He himself favoured, very hesitantly, another proposed etymology, that of an unrecorded verb *(on-hoxnian), related in some way to Old English husc, hux ‘scorn, derision’ and the verb hyscan; hence his translation ‘made light of that’. He concluded the note with a translation of the passage in a different style:]
Nonetheless the descendant of Hemming (Offa) laughed at all this, and men in the hall (gossiping over their ale) added that she committed fewer (i.e. no more) crimes from the moment that she became the gold-decked bride of the young warrior.
1666–7 to the hands of mighty men; *1983 MS hæ[ð]num tó handa
[In the manuscript the word reads hæ num, the third letter, ð, which can still be read, having been erased by the scribe. In my father’s translation he added at the time of typing a footnote to mighty men: ‘or Hæðenas, name of a people’.]
What does the manuscript mean, and what is the reason for the erasure? It is easy to rewrite the text and substitute hæleðum. But it is quite incredible as a solution, and does not explain the manuscript. The erasure (never put right) shows that the scribe was bothered – and it is more than likely that we have once again a proper name belonging to heroic tradition. Since the scribe first wrote hæðnum, had he really been preparing the way for a correction hæleðum (incidentally a common word that he nowhere else bungles) we should expect him to have erased either n (so as to insert le before ð over the line) or both ð and n.
Also, there is a proper name *Hǽðne. It occurs in the poem Widsith (line 81), (ic wæs) mid Hæðnum. As far as Widsith goes, these people can hardly be doubted to be the Old Norse Heiðnir, later (with regular loss in Old Norse of ð before n), Heinir, dwellers in the Heiðmörk (modern Hedemarken) in Norway on the Swedish border. The erasure may be due (1) to its being identical in form with hǽðen ‘heathen’, a word of special evil associations in A.D.1000 (the scribe’s time) and not good associations for the virtuous Hygd – but why not then erase the whole word? Or (2) to the existence in Old English of a form Hǽne (with a similar change to that seen in Old Norse or to actual knowledge of the later Norse form). (1) is hardly likely without (2). I should restore Hǽðnum.
Editors ask: why should this folk appear in Hygelac’s hall? The answer is probably provided by Widsith 81 and a consideration of other stories. The Hǽðne were Hygd’s own people, and just as Danes were in the Heathobard court as retainers of the Danish queen Freawaru daughter of Hrothgar (1697 ff., *2020 ff.), so Hǽðne were at the court of Hygelac in attendance on Queen Hygd.
Widsith line 81 reads: (ic wæs) mid hæðnum ond mid hæleþum ond mid hundingum. Quite apart from comparison with Beowulf a likely emendation of mid hæleþum is mid hæreþum: the corruption of a proper name to a common noun of similar form is well evidenced (cf. Cain to camp, *1261, Eomer to geomor *1960, etc. in Beowulf). But when immediately before hæðnum in Beowulf we find Hæreðes dohtor (1664, *1981) the connexion between Widsith 81 and Beowulf becomes extremely probable.
The Hæreðe are the Norwegian tribe Hϙrðar (stem *haruđ), cf. Hardanger-fjord – incidentally there is a reference in an entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (787) to the first coming of the Norsemen in three ships ‘from Hereða land’. The use of the stem of a tribal name as a proper name among neighbours is a common phenomenon: as modern Scott, Inglis, Walsh. The actual relation of Hæreð father of Hygd (presumably a prince of the Hǽðne) to the Hæreþe cannot now be discovered.
Though the passage is obscure (because we do not know what the poet assumes to be known) and also corrupt, we do observe that Hygd had, or was given by our author, a place in the real geographical northern world. Her name is odd (nowhere else recorded in itself, and there is no other record of the name of Hygelac’s queen): it alliterates with her husband’s, and is etymologically related to it: Hygd (cf. ge-hygd ‘thought’) / Hyge-lac. But it also alliterates with her father’s name. I think that the fact that it has an ‘abstract’ look is fortuitous. Women’s names were frequently made from abstract words; occasionally they occur uncompounded, as Hild ‘war’, Þrýþ ‘strength’. After all, Hyge-lac might be interpreted as ‘play of mind’, yet he is no abstraction: there can be no reasonable doubt that he is an historical Geatish king of the sixth century called Hugila(i)k.
It cannot, however, be denied that our poet’s account of Hygelac is a little peculiar, and not free from suspicion of being confused with that of Hrethel (and vice versa).
He is a geongne gúðcyning (*1969, ‘the young warrior-king’ 1654), at the date of Beowulf’s return. His wife is swíðe geong (*1926, ‘very young’ 1619), and so probably not long married, though long enough to have shown herself a generous patroness. Her son Heardred is too young to govern when Hygelac falls in Frisia (1996–2001, *2370–6). Yet when Hæthcyn son of Hrethel fell before King Ongentheow of Sweden, we learn that Hygelac (the surviving son) came up with reinforcements (2471–4, *2943–5) and Ongentheow fell to the sword of Eofor, Hygelac’s thane. Eofor was rewarded with land and treasure (2514–16, *2993–5) and the hand of Hygelac’s only daughter (2518–19, *2997). Cf. ‘to Eofor he gave his only daughter . . . for the honouring of his house’ with Hrothgar on Beowulf: ‘His sire of old was called Ecgtheow; to him Hrethel of the Geats gave as bride his only daughter’ (300–1, *373–5). Two only daughters in the family each given to (somewhat obscure) retainers!57
The usual calculations make Hrethel roughly contemporary with Healfdene (fifth century) and Hrethel’s three sons and one daughter therefore roughly contemporary with Healfdene’s three sons and one daughter (see 46–9, *59–63), so Hygelac ought to be about the same age as Halga the third son of Healfdene, and not much younger than Hrothgar. Yet Hrothgar is represented as an old man bowed with years and full of regretful reminiscence; while Hygelac is a bregoróf cyning (*1925, 1618) actually called ‘young’ (1654, *1969), with a very young wife.
This contrast can be partly explained by the nature and limits of ‘historial legend’. The main lines of the traditional characters of ancient historical lays were very much dependent on the circumstances of their death. A character once fixed tends to appear thus at all times when he comes on the stage. Arthur is usually young and eager for novelty. Victoria becomes indelibly fixed by the great act of living and reigning so long as an old and widowed queen. In ‘historial legend’ of the Anglo-Saxon kind any young knight who visited the court of England within, say twenty or thirty years of her death would be likely to find upon the throne a small but venerable figure in black, with white hair. Hygelac on the other hand died in the field as a still vigorous warrior, leaving his heir a minor.
Nonetheless it soon becomes apparent that ‘his only daughter’ married to Eofor after Hrefnesholt [Ravenswood, 2464, *2935] cannot be the daughter of Hygd. Hygd must be a second wife. And the more we try to separate Hygelac from Hrothgar in age (and the younger we make Hygelac die) the more impossible is it for him to have a marriageable daughter to give to Eofor. In fact almost the only difficulty in working out a satisfactory chronology to fit the Beowulf statements is either Hygd’s extreme youth or the only daughter. Something seems to have gone a bit wrong with the ‘history’ of Hygelac.58
425
Birth of Healfdene
440
~
Ongentheow
455
~
Hrothgar
465
~
Onela
465
~
Hrothgar’s sister
475
~
Hygelac
495 or later
~
Beowulf
Ongentheow was slain at Hrefnesholt at the age of 65 in A.D. 505. Hygelac was then 30. If he had a daughter she was a child of about seven.
Beowulf visited Heorot c. 515. Hrothgar was then actually old, being 60.
Hygelac married Hygd (a second wife?) about 510; he was 35 and Hygd only about 18. Heardred was born about 511. Hygd was still only about 23 at the time of Beowulf
’s return. Hygelac was 40.
Hygelac fell in Frisia c. 525 at the age of 50. Heardred was a minor (about 14): Beowulf was then a tried warrior of 30.
It is a possible explanation that the tradition of the ánge dohtor really belongs to Hrethel; but that the intrusion of Beowulf (unhistorical at any rate as an actual member of the Geatish royal house) by our poet, or the blending of ‘historial legend’ and folk-story in the traditions he knew, has confused matters. It is very likely nearer to ‘history’ that it was Hrethel’s ánge dohtor, Hygelac’s sister, that Hygelac gave in marriage to Eofor. (Ecgtheow has replaced Eofor and caused duplication of the ‘only daughter’.)
FREAWARU AND INGELD
1697–1739; *2020–69
In these lines we have the fifth59 of the main ‘episodes’ in Beowulf, and the most difficult and important after Finn and Hengest. In a sense it is not an ‘episode’, or allusion, but an essential part of the Danish half of the scene, as the references to the Swedish-Geatish wars and the fall of Hygelac are of the Geatish half.
The purposes of the passage are clearer than in any other case: it completes the picture of Heorot; it links the Danish and Geatish halves of the scene (for this reference to the troubles of the court of Heorot is actually spoken in Hygelac’s hall), and it gives a peculiarly realistic touch to the whole background. Beowulf reports to the king (in the manner of an ambassador) what he has seen and learned concerning dynastic politics in the south. It is a most ingenious and ‘historial’ use of tradition, selected, as we shall see, with careful attention to chronology. Finally, it illustrates Beowulf himself. The story is all told in the future; and on the whole that device is nearly successful – if we allow a large measure of sagacity to Beowulf, not only in considering court-gossip, and judging the character of kings and queens, but in foreseeing how old retainers are likely to behave. And it is told in this way precisely so that Beowulf should show kingly sagacity and fitness for rule, not merely great physical strength. For all knew that what he predicted did come to pass. This element of political wisdom combined with valour has already been alluded to by Hrothgar in 1546 ff., *1844 ff., praising Beowulf for seizing the opportunity of proposing and promising an alliance between Geats and Danes, who had formerly been hostile.
Altogether a very justifiable ‘episode’, admirably conceived for the purposes of the present poem (and quite undeserving of the strictures that have been passed on it). Its only weakness, in fact, is that the ‘egging’ of the old æscwiga (1715 ff., *2041 ff.) is too precise in detail, too clearly taken from a lay concerning what did happen, to be really suitable to a genuine ‘forecast’.
Purely accidental weaknesses for us (for which the poet could not be blamed) are the dubious places in the surviving text, and the fact that we do not know in detail the story to which he was alluding. We know that it was well-known, so that an allusive reference would be quite enough for the poet’s purpose. But we have to piece much scattered evidence together to make out now what it is all about.
The whole business of the Heathobards and their feud with the house of Healfdene is of the greatest importance and interest: going to the very heart of early Danish (and English) history. But I must limit myself on this occasion more or less to what is essential to the Beowulf reference, and in particular to Freawaru and Ingeld.
Let us first see what can be made out from the passage in Beowulf. From this we learn (1697–1702, *2020–5) that Freawaru was Hrothgar’s daughter, and that she was betrothed to Ingeld the son of Froda: which means according to ancient Northern custom that the marriage-feast, probably at Heorot (the house of the bride’s father) was imminent (at the time of Beowulf’s visit) and its date already fixed: hence the talk in the hall about it was natural. We learn that Hrothgar accounted the match wise politically (þæt rǽd talað *2027, ‘accounts it policy’ 1703), and hoped by it to set a long feud to rest. Note that this does not necessarily mean, though it might mean, that Hrothgar had initiated the match. Since the poet immediately passes to consideration of a people called Heaðobeardan and a fatal battle (1714–15, *2039–40), it is plain that Ingeld and Froda are Heathobards, and that the stage of the feud that preceded the moment chosen by the poet was a disastrous defeat of the Heathobards by the Danes. Though not explicitly stated, it seems certain that among the fathers of the present generation of Heathobards who were then slain and despoiled was the king Froda himself, Ingeld’s father. It is to settle the bloodfeud which Ingeld has against him that Hrothgar favours the match.
From 1715 (*2041) we have a prophetic utterance – actually a sketch based on lays dealing with the affair as history – concerning the failure of the match and the reawakening of the feud. It is plain that Freawaru took with her to Ingeld’s hall a retinue of Danes. Whether they actually behaved arrogantly or not, several of them gave offence by wearing swords (and probably other treasures) won in the old battle from the fathers of men in Ingeld’s court. Strife is thus renewed. An old grim retainer (of the sort that can still be met: more zealous for the honour of the house than the master) eggs a young man, until he kills one of the Danes who wears his father’s trappings. The Heathobard escapes, and the truce is broken on both sides.
The slayer is plainly not Ingeld (mín wine *2047 [translated ‘my lord’ 1721] can mean just ‘my friend’: cf. wine mín Unferð *530, 432–3), since it would appear plain that Ingeld’s personal feud was against the Danish king, not just one of the young knights; and also the important lines 1735–7, *2064–6, show him struggling between love of wife and the old feud.
It would appear that a Dane or Danes retaliated by slaying a Heathobard, and then Ingeld was drawn in. Beyond that point the ‘episode’ does not take us. We can see that it is founded on a pretty extensive story or historial legend, slow-moving, detailed, and with many actors in the English manner, and not contracted, concentrated and intensely personal in the Norse manner.
What happened later can be guessed from the allusion in lines *81–5, 65–9, where it is clear that Heorot was doomed to flames, when a deadly feud between father-in-law and son-in-law should be re-aroused. The statement that Heorot had been so well builded that the Danes thought that nothing but fire could destroy it (635–9, *778–82) is also probably an allusion to the fact that tradition recorded its final destruction by burning.
There are two other allusions from English sources to this story. From Widsith 45–9 we learn that Ingeld was actually defeated at Heorot and the might of the Heathobards there destroyed. Combined with Beowulf *81–5 this shows that Ingeld must suddenly have taken up the feud again and made a descent on Hrothgar, that Heorot was destroyed by fire, but that nonetheless the Heathobards were utterly defeated. Ingeld must have been slain. What was the fate of the hapless Freawaru we do not know.
The other ‘English’ allusion is found in one version of a letter from Alcuin [a celebrated Northumbrian theologian and man of learning] (A.D. 797 – close, that is, to the probable date of the composition of Beowulf) – to Speratus Bishop of Lindisfarne. Alcuin says: Verba dei legantur in sacerdotali convivio; ibi decet lectorem audiri non citharistam, sermones patrum non carmina gentilium. Quid Hinieldus cum Christo? [In the rectory of the monks the words of God should be read; there it is fitting that the reader be heard, not the harper, the discourse of the Fathers, not the songs of the pagans. What has Ingeld to do with Christ?] This interesting passage tells us no more for our present purpose than that Ingeld’s name was probably pronounced Injeld, and that lays concerning him must have been extremely popular for him to be thus singled out as the typical pagan hero. For general criticism it tells us a good deal more. Alcuin is rebuking monks for listening to native English lays sung to the harp, and for still taking an interest in pagan kings who are now lamenting their sins in hell. This rebuke is, of course, evidence of the existence at once of a stern and uncompromising reforming spirit, and of laxity (probably culpable laxity for monks). But it shows at any rate the possibility of the combination of Latin and verna
cular learning in the eighth century. There is also a via media which, no less Christian than Alcuin, yet does not consign all the past to oblivion (or to hell), but ponders it with increased insight and profundity. This is the way of the poet who wrote Beowulf. More regretfully he refers to the men of old being ignorant of God.60
In tradition Heorot seems to have been remembered specially as a centre of pagan worship. We may suspect that this is of importance in the feud and battles that raged round this site, that the feud was indeed a battle for the possession of a sanctuary [on this see the note on æt hærgtrafum, pp. 179–80.] But beyond this the purely English evidence will not take us.
[My father wrote here: ‘To consider the Norse sources would take us too far afield’, but having said this he proceeded to do so (and added the words ‘in full’ after ‘Norse sources’). I give this section of ‘Freawaru and Ingeld’ in a somewhat abbreviated form.]
We touch in this conflict, and in the legends about it, on something very old and central to the nearly forgotten history of the Germanic North in heathen times. All but the final stages are already dim and remote in early Old English traditions. In Norse the whole matter has been confused and distorted by the adoption and ‘Danification’ of traditions that were not in origin Danish (nor Scandinavian?) but belonged to the peninsula and islands of what we may call (for lack of a better word) the Anglo-Frisian peoples, expelled or absorbed by the Danes in the early centuries of our era.
Beowulf: A Translation and Commentary, together with Sellic Spell Page 29