolvable contingencies challenging the reach of the heroic idiom: the extent of a subaltern’s duty relative to the war-leader’s ambition. Holtei remark that “heroism in Maldon is not communicated through the literary type of the heroic superman. W. but rather through members of the thegn class. Ibid. especially for the thanes who died fulfilling a heroic duty.”122 As in Beowulf. rather than disparage. G.348 chapter five motivations of their characters surveilled.123 Busse and Holtei make the point that when the defense of England fell to a newly emergent class of thanes. a margin of compromise might be found in the earl’s ostentatious defiance and adherence to “honor. Ryner imagines an exchange of identity between Viking and Englishman as a negotiation of value for material objects. The discomfort readers have felt in Maldon (and endeavored “Historical. Byrhtnoð’s heroism. Arguments for and against a leader’s potential defect embrace deliberate. Busse and Holtei have emphasized this dimension of the poem and in context with Byrhtnoð’s ofermod: [The text] makes thegns the true heroes of Maldon and thus lets them fulfil the standards propagated in the text. Heroic and Political Poem” 189. It questions what men owe to an illustrious but failed leader for past generosity. whether glory can be earned in situations defying reason. But Maldon interrogates more than it celebrates.” The lytegian crux and Godric’s theft might ease any negative judgments of grandiosity and negligent leadership. it makes thegns the judges of behavior complying with the standards. If an audience intended to celebrate. and finally it puts thegnly conduct into words. Exactly this dimension of subaltern identity is explored in Ryner’s work. In spite of the flawed individuals in the poem. By these terms heroic works like Maldon and Beowulf show themselves to be undomesticated. further. 192. 122 123 . expectations of their behavior could be expressed in literature like Maldon. and their institutions laid bare to a subaltern gaze. Maldon could be deemed a poem of celebration. their heroes subject to withering judgments. subalterns in Maldon gain a group identity and a political will thought to be neglected in earlier heroic verse. inadvertently or not. and whether loyalty can be exploited. Busse and R. king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtnoð 349 to pacify) derives from the mature heroic genre given to exploring the psychology of leadership and disgrace. Maldon and Beowulf’s dragon fight could therefore be said to explore the intersection between one’s human capacity and glory as an act of will. . but most men hope to live. Duty may be enough for transcendence among mortals. . so that arrogance will not distort one’s promise. The problem abides in the definition of presumption. this account of social perfectability recalls Schücking’s opinion that Beowulf is a Fürstenspiegel. which must reflect some kind of self-inquiry as moral “wisdom. and one’s battles waged against God’s enemies. Beowulfian Kingship in the Eighth Century The issues of Beowulfian kingship that I highlight throughout this book compliment the poem’s eighth-century context so well that one can imagine King Beowulf in Bede’s monastic terms as a kind of secular 1 184. or nation entails responsibility for the warband. or in self-defense. but especially to warrior-kings who have the most to gain in hazardous campaigns: land. “Wann entstand der Beowulf ?” 399. wealth. The king (and warrior) should not therefore show presumption when his followers cannot support his leadership without a crippling disadvantage.” The political message of Beowulf implies that the boundary between appropriate and excessive action must be gauged by the exercise of “humility.CONCLUSION Why was Beowulf composed? If the poem could be said to have a theme. tribe. Power and glory are seductive. a term for fatalistic moral virtue. In other words. Beowulf depicts how self-restraint directed by social responsibility should always balance power. This warning against arrogance seems directed at leaders of all stripes.” One’s power has to be exercised in acknowledgment of ece ræd. In keeping with the poem’s emphasis on heroism versus kingship. it might be the obligations attending excellence and the temptation of power. responsibility to the warband.1 To an aristocratic audience. both personal and civic. the kind inhabiting a royal compound in the eighth century. always tempting one’s willa. tribe. or nation. the poem delivers a political message. showing that individuals belong to groups and that an independent actor can compromise the group’s well-being. the view was later endorsed in Heusler . glory. 8 “Humility” earned God’s special protection by implying the king’s Christian moral behavior. loosely defined. but the defender. spiritually at least. the wages of divine favor. helm hleo. Chaney 7–120.5 and their power was based less on birthright than on prowess. M. In these terms he implies “Roman organizational influence. national leaders in early Germanic times ruled tribes. J. protector. in God. Relying partly on Tacitus’s Germania. 42. 8 Ibid. 39–40.2 A sacral kingship has been theorized prior to the Migration era. 6 Ibid. esp.4 From Swanton’s perspective.”7 The primary change involved attitudes towards heroic “pride”: The basic conflict seems to have been one between old and new concepts as to the appropriate form of humility before the source of one’s power. civil war. 2 3 . formerly considered to be invested in the people and now. that of the king who. which emerged as hierarchized or “vertical” by the century’s end. 46. in which Germanic peoples averse to reges elect duces instead. demanding. not territories. While Heorot resembles the Germanic hall. Swanton has explored this “horizontal” brand of kingship. Swanton holds that at the beginning of the eighth century Christianity was influencing notions of kingship. murder. 4 Crisis and Development 16–19. In Swanton’s scheme the Beowulf poet transplanted these relatively novel sentiments of Christian kingship into a sixth-century setting. of a public peace. like its theology.6 This same framework held for the earliest Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Quarrying multiple Insular and continental sources. which witnessed (in theory) the instability associated with shared power: exile. the multitude of Christian allusions and assorted pieties of rulership are traceable to the king’s eighth-century function as “vicarius Dei. coups d’état. 7 Ibid.” 5 Ibid. 26. and Hroðgar’s government seems equally ancient. did not rule”. 18: “We have here a form of paradox at the heart of heroic society: that of leadership without power. authoritarian direction from above.3 but historians have concurred that Migration-era Germanic kingship entailed power-sharing that made politician soldiers (militarily successful representatives of dominant tribes) into kings. and 36: “The king is not the autocratic maintainer of subjects’ rights which derive from himself. while reigning.352 conclusion bishop.” Swanton therefore alleges that Beowulf expresses superbia against the Wallace-Hadrill 73. His proposition that pagan kingship in Beowulf reflects Christianity could make sense in Fred C. and Hincmar of Rheims. sacrifice.” in other words. prudence.” Christian obedience to God’s will. The historical context Swanton theorizes for this reading validates the question of kingly responsibility I have raised in the dragon fight. however. Rather than trusting “God” for victory. benevolence. and while the attributes of a “rex iustus” look impressively Beowulfian. and Chanson de Roland as much as from Beowulf. an appealing coincidence given the poem’s probable date. M. sympathy. Furthermore. they hardly limn “a gentle prince of peace of Augustinian coinage. specifically Gregory the Great. . and the virtues of generosity.conclusion 353 dragon. the ideals of Christian kingship were in the air in eighth-century England. Swanton’s critique of Beowulf represents the latest of many relating the poem to eighth-century theories of Anglo-Saxon kingship. Schücking offered no date for Beowulf but argued strenuously for its Augustinian view of Beowulf as a rex iustus or “righteous king. Certainly the most influential effort remains Levin L. Schücking emphasized service in repression of superbia or “pride. as I do.”9 Assimilating the terminology from authors he believed to be influenced by Augustinian kingship. a presumption of personal authority. J.”10 Yet in contradistinction to an undefined. responsibility. Robinson’s terms. Early Germanic Kingship 120–3. Schücking’s authorities implicitly date his Beowulf to the Carolingian period. Schücking’s “The Ideal of Kingship in Beowulf. Pseudo-Cyprian. popularity.” probably because the short work was translated from German into English. Interestingly. and possibly undefinable. Sedulius Scottus. and the translation circulated in the popular Anthology of Beowulf Criticism. Schücking reads Beowulf as an affirmation of ideal kingship. Waltharius (and “Waldere”). Beowulf relies on his own warfare. Regardless of the details.11 Coincidentally. 43. rather than an exploration of it. Ibid. but one wonders whether “Augustinian” kingship is valid for the poem. Germanic lordship. Wallace-Hadrill’s work may be said to 9 10 11 “Ideal of Kingship” 39. Wallace-Hadrill confirmed Schücking’s view of Beowulfian kingship and placed Beowulf in the court of Offa. and wisdom as mensura or sobrietas—“temperance. Schücking derives the virtues he calls Augustinian from Ruodlieb. to the detriment of royal humilitas. wyruldcyninga manna mildest ond monðwærust.354 conclusion have back-dated Schücking’s premise a generation earlier. Wallace-Hadrill 85–6. The parallel is inexact. Anna. 12 13 14 Ibid. . but the translation “wisdom” may impersonate the warrior discretion of OE snyttru. . the benefactor of churches. the courage by which his deeds are justified as just short of excessive.”12 In my reading of Beowulf these provisions evoke Beowulf ’s own moral virtue as justification of his courage. the gentlest and the kindest to his people. iudiciis verax. the explicit wisdom afforded by Christian teachings. calling for special aptitudes. and the judgment of his Geats that: . The Cura pastoralis offers two felicitous dogmas of Beowulfian kingship: “the first was that the moral quality of the ruler was what counted. and patriae pater. 87. To Alcuin. pauperibus largus. If Beowulf belongs in the eighth century. leodum liðost. Oswine—earn martyrdom at the hands of pagan enemies (Penda and Oswiu). Oswiu is invictus bellis. not only in the numbers of monk-kings but also in the philosophies promulgated about Christian kingship. among kings of this world he was the mildest of men. to the Age of Bede. Hroðgar’s effective training. largus in omnes. and the second was that rule of any kind was a professional occupation. sanctissimus Oswald. is moribus egregius. . training and constant self-examination. 74. since Bede arguably derived political concepts of kingship from Gregory the Great’s Cura pastoralis. and the worker of miracles. its cultural milieu practically birthed monastic kingship. and the “self-examination” Beowulf practices in defense against oferhygd. Ibid. Wallace-Hadrill explains. an “Augustinian” source. (3180b–82a) . Derivative generalities like these could be made to elucidate Beowulf ’s own rule. Bede’s historical “reges humiles”—Sigebert.”14 Such royal virtue derived from sapientia. but it illustrates the moral humility of Beowulf’s own resolution.13 as Beowulf seems to do in the dragon fight. if one overemphasized the “paganism” of the curse and ignored Beowulf ’s own heathenism. hostibus horribilis. also patriae tutator. . . and also pius. Edwin was “rex pius. I realize. omnibus aequus. 15 . mæg secgan se þe soð ond riht fremeð on folce.15 Beowulf’s Exceptionality and the Blessings of Power The foregoing studies demonstrate that benevolent. on the growth of Beowulf’s imagined political identity. þæt secgan mæg swa ðone magan cende gyf heo gyt lyfað. in other words. eald eþelweard. Like Scyld. la. when Hroðgar’s war with Grendel materializes. both arguably “antiheroic” in outlook and authoritative in esteem. He is a blessing largely because he restores Danish power by vanquishing Grendel and Grendel’s mother. quite similarly: Þæt. for anyone having such endowments is “blessed. any young woman who births such a man among men may say. The poem opens by recalling ideal kingship in the rule of Scyld and his descendants. 766. feor eal gemon. (942b–46a) Hwæt. the quality of mercy or indulgence” (Crisis and Development 63–4).” as Hroðgar acknowledges: efne swa hwylc mægþa æfter gumcynnum. Beowulf has promise. Beowulf arrives at Heorot.conclusion 355 The impulse to attribute to Beowulf the Bedan qualities of a Christian king obviously derive from this final judgment. And. God-centered kingship in Beowulf may indeed be rooted in eighth-century political theory. if she yet lives. who emerges from nowhere as a blessing to his nation. este wære Indeed. however. (1700a–1703a) Swanton theorizes that OE milde “has now [by ca. The plot soon discovers the problem of national decline. þæt ðes eorl wære geboren betera. in the Ecgberht coronation ordo] come to refer explicitly to that attribute of the ideal king that can only be considered in a non-reciprocal sense. þæt hyre ealdmetod bearngebyrdo. In fatalistic terms his strength and feats of arms are God-sent. that the ancient Measurer was generous to her in her child-bearing. But I prefer to read the poem as a literary work in which interactions and conflicts transact relative status—an emphasis. Even in the “sermon” we learn that one’s birth is a condition of greatness. which Fred C. Robinson has explicated with intelligence. It is supremely important to realize in Beowulf that ideal “heroism” has limitations imposed by warrior virtues that have gone largely unexplored. however. watching how Hroðgar. and appealingly virtuous despite their “indecent” heathenism. and the degree of one’s heroic temperance is determined by self-judgment. forms the standard for ethical judgments made on Beowulf ’s heroism. When critics discuss ostensibly heroic virtues in the poem—what is riht (“righteous”) or soð (“eternally true”)—they often evaluate them according to Christian precepts. and ignorance of Providence as the catalyst of Fate. “Right action” necessitates restraint. but the resulting composite needs to be perceived as heroic and pagan. As I have suggested. Mindful of such anachronistic virtues. because political leadership rests on the cultivation of personal values or character. Beowulf centers precisely on the fulfilment of a heroic aptitude. a warrior has to judge not only whether he can achieve his ambition but also whether the deed is worth the risk. We need only invoke certain “wisdom” passages that advocate . the poem presents a clear model of ethical betterment. the inherited heroic values mix with inherited Christian ones in Beowulf.” which governs right action in Beowulf.356 conclusion He who keeps virtue and righteousness among the people and remembers everything far back in time. In the world of the poem God the Father is the omniscient judge of righteousness. God’s est or “generosity” implicit in a warrior’s birth has to be guided by the right principles for the warrior to achieve his forðgesceaft or “promise. in other words. as measured ultimately by the attainment of glory. always orients the pursuit of glory in acknowledgment of heroic virtue. an old guardian of the kingdom. This distinctive outlook. a blessing of potential that one can direct towards virtue or vice. In choosing right action. The pagans in the world of Beowulf look surprisingly Christian. for the poet has used Christianity to sanitize his heroism—to restrict. the most distasteful aspects of heroic behavior: violence. Glory in the abstract entails all the heroic conventions commonly invoked for a “heroic code. Beowulf and others use the gift of better birth. The alleged Christian affinities of Beowulf have been overemphasized.” OE forðgesceaft implies the “destiny” of one’s potential. arrogance.” but the prospect of ece ræd or “eternal counsel. can say that this nobleman was born better. especially as explored in Patristic writings. or accidental “exiles” who have lost their lords in war. The Beowulf poet has contemplated the effects of extreme action. To enhance their own prestige. as in The Wanderer. These behaviors can lead to misfortune. Beowulf’s temperament as a “hero” approximates that of a wrecca or “exile”—certainly not that of an ordinary rank-and-file soldier in a king’s militia. Fred C. he could. wreccan comprise distinct social identities in two categories. lust. Heremod.” 16 . Traditionally. Eadgils. In this gambit he challenges heroic expectations associated with prudence and asks how one judges behaviors of extraordinary magnitude. be said to express ellen “courage” and gain glory. motivation.” Precisely for this reason. and indifference to one’s elders or superiors. Arrogance is their defining attribute. Beowulf himself is frequently compared to these men because his status is ambiguous: he has left his own lord Hygelac to undertake a venture on behalf of a foreign king. or outright disaster. greed. These terms make courage sound theoretical. wreccan have been viewed as voluntary “exiles. and capacity. he is simply a “heroic man. But when a warrior exhibits the right amount of restraint relative to risk. even in literature. Eanmund. Sigemund. even against social superiors. but I do not intend for this abstraction to supplant the complex materiality of behavior.” as in The Seafarer.conclusion 357 self-knowledge to know that restraint in pursuit of riht was a prized virtue that recognized ece ræd or “eternal counsel. To some onlookers in Beowulf ’s world. As I have explained in Chapter 1. wreccan and fighters like them consistently display extreme violence. Since Wulfgar senses that Beowulf has not come out of However. Relatively unexplored is the kind of warrior who voluntarily or involuntarily joins a foreign warband. but in most cases it characterizes an aristocratic or high-born warrior of irascible temperament. so much wisdom poetry in Old English advises men to eschew arrogance or behaviors that lead to it: drunkenness. and in all probability Hunferð and Ecgþeow—and they express an ambition associated with other such archetypes: Lucifer and Cain. Robinson (“Elements of the Marvellous”) has made a convincing case that Beowulf is not “superhuman” like his enemies. Many wreccan populate Beowulf—Hengest. when successful in his right action. which confounds the implicit sociological and ethical calculations normally used to measure glory.16 Beowulf’s actions are situated on the margin of acceptable behavior because of his exceptionality. The sense “exile” is the root meaning of the term. motivations.358 conclusion “wræcsið” or “exile. or whether he expresses an appropriate degree of action in all his encounters represents the poet’s focus. Reading Beowulf is a matter of judging whether. I make no claim of the sort. In other words. in other words. is to illustrate how Beowulf’s potential for arrogance can be mastered in favor of his potential for responsible kingship. My focus on the digressions (four of which could be characterized as gidd ) explains one component of the poem’s contrapuntalism. generates the ambivalence centered on his motivation. The implicit goal. Beowulf ’s motivation comprises the poem’s subject simply because his ambition determines whether he has the potential for arrogance that characterizes most wreccan. and how they might learn to recognize what is riht or righteous in contemplation of ece ræd. The poet explores the nature of exceptional heroism. as it were. and this doubt reflects a conscious strategy to explore the difference between impetuosity and courage. Can Beowulf.” We are invited. I am suggesting that the poet invites a critical appraisal of Beowulf ’s . to observe how powerful and aspiring men like Beowulf could be endangered by their own supreme promise. and the potential for heroic arrogance. The warrior should learn how to suppress this excess. for the implicit comparison made between the episodes and events in the poem invite deliberation. This fundamental ambivalence evokes the tension in Beowulfian kingship between the king’s “glory” and his duty as the nation’s protector. The comparison justifies the anxiety felt for Beowulf’s motivation. which has two senses: “pride” and “dignity. which could lead to disaster. When a man of exceptional heroic stature becomes a king. The movement between allegation and justification creates the poem’s uncertainty. I have argued. the exceptionality he embodies.” Beowulf cannot be said to be a wrecca.” “Pride” is excessive. Beowulf’s feats. Whether Beowulf expresses excess. Beowulf achieved his predicted destiny. Beowulf ’s superhuman prowess. I have called this strategy “contrapuntal. and evidence for his success or inadequacy is encoded in the poem’s episodes. the Germanic “counsel” of moral probity. his ambition must be must be set aside in favor of responsibility to his people. and attitudes are analyzed by reflection on “historical” (legendary) comparanda. therefore. but I do allege that Beowulf parallels other wreccan mentioned in the poem and is often compared to them. restrain the violent disposition that underlies glory in heroic societies like that in Beowulf ? A native term that perfectly illustrates the ambivalence of heroic glory is OE wlenco. or to what extent. The watchman’s speech and Hunferð’s flyting exemplify this dispute over Beowulf ’s motivation. Beowulf’s victory could be said to compromise our expectation of his wisdom. The Danes have tried for years to kill Grendel. All of the digressions. The audience possesses intelligence about the monsters. The narrator suggests that Hunferð has earned the Danes’ respect. presumably his impertinent advance resulted from naïve earnestness. Beowulf’s presumptuous appearance on the Danish shore alarms the watchman. Beowulf sounds reckless. By contrast. By these terms. The episode begins in doubt and continues in distrust. and sometimes about Beowulf’s motivation. Has he earned Beowulf’s slander. and others. I theorize. Danes . Hunferð’s accusation of arrogance impugns Beowulf’s judgment. that the characters cannot share. In other instances my analysis of the digressions enables me to explore the poet’s focalization.conclusion 359 virtue when he is compared to Sigemund. Beowulf has not asked permission to disembark. In this case. too? Favorable assessments of Beowulf are accompanied by unfavorable or suspicious ones. Heremod. a benightedness actually extended to the audience in the dragon fight. Hygelac. the watchman believes that Beowulf has exhibited humility. Fremu. Who is right? The conventions of the “flyting” mean that Beowulf should respond in kind. respond to incidents immediately occurring or having just occurred in the speaker’s level of narration. and the watchman’s own interrogation reflects his unease over Beowulf ’s breach of political decorum. This episodic alternation between event and commentary not only models internal reflection but also heightens the dramatic irony. The limitation impairs the characters’ authority in judging Beowulf’s deeds. with equally cutting remarks. but Beowulf’s riposte alleges youthful exuberance and courage. but it ends in the apparent affirmation of Beowulf ’s prudence. but they have settled for a détente in which no one gets killed. the “local context” in which his comparisons function.” On the contrary. Beowulf offends the Danish hosts when he recites his heroic résumé and vows to trounce Grendel with his bare hands. but I have demonstrated that the winner of this contest should not be thought “moderate. in which charges and countercharges issue in succession. He has all the hallmarks of a man willing to endanger others. The tacit contrapuntalism of Beowulf takes the form of coordinating antithetical perspectives on heroism and responsible kingship. the winning debater typically qualifies as the most aggressive. Hengest. Beowulf is almost always the subject of these narrative parallels. his intentions sound arrogant to the Danes. Plenty of evidence. The Christian AngloSaxon audience knows Grendel’s lineage. favors Beowulf ’s generosity in the Grendel fight. not to mention the narrator’s occasional insights into Beowulf’s thoughts. That such a debt could be carried from a previous generation seems unprecedented. but Hroðgar is simply rescuing Beowulf from condescension. but they do not imagine him as God’s enemy. This differential knowledge. When Beowulf promises to fight Grendel with his bare hands and correspondingly neglects to recognize the Danish efforts. Grendel is undeniably malicious. . Critics like John D. and Beowulf ’s exceptional strength is no virtue in itself. He is God’s scourge. that the encounter tests recklessness. Hroðgar asserts a different. The implicit arrogance emerges in the Hunferð flyting. the Sigemund and Heremod digressions. and he meets it with extraordinary vigor.”17 One might also conclude. Hroðgar’s support for Beowulf’s intervention. He suggests that Beowulf is simply paying back Hroðgar for past generosity towards Ecgþeow. if not 17 Beowulf 178. an Anglo-Saxon audience understanding Grendel’s Old Testament lineage respects the moral validation for Beowulf’s possible recklessness towards God’s enemy. Hroðgar re-directs Beowulf’s grandiosity towards reciprocity. of course. engender complex dramatic ironies. but the characters do not. the Hunferð episode. however. To the pagan characters in the poem. Yet in keeping with the argument against Beowulf ’s potential arrogance. We wrongly transfer our consciousness to them. politically mature. In these terms Beowulf’s motivation in the Grendel fight reflects a key ambivalence as potentially arrogant or potentially sacrificial. Niles have made a strong case: “the fight with Grendel is the young Beowulf’s first great test.360 conclusion and Geats alike. his possible generosity or his possible recklessness. For example. however. way to view Beowulf’s statement. How Beowulf is judged depends significantly on the poem’s dual audience. its internal and external perspectives. Invoking Ecgþeow’s feud with the Wylfings. Attached to the Grendel fight therefore are all the other accounts of the ambivalent motivation imputed to Beowulf: the coast-warden’s speech. and just as much supports his humility. Each of these incidents evaluates Beowulf’s motivation. Hondscioh’s death. Because Hroðgar is thought to have done righteous deeds. his decision allowing Beowulf to fight Grendel facilitated Æschere’s death. This claim not only endorses the ambivalence of Beowulf ’s heroism as eligible for judgment but also conceives the authority for judgment as arbitrary. but their trust may have been compromised. (64b–5a)18 ær he age wintra dæl . but even the intradiegetic narrators inconsistently diagnose Beowulf’s motivation. that he was “born better” (“þæt ðes eorl wære//geboren betera!” 1702b–3a). the anonymous poet of the Sigemund-Heremod digression. as The Wanderer contends: . may be corrupted by ambition. Hroðgar is Beowulf’s staunch defender. As a king. He remarks that a man like himself who has done righteous deeds among his people (“se þe soð ond riht//fremeð on folce. . His men have trusted him. As I have argued throughout this book. Hroðgar trusts Beowulf. a man cannot be considered wise before he has had his share of years in the world. Hroðgar’s support of Beowulf acknowledges the position of his subordinates as well. he must take credit for an old friend’s grisly dismemberment in expectation of a future deliverance. . . Some even justify their right to judge Beowulf ’s behavior. 355). . His experience gives him authority. quote above (p. in woruldrice. and Healgamen the Finnsburh scop fear Beowulf’s future kingship. negative evaluations of Beowulf ’s motivation 18 I have adopted Fulk’s lineation in Pope and Fulk 96. alongside subalterns like the coast-warden or Wulfgar. and who recalls the distant past (“feor eal gemon. but subalterns like Hunferð. ne mæg weorþan wis wer. Just after the fight with Grendel’s mother. The diversity of authority in Beowulf accounts for the poem’s ambivalence. . After all.conclusion 361 used for the right reasons. In some sense Beowulf’s supreme luck against Grendel’s mother and Hroðgar’s premature departure from Grendel’s mere magnify the issue of responsibility—and barely credit Hroðgar with the trust he claims for himself. has the right to judge Beowulf’s excellence. God-given strength.” 1701b). as Hroðgar observes in his sermon.” 1700b–1a). Hroðgar validates his support for Beowulf in verses 1700a–3a. he claims the right to judge Beowulf’s deeds. as in these lines from the “Shield Riddle” (Riddle 5 [3]): Ic eom anhaga bille gebennad. The Subaltern Speaks: The Case of the Riddles The subaltern perspective has rarely been studied in Old English heroic verse. wounded by iron. beadoweorca sæd. maimed by sword.362 conclusion occur largely in the poem’s digressions. The warband fighters who lost the most in Hroðgar’s war with Grendel face losing even more by Beowulf ’s challenge. the Danish shore watchman has to decide whether Beowulf has come raiding or whether he intends to face Grendel. Irving identified the shield as a metonym for shield-bearer. weary of blades. were just the sort of casualties the warband feared. when Byrhtnoð’s behavior imperils his entire force. þæt me geoc cyme ær ic mid ældum iserne wund. I expect no comfort—that any relief of warfare might come for me before I might perish entirely among men . and characters in the poem probably understand their own judgment as speculative. For example. Yet the men’s courage in “dying with their lord” is seldom separated from its unavoidable obligation: “unavoidable” because escaping such a compulsory death means unendurable shame worse than dying. eal forwurðe . who penned a short article on “Heroic Experience in the Old English Riddles” in 1994. I often see battle. . frecne feohtan. (1a–6b) I am solitary. as a heroic duty. The interrogation itself highlights “moral” judgment. and he compared the shield’s ordeal to . a warrior facing unrelieved pounding. . Few critics have sought to expose the subaltern’s political and military vulnerability. fierce conflict. in fact.. in which individual acts of “heroism” may endanger oneself or the group. Hondscioh and Æschere. as stated. the topic of much wisdom verse. ecgum werig. . . Even in Maldon. Irving. mostly because heroic action has not been thought open to serious equivocation. Oft ic wig seo. not Hroðgar or arguably even Beowulf. guðgewinnes. This subaltern perspective reflects comitatus rivalry. Irving entertained certain Old English riddles metaphorically. but one prominent exception is Edward B. in many cases exemplifying the situation of the subaltern. Jr. sated by deeds of war. his ofermod ironically validates the heroism of his retainers. Frofre ne wene. Yet any poet who would introduce such a theme into a heroic poem would run a risk of challenging the fundamental values of heroic behavior.” “Ox.” “Gold. Like a shield. nameless and forgotten in ditch or foxhole. but the “nameless” could be any retainer in the dragon fight except Wiglaf. or the “byre” in the Heaðobard digression of Beowulf. Dream of the Rood is called a draftee poem).21 The better comparison might be to the subalterns in Maldon. baited by the “eald æscwiga. Shippey holds a similar view in “Boar and Badger” and proposes that the boar describes one kind of heroic attitude. One has to agree with Irving that the inanimate could serve as an analogue of subaltern experience. 19 20 . Warrior Ethic 124. 21 “Heroic Experience” 202. sometimes in ways not even touched on. 206 (where. had Hroðgar not honored him.”19 In Beowulf the “forgotten” might have been Hondscioh. The “Badger/Fox Riddle” is a less successful comparison.22 Irving proposed in ensuing remarks on the “Shield Riddle” that only the ludic tone of riddles sanctioned a poet’s treatment of the subaltern: The anonymous soldier fights doggedly in his assigned trap until death. which recall Maldon and Dream of the Rood as prototypes of a subaltern experience. 22 Ibid. Hill. and the Heaðobard lad.20 but Irving’s reading of the “Anchor Riddle” seems convincing. 366–70. The “Storm”.” “Inkhorn”) illustrate reluctant conscription in which happiness is converted to misery through power or violence. whereas “draftee” and related riddles (“Spear. “Sword”. who achieves his aims at their expense. The Beowulf-poet “Heroic Experience” 200. Irving compared the anchor’s increasing tenacity as it becomes more motionless to a stationary shield which suffers more blows the more it stands still. even if in Dream of the Rood that experience is foreclosed because the rood cannot take action.conclusion 363 “the experience of the enlisted man. see below. and by doing so provides one limited but persuasive definition of war: it is the experiencing of meaningless suffering and death. however. In addition to the “Shield Riddle” Irving went on to identify the “Anchor” and “Badger/Fox” riddles as descriptive of a subaltern experience. Hondscioh dies because of Beowulf’s oath. and “Bow” riddles describe the experience of violence or defensive warfare. they take a beating in defense of their companion. None of these quite resembles the “Shield” or “Anchor” riddles. pp. who become more resolute the more desperate the engagement gets.” “Flail.” “Ram.” suffers exile for his part in the old warrior’s plot. If Beowulf were consistently virtuous. there would be little reason to fault him as arrogant. who questions the kings’ prerogatives when the soldiers are told to cut and run but are simultaneously whipped back into formation by Odysseus. The multivalent attitudes occasioned by internal and external perspectives constitute only one source of narrative complexity in Beowulf. or to warn him against oferhygd. Where Hroðgar sees a king. The polemic that accompanies this judgment shows just how close Beowulf comes to the limit of acceptable behavior. or indifference to the lives of the “retainers” who accompany him. and before and after the Grendel fight every opportunity is taken to challenge his potential egotism and bend his behavior towards ece ræd. They must approach an unfamiliar figure whose strength elevates him above all men. and determine whether humility will blunt his ambition. his men see an ambitious soldier. Walling off our own external perspective.” 3181a–2a). dependable. The characters’ situational blindness legitimates the criticisms made against Beowulf: the Danes exercise the same speculative judgment as the coast-warden. Even Homer can raise criticisms of selfish power that underlie responsible leadership. Although the Danes judge Beowulf’s responsibility and prudence. even potentially against Beowulf.364 conclusion does not give us the story of any sweating and dying peasant among the troops at the battle of Ravenswood. to mistrust his leadership. too. Another derives from the treatment of Beowulf as a static character. At least some of them suspect him of presumption. Irving likewise pointed out that Ajax in the Iliad could represent the Shield: stolid. we should imagine how the Danes at Heorot would have reacted to Beowulf.//leodum liðost” (‘the mildest. In many studies the “hero” arises fully credentialed as a virtuous figure. Far from absent in Beowulf. Yet I have found that this theme can be treated quite seriously. and defensive. and especially Hroðgar’s sermon. Another Homeric Shield character might be Thersites. and evidence drawn from contexts throughout the poem is elsewhere used to challenge apparent contradictions. Beowulf’s deeds yet lie in the future. though described as “monna mildust/ond monðwærust. their . the anonymous soldier’s story of Sigemund and Heremod. a similar criticism is voiced against kingship. gentlest and most compliant of men. In my view. The prospect of kingship likewise complicates Beowulf’s speeches and fights. the prospect of a static Beowulf has led quite a few critics to misconstrue aspects of Hunferð’s challenge. inasmuch as there are only five heroic poems in the Old English corpus. that Byrhtnoð’s excessive confidence in allowing the Vikings to cross the Pante corresponds to Beowulf’s own potential oferhygd in the dragon fight. This edginess dissipates when Beowulf comes home. The dragon fight will. Beowulf ’s daring is then confirmed in the Grendel fight. These circumstances may explain. in which Beowulf is confirmed as a great warrior but a disastrous king. Many critics will disagree with so bold a statement as this. I have made the case for Maldon. his potential for heroic excess. presumes Beowulf’s humility. arguably the failing of Germanic heroes at large. the Sigemund-Heremod digression.conclusion 365 findings will differ depending on their expectations of Beowulf ’s status. They are reacting to Beowulf’s potential. at least in his ambition to fight Grendel. too. functions somewhat like a riddle in posing but never resolving the possibility of Beowulf ’s arrogance. made by the coast-warden. The dragon episode. Other Old English poems are also fixated on heroic excess. Beowulf ’s glory will mount. The second. The movement I have alleged for Beowulf begins with two assumptions. especially in the Breca episode and in the Grendel challenge. however. For this reason Healgamen the scop recites the poem of Finnsburh. but his address to Hygelac and the consignment of Hroðgar’s gifts disclose how effectively Beowulf manages his ambition. but it will not be tempered by any esteem held for others. I have argued that the Fremu digression reveals Beowulf ’s changed demeanor. One. despite a paucity of evidence. and. but because identifying this aspect of heroic behavior makes Beowulf’s own confrontation less idiosyncratic. but Beowulf’s confidence never leaves the reader’s mind as a source of jeopardy. Grendel’s death proves Beowulf ’s prowess but not his humility or prudence. which explores the responsibilities attending kingship. made by Hunferð. Many of the ideas I have proposed for the first half of Beowulf can be confirmed in the dragon fight. and Hroðgar warns Beowulf against oferhygd. some Danes believe. I suggest. for example. re-open the issue of Beowulf’s self-mastery in its emphasis on oferhygd. The difference will mean that conduct acceptable for solitary wreccan seeking glory against monsters is unconscionable for troop leaders. but his humility is not. the cardinal failing of wreccan. as much as his power. presumes Beowulf’s boastful arrogance. his reaction to an ineffable destiny or forðgesceaft. it seems justifiable to sketch how excessive behavior may be represented elsewhere but overlooked. I intend to pursue the question of heroic excess separately. . . The texts suggest as much in their depictions of heroic deaths. 7 þa unheanlice hine werede. The same polysemy characterizes the usage of “unforhte” in Maldon 79b. admired impetuous courage.23 Read from my own perspective. at which time he [Cynewulf ] rushed him [Cyneheard] and wounded him severely. he should not be accused of cowardice for this defensive strategy but of something else entirely. however. which describes the defiance of 23 24 25 “Boar and Badger. the conservative badger represents the defensible position. . . Shippey has alleged that Anglo-Saxon heroic attitudes accommodated two styles of fighting: the boar (rush out and attack) and badger (dig in and wear down). and goes on to state that “those who passed on the story of Cynewulf took a certain delight in the king’s sudden decision that life counted for nothing against the furious hatred he felt for his ambusher . Although Shippey’s antitheses seem perfectly feasible. 7 þa ut ræsde on hine. Shippey concludes that this scene is fictional. . oþ he on þone æþeling locude. consistently self-inflicted through hazardous action that has the appearance of valiant action. . the chronicler invites his readers to evaluate Cynewulf’s potential rashness. for example. When. he [Cynewulf ] went to the door and defended himself without disgrace until he beheld the prince [Cyneheard]. 7 hie alle on þone Cyning wærun feohtende oþ þæt hie hine ofslægenne hæfdon. . these texts confront the prospect of recklessness. A. some Anglo-Saxons . Cynewulf rushes out from his defensive position in the doorway to attack Cyneheard. They all then fell to fighting around the king until they slew him. the violent boar an extreme. “Boar and Badger” 222. .”25 In my view. . In other words. . however. he on þa duru eode.24 . The terminology reflects the situational ambivalence. 7 hine miclum gewundode. T. he is slain after grievously wounding his enemy: .366 conclusion The Demise of Heroes but Not of Heroism In an ingenious article on Maldon with reference to the “Cynewulf and Cyneheard” episode from the 755 Chronicle and to Waldere.” Plummer and Earle 48 (emending un heanlice > unheanlice). for affirming Cynewulf’s “boldness” would contradict the evidence of his death. He states specifically that Cynewulf fought “unheanlice” (“unshamefully”) in the doorway. he seems to have acted recklessly. does Cynewulf’s death actually matter? Why does the legitimate king die.” their liminal motivation expresses doubt. this bald episode asks questions like the Beowulf poet’s. as happens later in the episode. Notwithstanding the key issue of legitimacy. then.” Implicit in the adjective “wlance. he came very close to killing his enemy by giving him a great wound (“miclum gewundode”). not only in losing his own life but the lives of his retinue who died for him. 752) to secure autonomy from Mercia. This usage is widespread. I proposed in Chapter 5 that the retainers’ refusal to accept Cyneheard’s terms constituted “dying with one’s lord. and all of Byrhtnoð’s retainers are so classified when they are described as “unearge”: Þa ðær wendon forð unearge men wlance þegenas. because they were not present to defend their king? If Cyneheard is killed. (205a–6b) Proud thanes issued forth. even though his attacker’s ancestry is tainted by wrongdoing and his ambush is desperate? Cynewulf’s death exemplifies a king’s potential . Cynewulf’s death ultimately reflects the ambiguity attending supreme heroic action. efston georne. either supreme heroic action or reckless defiance. Was it reckless for Cynewulf to have ventured to Merton in the first place. Cynewulf ’s exploit ultimately reverberates through the Chronicle’s history. Offa of Mercia came to power soon afterwards. Being “unafraid” differs from being “confident” or “bold” in contexts of inevitable downfall. At the same time. for Wessex. or with such a small retinue? If Cynewulf could wound Cyneheard. By rushing out naked. To what circumstance could we credit this exceedingly slim margin of defeat? Simply because he was “on wifcyþþe” (“seeing a woman”) and therefore undressed and without his bodyguard? “Cynewulf and Cyneheard” evokes many of the situational ironies explored in Beowulf’s dragon fight. Byrhtnoð’s men are not “brave” in any ordinary way but neither are they “cowardly. which had managed in Cuthred (d. seems to have lost its quasi-independence after Cynewulf ’s death (he reigned 31 years).conclusion 367 Ælfere and Maccus just before their deaths.” a sacrifice which typically accompanies a leader’s recklessness. could he not also have killed him? Did Cynewulf’s men fail him. Adjectives for “brave” formulated with unplus a term having the opposite sense of the target portray the ambivalence of heroic action in the face of certain death. uncowardly men eagerly hastened. but before the greatest of them.”26 In this context Hildegyð repudiates what appears to be Waldere’s excessive heroic action and advocates practical defense. not mere admiration. pp. even when his mailcoat was hacked to bits by many foes. see ibid. feohtan sohtest ðy ic ðe metod ondred. 223. My translation “audaciously” for OE fyrenlice acknowledges that heroic deeds should often be regarded as liminal: “audacious” verging on “reckless”. and parallels in “Daniel” corroborate the prominent literary treatment of a king’s heroic excess in eighth-century England. badger-style: Nalles ic ðe. is drawn reluctantly into the action. Hildegyð disclaims any imputation of cowardice in the advice she gives. I am indebted to Shippey on a number of counts in this translation. ðy ic ðe gesawe ðurh edwitscype wig forbugan lice beorgan.” Shippey explains that Hildegyð’s speech in Waldere A should probably come “after several enemy warriors have been killed. An uncertain recklessness also characterizes Waldere’s behavior in the Old English poem “Waldere. you ever sought to fight further forward. see DOE s.27 Hildegyð asserts that Waldere is no coward: she has never seen him flee. the Bonifatian letter I adduce..” Hroðgar’s sermon. æt ðam sweordplegan æniges monnes oððe on weal fleon. feohtan sohtest oðres monnes Not at all do I criticize you with words.368 conclusion recklessness and resonates with Beowulf’s own downfall. ðeah þe laðra fela billum heowun. that I saw you flee another man in battle through cowardice or retreat from the (shield-)wall to protect your life. wine min. “Cynewulf and Cyneheard. þæt ðu to fyrenlice æt ðam ætstealle. 222–3. wigrædenne. In fact. 26 27 .v. that you would too audaciously seek to fight another man’s strategy in the vanguard. a prospect beyond your capacity. Ibid. Having made the case for Waldere’s courage. though many foes had hewn your mailcoat with their swords. (12a–22a) wordum cide. firenlice sense 2 (“rashly. The behavior was a matter of serious debate. ðinne byrnhomon ac ðu symle furðor mæl ofer mearce. For this reason I fear what has been ordained for you.” for this passage only). violently. She fears that Waldere might act “to fyrenlice” (“too audaciously”) in abandoning his protected defile. Hagena. e. Hildegyð mentions that Waldere always seeks to fight further.” 19b) for him. we could guess that OE mæl somehow describes this circumstance. which I have translated “in the vanguard.conclusion 369 She suspects that Waldere’s success in killing a host of enemies (both in the current mêlée and in the past battles she alludes to) would tempt him to a “prospect beyond his capacity” (“mæl ofer mearce. in spite of his stature.” 180b–81a). According to Hildegyð. and Hildegyð therefore fears what has been measured out (“metod. Ibid.” 19a). 30 Roberts. 31 Shook 6. seeking to fight “further” implies fighting beyond a physical boundary. OE mearc often describes a physical boundary. yielding to his customary impulse to be in the “ætsteall” would not be heroic: Minor Heroic Poems 44. not “audacious” but “too audacious” (“to fyrenlice”). past his measure.” may also imply Waldere’s partiality for impulsive action. beyond the shield-wall.”29 Because “mæl ofer mearce” varies “furðor feohtan sohtest” (“sought to fight further. He consistently sought opportunities beyond normal limits.31 The odds in Waldere’s current situation must be quite different from those in his former engagements.”28 but the sense “appointed time” is most likely correct. the position of a battle-standard) Guðlac the warrior “overcame many perils” (“þær se cempa oferwon//frecnessa fela. and she contemplates that Attila’s strategy is to tempt Waldere’s heroic vanity—his warrior confidence.”30 This “station” may refer to the place of action. In fact. While OE mearc may designate physical emplacement.” 18a–b). The word mældæg in Genesis A 2341b signifies “appointed day.” the phrase may confront Waldere’s recklessness. at the cross (i. where the king’s standard is set or where the fighting is most desperate. Now. Guthlac Poems 135 (note to line 179): “him to ætstealle/ærest arærde// Cristes rode” (“At the vanguard he first raised Christ’s rood. for which reason he also thinks that “ofer mearce” means outside the protected cranny where Waldere defends himself. They make Waldere’s ordinary reaction reckless.” 179a–80a). it has the figurative sense “limit. The expression “æt ðam ætstealle” (21a). OE ætsteall in similar context is attested in Guðlac A. Joyce Hill has offered four possible interpretations of OE mæl in the phrase “mæl ofer mearce.” a meaning one could extend in the Waldere A context to “occasion” or “opportunity. 28 29 . as Shippey contends.” and since OE mæl is as likely to mean “occasion” as “designated time. where it is often rendered “station. Action. 32 33 Philpotts 4. I have said. Philpotts proposes that “there is something more in this interest in defeat than the mere poetic value of a lost battle against overwhelming odds.”32 She describes a “choice between two evils. in exactly the way I have anticipated for Beowulf. (8a–11a) . nu is se dæg cumen oðer twega. and that resistance would not automatically be exalted in Beowulf. and probably fatal. oððe langne dom The day has now come that you must from here on achieve one of two things. . 5. and immolating herself.” but the evaluation of Waldere’s heroic death does not lie solely in the poem’s diegesis. betraying her husband. and should human beings be willing to exchange their dignity for revenge? Of course. either lose your life or gain long-lasting glory among men. It continues with the audience’s justification for her choice: what makes her resistance admirable. typically dominates choice in the warrior’s ideology. . Signý in the Volsung legend exemplifies the stress that I envision in Beowulf. any concession to virtue in Beowulf invokes the Christian outlook theorized for the poem. Waldere’s boar-conduct would earn no glory in these terms. however. In committing incest. . . Such judgment also functions at the level of audience. Ibid. the implicit tension between two evil choices requires that resistance be justified. suggesting that listeners and readers actually appraised heroic deeds as excessive. A hero’s death in particular invites analysis. killing her own sons. disaster. it would be excessive. but Germanic heroic literature often judges action against ethical motivation. I have argued throughout this book that choice also necessitates evaluation. not simply acclaimed. On the contrary. Hildegyð foresees Waldere’s potential to be too eager for glory because his past successes have made him over-confident. Regarding the Germanic focus on “failure.” either “yielding” or “resisting. The story does not end with admiration for—or astonishment at—Signý’s choice. In my view.”33 and resistance in this dichotomy would confer fame. . she chose vengeance and gains “fame” of a sort. since “yielding” to one’s fate implies the weakness associated with defeat. defeat.370 conclusion þæt ðu scealt aninga lif forleosan agan mid eldum . In “Waldere” Hildegyð urges heroic “moderation.” Bertha S. ”34 I have argued.conclusion 371 Beowulf vexes the admiration for resistance that Phillpotts outlines in her article on wyrd and providence. that heroism valued the same arts of “wisdom” that Klein attributes to the poem’s female characters and to Hroðgar (because of his age and consequent “feminine” traits). where I have tried to calculate all the contingencies of Beowulf’s choice. but it does not altogether impugn the system of belief underlying resistance or capitulation. On the one hand. Klein interprets the dragon’s treasure as a token of vacant heroism: “the equation of Beowulf’s life with a treasure that is ultimately deemed useless indicts his adherence to a heroic ethos of vengeance and violence which is shown. Klein remarks that “the Beowulf poet mobilizes feminine voices to prescribe a new model of heroism premised on turning the violent energies of heroic self-assertion inward and waging battles against one’s inner voices rather than against human foes. the “inner voices” confirm moderation. The poet invites this judgment. the dragon fight frustrates violence in consideration of kingly responsibility. Post-Marxist critics have often summarized the Beowulf poet’s overall outlook as challenging a social orthodoxy. In Beowulf ’s case. Readings that protest heroism typify much Feminist criticism of Beowulf. Stacy S. In a recent book on queenship in Old English literature. the restraint of political expertise. My goal in Chapter 4 is to show how unforeseen outcomes of Beowulf’s dragon fight complicate his choice. however. heroic “resistance” of the sort encountered in the Grendel fight conflicts with national and warband politics at Heorot. Beowulf is never ironic in these terms. at least. Interestingly. another kind of social obligation. to reduce the 34 Ruling Women 89. . He has not made a facile poem about the generosity and brilliance of heroic action but one that contemplates the motivations and effects of choice. which is itself based on limited understanding occasioned by a potentially improper motivation. Judgments made about these actions must reflect complexities and doubts contrived by the poet. The incident dramatizes the problem that resistance to one’s “fate” equals a famous death. Social obligation opposes violence or. in the end. Beowulf’s “resistance” there defies Danish chagrin and the threat of renewed violence. most often a “heroic code” of some sort. especially in the dragon fight. the dépense characterizing do-or-die resistance. On the other hand. Beowulf does not trade his life for “useless” treasure but for the enduring honor signified by material reward. They might be afflicted by oferhygd. among the kings in this world he was the mildest of men. but he concluded that heroism doomed Beowulf. . I have made the case. The poet affirms heroism as righteous action but questions the limits of action for great men like Beowulf. John Leyerle’s article. especially when they must also be responsible for men of lesser capacities. the kindest to his people and the most desirous of praise. this subtle opinion re-figured Beowulf into a social commentary rebuking the conduct of kings and ironizing heroism. nor are they doomed because they have no choice but action. and earned glory. The same appreciation holds for Waldere. Conceiving heroism as a cultural liability. Nevertheless. all of whom had long and eminent careers. and Byrhtnoð. . OE oferhygd is often rendered by the Christian reflex “pride. While I have affirmed many of Leyerle’s arguments in these pages. Cynewulf. but whether Beowulf responsibly gave up his life. Germanic kings are not doomed because they choose action. . and while heroism might influence him to choose action. But because Beowulf ’s life and deeds are celebrated at the conclusion of the poem. “Beowulf the Hero and the King. the Beowulf poet does not explore whether it is admirable to exchange one’s life for glory. He has earned the Geats’ culminating accolades: manna mildest leodum liðost . and the related fault of excessive wlenco. Beowulf chooses to fight the dragon. ond lofgeornost (3180b–82b) . however.” an offensive and damnable vice for all churchmen. only by understanding his motivation can we determine whether his choice was righteous. 96. Like all warriors.” advocated a similar reading. I have not concluded that the poet criticizes heroism per se. Anglo-Saxonists hesitate to credit him with pride. Furthermore. wyruldcyninga ond monðwærust. . On the contrary. in the dragon fight. oferhygd alone 35 Ibid.”35 Yet the quotient missing in this “equation” is glory or reputation. who could only express the soldier’s faith in action. . the gentlest. that Beowulf ’s behavior at the end of his life should not impugn the success of his long reign. The issue of oferhygd. constitute my final point about the judgment of Beowulf ’s deeds.372 conclusion value of the warrior’s life to nothing. or one’s weapons. Second. The Geats react to Beowulf’s own death with a mixture of pity. wondrous commands of an evil spirit” in complete ignorance of any sin. one reason why the language of accusation in Hroðgar’s sermon is so mild. In other words.” and these particulars also resolve why Beowulf can be honored at the end of the poem. think of his deeds as righteous. explains why the close of Beowulf expresses respect and dignity for Beowulf’s accomplishments. Beowulf has been a good king. it is attended by other failings attributable to unforeseeable consequences like the men in one’s charge. the response to the subtle psychic temptation of oferhygd reveals sympathy for men who succumb to it. and alarm (for their future). Although the audience has registered the ambivalence of this conditional tribute. and the secret curse mitigate his potential oferhygd. has simply lost his moral faculties and commits deeds contrary to ece ræd and in defiance of his forðgesceaft (“destiny”) and dom (“reputation”). He follows the “perverse. As a matter of misjudgment. Every case of excessive behavior also involves amelioration of some kind. not the outright abuse that might be expected if Beowulf had yielded to superbia. and may. Hroðgar conveys just this kind of indulgent grief in reaction to Heremod’s fall: the tyrant “forgets and neglects” his promise. and the Anglo-Saxons enjoyed discovering how these “extenuating circumstances” could relieve blame. This ostensible sympathy. critics have misunderstood two aspects of what I call the “oferhygd complex. not outright condemnation. alongside the multiple vindications I outlined above. disappointment. a king afflicted by oferhygd does not know that he has succumbed. the social calamity represented by the tyrant’s ambition evokes pity. The king. In my view. the topography. In Beowulf ’s case the dragon’s death. the broken sword. First. in fact. for whom prosperity and self-defense ought to be enough. .conclusion 373 would not entail one’s personal destruction. . BIBLIOGRAPHY Afros, Elena. “Linguistic Ambiguities in Some Exeter Book Riddles.” NQ 250 (2005): 431–7. Albano, Robert A. “The Role of Women in Anglo-Saxon Culture: Hildeburh in Beowulf and a Curious Counterpart in the Volsunga Saga.” ELN 32 (1994): 1–10. Alden, Maureen. Homer Beside Himself: Para-Narratives in the Iliad. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. Amos, Ashley. Linguistic Means of Determining the Dates of Old English Literary Texts. Cambridge, MA: Medieval Academy of America, 1980. Anderson, Earl R. “Formulaic Typescene Survival: Finn, Ingeld, and the Niebelungenlied.” ES 61 (1980): 293–301. ——. “Flyting in The Battle of Maldon.” NM 71 (1970): 197–202. Andersson, Theodore M. “Heathen Sacrifice in Beowulf and Rimbert’s Life of Ansgar.” Medievalia et Humanistica 13 (1985): 65–74. ——. “The Thief in Beowulf.” Speculum 59 (1984): 493–508. ——. “Tradition and Design in Beowulf.” In Old English Literature in Context. Edited by John D. Niles, 90–106. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1980. ——. “The Displacement of the Heroic Ideal in the Family Sagas.” Speculum 45 (1970): 575–93. Andrew, Malcolm. “Grendel in Hell.” ES 62 (1981): 401–10. Arngart, Olof. “The Durham Proverbs.” Speculum 56 (1981): 288–300. Ashdown, Margaret. “Notes on Two Passages of Old English Verse.” RES 5 (1929): 324–7. Atherton, Mark. “The Figure of the Archer in Beowulf and the Anglo-Saxon Psalter.” Neophil 77 (1993): 653–7. Aurner, Nellie Slayton. “Hengest: A Study in Early English Hero Legend.” University of Iowa Humanistic Studies 2 (1921): 1–76. Ayres, Henry Morgan. “The Tragedy of Hengest in Beowulf.” JEGP 16 (1917): 282–95. Bäck, Hilding. The Synonyms for “Child”, “Boy”, “Girl” in Old English. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1934. Backx, Suzanne. “Sur la date et l’origine du De monstris, belluis et serpentibus.” Latomus 3 (1939): 61. Baird, Joseph L. “Unferth the Þyle.” MÆ 39 (1970): 1–12. ——. “The Happy Hurt: Beowulf 2,697–99.” MP 65 (1968): 328–9. ——. “Grendel the Exile.” NM 67 (1966): 375–81. Baker, Peter S. Beowulf: Basic Readings. New York: Garland, 1995. ——. “Beowulf the Orator.” Journal of English Linguistics 21 (1988): 3–23. Bammesberger, Alfred. “The Coastguard’s Maxim Reconsidered (Beowulf, Lines 287b–289).” ANQ 18 (2005): 3–5. ——. “OE befeallen in Beowulf, line 1126a.” NQ 248 (2003): 156–8. ——. “A Textual Note on Beowulf 431–432.” ES 76 (1995): 297–301. ——. “Five Beowulf Notes.” In Words, Texts and Manuscripts: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Culture Presented to Helmut Gneuss on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Michael Korhammer et al., 239–55. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1992. ——. “The Conclusion of Wealhtheow’s Speech (Beowulf 1231).” NM 91 (1990): 207–8. ——. Linguistic Notes on Old English Poetic Texts. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1986. 376 bibliography ——. “Three Beowulf Notes.” ES 61 (1980): 481–4. Bandy, Stephen C. “Cain, Grendel, and the Giants of Beowulf.” PLL 9 (1973): 235–49. Bartlett, Adeline Courtney. The Larger Rhetorical Patterns in Anglo-Saxon Poetry. New York: Columbia UP, 1935. Bately, Janet. “The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.” In The Battle of Maldon AD 991. Edited by Donald Scragg, 37–50 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991). ——. The Old English Orosius. EETS SS 6. London: Oxford UP, 1980. Battaglia, F. J. “Notes on ‘Maldon’: Toward a Definitive Ofermod.” ELN 2 (1965): 247–49. Bazelmans, Jos. By Weapons Made Worthy: Lords, Retainers, and Their Relationship in Beowulf. Amsterdam: Amsterdam UP, 1999. Benedikt Sveinsson. Saga Gísla Súrssonar I og II. Reykjavik, Kostnaðarmaður Sigurður Kristjánsson, 1922. Benson, Larry D. “The Pagan Coloring of Beowulf.” In Old English Poetry: Fifteen Essays. Edited by Robert P. Creed, 193–213. Providence, RI: Brown UP, 1967. Berger, Harry Jr. and H. Marshall Leicester, Jr. “Social Structure as Doom: The Limits of Heroism in Beowulf.” In Old English Studies in Honor of John C. Pope. Edited by Robert B. Burlin and Edward B. Irving, Jr., 37–79. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1974. Bessinger, J. B. “Maldon and Óláfsdrápa: An Historical Caveat.” CL 14 (1962): 23–35. Bethurum, Dorothy. The Homilies of Wulfstan (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957). Biggs, Frederick M. “Hondscioh and Æschere in Beowulf.” Neophil 87 (2003): 635–52. ——. “Beowulf ’s Fight with the Nine Nicors.” RES n.s. 53 (2002): 311–28. ——. “Deor’s Threatened Blame Poem.” SP 94 (1997): 297–320. Bjork, Robert E. “Digressions and Episodes.” In A Beowulf Handbook. Edited by Robert E. Bjork and John D. Niles, 193–212. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1997. ——. “Speech as Gift in Beowulf.” Speculum 69 (1994): 993–1022. ——. “Unferth in the Hermeneutic Circle: A Reappraisal of James L. Rosier’s ‘Design for Treachery: The Unferth Intrigue.’” PLL 16 (1980): 133–41. ——. and John D. Niles. A Beowulf Handbook. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1997. Björkman, Erik. Studien über die Eigennamen im Beowulf. Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1920. Black, Matthew. “The Parables as Allegory.” BJRL 42 (1959–60): 273–87. Blake, E. O. Liber Eliensis. London: Royal Historical Society, 1962. Blake, N. F. “The Genesis of The Battle of Maldon.” ASE 7 (1978): 119–29. ——. “The Battle of Maldon.” Neophil 49 (1965): 332–45. ——. “The Heremod Digressions in Beowulf.” JEGP 61 (1962): 278–87. Bliss, Alan. “Beowulf, Lines 3074–75.” In J. R. R. Tolkien, Scholar and Storyteller. Edited by Mary Salu and Robert T. Farrell, 41–63. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1979. Bloomfield, Morton W. “Beowulf, Byrhtnoth, and the Judgment of God: Trial by Combat in Anglo-Saxon England.” Speculum 44 (1969): 545–59. ——. “Patristics and Old English Literature: Notes on Some Poems.” In Studies in Old English Literature in Honor of Arthur G. Brodeur. Edited by Stanley B. Greenfield, 36–43. Portland, OR: U of Oregon Books, 1963. Boenig, Robert. “Time Markers and Treachery: The Crux at Beowulf 1130.” ELN 24 (1987): 1–9. ——. “Very Sharp/Unsharp, Unpeace/Firm Peace: Morphemic Ambiguity in Beowulf.” Neophil 76 (1992): 275–82. Bolton, W. F. Alcuin and Beowulf: An Eighth-Century View. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1978. ——. “Byrhtnoð in the Wilderness.” MLR 64 (1969): 481–90. Bonjour, Adrien. “Monsters Crouching and Critics Rampant: Or the Beowulf Dragon Debated.” PMLA 68 (1953): 304–12. ——. The Digressions in Beowulf. Oxford: Blackwell, 1950. bibliography 377 Booth, Paul Anthony. “King Alfred Versus Beowulf: The Re-Education of the AngloSaxon Aristocracy.” BJRL 79 (1997): 41–66. Bosse, Roberta Bux and Jennifer Lee Wyatt. “Hrothgar and Nebuchadnezzar: Conversion in Old English Verse.” PLL 23 (1987): 257–71. Bosworth, Joseph and T. Northcote Toller. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Enlarged and corrected edition by Alistair Campbell. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Brady, Caroline A. “ ‘Warriors’ in Beowulf: An Analysis of the Nominal Compounds and an Evaluation of the Poet’s Use of Them.” ASE 11 (1983): 199–246. ——. The Legends of Ermanaric. Berkeley, CA: U of California P, 1943. ——. “The Eormanric of the Wīdsīð.” University of California Publications in English 3 (1937): 225–36. Bragg, Lois. The Lyric Speakers of Old English Poetry. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 1991. Britton, G. C. “The Characterization of the Vikings in ‘The Battle of Maldon.’” NQ 210 (1965): 85–7. Brodeur, Arthur Gilchrist. The Art of Beowulf. Berkeley, CA: U of California P, 1959. ——. “Design and Motive in the Finn Episode.” University of California Publications in English 14 (1943): 1–42. ——. “The Climax of the Finn Episode.” University of California Publications in English 3 (1943): 285–61. Brown, Alan K. “The Firedrake in Beowulf.” Neophil 64 (1980): 439–60. ——. “The Epinal Glossary Edited with Critical Commentary of the Vocabulary.” PhD diss., Stanford University, 1969. Brown, Carleton. “Beowulf 1080–1106.” MLN 34 (1919): 181–3. Brown, Phyllis R. “Cycles and Change in Beowulf.” In Manuscript, Narrative, Lexicon: Essays on Literary and Cultural Transmission in Honor of Whitney F. Bolton. Edited by Robert Boenig and Kathleen David, 171–92. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell UP, 2000. Brunner, Heinrich. Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte. Third edition. Berlin: Verlag Von Duncker & Humblot, 1961. Bryan, W. F. “Ærgod in Beowulf, and other Old English Compounds of ær.” MP 28 (1930): 157–61. Bullough, Donald A. “What has Ingeld to do with Lindisfarne?” ASE 22 (1993): 93–125. 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. Edited by Robert B. Burlin and Edward B. Irving, Jr., 81–9. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1974. Busse, W. G. and R. Holtei. “The Battle of Maldon: A Historical, Heroic and Political Poem.” In Old English Shorter Poems: Basic Readings. Edited by Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe, 185–97. New York: Garland, 1994. Cabaniss, Allen. “Beowulf and the Liturgy.” In An Anthology of Beowulf Criticism. Edited by Lewis E. Nicholson, 223–32. Notre Dame, IN: U of Notre Dame P, 1963. Caie, Graham D. “The Old English Daniel: A Warning Against Pride.” ES 59 (1978): 1–9. Calder, Daniel G. “Setting and Ethos: The Pattern of Measure and Limit in Beowulf.” SP 69 (1972): 21–37. Camargo, Martin. “The Finn Episode and the Tragedy of Revenge in Beowulf.” SP 78 (1981): 120–34. Campbell, A. “The Old English Epic Style.” English and Medieval Studies Presented to J. R. R. Tolkien on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Norman Davis and C. L. Wrenn, 13–26. London: Allen and Unwin, 1962. ——. Old English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1959. Carney, James. Studies in Irish Literature and History. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Study, 1955. 378 bibliography Carnicelli, Thomas A. “The Function of the Messenger in Beowulf.” SP 72 (1975): 246–57. Cavill, Paul. Maxims in Old English Poetry. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1999. ——. “Beowulf and Andreas: Two Maxims.” Neophil 77 (1993): 479–87. Chadwick, H. Munro. The Origin of the English Nation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1924. ——. The Cult of Othin. London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1899. Chadwick, Nora K. “The Monsters and Beowulf.” In The Anglo-Saxons: Studies in Some Aspects of Their History and Culture Presented to Bruce Dickins. Edited by Peter Clemoes, 171–203. London: Bowes and Bowes, 1959. Chambers, Raymond Wilson. Beowulf: An Introduction to the Study of the Poem with a Discussion of the Stories of Offa and Finn. Third edition revised by C. L. Wrenn. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1959. ——. Widsith: A Study in Old English Heroic Legend. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1912. ——. and Alfred John Wyatt. Beowulf with the Finnsburg Fragment. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1914. Chaney, William A. The Cult of Kingship in Anglo-Saxon England: The Transition from Paganism to Christianity. Berkeley, CA: U of California P, 1970. Chase, Colin. “Beowulf, Bede, and St. Oswine: The Hero’s Pride in Old English Hagiography.” Reprinted in Beowulf: Basic Readings. Edited by Peter S. Baker, 181–93. New York: Garland, 1995. ——. The Dating of Beowulf. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1981. Cherniss, Michael D. Ingeld and Christ: Heroic Concepts and Values in Old English Christian Poetry. The Hague: Mouton, 1972. ——. “Beowulf: Oral Presentation and the Criterion of Immediate Rhetorical Effect.” Genre 3 (1970): 214–28. ——. “The Progress of the Hoard in Beowulf.” PQ 47 (1968): 473–86. Chickering, Howell. “Lyric Time in Beowulf.” JEGP 91 (1992): 489–509. ——. Beowulf: A Dual Language Edition. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977. Ciklamini, Marlene. “The Problem of Starkaðr.” SS 43 (1971): 169–88. Clark, Cecily. “Byrhtnoth and Roland: A Contrast.” Neophil 51 (1967): 288–93. ——. “On Dating The Battle of Maldon: Certain Evidence Reviewed.” Nottingham Medieval Studies 27 (1983): 1–22. Clark, George. “The Hero and the Theme.” In A Beowulf Handbook. Edited by Robert E. Bjork and John D. Niles, 271–90. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1997. ——. “Maldon: History, Poetry and Truth.” In De Gustibus: Essays for Alain Renoir. Edited by John Miles Foley et al., 66–84. New York: Garland, 1992. ——. Beowulf. Boston: Twayne, 1990. ——. “The Battle of Maldon: A Heroic Poem.” Speculum 43 (1968): 52–71. Clarke, D. E. Martin. “The Office of Thyle in Beowulf.” RES 12 (1936): 61–6. Cleasby, Richard, Gudbrand Vigfusson and William A. Craigie. An Icelandic-English Dictionary. Second edition. Oxford: Clarendon, 1957. Clemoes, Peter. Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: The First Series. EETS SS 17. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997. ——. Interactions of Thought and Language in Old English Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. Clover, Carol J. “Hildigunnr’s Lament.” In Cold Counsel: Women in Old Norse Literature and Mythology. Edited by Sarah M. Anderson and Karen Swenson, 15–54. New York: Routledge, 2002. ——. “The Germanic Context of the Unferþ Episode.” Speculum 55 (1980): 444–68. ——. “Hárbarðsljóð as Generic Farce.” SS 51 (1979): 124–45. Colgrave, Bertram. Felix’s Life of Saint Guthlac. Reprinted. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985. ——. The Life of Bishop Wilfrid by Eddius Stephanus. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1927. bibliography 379 ——. and R. A. B. Mynors. Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969. Collinder, Björn. “Beowulfskolier.” In Elias Wessén, 15 April 1954, 16–25. Lund: Carl Blom, 1954. Collins, Rowland L. “Six Words in the Blickling Homilies.” In Philological Essays. Edited by James L. Rosier, 137–41. The Hague: Mouton, 1970. Cook, Albert Stanburrough. “Aldhelm and the Source of Beowulf 2523.” MLN 40 (1925): 137–42. ——. “The Possible Begetter of the OE Beowulf and Widsith.” Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 25 (1921–22): 281–346. ——. Translations from the Old English. Hamdon, CT: Archon Books, 1899. Cooke, William. “Who Cursed Whom, and When? The Cursing of the Hoard and Beowulf’s Fate.” MÆ 76 (2007): 207–24. Cox, Betty S. Cruces of Beowulf. The Hague: Mouton, 1971. Cox, R. S. “The Old English Dicts of Cato.” Anglia 90 (1972): 1–42. Craigie, William A. “Interpolations and Omissions in Anglo-Saxon Poetic Texts.” Philologica: Journal of Comparative Philology 2 (1923–4): 5–19. Cramp, Rosemary. “Beowulf and Archaeology.” Medieval Archaeology 1 (1957): 57–77. Crawford, S. J. “Beowulfiana.” RES 7 (1931): 448–50. ——. The Old English Version of the Heptateuch. EETS OS 160. London: Oxford UP, 1922. Creed, Robert P. “The Singer Looks at his Sources.” CL 14 (1962): 44–52. Cronan, Dennis. “Poetic Words, Conservatism and the Dating of Old English Poetry.” ASE 33 (2004): 23–50. ——. “The Origin of Ancient Strife in Beowulf.” North-Western European Language Evolution 31–2 (1997): 57–68. ——. “Wiglaf ’s Sword.” SN 65 (1993): 129–39. ——. “Lofgeorn: Generosity and Praise.” NM 92 (1991): 187–94. Cross, J. E. “The Ethic of War in Old English.” In England Before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources Presented to Dorothy Whitelock. Edited by Peter Clemoes and Kathleen Hughes, 269–82. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1971. ——. “Oswald and Byrhtnoth: A Christian Saint and a Hero Who is Christian.” ES 46 (1965): 93–109. ——. “On The Wanderer Lines 80–84: A Study of a Figure and a Theme.” Årsbok Vetenskaps Societeten i Lund (1958–59): 77–110. ——. “‘Ubi Sunt’ Passages in Old English–Sources and Relationships.” Årsbok Vetenskaps Societeten i Lund (1956): 24–55. Culbert, Taylor. “The Narrative Functions of Beowulf ’s Swords.” JEGP 59 (1960): 13–20. Damico, Helen. Beowulf ’s Wealhtheow and the Valkyrie Tradition. Madison, WI: U of Wisconsin P, 1984. ——. “Sörlaþáttr and the Hama Episode in Beowulf.” SS 55 (1983): 222–35. Damon, John Edward. “Sanctifying Anglo-Saxon Ealdormen: Lay Sainthood and the Rise of the Crusading Ideal.” In Via Crucis: Essays on Early Medieval Sources and Ideas in Memory of J. E. Cross. Edited by Thomas N. Hall et al., 185–209. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia UP, 2002. Day, Mabel and J. A. Herbert. The English Text of the Ancrene Riwle. EETS OS 225. London: Oxford UP, 1952. De Looze, Laurence N. “Frame Narratives and Fictionalization: Beowulf as Narrator.” Reprinted in Interpretations of Beowulf: A Critical Anthology. Edited by R. D. Fulk, 242–50. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 1991. Del Pezzo, Raffaella. “Ags. Winburg, ‘città del convivio.’” Romanobarbarica 10 (1988–89): 103–14. De Vries, J. “Die beiden Hengeste.” ZfdP 72 (1953): 125–43. 380 bibliography Dictionary of Old English. Edited by Antonette diPaolo Healey et al. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies and U of Toronto P, 1986–. Diller, Hans-Jürgen. “Literacy and Orality in Beowulf: The Problem of Reference.” In Mündichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im englischen Mittelalter. Edited by Willi Erzgräber and Sabine Volk, 15–25. Tübingen: Narr, 1988. ——. “Contiguity and Similarity in the Beowulf Digressions.” In Medieval Studies Conference Aachen 1983: Language and Literature. Edited by Wolf-Dietrich Bald and Horst Weinstock, 71–83. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1984. Discenza, Nicole Guenther. The King’s English: Strategies of Translation in the Old English Boethius. Albany, NY: State U of New York P, 2005. Doane, A. N. “Legend, History and Artifice in ‘The Battle of Maldon.’ ” Viator 9 (1978): 39–66. Dockray-Miller, Mary. “The Masculine Queen of Beowulf.” Women and Language 21 (1998): 31–8. Doig, J. F. “Beowulf 3069b: Curse or Consequence?” ELN 19 (1981): 3–6. Donahue, Charles. The Interpretation of Old English Poems. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972. ῎ : Its Use and Meaning. New York: Fordham UP, 1984. Doyle, Richard E. ΑΤΗ Dragland, S. L. “Monster-Man in Beowulf.” Neophil 61 (1977): 606–18. Dronke, Ursula. “Beowulf and Ragnarök.” SBVS 17 (1969): 302–25. Du Bois, Arthur E. “The Unity of Beowulf.” PMLA 49 (1934): 374–405. Dümmler, Ernst. Epistolae Karolini Aevi. Vol. 2. MGH Epistolae IV. Berlin: Weidmann, 1895. Dumville, David N. Liber Vitae Dunelmensis. Cambridge: Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic, 2001. ——. “Beowulf Come Lately: Some Notes on the Palaeography of the Nowell Codex.” ASNSL 225 (1988): 49–63. ——. The Historia Brittonum: 3, The ‘Vatican’ Recension. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1985. Dunning, T. P. and A. J. Bliss. The Wanderer. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969. Earl, James W. “The Necessity of Evil in Beowulf.” South Atlantic Bulletin 44 (1979): 81–98. ——. “Beowulf ’s Rowing Match.” Neophil 63 (1979): 285–90. Ehwald, Rudolf. Aldhelmi Opera. MGH. AA 15. Berlin: Weidmann, 1913–19. Eliason, Norman E. “Beowulf’s Inglorious Youth.” SP 76 (1979): 101–8. ——. “Two Old English Scop Poems.” PMLA 81 (1966): 185–92. ——. “The ‘Thryth-Offa Digression’ in Beowulf.” In Franciplegius: Medieval and Linguistic Studies in Honor of Francis Peabody Magoun, Jr. Edited by Jess B. Bessinger, Jr. and Robert P. Creed, 124–38. New York: New York U P, 1965. ——. “Beowulf Notes.” Anglia 71 (1953): 438–55. Elliott, Ralph W. V. “Byrhtnoth and Hildebrand: A Study in Heroic Technique.” CL 14 (1962): 53–70. Enright, Michael J. “The Warband Context of the Unferth Episode.” Speculum 73 (1998): 297–337. ——. Lady With a Mead Cup: Ritual, Prophecy and Lordship in the European Warband from La Tène to the Viking Age. Dublin: Four Courts P, 1996. Evans, Jonathan D. “Semiotics and Traditional Lore: The Medieval Dragon Tradition.” Journal of Folklore Research 22 (1985): 85–112. Evans, Stephen S. The Lords of Battle: Image and Reality of the Comitatus in Dark-Age Britain. Woodbridge: Boydell, 1997. Fabech, Charlotte. “Booty Sacrifices in Southern Scandinavia—A History of Warfare and Ideology.” In Roman Reflections in Scandinavia. Edited by Eva Björklund et al., 135–8. Rome: «L’erma» di Bretschneider, 1996. bibliography 381 ——. “Booty Sacrifices in Southern Scandinavia: A Reassessment.” In Sacred and Profane: Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion. Edited by Paul Garwood et al., 88–99. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1991. Fajardo-Acosta, Fidel. “Intemperance, Fratricide, and the Elusiveness of Grendel.” ES 73 (1992): 205–10. ——. The Condemnation of Heroism in the Tragedy of Beowulf. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen P, 1989. Fanning, Steven. “Tacitus, Beowulf, and the Comitatus.” The Haskins Society Journal 9 (1997): 17–38. Farrell, Robert T. Daniel and Azarias. London: Methuen, 1974. ——. “The Archer and Associated Figures on the Ruthwell Cross—A Reconsideration.” In Bede and Anglo-Saxon England: Papers in Honour of the 1300th Anniversary of the Birth of Bede. Edited by Robert T. Farrell, 96–117. London: British Archaeological Reports, 1978. ——. “A Possible Source for the Old English Daniel.” NM 70 (1969): 84–90. Fehrle, Eugen and Richard Hünnerkopf. Publius Cornelius Tacitus: Germania. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1959. Finnur Jónsson. Den Norsk-Islandske Skjaldedigtning. 2 vols. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1967. Fjalldal, Magnús. The Long Arm of Coincidence: The Frustrated Connection between Beowulf and Grettis Saga. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1998. Foley, John Miles. Immanent Art: From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral Epic. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 1991. Förster, Max. “Die altenglischen Beigaben des Lambeth-Psalters.” ASNSL 132 (1914): 328–35. ——. “Beiträge zur altenglischen Wortkunde aus ungedruckten volkskundlichen Texten.” Englische Studien 39 (1908): 321–55. Frank, Roberta. “An Aspirin for Beowulf: Against Aches and Pains—Ece and Wærc.” ANQ 15 (2002): 58–63. ——. “Germanic Legend in Old English Literature.” In The Cambridge Companion to Old English Literature. Edited by Michael Godden and Michael Lapidge, 88–106. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991. ——. “The Search for the Anglo-Saxon Oral Poet.” BJRL 75 (1993): 11–36. ——. “The Battle of Maldon and Heroic Literature.” In The Battle of Maldon AD 991. Edited by Donald Scragg, 196–207. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991. ——. “The Ideal of Men Dying with Their Lord in The Battle of Maldon: Anachronism or Nouvelle Vague.” In People and Places in Northern Europe 500–1600: Essays in Honour of Peter Hayes Sawyer. Edited by Ian Wood and Niels Lund, 95–106. Woodbridge: Boydell, 1991. ——. “ ‘Mere’ and ‘Sund’: Two Sea Changes in Beowulf.” In Modes of Interpretation in Old English Literature: Essays in Honor of Stanley B. Greenfield. Edited by Phyllis Rugg Brown et al., 153–72. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1986. ——. “Skaldic Verse and the Date of Beowulf.” In The Dating of Beowulf. Edited by Colin Chase, 123–39. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1981. ——. “Old Norse Memorial Eulogies and the Ending of Beowulf.” The Early Middle Ages, Acta 6 (1979): 1–19. Frantzen, Allen J. “Writing the Unreadable Beowulf: ‘Writan’ and ‘Forwritan,’ the Pen and the Sword.” Exemplaria 3 (1991): 327–57. Friend, Joseph H. “The Finn Episode Climax: Another Suggestion.” MLN 69 (1954): 385–7. Frisby, Deborah S. “‘Daring’ and ‘Foolish’ Renderings: On the Meaning of Dollic in Beowulf.” ANQ 4 (1991): 59–63. Fry, Donald K. “Finnsburh: A New Interpretation.” The Chaucer Review 9 (1974): 1–14. ——. Finnsburh: Fragment and Episode. London: Methuen, 1974. 382 bibliography Fulk, R. D. “Six Cruces in the Finnsburg Fragment and Episode.” MÆ 74 (2005): 191–204. ——. “Six Cruces in Beowulf (Lines 31, 83, 404, 445, 1198, and 3074–5).” In Latin Learning and English Lore: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Literature for Michael Lapidge. Edited by Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe and Andy Orchard, 349–67. 2 vols. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2005. ——. “Afloat in Semantic Space: Old English sund and the Nature of Beowulf’s Exploit with Breca.” JEGP 104 (2005): 457–74. ——. “OE weorc: Where does it Hurt? South of the Thames.” ANQ 17 (2004): 6–12. ——. “The Name of Offa’s Queen: Beowulf 1931–2.” Anglia 122 (2004): 614–39. ——. “On Argumentation in Old English Philology, with Particular Reference to the Editing and Dating of Beowulf.” ASE 32 (2003): 1–26. ——. A History of Old English Meter. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1992. ——. Interpretations of Beowulf: A Critical Anthology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 1991. ——. “Unferth and his Name.” MP 85 (1987): 113–27. ——. “Old English icge and incge.” ES 59 (1978): 255–6. Galloway, Andrew. “Beowulf and the Varieties of Choice.” PMLA 105 (1990): 197– 208. ——. et al. “Philology and Anglo-Saxon Poetry.” PMLA 106 (1991): 308–12. Gang, T. M. “Approaches to Beowulf.” RES 3 (1952): 1–12. Garde, Judith. “Sapientia, ubi sunt, and the Heroic Ideal in Beowulf.” SN 66 (1993): 159–73. Garmonsway, G. N. “Anglo-Saxon Heroic Attitudes.” In Franciplegius: Medieval and Linguistic Studies in Honor of Francis Peabody Magoun, Jr. Edited by Jess B. Bessinger, Jr. and Robert P. Creed, 139–46. New York: New York U P, 1965. Georgianna, Linda. “King Hrethel’s Sorrow and the Limits of Heroic Action in Beowulf.” Speculum 62 (1987): 829–50. Gingher, Robert S. “The Unferth Perplex.” Thoth 14 (1974): 19–28. Girvan, Ritchie. Finnsburuh. Sir Israel Gollancz Memorial Lecture. Oxford, 1941. ——. Review of Beowulfstudien, by J. Hoops. MLR 28 (1933): 244–6. Girvan, Ritchie and Rupert Bruce-Mitford. Beowulf and the Seventh Century: Language and Content. Reprinted London: Methuen, 1971. Gneuss, Helmut. “The Battle of Maldon 89: Byrhtnoð’s ofermod Once Again.” Reprinted in Old English Shorter Poems: Basic Readings. Edited by Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe, 149–72 (New York: Garland, 1994). ——. Hymnar und Hymnen im englischen Mittelalter. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1968. Godden, M. R. “Anglo-Saxons on the Mind.” In Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England: Studies Presented to Peter Clemoes on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Michael Lapidge and Helmut Gneuss, 271–98. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985. Goldsmith, Margaret E. The Mode and Meaning of Beowulf. London: Athlone P, 1970. ——. “The Christian Perspective in Beowulf.” In Studies in Old English Literature in Honor of Arthur G. Brodeur. Edited by Stanley B. Greenfield, 71–90. Eugene, OR: U of Oregon Books, 1963. Gonsor, Paul. Das angelsächsiche Prosa-Leben des hl. Guthlac. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1909. Gordon, E. V. “The Date of Æthelred’s Treaty with the Vikings: Olaf Tryggvason and The Battle of Maldon.” MLR 32 (1937): 24–32. Gray, John. “The Finn Episode in Beowulf: Line 1085(b) ac hig him geþingo budon.” In Words and Wordsmiths: A Volume for H. L. Rogers. Edited by Geraldine Barnes et al., 32–9. Sydney: Dept. of English, U of Sydney, 1989. Green, Alexander. “The Opening of the Episode of Finn in Beowulf.” PMLA 31 (1916): 759–97. Edited by Martin Green. Hanning. truhtin.” In The Wisdom of Poetry: Essays in Early English Literature in Honor of Morton W.” In Old English Studies in Honour of John C. H. 2 vols. 1984.” ASE 5 (1976): 51–62. 1982. 1985. 1000. “Misprision in the Para-Narratives of Iliad 9. Memory.. 107–17. “Some Difficulties in Beowulf. Bloomington. “Beowulf and the Judgement of the Righteous. ——. Language and History in the Early Germanic World. 1962. CCSL 143–143A. John R. Green.” ASE 24 (1995): 11–14. and Robert R. Aldhelmi Malmesbiriensis Prosa de Virginitate cum Glosa Latina atque Anglosaxonica. The Interpretation of Old English Poems. Rutherford. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.” Neophil 92 (2008): 333–38. and Elegy in The Wife’s Lament. Clark.. “A Note on Beowulf 1142–1145. Edited by R. “Of Words and Deeds: The Coastguard’s Maxim Once More. Pope. 393–407. ——. ——. “A Record of Anglo-Saxon Pedagogy: Aldhelm’s Epistola ad Heahfridum and its Gloss. Robert W. “Time. Jr.” In The Old English Elegies: New Essays in Criticism and Research. Raymo.” MLN 25 (1910): 113–14. Burlin and Edward B. Irving. Kalamazoo. 1341–1344. 45–51. 1–32. “The Religious Principle in Beowulf. Hall. Scott. Wayne. “Grendel’s Humanity Again. “The Authenticating Voice in Beowulf. ——. hêrro. 1331b ff. Edited by Jess B. 1965. Greenfield. ca. Bessinger. ——. ——. frô.” Viator 29 (1998): 1–24. 132–32. 2 vols. “The Formulaic Expression of the Theme of ‘Exile’ in Anglo-Saxon Poetry.” Journal of Medieval Latin 6 (1996): 83–134. ——. “Beowulf 3074–75: Beowulf Appraises His Reward. Nicholson. Guðni Jónsson. Edited by Robert B. Stanley B. Bloomfield. Edited by Michael Lapidge and Helmut Gneuss. Gwara. Fulk. Þiðreks Saga af Bern. 105–35. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Hamilton. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. ——. Edited by Larry D. M. Martin..bibliography 383 Green. 2001. 1991. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. .” University of Toronto Quarterly 35 (1966): 260–78. Benson and Siegfried Wenzel.” Reprinted in Interpretations of Beowulf: A Critical Anthology. Jr. New York: New York U P. Reykjavik: Íslendingasagnaútgáfan. ——. Kalamazoo. “‘Gifstol’ and Goldhoard in Beowulf.” Mediaeval Studies 69 (2007): 255–98. “Three Beowulf Notes: Lines 736b ff. The Carolingian Lord: Semantic Studies on Four Old High German Words: balder. 1963.” In An Anthology of Beowulf Criticism. D.” Speculum 30 (1955): 200–6.” In Vernacular Poetics in the Middle Ages.” In Geardagum 11 (1990): 6–13.” In In Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England: Studies Presented to Peter Clemoes on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Griffith. Edited by Lewis E. ——. 120–26. Lines 874–902: Sigemund Reconsidered. Notre Dame. 1972. “Second Language Acquisition and Anglo-Saxon Bilingualism: Negative Transfer and Avoidance in Ælfric Bata’s Latin Colloquia.” Arethusa 40 (2007): 303–36. Edited by Lois Ebin. NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson UP. John. 1974. IN: U of Notre Dame P. “Geatish History: Poetic Art and Epic Quality in Beowulf. 1998. ——. “Forht and Fægen in The Wanderer and Related Literary Contexts of Warrior Wisdom. A. ——. 1983. MI: Medieval Institute Publications.” In Medieval Studies in Honor of Lillian Herlands Hornstein. Halverson. “Beowulf and the Pitfalls of Piety. 169–72.D. IN: Indiana UP. S. D. 1976. Hanley. Turnhout: Brepols. Toronto: U of Toronto P. Marie Padgett. “Poetic Emblems in Medieval Narrative Texts. ——. MI: Medieval Institute Publications. Oxford: E Theatro Sheldoniano.” Pacific Coast Philology 17 (1982): 16–23. H. Leeds. Harden and E. C. New York: Fordham UP. “Hrothgar’s Noble Rule: Love and the Great Legislator. Andrews Medieval Texts. G. MA: Hendrickson Publishers. 1993. “Scyld Scefing and the ‘Stirps Regia’: Pagan Myth and Christian Kingship in ‘Beowulf. Cyril. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Hawkes.” In An Essex Tribute: Essays Presented to Frederick G. Hieatt. “The Ealdordom of Essex. Toronto: U of Toronto P. C. Darmstadt: Hermann Gentner. MI: Medieval Institute Publications. Wigand. Hans. 57–84. ——.” In Dark-Age Britain: Studies Presented to E. Joseph. 91–111. Adelaide. London: Leopard’s Head Press. ——. 1988. Hessels. ——. “Beowulf in Literary History. F. Hart. 1705.” ASE 10 (1982): 53–67.” SP 101 (2004): 233–49. Peabody. Harris. The Narrative Pulse of Beowulf. 1987. The Solomon Complex: Reading Wisdom in Old English Poetry. ——.” Michigan Germanic Studies 5 (1979): 65–74. Die altgermanische Dichtung. Edited by Kenneth Neale. Highfield. John. ——. Heusler. “The Jutes of Kent. 1900. “Mod in the Old English ‘Secular’ Poetry: An Indicator of Aristocratic Class. Charles W. 77–114.” BJRL 79 (1997): 79–92. Old English Minor Heroic Poems. Edited by Arthur Groos et al. .384 bibliography Hansen. “Beowulf’s Last Words. Jr. Bischofs Wærferth von Worcester Übersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen. ——.” Neophil 74 (1990): 637–9. “Hrothgar’s ‘Sermon’ in Beowulf as Parental Wisdom. Joyce. ——. Leipzig: Georg H. 2 vols.. “The Christian Hero Beowulf and Unferð Þyle. Elaine Tuttle. 1957.’ ” In Magister Regis: Studies in Honor of Robert Earl Kaske. “The ‘Variegated Obit’ as an Historiographic Motif in Old English Poetry and Anglo-Latin Historical Literature. Andrews: Durham and St. Hill. Enlarged second edition. 1991.” Neophil 77 (1993): 675–7. Linguarum Veterum Septentrionalium Thesaurus Grammatico-Criticus et Archæologicus. London: Methuen.” JEGP 83 (1984): 173–82. “Modþryðo and Heremod: Intertwined Threads in the Beowulf-Poet’s Web of Words. “The Foreseen Wolf and the Path of Wisdom: Proverbial and Beast Lore in Atlakviða.” Traditio 44 (1988): 101–24. Hill. An Eighth-Century Latin-Anglo-Saxon Glossary. ——. “Beowulf and the Danish Succession: Gift Giving as an Occasion for Complex Gesture. Emmison as a Tribute to his Life and Work for Essex History and Archives. Western Michigan U. ——.” PQ 69 (1990): 106–12. “Love and Death in the Männerbund: An Essay with Special Reference to the Bjarkamál and The Battle of Maldon. 1956. Edited by Donald. Glasgow: Cruithne Press.” Medievalia et Humanistica 11 (1982): 177–97. J. Andreas. ——. Toronto: U of Toronto P. Durham and St. Bessinger.” Neophil 53 (1969): 55–69. 1890. D. “The Unchanging Hero: A Stoic Maxim in The Wanderer and Its Contexts.” In Heroic Poetry in the Anglo-Saxon Period: Studies in Honor of Jess B. B. B. 1994. Toronto: U of Toronto P. Hedrick. 2008. ——. Parables as Poetic Fictions: The Creative Voice of Jesus. John M. “The Senna: From Description to Literary Theory. 37–47. 1986. 1983. The Anglo-Saxon Warrior Ethic. Thomas D. Hickes. Hecht.” Speculum 67 (1992): 1–32. Edited by Ross Samson. Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa V. Lines 247–51. “Beowulf as Seldguma: Beowulf. Edited by Helen Damico and John Leyerle. The Cultural World in Beowulf. Thurlow Leeds. ——. 2000. Hardy.” In Social Approaches to Viking Studies. 1995. Kalamazoo. ——. C. 169–78. Gainesville: University of Florida P. Hill. “‘Wealhtheow’ as a Foreign Slave: Some Continental Analogues. W. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P. Edited by Helen Damico and John Leyerle. “Daniel and Azarias as Evidence for the Oral Formulaic Character of Anglo-Saxon Poetry. by M. “Oðinn’s Meetings with Sigmundr and Sigurðr in the Volsungasaga. Kalamazoo.bibliography 385 ——. “Zu altenglischen Denkmälern. 1993. Jackson. 1993. Jackson.” MLN 45 (1930): 300–1.” JEGP 33 (1934): 98–102.” Englische Studien 67 (1932–3): 325–39. Hillman. Strassburg: Karl J. Putnam Fennell. New York: Garland.” SP 58 (1961): 457–67. Huppé. “The Thematic Design of Grettis Saga. 165–79. “Christian and Pagan Elements. Hintz. “Beowulf 2596–99. Bjork and John D. Migration and Mythmaking in Anglo-Saxon England. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P. Nicholas. Jackson. Hollowell.” Neophil 54 (1970): 291–6. NY: State U of New York P. Rereading Beowulf. London: Phillimore. Howlett. Alfred. 82–95. Oxford: Clarendon. ——. “Defeat and Victory in ‘The Battle of Maldon’: The Christian Resonances Reconsidered. Edited by Martin Green. Jess H. “On the Identity of the Wanderer.” In Old English Shorter Poems: Basic Readings. George. “The Nature of Christianity in Beowulf.” Englische Studien 51 (1917–18): 180–8. H. Review of Beowulf. 1989.” English Studies in Canada 11 (1985): 385–95. ——. Niles. 1994. NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson UP. Saxonis Grammatici Gesta Danorum. ——.” MLN 47 (1932): 378. 1984. A Reading of Beowulf. ——.” MLN 43 (1928): 307–8. New Haven. 1982. Robert. Doctrine and Poetry. Deutsche Literaturzeitung 17 April 1909. “From the Seat of the Þyle? A reading of Maxims I. Heyne and L. Howard W. Jr. 1886. Howe. ——. The Hero in the Earthly City: A Reading of Beowulf.” SP 73 (1976): 239–65. Jones. “Beowulf 303 ff. Jones. Friedrich. . “Unferð the þyle in Beowulf.” MÆ 35 (1966): 95–102. 175–92. Alison.” In The Vikings. ——. Hume. Binghamton.” JEGP 73 (1974): 469–86. “ ‘Not Simply Lists’: An Eddic Perspective on Short-Item Lists in Old English Poems. “Heroic Role-Models: Beowulf and Others. Howren. Rutherford. “The ‘Hama’ Reference in Beowulf: 1197–1201. Lines 138–40. “The Heroic Style in The Battle of Maldon. 199–212. Farrell. Jack. New Haven: Yale UP. MI: Western Michigan University P. 347–72. Bernard F. ——.” SN 46 (1974): 309–25. Irving. 995–1000. ——. 1982.. CT: Yale UP.” Sydney: ARRC. New York: Columbia UP. 1959. Ida Masters. Imelmann. S.” In A Beowulf Handbook. “Beowulf and the Swedish Dragon. ——. 1989. 1968. R. ——. ——. 2008. 1994. “Heroic Experience in the Old English Riddles. The Hero and the King: An Epic Theme. ——. Writing the Map of Anglo-Saxon England: Essays in Cultural Geography.” JEGP 38 (1939): 217– 25. “Form and Genre in Beowulf. ——. Schücking. “Aldhelm and the Comitatus-Ideal.” JEGP 99 (2000): 170–92.” Speculum 73 (1998): 338–71. 1983. Elizabeth. “The Confession of Beowulf and the Structure of Volsunga Saga. T. Richard. David R. “A Note on Beowulf 168–9. CT: Yale UP. Jensen. Edited by Robert E. Edward B.” ASE 13 (1984): 7–21. Holder. Edited by Robert T. Binghamton.” MLN 71 (1956): 317–18. “A Reconsideration of the Ingeld Passage in Beowulf. Rudolf. Holthausen. NY: SUNY P.” In The Old English Elegies: New Essays in Criticism and Research. Trübner. New Haven. und 3074 f. ——. Beowulf: A Student Edition. Edited by Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe. “History and the Heroic Ethic in Maldon. cols. Kathryn. 1997.” In Heroic Poetry in the Anglo-Saxon Period. . Edited by Donald Scragg. ——.” PhD diss. The Indeterminacy of Beowulf. “Studies in the Textual Interpretation of ‘Beowulf. ——. Kaske. Stacy S. Ruling Women: Queenship and Gender in Anglo-Saxon Literature. 2002.” MLN 75 (1960): 465–8.” In The Battle of Maldon AD 991. Stanford University.” NQ 229 (1984): 16–18. Lanham. Lowell. 81–113. Jost. “Die Christlichen Elemente im Beowulf II.s. 1950. “The Coastwarden’s Maxim in Beowulf: A Clarification. 285–310. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P.” Speculum 46 (1971): 421–31. ——. C. 1981. Die “Institutes of Polity. Kotzor.” Reprinted in An Anthology of Beowulf Criticism.” Neophil 63 (1979): 128–35.” Aevum 55 (1981): 218–28. “A Few Beowulf Notes.” Bern: Francke Verlag. 1996. Civil and Ecclesiastical. IN: U of Notre Dame P. ——. “Byrhtnoth’s Obits and Twelfth-Century Accounts of the Battle of Maldon. ——. Providence. Edited by Stanley B.” JEGP 14 (1915): 544–9. Peter A. Edited by Robert P. 269–310. “The Eotenas in Beowulf. Brian D. Joseph. Klein. F. “The Sigemund-Heremod and Hama-Hygelac Passages in Beowulf. Kiernan. “Observations on the Finn Episode. 2006.” Neophil 71 (1987): 120–8.” PMLA 74 (1959): 489–94. ——. Third edition. ——. Revised edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Kasik. Simon. Notre Dame. OR: U of Oregon Books. “The Magic Sword in Beowulf. Robert L. Kindschi. 200–6. Beowulf and the Beowulf Manuscript. Günter. ——.” In Old English Poetry: Fifteen Essays. 1963.” ASE 12 (1983): 239–75.” Folklore 89 (1978): 52–9. “The Historical Context of the Battle of Maldon. Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg. ——. Nicholson.246. Birte.’ ” In Studies in Old English Literature in Honor of Arthur G. Ernst A. 10 (1981): 1–17. Kelly. Kock. “ ‘Hygelac’ and ‘Hygd.” Anglia 42 (1918): 99–124. Das altenglische Martyrologium. “Weohstan’s Sword.” In The Battle of Maldon AD 991. 1967. “Germanic Sapientia and the Heroic Ethos of Beowulf. ——. “The Latin-Old English Glossaries in Plantin-Moretus MS 32 and British Museum MS Additional 32. Keynes. 1963. “The Formative Stages of Beowulf Scholarship: Part II. Thomas L. Greenfield. RI: Brown UP. Klaeber. Kevin. Jon C. Eugene. Kindrick. . Robert E. “Interpretations and Emendations of Early English Texts. Kahrl. Brodeur. 445–65. Karl.” Papers in Comparative Studies 2 (1982–3): 177–86. Creed. Köberl. 1991. Alan.386 bibliography Jorgensen. “Interpretations and Emendations of Early English Texts IV. 1955. Johann.” Medievalia et Humanistica n. 59–78. ——. “Using Indo-European Comparative Mythology to Solve Literary Problems: The Case of Old English Hengest. Munich: Beck. “Sapientia et Fortitudo as the Controlling Theme of Beowulf. Notre Dame. 1991. Oxford: Blackwell. Edited by Donald Scragg. “Beowulf and the Book of Enoch. “Beowulf ’s Swimming Contest with Breca: Old Norse Parallels. IN: U of Notre Dame P.” Anglia 35 (1911): 249–70. Keller. ——. “The Dragon in Beowulf Revisited. “The Use of the Term Wyrd in Beowulf and the Conversion of the AngloSaxons. 1959. Kennedy. Edited by Lewis E. “Feuds in Beowulf: A Tragic Necessity?” MP 69 (1972): 189–98. Stanley B.” MLN 16 (1901): 14–18.” Anglia 45 (1921): 105–31. MD: University Press of America.’” MP 3 (1905–6): 235–65. Boston: D. Heath. Edited by Peter S.” JEGP 76 (1977): 231–7. Edited by Martin Green. “Beowulf. 238–49. “Old English Postpositions as Residues of OV Order. “The Sword of Healfdene. Lapidge.” Reprinted in Interpretations of Beowulf: A Critical Anthology.” NQ n. “Beowulf: The Hero as Keeper of Human Polity. Larrington.” MÆ 57 (1988): 159–71. Carolyne.” In Inside Old English: Essays in Honour of Bruce Mitchell.s. Ernst. and Wessex. 220–9.” PBA 111 (2000): 61–97. “Gold und Manneswert im Beowulf. Seth. Leyerle. Aldhelm. Sezione Germanica (Naples) 16 (1973): 85–98. John M. Joyce Tally. ——. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P.” In Anniversary Papers by Colleagues and Pupils of George Lyman Kittredge. His Noble Companion and his Sister’s Son. “Beowulf the Hero and the King. Roy F. 1991. Oxford: Blackwell. Edited by Sherman M.” In Studies in Language.” In Anglo-Saxonica: Beiträge zur Vor. Norma. Lehmann. Grinda and Claus-Dieter Wetzel. Edited by Donald Scragg. ——. Roy Michael. “The Archetype of Beowulf. “Beowulf and the Tragedy of Finnsburg. Cambridge.” Anglia 71 (1953): 259–73. “Beowulf and Perception. TX: U of Texas P. Bagby Atwood and Archibald A. Munich: Wilhelm Fink. ——. ——.und Frühgeschichte der englischen Sprache und zur altenglischen Literatur. Oxford: Blackwell. Lindsay. Bloomington. . Edited by Donald Scragg.” PMLA 30 (1915): 372–431. 281–302. ——. L. 1993. 153–80. Edited by John Walmsley. 1967. Sheldon and Neilson. 1991. Sherman M. “The Interlace Structure of Beowulf. “Ælfwine’s Kinsmen and the Battle of Maldon. 359–66.” Studi Medievali third series 23 (1982): 151–92. 25 (1978): 486–7. 1993. Lendinara. “The Life of St Oswald.bibliography 387 Kroll.” MÆ 34 (1965): 89–102. Leslie. “An Aspect of Old English Poetic Diction: The Postponing of Prepositions. Literacy and Power in Anglo-Saxon Literature. 1991. the Liber monstrorum. “On Posited Omissions in the Beowulf. 1984. Edited by R. Hill. 1991.” In The Battle of Maldon AD 991. 2006. Edited by Klaus R. Liuzza. Margaret A. “Beowulf and the Life of Beowulf: A Study in Epic Structure.” In Beowulf: Basic Readings. Ann Arbor. Isidori Hispalensis Etymologiarum sive Originum Libri XX. IN: Indiana UP. A Store of Common Sense: Gnomic Theme and Style in Old Icelandic and Old English Wisdom Poetry. Lerer. Edited by E. ——. “Further Thoughts on Brand Healfdenes. MA: Harvard UP. Lionarons.” Annali. 102–23. NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson UP. Baker. “The Breca Episode in Beowulf. Oxford: Clarendon. ——. “The Men Named in the Poem.” In Studies in the Language & Poetics of Anglo-Saxon England. Kuhn. ——.” In The Battle of Maldon AD 991.” In The Old English Elegies: New Essays in Criticism and Research. 96–122. Austin. ——. Literature and Culture of the Middle Ages and Later. 1983. Winfred P. “Un’allusione ai Giganti: Versi Gnomici Exoniensi 192–200. Lawrence. Leisi. W. Michael.” ASE 29 (2000): 5–41. 146–67. 1969. “On the Dating of Beowulf. W. The Medieval Dragon: The Nature of the Beast in Germanic Literature.” JEGP 42 (1943): 82–95. Oxford: Clarendon. 1998. ——. Kuhn. 541–9. Beowulf and the Epic Tradition. “The Meaning and Structure of The Seafarer. Patrizia. ——. Locherbie-Cameron. Enfield Lock: Hisarlik P. Rutherford. 1928. W. 1995.” MP 84 (1986): 117–29. M. ——. 1929. D. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Reprinted New York: Russell and Russell. Fulk. New York: Garland. “Byrhtnoth. MI: Karoma Publishers. Edited by Professors Robinson. 51–8. McKinnell. 1977. Sandra. New York: Holt. Dublin: Four Courts P. 1980. ——. Cambridge: D.” MLN 43 (1928): 300–4. Lumiansky. Jr. 137–42. 175–85.. John C.” College English 22 (1961): 341–3. Lars. “Scyld Scefing and the Dating of Beowulf—Again. “Ealhhild. ——.’” MLR 34 (1939): 515–24. Murray F. 127–40.” MP 43 (1945): 83–5. 102–18. Edited by Helen Conrad O’Brian et al. Lord. “Interlocking Mythic Patterns in Beowulf. Low. McGalliard. Magoun. Theory. Brewer.” Parergon 9 (1991): 67–89. “Beowulf the Headstrong. Soon-Ai.” JEGP 51 (1952): 545–50. “Time and Place in the Ingeld Episode of Beowulf. ——. . W. Markland.” In Early English and Norse Studies Presented to Hugh Smith in Honour of his Sixtieth Birthday. ——.” Speculum 46 (1971): 1–20. Peter J.” ASE 1 (1972): 139–45. McNelis. ——. “The Finn Episode in Beowulf.” MÆ 65 (1996): 101–8. Louden.” Oral Tradition 11 (1996): 346–62.’” NM 91 (1990): 243–9.” Anglia 55 (1931): 266–72. “The Noble Heathen: A Theme in the Sagas. ——.” MP 27 (1930): 257–76. Edith. Honor and the Epic Hero. “Ingeld. London: Routledge. Edited by M. ——. “Hildeburg and Hengest. “Ecgtheow. Francis P. McNamee. “Notes upon the Text and the Interpretation of ‘Beowulf.” NM 86 (1985): 159–64. Lucas.388 bibliography Lönnroth. ——. ——. and Philology.” ELH 10 (1943): 257–84. Stanley.” JEGP 25 (1926): 157–72. “Hunlafing. Marold. “Das Walhallbild in den Eiríksmál und den Hákonarmál. “The Craven Comitatus. 2051. Edited by John D. Malone. ——.” SP 75 (1978): 243–70. James I. “Finn’s Stronghold. R. “The Mirthless Content of Skarpheðinn’s Grin. ——. G. Bruce.” ES 35 (1954): 193–204. J. “The Poet’s Comment in Beowulf.” PMLA 69 (1954): 1292–9. “The Beowulf Poet and his Druncne Dryhtguman. S.” BJRL 71 (1989): 7–40. “The Language of the Loner: From Splendid Isolation to ‘Individual’ in Early English Poetry?” In Text and Gloss: Studies in Insular Learning and Literature Presented to Joseph Donovan Pheifer. “Beowulf B: A Folk-Poem on Beowulf’s Death.” Anglia 54 (1930): 1–7. London: Methuen. Edited by Arthur Brown and Peter Foote.” In Old English Literature in Context. Magennis. Hugh.” MLN 32 (1917): 435–6. “The Dramatic Audience in Beowulf.” In Studies in English Language and Literature.. “On the Date of The Battle of Maldon. 1999. Kemp. “Notes on Beowulf. “Hjálmar’s Death-Song and the Delivery of Eddic Poetry.” JEGP 39 (1940): 76–92. “The Sword Mightier than the Pen? Hrothgar’s Hilt. Albert B.” Medieval Scandinavia 5 (1972): 19–33. ——. S. Audrey L. Niles. “Beowulf—An Allegory of Salvation. ——. “The Monastic Context of Old English ‘Precepts.” MÆ 44 (1975): 121–36. “A Narrative Technique in Beowulf and Homeric Epic. Toswell and E. McEntire. “A Farewell to Old English Elegy: The Case of Vainglory. Maurice B. “Coming Back from the Mere. “Beowulf and King Hygelac in the Netherlands: Lost Anglo-Saxon Verse-Stories about this Event. John. Mackie.” SS 41 (1969): 1–29. Meaney. 1996. 1960. Doubt Wisely: Papers in Honour of E.” JEGP 59 (1960): 190–207. M. “Wiðergyld of Beowulf. Gilbert W. Tyler. 1963. ——. Mead.” MLQ 1 (1940): 37–44. M. ——. Den Dubbla Scenen: Muntlig Diktning Från Eddan till ABBA. Stockholm: Prisma. 30–40. .” MLN 68 (1953): 165–9. A Guide to Old English. MI: The Medieval Institute. 3–15.” JEGP 75 (1976): 317– 29. 1941. “The Essential Paganism of Beowulf. 1890. Tauno F. María José. 26–51. “Cain’s Monstrous Progeny in Beowulf: Part I.” NM 68 (1967): 1–27. 1998. Meritt. Two volumes. 1954. J. Oxford: Blackwell. James H. Messenius. Moorman. 1988. Bruce. “1947–1987: Forty Years On. 1988. ——. Beowulf Repunctuated. Mills. ——. ——. ——.” NM 105 (2004): 187–9. . 1889. Wright et al. London: N. Lines 3074–75: The Damnation of Beowulf?” Reprinted in Bruce Mitchell on Old English: Selected Papers.” JEGP 49 (1950): 231–41. A. Line 1126a. Old English Syntax.” ASE 8 (1979): 331–3. “Byrhtnoð’s Mistake in Generalship. 1988. ’: Some Thoughts on Beowulf. ——.” Neophil 52 (1968): 292–9. 1700–5. and Susan Irvine. Oxford: Blackwell. “Literary Lapses: Six Notes on Beowulf and its Critics.” NM 67 (1966): 14–27. ——. “Self-Judgment in OE Documents. “Beowulf. Stanford. Oxford: Blackwell. Charles. “A Reassessment of Unferð’s Fratricide in Beowulf. Edited by Bruce Mitchell. et al.” ASE 4 (1975): 207–21. Arthur K. Michael S. L. “Beowulf ’s Dereliction in the Grendel Episode.” ASE 8 (1979): 143–62. Robinson. 2001. ——. Edited by Bruce Mitchell. ——.” MLQ 28 (1967): 3–18. The Poetical Dialogues of Solomon and Saturn. 2007.” Reprinted in Bruce Mitchell on Old English: Selected Papers. and Fred C. Noachic Tradition. CA: Stanford UP. “The Invention of the Old English Elegy. “The Relevance of the Finnsburh Episode. Oxford: Blackwell.bibliography 389 Mellinkoff. “‘Until the Dragon Comes . Scondia Illustrata. Moore. Menner. Toronto: U of Toronto P. 1985. and the Jutes. Beowulf: An Edition with Relevant Shorter Texts. ——. Mustanoja. ——. Beovulf: Untersuchungen über das angelsächsische Epos und die älteste Geschichte der germanischen Seevölker. Sixth edition. EETS OS 95–96. Kalamazoo.” Romanobarbarica 10 (1988–89): 283–92. 99–117. ——.” ES 76 (1995): 129–39. ——. Edited by Charles D. ——. Thomas. Müllenhoff. Mitchell. Robert J. “Some Syntactical Problems in The Wanderer. Mora.” Proceedings of the Medieval Association of the Midwest 3 (1996): 15–30. The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Ruth.” In Bruce Mitchell on Old English: Selected Papers. Old English Newsletter Subsidia 29. “Short Titles of Old English Texts: Addenda and Corrigenda. Johannes. “The Unnamed Woman’s Song of Mourning over Beowulf and the Tradition of Ritual Lamentation. Myres. “Two Syntactical Notes on Beowulf. Trübner. . D. Moore.” ES 53 (1972): 23–39. seu Chronologia de rebus Scondiae. N. Stockholm: Typis Olavi Enæi. 325–44. the Saxons. “Short Titles of Old English Texts. Karl. Edited by Bruce Mitchell. Oxford: Clarendon. “Twenty Hard Old English Words. Morey. Herbert Dean. “OE befeallen in Beowulf. “Beowulf 1020b: brand or bearn. Morgan. Bruce. Berlin: Weidmann. ——. 2000. Mezger.” PBA 56 (1972 for 1970): 145–74. New York: Modern Language Association of America. Miller. Fritz. “The Angles. Fact and Lore about Old English Words. Oxford: Blackwell. Edited by Bruce Mitchell.” In Source of Wisdom: Old English and Early Medieval Latin Studies in Honour of Thomas D. “The Treachery of Hrothulf. Nagy.. “The Fates of Men in Beowulf. Oxford: Blackwell. Gerald.” MLN 67 (1952): 106–9.” In Bruce Mitchell on Old English. 1988.” RES 43 (1992): 1–17. Hill. “What has Baldr to do with Lamech? The Lethal Shot of a Blind Man in Old Norse and Jewish Exegetical Traditions. William. Katherine. J. Gale R. E. The Origins of Beowulf and the Pre-Viking Kingdom of East Anglia.” MÆ 60 (1991): 1–15. 1996. Edited by John Miles Foley et al. “Locating Beowulf in Literary History. S. 1992. ——. 1997. ——. ——. ——. “Getting to Know the General in The Battle of Maldon. 2002. Pagan Words and Christian Meanings. Barbara and Morton W. of the Enlarged Rule of Chrodegang. Gilpcwidas. 1883. “Heroic Values and Christian Ethics. Brewer. Cambridge. 1983. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. North. “ ‘Gracious’ Hrothulf. Copenhagen: G. Olms. Owen-Crocker. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Second edition. 107–25. Danmarks Heltedigtning: En Oldtidsstudie. The Anglo-Saxon Version of the Hexameron of St. Gustav and Hans Kuhn. Cambridge: D. Brewer. A. Pride and Prodigies: Studies in the Monsters of the Beowulf-Manuscript. S. New York: Garland. L. UK: Hisarlik P.” In The Cambridge Companion to Old English Literature. ——. O’Donoghue. Palmer. “Beowulf on the Poet.” LSE n. Edda: Die Lieder des Codex Regius nebst verwandten Denkmälern. Gad. Arthur S. Skjoldungasaga i Arngrim Jonssons Udtog. D. Copenhagen. ——.” Exemplaria 5 (1993): 79–109. 1991. “Unferth: Foil to Beowulf?” PMLA 79 (1964): 370–5. Opland.” ELN 38 (2001): 1–9. Norman.s. 1962. ——. “Beowulf’s Sorhfullne Sið with Breca. 21 (1990): 13–43. “Beowulf—its Unity and Purpose. Osborn.” In De Gustibus: Essays for Alain Renoir. 1969. Axel. C. 2003. 441–55. ——.” MÆ 72 (2003): 82–107. Nelles. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. and the Gilphlæden Scop of Beowulf. EETS OS 150. Lines 702b-836: Transformations and the Limits of the Human.” Neophil 83 (1999): 299–312. Ogilvy. The Old English Version. ——.” Thoth 10 (1969): 18–35.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 23 (1981): 484–94. “Horror in Beowulf: Mutilation. Neckel. Wulfstan: Sammlung der ihm zugeschriebenen Homilien nebst Untersuchungen über ihre Echtheit. 1916.” In Early Medieval English Texts and Interpretations: Studies Presented to Donald G. 1849. N. Bloomfield. Cambridge: D.390 bibliography Napier. Jeff. “Tribal Loyalties in the Finnsburh Fragment and Episode. Reprinted Hildesheim: G.” JEGP 79 (1980): 499–516. Richard. Newton. The Haustlong of Þjóðólfr of Hvinir. Cambridge: D. A Critical Companion to Beowulf. Olrik. Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition. London: John Russell Smith. MA: Harvard UP. 81–100. 1894. with the Latin Original. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. ‘Gracious’ Hrothgar: A Reassessment. London: Oxford UP. Marijane. Tempe. 1995. Edited by Elaine Treharne and Susan Rosser. . ——. Amsterdam: Rodopi. J. “Beowulf. “In his End is his Beginning: Beowulf 2177–2199 and the Question of Unity. 1993. “Some Uses of Ambiguity in Beowulf. Middlesex. O’Loughlin. John D. ——. 1990.” MÆ 21 (1952): 1–13. Andy. ——. Basil. AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.” MS 38 (1976): 442–67. Niles. “‘Verbal Sea Charts’ and Beowulf’s Approach to Denmark. Heather. 1903. Henry W. ——. R. Heathen Gods in Old English Literature. “The Great Feud: Scriptural History and Strife in Beowulf. ——. Barton. Visible Song: Transitional Literacy in Old English Verse. Chiefly Unpublished. Edited by Malcolm Godden and Michael Lapidge. 1991. Decapitation.” PMLA 93 (1978): 973–81. S. Old English Glosses. and Unburied Dead. O’Brien O’Keeffe. Nolan. Scragg. “Bēotword. Brewer. Sam.. Berlin: Weidmann.” Annuale Mediaevale 17 (1976): 5–21. Orchard. Brodeur. S. Middle English yedding as Genre Terms. ‘Gehedde. Parks. “Old English giedd. Fulk. Texts and Manuscripts: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Culture.” NM 77 (1976): 526–35. E. M. Pulsiano. Margaret W. 349–70. “Beowulf 505. Third edition rev.’ and the Pretensions of Unferth. Edited by Arthur Brown and Peter Foote. 1889. Brewer. Ward. CSEL 13.” Bern: Francke Verlag. 150–71. Trübner. . Oxford: Clarendon. Reinhard.” ELN 10 (1973): 163–7. “Beowulf: The Mark of the Beast and the Balance of Frenzy. Edited by Stanley B. Mariann. IN: Indiana UP. EETS OS 93. Nichols & Son. “Beowulf and the Coast-guard.” Parergon 10 (1974): 1–40. 1952. Berlin: Mayer & Müller. Old English Glosses in the Épinal-Erfurt Glossary. “Gyd. 1963. ——. Geroldi Filius. T. Edited by Helmut Gneuss.2.” Anglia 23 (1901): 261–301. Pettitt. ——.” ES 47 (1966): 409–19.” Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 23 (1990): 3–13. Ranisch. Verbal Dueling in Heroic Narrative: The Homeric and Old English Traditions. 1900. and Joseph McGowan. Wilhelm. Bloomington. 1986. B. “Unausgedrücktes Subjekt im Altenglischen. Edited by Phyllis Rugg Brown et al. Leoð. Eugene. Randolph. OR: U of Oregon Books. Pogatscher.” University of Tennessee Studies in the Humanities 1 (1956): 59–63. Vienna: C. Phillpotts. 173–87.bibliography 391 Parker. Cambridge: D. Norton. D. Eight Old English Poems. 1835.” In Modes of Interpretation in Old English Literature: Essays in Honor of Stanley B. 1886. R. “Fyrd. 1–13. Here.. Mary P. Michael. Polanyi. “The Heroic Oath in Beowulf.” JEGP 92 (1993): 1–16. ——. 1992. Thomas. Renoir. 3180–3182. “Wyrd and Providence in Anglo-Saxon Thought. Raine. NJ: Princeton UP. J. “The Old English Formula in Context. Alois. Alain. E. Pheifer.” In Early English and Norse Studies Presented to Hugh Smith in Honour of his Sixtieth Birthday. Beowulf and the Dragon: Parallels and Analogues. John C. and Sang in Old English Poetry. 2001. Iohannis Cassiani Conlationes XXIIII. Plummer.” Rackham Literary Studies 8 (1977): 25–37. Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel. D. 1963. 1991. S.” Reprinted in Interpretations of Beowulf: A Critical Anthology. “ ‘The Battle of Maldon’: Some Danish Affinities. London: N.” In Words. the Chanson de Roland. Defensor’s Liber Scintillarum. Rauer. Quirk. Reprinted Oxford: Clarendon. by R. New York: W. “Beowulf ’s Moment of Decision in Heorot. E. D. “An Edition of Vainglory.” Speculum 60 (1985): 294–317. Fulk. “ ‘Danish Men’s Words Are Worse than Murder’: Viking Guile and The Battle of Maldon. Livia.” Tennessee Studies in Literature 11 (1966): 169–76. 237–66. Die Gautrekssaga in zwei Fassungen. Charles and John Earle. Christine. “Prey Tell: How Heroes Perceive Monsters in Beowulf. Cambridge: D. Pope. Princeton.” JEGP 96 (1997): 13–25. “Poetic Language and Old English Meter. 2000. ——. 1976. Richards. 1974. Riedinger. S. Toronto: U of Toronto P. Karl. “A Reexamination of Beowulf ll. Greenfield. Rhodes. Miscellanea Biographica.” MLR 24 (1929): 172–90. 1990. Fulk. D. Brewer. and the Niebelungenlied. W. B.” In Studies in Old English Literature in Honor of Arthur G. Pearce. Phillip. W. “Lexical Coherence Phenomena in Beowulf’s Debate with Unferth. and R. Reichl. Pepperdene. London: J. T. Anita. London: Methuen. Greenfield. Edited by R. James. On the Semantic Relevance of the Alliterative Collocations in “Beowulf. Petschenig. Pickford. and the Dating of Beowulf. Edited by Larry D. Roberts. 1993. 1982. Århammar. W. 1982. D. Samuel M. ——. Edited by Howard Creed.. Robinson. Benson and Siegfried Wenzel.‘Very’ and Unferth. Jane. “The Doctrine of Charity in Mediaeval Literary Gardens: A Topical Approach Through Symbolism and Allegory. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. “A Further Word on dollīcra in Beowulf 2646. “Why is Grendel’s Not Greeting the Gifstol a Wræc Micel?” In Words. Leicester: Leicester UP. ——. ——.” RES 17 (1966): 171–4. Ryan.” ES 61 (1980): 289–92.” In Myth in Early Northwest Europe. Oxford: Blackwell. R. Munich: Wilhelm Fink. W. Robinson.” In An Anthology of Beowulf Criticism. Knoxville: U of Tennessee P. Russom.” In The Wisdom of Poetry. Glosecki. 20–35. Nicholson. Notre Dame.” In The Tomb of Beowulf and Other Essays on Old English. 122–37. The Tomb of Beowulf. 2007. Rosier. Edited by N. Grinda and Claus-Dieter Wetzel.” In Miscellanea Frisica. 43–8. Cambridge: D. ——. Beowulf and the Appositive Style. MI: Medieval Institute Publications. “Personal Names in Medieval Narrative and the Name of Unferth in Beowulf. Rollason. 1993. 257–62. Birmingham. IN: U of Notre Dame P. Oxford: Blackwell. Texts and Manuscripts: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Culture Presented to Helmut Gneuss on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Oxford: Clarendon.” In Essays in Honor of Richebourg Galliard McWilliams. “Textual Notes on Beowulf. Robinson. Fred C. The Guthlac Poems of the Exeter Book. “The Significance of Names in Old English Literature. . “Finnsburg—A Critical Approach. ——.” In To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Edited by Klaus R. “Design for Treachery: The Unferth Intrigue.” In Anglo-Saxonica: Beiträge zur Vor. S. Edited by Fred C. AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies. Edited by Stephen O. Tempe. 1963. 349–56. Kalamazoo. 1979. 200–8. James L. Edited by Fred C. S. 1992.” ANQ 6 (1993): 11–13. ——. Lines 10ff. D. “God. “Sigemund’s fæhðe ond fyrena: Beowulf 879a. “The Language of Paganism in Beowulf: A Response to an IllOmened Essay. ——. J. ——. “Old English Un. Edited by Terttu Nevalainen and Leena Kahlas-Tarkka. AL: Birmingham-Southern College. 1993.” Folklore 74 (1963): 460–80.” Anglia 86 (1968): 14–58.” PMLA 77 (1962): 1–7. Death and Loyalty in The Battle of Maldon. “At the Center of Beowulf. “ ‘Instructions for Christians’: A Poem in Old English. 1985. 165–88.392 bibliography Riley. ——. 1997. ——. ——. ——. ——. “Elements of the Marvellous in the Characterization of Beowulf: A Reconsideration of the Textual Evidence. Oxford: Blackwell.und Frühgeschichte der englischen Sprache und zur altenglischen Literatur. Geoffrey R.” Journal of Narrative Technique 10 (1980): 186–97. “Some Aspects of the Maldon Poet’s Artistry. ——.” Anglia 82 (1964): 4–22.” Reprinted in The Tomb of Beowulf and Other Essays on Old English. Edited by Fred C. Oxford: Blackwell. “A Germanic Concept of Nobility in The Gifts of Men and Beowulf. The Mildrith Legend: A Study in Early Medieval Hagiography in England. Russchen. 225–40. “Othin in England: Evidence from the Poetry for a Cult of Woden in Anglo-Saxon England.” Multilingua 18 (1999): 173–83. “The Unhlitm of Finn and Hengest.” Speculum 53 (1978): 1–15. 1993. 1–11 and 261–4. 1993..” In The Tomb of Beowulf and Other Essays on Old English. Edited by Lewis E. “The Contrast between Beowulf and Hygelac. Robinson. Brewer. Edited by Michael Korhammer et al. “Understanding an Old English Wisdom Verse: Maxims II. A. 105–21. 1984. Jr. 107–12. ——. ——. Robertson. Assen: Van Gorcum. 1970. London: Routledge. “Exchanging Battle: Subjective and Objective Conflicts in The Battle of Maldon. Classe 47 (1895): 175–92.” ASE 12 (1983): 1–41.” BGDSL 42 (1917): 347–410. Levin L. Sisam. Edited by Henk Aertsen and Rolf H. Edited by Lewis E. “The Burial Mound in Guthlac A. Shakespeare. “The Wanderer and The Seafarer as Wisdom Poetry. Literary Tradition: A Symposium. Lawrence K. Notre Dame. 1972. 1965. 1910. London: Oxford UP. Eduard. ——. 1994.” Names 28 (1980): 101–11. 1992. S. “Miscellen: I. “Unferth: Another Look at the Emendation. ——. Gregor. 28–46. Superbia: Studien zum altenglischen Wortschatz. 1964. “Beowulf ’s Fight with the Dragon. Oxford: Clarendon. Juli 1895” [also known as “Beowulf und Saxo”]. Sarrazin. “Sitzung vom 6. G. Shook. 16 (1985): 220–39. Edited by Hans Bekker-Nielsen et al.” ES 87 (2006): 266–76. William. “The Language on the Giant’s Sword-Hilt in Beowulf. EETS OS 300. Sedgefield.Prefix: A Means of Germanic Irony in Beowulf.” MP 57 (1960): 217–22. “Maxims in Old English Narrative: Literary Art or Traditional Wisdom?” In Oral Tradition. D.” In An Anthology of Beowulf Criticism.-hist. Sievers. Schlauch. “The Deserted Chamber: An Unnoticed Topos in the ‘Father’s Lament’ of Beowulf. Schrader. Cambridge: D. Sinclair et al.” Medieval Perspectives 13 (1998): 136–48. ——. “Principles of Conversation in Beowulfian Speech. Beowulf. 1899. Thomas A.. 9 (1958): 129–40. Sims-Williams.” MP 58 (1960): 1–10. Shuman. Brewer. ——.s. Rolf Krake und sein Vetter im Beowulfliede. Hans. John W. 145–58.” NM 94 (1993): 141–7. W. “The un. The Structure of Beowulf.” Journal of the Rocky Mountain Medieval and Renaissance Association 5 (1984): 1–5. IN: U of Notre Dame P. 1888. Schabram. “The Settlement of England in Bede and the Chronicle. “Rhetoric as Prowess in the Unferth Episode. R. Schwetman.. Bremmer. Walter John. Amsterdam: VU UP. Edited by T. Patricia. Schücking. Patrick. 2001. Oxford: Clarendon. Craik. Phil.” PMLA 46 (1931): 969–87. Zweifel und Fragen. Silber. Beowulf-Studien. ——. The Vercelli Homilies and Related Texts. ——. 1977..” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 23 (1981): 471–83. London: Hutchinson. ——. “Beowulf ’s Return: The Hero’s Account of his Adventures Among the Danes.” Englische Studien 24 (1898): 144–5. 109–26. Munich: Wilhelm Fink. and Some Other Analogues. Manchester: Manchester UP. 1993. ——. Berlin: Mayer and Müller. “The Ideal of Kingship in Beowulf. “Wann entstand der Beowulf? Glossen. 35–49.” MLN 53 (1938): 501–3. “Boar and Badger: An Old English Heroic Antithesis?” LSE n. Old English Verse. London: Thomson Learning. “A Note on Beowulf 1142. Charles Hutchings II.bibliography 393 Ryner. George.s. Jr. Kenneth. Margaret. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der königlichen sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. ——. ——.” In Companion to Old English Poetry.” RES n. ——.” In Techniques of Description: Spoken and Written Discourse. Nicholson. Shippey. Richard J. Edited by John M. Baird and H. King Henry V. Scragg. . 1976. King Alfred’s Old English Version of Boethius: De Consolatione Philosophiae. 1965. Víthförull. Bradley D. “Wīdsīth. Sanderlin. Poems of Wisdom and Learning. Odense: Odense UP. ” Reprinted in A Collection of Papers with Emphasis on Old English Literature. ——.” NQ n. If Not More.” Nottingham Medieval Studies 14 (1970): 3–26. Edited by Eric Gerald Stanley. “Old English Poetic Diction and the Interpretation of The Wanderer.394 bibliography ——. “Courtliness and Courtesy in Beowulf and Elsewhere in English Medieval Literature.” Reprinted in A Collection of Papers with Emphasis on Old English Literature. Oxford: Clarendon. Stanley.” NQ 233 (1988): 292–4. 1998. 318–35. CA: U of California P. ——. Edited by Eric G.” Reprinted in A Collection of Papers with Emphasis on Old English Literature. 51–63. Robinson. G. Edited by Eric G. Jr.” Reprinted in A Collection of Papers with Emphasis on Old English Literature. Edited by Eric G. V. 170–91.” In Studies in Old English Literature in Honor of Arthur G. 1987.. Stryker.” In Old English Poetry: Essays on Style.” unpublished PhD diss. 1953. “The Narrative Art of Beowulf. “The Battle of Maldon and the Popular Tradition: Some Rhymed Formulas. Berkeley. Oxford: Clarendon. ——. “‘Hengestes heap’. ——. Cyril L. 1904. 1987. Steadman. ——. “Five Notes on Old English Texts. “The Ingeld Episode in Beowulf: History or Prophecy?” MLN 45 (1930): 522–5. “The Latin-Old English Glossary in MS Cotton Cleoptara A.III. Stanford U.” PMLA 70 (1955): 1133–42. William Garlington. ——. 1987. Toronto: PIMS. Toronto: U of Toronto P. EETS 76. Stanley. Smithers. Walter W.” English and Germanic Studies 4 (1951–2): 65–85. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. 1963. OR: U of Oregon Books.” MÆ 28 (1959). 1881. 1987. “The Meaning of Old English Corþer. 139–69. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. Edited by Eric G. Elizabeth S. 67–103. Corþor. 67–90. Sklar. Eugene. Baker and Nicholas Howe. . ——. 1951. Eric G. Stuhmiller. “The Meaning of Eorlscipe in Beowulf. “Two Old English Poetic Phrases Insufficiently Understood for Literary Criticism: ðing gehegan and seonoþ gehegan. Sutherland. “On the Identity of the Eotenas. Edited by Daniel G. “The Significance of Hygelac’s Raid. Asser’s Life of King Alfred. The Seafarer and The Penitent’s Prayer. London: Oxford UP.’” In A Collection of Papers with Emphasis on Old English Literature. Edited by Stanley B. 234–80.. ——. Vol. Storms. Beowulf 1091. ——. Winter. Stanley. Calder. J. “Hæþenra Hyht in Beowulf. 1990. 52 (2005): 267–81. Stanley. ——. “Beowulf. Stanley. 171–86. M. “Geoweorþa: ‘Once Held in High Esteem. Ælfric’s Lives of Saints.” NM 100 (1999): 7–14.” In Britain 400–600: Language and History. “Notes on Old English Poetry. Skeat. Edited by Peter S. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. Heidelberg: C. 192–208. Studies in the History of Old English Literature. William Henry. 99–104.s. Jacqueline. Edited by Alfred Bammesberger and Alfred Wollmann. Greenfield. G.” Traditio 15 (1959): 163–204. ——. 1987. “The Subjectivity of the Style of Beowulf. Raymond Carter. 1. Stevenson. Brodeur. “Ælfric and the Early Medieval Homiliary.” LSE 20 (1989): 319–44. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.” In Words and Works: Studies in Medieval English Language and Literature in Honour of Fred C.” PQ 54 (1975): 409–18. “Beowulf: Lordlessness in Ancient Times is the Theme as Much as the Glory of Kings. Smetana. “The Meaning of The Seafarer and The Wanderer: Appendix. 1979. ——. John F. R. J. Valentine. ——. Toswell and E.” NM 82 (1981): 357–9. “Searoniðas: Old Norse Magic and Old English Verse. Tripp. “Caesarius. Turville-Petre. Crisis and Development in Germanic Society 700–800: Beowulf and the Burden of Kingship. ——. Tangl.” In Studies in English Philology: A Miscellany in Honor of Frederick Klaeber. “Did Beowulf have an ‘Inglorious Youth’?” SN 61 (1989): 129–43. 1983. Sixteenth edition. Edited by Karl Bosl. London: George Allen & Unwin. von Schaubert. P. Jr. Heyne-Schückings Beowulf. Brennu-Njáls Saga. Reykjavík: Hið Íslenzka Fornritafélag. Providence. . Doubt Wisely: Papers in Honour of E. 167–78. Sweet. “Beowulf. 1875 and 2006: In Defense of the Manuscript. Thomas.” Essays and Studies n. 1983. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.s. 493–507.” In Old English Poetry: Fifteen Essays. 1946–9. “Lifting the Curse on Beowulf. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann. London: N. “Hengest and His Namesake. Edited by Robert P. 5–48. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.” ASE 6 (1977): 91–103. Paul Beekman.” Mediaeval Studies 35 (1973): 1–26. 1982. Trahern. Tolkien. and the Old English Vainglory. Toswell.” In Geardagum 16 (1995): 49–60. G.” Archiv 143 (1991): 90–9. Woodbridge: Boydell.” In J. Taylor. David C. 1975. 1929. A. ——. E. 2000. Trübner.” In Studies in English Language and Literature.” SBVS 14 (1953–57): 273–90. “Beowulf ’s Family: Lexicography and Commodity. Gold-Luck.” In Gesellschaft. Swanton. King Alfred’s West-Saxon Version of Gregory’s Pastoral Care. Stanley. ——. Jr. M. Edited by Alan Bliss. Edited by Christopher Tolkien. 6 (1953): 1–18 at pp. Göppingen: Kümmerle Verlag. R. ——. John. Old English Heroic Poetry. Einar Ó. Seiichi. 1967.” MP 71 (1974): 295–300.” SP 99 (2002): 356–79. 1983. More About the Fight with the Dragon. Edited by M. RI: Brown UP. ——. 159–71. Virginia. Kultur. “On the Eorð-Compounds in the Old English Finn-Stories. J. Van Meter. ——. Edited by Kemp Malone and Martin Ruud. Tolkien: The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays. “Themes of Death in Beowulf. 1978. Two vols. EETS OS 50. “Tacitus. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.. Raymond P. Die Briefe des Heiligen Bonifatius und Lullus. ——. J. London: Routledge. “The Ritualized Presentation of Weapons and the Ideology of Nobility in Beowulf. J. MD: U P of America. Michael. “Hengest and Horsa. G. Michael J. Finn and Hengest: The Fragment and the Episode. Paul E.” JEGP 67 (1968): 441–50. MGH Epistolae Selectae I. “Vercelli Homily XX.” SP 80 (1983): 109–25. The Quoit Brooch Style and Anglo-Saxon Settlement: A Casting and Recasting of Cultural Identity Symbols. Schöningh. Lanham. “Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics.’ ” MLR 8 (1913): 537–9. “The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm’s Son. “The Narrative Structure of Hengest’s Revenge in Beowulf. von Rüden. M. Henry.” JEGP 95 (1996): 175–89. 249–74. 1954. Wlanc und Derivate im Alt. “Offa’s The Battle of Maldon. Tyler. Chrodegang. Joseph B. “ ‘Beowulf ’ and ‘Daniel A. Szarmach.und Mittelenglischen. ——. Van Hamel. Literatur: Rezeption und Originalität im Wachsen einer Europäischen Literatur und Geistigkeit. ——. “The Battle of Maldon: A Literary Caveat. 13–18. Vickrey. Paderborn: F.. “Egesan ne gymeð and the Crime of Heremod. Else.” The Explicator 44 (1986): 5–7. 1955. Michael. R.bibliography 395 Suzuki. “Beowulf 1130. and Ethnographic Preconceptions. 1996. Sveinsson. and God’s Will.” ELN 23 (1985): 1–8. “Fathers and Sons: Dynastic Decay in Beowulf. R. Berlin: Weidmann.” SN 65 (1993): 19–27. Tanke. ——. 1871–2. Creed. Rudolph.” Anglo-Saxon Poetry: Essays in Appreciation for John C. Oxford: Clarendon P. Fritz. Neil.” SP 72 (1975): 140–66. Patrick.” Mediaeval Studies 36 (1974): 434–71. Willard. Whitesell. Charles D. Wright. “Die Datierung des Beowulf: Bemerkungen zur jüngsten Forschungentwicklung. “The Ideal of Men Dying with their Lord in the Germania and in The Battle of Maldon.” Anglia 103 (1985): 371–400. “Vercelli Homily XI and its Sources.” Speculum 24 (1949): 76–87. R. Claus-Dieter.” MÆ 8 (1939): 198–204.” ASE 5 (1976): 63–81. Wormald.. Ruth. “Four Text-Notes on Deor. G. A. Whitbread. 204–7. L.s. J. ——. Toronto: U of Toronto P. Robin. Über die nachgestellten Präpositionen im Angelsächsichen. Edited by Lewis E. 1924. ——. Dorothy. Wentersdorf. Hannover: Bibliopolius Hahnianus. Wetzel. MGH Scriptores rerum germanicarum. 1915. Halliwell. ——. 1971. Waugh. T. “The Liber Monstrorum and Beowulf. “Manna Mildost: Moses and Beowulf. David. S. Oxford: Clarendon.” NM 101 (2000): 51–7. Karl P. 15 (1998): 1–17. 1910. “Beowulf ’s Adventure with Breca. ——. 1975. Pauli Historia Langobardorum. Cain and Beowulf: A Study in Secular Allegory. 2004.” Journal of Narrative Technique 25 (1995): 202–22. Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar.” In Approaches to Style and Discourse in English. Berlin: Mayer & Müller.” CL 49 (1997): 289–315. Wright. “Final Words on Beowulf 1020b: Brand Healfdenes.” MLN 15 (1900): 95–101. Ommo. Osaka: Osaka UP. Whitelock. Edited by Risto Hiltunen and Shinichiro Watanabe. 192–207. ‘Beowulf ’: The Nationality of Ecgðeow. “Intentional Ambiguities in Beowulf. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Wilts. Edwin. and J. Francis A.396 bibliography Waitz. The Audience of Beowulf. “Textual Significance of the Sentences in the Form of þæt wæs god cyning in Old English Poems. ‘Beowulf ’ and the Conversion of the Anglo-Saxon Aristocracy. “Bede. Bern. “Literacy. Farrell. 1878. Edith. ——. “Competitive Narrators in the Homecoming Scene of Beowulf. Cambridge: D. McGalliard. Julius. Early Germanic Kingship in England and on the Continent. “Anglo-Saxon Poetry and the Historian” TRHS 4th ser. Wende. “ ‘Seeds of Sorrow’: Landscapes of Despair in The Wanderer. “The Wanderer. 31 (1949): 75–94. The Historia Regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth: I. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Zupitza. O.” Pacific Coast Philology 23 (1988): 86–93.” ASE 25 (1996): 7–19. Notre Dame. 135–64. “Etymologies. M. 1978. Beowulf’s Story of Hrethel and Sonnatorrek.” Tennessee Studies in Literature 11 (1966): 145–9. IN: U of Notre Dame P. Wood. G. Wallace-Hadrill. J. Brewer. Edited by Robert T. Wardale. Royal Power. A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic. “Die Friesen im Beowulf—Rezeption und epische Grundlage. Rosemary. and King-Poet Relations in Old English and Old Norse Compositions. The Finn Episode in Beowulf: An Essay in Interpretation. Burgerbibliothek. . Williams. Wright. ——. and the Genre of Planctus. Wieland.” Parergon n. Williams. Wehlau. 568. 1982. Hideki. Gernot. Woolf. Oxford: Clarendon. 1985. London: British Archaeological Reports. Geir T. 32–90. MS. The Seafarer. “The Blood of Abel and the Branches of Sin: Genesis A.” In Bede and Anglo-Saxon England: Papers in Honour of the 1300th Anniversary of the Birth of Bede. 1951. Reliquiae Antiquae. Oxford: William Pickering. Maxims I.” MLN 55 (1940).” MLR 24 (1929): 322. 1841–3. Zoëga. and Aldhelm’s Carmen de uirginitate.” Nordfriesisches Jahrbuch 15 (1979): 131–44. 1880. Nicholson et al. “Beowulf 2444–2471. Watanabe. INDEX OF PASSAGES CITED FROM OLD ENGLISH VERSE TEXTS Cited by verse line(s): page reference(s). Andreas 307–14: 14 note 53 317–20: 197 note 57 516: 189 note 30 613–14: 72 note 40 1003: 109 note 163 1136: 195 1381: 78 note 47 1427–8: 70 note 36 1619: 72 note 40 Battle of Maldon 2–3: 326 6: 326 17–21: 326 18: 326 19: 326 30: 325 31–3: 326 33: 325 34: 326 36–7: 326 79: 366 86–8: 338 89–90: 328 90: 338 94–5: 331 note 66. 332 149–58: 343 note 110 169: 324 173–9: 341 179–80: 341 181: 345 185: 345 186–7: 345 192–3: 345 note 113 205–6: 367 207–8: 321 212–15: 344 220–3: 161 224: 343 237–42: 345 247–8: 321 249–51: 161 257: 321 278–9: 321 312–13: 344 Beowulf 6: 212 8: 211 14: 66. 76 341: 24 348: 15 366–7: 15 349: 15 350: 15 379–81: 29 388–9: 205 . 102 311: 217 note 102 331: 24 338–9: 17. 244 178: 212 184–5: 107 note 158 196: 29 204: 282 216: 82 250: 101 251: 232 267–82: 105–6 276–7: 212 278: 130 280–5: 106 287–91: 100. 292 15–16: 66 20–4: 44 50–2: 220 58: 196 61: 147 note 31 64–5: 211 105: 18 113–15: 190 note 31 118: 87 note 74 120–5: 190 142: 18 144: 18 168–9: 80 170: 80. 24. 154. 75 462: 75 478–9: 114 note 175 480: 109 480–3: 132 503–5: 108 507: 124 508: 24. 132 958–60: 189 996: 284 1014–19: 148 1017–18: 150 1018–19: 150 1020: 137 note 3 1055–7: 86 1064: 137 1065: 139–40 1066–7: 139 1068: 139. 162 1104–6: 156. 177 1130: 167. 110 532: 113 note 174 537: 115 539: 115. 267 583–6: 115 587: 127 588: 77. 125 513–15: 125 note 213 517: 126 520–3: 114 523–4: 126 526–7: 95. 175 1106: 232 1107–8: 154 1125–7: 158 1127–33: 167 1128–9: 167 1129: 168. 355 946–9: 178 951–3: 45. 152 note 46 1069: 137 1071–2: 152 1073–4: 137 note 4 1076: 137 note 4 1080–1: 153 1082–3: 152 1086: 157 1087–8: 165 1089–94: 154 1095: 143. 192. 98 530–1: 109. 164 1096: 143 note 18 1096–7: 156 1098–1101: 156 1099: 157 1102: 152 1102–3: 153. 68 879: 65 882: 68 883–4: 62 885: 65 888–9: 69 889: 65 894–5: 70 895: 65 898–902: 73 902: 164 902–4: 72 903: 45 904–5: 70 907–8: 70. 41 508–12: 114 509: 41 511: 114 512: 41. cont’d.398 index of passages cited from old english verse texts Beowulf. 106 589: 98 609–10: 115 629: 196 679–80: 83 680: 41 685–7: 332 721: 18 736–8: 83 738: 189 770: 18 783–8: 212 801–5: 83 807–8: 72 note 40 826: 85 868–9: 61 870–1: 61 note 3 876: 65. 232 910–12: 115 911: 232 915: 210 942–6: 178. 168 note 114 1137–8: 158 . 420–1: 95 421: 71 421–2: 95 423: 71 424–32: 82 429: 73 note 41 434: 95 note 124 457: 112 459–61: 17. 125 540–1: 115 542–3: 113 note 174 572–3: 29. 288 1207–8: 217 1220: 172 1231: 148 note 34 1233–5: 151 1259: 171 note 128 1260: 212 1264: 194 1275: 18 1278: 114 note 177 1282–4: 29 1292–6: 258 1304: 184 note 10 1305: 164 note 96 1307: 196 1325–6: 147 1330: 235 1343: 195 1352: 18 1384–5: 267 1429: 114 note 177 1456: 87 note 75 1467: 109 1470–1: 130 1485: 284 1489: 16. 219 1748: 210 1749: 199. 71. 230 1713–14: 67. 232 399 . 361 1703: 188 1704: 112 1705–6: 188 1709: 233 1709–24: 181 1711–12: 71 note 39. 124 1167–8: 127 1180–2: 149 1184–5: 147 1184–7: 149 1185–7: 150 1198: 143 note 19. 208–9 1730–3: 197 1735–8: 198 1739: 214 1740: 193 1741–2: 199 1744: 210 1747: 203. 196 1719–20: 67. 71 note 39 1715: 194 1716–17: 194 1718–19: 194. 218 1764: 192 1769–73: 199 note 60 1772–3: 218 1773–4: 199 1781: 284 1807–12: 234 1826–35: 235–6 1827: 212.index of passages cited from old english verse texts Beowulf. 194. 189. 192 1693–4: 184 1694–8: 183 1698: 181 1700–3: 355. 98 1490–1: 333 1558: 192 1562: 192 1564: 196 1657–8: 193 1661–3: 193 1688–93: 183 1689: 190 1691: 188 1691–2: 184 1691–3: 186. 195–6 1721–2: 195 1722–4: 62 1724–7: 188 note 28 1724–34: 223 1724–57: 197. 211 1750–2: 211 1755–7: 288 1758–60: 257 1759: 213 1760: 203. cont’d. 235 1842–3: 233 1866: 171 1926–7: 228 1929–31: 229 1931–2: 229 1933–4: 230. 217 1199–1200: 217 1200–1: 214 1202–7: 24 note 74 1206: 24. 52. 1137–9: 169–70 1140–1: 170 1145: 172 1146: 152 1146–50: 159 1147: 152 1150–1: 170 1155: 165 1159–60: 140 1165–6: 87 note 75 1166: 91. 265 2236: 293 2243: 266 2256: 266 2262–3: 266 2265–6: 72 note 40 2267–8: 266 2273: 251 2278: 212 2281–2: 250 2288: 251 2290: 297 2294–5: 251 2305–6: 251 2314–15: 249 2322–3: 251 2329–31: 255 2331: 256 2335–6: 254 2337: 73 note 41 2337–41: 257 2345: 51 2345–51: 254 2349: 255 2354–99: 260 2379–84: 16 2391: 172 2397–8: 255 note 52 2403–4: 213 2404: 279–80 2419–23: 258 2435–67: 259–60 2444–62: 201 2450–9: 266 2472–8: 272 note 89 2472–83: 272 note 89 2475–6: 272 note 89 2478: 271 2484–5: 271 2488–9: 171 note 128 2489: 271 2490–3: 273 2490–2509: 271 2509: 279 2511–12: 255 2511–14: 52 2512–14: 285 2514–15: 257 2518–21: 302 2524–5: 296 2526–7: 332 2527–8: 255 2529–35: 268 2532–5: 268 2535–6: 279 2554–5: 251 2581: 196 2589–90: 336 2598–9: 274 note 94 2599–2601: 276 2625–7: 264 2638: 268 . 144 note 21 2034: 144 note 21 2036: 144 note 21 2037: 144 2040: 144 2042: 145. 293 2231–70: 74. 292 1972: 73 note 41 2025: 145 note 24 2032: 111. cont’d. 232 2069: 143 note 18 2076–80: 234 2080 : 234–5 2082: 235 2093: 212 2093–4: 235 2105: 140 2105–14: 141 2108: 140 2113: 171 note 125 2119: 114 note 177 2152–4: 179 2152–7: 236 2155: 137 note 3 2158–62: 236 2166–9: 238 2180: 196 2181: 238 2183–9: 20 2194: 174–5 2196–9: 238 note 150 2221–4: 250 2223: 264 note 80. 1938: 232 1939: 232 1940: 230 1950–1: 232 1951–3: 232 1961: 233. 171 note 128 2047: 112 2053: 145 2054: 144 note 21 2056: 146 2059: 144 note 21 2063: 143 2065–6: 143.400 index of passages cited from old english verse texts Beowulf. 372 3181–2: 364 3182: 179 Christ A 363: 204 Christ B 485: 194 756–65: 204 768: 204 770: 205 779: 197. 336 2684–6: 302 2736: 212 2736–9: 155 2738: 288 2743–51: 279 2747–9: 282 2749: 284 2764–6: 280 2766: 51 2780: 212 2794–2800: 286 2796: 284 2833: 24 2842–5: 279 2848–9: 274 2850–1: 274 2863: 273 2869–70: 273 2873: 268 2878–9: 276 2879: 344 2884–90: 289 note 143 2890–1: 267. 289 3154–5: 212 3155: 342 3167–8: 287 3179: 319 3180–2: 36. cont’d. 295 3067: 51. 301 3058–60: 286 3059: 171. 2639: 246 2640: 268 2642–4: 268 2642–6: 244 2650: 212 2650–2: 273 2653–6: 273 2656–9: 275. 354. 81. 288 3069: 155. 295 3069–73: 294 3070: 293 3071–3: 294 3072: 295 3073: 298 3074–5: 281 3077–8: 50. 243–4 3078: 278 3083: 246 3085: 244 3110: 264 3121: 319 3126: 168 3152–5: 190.index of passages cited from old english verse texts Beowulf. 305 note 176 2907: 264 2910–13: 289 note 143 2922–7: 272 note 89 2926–7: 271 2937: 71 2999–3000: 289 3019: 289 3028–30: 290 3051: 293 note 153 3053–7: 297. 250 3060–1: 283 3066: 283. 204 833–6: 212 Christ C 1267: 195 1627: 225 Christ and Satan 119–24: 78 186: 78 Daniel 19: 225 22–4: 225 23: 256 25: 224 29–30: 224 32: 224 53: 222 56: 223 96: 222 100: 222 102–3: 222 106–7: 223 110–15: 223 161: 222 401 . cont’d. 256 209: 223 240: 170. 222 24–5: 16. 269. 276 1673–8: 276 1675–8: 269 1939–41: 216 2237–43: 229 note 129 2240: 229 2341: 369 2565: 190 Genesis B note 47 note 106 note 106 note 158 272: 328 276–7: 328 293: 196 296: 196 . 217 30: 197 note 58 31–4: 188 note 28 40: 197 note 58 Edgar (A-S Chronicle poem) 1–2: 224 note 121 Elene 386–93: 78 431–2: 219 560: 219 561–2: 219 855–6: 107 144: 211 211–13: 71 529–30: 216 532–3: 203 note 71 18–19: 211 24: 216 30: 216 36–7: 78 44: 216 47: 211 56: 195 81: 195 878–9: 70 note 36 979–81: 77 1026–7: 71 1033: 77 1051: 77 1097: 77 1523–8: 190 1673: 24. 75 32: 165 Fortunes of Men 16: 194 26: 72 note 40 51–7: 110 80–1: 92 Genesis A 71 Death of Edward 16–21: 74 note 42 Deor 21–7: 67 note 29 22–3: 217 24–5: 71. Exodus 185–7: 225 187: 226.402 index of passages cited from old english verse texts Daniel. 258 241: 223 268: 222 297: 222 299: 225 note 449: 222 488–91: 270 489: 203 note 494: 222 528: 222 565–6: 223 589–91: 226 605: 222 609: 225 611: 225 650–1: 225 668: 223 677: 203 note 684: 226 686: 226 694: 226 713: 211 note 57 Finnsburg Fragment 123 71. 256 18–21: 202 27–30: 270 Paris Psalter 54. 196 note 51 142.34–38: 219 note 107 Order of the World 3: 218 13: 202.2: 196 note 51 118. 219 67–8: 219 68–70: 219 78–82: 216 81–2: 216 86–7: 32 90: 112 93–4: 219 403 .11: 202 note 70 Precepts 17–18: 112 30–1: 112 34: 109 45–51: 99 47: 213 48: 98 54–6: 32.23: 196 note 51 58.60: 211 138: 20. 200 57–8: 96 note 126.index of passages cited from old english verse texts Gifts of Men 18–26: 198 26: 221 41: 176 note 140 Guðlac A 32: 256 34: 256 52–5: 96 56–9: 96 60–1: 96 109–10: 79 127–32: 206 167–9: 206 179–80: 369 note 30 180–1: 369 note 31 186: 206 note 75 208: 24 386–9: 270 809: 213 Guðlac B 991–2: 107 note 158 Instructions for Christians 130: 329 Judgment Day I 14: 211 16–17: 211 Juliana 16: 194 225–88: 205 351: 78 438: 72 note 40 483–90: 111 Kentish Psalm 52: 218 note 105 152–4: 213 Maxims I 4: 91 29–30: 332 note 73 37: 112 58–9: 37 60–1: 205 144–5: 112 146–7: 112 172–3: 74 192–200: 190 Maxims II 18: 218 note 105 23–9: 175 note 136 61–2: 218 note 105. 332 note 73 Menologium 125: 195 Meters of Boethius 1.22–25: 153 note 48 9. 95. 93–4 68: 199 Widsið 25: 114 27: 138 29: 137 note 4 33: 217 note 100 45–9: 147 note 32 65: 188 122: 217 124: 143 note 19 128–9: 216–17 129–30: 217 Wife’s Lament 1: 62 note 5 5: 74 note 42 10: 74 note 42 38: 74 note 42 . 97 23–7: 205 24–5: 97. 210 37–8: 206 40–1: 110 41: 110 43: 79.404 index of passages cited from old english verse texts Riddle 5 (3) 1–6: 362 Rune Poem 1–3: 34 Seafarer 68–71: 198 109–12: 99 111–12: 31. 203 44–9: 107 48: 79 49: 79 52–6: 107 55: 79 57–66: 79 58: 79 61: 79 Waldere A 8–11: 370 A 12–22: 368 A 18: 369 A 19: 369 A 21: 369 B 25–6: 202 note 70 Wanderer 64–5: 361 65–72: 31. 269 Solomon and Saturn 225–9: 193 388–90: 201 440–1: 202 Vainglory 1: 98 8: 197 14–15: 96 16–18: 171 18–19: 110 19–20: 96 21–22: 96 22–3: 97 23: 79. 205 26–7: 111 28–9: 79 28–31: 97 31: 79 33–4: 78 33–44: 238 34–5: 197 35: 197. 268 ceas. 80 ellendæd 65 ende 197 endelean 226 engel 7 eorl 14. 263–4. AND COLLOCATIONS DISCUSSED abreotan 194 note 48 “agen dom” 65 note 23 ahlænan 107 aldorbana ¤ ealdorbana aldorcearu ¤ ealdorcearu alicgan + on 174 alwalda 6 ana 194. 85 ealdormonn 55. 99 deaðcwalu 190 dēlen (ME) 96 dol 245 dolgilp 114 note 175 dollic 245 dolsceaða 114 note 175 dom 13 don + on 174 dreamleas 225 drincan (druncen) 109 dryht 35 dryhtbearn 144 dryhten 6. 195 bealunið 213. 218. 246 æfter 159 æfþonc(a). AFFIXES. 14. 163–6. 81 fæðelas 89 (ge)feran 188–9 ferhþ 196 flett 157 . 172 eotenisc 163 note 90 eotonweard. 324 eaxlgestealla 67 “ece drihten” 5 “ece ræd” 182. 225 “an dom” 65 note 23 “anes willan” 51. 288 ellen 23. 257 benemnan 155 beodgeneat 67 betera 188 “gebiged” 107 blodreow 196 bolgenmod 194. ceast 154 note 54 cempa 13. 324 note 39 eorlscipe 268–9 “eorðan dreamas” 224 Eote 163 eoten 65 note 23. 38 “dalum gedæled” 96. 223 breosthord 196 breotan 194 byre 145. 152. 214. 319 note 29 cwiðan 141 cyning 14. 319 “eafoð ond ellen” 63 “eal unhlitme” 168–9 “ealde riht” 256 ealdgesegen 61 note 3 ealdorbana 77 ealdorcearu 70. 256 ecg 172 ecghete 198 edwenden 33 egesa 212. 224–5. 220. 262 note 71. 14 *dugan 98 duguð 35. 72 note 40. 243. 211. 145 corþer 96. 42. eotenweard 163 note 90 est 283–4 fah (fag) 27 fæge 33 fægen 94 note 120 “fæhðe ond fyrene” 64–5.INDEX OF OLD ENGLISH WORDS. æfþanc(a) ælmihtig 6 ænlic 231–2 ætsteall 369 ætwitan 161 æþeling 13 111 -bealu 157 note 67. 332 note 73. gist 27. & collocations discussed flitan 154 flitm 154 flod 192 note 44 folcræden 176 forht 94 forlacan 72 note 40 forsendan 72 note 40 “forð forlacan” 72 note 40 forðgesceaft 218 note 105. 356 forþringan 153 frasian 226 freca 14 frecne 189 fremde 188. 188. 79. 115 (ge)gangan 279 note 105 gæst. 230. . 181. 231. 139–41. 283 note 121 “geatisc meowle” 289–90 geoguð 319 gidd 38. affixes. 192 gist. 194–5. . 225. 210–11 fyrenlice 368 fyrenþearf 66. 276 metod 6 milde 355 note 15 missan (OIcel missa) 259 note 59 mod 23 modsefa 15 modþryðo 229 mondream 42. 171 . 65. 245 mearc 369 gemet 99 “gemet monnes” 269. 101–2 hraful 212 hremig 145 heðer 210 hrinan 297 *hwatu 283. 50. 228 hold 43. 259 note 62 morþ(or)bealu 157 gemot 170 (ge)munan 145. 225 frioðuwær 155 frofor 35 fyren 59.406 index of old english words.” 332 “god ælmihtig” 5 *goldhwatu 282–3 gramhydig 211 gretan 80 note 52 guma 14 gumstol 233 gyman 218 hæftmece 98 hælend 7 hæle 13 hæleð 13 hæðen 7 handbana 235 heafodmæg 77 hean 20 heaþodeor 142 gehedan 108 gehegan 108 heofon 342 heorðgeneat 46 higeþrym 205 note 74 higian 280 hildedeor 141 hleotan 168 note 112 hliet 168 note 112 hnah 132. 269 monwise 216 note 97 morþor 157. 158 glæd 149 gladian 145 gligmonn 88 gneað 228 god 6 “god ana wat . 201 lacan 72 note 40 landræden 176 langung 225 lemman 70 note 33 leodbealu 195. 266 gigant 163 note 90. 27. 61–2. 179 lytegian 338–42 mæl 369 mænan 161 mæst (micel) 244 note 20. 158 “geare cunne” 93 gearwor 282. 290 note 148 hyran 116 inne 170–1 inwitsorh 197. 232 lifcearu 70 note 33 lifgesceaft 233 lof 13 lofgeorn 1 note 2 lofgeornost 1. 241 monn 14. gæst 27. 244 weorðmynd 211 wic 246–7 wiga 14 wilgesið 44. 70–1. 51. 258. 59. 110. 69. 171 note 127 sund 124–5 swiðferhð 908 nefa 65 nefne. 181–227 ofermod 54. 269 gesið 14. 38. affixes. 23. 188. 87–92 ræd 216 rædfæst 202. 205 unheanlice 356 “unhlitme” ¤ “eal unhlitme” unræd 216 unriht 224 unsnyttru 197 waldend. 173 oferhigian 280 oferhogian 254 oferhycgan 254 oferhygd 36. . 40. 225. 144 “on bearm” 175 “on feonda geweald” 72 note 40. 212 wær 78 wea 71 wealaf 152 “wean on wenum” 71 weorc. 205 note 74. 82 willa 30. 54. 244 wilsið 82 winburg 96 note 126 wlenco 17.156 note 64. 92 note 110 scyld 197 searo. wealdend 6 warnung 201–2 wæfre 170. 225 reon 125 ricsian (rixian) 247 riht 202 note 70 rixian ¤ ricsian sawol 210 scadan 156 note 65 gescead (witan) 102–5 (ge)sceawian 282–3 scond 88 scop 4. 124. 43.” (poetic formula) (ge)þearfian 153 þeccan 113 þegn 14 ðeod 162 þeodbealu 195 ðeodenlease 162 þeodscipe 216 “ðing gehegan” 82 note 58 þrym 205 note 74 þurhteon 173 þyle 15. 29. 181. 271. 181. 37. 33. 367 .index of old english words. 40. 35 snottor 218 snyttru 31. nemne 281 note 111 nergend 7 “ne to forht ne to fægen” 94–5 tæcan 326 to 127 “to fægen” 200 torngemot 170. . wræc 195 note 49. 270 wælfag 168 wælfus 258 note 56 wælfyll 189–90. 49. 49. 328–30 oferswiðan 218 ofþyncan 111. 218 sorhcearu 196 “sorhfullne sið” 114. 189 sorhwylm 45 spelboda 87 spell 61 starian 284 gestealla 35 184 unearh 367 “unflitme” 154 unfrom 20 “ungemedemad” 97 note 134. 358 wlonc 24. 214 note 91 searonið 288 “selfes dome” 65 note 23 sinræden 176 sið 14 note 54. & collocations discussed 407 muðbona 234 myndgian 145. 337 note 90 onhohsnian 233 onwendan 276 note 100 openian 297–8 ordbana 77 “þæt wæs . affixes. 15–18. 33 yrhðu 327. 38.408 index of old english words. & collocations discussed wong 298 note 162 wordsnottor 88 “worda ond worca” 102 “wordum wrixlan” 61 note 4 woroldræden 176 wræc ¤ weorc “wræc adreogan” 51 wræcmæcg 15 wræcsið 17 wrecan 16 wrecca 12. 32. 339 . 25. 21–2. 65 wrixlan 61 note 4 wyrd 6. ) 210 discretio 96 discerno 96 exprobro 161 note 80 extermino 194 note 48 gigas 163.) 23. 190 note 31.) 13 histrio 89 imperfectum 20 insectatio 154 note 54 iocista 88 ioculator 88 luxuria 209 mimus 88 musicus 88 nepos 65 orator 87 pantomimus 88 paradeigma (Gk. 191 heros (Gk.INDEX OF LATIN AND GREEK WORDS AND COLLOCATIONS DISCUSSED ainos (Gk.) 39–40 parasitus 88 prodigus 1 note 2 rhetorica 87 ridiculosus 88 ridiculus 88 scurra 88 “subtilis inpostor” superbia 181–2 88 thymos (Gk.) 39 apatheia (Gk) 199 ate. 209–10 beneficium 67 cantor 88 cot(h)urnus 329 daimon (Gk. Ate (Gk.) 57. 209–10 tolerabilior 67 note 26 . INDEX OF OLD ICELANDIC TERMS DISCUSSED deila níð 117 níðingverk 96 þula 91 þulr 89–91 fimbulþulr hvöt jarl ofrausn 91 290 324 mannjafnaðr 117 missa 259 note 59 muna 171 note 128 77 note 46 323 senna 117 note 181 skap 92 note 110 skapdeildarmaðr 97 skauð 118 note 187 . 163. 340–3. 37–42. 146. 226–7. 98. 329 Beow 44. 4 note 15. 53. 6. 362. 230. 39–40. 294 note 155. 182. 100. 189 note 30. 146. of Mercia) 207–9 Babel (tower) 24. 226. 275. Old English version (Ælfric) 331 Abel 190 Achilles (Iliad) 22. 26. boasting 40–1. . drunkenness 32. Christian language 5. 4. 372. 116. 293–5. Eanmund and Eadgils 15–16. 241. 264. 135–80. 357. 292 Beowulf (Christian) allegory 9. 351. 231. 182. 251–3. 264–5 Andreas 14 note 53. revenge 321. 325. of Grettir 19. 142. 284. OE Ætla) 217 augury 90. 225 Baldr and Höðr 259 Battle of Maldon 54. 362. 263. 77. 283–8. analogues 19. 58. 259–67. 351–2. 224 note 120. 195. 22–8. audience 2. 311–49. 311–12. 264. 68. 93. 80. anachronism 5. 295 Bede (the Venerable) 15. analogues 311. 7. 291–2. 308–9. 197 note 57 angels 188. contrapuntalism 358–9. 311. 51. 161. 41. Prosa de uirginitate 74 note 42. 328. Breca 35. 324. 109 note 163. 124. Christian allegory 311–12. 230. 3–6.) 104. 341. dragon 50–3. 358. 57. 138. 182. 85. 365. community 6. 260 note 66. coast-warden 61. 346. 256. 3. Vikings 321 Beasts of Battle 290. 295 note 157. 354 Aldhelm (of Malmesbury) 2 note 6. 301. 88 note 81. 116–23. 21. of gidd 38–40. 353. 60–1. 223. 354 Belshazzar 36. 85. Epistola ad Heahfridum 88. 146–51. 105 note 155. 305. 131. 132–3. dragon fight 24. 10. 221. 362–3. 361–2. 291. 353 Ælfric (of Eynsham) 103. 257. Historia Gothorum) 316 Ajax (Iliad) 39 Alcuin (of York) 10. 243. 11. 69. 255. 12–13. Dæghrefn 34. 231. 332. 191. Abbo (of Fleury) Passio s. 46. date 2. 78 note 47. 106. Æschere 29. 311. 87 note 76. 210. 178–80. 87 note 77. 83. 48. 16. 305–9. 259. Christianity 332. 361 Æþelred (k. 85. 308 Augustine (St. 132–3. 227. 57. 14 note 53. 249–50. 75. Christianity vs. 49. 299. 234. 38. 343 note 110. 341. 109. 155. 26. 336–7 Altus Prosator 191 ambiguity 1. 21 analogy (intradiegetic) 186. 76. 132. retainers 322. theme 347. 126. 302–3. 251–2. 267. 110–11. 72 note 40. 100–6. digressions 18. 95. 190. 359. 83. paganism 1. 114–15. 66. 291. 71. 211. fall of 79. 252 note 42. ofermod 311. 75. 356.GENERAL INDEX NOTE: Old Icelandic words are alphabetized as Old English. 189. 42. 272. 184. lytegian crux 338–42. 70 note 36. 331. 154 note 54. 126. 354. 364. 272–3. 343–6. 95. Eadmundi 295 note 157. 133. 77. 2. 239. 149. of England) 324 Æþilwald (k. 247–55. 6. 195. 237. 73 note 41. 46. 303. 328–40. Cain 3–4. 291 Arnórr Þorðarson 322–3 Asser Vita Alfredi Regis 207 note 78 Atlakviða 340 Attila (the Hun. 258. 231. 49–50. 169. 57 Aethicus Ister (Cosmographia) 64 note 18 Agathias (continuation of Procopius. 238. 273. 202 note 70. 10. 320. 112. 62. 113–15. 203. 137–9. 239. 300. 361. 258. De metris 89 Alexander the Great 11–12. 259. 333–6. 143 note 19. Carmen de uirginitate 88. 277–81. 89. Ecgþeow 17. 331 Æschere 29. 124. 183–4. Byrhtnoð 54–5. 366. 42. Heorot 17. 20. 246. 239. 45. 178–9. 250. 85. 217. 182. 40–1. 359. 157 note 67. 48–9. intradiegesis 260–7. 218. 76. 188. 275. 35. 181. 235. 45. 351. 49. 75. Heaþolaf 17. 271. 67. slave 250. 365. 255. 305. 3. 359. 214–16. 86–7. monstrosity 11 note 46. 332. Heremod 18. 40–1. 364. 264. 192. 356–7. 44. 18. 19. Hama 143 note 19. choice 54–6. 47. 296. 273. 179–80. 114–15. 227. Ravenswood (battle) 271–2. 360. Wiglaf 5 note 18. 89. 197. 214. 3. 21. 239. heroism 2. 111. 242. 114 note 177. 75. 42. 35. Feminist criticism 371. 59. 228. 255–6. 17–18. 142–3. 353. 57. 361. 79. 364. 95. irony 6. 358–60. 81. 242. 61–6. 27. 220. 57. 332. 260. 62. “gomela ceorl” digression 201. 301–2. 25. 52. Grendel’s mother 29. 227. 130. names 2 note 6. Heaðobard digression 142–6. Wulfgar 15–17. Swedish-Geatish Wars 65 note 21. 45. 39. 364–5. 248. motivation 1–2. 305. 340. 297. 343. 239–41. 364. 285. 247–8. 289–90. 148–9. 151–63. 203. 25. 210. 182. 95. 363. 205. meter 1. 326. 172. Hengest 16. 26. 359. 34. 132. Grendel 6. 234. 80. 44. 227. 86. 246. 28–9. 50–1. 241–2. Wealhþeow 132. 238. 234. Onela 15–16. 38. 75. 291. 112. 148. 68. 8–9. 50. 151. 150. 37. polysemy 6–7. 151. 232. 252. 46. 37. 274. 216. 30. 147. 225. 196. 166–7. 273. 12–14 note 53. Healgamen 92 note 110. 361. conscience 257–8. 213. 47–8. 228–35. 127–8. 37. 300–1. 242. 81. Eofor 271. 53. 235 Beowulf age 292. thief 250. 133. 53. 82 note 59. 241. 255–7. 311. 363. 273–4. 78 note 48. 365. 75. 75. 293. 36. 128. 214. 234. 365. 292. 19. 370–2. 155. structure 48. 302. 29. 266–7. 264–5. 292. 70–3. 39–40. 76–7. 210. 270. exceptionality 18. 347. 332. 34. 44. “Last Survivor” 74. Ohthere 16 note 58. 193. Freawaru 142. 111–12. 98. 61. historical setting 2 note 6. Hunlafing 172–3. 222. 98. 267. 83–4. 54. 82–4. cultural background 10. 56. 111. 23. 363. 355. lordship 16. 144. 246. Sigemund-Heremod digression 59. 175–6. Hunferð 15–17. 156 note 65. Finnsburh digression 38–9. 239. homecoming 227–8. 228. 182. scribal composition 2 note 5. 346–7. 115. 34. 210. 42. Geats 8. 57. 178. death 240. 77. 285. Weohstan 292. 225–6. 264. Ongenðeow 65 note 21. 42. 224. 272. arrogance 10. liminality 34. Hroðgar’s “sermon” 38. 266. 137. thematic unity 8. 193. 361. 130. 178–9. 360. 48. 175–7. 18. 151. 255. 268. 293. 172–4. 189. 5. 145. 373. 243. 252–5. 257. 236. 69. 180. 62. 314. 364. . 278. 75. 66. 226. 194. 173. Hroðgar’s heir 132. genre 1. 277. 139–40. 240. 59. 291. 133. 65 note 21. 133. 236–7. Sigemund 18. 292. 49. 23. 39. 194. 17–18. Hrunting (sword) 98. 260. 292. 49. 271. Hroðgar 4–5. Herebeald 128. 17. 260–7. 107–116. 188. 272. 239. 238. 272. 98. 35. 260 note 66. 282. 371–2. Fremu 39–40. 323. 146. 6–8.412 general index 360. 115. 288. 35. 241. 92. 203. 292. 194. 164. Herebeald-Hæðcyn digression 259–61. 41. 357. 150. 142. Hondscioh 41. 355. Hæðcyn 71. 227. 77. education 228. 145. 85. 218. 319. 356. 19. 333–4. 25. 48. 38–9. 221. 181–221. 181. 319. 39. origin 2–3. 18. Hreðel 17 note 59. 148. Scyld Scefing 211–12. 263–4. kingship 2. 29. 302. 12. 254–5. 273. 73. 49. 237. 73 note 41. orality 2. Offa-Fremu digression 228–33. Frisian Raid 8. 106. 25. 157. 69. 248. 214. 71. 18. 324. 290–1. Wylfings 17. 49. 285. 76. 147–50. 247. lack of heir 292. 137. 272. 291. 305. 109–9. 264. 290–1. 140 note 12. 165. 255. Eomer 292. Hygelac 2 note 6. 255. 361. of the Angles) 39. 45. 177. 355. 323. 135–80. 196. 264. 271. 49. 135–6. 83. 285. 252. 329–30. 305. Offa I (k. Nægling 300. 297. exchange 16. 73. 100–1. 351. 59. 80. manuscript 2. 221. 86. 365. 231. 371 221. 281. Hunferð digression 86–100. 24. Hygd 39. 10. 239–41. “inglorious youth” 19–20. Hroþulf 132. 66. 51–3. 305. 343 note 110 Deor 45. pride 333. 124 Daniel 182. 340–2 Cain 3–4. 354. 283. 83. 182. Wilfridi) 295 note 157. recklessness 13. 264. 113–14. 277–8. 126 Book of Enoch (apocryphal) 190 note 34 booty sacrifice 288 note 140 Boniface 207–9. 362. 305. 331. 328. 252. 361–2. 11. 75. Lucifer) 3. 314. 269. 187. 291. 273. 62. 155. 31–2. 241. 204. 126. 110–11. 48. 234. 368 Bragi (Hákonarmál) 63 Breca 35. 21. 34–5. 253. 131. and Battle of Maldon 311. 313 Egbert (k. 284. 301. 340. 246. 29. 178. his maxim 101–6 comitatus ¤ warband conscience 210. 222. 61 Cosmographia (Aethicus Ister) 64 note 18 creation story 4 Crucifixion 301 curse 22. 184. 255. animal 249–50. 6. 100. 291–2 Ecgþeow 17. 132. 368. 301. 75. 320. 357 Dicts of Cato 177 digressions 18. 249–50. 114–15. 212. 312. 41. 311. 362. 57. 190–1. 35. 71. 372. 269. 101. 257. 78–9. 83. 23. 83. 14 note 53. 8–9. 178. 83. 260 note 66. 222–3. 301. 124. 323. 356. 203 note 72. 162.general index Nægling 300. 133. 231 Devil (cf. 259–67. ambiguity 334. 78. 69. 37–42. 331. 113–15. 124. 165. 51. 293–304. 191. virtue 4–5. 51. 341 drápur 54 Dream of the Rood 363 drunkenness 32. barrow 293–4. 100. 372–3. 93. of Kent) 260 note 63 . 267. 46. 58–9. 220. age 324. devil’s darts 197–213. 239. 263. 291. kingship 114 Brosinga mene 217 Byrhtnoð 54–5. 98. 73–4. 55. 193. generalship 328 note 52. 185. cup 250. 47 bible 107. treasure 277–81. 133. 281. ambiguity of 53. 257–8. 329. 324. 42. 366–7. 66. 291. date 221. 80. 77. 126. 85. 143 note 19. 53. 49. 230. 24. 254. 244. 133. 292. 302–3. 37. 237–8. storyteller 258–67. 242. 77. 343. 29.) 11 coast-warden 61. 346. 29 dragon fight 24. pride 24. 299 note 169 Bjarkamál 147 note 30. 211. 257–8. 357–8. 106. 48. 214 note 91. 358 divination ¤ augury draconitas 50. 318. 290–2. 360 Eddius Stephanus (Vita S. 291 Deor (poet) 67 note 29. 112. 285–8. 333. 75. 32. 29. 95. 76. 250 dragon 50–3. 354 Cursive Minuscule 3 Cynewulf (A-S poet) 204 Cynewulf and Cyneheard (A-S Chronicle) 67 note 29. 221–7. 329. 304–5. 255. 71. 214–16. 26. 95. 365. 360 Beowulf and the Appositive Style (Robinson) 5–8. potential wrecca 18. 352–3. 52. 182. 57–8. 287. 352–3 Christopher (St. 272–3. 54. 247–54. 372 Danegeld 327 Danes 68. 288. 305. piety 4. 251–2. 347. 41. 60. 38. 190–1. 73 note 41. sacrifice 258. Eanmund’s sword 292 Eadgils 15–16. sacrificial death 312. 192 note 41. 279. 341. 222. 135–80. 238. sentient 250–1. 253. 251. 40–1. 95. 342 413 Consolatio philosophiae (Old English) 256 contrapuntalism 26. 294. 243. 190. 20. 357 Cassian Collationes 191 Chanson de Roland ¤ Song of Roland chansons de geste 315 choice 54–6. 328–40. 224 note 120 duguð ¤ warband Eanmund 15–16. 26. 335–6. conscience 342. 257. 313 boasting 40–1. 208. 189. 202. 182. 370–2 Christianity 182. ofermod 311. 302–3. 278. 266–7. 43. 25. 109. 359. structure 226 Dante (Alighieri) 166 Dæghrefn 34. rank 311. 48. 216–17. 250. 145. 23. 250. 185. 365. 185. 284–8. 139–44. 71. 214. 176 note 140 glosses 87–8. 248–52 excess ¤ immoderation exchange 16. 298–99. 90. 291. 203. 47 Glastonbury 217 note 102 glory 19. 70. 67. 45. 20. 273 Eomer 292 Ermanaric (OE Eormenric. 76. 240. 303. 224. 218. 75–7. 70. 283. 25. summary 139 Finnsburg Fragment 16. OIcel Erminrekr) 45. 86. 193–4. 344 Exeter Book 74 exile 16. 236–7. 209. 194. 194. 58. 303. 197. 288 Finnsburh digression 38–9. 254–5 Grettir’s Saga 11. 235. 44–5. 178–9. 182. 372 glossaries 88. 107. 71. 95. 44. 183. 29. 312–14. sword 6 Grendel’s mother 29. 217. 218. 172. 174–5. 223. 81. 67 note 29. 237. 41. 305 greed (heroic) 67. 17–18. 274. 304. 248. 199. 187. 46. 162. 280. 242. 203. 253. 252–5. 136. 244. 358–9 gift-giving ¤ exchange Gildas (Sapiens) De excidio Brittaniae 168–9 Gíslis Saga 122 Glámr (Grettir’s Saga) 12. 247–8. 292 friendship 111–12. 370. 46 . 194. 192. 133. 278. 40. 218. 257 Franks 34 fratricide 67. 288–9. 57. 347. 44. 90–1. 349. 146–51. 246. 233. 90 generosity 35. 273–4. 86. 332. 54. 31 Fáfnismál 91 Fagrskinna 63 note 16 fame ¤ glory Fatalism 28–9. 33. 119–20. 19–21. 188. 137. Erminrekr 214–15 erfidrápur 289 erfikvæði 290 Ericus “Disertus” 117. 40–1. 284. 94. 191. 257 fate 9. 259. Sinfjötli 65. 25. 268. 190. 213. 47. 260 note 66. 73. 153. 142. 91 note 106 Geats (tribe. 355. 336. 155. 185. 22. 323. 225–6. 82–4. 150. 287 Genesis 12. 328. 40. 45. 182. (tyrants of Genesis) 12. 36. 147. 144 Fremu 39–40. 273. 78. 365 father(hood) 32 Felix Vita S. 68. 352 Gesta Danorum (Saxo Grammaticus) ¤ Historia Danorum (Saxo Grammaticus) giants 6. 52. 79. 185 Genesis A 182 Geoffrey (of Monmouth) Historia regum Brittaniae 169 Germania (Tacitus) 42–3. 356. 300–1. non-biblical 192 flyting 26. 128 Flood (biblical) 3. 154 note 54. 184–6. 191. 220. 312 Fitela (OIcel Sinfjötli) 59. 365. 201. 98–9. 301. 70 note 32. Scandinavian 22. 18–19. 154 note 54. 228–35. 84 note 67. 78. 74. 146. Guthlaci 88 note 87 feud 6. 102–4. 92 note 115. 235. 252. 79. 214. 272. 133. 293 genealogies 66. 14 note 53. 165. 146. 237. 12. 67. 116–28 folk-tale 84 folly 14 note 53. 144. 54. 266. 49. 184. 69. 165. 184–6. 351. 65 note 21. 157. 6. 89. extermination of 49. 90. 148–9. 329 God (god) 48. 355. 95. 44. 36. 232 note 140. 232 note 140. 128 note 226 Fürstenspiegel 238 Gautreks Saga 22. 295 “gomela ceorl” (digression) 201. 135–80. 43. 333. 241–2. 60–1. 260–7. 242. 191. 65 note 20. 47–8. 27. 112. 322.414 general index Eiriksmál (Eyvindr Finnson “Skáldaspillir”) 63–4 elegy 93 Eofor 271. 127–8 Freawaru 142. 41. 199. 106. 359. 196. 34. 320. 17. 200 erlebte Rede 192 evil (Evil) 32. in Maldon 325. 70. 365. 61–2. 70. 193. 60. 203. 75. 332–3. 289–90. 181. 243–6. 71. nation) 8. 319. 33. 304 Gregory (the Great) Cura pastoralis 354 Grendel 6. 163 gidd 38–41. 188–90. 38–9. 39. 174–5 Hunlafing 172–3. 290–1. 151 Herebeald-Hæðcyn digression 259–61. 264 Hrunting (sword) 98. 47. 147. 98. 57. 77. 312. 93. 317 hell 106–7. 175–7. 172–4. 57. 109. 16. 359. 122. 238. 248. 319. 62. 356. 271 Healgamen (name of Hroðgar’s scop) 92 note 110. 70–3. Germanic (definition of ) 13. 163. 21. 188. 194. 163 Heorot 17 Heptateuch (Old English) Deuteronomy 104 note 153 Hercules 11 Herebeald 128. 255. 59. 208. 151–62. 138. 363. 48. Hermóðr 63. 57. 342 Hondscioh 41. 206. 304 note 173 Guðlac 15. 239. Old English translation 104 Historia Gothorum (Agathias. 38 note 89. 210. 35. 178–9. 364. 95. 111. 151. continuation of Procopius) 316 Historia Langobardorum (Paulus Diaconus) 321 Hnæf 75 homilies 24. 37. 139–40. 69. diplomacy 45. 218. 95. 19–21. 364. 53. 217. 202 note 70. 373 implicature 115 Indeterminacy of Beowulf (Köberl) 26. 364 Hunlaf 172 note 129. 334–5. 240. 55 . 114–15. 78. 363 Hreðel 17 note 59. 222. 53. 133. 270. 80. 97. 128. 37. 218. 49. 78 note 48. 255. 163. 89. 203. 200. 260 note 66. 79 note 50. 83–4. 239. 175–6 hvöt 290 Hygd 39. 173. 371. counselor to Beowulf 30. kin-killing 61. 263–4. 246. 237. 278. 19. 181. 36–7. 24. 59. 24. 224. 333–4. 40–1. 36. 77. 214. 32–4. 361. 73 note 41. 17–18. Heimir 215 Hárbarðsljóð 117. 193. 26. 71. 114. 225–6. 267. 285. 227. 71. 82 note 59. age 247. 177. 157 note 67. 90. 135–6. 364 immoderation 13. 357 Hyndluljóð 63 Iliad 16. 365 Hildebrandslied 214 note 86 Hildeburh (Finnsburh digression) 136 Historia Brittonum (“Nennius”) 138. 210. 130 Hunferð digression 86–100. 368–70. 196. 45. 264 Hroðgar 4. passivity 5. jealousy 108–9. etymology of name 87. 165–6 Hávamál 31 note 83. 39. 49. 49. 148. 227. 236. 221. 234. 180. 19. 181–221. 153 note 48. 200 415 Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (Bede) 15. 292. 18. 31. 110 note 165. 130 Humblus (Historia Danorum) 67 humility ¤ moderation Hunferð 15–17. 105. 107–116. 142–3. 209–10. Frisian Raid 8. 38. 210–11 Guðrúnarqviða II 97 Hafliði (Grettir’s Saga) 20 Hákonarmál 63–4. 355. 192. 106. 237. 127–8. 255–6. 112 Hæðcyn 71. 83. summary 142 Heaþolaf 17 Heimskringla 120 Helgaqviða Hiörvarðzsonar 96 Heliand (Old Saxon) 65 note 21. 361. meaning of name 66 Hero. 132. 168 Historia Danorum (Saxo Grammaticus) 66–7. 46–7. 329–30. 203. 255. 243. 291. 64. 260. 59. 255. 232. 234. 360. 86. 264–5. 216. nationality 158. 119 Haustlöng (Þjóðólfr of Hvínir) 63. 49. 373 Hroþulf 132. 288. 257. 73. 57. 39–40. 57. 50. 160. 365 Heaðobard digression 142–6. 227. 235. 75. 305 Heremod (OIcel Hermóðr) 18. 365. 75. adoption of Beowulf 137. 228 Hygelac 2 note 6. 166–7. 289 Hama (OIcel Heimir) 143 note 19. 115. 164. 228. 360. 77 note 76. 215 note 96. 52. 35.general index Grettir (Ásmundarson) 11–12. “sermon” 38. 273. “morale officer” 92. 45. 231. 164. 193. 47–8. 272. 197. 225 Hengest 16. 142. 340 Niles. 281. 11. 324. 166 Liber scintillarum 90 Liber Vitae Dunelmensis (of Durham) 2 note 6 liminality 16–18. 238. 49. 170. 190. 367–8 Lokasenna 110 note 165. 322. 276. 288. 353. 356–7. 162. 206. 246. 262–4 leadership ¤ lordship Leyerle. 76. 69. 351. 259–60. 79 magic 295. 77. 220. 329 “Nennius” (Historia Brittonum) 138. 25. 100. 196–213. 178. 55–6. 23. 218. 42. 79. 60. 162–6 Kaluza’s Law 3 Kent 163 kingship 16. 76. 92 Maxims II 92 Meleager (Iliad ) 39–40 memory 219–20. 224. 93–4. historical (eighth-century) 351–5. 51. 268. 259. 220–1. 240–1. 168 Nero (emperor) 219 note 107. 222–6. 127. 181. 195. 104–6. 351. 42. 158. 267–9. 72. John D. 360. 338. 273. 291. 85. 117. humility 60. 42–4. 250. 194. 131. 45–50. 183 note 4. 109–10. 120. 371. 120. 326. 114. 152. 246. 120 murder 71 note 39. 10. 218. (Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition) 241–3. 85. 191. 327. 217. 36. 278. 18. 343 Lang feðgatal 147 note 30 “Last Survivor” 74. 45. 121–3 Norna-Gests Þáttr 91–2 Nowell Codex 11 oath 139. 145. 166. 77 loyalty 43–4. 269. 106. 192. 364. 118 Loki 118–19 lordship 16. 125. 81. 90. Augustinian 353. 336. 12–13. 244 note 19. 266. 182. 86. 275. 362. 285. 202 note 70. 257. 159. 220. Anglo-Saxon 138 Mildryð (St. 313–24. 343. 192. 148. 346–7. 40. 60. 101. 239. 128. 216 note 98 moderation 30–2. 330 . 198. 122–3. 246. 372 Liber Eliensis 330 Liber monstrorum 2 note 6. 219 Modþryð(o) ¤ Fremu morality 2–3. 76. 30. 352. 34. 49. 157. 351. 188. 323 Oddrúnargráttr 97 Odysseus (Iliad ) 39 Odyssey 14 note 53 oferhygd (complex) 36–7. 239–40. 367 mercenary (warrior) 14. 254–9. 197. 44. 276. 52. discerning morality 103. 255. 277–8. 46. 242. 48. 58. 360 Nimrod (the Hunter) 191 Njál’s Saga 4 note 15. 154–8. 102–3. 302 Nebuchadnezzar 36. 23. 116. 66. 358. 250 note 55 Niebelungenlied 311. 267–7. 263 Nægling (sword) 300. 364. 274. 292. sacral 352 kinship 74. 209. 162 Migration. 304 Magnússona Saga 119–20 Maldon ¤ Battle of Maldon martyrdom 308 maxims ¤ wisdom literature Maxims I 90. 163. 293 law 256. 292. 347 Lucifer 66. 60. 182. 43. 227. 77 note 46. 227. in Old Icelandic sources 90 note 101. 304–5.416 general index intemperance ¤ immoderation Israel 222 iudicium dei 332 iudicium particulare 341 Iugurtha (Orosius) 67 note 29 Jutes 39. 155. 303–5. 353 Lother(us) (Historia Danorum) 66–7. 97. 98. 225. 132. 123. 7–8. 271 “Men Dying with their Lord” (Ideal of ) ¤ “Men Willing to Die for their Lord in Vengeance” “Men Willing to Die for their Lord in Vengeance” 54. 200. 148. reticence 20. 294. 313 note 12. 306–7. 322. 291. 107. 99–100. 46. 249 note 34. 174.) 260 note 63 mind 30. 213. 160. 35. 65 note 23. 365. 135. John (“Beowulf the Hero and the King”) 240. 60. 69. 289 note 143. 180. 122. 211. 372–3 ofermod 311. 31–2. 100. 285. 77. 197. 271. 371 “Precarious Peace” 142. 294 note 154. 285. 74. 150 Precepts 32. 133. 73. of Northumbria) 67 note 29 Oswine (k. 69. 364–5. 35–7. 277–8. vita) 252 Sallust 315–16 Sapientia et Fortitudo 9 Satan ¤ Devil Saxo (Grammaticus) 66–7. 271 Order of the World 225 Orosius (Historia adversus paganos) 67 note 29. 16–17 note 59 reticence ¤ moderation 417 revenge 135–6. William (Henry V ) 323–4 Sigebryht (A-S Chronicle) 67 note 29 Sigeferþ (Finnsburg Fragment) 75 Sigemund (OIcel Sigmundr) 18. 200. 255. 338 Riddle 42 (Exeter Book) 186 Riddle 59 (Exeter Book) 186 note 20 Riddles (Old English) 186. 98. 277. 178–9 Scyld Scefing 211–12. of Deira) 15 Óðinn Eddic verse 119–20. Sigmundr 63 Sigemund-Heremod digression 59. 29. 39. of the Angles) 39. of Mercia) 229. 194. 137. 356. 101 place-names 2 note 6 politics 35–7. 44–5. 235. 39. 181. 361. 175–6. 161–2. þulr 91. 76. 315 saint’s life (cf. 106 providence 33. 362–3 Riming Poem 217 note 102 risk 24. 48. 355 Seafarer 60. 128. 315 Skáldskaparmál 165 . 237. 47–48 queenship 9. 220. 146. 367 Offa I (k. 46–7. 291 Ongenðeow 65 note 21. 147. 54. 41. 346. 7 note 28. Old English version 336–7 Örvar-Odds Saga 118 Osred (I. 80. 182. 273. 61–6. 260 note 66. 49 Offa-Fremu digression 228–33 Ohthere 16 note 58 Old English Martyrology 72 note 40. 60. 355–6. 370 sin 32. 186 Ruodlieb 353 Ruthwell Cross 203 note 71 sagas (Icelandic) 4. 320–2. 289. 183–4. 292. 189. 57 Paulus Diaconus (Historia Langobardorum) 321 Peleus (Iliad) 16 Philip (the Presbyter) 191 Phoenix (Iliad) 16. 164. 333. 239. 265–6. 34. 150–1. 100. 233–4. 28–30. 29. 246. 291. 78. 226. 220. 182. 134. 105. 165–6. 222. 351–2. 305 Onela 15–16. 303. 40. 148. 11–12. 200 Scondia Illustrata (Messenius) 164 scop (poet) 59. 60. 48. 167. Gautreks Saga 22. 158. 71. 353. 118–23. 194. 109. 352–3. 44. 150. 74. 245 pride 24. 222. 67. 220. 91 note 106. 19–22. 67. 85. 262–3. 328. 192. 86. 226. 147. 75. inscription on sword 182–4. 56. 59. 50. 70 Shakespeare.general index Offa (k. 92. 328 Rök Stone 166 Ruin 217 note 102 Rule of Chrodegang 104 Rune Poem 196 note 52 runes 6. 75. 78. 225. 94. Eadmundi (Abbo of Fleury) 295 note 157 Patroclus (Iliad) 16. 357 self-judgment 65. 44. magical bonds 295. 252. k. 151. 372–3 prophecy ¤ augury “proverbiousness” 93. 169–72. in A-S England 64 Sigeric (archbishop of Canterbury) 327 Siggeir 65. 77 note 46. 128 Sigurðardrápa 63 Signý 65. 216. 39 piracy 75. 204. 191. 373 Sinfötli ¤ Fitela Skaldic verse 289. 242. 75. 203 note 72. 210. 90–1. wisdom literature 90 paganism (Germanic) 354 paleography 281 note 111 Panther 252 Passio s. 292. 51. 180. 228–34 Ragnarsdrápa 63 Ravenswood (battle) 271–2 reciprocity ¤ exchange recklessness ¤ immoderation Reginsmál 91 retainer(s) 14. 359. 102. 275. 300–1. 188. 180. 245. 8. 70. 203 Song of Roland 311. 333–4 tragedy (drama) 329 treasure 16. 170. 90. Waltharius) 34. 260. 172–4. 47 Vita S. 324–5. 118. 44. Waldere) 353 Wanderer 60. 366. Þiðrekr 215 Þiðreks Saga af Bern 214–15. 371. 324–5. 105. 100. 286 note 132 Widsið 91 Wife’s Lament 74 Wiglaf 5 note 18. 129–30. 302–3. Battle of Maldon 322. 57. maxims 90. in Maldon 344 spell (magical) 83. 40. 87. J. 290–1 thief 250. 201. 273. 24. 92. 42. 306. 263. 123 Vikings 321. 178–9. 15. 92. 285. 86. 220. 361. 361. of Leicester) ¤ Unuuona (Speratus). taunting 175. 256 speech 15. 292. 239. 303. 50–1. 117. 223. 54. 179–80. 159. b. 285–8. 201. 230. þulr 89–92. 343. 33. Oswini 305–8. 292. 333 Vita S. 84. 100. R. 73. 60. 111. of Leicester Starkaðr (Gautreks Saga) 22–3. 271. 40. 59. 91 note 106 status 13–14 Stoicism 200 subaltern voice 42–5. 329 Valhalla (OIcel Valhöll) 63–4 vengeance ¤ revenge Vercelli homily 103 Victory 33. 246. 35. 105.418 general index Skeggi (Grettir’s Saga) 19 Skjoldunga Saga 172 note 129 Snorri (Grettir’s Saga) 47 Solomon and Saturn 183 note 6. 259. 130. 36. 356–7. of the coastwarden 100–6. 89 Vafþrúðnismál 91 Vainglory 32. 136. 199. 54. of Leicester 10. 363 wisdom 30–1. 65. teacher 91 Unuuona (Speratus). 143–4. 77 note 46. 343. 327. 246. 187. 98–100. 185. 81. 17. 274. 371. 30. of the messenger 289–90. 52. 243. 190–1. 116–29. Grendel as retainer 80. 121–4. 217 note 100 Þjóðólfr (of Hvínir) Haustlöng 63. Samsonis 252 Vita S. 248. 357 warband 2 note 6. 96. parental (cf. 264. 76. 236–7. 85–6. 273. 304 truth 122. 324. 268. OIcel Þiðrekr) 256. 126 Þeodric (Theodoric. 177–8. 265. dragon’s 277–80. 85. 272 weapons 63. 117 Wealhþeow 132. 356. 313. 368–70 Waltharius (cf. 67. 361–5 superbia ¤ pride Swedish-Geatish Wars 65 note 21. 338 Volsung legend (Völsunga Saga) 59. 214 note 91 Speratus (b. 246. 166 þyle (OIcel þulr) role of 59. 233. 270. 241. 112. 57. 70. 322. 48. 335. 251. 95. 117. 270. 128. Irish parallels 129 warfare 212–3 warrior cult 63. 137. 264. 351. 17. 348 note 123 violence 15. Hroðgar. Wilfridi (Eddius Stephanus) 295 note 157. 172. 224. 257. 356. 234. 194–5. “sermon”) 197 wisdom literature 59. 79. 274. 292–3. 302. 82. 311. 92. 68. 61 note 3. 201. 348. 112. 69. 370 Vortigern 39 Waldere (cf. 37. 236–7. in Battle of Maldon 325. 65. 302 Wendels (Vandals) 15 Weohstan 292 wergild 17. 155. 48. 123 . 288. 312. 214. 44. 340. 110. 147–50. 353 soul 99. Guthlaci (Felix) 88 note 87 Vita S. of Grettir 21. 313 Vitae duarum Offarum 229 Vikings 54. 248. 277. deception 55. 74. 183 note 4. 90–1. Old Icelandic analogues 89–90. 156. 131. 285–8. 142. b. 42–5. 249 note 34. 137. 92. 165–6 Þórr 22. 156. 161. 151. 163. 354. coast-guard’s maxim 101–6. 60. 182. R. 264 Tolkien. 21–2. 356–7. 45. 272–3 wrecca 12. De septiformi spiritu 105. 191. 75. 76. 34. Institutes of Polity 245 Wylfings 17. 81. 169. 178. 25. 32. 235 . 66.general index wlenco 23–4. Sermo de baptismo 94. 40. 15–18. 361 419 Wulfstan (of York) 79 note 50. 335. 205. 181. 153 note 48. 224. 230. 226. 136. 73–81. 365 Wulfgar 15–17. 199.