691–2 doomed to die he plunged; *850 déaðfǽge déog
[The word déog does not occur elsewhere. My father examined the attempts to identify it or to correct it, and concluded that ‘the best that can be done’ is to suppose it to be a corruption of déaf ‘he (had) dived’, past tense singular of dúfan.]
705–10; *867–74 [Passage concerning verse-composition]
This is an interesting (and in Old English unique) reference to the manner and mode of alliterative composition. (Compare the equally interesting passage 1767 ff., *2105 ff., describing Hrothgar’s personal performance as narrator and singer: that deals with the kind and content of ‘literary’ compositions.) This passage has, of course, attracted attention, and has been the subject of varied translations and interpretations: some of them in my view erroneous, especially those that compare the Beowulf passage with the famous passage in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, lines 30–6. They should, however, be compared; and lines 42–4 of the prologue to Chaucer’s Parson’s Tale also.
[Beowulf *867 ff.
870
Hwílum cyninges þegn
guma gilphlæden, gidda gemyndig,
sé þe ealfela ealdgesegena
worn gemunde, word óþer fand
sóðe gebunden; secg oft ongan
síð Béowulfes snyttrum styrian,
ond on spéd wrecan spel geráde,
wordum wrixlan;
translation 705–10
At whiles a servant of the king, a man laden with proud memories who had lays in mind and recalled a host and multitude of tales of old – word followed word, each truly linked to each – this man in his turn began with skill to treat in poetry the quest of Beowulf and in flowing words to utter his ready tale, interweaving words.
Sir Gawain 30–6
If ȝe wyl lysten þis laye bot on littel quile,
I schal telle hit astit, as I in toune herde
with tonge,
As hit is stad and stoken
In stori stif and stronge,
With lel letteres loken,
In londe so hatȝ ben longe.
translation (J.R.R.T.),
.............
stanza 2
as it is fixed and fettered
in story brave and bold,
thus linked and truly lettered
as was loved in this land of old.
The Parson’s Prologue
But trusteth wel, I am a Southren man,
42–4
I kan nat geeste ‘rum, ram, ruf,’ by lettre,
Ne, God woot, rym holde I but litel bettre;]
The consideration of the two (contemporary) Middle English passages and their comparison belongs primarily to Middle English studies, and has as its centre the use of lel letteres in Sir Gawain and by lettre in the The Parson’s Tale: the origin of our modern (and inaccurate) term ‘alliteration’. It was a use arising, evidently, from a contemporary 14th century competition and debate between ‘alliteration’ and ‘rhyme’ as structural devices in verse. There was no such competition or debate in Old English times. Rhyme, of course, pleased or excited the attention of poets’ ears, and vocalic rhyme, and consonantal rhyme, (flōd/blōd or sund/sand), was used on occasion; but as an adornment or special effect, not structurally. Alliteration was taken for granted. We therefore must not hasten to assume that it is referred to in Beowulf: it might be, but it is prima facie not likely that it was.
There is at first sight a similarity between the expression with lel letteres loken and word óþer fand sóðe gebunden that has not escaped notice. This similarity is sometimes increased by treating word óþer fand sóðe gebunden as a parenthetic statement, supposedly of this sort: ‘one word led to (found) another truly linked (to it)’. But this fails, before we need to consider sóðe gebunden: (a) because cyninges þegn *867 is left without a verb – secg eft ongan clearly begins a new sentence; and (b) because though word óþer is good Old English for ‘one word x another word’, the use of fand (with word as subject) in the supposed sense is very dubious in any context. In a literary context, expressly referring to poetic composition, the verb fand must certainly have as subject ‘minstrel/poet’ who ‘finds, invents, makes’. There can be no doubt that punctuation with a semi-colon at gebunden is correct. The subject is the þegn, guma gilphlæden who versed in old lays and lore is said now to have contrived ‘other words’ – i.e. a new poetic eulogy not in his previous repertoire as such, though as we see he made extensive reference to his ealdgesegena (*869), concerning Sigemund and Heremod.
However, in any case, and with any punctuation, sóðe gebunden cannot, I believe, refer to ‘alliteration’, nor be compared with lel letteres loken, as is often supposed (cf. Klaeber, note to line *870 f.: ‘for the true alliterative “binding”, sóðe gebunden, cp. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight 35: with lel letteres loken’.) If it is translated ‘truly bound’, a false similarity (for speakers of modern English) is created between it and ‘loyally’39 locked (= linked), because treowe, trewe, true ‘dependable, true’ is more or less equivalent to leël, lel (leial, loial). But if modern English has confounded verus and fidelis, sannr and tryggr, wahr and treu, Old English had not yet done so: O.E. sóð is not an equivalent of treowe, triewe. Its normal and central sense is verus, (what is) true in fact, in reality, (what is) in accordance with verity. The sense of sóðe gebunden cannot be in line *871 ‘actually and in fact bound’, but it must be related to that basic sense. Sóðe is probably not the adverb, but instrumental of the noun (= later mid sóðe); in any case the binding or linkage [?present] is not one of external rule, but of reference to ‘truth’ (verity): justly. That is, it is a linking not of metre but of diction: most probably an allusion to the propriety of synonyms or equivalents used in the Old English ‘linked’ verse style, which should share a real and just correspondence with the thing or action spoken of – another aspect of the feature of alliterative verse later described as wordum wrixlan (*874). sóðe gebunden describes the truth and propriety of the terms used, wordum wrixlan the actual variation of words (with different sounds and metrical effects). It is with such questions of the propriety and homogeneity in the use of synonyms and ‘kennings’ that much of the Old Norse Skáldskaparmál is concerned.
The close parallelism of the passages in Beowulf and Gawain thus disappears. The concern of the old courtly minstrels with their far more polished and sophisticated art was with style; the fourteenth century alliterative poets were concerned primarily to conserve their native rum-ram-ruf. But it remains of great interest that the two most gifted authors using the ‘alliterative’ English verse whose work has been preserved should both feel moved to make an allusion to their verse medium.
[My father’s translation of lines *870–1, cited at the beginning of this note, ‘word followed word, each truly linked to each’, interprets the Old English words in the manner that he here strongly opposed, but the text of the translation was not subsequently modified.]
708 ff.; *871 ff. [Síð Béowulfes: The Quest of Beowulf]
It is obviously impossible to discuss in full these two references to heroic ‘matter’ in the poet’s eulogy of Beowulf: Sigemund and Heremod, in the compass of a ‘note’.
Points that might be emphasized are these. (1) The résumé of the content of the eulogy, Sigemund and Heremod, is a story (or stories) within a story (the eulogy) within a story (Beowulf). It is therefore ‘cursory’ to us, who would like to know more; but no doubt it picks out the ‘high lights’ for those who knew: every phrase had a point.
(2) The reported lay does not end until line 747 (*915). Sigemund and Heremod were linked in men’s imagination, if only as supreme examples of the wrecca (see the note to 731, *898). The end is indeed ‘cursory’, where the conclusion is brought back to Beowulf again. We may surmise that the minstrel said, or would have said in real life, more than ‘He there, Beowulf, has proved more satisfactory to mankind and to his friends; the other was possessed by wickedness.’ But the
beginning is simply missing – because this is only a story within a story, and síð Béowulfes has been recounted to you.40
(3) The Sigemund story survives as a part of the most renowned and long-lived Germanic legend – the Völsunga saga / Niebelungenlied complex – and there is therefore plenty still left to invite (and perplex) comparison. The difficulty of the Heremod legend is of the opposite kind. Probably for the very reason given here (734–5, *901–2), because Heremod’s fame was eclipsed by Sigemund’s, this legend has been lost, except for allusions – though when Beowulf was written it was evidently still well-known in England.
(4) In content and structure the reported précis illustrates the manner (of which Beowulf itself is a sufficient example) of gilphlæden poets in composing such eulogies or lays celebrating the virtues of a chosen hero – no doubt approved by their audience: they drew on ealdgesegene for the adornment and for the pointing by contrast of their account of the central figure (For these O.E. words see p. 280).
(5) But this is a lay within a lay – that is a fictional adornment or pointing of the Beowulf story by its author. Our author then (not the supposed contemporary poet) was the actual selector of the illustrations, of Sigemund and Heremod. His choice, therefore, was very unlikely to be random: it had point for his purposes in his poem as a whole. Various reasons can be guessed.
This last point deserves a little more consideration. How far you may feel these ‘reasons’ to remain ‘guesses’, or to discover truth, will depend on the degree of respect you have for the artistry (or at least for the thoughtful care) with which Beowulf was composed. This respect is, I think, increased by study. Here are some of the reasons which may be surmised, or perceived.
(a) Sigemund and Heremod were both wreccan, as is implied in *898–901, Sé wæs wreccena wíde mǽrost . . . (731 ‘He was far and wide of adventurers the most renowned . . .’). This word is interesting and important, and is quite inadequately represented by the usual dictionary glosses. Beowulf was not (as his tale is here told) precisely a wrecca, but his exploit had this in common with the deeds of wreccan: it was not done in the course of duty, but in a spirit of adventure; and it was accomplished away from home, in the service of the king of another people.
(b) Sigemund was also a monster-slayer (718–19, *883–4). But his most renowned exploit was performed alone (723, *888), like Beowulf’s wrestling with Grendel.
(c) More important still, I think, Sigemund fought and slew a dragon. On this major point see further the note to 710–34, (noting here, however, that if you believe (as I do not) that our poet, either in ‘error’ or on purpose, was attaching to Sigemund a dragon-slaying that did not belong to him this point is not weakened, but reinforced). Now I think that Beowulf is threaded through with ‘irony’, with remarks, references, and allusions, for the full understanding of which the whole poem must be taken into account: both what is said or has happened, and what will happen, must be considered. Thus when the minstrel is represented as singing his eulogy, Beowulf had only wrestled with Grendel, but before his exploit is complete he will have to dare to go absolutely alone into the cave of a monster, and there defeat her. What is more, before his life is complete, he is to fight and slay a dragon, and die in the victory. Sigemund was (or is represented as) the pre-eminent dragon-slayer (not – certainly in the older layers of legend – a frequent exploit!). Evidently in extolling Beowulf Hrothgar’s minstrel had equated him with Sigemund; but he did not know this: that Beowulf was to face a dragon at the end – with different motive (Sigemund’s is represented as plunder, 726–9, *893–6) and result. We shall probably never know whether this ‘irony’ was introduced for the poet’s own satisfaction (and for the more perceptive of his hearers or readers, when they had heard his whole poem through), or was immediately recognizable (i.e. because the ending of Beowulf and/or the Geatish kingdom in a dragon-fight was already part of the legend before our extant poem was made). But it seems to me impossible to believe that it is accidental: that Sigemund, as a dragon-slayer, was made the chief figure of comparison, without any reference to the end of Beowulf (either as planned by our poet, or as already enshrined in legend).
(d) Heremod is introduced because these two great figures, Sigemund and Heremod, in tales of wreccan were already associated; because he was a Dane and this is a song made by a minstrel of Hrothgar’s court, and his legend evidently closely concerned the rise and origin of the line of Healfdene. Heremod’s disastrous decline and fall had ended the previous dynasty and left the interregnum (alluded to in lines 12–13, *14–16). And of course, because his decline into wickedness41 made a good ending ‘by dark contrast’ to the character of Beowulf. Irony is again present: for the bard was singing of a young man, and though in eulogy he might attribute all kingly virtues to his hero, he could not know that Beowulf would (as the author knew) end with the praises: manna mildust ond monðwǽrust, léodum líðost ond lofgeornost. Contrast the words of the sage old fatherly king, who again alludes to Heremod (1435–49, *1709–24), but addresses a young man in the flush of his double triumph, and presents to him Heremod as an exemplary warning. ‘Learn thou from this, and understand what generous virtue is!’ Ðú þé lǽr be þon, gumcyste ongit!
Hrothgar was an old and wise king, and such a warning was permissible. He had nothing further to gain, and had already rewarded Beowulf with royal courtesy and with princely gifts – to which he was about to add ‘twelve precious things’ at their parting (1566, *1867). It is quite possible that the minstrel was not so single-minded. Members of his craft were accustomed indirectly, or more often directly, to suggest that the virtue of open-handedness in reward of services rendered might well be practised at once – with possibly good effect on future compositions. Beowulf could not (in view of the gifts and gold that he had received)42 plead like Gawain that he had no men wyth no maleȝ with menskful þingeȝ (1809; ‘no bearers with baggage and beautiful things’, stanza 72), and could only offer courteous thanks for services. He rewarded the coast-guard with a sword (a very great gift). So much that was customary is omitted, that we can hardly doubt that the guma gilphlæden was also ‘remembered’.
(e) A last point: it is possible to see in the curious repetition of the ‘dark picture’ of Heremod (by the minstrel and by the king) a trace of an older, more historical, tradition concerning the dynasty of Heorot: of Healfdene and his sons. It is like listening to an insistence on the wickedness of Richard III at a Tudor court. The absence of any historical ancestor between Healfdene and the mythical Beow is (in addition to his peculiar name) sufficient indication that he was a ‘new man’ and at best had no direct or clear descent from preceding kings; and no doubt, like other successful interlopers, once securely settled by force he was eager to justify his position by reference to the disorder and misery that preceded him – and later by the fabrication of a genealogy (which resembles a Tudor play with Arthurian origins).
710–34; *874–900 [The sketch of the Sigemund story]
[In this note my father turned to the question of the attribution of a dragon-slaying to Sigemund rather than his son; another discussion of his on this subject is recounted in The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún, 2009, pp. 351–6.]
I find it impossible to believe that a ‘dragon-slaying’ is here attributed to Sigemund in ‘error’. ‘Error’ in this connexion needs consideration. What can it mean? When used with regard to a purely legendary feature, such as a dragon-slaying, it must imply that the critic imagines that there was (somewhere, sometime) a legend of Sigemund, ‘true’ or at least original or authentic, aberrations from which are ‘erroneous’. But that supposition is itself erroneous: with regard to any ancient legend or legend-complex. Such things never in fact existed except in actual poems or stories told by actual individuals, using, re-telling, re-handling what they had already heard or read. But in the case of the author of Beowulf his version could be ‘aberrant’: that is, it could omit matter which in his time was normally included in a tale of Sigemund the wre
cca, or it could add incidents that had not so far been usually added to the tale. (In which case, of course, such incidents would certainly be drawn from other similar tales.) Is this likely in the present case?
No. First, it is highly unlikely that in a précis of the Sigemund story included for a specific purpose, and represented as the lay of another minstrel, the author of Beowulf would alter the tale in a major point from what was in his time current.
Secondly, this is admittedly the oldest reference to the Sigemund story that is now extant, even in point of manuscript date. It is thus antecedently probable that its divergence from later forms of the tale is due to ‘archaism’: it is later accounts that are in ‘error’, that is to say, have altered the story.
No certain conclusion, of course, can be drawn from the absence in the Old English précis of any reference to the son of Sigemund or his connexion with the Burgundians and the sons of Gifeca. In such a précis for such a purpose the author of Beowulf would naturally end the reference to Sigemund with his supreme feat. It is, however, probable that the Völsung story (Wælsinges gewin *877, 712–3) had not yet been connected with the Burgundian saga; possible, that Sigemund had not yet been provided with a son, other than Fitela.43 The Burgundian–Attila matter was however well-known in England, as references in the old poems Widsith and Waldere show. It is a well-known tendency in tales that are popular and long re-told for them to be enlarged, until they become ‘cycles’, taking up or being linked to other stories with which they at first had slender connexions, or none at all. One of the methods used in this process is to provide the original hero with a son, either a newly invented one, or a character in another story. In either case the son will tend to have similar adventures, with variation, to those of his father.
Beowulf: A Translation and Commentary, together with Sellic Spell Page 26