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
829.3dc22
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 .......................................................................
Authors Note .............................................................................
Abbreviations ..............................................................................

ix
xiii
xv

Introduction

A Contested Beowulf .......................................

Chapter One

The Wisdom Context of the SigemundHeremod and Hunfer Digressions ...............

59

The Foreign Beowulf and the Fight at

Finnsburh ......................................................

135

Chapter Three The Rhetoric of Oferhygd in Hrogars

Sermon ........................................................

181

Chapter Two

Chapter Four

Beowulf s Dragon Fight and the

Appraisal of Oferhygd .......................................

239

King Beowulf and Ealdormonn Byrhtno ....

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

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. Major sections of this book were
drafted during a sabbatical semester in 2001. In 2002 the Department
of English awarded me research leave to pursue what, at the time, was
meant to be a much shorter book on the digressions of Beowulf. I am
grateful to the department chairman (now Associate Dean) and Louise
Fry Scudder Professor of English, Steven Lynn, and to the Research
Professorship committee members, for sustaining a project of such
duration. Also, unfailing and gracious cooperation from the divisions
of Circulation (Tucker Taylor), Reference (Sharon Verba), Special Collections (Patrick Scott), Off-Site Storage, 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 wish to thank a number of scholars who read this book in
draft and offered explicit and judicious comments on it. In 2004 I met
with Michael J. Enright, Professor of History at Eastern Carolina University, and we spent a day together explicating the warband context
of Beowulf. Michael convinced me how important the comitatus was
in the poem, and his influence is obvious in these pages. His 1998
article The Warband Context of the Unfer Episode transformed
my own thinking about Beowulf s identity. Michael Drout, William
C. H. and Elsie D. Prentice Professor of English at Wheaton College
(MA), shared his own insights and doubts over the direction I was taking, as did John M. Hill at the United States Naval Academy. Both
made me re-think and ultimately justify more than a few positions I
had staked, especially in regard to the potentially negative Beowulf I
envision. I also owe a significant debt to Tom Shippey, Walter J. Ong
Professor of English at Saint Louis University, for reading several
chapters and offering cogent corrections and points of departure. My
greatest thanks, however, are due to Rob Fulk at Indiana University,
who read every line of my penultimate drafts for chapters 24 and
offered pages of advice and corrections with enthusiasm or skepticism,
wherever appropriate. Robs learning saved me from countless errors,

acknowledgments

and this book is far better because of his inputeven if his own reaction to Beowulf differs quite substantially from mine. Finally, my retired
colleagues at the University of South Carolina, Trevor Howard-Hill,
and Philip B. Rollinson, commented on every word and nuance of the
manuscript. Their impressions encouraged me to re-think more than a
few statements I made in contradiction of the received interpretation
of Beowulf. Ones best friends seldom make the most searching critics,
but mine held me to account.
A few scholars whose work I have drawn on deserve special mention
here. This book has been evolving for a long time. Parts of it date to
198486, when I was an undergraduate at Corpus Christi College,
Cambridge. There I learned much from Richard North, my tutor in
Old Norse (now Professor of English at University College London).
I think of Richards 1990 and 1991 articles as some of the very best
recent forays in Beowulf and Maldon scholarship, and his research
launched my own thinking about digressions in the poem. I arrived
at Yale in 1986, a year after Fred C. Robinson had published Beowulf
and the Appositive Style. The ingenuity of this book convinced me immediately, and twenty years later I still rate Appositive Style as one of the
most important books on Old English. Andy Orchard influenced my
thinking in a different direction. His Pride and Prodigies made room for
Anglo-Saxonists to think skeptically about the depiction of Beowulf.
Orchards chapter on Grettirs Saga defined Grettir as monstrous, an
Achilles in the Germanic setting. No one reading the saga comes
away unconflicted about Grettir, and I have always wondered, from
Robinsons perspective, how we should appraise Grettirs Miniver
Cheevy born-too-late-ism. Grettir lived at the end of the Viking Age
and during the transition to Christianityat a time, one might say,
similar in social context to the backwards-looking Beowulf. For more
than two decades the question has pursued me: If Beowulf is the closest analogue to Grettirs Saga, shouldnt we also feel conflicted about
Beowulf ? Orchards views suggested my approach to Beowulf in ways
distinct from an earlier generation of Christianizers.
My approach to Beowulf leans towards the anthropological or
ethnological analysis that John M. Hill pioneered in The Cultural
World in Beowulf. Hills book proposes that Germanic cultural identity,
hypothetically stable and consistent, is realized inand can be quarried
fromOld English literature. Anglo-Saxon kin relationships, marriage
ties, warrior identities, kingship and other social idioms may likewise
be paralleled in modern cultures with similar social structures. Hill

acknowledgments

xi

contends that Beowulf accurately renders an idealized Germanic society,

which in turn directs much of the poems meaning. His second opinion
is that the ethnological details make sense of the poem. Although Hills
endorsement of ethnology reflects my own understanding of Beowulf,
his methodology differs slightly from mine in philosophy and focus.
First, I make no claims that anthropological observations derived from
Beowulf represent any reality other than the aestheticeven if they
might actually do so. In my mind the Beowulf poet could have rendered
an invented culture. Second, my position is that characters in Beowulf
discern themselves, reflect on their own cultural anxieties, and dramatize both personal feeling and political instinct. In the public social
currents that Hill discerningly locates in Beowulf, I find private eddies,
subtle literary meditations on the fictive society of the poem. By complex analogies and overlapping narratives, the poet himself critiques
the institutions he defines.
Writing about Beowulf has been immensely gratifying, and I remain
deeply indebted to all the critics whose works I have consultedmany
more than are listed in the Bibliography. Of those critics I do acknowledge, I should mention my particular indebtedness to works by Alfred
Bammesberger, George Clark, Dennis Cronan, J. E. Cross, Michael
Enright, Roberta Frank, R. D. Fulk, Stanley B. Greenfield, Elaine Tuttle
Hansen, John M. Hill, Thomas D. Hill, Ida Masters Hollowell, Edward
B. Irving, Jr., Frederick Klaeber, Johann Kberl, John M. Leyerle,
Bruce Mitchell, John D. Niles, Richard North, Andy Orchard, Fred
C. Robinson, T. A. Shippey, Eric Stanley, John Tanke, and Dorothy
Whitelock.
It is a pleasure at last to dedicate this book to the past, present, and
future staff of the Dictionary of Old English project at the University of
Toronto. Ongoing now for three decades, the Dictionary of Old English
is the premier philological mission in Anglo-Saxon studies, an inspiring
intellectual monument to the industry and brilliance of its collaborators.
The Dictionary and its offshoots have generated, and will continue to
beget, the most significant and fundamental research on Old English
language and literature.
Scott Gwara
June 2008

AUTHORS NOTE
With the exception of Beowulf, and unless otherwise noted, all Old English verse texts are cited from The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records, ed. George
Philip Krapp and Elliot Van Kirk Dobbie, six volumes (New York:
Columbia UP, 193153). Beowulf is cited from the monumental fourth
edition of Klaebers text, Klaebers Beowulf, ed. R. D. Fulk, Robert E.
Bjork, and John D. Niles (Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2008). The standard
short titles for Old English poems are taken from Bruce Mitchell et al.,
Short Titles of Old English Texts, ASE 4 (1975), 20721; emended
by the same authors in Short Titles of Old English Texts: Addenda
and Corrigenda, ASE 8 (1979), 3313. Translations in all languages
are my own unless otherwise stated. Bosworth-Toller refers to Joseph
Bosworth and T. Northcote Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, enlarged
edition, ed. Alistair Campbell (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972). DOE
refers to the Dictionary of Old English, ed. Antonette diPaolo Healey et al.
(Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies and U of Toronto
P, 1986).
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; to the editor of
Mediaeval Studies for permission to cite passages from my article Forht
and Fgen in The Wanderer and Related Literary Contexts of AngloSaxon Warrior Wisdom (Mediaeval Studies 69 (2007), 25598) in several
places throughout; and to the editor of Neophilologus, for permission to
re-print my note Beowulf 307475: Beowulf Appraises His Reward
(Neophilologus 92 (2008), 33338) in Chapter 4.

ABBREVIATIONS
ANQ
ASNSL
ASE
BGDSL
BJRL
CCSL
CL
CSEL
EETS OS, SS
ELN
ES
JEGP
LSE
M
MGH AA
MLN
MLR
MP
Neophil
NM
NQ
PBA
PLL
PMLA
RES
SBVS
SN
SP
SS
TRHS
ZfdP

American Notes and Queries

Archiv fr das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Litteraturen
Anglo-Saxon England
Beitrge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur
Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina
Comparative Literature
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
Early English Text Society Original Series, Supplemental Series
English Languages Notes
English Studies
Journal of English and Germanic Philology
Leeds Studies in English
Medium vum
Monumenta Germaniae Historica, 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 fr deutsche Philologie

INTRODUCTION

A CONTESTED BEOWULF
Insisting that Beowulf is a great poem sounds like making a virtue of
necessity, since it might be said that the uniqueness of Beowulf accounts
for its modern prestige as a succs destime. Sui generis in length, structure,
action, versification, and diction, the work confounds standards that
attend most readings of Old English poetry and figuratively straddles
every conceivable generic classification, as folktale, heroic verse, epic,
elegy, saga, and the like.1 In other words, few native literary parallels can illuminate so distinctive a poem. Because of this inherent
historical and cultural ambiguity, Beowulf criticism has been marked
by persistent contradictions, chief of which is the relevance of the
poems Christian elements. 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,
secular, or mixed.2 Disagreements over the Christian-versus-secular
emphasis typically arise whenever Beowulf s motivation or attitudes
are scrutinized. Most readers sense that anachronistic Christian values
are meant to clarify Beowulf s judgment, but for others an unyielding
ambiguity always seems to qualify his virtue. Beowulf especially seems
to succumb to pride (or its Germanic equivalent), a notorious vice
inimical to Christian humility. Despite a solid consensus that idealizes
Beowulf, then, doubts over any universal approval we ought to have
of him and his feats continue to surface. The minority view generally
challenges the positive orthodoxya pseudo-Christian idealizationand
disputes whether we should characterize Beowulf as a noble pagan
or an ignoble one. As a pre-Christian archetype, then, is Beowulf to be
indicted, lionized, or pitied? Unsurprisingly, the obvious questions about
Beowulf s motivations (vainglorious or charitable?) and temperament
Sisam, Structure 27.
On the general context, see the references gathered in Chickering, Lyric Time
492 note 7; Richards, Reexamination; Stanley, Henra Hyht 148; see the
assessments by Mitchell, Literary Lapses 1617, Orchard, Pride and Prodigies 56, and
Cronan, Lofgeorn. Cronan reveals that lofgeorn in prose translates Latin prodigus (overly)
generous and shows that the word could have a positive sense in Beowulf.
1
2

introduction

(ruthless or benign?) have had no unconditional resolution. In this book

I shall argue that they are not meant to. Both as a hero and king, the
potentially reckless Beowulf coexists in the same text, and often in the
same verses, as the potentially generous and wise Beowulf. Judgments
of the Geats motivation are a matter of perspective.
Some readers look outside Beowulf to settle the fundamental ambivalence that I theorize for it. Identifying, dating, 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. An early aristocratic audience,
the notion goes, might find virtues in Beowulf where monks given to
Benedictine Christianity would see faults. The assumption again yields
no purchase on the ethical valences of Beowulf, for two reasons. First,
even a monastic audience need not have disparaged the poems vigorous secularism, as Patrick Wormald has shown.3 Second, Beowulf has
resisted any firm dating. Although the manuscript Cotton Vitellius A.xv
can be dated paleographically no later than ca. 1010,4 scholars have
ventured a point of originary composition anywhere between ca. 650
and 10165 and have backed Northumbria, Mercia, Wessex, and East
Anglia as a place of origin.6 Where Beowulf originated has no bearing

Wormald, Anglo-Saxon Aristocracy.

Dumville, Beowulf Come Lately.
5
By originary composition I mean a form of the text generically similar to the
one that survives. Oral-formulaic theorists have defeated decisive chronologies. From
Katherine OBrien OKeeffe (Visible Song) we have learned that every written transmittal
is a potential scribal performance. Relying on the hypotheses of Roy Michael Liuzza
(Dating of Beowulf ), Michael Lapidge (Archetype of Beowulf 37) has conjectured
that over 600 lines in the poem could reflect scribal intervention from generations of
copying. Yet the degree of interference may be slight, depending on how one views
the matter; see Fulk, Argumentation 1625.
6
Proposals for the poems historical setting are gathered in Bjork and Niles, Handbook
1334. Sam Newton (Origins of Beowulf ) has proposed pre-Viking East Anglia; Dorothy
Whitelock (Audience of Beowulf ) suggests late eighth-century Mercia; Michael Lapidge
(Beowulf, Aldhelm) recommends mid-eighth-century Wessex for two main reasons:
1. the mention of Hygelac in the Liber monstrorum, whose Anglo-Saxon author shared a
rare source with Aldhelm of Malmesbury (d. 709), and 2. place-names in the vicinity
of Malmesbury; A. S. Cook (Beowulf 2523) and Ritchie Girvan (Beowulf and the Seventh
Century) proposed Northumbria, Girvan for reasons of a theorized warband polity;
Frank (Skaldic Verse) backed ninth-century Wessex because of Skaldic parallels in
Beowulf; the date was later affirmed (Frank, Germanic Legend) on the assumption
that pan-Germanicism is not attested any earlier. Stanley (Lordlessness in Ancient
Times) alleges interesting historical contexts for these periods. Few observe that the
names from Beowulf seem to have been popular in ninth-century Northumbria, as
3
4

a contested BEOWULF

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 Kaluzas 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 poets 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 Lapidges 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
poems Christian references.11 He reminds us that the poets 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 Hrouulf 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.

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 poets 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 poems
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 audiences 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 Grendels descent
from Cain. Some have disagreed. Yet more troubling in Irvings model
is how inadequately it accounts for the characters behavior. Irving
identified Hrogar 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 Njls Saga; see Lnnroth, Noble Heathen. Larry D.
Benson reasons that the poets secularism reflects tolerant attitudes towards eighth-century continental pagans, who were pitied but respected (Pagan Coloring). Halverson,
Moorman, and Cherniss (all are discussed in Irvings article) affirm that the poems
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

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 lmihtig (Almighty God) which
occur chiefly in Christian contexts outside of Beowulf. Hrogar utters
such Christian sentiments three times more often than Beowulf,
Irving calculates, but Irving nevertheless disapproves of Hrogars
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 deathbut
not any qualms over Beowulf s behavior.20 What pseudo-Christian
secularism explains Irvings impression of Hrogars weakness, even
when Hrogar 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 Irvings position is Fred C. Robinson, whose book
Beowulf and the Appositive Style insists on the distinction between diegetic
and intradiegetic narrative.21 Robinsons 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 Hrothgars 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: Hrothgars 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 Hrothgars helpless passivity.
20
Irving, Christian and Pagan Elements 186.
21
By no means has Robinsons book met with universal approval. His recent collaboration with Bruce Mitchell boasts a section Two Views of Beowulf in which
Mitchell opposes Robinsons 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

introduction

Osborns 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 poems situational ironies, especially those
in which the narrator places heathen suffering in the cosmic feud: Cains
murder results in Grendels depravities, but the pagan audience only
senses the action of wyrd or fate. The runic inscription about the flood
that Hrogar reads on the giant sword hilt may reference the Flood of
Genesis, but Hrogar 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 Osborns elaboration of the double audience in Beowulf, and
prophetically rebutted Irvings identification of specifically Christian
utterances, by theorizing bivalent references in the poets language.
Holding the strict division between the Scandinavian and English
settings, Robinson maintained that the poets sententious commentary on Christian pre-history reveals a consistent dramatic irony. He
argued persuasively that terms like lmihtig, 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 audiences imagination. The Old English word god, Robinson explains, should be parsed
a god for the Geats and Danes, but recall the Christian Godcapital
Gfor those admiring of Beowulf s or Hrogars piety. When Beowulf
and his retainers gode ancodon (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 Renoirs 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 17588 makes sense
for a community of recent Christian converts. Andersson accepts the anachronism.
23
Osborne, Great Feud 974.

a contested BEOWULF

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 Gods Son ;
3. the terms nergend and hlend.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 poets 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 systemssecular/heroic/pagan and the Christianwere
not coterminous, the secular was engineered to parallel the Christian.
Ones 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 paganismthe reluctance to name pagan gods, to report
(invent, if you will) any details of potentially offensive rituals, to parade
the term hen as consummately disparaginglies in the poets 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 Robinsons 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 879.
28
Irving, Christian and Pagan Elements 188; Irving had earlier concluded:
. . . Hrothgar does not see . . . the story of Gods 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

introduction

Christianity by making them appear Christian and by emphasizing

the heathen Beowulf s moral enlightenment. From the Beowulf poets
perspective pagan Danes, Swedes, Geats, and Frisians cannot discern
anything of Christianity, despite their tendentious piety. Yet the narrator can magnify the Christian Gods 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 poets emphatic regret
for the pagan past, not Irvings 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
Robinsons 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 Robinsons 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 Klaebers 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

death.32 Robert Kaskes 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 heros 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 ones duty to ones king, ones kindred,
and ones word, and in carrying out ones 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

heros faults, Niles protests that, such negative verdicts concerning
the value of the heros 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. McNamees:
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 Franks salutary quip,

Brodeur, Art of Beowulf 723.

Kaske, Sapientia et Fortitudo.
34
Stanley, Henra Hyht 203.
35
Clark, Beowulf 142.
36
Niles, Beowulf 236.
37
Ibid. 2378. Here I must situate Stanley B. Greenfields article Judgement of the
Righteous, which systematically rationalizes three volatile centers that have produced
negative perceptions of the hero (395): 1. Hrogars sermon; 2. implications of
greed in Beowulf s speech (2518b37); 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 poets 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 71110 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 poems 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, Henra Hyht; Leyerle, Beowulf the Hero; Berger and Leicester;
Hupp, Earthly City; Bolton, Alcuin and Beowulf; Fajardo-Acosta.
41
Bolton, Alcuin and Beowulf; Goldsmith, Christian Perspective, Mode and Meaning.
Goldsmiths and Boltons volumes approach Beowulf s characterization by imagining
a Christian world-view against which his deeds could be read. Goldsmiths 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

a contested BEOWULF

11

Andy Orchard has lately revived the skeptical tradition, at least in

perspective if not precisely in methodology. He interprets Beowulf as
he imagines Anglo-Saxon Christian readers might have done, whether
monastic or lay.42 Extending Kenneth Sisams description of the Nowell
Codex as a liber monstrorum,43 Orchard examines protagonists in an
alleged Nowell anthology:44 Alexander the Great, St. Christopher (a
cynocephalus or dog-head), anthropomorphs and other beasts of the
Liber monstrorum. He finds pre-Christian sources critical of Alexander the
Great. If Greeks and Romans could view some of Alexanders behaviors
as immoral (vainglorious, specifically), an Anglo-Saxon could just as
easily condemn Beowulf for similar failingsespecially because their
own outlook on Alexander was largely negative. Orchard likewise delves
into Grettirs Saga, an anonymous work from early fourteenth-century
Iceland that portrays the protagonist Grettir as a misanthropic troll.45
He alleges the authors condemnation of Grettirs freakish strength and
fierce sociopathy. Parallels drawn between Beowulf and his monster
adversaries and between him and Cain, Alexander the Great, and
Grettir Asmundarson make Beowulf s deeds unrighteous.46 Orchard
concludes that Anglo-Saxons would probably have regarded Beowulf
rather more cynicallyas the victim of pridethan most critics do
today: The heathen warriors and monster-slayers, such as Hercules,
Alexander, Beowulf, and Grettir, have themselves become monsters
in Christian eyes.47 Yet Orchard steers clear of positing any internal
Christian atmospherethe imaginary secular or pagan perspective I
have been describingin the heathen setting. Instead, he appraises the
poem from the standpoint of a hypothetical Christian audience evaluating the poets imitative Germanic secularism, which betrays little of the
moderation that Robinson, Irving, Niles, and others have inferred.
The extensive evidence for Beowulf s pride that Orchard has
gathered exemplifies the problematic disposition that Beowulf imparts
in my reading of the poem. When Orchard outlines the separate
traditions of pride-versus-glory associated with Alexander the Great
in Anglo-Saxon reception, he does not propose that Alexander has a

Orchard, Pride and Prodigies.

Sisam, Studies 6596.
44
On a different view of the Nowell anthology, see Howe, Writing the Map 15194.
45
Orchard, Pride and Prodigies 14068.
46
The view that Beowulf is monstrous himself is an old one, but rather benign prior to
Orchards publication; cf. Pettitt; Dragland; OBrien OKeeffe, Transformations.
47
Orchard, Pride and Prodigies 169.
42
43

12

introduction

mixed nature susceptible to prejudicial misinterpretation. On the contrary, he suggests that Christian readers emphasized Alexanders pride
in mistrust of it as a sinful, monstrous indulgence. Orchards chapter
The Kin of Cain affirms Christian misgivings for heroic conduct by
associating Grendel with the proud tyrants of Genesis. These mighty
men are unequivocally imperious. Because Beowulf acts at times like
Grendel, Orchard deduces that Beowulf s heroism is troublingly arrogant. His take on Grettir is similar. For Orchard, Grettir embodies a
monstrous avatar that makes him a type of Antichrist at his death.48
At the end of his five-act tragedy Grettirs arrogance will consume
him.49 By comparing Beowulf to this portrait of Grettir, 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. By contrast, my own reading proposes
that characters in Beowulf debate Beowulf s motivation, which is only
potentially proud. This ambivalence is expressed throughout Grettirs
Saga, when, for example, Grettirs maternal uncle Jkull Brarson
urges Grettir not to fight the revenant Glmr.50 Jkulls advice sounds
much like Germanic wisdom in Beowulf that recommends moderation
over recklessness, and this discourse, I reason, challenges any confident
assertion of Beowulf s pride.
The Wreccan of Beowulf
From the foregoing discussion one might ask why the Beowulf poet
described the heros behavior so evasively that completely opposed
views of Beowulf s motivations could be entertained. As Stephen C.
Bandy remarks, . . . the question remains why Beowulf should repeatedly attract such dark suspicions, so many challenges of his motives.51
Quite understandably, critics fall back on some indeterminate cultural
paradigm (such as the heroic code or latent Christian morality),
either affirming or disputing the heros virtue, when, in fact, this dual
consciousness comprises the poets subject. Robinsons position on the
internal and external audiences of Beowulf accounts for this ambivalence,
48
49
50
51

Ibid. 154.
Ibid. 142.
Ibid. 155.
Bandy 244.

a contested BEOWULF

13

which is generated by contradictory appraisals of Beowulf s identity and

motivation. Outside the poem an audience of Christian Anglo-Saxons
weighs Beowulf s deeds from the superior, but not condescending,
viewpoint of Christian dogma. The narrator himself validates this
nominal Christian outlook. In the fictional world of Danes and Geats,
however, characters of imperfect capacity and discernment appraise
Beowulf s ambition, judgment, and potential. Such figures contemplate
Beowulf s exceptionality in light of his desire for glory (dom) or praise
(lof ), and some react guardedly. By no means do all the inhabitants of
Beowulf s Germanic world approve of his confidence, especially in the
Grendel fight, and some worry about the consequences of his success.
At the inflection point of heroic eminence, then, Beowulf s motivations
engender anxieties about his present and future conductthe potential
for immoderation that he seems to express. While some are satisfied with
Beowulf s sense of heroic proportion, more skeptical observers fear the
prospect of latent recklessness that can accompany matchless strength
and uninhibited zeal. These characters mistrust Beowulf s potential for
excessive ambition, as much for themselves as for him. For them Beowulf
is an enigmatic figure whose incommensurate power they admire and
fear. As I shall show, their views of Beowulf occasionally confront the
Christian audiences superior awareness and the narrators sympathy
for his hero.
The notion of Beowulf s latent arrogance or recklessness will
no doubt surprise some readers of the poem, because most critics
endorse the position of Beowulf s generous heroism. Yet the characters
observing Beowulf hold conflicting and therefore inconclusive views
of him. Beowulf represents a liminal figure of pre-eminent ability
whose potentially courageous actions can also seem just as potentially
reckless, especially to those who lack his gifts. A key impediment to
entertaining this motivationaland hence moralambivalence stems
largely from defining the social (or literary) phenomenon of Germanic
heroism as distorted by the poets projected Christian morality. Apart
from hle or hle and perhaps the loanword cempa, Old English has
no equivalent word for hero, a loan from Greek heros first attested in
1387 but popularized in its present-day meaning only in the sixteenth
century. The hero as we moderns imagine him typically conjures
the pretensions of late medieval chivalry: decorous, devoted, fearless,
etc. This description does not comfortably suit Germanic heroes like
Beowulf, who could belong to any number of identifiable social positions, temporarily or intermittently. The categories nobleman (eling,

14

introduction

eorl ), retainer ( egn, gesi, guma, monn), warrior (wiga, cempa, freca, etc.),
lord (dryhten), or king (cyning, eoden) arguably characterize Beowulf,
who yet has a special status in addition to these.52
Coming from abroad, Beowulf should be classified as a peripatetic
warrior or adventurer, not in the strict sense of mercenary but as a
sound, if untested, fighter eager to earn a reputation for his warfare.
In other words, Beowulf intends to distinguish himself at a famous court.
Some critics have doubted this heroic rationale, as if offended by martial
glory devoid of any altruistic context. John M. Hill, for example, alleges
that Beowulf comes to Heorot for selfless reasons: Is [ Beowulf s] quest
simply for glory, despite the great risk? Or is there something in the idea
of need that a right-minded, ethical warrior cannot ignore?53 Hill,
I sense, identifies a tension occasioned by the poems dual audiences.
Where the external Christian audience may intuit Gods right-minded
deputy, the pagan characters see a champion motivated by glory, a
fundamental and honorable incentive for heroic action in Beowulf s
world. Abundant evidence contradicts the implication that an ethical
Beowulf merely wishes to rescue Hrogar. On the contrary, Beowulf
has sailed from home to earn fame by killing Grendel.
Critics have largely neglected Beowulf s status as a foreigner in
Denmark, even though nomadic fighting men like him differ in standing from Hrogars native retainers who are largely anonymous in the
poem.54 If historical records are any guide, the presence of foreigners

For a thorough analysis of the relational terms found in Beowulf see Bazelmans
114, 136.
53
Narrative Pulse 11 (my emph.). The phrase despite the great risk implies that
Beowulf is foolhardy and must have a better reason to fight Grendel than mere
glory. On the contrary, the great risk attracts Beowulf. Much of Hills position is staked
on comparisons to Andreas 30714 (see 1314) and on passages from the Odyssey. The
Andreas passage confirms my own intuition about Beowulf s bivalent motivation, for
Christ in disguise questions Andreas about the recklessness implicit in his overseas
venture. Andreass reply downplays the risks in fatalistic terms, suggesting that Christ
himself will determine the outcome of the journey. Andreas illuminates the character
of Beowulf s own mission as potentially reckless, an observation made by some men
in his world, and Andreass divine mission corresponds to Beowulf s exercise of divine
will in killing Cains spawn.
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, 115
note 15, 1367). Bazelmans also suggests that a prominent retainer should undertake
without the king adventurous endeavours (sias, journeys, enterprises, expeditions) in the
world outside the kingdom in order to show his strength and courage 1756. By this
52

a contested BEOWULF

15

in a kings warband was normal. Stephan S. Evans points out that as

war-leaders gained reputations for winning riches, men flocked to their
banners. Gulacs late seventh-century warband attracted fighters of
various races (diversarum gentium),55 no doubt from many different
tribes.56 Evans goes on to describe Bedes account in the Historia ecclesiatica, 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.57 The
make-up of these historical courts matches Hrogars legendary one.
In Heorot at least, foreign fighters seem to hold high offices, possibly because they were ranking nobles in their homelands, or else
pre-eminent fighters. Wulfgar, described as a prince of the Wendels
(or Vandals?) (Wendla leod, 348b), has an important position as
a counselor to Hrogar, his authority implicit in the terse way he
advises the king: No u him wearne geteoh//inra gegncwida (Do
not refuse him your reply, 366b7a). Moreover, Wulfgars courage
is known to many (his modsefa/manegum gecyed, 349ab), an
expression that implies a pan-Germanic reputation. This modsefa,
literally spirit or zeal, is glossed by the variand war and wisdom
(wig ond wisdom, 350a), a phrase emphasizing Wulfgars prudence
and reliability. Another foreign soldier, Hunfer, holds the office of
yle (defined below, pp. 8792), but Hunfer represents a different
kind of adventurer with a more sinister reputation. Because Hunfer
had a hand in the death of his brothers, he may belong to the social
category of wreccan, a term translated variously as exiles, outcasts,
or adventurers.
Described as wrcmcgas (banished men) in Beowulf, the Scylfing
princes Eanmund and Eadgils may exemplify Hunfers status. They
seek Heardreds protection after rebelling against their king, Onela:

formulation, he deduces that Beowulf has brought honour to Hygelacs people by his
actions (183). No doubt this turns out to be true, but why would any king risk losing a
prominent thane in the first place? In fact, John M. Hill emphasizes Beowulf s potential
to leave Hygelacs service and become Hrogars thane (Cultural World 106).
55
Colgrave, Felixs Life 80 (XVII).
56
Lords of Battle 28.
57
Ibid. 33. HE III.14: (to his service flocked the most noble men from nearly all
the provinces.).

16

introduction
Hyne [ Heardred ] wrcmcgas
ofer s sohtan,
suna Ohteres;
hfdon hy forhealden
helm Scylfinga,
one selestan
scyninga
ara e in Swiorice
sinc brytnade,
mrne eoden. (2379b2384a)
The sons of Ohtherebanished mensought [ Heardred ] over the sea.
They had rebelled against the protector of the Scylfings, the best sea-king
who had ever dispensed treasure in Sweden, a glorious prince.

Although some critics have concluded that Onela usurped the Swedish
throne from Eadgils,58 the circumstances of the nephews exile confirms
Onelas legitimacy: he was already the Scylfing king. As the best king
in Swedish history, a glorious prince, he dispensed treasure liberally. Eanmund and Eadgils have wronged their generous lord. Even
though, like Wulfgar, Hunfer is trusted and his reputation widespread
(widcune man, 1489b), his implicit status as a man like Eanmund
and Eadgils brands him as potentially dangerous. Both Wulfgar and
Hunfer have strength, courage, and zeal for glory. The difference
between them lies in the way they express these heroic endowments
in their behavior, either sensibly or rashly.
OE wrecca derives from the verb wrecan to force or impel and,
among a host of other usages, describes warriors forced out or exiled
from their homelands, mostly because of rivalrous dispositions and
impetuous violence. The identity is socially liminal, for wreccan are exiled
for the same ruthless ambition that motivates other foreign fighters
seeking glory abroad. The forcibly exiled wrecca can attach himself to a
foreign retinue, one reason why powerful kings manage to rule relatively
vast dominions. In Beowulf the foreign wrecca Hengest joins a Danish
warband, which, on the evidence of the Finnsburg Fragment, also
includes a man named Sigefer, a prince of the Secgan and an exile
widely known (Secgena leod,//wreccea wide cu, 24b5a). This is
the same language used of Wulfgar and Hunfer. Interestingly, the custom of kings recruiting exiles like Germanic wreccan is documented even
in the Iliad, where Phoenix and Patroclus gain patronage from Peleus.
Phoenix chooses exile after threatening to kill his father, but Patroclus

Klaebers Beowulf lx: . . . upon Ohtheres death, Onela seizes the throne, compelling
his nephews Eanmund and Eadgils to flee the country (my emph.). Even in Beowulf
the kings eldest son is not automatically enthroned after his fathers death. On the
passage see Bazelmans 132 (the two sons . . . challenge Onelas accession).
58

a contested BEOWULF

17

is banished for a murder committed over a game. Both become leading

men in Phthia. While Beowulf himself is not exiled from Geatland, his
appearance at Heorot prompts a conspicuous appraisal of him as one
of these two types of mercenary fighters. Wulfgar resolves that Beowulf
has come for wlenco/nalles for wrcsium (for reasons of glory, not
at all because of exile, 338). In my view, Wulfgars verdict first introduces a key anxiety that frames Beowulf s ambitionthat he could, in
light of his pre-eminence and ambition, cross the behavioral threshold
separating wreccan from other adventurers. For this reason, one may
be tempted to render Wulfgars laconic statement as mild sarcasm: I
suppose you have sought Hrogar for glorymajesty of mind, as it
wereand not because of exile (Wen ic t ge for wlenco,/nalles
for wrcsium//ac for higerymmum,/Hrogar sohton, 338a9b).
The prominent foreign leaders in Hrogars host, the implicit profile
of Hunfer as a wrecca widely known, and Wulfgars pointed evaluation of Beowulf s voyage to Denmark for wlenco rather than wrcsi
draw attention to Beowulf s problematic identity. Even more evidence,
however, broadens this characterization. Beowulf s father Ecgeow
resembles a wrecca himself. Ecgeow caused a great strife (fhe
mste, 459b) among the Wylfings when he slew Heaolaf (459a61a),
a conflict which Hrogar settled by payment of wergild. One wonders
what business took Ecgeow to such a distant corner of the Baltic.59
In no way am I suggesting that Ecgeow was exiled from Geatland,
but he may represent the soldier-of-fortune whose behavior triggered
powerful hostilities abroad. While the lack of detail about the Wylfing
feud prevents any conclusive understanding of Ecgeows identity, the
suggestion seems clear: does Beowulf, like his father, also have the
potential for such violence?
Furthermore, the long-recognized association between the wrecca
Grendel and Beowulf has suggested a kind of congruent identity.60

59
Following the settlement, Ecgeow may have attached himself to Hrogars retinue,
joining Hrogar before or after his marriage to Hreels only daughter (374b75a).
Under these hypothetical circumstances, Ecgeow either switched his loyalty to the
Geatish court or served Hrogar for a time, given that royal marriages in Beowulf are
rewards for exceptional military service. On the possibility that Ecgeow was a Scylfing,
see Wardale. Kemp Malone formulated an ingenious argument that Ecgeow had
himself been a Wylfing and fled to Hrogar because Wealheow was likewise a member of that tribe (Ecgtheow). Paul Beekman Taylor (Beowulf s Family) offers some
speculations on Ecgeows marriage.
60
Orchard, Pride and Prodigies 304.

18

introduction

Like other exiles in Beowulf, Grendel has trodden the paths of exile
(wrclastas trd, 1352b) deprived of joy (dreamum bedled,
721a; dreame bedled, 1275a), a wretched being (wonsli wer,
105a). Johann Kberl has lately pointed out that Grendel is not just
an exile but, ironically, a hall-thane (healegnes, 142a) and a
hall-guardian (renweardas, 770a).61 He has, in appreciation of the
verb rixode (ruled, 144a), become the king of Heorot.62 This subtle
metaphor has suggested to Johann Kberl that Grendel and Beowulf
share a co-extensive identity, Beowulf serving as Grendels alter ego.63
In fact, Andy Orchard had investigated this convincing parallel in
Pride and Prodigies, drawing particularly on Norse evidence of Beowulf s
monstrous identity.
On the basis of this suggestive evidence, identifying Beowulf as a
wrecca would be imprecise, as Wulfgar acknowledges. But to say that
Beowulf is compared to wreccan reflects the poets conscientious strategy of
disinterest in the exploration of his heros liminal identity. The implicit
identification of Ecgeow 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, depending on
ones sympathy, notorious) exiles: Sigemund, Hengest, and Heremod.
In multiple analogous stories characters scrutinize Beowulf s present
motivation and, by extension, foretell his future. The digressions function as exempla. All of them take wreccan as their subjects, 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 s potential
status as one of these Germanic champions marks him as a figure of
supreme ability whose motivations remain arguably impulsive, solitary,
and socially marginal. This alleged identity generates an extraordinary
anxiety over the possibility of Beowulf s leadership. Because his deeds in
Denmark as well as his aristocratic heritage distinguish him as a future
king of Geats, the prospect of tyranny remains a foremost worry for
all the characters in the poem, especially Hrogar.
Comparison of Beowulf to prominent wreccan suggests the liminal
behavior that characterizes Beowulf s exceptionality. Attending this

61
62
63

Indeterminacy 97.
Ibid.
Ibid. 98.

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), but also to understand the bearing of Grettirs Saga for
Beowulf. Both works explore the intersection of heroic prominence and
social disruption. The early fourteenth-century Grettirs Saga has often
been advanced as the closest analogue to Beowulf, and quite clearly
Grettir represents the Beowulfian parallel.64 It would seem relevant,
then, that Grettir earns exile for his first killing, a savage murder over
a food bag. Details from the saga reveal the innocent circumstances
under which Grettir and the servant Skeggi lost their supplies, but
the recovered food bag may have belonged to either man. Skeggis
reluctance to show the bag looks suspicious. Grettir insists on seeing
it, but Skeggi then insults Grettir by recalling an earlier humiliation
that Grettir suffered. Skeggi attacks first and swings at Grettir with an
axe, but Grettir ends up killing Skeggi with the same weapon. Exiled
for the killing of Skeggi at the Althing, Grettir sails to Norway, proving his strength, if not obviously his virtue, time after time. Grettir
later becomes the most famous exile in Icelandrespected, tolerated,
or despisedfor almost twenty years. Grettirs ambiguous motivation
and the contradictory appraisals of it indicate that the saga characters
cannot fathom his violence. The central ambivalence characterizing
Grettir, his impetuous aggression, reflects my own reading of Beowulf s
conflicted portrayal. Although Beowulf should in no way be thought to
have committed any crime before venturing to Denmark, some Danes
perceive a Grettir-like potential in Beowulf s confidence and pursuit
of glory. Grettirs life as an exile from the community of men invites
comparison to Beowulf s life as a future exile, in consideration of latent
arrogance.
My comparison of Beowulf to Grettir in support of Beowulf s potential conceit may likewise explain Beowulf s inglorious youth, subject
to flagrant dissembling because it ostensibly confirms a failing of sorts.
Right after Beowulf has reported his success in Denmark, honored
Hygelac, and bestowed Hreels war-gear on him, the narrator mentions
64
At a glance, the resemblances between Grettir and Beowulf seem remote, since
Grettirs arrogance is devoid of the civility, at least, that Beowulf arguably expresses as
a thane and king. A provocative recent study by Magns Fjalldal postulates no genetic
connection between the two works, although Fjalldals findings only address moments
in Beowulf thought to be related to long-held folktale analogues. He finds these parallels impressionistic, although they quite convincingly explained Beowulf s behavior as
described in Orchard, Pride and Prodigies.

20

introduction

that Beowulf was hean (humiliated, abject) for a long time (2183b),
since the Geata bearn or (sons of the Geats, 2184a) thought him
immature (unfrom, 2188a),65 shiftless (sleac, 2187b), and unworthy
of much honor on the mead-bench (2185ab):
swa hyne Geata bearn
ne hine on medobence
dryhten Wedera
swye wendon,
eling unfrom.
tireadigum menn

Hean ws lange,
godne ne tealdon,
micles wyrne
gedon wolde;
t he sleac wre,
Edwenden cwom
torna gehwylces. (2183b9b)

[ Beowulf ] was abject for a long time, since the sons of the Geats did
not consider him good, nor would the lord of the Weathers make him
worthy of much on the mead-bench. They earnestly presumed that he
was immature, a cowardly prince. A change came to the victory-blessed
man for each of those indignities.

Although these lines voice disapproval and OE hean regularly describes

exiles,66 anything disparaging about Beowulf is invariably downplayed.
Raymond Tripp, Jr., for example, denies any inglorious youth and
charges that the narrator expresses a Geatish view of Beowulf s antiheroic temperance.67 The Geats therefore mistake Beowulf s pacifism
for passivity. The parallel in Grettirs Saga answers some critics of the
passage, as indolence indeed characterizes Grettirs youth. Lazy,
impetuous, and hostile, young Grettir the coal-biter scorns work that
does not flatter his self-esteem, such as herding geese, scratching his
fathers back, or herding the mare Kengala. He kills many goslings,
injures his father with a wool comb, and flays Kengala. Furthermore,
while sailing to Norway aboard Hafliis ship, Grettir is accused of being
shiftless because he will not help bail. Only when the ship is swamped
will Grettir intervene and leverage his miraculous rescue for maximum
prestige. Humiliated by womens work and by the general disregard
for his heroic genius, the shiftless Grettir suggests why Beowulf is
thought to be abject and slack: he will not perform any chore
beneath his heroic dignity. Some characters in the saga think little of
65
I back this reading uncomfortably, but note that unfrom occurs elsewhere
only in a verse from the Paris Psalter (138.14: unfrom on ferhe) where it glosses
imperfectum, perhaps immature.
66
Greenfield, Theme of Exile 203.
67
Tripp, Inglorious Youth 1334. The passage is generally explained by a principle of contrast in which present accomplishments are magnified by a recollection
of past miseries; see Klaebers Beowulf note to line 2183b ff. (236).

a contested BEOWULF

21

Grettira position, one might say, that reflects Hunfers opinion of

Beowulf.
Grettirs presumption, sensitivity, and willingness to resort to extreme
brutality characterize him throughout the saga, but every case of violence seems moderated by provocations or other special circumstances.
Kathryn Hume contends that Grettir cannot adapt to the lawful,
agrarian (or commercial), and Christian society that Iceland became
and that, inevitably, to most Icelandic settlers, Grettir is a frightening,
ugly-minded bully.68 Grettirs heroism needs to be managed under the
right circumstances:
When the [social] context is congenial, Grettir is portrayed as nearly
ideal, and he can coexist peacefully with men of good will, and they
approve of him. He is also able to control his temper when happily
circumstanced.69

According to Hume, Grettir exhibits self-restraint when some authorityspecifically a man of the lordly typevalidates him with the
grand gesture.70 In other words, Grettirs ideal patron acts much
like an ancient king whom Grettir would serve as a prominent thane
(the simile is Humes). Without such indulgence Grettir would appear
irascible and arrogant.
The narrative homologies between Beowulf and Grettirs Saga merely
suggest that Beowulf might express an identity with similarly ambiguous
contours. In fact, Beowulf is not a wrecca, but he is compared to them
because, to some observers, he seems to betray their temperament. The
burden of proof lies with me to show that Beowulf may exhibit the negative characteristics associated with wreccan, and in the chapters which
follow I lay out the evidence for a cynical fear surrounding Beowulf and
his accomplishments. Beowulf s prospective identity as a wrecca hinges
significantly on his perceived temerity, his arguably reckless feats, and
the notable but sociopathic wreccan to whom he is compared.
The Limits of Heroic Glory
OE wrecca begot Modern English wretch, while its continental antecedent gave rise to Modern German Recke (hero). Each reflex characterizes
68
69
70

Hume, Thematic Design 473.

Ibid.
Ibid. 474, 472 resp.

22

introduction

the ambivalent personality of the Germanic hero represented by

Beowulf: always glorious, fearless, and solitary on the one hand; potentially
spiteful, vain, barbaric, even murderous, on the other. The combination of isolation and habitual violence, I suppose, make the wrecca a
wretch. Heroic literature abounds in the kind of individual potentially
represented by Beowulf. Achilles epitomizes the type: acutely defensive
of any slight to his honor, rebarbative, hateful, and violent, yet the
most outstanding fighter among the Greeks. Only with Achilles can
the Argives hope to win the Trojan War; they have to accommodate
him. In the Norse tradition the best-known figure corresponding to
the Anglo-Saxon wrecca would be Starkar. The late thirteenth-century
Gautreks Saga traces his ambiguous personality to an altercation between
inn and rr over Starkars fate. While inn magnifies Starkars
powers, a curse from rr makes each of his attributes a hardship:71
. . . skapa ek at Starkai, at hann skal hvrki eiga son n dttur ok
enda sv tt sna. inn svarai: at skapa ek honum, at hann skal lifa
rj mannzalldra. rr mllti: Hann skal vinna ningsverk hverjum
mannzalldri. inn svarai: at skapa ek honum, at hann skal eiga en
beztu vpn ok vir. rr mllti: at skapa ek honum, at hann skal hvrki
eiga land n l. inn mllti: Ek gef honum at, at hann skal eiga of
lausafjr. rr mllti: at legg ek hann, at hann skal alldri ikjazt ng
eiga. inn svarai: Ek gef honum sigr ok snilld at hverju vgi. rr
svarai: at legg hann, at hann fi hverju vgi meizlasr. inn mllti:
Ek gef honum sklldskap, sv at hann skal ei seinna yrkja en mla. rr
mllti: Hann skal ekki muna eptir at er hann yrkir. inn mllti: at
skapa ek honum, at hann skal ikja hztr enum gfguztum mnnum ok
hinum beztum. rr mllti: Leir skal hann alu allri.
. . . [rr spoke:] I ordain this for Starkar, that he shall have neither
a son nor a daughter, and his issue will end with him. inn spoke: I
ordain for him that he shall live for three lifespans. rr pronounced: He
shall commit treachery in each of them. inn spoke: I ordain this for
him, that he shall have the best weapons and clothes. rr pronounced:
I ordain this for him, that he shall have neither land nor territories.
inn pronounced: I give him this, that he shall possess treasure. rr
pronounced: I lay this on him, that he shall never think he has enough.
inn spoke: I give him victory and renown in every battle. rr spoke: I
lay this on him, that he shall have serious wounds in every battle. inn
pronounced: I give him the art of poetry, so that he shall compose verses

71

Ranisch 289.

a contested BEOWULF

23

as he speaks. rr pronounced: He shall never remember afterwards what

he composes. inn pronunced: I ordain this for him, that he shall be
thought foremost by all the noblest and best men. rr pronounced: All
the common people shall despise him.

Admired by kings but despised by commoners, Starkar represents

the consummate soldier. He exchanges kingship (the responsibilities
and limitations of power) for the glory and the visible display of clothing and weapons. Much like Achilless own zeal, Starkars drive for
preeminence makes him commit three great crimes, suffer repeatedly
from battle wounds, and guard his reputation with a jealous vigilance.
The motivation for Starkars ferocity is the same as Achilless: glory.
No modern English term quite captures Beowulf s motivation, which
in Greek epic might be expressed as thymos, a quality associated with
ones personal ambition for honor and a touchy regard for its public
acknowledgment. One approximation in Old English might be mod, a
word for spirit, courage, or high-mindedness that has lately been
called an aristocratic virtue.72 Here my interest involves the underlying
motivation for ones deeds, not in the terminology describing the deeds
themselves. Thus OE ellen means courage but does not describe the
incentive to express courage. OE mod belongs to kings, noblemen,
retainers, and other elites, but more precision is required for Beowulf,
whose mod should be distinguished as that appropriate to his liminal
exceptionality. I suggest that OE wlenco, a term for pride or dignity,
could express both the magnitude and the ambiguity of Beowulf s heroism, that wlenco may be the silent term by which Beowulf s behavior is
contested as courageous or arrogant.
Within a spectrum of motivations OE wlenco has context-specific
boundaries that determine its ethical value, and precisely because of
its bivalence, T. A. Shippey calls wlenco the quality of a heroor of
a meddler.73 Dennis Cronan comes closest to my own position that
wlenco reflects a mental state, and he has lately expressed the range of
behaviors associated with its positive and negative manifestations:

Highfield.
Shippey, Old English Verse 39. The same bivalence also characterizes OE mod; see
Godden 287: mod seems to convey to many Anglo-Saxon writers not so much the
intellectual, rational faculty but something more like an inner passion or willfulness,
an intensification of the self that can be dangerous.
72
73

24

introduction
. . . wlenco denotes a daring bravado which shades into the recklessness that
can impair a persons judgement. 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.74

Heroic and homiletic sources document this semantic equivocacy.75

Even Saint Gulac can seize his mountain hermitage from devils for
wlence (in daring, 208a) in the Exeter Book poem. And yet in
Genesis A the Shinarites also build the Tower of Babel for wlence
(in arrogance, 1673a). Both audacity and greatness of accomplishment can be implied in the term. On its own, being wlonc might mean
being either proud or dignified, but the nature and outcome of
ones social interactions will determine the aspect of wlenco. Dangerous or rash behavior verges on pride when ones conduct merely
establishes social supremacy, enhances personal prestige, or unnecessarily endangers the group. In fact, especially hazardous (one might
say aggressive) physical or verbal behavior intended for ones own
social or material profit often establishes the limit at which wlenco turns
negative. Avenging a kinsman, however, or defending ones territory
would characterize the positive kind of wlenco, in which a moral or civic
duty calls for sacrifice.
This same motivational bivalence figures in Beowulf, where the noun
wlenco occurs three times. In Wulfgars speech wlenco seems to have
a positive sense: Beowulf has come seeking glory, not refuge as an exile
(338a). In line 508a, however, Hunfer accuses Beowulf of a committing
a reckless stunt with Breca for wlence, and in this case the term is
pejorative. The same derogatory usage describes Hygelacs Frisian raid,
which the King of Geats undertakes for wlenco (1206a). The narrator
himself makes this judgment, and given the outcome of the invasion, the
verdict hardly evokes praise for glorious deeds. A similar case can be
made for the usage of OE wlonc, either dignified or arrogant. When
Wulfgar and Beowulf meet, both are described as wlonc, portending
a formal, confident dignity (331b, 341a). After Beowulf has killed the
dragon, the narrator remarks that it will no longer visit its lair, proud
in its treasured possessions (mamhta wlonc, 2833b). This usage

Cronan, Poetic Words 34. Cronans remarks refer to Beowulf 338 and 12027.
The primary and most comprehensive study is by Michael von Rden, who
has documented this ambivalent sense for OE wlonc and wlenco in all genres: prose,
poetry, and glosses.
74

75

a contested BEOWULF

25

expresses a degree of arrogant overconfidence. Quite clearly, being

wlonc means having wlenco, and both terms seem to encompass
the semantic ambivalence of Modern English proud and pride.
While the term wlenco is found in Beowulf in exactly the indefinite
sense that characterizes my understanding of Beowulf s liminal action,
it never comprises part of a behavioral or moral system like the one I
theorize. In other words, the Beowulf poet never explicitly says, Beowulf
expressed wlenco when he challenged Grendel or Beowulf was wlonc
when he confronted the dragon. From convergent conclusions reached
in these pages, I observed that OE wlenco perfectly approximates the
uncertain ambition motivating Beowulf s feats. Nor is OE wlenco ever
associated with the conduct or deeds of wreccan in any specific expression. I propose the affiliation because the usage of OE wlenco throughout
the corpus describes Beowulf s bivalent potential. In other words, while
wlenco specifically may not have motivated Beowulf to fight Grendel,
the poet has conveyed a similar motivation of equivocal virtue. What
thought-category he had in mind is impossible to discover, but OE
wlenco captures the bivalent nature of this heroic confidence.
In Beowulf one encounters elites apparently motivated by glory, but
wreccan are a special case. Simply because wreccan are disposed to maximize their prestige, the motivation they express may resemble pride
more often than dignity, arrogance more often than sacrifice.
Their deeds therefore look more foolhardy than courageous,
especially when men of lower status, ambition, and skill suffer for their
zeal. I must be forthright, however, about Beowulf s alleged status:
the poet never accuses him of arrogance. It is my view that doing so
would tip his hand, for he aims merely to hint of Beowulf s potential
arrogance as a prospective wrecca, to improvise phantom reservations,
to discredit certainties. This inconclusiveness should not imply a dearth
of evidence, 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). Sometimes the evidence suggests
that Beowulf resembles a vainglorious wrecca, and sometimes it suggests
that he resembles an honorable foreign champion defending Danes
and Geats. In my view, the poets explicit indecision over Beowulf s
motivationthe charge of generosity or prideexplains the poems
general ambivalence.

26

introduction
Ambivalent Heroism and Indeterminacy

The competing perspectives, arguments, and counter-arguments for

Beowulf s ambivalent identity give rise to a subtle contrapuntalism, a
discourse of ratiocination. I do not mean to imply that the poet has
laid out evidence pro and con in daisy-chain fashion, but that he has
presented multiple alternative readings of Beowulf s character. While
his method invites deliberation, however, it does not concede resolution, only conjectures formulated in reaction to preferred interpretations. My treatment of the Hunfer digression illustrates the method
of this internal debate: charge and rebuttal that, on each occasion,
have no clear-cut factual proof. In answer to Hunfers accusation
of temerity, Beowulf states that he was young. Are we satisfied that
he is less impetuous now? He says that he killed water-monsters in a
struggle that Hunfer could never win. Does that validate his alleged
rashness? Does Beowulf s public condemnation for Hunfers murder mean that Hunfer must be biased, or is Beowulf just using the
flyting convention of distorted sarcasm to demean his opponent? The
implicit argumentation that characterizes the Hunfer episode has an
extensive corollary in the dragon fight, where the poet has frustrated
any conclusive ruling on Beowulf s motivation. The poet has not, in
fact, established an incontrovertible outcome, but one shaped by debate.
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.
This frank ambivalence invites readers of Beowulf to settle the poems
open-endedness: an audience was meant to judge Beowulf s motivation
and rationalize the poets equivocacy, the position of arrogance that
some readers have over-emphasized and others dismissed. As I see it,
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. Johann Kberl
proposes that the poems ambiguities have yielded over-determined
interpretations foreclosing its intentional open-endedness. Kberl generally locates this ambivalence in the text of Beowulf as construed by its
Anglo-Saxon audience, rather than intradiegetically, in the imperfect
awareness of its characters. Explaining the potential impiety of heroic
archetypes for an Anglo-Saxon audience, he remarks,

a contested BEOWULF

27

. . . it may also be speculated that Anglo-Saxon society is characterised by

an ambivalent attitude towards its own pre-Christian past. 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, it may well develop a way of talking about its past in
terms that do not unambiguously sing the praises of those ancestors.76

The poets sublimation of offensive pagan associations has atheticized

Beowulf s heroism and therefore encourages such an evaluation. For
Kberl Beowulf yields thematic oppositions enhanced by nuanced linguistic amphibolies (polysemous words like lofgeornost, fah/fag, gst) that
not only prevent hermeneutic closure but also draw attention to the
oppositions themselvesthe anxiety that I would locate in Beowulf s
liminal identity. Even so, Kberls global account of narrative misprision in Beowulf also concedes both the narrators and the characters
perspectives. At times, Kberl addresses the subjective viewpoints of
characters like Hunfer in establishing the valences of indeterminacy.
In other words, Kberls position may be applied to the narrower thesis
of heroic identity that I allege for the poem as a whole.
In a chapter on The Search for a Theme Kberl conjectures
that ambivalences in the dichotomy individual-versus-collective and
king-versus-subject cannot be resolved in favor of one domain, but
must recognize that both exist coterminously. Grounding this notional
ambivalence in the wider context of fate, transience, and mortality,
Kberl concludes that the texts discourse on the final things, death,
judgment, heaven and hell, refuses to be authoritative.77 Instead, the
poet juxtaposes competing views of heroic identity, unresolved in their
argumentative equipoise: a warriors eternal glory is meaningful in
response to heroic Fatalism but antithetical or irrelevant to the Christian afterlife, from which perspective its ideologies are offensive, if not
odious. While I find this situational and semantic polyvalence nearly
identical to my own understanding of the poets rhetorical strategy, I
perceive a different emphasis on heroic action as a human ideal but
subject to defects of proportion that exceptional mortals exhibit.
The ambivalence that Kberl theorizes for heroic action in Beowulf
centers on an ambiguously rendered ethos that is uncertainly resolved.78
76
77
78

Indeterminacy 9.
Ibid. 82.
Ibid. 81: Is [Beowulf ] about a celebration and glorification of heroic life, or is it

28

introduction

Critical of the interpretive judgmentalism that reduces many latent

oppositions to a single reading, he reasons that both positive and negative aspects of heroism remain salient to the poets audience. Choosing
one position, Kberl argues, forecloses a deliberate equivocation: The
disputed issue of heroism need not be resolved in terms of glorification or condemnation. The poems presentation of heroism oscillates
between approval of its search for glory and disapproval of its inherent
instability, its feud-and-revenge ethics, its materialism, and its consequent ignorance if, and disregard for, Christian values.79 Kberl
describes an oscillation of perspective that I have characterized as
a logical contrapuntalism centered on the poets presentation of
Beowulf s ambiguous motivation. In contrast to Kberls wider sense
of indeterminacy, I do not claim that the poet distrusts heroic action
per se, only its expression in the hero Beowulf. The difference is significant. Kberl envisions a positive Beowulf who has managed to
keep royal and heroic qualities in balance,80 such that any ambiguity
rests on valuing or devaluing Beowulf s accomplishments, as well as
Germanic heroism more generally. In my view, the accomplishments
themselveskilling the dragon, above allare equivocated as possibly
springing from excessive ambition. Kberl, I imagine, would see my
own position as a kind of narrative closure, although the indeterminacy
I theorize in the dragon fight challenges the Anglo-Saxon audience as
much as the characters. At times throughout the poem internal and
external perspectives overlap.
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. No
boundary seems to separate right action from excessive action. The
incentive to earn glory motivates a pretense of Germanic heroism,
that a fighters utmost courage sometimes enables him to prevail against
otherwise impossible odds, as Beowulf remarks:

a condemnation? The indisputable fact that theseand otherthematic 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, since the ambivalences are actually
characteristic of the whole text and are, therefore, ultimately unresolvable.
79
Ibid. 176.
80
Ibid. 95.

a contested BEOWULF
unfgne eorl,

29

Wyrd oft nere

onne his ellen deah! (572b3b)

Fate often protects an undoomed nobleman when his courage is strong!

The statement is not tautological. No amount of courage saves a doomed

man, of course, but exceptional valor can forestall an unanticipated
death that might come about through momentary weakness or doubt.
An ambiguity in this system of belief lies in gauging the unknowable
boundary of success, since the riskier the deed, the greater the honor
and likelihood of fatality. Somewhere between sheer cowardice and
certain death one finds a point of comfortable riska coordinate of
multiple social variables beyond which one exhibits immoderation by
overestimating the chances of survival relative to ones legitimate obligations.81 An acceptable risk, it must be said, depends as much on the
situation as on ones own prowess and motivation. The motivational
dimension includes such public and private terms as revenge, kinship,
duty, wlenco, or emotions like love and hate. The situational dimension could be called luck. For example, we are led to speculate that
Beowulf would have died fighting Grendels mother if the giant sword
had not been hanging within reach in her cave. Now, before the fight
the poet notes that Beowulf is the strongest man alive (196a8a; cf.
379b81a), so his prowess cannot be impugned. Moreover, the narrator specifically says that Grendels mother is weaker than Grendel
(1282b4b)a deduction that Beowulf might have made himself
although Beowulf is handicapped by fighting her underwater and in
her lair. Yet prowess alone did not save Beowulf, nor did the foresight
of wearing a mailcoat. Fortune also favored him, and if not for the
arguable motivation of avenging scheres death, one might question
Beowulf s prudence: Did he express courage for a just cause or pride for
a rash enterprise? The poet defers judgment. As I shall show, the fight
with Grendels mother does not acquit Beowulf of pridethe desire for
glorybut does vindicate the encounter, since Beowulf endangers no
one but himself. Like the legendary Sigemund, who fights his dragon
solo, Beowulf confronts Grendels mother alone, the only appropriate
circumstance in Beowulf for men to convey reckless heroism.
Beowulf straddles the margin separating permissible and excessive zeal
is perceived, in fact, as inclined to violate the social decorum governing wlenco as courage and to be driven by a potential recklessness.

81

Gwara, Forht and Fgen.

30

introduction

Judged either by secular or Christian principles, his ambition for glory

could, but need not, violate standards of moderation and self-control
common to Germanic warriors. Therefore, the contested Beowulf I
describe in these prolegomena conveys the crisis of resolving Beowulf s
motivation, of keeping it centered on the social virtues that Germanic
warriors safeguard. Beowulf serves an apprenticeship of sorts at Heorot, as Hrogar, I argue, teaches him a conduct of moderation and
responsibility especially appropriate to kingship. The old kings lessons
countervail the potential for Beowulf to fall into the unrestrained ambition and violence that distinguish Germanic exiles as a class.
Warrior Wisdom: The Language of Self-Restraint,
Humility, and Reticence
Two contingent questions emerge from my stance on Beowulf s transgressive personality: how does recklessness arise, and how can it be
recognized and prevented? It should come as no surprise that the
Anglo-Saxons, like the Greeks, developed an ars heroica or art of heroic
behavior, components of which were codified in Old English wisdom
verse. Old English wisdom poetry comprises a hodgepodge of sententious lore disseminated in maxims, exempla identifying good and
bad behavior, and utterances about the competitive warrior life in a
Germanic hall. I shall have more to say in detail about aspects of the
wisdom verse, but for my current purposes I need only mention that
much of it offered advice on controlling ones willa or desire.82 In
fact, 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 lustful, not too
aggressive, not too talkative, etc. The problem lies in the boundary of
excess implied by the adverb too.

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. Citing
metaphors of holding or binding the mind in Maxims I, Homiletic Fragment II and The
Wanderer, Godden concludes, such expressions invite us to see a distinction between
the conscious self and some other, inner power which we might legitimately gloss as
mind though it could also be translated in particular contexts as passion, temper,
mood (288). Elsewhere he affirms, the thought of the heart stems from an inner self
with its own volition, which a man needs to learn to understand and anticipate, since
it can, presumably, dictate his actions in spite of his conscious self (292).

a contested BEOWULF

31

In Old English verse wisdom or snyttru takes the form of warning,

and being wise means restricting ambition in recognition of a social
ethic, what is right, jural, or even achievable. We need only read
certain wisdom passages that advocate the heroic mean to know
that self-restraint was a prized virtue.83 In The Seafarer, for example, the
exile concludes, scyle monna gehwylc/mid gemete healdan//wi
leofne ond wi lane (a man ought to treat friend and foe with moderation, 111a12a). Presumably one should be neither too trusting of
friends nor too hateful of enemies. Both extreme situations are imprudent and potentially reckless, a point made by M. R. Godden about
the poems depiction of a bipartite mind: [The Seafarer] distinguishes
two centers of consciousness: an inner, urgent, passionate personality
and a more reluctant self which controls action.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 fgen),
ne nfre gielpes to georn,
Beorn sceal gebidan,
ot collenfer
hwider hrera gehygd

Wita sceal geyldig,

ne to hrdwyrde,
ne to wanhydig,
ne to feohgifre
r he geare cunne.
onne he beot sprice,
cunne gearwe
hweorfan wille. (65b72b)

A wise man ought to be patient, not too hot-tempered, nor too hasty in
speech, nor too weak a warrior, nor too reckless (neither too fearful nor too
eager), nor too greedy nor too ready to boast before he knows for certain.
A man ought to wait whenever he speaks a boast until, stout-hearted, he
readily understands whither the thought of his breast will turn.

Conjoining wisdom and moderation, this passage emphasizes selfawareness, the capacity for regulating a vice that approximates pride.

Kindrick suggests exactly this formulation of wisdom as restraint and moderation.

In reference to Beowulf, for example, he remarks, the governing or restraining aspect
of wisdom finds vivid expression in . . . portions of the poem (6). Kindrick explores
multiple political contexts in which restraint functions as the princes responsibility
for the welfare of his subjects. Although I have notably different views of Beowulf s
moderation, Kindricks intuition that restraint motivates political objectives related to
social amity is fully explored in this book. Furthermore, the parallels Kindrick adduces
in Hvaml support his general conclusion that Beowulf centers on wisdom, restraint,
social consciousness, and strategy (13), and his deduction that Germanic culture
was developing its own set of restraints on unchecked valor and wild heroism (ibid.)
is precisely the claim I examine here.
84
Godden 294.
83

32

introduction

The poem called Vainglory focuses entirely on identifying, and avoiding, a proud individual, the sort of man who would manifest excess
in drunkenness, ridicule, lust, and greed. In just this way one should
honor comrades as friends or trusted co-equals in battle, presumably
of legal responsibility, and not as jealous rivals.
The Old English poem Precepts also clarifies Beowulf s prospective
recklessness. In 1982 Elaine Tuttle Hansen drew important parallels
between Hrogars instruction in his sermon and Precepts, a central
apothegm of which reveals that moderation is the soul of Germanic
wisdom: Hle sceal wisfst//ond gemetlice (A warrior should be
wise and moderate, 86b7a). Precepts takes the form of a wise father
(probably an aristocratic father: a king or retainer) warning his son
to be loyal to friends, to avoid drunkenness and indiscreet remarks,
and to recognize good and evil. Responsible or proportionate action
informs wisdom poems like Precepts, where what is good is not to
drink, speak, or desire in excess. Evil is defined as intemperance. The
father furthermore enjoins his son to heed the advice of parents, elders,
and the wiseby which terms compliance might be said to characterize
the humble. The humble warrior can learn restraint from his teachers because he already expresses patience, while the arrogant soldier
embraces habitual self-regard.
One immediately sees the utility of the wisdom verse for inhibiting
recklessness, 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, in fact it was thought to be
a vice. Circumspection was encouraged. Wisdom poetry taught warriors to judge whether they could achieve the deeds they promised to
undertake. Death was the surest sign of recklessness, and the motivation of recklessness was an insatiable craving for glory. Unrestrained
and unwise acts spurred by immoderate ambition distinguish pride
from dignity, and the wrecca was most given to this excess. With the
capacity for violence, the extreme sensitivity to dishonor, and the drive
to excel in every combat, a wrecca arguably expresses a judgment barely
governable by the ordinary conventions of warrior wisdom.
In the Anglo-Saxon tradition the experience of adversity begets
wisdom. As the poem Precepts puts it,
Seldan snottor guma
swylce dol seldon
ymb his forgesceaft,

sorgleas blissa,
dryme sorgful
nefne he fhe wite. (54a6b)

a contested BEOWULF

33

Seldom does a wise man rejoice without having experienced some sorrow;
likewise the fool rarely rejoices over the future with any sense of anxiety
unless he should understand violence.

Having suffered no setbacks that might teach him moderationthe limits of his ambitiona fool foresees no edwenden or reversal and rejoices
too confidently in his prospects. This same attitude defines the fatalistic
world of Beowulf, in which recklessness arises through a succession of
victories in encounters of increasing boldness. Victory follows victory
until the warrior begins to think that he will always win any engagement, no matter the risk. Wlenco or pride arguably makes a man seek
greater glory, of course, but such ambition can shade into arrogance
or presumption when the warrior can no longer assess the odds of his
victory. Death often results from overestimating ones chances against
an enemythe very antithesis of warrior wisdom. Without exercising
restraint, one could eventually, but not inevitably, come across a superior enemy or encounter impossible circumstancesat which point one
becomes fge or doomed.
Consider, for example, that glory tempts an otherwise moderate
man to sail a boat in a storm. If the sailor survives, providence may be
said to have saved him, no matter how strong or experienced he was.
Providence in this scenario is nothing more than the concatenation of
circumstances that led to his survival. A god does not literally rescue
the sailor, even if a god is thought to have been behind the circumstances of his miraculous survival, in some abstract sense (as Wyrd,
capital W). If the sailor thinks that surviving the storm was solely his
own doing, he may then be tempted to paddle a canoe in a hurricane.
If he lives, he may acknowledge providence for his escape and end
his risk-taking, or else continue to test his skilland luckuntil the
day he goes too far and dies. Going too far means that the sailor
encounters an unexpected circumstance, a rogue wave let us say, that
he could have handled in his boat but not in his canoe, even when he
exerts himself to the utmost. If his canoe sank because of this wave, a
god should not be seen to deliver a punishment for arrogance by creating a storm, although a god, as ruler of the universe, could be said
to determine in some dispassionate sense the fate of the proud. What
emerges from this (deliberately simplistic) illustration of Anglo-Saxon
fatalism is nothing less than a rationale for moderating ones desire for
glory in the moral universe of Germanic heroism.
If the sailor represents a warrior and the confluence of rogue wave
and canoe a hopeless engagement, arrogance would characterize the

34

introduction

warriors motivation. He would have misjudged his advantage, and

death would prove his recklessness. Yet a significant vexation in
Beowulf is that exceptional men, including wreccan, perform under different constraints. Rather than enacting cultural ideals, they challenge
them. Men like Beowulf contravene the expectation of responsible or
appropriate action because they survive encounters likely to result in
death for other, less capable men. Their solitary ventures are both
admired as magnificent accomplishments and scorned as impetuous
and arrogantnot heroic in the modern sense of the term as sacrificial. To ordinary men fighters like Beowulf challenge the definition
of wisdom as restraint, and explicit social boundaries regulate their
seemingly insatiable ambition. Killing human adversaries seems too easy
for these liminal heroes, unless they encounter many of them, like
the wrecca Waldere does, or credible national champions like Beowulf
(against Dghrefn and the Franks). In fact, so transcendent are some
warriorslike Sigemund and Beowulfthat they must fight superhuman foes such as trolls and dragons. Only against these foes can the
ambitious translate their audacity into fame. Therefore, a solitary
fighter may legitimately pursue what looks like suicidal combat, and
his unlikely victory would confer immense glory in Germanic terms.
Theirs is a distinctive mentality, not merely the extension (and hardly
the apotheosis) of a Germanic warrior profile.
Beowulf s Prospective Kingship and Subaltern Anxiety
In the first half of the poem and especially in the Grendel duel, some
Danes imagine Beowulf to behave like a wrecca, or else expect him to
become like one because of a latent predisposition. The tension that
emerges in the appraisal of Beowulf as potentially reckless is further
magnified by Beowulf s potential to become king of Geats. The complication of this status for Beowulf explains the conspicuous emphasis
in the poem on wisdom. Kings differ from exceptional warriors and
wreccan in responsibility, as the Rune Poem relates:
Feoh by frofur
fira gehwylcum.
Sceal eah manna gehwylc
miclun hyt dlan
gif he wile for drihtne
domes hleotan. (1a3b)
Treasure is a comfort for every man. Yet a man [or: retainer] must give
it freely if he intends to obtain glory as a lord.

a contested BEOWULF

35

All men (including warriors) want to earn treasure, the anchor of their
security, while kings (also men) must learn to dispense it in rejection of
personal frofor. In these terms, disgracing ones retainers by jealously
withholding their rewards not only represents a failing of generosity but also manifests a clash of incompatible identities. Hence, in
becoming a stingy king, Heremod does not transcend the competitive
warrior outlook that earns him exile. A second failing of warrior-kings
derives from unnecessary, ever escalating risk that subordinates the
national good to the attainment of personal glory. Such kings become
tyrants subjecting their people to ruinous warfare.85 In light of this
premise, 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 appears in Heorot at the head of a warband, whose members with one exception are anonymous. I say warband advisedly
because the terms typically used of such retinues (dryht, dugu, gesias,
gesteallan, etc.) 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. Beowulf s troop, of course, does
nothing against Grendel or Grendels mother and has always seemed
a vestigial blind motif, or else a foil highlighting Beowulf s prowess.
From this moment, however, the war-leader Beowulf will be evaluated
as a potential king, and the imagined obligations to his men and his
kingdom should regulate his own valor. Partly for this reason Hunfer
condemns Beowulf s presumption, and the story of Breca warns Geats
and Danes that Beowulf is unfit because he unthinkingly endangers his
men. Hunfers criticism invites us to conclude that Beowulf s leadership would translate into disaster for any nation that has him as king,

85
Kberl 80, citing Howe, Migration (see 1523); see Bazelmans 1278 on the kings
duty to exercise restraint: Knowing that his rule is granted him by God, he is obliged
to ensure a prosperous reign, not by the unfettered use of power, but precisely by
observing closely the limits of that power (128).
86
Jackson (Hero and the King 2636) proposes that Beowulf, like epic in general, frequently addresses the conflict between ruler and hero . . . as much a conflict of values
as of personalities (4). Regarding Beowulf as an outsider or exile, he envisions the
Grendel fight as a challenge to Hrogars authority.

36

introduction

although Hunfers jealousy impugns his credibility. Moreover, King

Hrogar works actively and persistently to teach Beowulf how to recognize and limit excessive ambition in kingship. As I shall show, Hrogars
sermon teaches Beowulf to shun the kind of heroic recklessness that
ignores ones own responsibilities and other mens capacities.
The Oferhygd Complex
Aspects of the Anglo-Saxon wisdom tradition that identify excessive
zeal, curb immoderation, or recommend self-restraint underlie implicit
and explicit criticisms of Beowulf s behavior. Germanic wisdom
promotes ideal kingship by advocating methods preventing recklessness
associated with leadership. For Germanic kings, ambition can yield
over-confidence or immoderation, concepts expressed by the term
oferhygd in Beowulf. Oferhygd defines a kind of Germanic psychosis specific
to leaders. Superficially, it means excessive spirit or impetuosity,
although it may be best to think of it as a leaders excessive ambition.
Casting a long semantic shadow over Beowulf s heroic mentality in
the first half of the poem, OE oferhygd in Beowulf reflects a specific
propensity for something like arrogant overconfidence. In the context
of Beowulfian kingship, it is expressed in warfare and in relations with
the comitatus. The prospect of Beowulf s oferhygd would handicap his
leadership because excessive zeal in a king translates into blind intolerance that portends fatal misjudgments. Glory, in other words,
tempts one to take chances otherwise hazardous for the comitatus,
and accelerating successes generate over-confidence to the point where
annihilation becomes certain. The weaker men subordinate to a tyrant
of peerless strength and unbounded oferhygd would find themselves, like
the nation as a whole, exposed to risks they could not possibly master.
Some have suggested that the poet presents such warfare as socially
determinedthe outcome of feud, specificallybut the poets 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. In fact, Hrogars mental
taxonomy of overconfidence perfectly describes arrogant kingship in
the Old English Daniel.

87

Berger and Leicester; Leyerle, Beowulf the Hero.

a contested BEOWULF

37

This view of Beowulf s potential egotism is nearly identical to that

voiced by John Leyerle, 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, but society requires a king who acts
for the common good, not for his own glory. The greater the hero, the
more likely his tendency to imprudent action as king.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:
la se e londes mona,

Cyning bi anwealdes georn;

leof se e mare beode. (58b9b)

A king is eager for dominion, hated when he claims land but beloved when
he offers more of it.

While I agree that indomitable will and valour could motivate a heroic
champion, even suicidally, I discern a deterrent to recklessness in heroic
wisdom, as well as an intentional ambiguity in Beowulf s susceptibility to
oferhygd. Furthermore, the heroic king beset by the oferhygd psychosis has
no conscious awareness of his breakdown: he does not literally choose
imprudent action. He falls into it as a consequence of his security
and renownthe success that comes from being exceptional. As I have
said relative to heroic recklessness, ignoring the limits of ones power
will generate escalating, potentially fatal, risks.
The Instructional Function of the Digressions
The Christian allegorists have exaggerated, and the secularists underestimated, the potential for Beowulf s immoderation in the Grendel
section of Beowulf, and oferhygd in the dragon fight, for an understandable
reason: the poet delivers criticisms of Beowulf indirectly in conversation
or asides. In fact, most of the evidence for Beowulf s potentially reckless
behavior actually comes from characters in the fictional Scandinavian
world: from Hunfer, Hrogar, Wiglaf, and a number of unnamed
poets who memorialize Beowulf s exploits. As it turns out, criticism of
Beowulf s faultsthose of the Germanic hero and of the social institution of heroism, in factare expressed largely in the poems digressions,

88

Leyerle, Beowulf the Hero 89.

38

introduction

which often take the form of analogies.89 The digressions of Beowulf

therefore resemble exempla, a modus legendi that contemplates a mans
future and directs his conduct by historical or legendary precedent
coextensive with present circumstance. One might call the digressions
counsels, for they are meant to guide behavior, as intradiegetic
commentary. As such, they were not intended merely to entertain
but to depict choice as a function of wisdom, to anticipate the heros
fate by his attitude, to impart behaviors that promote success, and to
expose conduct that invites disaster. Hence, the pagan Scandinavian
audience of Beowulf weighs Beowulf s intentions and prospects after his
feats, which might be deemed opportunities for reflection.90 Without
this reflection, I contend, Beowulf would appear uncritically righteous,
for the poets intentional ambiguity would lack its defining antitheses:
dignity versus pride, proportionate action versus recklessness, responsibility versus fame, the group versus the individual. 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, and on the clash between the
social identities of wrecca and cyning.
Interestingly, some digressions in Beowulf are called gidd in the poem
or implicitly identified as gidd: the lay of Finnsburh, the story of Sigemund and Heremod, Heremods story in Hrogars Sermon, and
Beowulf s meditation on the death of Hreel. Dictionaries and translations render the well-attested vocable gidd multifariously as account,
dirge, lament, lay, maxim, poem, proverb, reason, reckoning, riddle,
saying, sentence, sermon, song, speech, story, tale, verses or words.91
In Beowulf, however, the meaning of OE gidd in these contexts may be
89
On the digressions in general, see Bonjour, Digressions; Leyerle, Interlace Structure; Bjork, Digressions and Episodes. Bonjour theorized thematic links between
the digressions and moments in the main narrative, or between two or more digressions
themselves, all of which constitute parallels or parallelisms. Most of the episodes
are contrasts or else counterbalance incidents or themes in the main narrative.
The digressions can be prophetic, ironic, premonitory or, most commonly,
anticipatory. In other words, they highlight social or philosophical backgrounds of
portentous significance (73). This epic mode of discourse is widespread in ancient
Greek literature, especially in the Iliad. On digressive analogy and the way it functions
in the Iliad, and correspondingly in Beowulf, see Gwara, Misprision and Alden.
90
Michael D. Cherniss (Oral Presentation) makes a similar case, that the digressions ought to be meaningful in their immediate context. He assumes that an audience
hearing Beowulf would expect digressive matter to comment on, or respond to, local
narrative.
91
On the meaning of the term, see Parker; Howlett; North, Pagan Words; Reichl.

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. For example, the
gidd of Sigemund and Heremod describes wreccan from the legendary
and historical past, respectively. The Finnsburh story recalls an episode
from British history concerning the wrecca Hengest, almost certainly the
Jutish or Anglian commander of Vortigerns mercenary Saxons, and
the events surrounding his leadership of a group of Danes. In these
narratives, Sigemund illustrates a distinguished precedent that Beowulf
could become if he adopted Sigemunds policy of fighting alone. By
contrast, Beowulf should avoid the failings of Heremod and Hengest.
Heremod destroyed the Danes with the kind of unrestrained ambition
that brought glory to Sigemund. The story of Hengest, by contrast,
exemplifies the danger of Beowulf s potential kingship for the Danes.
As a non-Danish leader of Danes, Hengest hesitates too long in fulfilling
the sacred obligation of vengeance for the Danes fallen lord.
Other episodes are structured analogically but never called gidd. Like
the other digressions, they also compare people or events in illustration
of a present circumstance. For example, the story of Fremu (formerly
thought to be Modry or Modryo) evokes the ambivalence characterizing Beowulf in the Grendel fight. Having described Hygelac and
his queen Hygd, the poet launches into a description of the arrogant
queen Fremu whose venality was tamed by marriage to King Offa.
The digression, I will argue, refers not to Hygd but to Beowulf whose
attendance on Hrogar has reined in Beowulf s own potential truculence. Interestingly, the poet-narrator makes this analogy outside the
Scandinavian world of the poeminvisible to its inhabitants, in other
wordsprobably as confirmation of Beowulf s new-minted political
maturity.
In most respects the digressions in Beowulf function like paradeigmata
or ainoi in the Iliad. In Book 9 of the epic, the ambassadors Odysseus,
Ajax, and Phoenix approach Achilles with gifts intended to assuage his
anger and bring him back into the war. When Achilles declines the
bribe, Phoenix tells three stories in illustration of the choice that awaits
Achilles. He first recounts his own biography, his own feud with his
father Oeneus, the attempt on Oeneuss life, his self-imposed isolation,
and flight. This paradeigma analogizes Achilles stated decision to return
home by describing Phoenixs parallel experience and illustrating the
outcome for Achilles should he choose this fate. Phoenixs comparandum is his own life experience from the recent past. Later, however,
Phoenix will tell the paradeigma of Meleager, a hero from past generations

40

introduction

and hunter of the Calydonian boar. Like Achilles, Meleager abandons

his comrades in wartime, taking to his bed in a fit of pique for a curse
laid down by his mother. By recalling the scenario, Phoenix illustrates
how another hero hesitated to fight and lost magnanimous gifts that
were offered but rescinded. Of course, Phoenix is trying to win Achilles trust and bring him back to the Argive ranks, but his method of
persuasion is narrative analogy, not direct appeal. He describes the
outcomes of choices made by other great men in similar situations.
Phoenixs analogies are discernible on the level of the characters, but
Homer has himself embedded parallel narration in the chariot race of
book 22. The dispute that arises between Menelaus and Antilochus
after the chariot race re-plays, and significantly re-interprets, the events
of book 1. This focalization recalls the story of Queen Fremu, which,
I claim, analogizes Beowulf s own experience abroad. Because it has
been told by the narrator, the audiencenot the charactersattends
the narrative parallel between Fremu and Beowulf.
Obviously, moments like the Fremu episode refine our perception
of Beowulf s conduct. Perhaps the most important example of such
characterization is the flyting, or verbal debate, between Beowulf and
Hunfer. The Hunfer episode in Beowulf yields evidence of Beowulf s
possible recklessness and alleges his potential for oferhygd. Described as
a yle or spokesman, Hunfer is, I will argue, a ranking counselor
charged with teaching retainers the traditions of Germanic warrior
wisdom. One of his arts is the assessment of a warriors motivationthe
intention of an evil man, as the Old English poem Precepts puts it.
Beowulf contextualizes Hunfers position when he deploys the language of Hunfers office sarcastically: Vainglory tells the warrior how
to recognize and avoid oferhygd in terms that recall Hunfers charge of
rash action against Beowulf. In other words, Beowulf accuses Hunfer
of a failure of judgment, the yles key faculty, and the narrator even
suggests that Hunfer could have misjudged Beowulf out of jealousy.
Nevertheless, while Beowulf seems to win the flyting with Hunfer,
the victory makes him uncertainly righteous, as a survey of flytings in
Scandinavian sources reveals. We are left wondering whether Hunfers
estimation of Beowulf could still be accurate in part.
Hunfer levels two charges that originate in observing Beowulf as
a potential wrecca and as a leader of daring volunteers. On the one
hand, he criticizes Beowulf for provoking Grendel, since the Danes
have learned to stop their losses by giving up the hall before the monster shows. They know their enemy. Because Beowulf does not know
anything about Grendels size and strength, his boast sounds arrogant

a contested BEOWULF

41

and offensive. On the other hand, if only Beowulf were endangered, the
boast would be less repugnant, but Beowulf risks his Geatish comrades,
too. Hunfer proposes, then, that Beowulf lost the venture with Breca
and that he will lose against Grendel. Yet he also emphasizes Beowulf s
eagerness to endanger Breca because of wlenco (for wlence, 508a)
and on account of a foolish boast (for dolgilpe, 509a). Not only
was Breca a king with towns and treasure, but the escapade was also
deemed a sorhfullne si (512a). This collocation literally means sorrowful venture, but in Beowulf it designates a venture almost certain
to end in sorrow, i.e. reckless and irresponsible. Implicit in the critique
is Beowulf s unfitness for leadership, especially kingship, because of
impetuosity. As Bazelmans formulates this provision of wisdom, no one,
nor any group either, may be seen as separate from another or others.92
Hunfers evaluation of Beowulf s recklessness appears confirmed
when Hondscioh dies and when the other Geats find themselves incapable of piercing Grendels hide. Perhaps by claiming so confidently that
he could kill Grendel with a sword (680b), Beowulf wrongly encouraged
their involvement. His confidence may have caused one mans death. Or
did it? The narrator divulges that Beowulf intended to gauge Grendels
strategy by watching how the troll would proceed, but Grendel moved
faster than Beowulf expected. Even this excuse, however, does not justify
Hondsciohs death, for reasons I shall outline later. Clearly, the poet
carefully alternates arguments for and against Beowulf s excessive wlenco,
and characteristically undercuts each argument, so that neither position
can be substantiated and fully believed: Beowulf is arrogant . . . Hunfer
is jealous . . . Beowulf lost a competition . . . Beowulf actually killed watermonsters . . . Beowulf endangers his men unnecessarily and Hondscioh
dies . . . Beowulf was assessing Grendels ambush. Despite his status and
objections, Hunfer has been deemed rancorous, a jester or coward,
and his criticisms are unsympathetically demeaned. He may be jealous,
as the narrator remarks, or responsible for the death of kinsmen, or
incapable of exploits like Beowulf s, but the full context of Hunfers
challenge still disparages Beowulf s ambition. Making bold claims to
kill a powerful demonic adversary is reckless but especially so when
other mens lives are at stake.
Understanding the digressions as analogical commentary enables us
to read searchingly their relevance in Beowulf, but reading them on two
levels complicates the matter of Beowulf s motivation. The digressions

92

Bazelmans 123 (italicized in the original).

42

introduction

speak not only to the narrators Christian audience but also to the
audience in the world of the poem. Because the Anglo-Saxon spectators know a Christian truth (and very likely the outcome of the poem),
their evaluation of an episode may be thought to supersede the secular
Christianized dogmas endorsed in the narrative. An unresolvable tension therefore arises between the two perspectives, internal and external,
although the Christian view is never satisfyingly transparent. In other
words, because we know so little of the secular world glimpsed in Old
English literature, we cannot appreciate what anachronistic Christian
precepts the heathen Beowulf is made to embrace, although we may
theorize that they relate to moderation or humility. On account of
this ambiguity, scholars have tried to evaluate Beowulf s behavior or
attitude by Christian principles, and have ransacked the Patrology for
evidence of his failings or virtues. My own view is quite different. The
moral judgments in Beowulf (I think of them as Christianized, for they
are no doubt influenced by notional Christian ethics) coincide with
heroic ideologies centered on responsible leadership. Ethical conflicts
arise in the world of the poem as the hero Beowulf competes with
the subaltern in his own heroic domain. The subaltern position manifestly derives from the comitatus, the source of group identity, and the
foundation of a kings prosperity, and the focus of his responsibility. In
most respects, the digressions exemplify this subaltern voice, that of the
minor characters whose opinions, I speculate, represent a customary
point of view relative to warrior identity, politics, kingship, and Germanic wisdom. The anonymous singers, the coast-warden, Hunfer,
Wiglaf, and (to some extent) Hrogar voice the aristocratic values of
community and peaceof mondream or joys of fellowship.
The Subaltern Voice
As authorial critiques, the Beowulfian digressions, including the gidd,
figuratively direct a social discourse about heroic fanaticism in the social
institution of Germanic kingship. The tension between wrecca and king
that I locate in Beowulf centers principally on the warband (comitatus in
Latin, dugu in Old English). Superficially, this group of men comprises
the kings retainers and fighting force, but as an institution it also
betrays a complex psychological identity. Scholars now agree that
institutionalized kingship emerged as a consequence of expanded tribal
jurisdictions in the post-migration period. As characterized in Tacituss
Germania, however, the king and comitatus enjoyed a horizontal

a contested BEOWULF

43

power-sharing relationship, perhaps something akin to the roving Viking

bands whose leaders in one ninth-century source described themselves
as coequals.93 By the Anglo-Saxon period, however, the horizontal
relationship yielded to a more strongly vertical one, in which retainers in the warband owed service to a king who rewarded them for
loyalty. The ensuing problem is, how does one negotiate responsibilities
shared by the individual (a king) and the group (a warband) when the
individuals prioritiesglory as embodied in status and wealthderive
from his own ambition? While it is true that a Germanic warrior seeks
statusthe honors attached to gifts and the glory of reputationas a
member of a retinue, he ultimately answers to the kings ambition. In
fact, he earns honor primarily by being hold or loyal. But because
glory drives the economy of heroism, however, thanes have a right to
earn status. In this quid pro quo, the kings wishes must accommodate
his mens inclinations and abilities, and his own ambition has to be
tempered by institutions emphasizing reciprocity, especially gift-giving.
The kings men will fight more willingly for his causes in recognition of
mutual obligations.
Although the kings authority was paramount, he undoubtedly took
counsel from the ranking members of his warband. One can legitimately speculate that they voiced a subaltern opinion to the king, and
the king, in turn, would ideally acknowledge these subaltern views in
decisions affecting the groups prosperity. Because the nation relied
on the warband for its security and wealth, the king had to respect
the warbands capabilities and objectives. They may not have shared
the same ambitions, but the successful king negotiated power with his
retainers, regardless of his absolute authority. The unsuccessful king,
by contrast, would fail to consult his menor 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. I am not suggesting that Beowulf
belongs to Hrogars warband as a thane in any sense, although
Beowulf s implicit status inflects the poems fundamental tensions. I do
propose that certain warrior-kings at least challenge, if not confound,
the pattern of royal obligation and retainer allegiance, and that Beowulf
is thought by some to have the potential for such tyranny. The Beowulf
poet represents this kind of king as a tyrant given to oferhygd.

93

North, Tribal Loyalties 28.

44

introduction

In the Gautreks Saga passage I have cited above, inn says of Starkar, the Norse equivalent of a wrecca, I ordain this for him, that
he shall be thought foremost by all the noblest and best men. rr
counters with a curse: All the common people shall despise him.
An uncanny parallel to the sentiment emerges in Beowulf, where the
relationship between the king and his retainers, the dugu or comitatus,
foregrounds the evaluation of Beowulf s behavior. One might say that
the Germanic warband gains a voice in Beowulf, at least as part of a
system of kingship constituted by warband reciprocity. An eminent
warrior born into the royal lineage, Beowulf could expect to become
king of the Geats. Hrogar even speaks of kingship as a kind of election, and he predicts that Beowulf s valor will make him a prominent
candidate. Before this eventuality, however, Beowulf must learn to curb
his ambition in acknowledgment of a kings responsibility towards his
warband. Kingship demands reciprocity, which the poet emphasizes
from the start when he describes how Beow (18a), Scylds son, earns
the trust of his men even before his father dies:
Swa sceal geong guma
gode gewyrcean,
fromum feohgiftum
on fder bearme,
t hine on ylde
eft gewunigen
wilgesias,
onne wig cume,
leode gelsten. (20a4a)
So should a young warrior perform good deeds with lavish gifts in his
fathers company, so that in maturity willing companions will support
himthe people sustain himshould war come.

The stress here on Beows willing companions (wilgesias, 23a) and

his national advocacy make it plain that future kings owe retainers
recognition as much as they owe service to their own lords, at least to
guarantee loyalty in old age. Depictions of reciprocity in Beowulf prove
that the king-warband relationship was similarly based on the material exchange observed in Beows conduct above. The extent of this
reciprocitythe kings generosity, significantlydetermined the stability of the warband relationship and the corresponding strength of the
kingdom. But bestowing lavish gifts was only one dimension of a kings
responsibility to his warband, although intertwined with the obligation
to foster the groups well-being. A significant duty of the king was to
intuit the groups will relative to his own. In fact, one senses the conflict
between Hrogars own will and the groups when he says,

a contested BEOWULF

45

Ful oft ic for lssan

lean teohhode,
hordweorunge
hnahran rince,
smran t scce. (951a3a)
Very often have I bestowed a reward for less, hoard-honor to a lowlier
warrior weaker in battle.

Hrogars admission betrays some reluctance for past generosity, as if

to suggest that the other men who faced Grendel did not (in his view)
earn their rewards. The allusion to Heremod, who did not reward his
men at all, reveals Hrogars diplomacy in suppressing his own obsession for Grendels death. Because he will not risk lesser men against so
powerful a foe, Beowulf s appearance inspires his hope.
The Heremod narrative succinctly expresses the kings neglected
duty to his warband. In this digression Hrogar explains the cause of
oferhygd as progressive overconfidence and moderation as the result of
moral vigilance. When kings forget that providence bestows success,
progressive victories magnify their audacity, until they think that no
enemy can ever harm them. Just as excessive ambition would tempt
a wrecca to pursue fatal risks, oferhygd would cause a king to endanger
his men and, by extension, his nation. Heremods status as a kingturned-wrecca evokes Beowulf s potential for a similar destiny. Said to
be troubled for a long time by sorhwylmas (anxieties, 904b), this
wilful king (swiferhes, 908a) led his nation to disaster because of
oferhygd. The laments his people utter are reminiscent of those expressed
by Ermanarics Goths in the poem Deor. Ermanarics chronic warfare
was so brutal that his own men lived in expectation of extermination,
the outcome that one expects from a king afflicted by oferhygd. Heremods
men regretted his behavior, too, and he became a terrible burden on
their lives. Unlike Hrogar, who rewarded his men in their failed assaults
against Grendel, Heremod seems to have stopped rewarding his retinue
for the risks they took in his campaigns. As a result, Heremods own
retainers banished him. He was killed amongst his enemies and, like
Grendel, conveyed into the power of devils (on feonda geweald,
903a). The message could not be plainer: the potential for recklessness
could grow unintentionally from heroic vanity.
The subaltern voice in Beowulf manifests the heros egotism, but it
is important to understand that named and unnamed warriors level
charges of recklessness against Beowulf. The narrators own judgment
of Beowulf is more circumspect. I have mentioned, for example, how
the Fremu digression functions as the narrators oblique statement of

46

introduction

Beowulf s growth into responsible kingship. It is crucially important to

keep the distinction between the pagan inside and Christian outside,
simply because the judgments made about Beowulf in his own world
reflect a deliberate ambivalence. Collapsing the perspectives confounds
the poets strategy. Hence, Beowulf s description,
manna mildust
leodum liost

. . . wyruldcyninga
ond monwrust,
ond lofgeornost (3180b2b)

. . . among the kings in this world he was the mildest of men, the gentlest,
the kindest to his people and the most desirous of praise.

issues from the mouths of his hearth-companions (heorgeneatas,

3179b) and is subject to the dissembling that undercuts Beowulf s glory
throughout. Readers who disregard the pessimistic view of Beowulf s
motivations fail to appreciate the poets imitation of moral doubt in
Beowulf s own universe. Offering no resolution to the ultimate fate of his
pagan lords, the Beowulf poet makes reflection the vehicle of judgment.
The subaltern views of social cohesion and benevolent leadership
happen to coincide with the poets arguable Christian emphasis.
Nevertheless, in the world of Beowulf the subaltern should be thought of
as wholly secular (albeit Christianized), and any alignment between its
values and arguable Christian resonances derive in all likelihood from
the poets amelioration of heroic excess. The same position holds for
Beowulf s actions, which may or may not be antagonistic to his subalterns. At times Beowulf s choices appear to clash with the expectations
of the comitatus for securitya function of warrior moderationbut
his actions turn out to be justifiable, at least to the audience. But if
Beowulf recklessly confronts Grendel and Grendels mother, why does
he survive? The poet implies that he survives because his enemies
happen to be enemies of the eternal Christian God, the kin of Cain
united in a cosmic feud against the Almighty. For the audience, 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 Grettirs own heroic motivation. Like Beowulf, Grettirs Saga looks

94
On the Grendelkin as literally demonic, see Orchard, Pride and Prodigies 3945
and Russom Center of Beowulf.

a contested BEOWULF

47

back to a pagan age, and its author situates Grettirs actions relative
to Christianity in the way Fred C. Robinson describes Beowulf s religious expression as conforming to anachronistic Christian precedents.
Born prior to the Conversion in 999 AD, Grettir is quite certainly
pagan but expresses no overt heathen (Odinic) identity separate from
his fatalistic belligerence.95 He worships no god and utters no prayers.
Until the introduction of Christianity to Iceland, Grettir expresses a
retrospective Viking heroism judged by social custom, law, and (one
presumes) an unstated moral pretense. In the post-Conversion setting,
however, the sagaman makes Grettirs significant feats coincide with
Christianity, although Grettir remains ignorant of their moral valence.
For example, the pagan Swede Glmr demands food during the
Christmas fast, upon which he becomes possessed by a demon. When
a priest is present, Glmrs body cannot be found. Grettir defeats Gods
enemy, then, although the audience alone appreciates the function of
this narrative congruity. Grettir appears either uninterested in religion
or ignorant of Glmrs contempt for Christianity. Coincident moments
between Grettirs motivation and the furtherance of Christianity recur
throughout the saga. When Snorris son promises to kill Grettir, Grettir remembers a past kindness and spares the gangly boys life. The
fact that Snorri is a Christian priest is never said to motivate Grettirs
mercy. When two women cannot cross a flooding river, Grettir carries
them. His aid is never attributed to their need to attend a feast day
Mass, and in fact he stays behind and kills two trolls. When Grettir
fails an ordeal to clear his name, the narrator excuses his violence by
saying that the boy who incited Grettir was possessed by a demon. Like
Beowulf, therefore, Grettirs Saga expresses a discrete separation between
the heros motivations and the audiences perception of them. This
unacknowledged Christianity may validate Grettirs most significant
fights in the same way it does Beowulf s against Grendel.
Hrogar, however, has a fatalistic interpretation of Beowulf s triumph. From his position, Beowulf survives because providence suffered
him to survive, not by intervening in the combat but by engendering
him, endowing him with profound strength, and bringing him to Heorot,
as it were, to confront the Grendel plague. A fatalistic Dane, Hrogar
envisions a detached god whose intervention in the world approximates

95
On this peculiar dimension of Grettirs coincidental Christianity see Orchard,
Pride and Prodigies 1535.

48

introduction

providence but whose omniscience seems to enact deliverance. The

simple reason why Grendel does not crush Beowulf is that Grendel has
encountered a stronger force, in fact, the strongest force he has ever
encountered. For Beowulf, Grendels death assures glory. To Hrogar,
however, Beowulf s victory looks like a gods special protection for the
Danes and, indeed, a gods future special protection for Geatsas 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,
Hrogar elevates Beowulf s heroism, pointing it away from personal
indulgence towards community protection. Yet the Christian audience
perceives even more behind Beowulf s success. They understand that
Beowulf is Gods agent of revenge and that, in some special circumstances, the nature of ones enemy or the status of a conflict (revenge,
say) legitimates glory-seeking, even if it appears excessive to the poems
benighted onlookers. Of course, Beowulf cannot know about Grendels
ancestry, but he can be taught to direct his ambition and undertake
righteous deeds that coincidentally suit this ineffable Christian
imperative. What I blandly call righteous deeds should be understood as Hrogar understands them: for a hero, deeds that promote
individual glory and imperil no one else; for a king, deeds that benefit
the security of others, especially the tribe or nation.
Beowulf s Dragon Fight:
Responsible Kingship or Reckless Heroism?
Part of the problem we have in decoding Beowulf s conduct, especially
in the dragon fight, derives from his treatment by critics as a static
character. He does not start out exemplary and remain so. The poem
implicitly asserts Beowulf s progression to kingship as the cultivation
of wisdom (i.e. restraint)the consequence, to be sure, of the many
digressions and exhortations, especially those made by Hrogar. The
old king indoctrinates Beowulf in the protocols of kingship passively, in
the gracious behavior he himself exhibits, and actively, in the lessons of
moderation and discretion he utters. One can only assume that Beowulf
learns Hrogars lessons of moderation, since his return to Geatland is
marked by exceptional generosity and his rule by obvious prosperity.
What happens later will challenge this ideal.
Beowulf falls into three (or more) parts: 1. the fight with Grendel and
Grendels mother; 2. the homecoming; 3. the dragon fight. All of the

a contested BEOWULF

49

intradiegetic digressions appear in the first division, and these warn

against excessive ambition in the quest for glory. Yet the homecoming
affirms Beowulf s promise. The digression concerning Queen Fremu
repeats the same expressions of venality used to describe Heremod,
but Fremus reform under her husband Offas supervision conjures
Beowulf s own rehabilitation in Denmark. Revealingly, Beowulf now
praises Hondsciohs valor, when before he never mentioned the dead
thane, and his own generosity to Hygelac, as well as his declaration
of loyalty, defy precedent. The narrator then moves swiftly to commemorate Beowulf s generous reignand to introduce one final crisis,
the dragon. Having achieved distinction as a liberal king and having
defeated all his enemies, Beowulf faces a moral test in the dragon
epilogue. OE oferhygd arguably constitutes the silent term by which his
fight is evaluated as righteous or arrogant. An extraordinary coda, the
dragon episode swings between evidence of recklessness and heroism
in expression of the poets mannered ambivalencejust as it did in
the Grendel section. Characteristically, however, the poets elaboration
of Beowulf s potential oferhygd is deliberately inconclusive. He dodges,
undercuts, and invalidates any position that can be formulated on
the question of Beowulf s charge as a king versus that of his heroic
egoa significant reason why both Beowulf and the dragon must die.
An authoritys judgment of oferhygd depends significantly on outcome,
and recklessness only explains the heros death, and the nations jeopardy, if motivated by vanity. By fixing the boundary between courage
and recklessness in the duties of Germanic kingship, therefore, Beowulf
emphasizes ideal social contexts for a heroic prodigyfor which reason
the poet sympathizes with Beowulf in a manner that simultaneously
confounds his admiration.
When Hrogar establishes the mental contours of oferhygd in his
sermon, we become immediately sensitized to Beowulf s future predicament in the dragon episode, especially because wlenco accounts for
Hygelacs death and oferhygd misled Heremod. Inquiry into Beowulf s
possible oferhygd explains the poets enigmatic and paradoxical analysis of
intent relative to kingship and heroism. The poet has laid out the signs
of Beowulf s potential irresponsibility as reminiscent of his immoderate
heroic wlenco, and opposed them to the gestures of his righteousness as a
responsible protector of Geats. This strategy often generates frustrating
contradictions that scholars typically account for by adopting one sense
or the other of Beowulf s motivation. Beowulf is either honorable or
ignoble, but not both. Because most readers resist a negative Beowulf,

50

introduction

virtue trumps doubt, and the poets ethical symmetry is submerged.

In the dragon fight, however, the narrator does not intend to relieve
any of our doubts. 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. Symbolically, any
dragon could represent evil generally, or the Satanic evil of Revelation, and in Beowulf at least, it seems clearly allied to insatiable greed
and immoderate vengeance, the draconitas that Tolkien foresaw. Is this
dragon therefore the enemy of God? Or, as the poet also proposes, is
the dragon simply an animal with a correspondingly bestial disposition?
It sniffs round the barrow like a dog, after all. We feel the loss of guidance at the conclusion of Beowulf because our self-conscious arbitration
imitates the condition of the subject. In a moment of contemplation
Beowulf justifies his attack on the dragon, yet we remain unsure whether
the terms of his reflection validate the risk. Moreover, one should not
confuse Beowulf s conduct in the dragon episode with his exemplary
rule. Hygelac, we should recall, was a laudable king until he ventured
to Frisia in search of glory. Despite the potentially negative sense of
lofgeornost, therefore, the overall impression remains that Beowulf
ruled well until one final ambiguous incident. 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.
The most explicit criticism of Beowulf emerges when Wiglaf protests
Beowulf s decision to fight the dragon. Beowulf has died by this time,
but Wiglaf recalls that he and the other retainers tried to dissuade
Beowulf from an attack:
Oft sceall eorl monig
anes willan
wrc adreogan,
swa us geworden is.
Ne meahton we gelran
leofne eoden,
rices hyrde
rd nigne,
t he ne grette
goldweard one,
lete hyne licgean,
r he longe ws,
wicum wunian
o woruldende. (3077a83b)
Many an earl must often suffer ruin for the desire of a single man, as
has happened to us. We could not teach our dear prince, protector of
the kingdom, any counsel that he not meet the gold-guardian, just let
him lie where he had been for so long, dwell in the precincts until the
worlds ending.

a contested BEOWULF

51

Again, critics have undercut or undermotivated the statement because

they see Beowulf as a figure whose virtues the poet applauds. For
example, John Niles (following Klaeber) proposed that anes willan
could mean for the sake of one man and that wrc adreogan really
describes the present condition of grief. He would translate, many
an earl must often endure pain for the sake of one man. Yet willa
+ genitive does not mean for the sake of, and wrc is what nations
commonly endure from kings given to oferhygd. In fact, the signs of
oferhygd as voiced in Hrogars sermon pervade the dragon episode.
In the case of Wiglaf s accusation, the casual reading is the right one:
Wiglaf deplores Beowulf s decision, which seems to have jeopardized
the nations defense. My view does not mean, however, that Wiglaf s
position has to be correct, 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, about which Wiglaf can know
nothing. Ignorant of the spell, Wiglaf cannot entertain the proposition
that Beowulf died not from oferhygd but from the lingering effects of
pagan witchcraft. Of course, not even the spell answers all the questions
about Beowulf s motivation for fighting the dragon in the first place.
The poet invokes the curse simply to compound the uncertainty over
Beowulf s motivation, 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. The poets
deliberate ambivalence explains a whole series of textual challenges in
the dragon episode: Gods ability to lift the curse (was it lifted?), the
claim that gold can easily overcome (oferhigian, 2766a) any man
(greed?), the assertion that Beowulf oferhogode (scorned, 2345a)
the dragons might (presumption?), the need to bring a warband but
not to let them engage, the reason for the retainers flight. Once the
vacillation between oferhygd and heroism is recognized, the poem is seen
to encipher an irresolvable tension.
While Wiglaf condemns Beowulf for fighting the dragon, his criticism is merely one observation highlighting Beowulf s potential oferhygd.
Other accusations and exonerations derive from the circumstances
and the narrators commentary. Taken together, the argument they
manifest embodies the contrapuntalism that characterizes the poems
implicit argumentation: Is the dragon a persistent or one-time threat?
If a one-time threat, did Beowulf seek an unnecessary quarrel (sohte
searonias, 3067a) out of pride? Or was vengeance called for? Is the

52

introduction

dragon merely an animal, therefore, or is it consciously evil? Is Beowulf

overconfident when he scorns to seek the dragon with an army?
Doesnt Beowulf show restraint when he wields an iron shield and
refuses to enter the dragons lair? Is Beowulf seduced by the gold? If
so, 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, his death could not necessarily be
attributed to oferhygd. But if God can lift the curse, could he then be
said to die from oferhygd? Perhaps Beowulf merely dies because he was
too strong and broke his sword. Or was his judgment poor when he
hit the dragons head in the first place?
The poet formulates these questions to guide reflection on Beowulf s
potential oferhygd, but he also interposes other kinds of evidence for and
against Beowulf s overconfidence. First, Beowulf justifies his decision
to fight the dragon in a long meditation which suggests both lingering
doubts and moral judgment. Beowulf likewise recalls Hygelacs ruin on
a foolhardy raid, which the narrator had earlier said was undertaken
for pride (for wlenco, 1206a), and possibly prefigures his own
motivation in fighting the dragon.96 Yet Beowulf s reprisal for Hygelacs
death reminds his men that even the foolhardy deserve vengeance. Or
do they? This passage in particular harks back to Hrogars 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. He concludes, I ventured many wars in my
youth, so will I seek out this feud and earn glory (Ic genede fela//
gua on geogoe;/gyt ic wylle, // . . . fhe secan//mru fremman
(2511b14a). None of this evidence proves oferhygd, as the poet piles
vagueness upon nuance in the dragon fight. To heighten the uncertainty he omits any coincident Christian overlay. While he does speak
knowingly of the treasures origin and of the curse, he does not draw
the dragon as Gods adversary, as he does with Grendel. Instead, he

96
On a possible historical context for this raid see the remarks in Storms, Hygelacs
Raid.

a contested BEOWULF

53

invites us to regard the sniffing dragon either as a serpent or a Satanic

enemy, as an intermittent danger or a chronic one, and by doing so
qualifies Beowulf s motives as arguably righteous and just as arguably
compromising.
This reading of Beowulf s dragon fight has two significant advantages.
First, it explains why the fight itself should be depicted so ambiguously.
Wiglaf s criticism, Beowulf s doubts, the double death of Beowulf and
his adversary, the eccentric detachment of twelve fighters, the anticipated extinction of the Geats, the magical curse, and the immolation
of the vast treasure make little sense if the poet had proposed only a
positive context. One would have to find reasons (as scholars have done)
to dismiss the narrative elements that do not support a virtuous Beowulf.
Yet I sense that this procedure represents exactly half the strategy
intended by the Beowulf poet. The alternative view is to acknowledge
the possibility that Beowulf expressed oferhygd and that his death resulted
from reckless self-confidence. 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. In the
poems first half Beowulf could be said to reveal a potentially harmful
immoderation, which is suppressed through Hrogars instruction. 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. Yet it is important to recall that both portions of
the poem defy certainty, that the limits of heroic excess are debated
in these bivalent terms.
Heroic Parallels
The dual motivation that I see in Beowulf s dragon fight, the admixture of potential virtue and skepticism, sounds like an inconceivable
poetic strategy. How could one manage the competing arguments for
Beowulf s ambition and justify either? The answer is, while we are
invited to assess the relative merits of Beowulf s decision to fight the
dragon, we are not meant to reach any consensus about his motivation. Unprecedented? No. I claim that the Beowulf poets strategy
occurs elsewhere in Old English heroic verse. Although there are only
five heroic poems from pre-conquest England, two of them adopt the
strategy of juxtaposing ambiguous moral states and inviting resolution.

54

introduction

Like Beowulf, Battle of Maldon describes an old leader, Earl Byrhtno,

taking a stand against a fiendish Viking enemy. His choices of fighting
or buying off this horde closely resemble Beowulf s choices of engaging or ignoring the dragon. Furthermore, subalterns in Battle of Maldon
stand in opposition to Byrhtno, whose men are arrogant, insouciant,
or woefully unprepared to face the enemy. After Byrhtnos death the
retainers act heroically like Wiglaf or gutlessly like the shirkers in
Beowulf. Even the specter of national calamity ensues from the failed
Maldon campaign, for the English faced years of Viking onslaughts
and extortion afterwards.
I would be reluctant to allege that the Maldon poet knew Beowulf, but
the situational parallels suggest to me that his models were not obviously Scandinavian drpur. A problem in Maldon criticism has always
been the treatment of an ancient warband ethic described in Tacituss
Germania: the case of men dying for their lord. The willingness to
die for ones fallen lord is unmotivated in Tacitus, and in Maldon it
has always been deemed both sacrificial and derivative of the obligation for vengeance. For reasons of homology scholars have assumed
that Scandinavian analogues, especially in court poems called drpur,
influenced the tradition of warrior sacrifice in Maldon. They may be
right that certain details of men dying with their lord come from
Norse traditions, but the trope itself functions in Beowulf s dragon fight.
I shall argue that the ethic of dying with ones lord motivates Wiglaf,
who expects to face certain death alongside his own lord, Beowulf.
Wiglaf s intervention is no rescue.
One verbal parallel between Maldon and Beowulf has always stood
out. Readers will recall that Byrhtno is said to suffer from ofermod,
a term parallel in morphology to OE oferhygd.97 Scholars have had
trouble defining OE ofermod in Maldon, and definitions range from highmindedness to pride. The natural impulse to translate ofermod
in a positive sense and exonerate Byrhtno comes from his apparent
Christian humility (so argued), the praise he receives from the narrator
and characters, and the sacrifice of his men. Yet as in Beowulf internal
contradictions defy any positive meaning for the term. Byrhtno seems
to act like a glory-seeking warrior rather than a kingor at least a kings

97
On the apparent interchangeability of oferhygd and ofermod, see the table following page 140 in Schabram, where the glosses to superbia in the Anglo-Saxon psalters
are collated.

a contested BEOWULF

55

ealdormonn. Throwing his victory open to Gods intervention, in fact,

evokes the whole context of the cursed treasure in Beowulf: has God
lifted the curse and still made Beowulf lose his life? Similarly, why has
God bestowed victory on pagan Vikings and death on the Christian
Byrhtno? Byrhtnos mistake in generalship does not, however,
compromise his long and successful career, although it does illustrate
the manner of his death. A major confusion in the ofermod complex
comes from Viking deceit. It might be said that they gull Byrhtno into
a state of ofermod, for which reason he might be exonerated. For Beowulf
the broken sword, the heathen curse, or the failure of his men might
function in just this way, explaining why Beowulf himself might not be
thoroughly guilty of oferhygd. 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.
Beowulf s Doom:
Reflections on the Final Achievement of a Good King
Only a potentially negative Beowulf is suggested in this book, for the
Beowulf poet has engineered a deliberate equivocacyan indeterminate
text in Kberls parlance. It has seemed to me that others may have
observed the same potential in other ways. For example, in an article
on narrative technique in Beowulf Michael Lapidge has reasoned that
knowledge . . . is always a matter of retrospection and re-interpretation.98 There is no doubt, he continues, that the poet intended the
audience of the poem to reflect, retroactively, on the narrated events
and their relationships during the course of the telling.99 While Lapidge
connects the distinction between physical perception and mental
realisation to an awareness of transience,100 I prefer to see it as one
of ethical judgment. The Beowulf poets idiosyncratic narrative style,
especially the tendency to interweave flashback and anticipation, reflects
his aim to manifest conduct and motivation comparable to Beowulf s.
The characters realization of transience imitates their deliberation: why
should malevolence occur, and what can be done about it? How do

98
99
100

Lapidge, Beowulf and Perception 87.

Ibid. 88.
Ibid. 87.

56

introduction

mens acts influence mutability? Andrew Galloway has posed this same
question perceptively in an article emphasizing the varieties of choice
in Beowulf. In a published reply to comments made on his paper, 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 . . . in other cases one must consider the way
concepts of choosing and perceiving intermix.101 In his article, Galloway
demonstrates how anomalous it is that choice is dramatized in Beowulf,
for, while surviving heroic literature reveals choice, it rarely discloses
the mental process of choosing. 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, though it is also in this middle range that
choice is most difficult and full of risk, both to achieve and to judge.
This middle range bridges inner ethical struggles with their contexts and
consequences in the social world. The poem demonstrates the interaction
of context, choice and consequence rather than a flatly causal relation
among them.102

For Galloway, volition (the enactment of choice) drives the poems

contemplative polarity, and his statement that with this perspective on
choice, Beowulf stands in a generically and ethically complicated position103 reflects exactly my own view of the poem, with one exception.
For me, the choices facing Beowulf do not necessarily emerge from
compelling political contexts but rather from moral distinctions made
about heroic motivation. The right kind of attitude (the mechanism of
volition) always fosters the right kind of choice, which in turn drives
political success in the world of the poem. The delicate and sometimes
imperceptible boundary between moderation and recklessness represents
the moral crux by which Beowulf s choices ought to be judged. The
ambiguity of motivation surrounding Beowulf results from deducing his
motivation only from his choices rather than from the poets omniscient
judgment. We must perceive Beowulf s deeds, hear the opinions of
other characters, and determine Beowulf s motivation and potential.
This process of judgment of course arises from Beowulf s preeminence,
101
102
103

Galloway et al. 311.

Galloway 203.
Ibid. 204.

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.
Convincing evidence of Beowulf s moderation can be found, but I
will spend little time rehearsing Beowulf s virtues, so thoroughly and
convincingly have they been expressed. Instead, I show first that excessive ambition could compromise Beowulf s presumed virtue, second
that elements of Old English wisdom poetry emphasize Beowulf s
potential recklessness, third that Hrogar works to suppress any potential
faults deriving from immoderation, and fourth that during the dragon
fight Beowulf may have relapsed into the ambition he repressed under
Hrogars tuition. Criticisms of Beowulf are made in the digressions
which act as commentaries or exempla. By analogous story Beowulf is
counseled to remember the duty he has towards the warband and, by
extension, the tribe or nation. Kings defend, expand, and rule nations
by the strength of a warband, and the soldiers competition with his
fellow warrior should not be extended into kingship, where lavish generosity yields power. Sometimes a named critic like Hunfer, but most
often anonymous poets or commentators, admonish Beowulf for the
kind of leadership that could endanger the group. Extraordinary, if not
actually unique in Old English poetry, is the manifestation of what I
designate the subaltern voice, the expression of the ordinary soldier
or warband member. In short, my argument expresses a straightforward
trajectory: the emergence into responsible kingship of a man perhaps
expressing the incipient traits of a wrecca, and his potential downfall in
the re-appearance of the heroic failing he once arguably controlled.
If my argument for Beowulf has a more generous context, it will be
found in heroic literature generally, in poems like Maldon or the Iliad.
One appreciates in the Iliad the moral bivalence of martial heroism
in the figure of Achilles. He earns glory, admittedly, but at the price
of any moral respectability. Not only do multitudes of Greeks have to
die for Achilles rage, but Patroclus also falls in an unanticipated reaction to Achilles defiance. Parallels could be made between Achilles
potential ate and Beowulf s potential oferhygd. 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. As men they are immune neither to criticism nor to doubt.
Wisdom curbs their otherwise reckless ambition and blunts the edgy
rivalry they convey at the expense of reason and, more practically,
group cohesion. The heroic character therefore challenges moral virtue,
both in the Germanic secular sense and in the Christian one. It would

58

introduction

be hard to doubt, in fact, that Beowulf s pagan virtue is not somehow

influenced or molded by Christian ideals. To a Christian the kind of
pagan moral conflict that obsessed the Germanic peoples looks more
like degeneracy than probity, 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, knowing that his death is ordained, or whether he chooses
one course rather than another of two that are hateful to him, and
makes something magnificent of it by a single-minded pursuit of it.104
The Beowulf poet has manipulated a literary paradigm and depicted a
character that balances the irrational with the humane. The division
between the two ideals, personal secular glory and the rule of men,
clash in Beowulf s competing motivations, and the anxiety felt for his
status as a potential wrecca and as a potential tyrant reflects the poets
aim to represent a Germanic exemplar. Beowulf chooses the kind of
fame associated with kingship, 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. Complex, interconnected, and
certainly chaotic attitudes of individual-versus-collectiveof ambitionversus-restraintseparate the two spheres.

104

Phillpotts, Wyrd and Providence 6.

CHAPTER ONE

THE WISDOM CONTEXT OF THE

SIGEMUND-HEREMOD AND HUNFER DIGRESSIONS
I examine two episodes in this chapter. The Sigemund-Heremod
digression, I speculate, predicts Beowulf s destiny by describing two
paths for the potential wrecca that Beowulf represents. Here I must be
scrupulous in saying that darker traits some characters detect in Beowulf
are merely implied through comparisons to Sigemund and Heremod,
since the poet aims for uncertainty. As seen from the perspective of the
anonymous poet mindful of gidd, Beowulf could take Sigemunds path,
glorious but mostly solitary and full of dark suspicions, or Heremods
path, which leads to tyranny and national annihilation. Sigemunds
behavior is distinguished by successes like Beowulf s: encounters with
men and monsters, including a dragon. But the ambiguity surrounding
Sigemunds fyrene or crimes, 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.
Notwithstanding these possible faults (they are as deliberately vague as
Beowulf s), Sigemund, I sense, is depicted as an exile-paragon whose
conduct is worthy of emulation. One proviso stands out. The anonymous scop specifically stresses that Sigemunds nefa Fitela does not
accompany him to the dragon fight. Supreme achievements (one might
call them reckless) like the dragon-slaying presumably require a solo
action. Sigemunds venture therefore seems creditable for a wrecca, yet
it is exactly what Heremod does not do. The singer makes clear that
Heremods behavior should be avoided, but in telling the story of a
king-turned-wrecca, he suggests that Beowulf has the potential to be
like Heremod.
This brief interlude in the narrative apostrophizes the question of
Beowulf s potentially vainglorious motivation explored in Hunfers
challenge. As Hrogars yle, Hunfer would have taught the etiquette
of wisdom, especially the kind of self-restraint or moderation so often
advocated in Old English wisdom literature. New research on the
office of yle enables us to theorize that intricate verbal features of
Beowulf s retort to Hunfer parody the language of native wisdom

60

chapter one

found in poems like Precepts and Vainglory. These poems are generally
considered monastic, or to derive from Christian teachings, but their
relevance to Beowulf implies that wisdom verse might just be native.
Judging from the themes of such wisdom poetrypride, reticence, and
moral behavior individually and in the warbandnative wisdom could
be easily adapted to Christian teachings. This is not obviously true of
the Old English maxims, say, but Precepts, Vainglory, and elements of
The Wanderer and The Seafarer detail modesty perfectly in keeping with
heroic tradition, at least as it is presented in Beowulf. For a warrior,
this humility approximates self-awareness and moderation in ones
enterprises. Pride is zealously discouraged, dignity encouraged.
For a king, humility transcends self-awareness, becoming responsibility
for the group: the family, warband, tribe, etc. From an examination
of these poems and related models in the Scandinavian tradition, we
can deduce what Hunfer honestly thinks of Beowulf: he is a conceited
boaster. Here I must emphasize that the evidence does not validate
Hunfers opinion of Beowulfbut neither is it invalidated. The poet
imparts a balanced view of Beowulf s motivation, which lies open to
scrutiny from the internal and external audiences.
Our confidence in Hunfers objection is compromised by his
own jealousy, of course, but Beowulf s rhetoric still seems excessively
malevolent. Yet ever since Carol Clovers eminent paper on the flyting context of the Hunfer episode,1 critics have wanted to validate
Beowulf s speech because he has won the debate. The victory may be
secure, but in re-visiting the flyting evidence in Scandinavian sources,
I find reason to believe that Beowulf s moral position is not so clearcut. First, combatants in the flyting disputes often betray the fierce
temperament of mercenaries, and the winner is often the more vehement. From another perspective, the flyting winner might be called a
dogmatic troublemaker. Furthermore, the disputes themselves pivot on
identifiable but dubious moral categories: action vs. talk, hard life
vs. soft life, adventurer vs. stay-at-home.2 In heroic terms, action,
the hard life, and adventure always trump talk, even when
action might be barbaric or reckless. By these terms, moderation,
even for a proven warrior, could elicit blame. This catch-22 exactly
reflects Beowulf s indeterminate virtue, since the flyting commends

1
2

Unfer Episode.
Ibid. 454.

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

61

action, not prudence. Hence, while Beowulf manages to shame Hunfer

into silence, his exaggerated put-down compromises our confidence
in Beowulf s generous motivation. I say exaggerated because a new
model of flyting oratory I propose here betrays how Beowulf viciously
distorts the facts of Hunfers kin-killing. And yet, in keeping with
the poets deliberate ambiguitythe subtle effect of his contrapuntalismBeowulf might be said to express the humility revealed earlier in
his discourse with the coast-warden. Arguments will be made on both
sides of the proposition.
The Exploits of Sigemund
In the Sigemund-Heremod digression Hrogars nobleman (cyninges
egn, 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. This anonymous thane
is said to be laden with boasts (gilphlden, 868a), mindful of gidd
(gidda gemyndig, 868b), and familiar with ancient tales (ealdgesegena, 869b): prepared to boast about Beowulf s feats, one assumes,
drawing on legendary figures in the mode of comparison.3 Labeled a
spel or narrative, the Sigemund/Heremod digression itself cannot
with certainty be designated a gidd, and it appears, moreover, to be
summarized in the poet-narrators voice.4 In other words, the story
3
The warrior who recites the Sigemund-Heremod digression found another mode
of expression bound by truth (word oer fand//soe gebunden, 870b1a). Interpreting these lines means solving a semantic ambiguity: the long-stem neuter monosyllable
word has an endingless plural, yet the forms of oer and gebunden are singular. Not
all translators have interpreted the phrase he found other words bound by truth, as
Klaeber acknowledges. Klaeber himself thought that words truly bound (he interpreted soe as adverbial) referred to alliterative conventions (Beowulf 158, reaffirmed in
Klaebers Beowulf, note to lines 870b1), and even George Jacks recent edition proposes
[he] composed a new poem correctly linked in meter (78; see Stanley, Beowulf 157;
Opland 458). These half-lines could be construed in reference to the ealdgesegena, a
store of legend appropriated to the present circumstances. 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, Beowulf 157).
4
While Howlett represents the spell as a distinct genre in Beowulf (as indeed it may
be), the narrator suggests that this spel served as a gidd for the Danes. The encomiast uses the expression wordum wrixlan to describe his mode of narration, and the
expression varies wrecan . . . spel. OE wrixlan means to stir, scramble, mix, and it
has been taken to indicate the appositive style, in which half-lines amplify each other

62

chapter one

heard by the audience is not undeniably the fictional one heard by the
retainers in the world of the text. Furthermore, when Hrogar brings
up the story of Heremod a second time in his sermon, he specifically
calls it a gidd:
u e lr be on,
gumcyste ongit;
ic is gid be e
awrc wintrum frod. (1722b24a)
Teach yourself by this; perceive the virtue of a man. Wise in years I have
recited this gidd about you.

Hrogar claims, I have recited this gidd about you or in respect to

you, not for your benefit, as many translators say.5 On account of
this recapitulation some commonalities between the two episodes might
be discernible, and I shall draw on both in my discussion of Heremod.
In my view, the egn who commemorates Beowulf s deeds analogizes
the heros accomplishments by interweaving a recent happening into
the context of legendary narrative.
In the blandest terms, the story of Sigemund appears to ground
Beowulf in the universal context of Germanic heroism. Adrien Bonjour addressed the Sigemund/Heremod digression in 1950, reaffirming
Hoops opinion that the whole passage summarized a single lay in
honor of Beowulf. Bonjour regarded the moment as a consecration,
asserting that each narrative encodes a parallelism and a contrast,
partly implicit, partly explicit, and not devoid of a slight dramatic
irony.6 Sigemunds role as a dragon-slayer predicts Beowulf s future,
although Bonjour emphasized Sigemunds other exploits as a giant-killer,
interpreting hfdon eal fela/eotena cynnes//sweordum gesged
(883a4a) in the manner of they had utterly dispatched many kinds
of giants by swords.7 The irony, of course, materializes in Beowulf s
failure to live long enough to enjoy his treasure.8 Bonjour suggests both
immediate and anticipatory functions for the Heremod digression
as well:

in variation. On the punctuation of this passage, see Stanley, Notes on Old English
Poetry 3304.
5
A close parallel can be found in The Wifes Lament: Ic is giedd wrece/bi me ful
geomorre (1) or I recite this gidd about myself, fully wretched.
6
Digressions 47.
7
Ibid.
8
On the grounds that Beowulf does not belong to the same class of ancient heroes
represented by Sigemund, Kberl suggests that Beowulf cannot be expected to dispatch
his dragon alone (Indeterminacy 10414).

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

63

Here the immediate purpose of the parallel is the reference to Heremods

former strength and courage (eafo ond ellen)in which he doubtless
matched the greatest heroesthe anticipatory part is that his sorrowful
end was not to be Beowulf s lot.9

For Bonjour Beowulf s future appears to hold neither fame nor infamy,
leaving us disappointed that Beowulf did not achieve Sigemunds status
and relieved that he avoided Heremods fate.
Beowulf scholars have almost unanimously adopted Bonjours position,
deeming Sigemund glorious, in contrast to Heremod, a sadistic tyrant.
Clemoes, for example, consistently praises Sigemunds famous deeds
and faults Heremods notorious crimes.10 Fred C. Robinson maintains that Sigemunds successes are paradigmatic of Beowulf s, whereas
Heremods are not. In celebration of Beowulf s deeds, Robinson and
others find Heremod an unworthy standard.11 R. Barton Palmer calls
Heremods behavior the end-product of a transformation which is the
mirror image of Beowulf s.12 Nevertheless, Joseph Harris makes the
point that Norse panegyrics that might be compared to this passage
of Beowulf (Ragnarsdrpa, Haustlng, Eiriksml, Hkonarml,
Hyndlulj, and Sigurardrpa) have no contrasting archetypes.13
In fact, Scandinavian sources link Sigmundr and Hermr consistently
but not in obvious contrast. In Hyndlulj both men receive weapons
from inn, Sigmundr a sword and Hermr a byrnie and helm.14
H. M. Chadwick concluded that both figures were celebrated in Odinic
warrior cults.15 In Eyvindr Finnssons Eiriksml Sigmundr and Sinfjtli are said to welcome the slain at Valhll, whereas in Hkonarmlallegedly derivative of EiriksmlHermr and Bragi perform
the same function.16 From this connection Chadwick concluded: As

Digressions 48.
Clemoes, Thought and Language 195; Stanley, Narrative Art 175.
11
Chickering, Dual Language Edition 318; Bandy 243; Malone, Coming Back 1296
(complete opposites).
12
Palmer 16.
13
Beowulf in Literary History 20.
14
See also Jess H. Jackson; Neckel and Kuhn 288 (str. 2):
Biiom Heriafr
hugom sitia!
Hann geldr oc gefr
gull verugom;
gaf hann Hermi
hilm oc brynio,
enn Sigmundi
sver at iggia.
Let us pray to the Father of Hosts that he keep us in mind. He gives and grants gold
to servants. He gave helm and mailcoat to Hermr, and Sigmundr received a sword.
15
H. Munro Chadwick, Cult 512; Ryan 4767; the idea is developed in North,
Heathen Gods 102, 181 and passim.
16
Chambers, Beowulf 91. The Fagrskinna scribe acknowledged the indebtedness, a
9

10

64

chapter one

the former poem [Hkonarml] is modelled on the latter, this fact

tells decidedly against the view that the association of Hermr and
Sigmundr is merely accidental.17 The heroes share traits that earn them
both a place at Valhll, where they appear to be leading residents! In
light of such close literary affinities, perhaps the Beowulf poet considers Sigemund and Heremod to express the same identity in different
social environments. Sigemund satisfies his reckless ambition in killing
a dragon, whereas Heremod takes the route of warrior-king and enlists
his nation in support of ambitions identical to Sigemunds.
The offensively raw Sigemund legend as told in Scandinavian sources
may differ from the presumably sanitized version transmitted in
Beowulf, but M. S. Griffith has reasoned that the Beowulf poet knew the
story in something like its later form.18 He argues that Sigemund and
Beowulf actually deviate in temperament, since Sigemunds exploits
publicize some disreputable aspects of heroic character. By contrast, the
actions of Griffiths Beowulf square with the pseudo-Christian decency
that the poet fabricates. While the language of the Beowulf passage is
telegraphic (perhaps because it belongs to the narrators summary of
the warriors recitation), Griffith suspects Sigemunds moral ambiguity.
He presents some evidence of a negative Sigemund as definitive and
some as conceivable, but because of protests recently voiced by Fred C.
Robinson and because of my own position on Beowulf,19 I will present
all of his cases as conceivable but not definitive. The idea is that, just as
Beowulf expresses a morally indeterminate ambition, Sigemund can be
seen to express equivocal virtues that demand reflection as potentially
reckless. Nevertheless, Sigemund still exhibits a prototypical heroism
that Beowulf should emulate if he would earn fame like Sigemunds.
Later Scandinavian sources lead us to quarry the Sigemund digression for evidence of Sigemunds ambivalent heroism. In one of Griffiths
examples, the secg tells whatever (welhwylc, 874b) he has heard,
main reason why Eyvindr is thought to have earned the moniker Skldaspillir or
The Plagiarist.
17
Origin 139 note 2. From Eirksml: Sigmundr oc Sinfiatli,/risit snarlega/oc
gangit i gongu grame (Sigmund and Sinfjtli, rise quickly and greet the warrior
at the entry; Finnur Jnsson vol. 1.1, p. 175); from Hkonarml: Hermor ok
bragi,/qva hroptatyr/gangit i ggn grami . . . ( Hermr and Bragi, says inn,
greet the warrior at the entry; ibid., vol. 1, pp. 667.) On the connection between
Eirksml and Hkonarml, see Marold.
18
Some additional evidence for knowledge of the dragon-slaying may come from
Aethicus Isters Cosmographia; see Alan K. Brown 4423.
19
Robinson, Sigemunds fhe ond fyrena.

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

65

including many unspeakable things . . . feud and crimes (876b, 879a).20

Fred C. Robinson objects to the supposititious translation crimes for
fyrena,21 but the pejorative sense sin is available and contextually
suitable. Deliberate or unintended violence apparently characterizes
wreccan like Sigemund. In fact, it may be their defining characteristic.
My examination of OE wrecca (below) shows the identical admixture of
violence and eminence. For Griffith, Sigemunds incest with his sister
Sign may be suggested in the subtle connotations of OE nefa, perhaps
influenced by late Latin nepos in the sense of illegitimate son (especially of an ecclesiastic). 22 In Norse legend Sigmundrs sister Sign
conceives Sinfjtli (= OE Fitela) with her brother as a hoped-for avenger
on Signs husband, Siggeir, slayer of all her brothers except Sigmundr.
One wonders not whether the Anglo-Saxons knew about the incest, but
why they should not know of it. The oversight seems pointed.
Sigemunds exploits are called ellendd (876a, 900a), his travels (and,
by extension, his reputation) are widespread. Griffith finds reason to
think that Sigemunds ellendd are brazen deeds rather than bold
ones. When compared to Beowulf s dragon-slaying, Sigemunds own
(an audacious act: frecne dde, 889a) shares in multiple equivocacies: the secular glory (dom, 885b) earned by such a venture,
the heros potential for recklessness, the scandal of greed (plundering
the treasure selfes dome or on his own terms, 895a).23 Finally,
20
On this collocation, see Kahrl 192. 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.e. Grendel], and the selfless courage of the hero who places the good
he is defending before his instinct for self-preservation [i.e. Beowulf ] (191).
21
In Sigemunds fhe ond fyrena Robinson says that sufferings might be as
secure a rendering as crimes for fyrena. Although his translation extreme need
for fyrenearfe (Beowulf 14b) and for firinum tharf in Heliand 204 calls to mind
the Modern English usage I have a terrible [extreme] thirst, Robinson is ultimately
right. There is no reason for these terms to be unequivocally pejorative, but they can
raise doubts about Sigemunds behavior. Even by Robinsons reasoning, fhe ond
fyrene in Beowulf 2480a, descriptive of the suffering caused by Ongentheow when
he attacked the Geatas (205), still refers to an enemys unexpected, and possibly
unjustified, onslaught.
22
The Latin influence is so slight as to be unlikely, and Robinson raises yet another
objection (Sigemunds fhe ond fyrena 202).
23
The expression selfes dome (agen dom, an dom, etc.) and the concept of
self-judgment (terminating a feud through a payment assessed by oneself or ones allies)
occur sporadically in Old English verse, and three times in Beowulf. Yet the concept
in Beowulf, according to Mezger, shows the least degree of relationship to the ancient
institution of self-judgment (109). One wonders whether the poet pretends that a
wronged Sigemund is entitled to vengeance. Sigemund and Fitela are also said to

66

chapter one

there is the problem of Sigemunds status as a wrecca, the most famous

examples of which are Lucifer and Cain. Sigemund may express an
exiles misery and aggression, but Griffith denies that Beowulf could
ever be designated a wrecca like Sigemund. Overall, a plausible case
could be mounted for Sigemunds potentially equivocal virtue. Griffith
claims, however, that Sigemund actually betrays a dubious Germanic
morality, which, he asserts, differs from Beowulf s unequivocal rectitude.
The poet, he alleges, has deliberately under-reported or camouflaged
Sigemunds offenses to distinguish Beowulf as a secular pre-Christian
(a noble pagan). For this reason Griffith thinks that Beowulf and
Sigemund are subtly contrasted in the episode.
The Rapacious King Heremod
Griffiths article does not treat Heremod, who is just as intrepid as
Sigemund but more obviously detestable. Danish and Anglo-Saxon
genealogies suggest that Heremod could have been Scylds immediate
ancestor. In some discussions Heremod has been connected to the figure
Lotherus, mentioned in Saxos Historia Danorum as the father of Scyld.24
Had Heremods death followed a time of interminable national warfare,
as I theorize, it would explain the Danes fyrenearfe (terrible need,
14b) right before Scylds advent. Being aldorlease//lange hwile or
without a king for a long time (15b16a) could be considered a dire
misery, but the actions of a despot who brought ruin on his population
might answer the condition of terrible need even better. One must
always bear in mind the aptness of Heremods name, not War-Minded
per se but Army-Minded.25

lay low a number of eoten, which Griffith is disposed to translate Jute but which
I think means either enemy or giant (below, pp. 1636). Griffith asks whether
Sigemunds enemies were human (i.e. Jutes) and therefore innocent, but the dual
sense of OE eoten still confirms the ambivalence Griffith attends in the passage.
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 . . . (Beowulf 90). On the
connection between Lotherus and Heremod, see Sievers 17580. Meaney 11 ff. offers
authoritative analyses of the genealogical evidence and onomastic equivalences.
25
Bjrkman 635; Robinson, Significance of Names 512; Orchard, Pride and
Prodigies 49 (war-spirit). In emphasizing Heremods pugnacious, cruel disposition
(51), Robinson seems to accept Karl Mllenhoffs gloss kriegerischer Mut or warminded (Beovulf 51).

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

67

Heremods viciousness is paralleled in Saxos account of King

Lotherus, who was no more tolerant as a king than he was as a soldier
(sed nec Lotherus tolerabiliorem regem quam militem egit).26 Lotherus
savagely killed his own high-born men or robbed themexactly as
Hrogar alleges Heremod did in Beowulf:27
. . . siquidem illustrissimum quemque uita aut opibus spoliare, patriamque
bonis ciuibus uacuefacere probitatis loco duxit, regni emulos ratus, quos
nobilitate pares habuerat.
Indeed, for reasons of security he undertook to despoil the most illustrious
men of life or riches, and to empty his homeland of its leading citizens.
He judged those whom he had held equal in rank to be enemies of the
state.

In Beowulf Heremod kills his own beodgeneatas (table-companions,

1713b), his eaxlgesteallan (men stationed with him shoulder-to-shoulder, 1714a). He did not bestow rings on the Danes (1719b20a).
The Lotherus story even echoes the fratricidal theme of Beowulf, since
Lotherus dispossesses his modest brother Humblus to gain the throne.
Humblus learns to accept his loss of honor as a blessing (beneficio),
observing that there is more splendor but less security in a kings hall
than in a fishermans hovel.28 While Sievers summary of the Lotherus/
Heremod story, adopted by Chambers, includes a weakling elder
brother and deposed king, the narrative contrast in Saxo emphasizes
the humble and the arrogant. More specifically, Saxos aperu 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.29

Holder 11. The story itself clarifies the sense of comp. adj. tolerabilior, which can
mean either tolerable or tolerant.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.: documentum hominibus prebuit, ut plus splendoris, ita minus securitatis
aulis quam tuguriis inesse.
29
Other examples of the arrogant king can be found in Anglo-Saxon sources, the
first Iugurtha, as described in the lfredian Orosius (see Stanley, Geoweora 3325).
Another may be represented by Sigebryht deposed by Cynewulf in the 755 Chronicle
entry. A third is Osred I of Northumbria, who reigned ca. 705716 (see Whitelock,
Poetry and the Historian 778). Finally, the poet named Deor expresses sympathetic
misery with the men whose lived under the tyrant Ermanaric (lines 21a7b).
26

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. Yet the alleged function of historical analogies anticipates the comparison. The singers
hearers, the inhabitants of Beowulf s world, would detect an implicit
application to Beowulf of the Sigemund/Heremod exempla. While
Griffith admirably draws together the verbal parallels in depictions of
Sigemund and Beowulf, his argument contextualizes the digression in
the poem as a whole, and not at this single narrative moment. It is
undeniably true that Beowulf s dragon fight differs from Sigemunds,
but the observation is much less relevant for the Danes, since only the
Beowulf poets audience, and not the unidentified singer, can discern
that future. Griffith concludes,
Though the poem is set in the pagan past, the poet does not see his hero
as a pagan; his deeds are done in this past, but his nature is not entirely
of it. He is a noble pagan, a sublimation of this past, the past as the poet
dreams it might at best have been.30

But what function does the episode serve for these Danes, Geats, and
guests commemorating Beowulf s victory? What is the thanes objective in telling the Danes this story and not another? Like so many
other digressions in Beowulf, the stories of Sigemund and Heremod
evaluate Beowulf s success against Grendel and predict his fate. For the
singer Beowulf resembles both Sigemund and Heremod in conviction
and potential as a precocious champion. Clearly, the potential in
Heremods behavior is as negative as it is prodigiousas much as
critics might be dismayed to hear it.
Beowulf s Future Foretold
Let us first consider Sigemunds unquestionable glory. The narrator
specifies that Sigemunds companion Fitela participated in and witnessed Sigemunds ellendd, strange encounters (uncues fela, 876b),
conflicts, and wide travelshis fhe ond fyrena, as it were. They
were, the thane remarks, necessary comrades in every hostility (t nia
gehwam/nydgesteallan, 882ab), hence indispensable to each other

30

Griffith 40.

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

69

except in the case of the dragon. The poet not merely conveys but
emphasizes the remarkable technicality that Sigemund fought a dragon
alone: ana genede//frecne dde,/ne ws him Fitela mid (he ventured an audacious deed alone; Fitela was not with him, 888b89b). Verse
889b is highly unusual, since it must bear stress on Fitela and mid,
a circumstance which accents the importance of Sigemunds solo venture.31 The secg could be suggesting, of course, that Sigemund earned
the greatest honor when he fought the dragon single-handed in this
dangerous attack. A second possibility also seems feasible, that Sigemund
accomplished his deed without risking Fitela, his otherwise indispensable
comrade, in a possibly disastrous undertaking. For all his theoretical
failings, Sigemund concedes the liability of his nefa, who is without question the subordinate partner in Sigemunds adventures. From this story
Beowulf learns one trait that will make him an exemplary champion:
not to involve other, less capable men, in his most reckless encounters.
This trait, it turns out, is especially important for leaders.
The absence of Fitela in Sigemunds dragon fight documents the
thematic relevance of Heremods tale as one of two possible futures
for Beowulf: scrupulous heroism or infamy. Saxo ultimately supplies
a clue to understanding the episode. When Heremod became king,
he failed to put aside the soldier and became tyrannical because he
could not, or would not, restrain his ambition (the arrogance Saxo
speaks of ) and acknowledge a duty to his subalterns. Heremod fails to
confront the limitations of his men dependent on their loyalty. This
special kind of tyrannya kings failure to restrain the impetuosity
associated with heroic self-regardis called oferhygd in Beowulf. When
Hrogar discusses Heremod again in his sermon, he will cite him
as someone afflicted with oferhygd and teach Beowulf to recognize any
similar recklessness in himself. In fact, because multiple digressions warn
against ones susceptibility to oferhygd (as a king) or excessive ambition
(as a warrior), we should expect to find charges of recklessness in the
Heremod analogy. 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. Only as a kind of Sigemund would it be acceptable

31
On this archaism see the discussion in Wende and, most recently, in Lehmann,
Postpositions 543. Michael Lapidge supplies a list of such postponed adjectives in
Postponing of Prepositions.

70

chapter one

for a man to attack a dragon, and then only alone. This future could
await Beowulf. So could Heremods ruin.
Heremod cannot give up soldiering, and one clear parallel between
him and Sigemund involves material honors. After fighting the dragon,
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, 894a5a).32 Heremod is likewise unwilling to share glory
with his retinue by rewarding them, but this vice is mentioned only in
Hrogars gidd, extended in his sermon. Prone to oferhygd, Heremod
views wealth the way Sigemund does: earned by himself without concession to his warband. The failed warfare of his comitatus may also
explain Heremods famous stinginess, however. The anonymous singer
relates Heremods iniquity in the vaguest terms: whelming sorrows
oppressed him too long (Hine sorhwylmas//lemedon to lange,
904b5a).33 These sorrows go unspecified, although one senses that
his paralysis is caused by repeated military defeats or Pyrrhic victories,
or else by the frustration of his heroic ego. Ruth Wehlau frames a
warriors consolation in three related expectations: an awareness of
the brevity of worldly joy . . . a recognition of the unpredictability of
fate . . . the possibility of a change of fortune for the better.34 This is a
philosophy of Germanic fatalism. While it might be true for Wehlaus
precedents that the failure of consolation revolves around a failure of
exchange . . . [withdrawal] from the world of social interactionlanguage,
gift-giving and feuding,35 Heremods misery derives from a failure to
limit his own ambition and to embrace the warriors consolation mentioned above. My justification for this view comes from an examination
of verses in the Sigemund/Heremod digression.
The poet remarks that in former days many a wise man often
lamented the wilful mans course or venture (swylce oft bemearn/
rran mlum//swiferhes si/snotor ceorl monig, 907a8b) and that
Heremod became an aldorceare (life-sorrow, 906b) who should
rather have offered his nation comfort.36 In Beowulf OE si means either
32
Stressing the poets own observation of Fitelas absence, Lucas 1089 calls
Sigemunds deed an individual act of heroic proportions.
33
OE lemman literally means to lame, and Anglo-Saxon poets often described sorrow as paralyzing. One could be bound by sorrows ( gebunden) or roped by sorrows
( gesled ). The editors of Klaebers Beowulf emend to lemedon, but on the singular verb
form with plural subject, see Klaeber, Textual Interpretation 259.
34
Seeds of Sorrow 3.
35
Ibid. 5.
36
Cf. DOE s.v. ealdorcaru: mortal grief, perhaps life-long anxiety ; cf. lifcearu in

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

71

journey or venture, exploit, course of action, and some readers

have been unable to establish the sense in this context. Do Heremods
men, they wonder, lament their kings banishment? In fact, the specific designation many a wise man evokes the wisdom tradition of
warrior moderation in opposition to recklessness. Wise men lament
the actions of a despot who brings them (or has brought them) to ruin.
The language resembles that of verses in Deor: st secg monig/sorgum
gebunden,//wean on wenan (many a man sat bound by sorrows, in
expectation of woe, 24a5a).37 Here the tyrant Ermanaric governs the
Goths with such ferocity that his own men lament their kings warfare
and expect genocide. The phrase wean on wenum has generally
been translated in expectation of woe,38 but it is used elsewhere in
Old English explicitly to describe exile or extermination. Punished by
exile, Cain lays his tracks in expectation of woe (Genesis A 1026b7b),
and the Israelites in Exodus await a national extermination at the banks
of the Red Sea: orwenan/eelrihtes . . . wean on wenum (deprived
of a right to a homeland . . . in expectation of woe, 211a13a). Often
paired with exile in Old English verse, including Beowulf, OE wea itself
may simply mean military annihilation, too. In Beowulf Ongeneow
has promised woe for the Geats (wean oft gehet, 2937b), specifically the massacre of Hcyns army. Beowulf punishes a race of giants
(eotena cyn, 421a) who have asked for woe (wean ahsodon,
423b). Similarly, Hygelac asked for woe (wean ahsode, 1206b) when
he ventured to Frisia, and, with the exception of Beowulf, his shore
party was lost. Therefore, in his expression that many men lamented
Heremods si, the secg may imply a fact intimated in Hrogars sermon: Heremods behavior endangers his men and even his nation.39
This biography therefore illustrates the kind of belligerence that could
have led to Heremods exile.

Genesis A (sagast lifceare//hean hygegeomor,/t e sie hrgles earf . . . 878b9b;

wretched and disheartened you call it a life-long care that you have need of raiment) and Andreas (Is me feorhgedal//leofre mycle/onne eos lifcearo; Death is
far more preferable to me than this life-long misery, 1427b8b (following a description
of Andreass sufferings).
37
Read wenum for wenan.
38
Whitbread, Four Text-Notes, 2067.
39
In lines 1711a12b: ne weox he him to willan/ac to wlfealle//ond to deacwalum/Deniga leodum (he did not grow to accommodate their desires but for the
slaughter and massacre of the Danish people). The expression Deniga leodum could
imply that Heremod endangered his men in unnecessary conflicts, but the following
statement that Heremod cut down his own men (1713a14a) seems to specify the
preceding acts as murder, at least in the abstract.

72

chapter one

On the evidence of lines 902b4a from the Sigemund/Heremod

digression, and particularly on the account of Lotherus from Saxo,
most have seen Heremod betrayed by his own Danes, interpreting the
passage wear for forlacen as was betrayed or lured away by
his people.40 This reading finds further support in Hrogars sermon,
where Heremods worst offense is to risk national well-being out of jeal-

Heremods exile has been inferred from the following lines:

He mid eotenum wear
on feonda geweald
for forlacen,
snude forsended. (902b4a)
Most interpret wear for forlacen as was betrayed or lured by his people. The
agent goes unstated, however, and the adverb is difficult. To be betrayed forth or
lured away may mean to be utterly betrayed, i.e. unto death. While OE forlacan is
attested only four times, one attestation in Andreas reveals that fate also deceives or
seduces: Hie seo wyrd beswac,//forleolc and forlrde (that destiny betrayed them,
deceived and misled, 613b14a); cf. Blake,Heremod Digressions 284; on the simplex
lacan, see Afros 436. The expression for forlacen is varied by snude forsended
(quickly exiled), and OE forsendan (attested only seven times) does describe banishment.
Yet adverb snude suggests that forsended may express Heremods ultimate exiledeath.
To be quickly forsended means to die right away, the effect of being lured forth, as
in Beowulf 2265b6b: Bealocwealm hafa//fela feorhcynna/for onsended! (Baleful
death has banished the lives of many men!). In the Old English Martyrology the collocation gast + onsendan commonly describes death, and Juliana characterizes martyrdom
as an exile in Juliana 438ab: onne ic beom onsended/wi sofstum; When
I am exiled amongst the righteous). The Martyrology also confirms that, in the case
of the tyrant eodric, one could be sent off into everlasting fire: t ws swie
riht t he from m mannum twm wre sended on t ece fyr a he r unrihtlic
ofsloh in yssum life (Kotzor My 18, A.22). This reading of OE forsendan explains a
second difficulty in the passage. The phrase wear for forlacen is modified by a
circumlocution on feonda geweald, which elsewhere seems to describe Grendels spirit
passing to hell after his combat with Beowulf: se ellorgast//on feonda geweald/feor
siian (the foreign spirit/guest traveled far into the power of enemies, 807b8b).
(Blake unnecessarily suggests that on feonda geweald describes the Christian hell,
but the locution may simply mean he died [Heremod Digressions 284]). Kock
and Malone propose that Heremod fell under the power of his enemies; cf. resp.
Interpretations and Emendations VIII 117; Ealhhild 268: he was betrayed into
the power of his enemies the Euts. Here mid Eotenum is a variation of feonda. Finally,
in Andreas 1619ab, the expression in feonda geweald/gefered ne wurdon (was not
brought into the power of enemies) refers both to death and to the damnation of
gastas or souls (1617a). Heremod might therefore have been betrayed into the hands
of devils by death. Like Grendel, Heremod metaphorically travels in death, a figure
confirmed in Fortunes of Men 26b, where feor bi on sie (his spirit is/will be on a
journey) is said of a dying man. If to be lured away and quickly dispatched into the
power of fiends describes Heremods death as an exile, mid eotenum becomes important. Ernst A. Kock has compared the half-line to a clause in the Old English Orosius:
hie sendon . . . one consul mid him mid firde (they sent the consul against him with
an army) (Interpretations and Emendations VIII 117); cf. Bately, Orosius 120 (line
18). By this logic, if we construed eoten (giant) as a locution for enemy, we could
read: among his enemies he was betrayed right away into the power of fiends, quickly
subdued. Another reading of on feonda geweald is suggested below (337 note 90).
40

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

73

ous resentment. (The sermon is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3.)

He became his mens rival, as if he were competing with them for honors in the warband setting. By killing his own men and failing to share
his riches, he alienated the warriors who would support his ventures
and ensure his own glory. These retainers in turn banished their king.
Heremods story therefore teaches Beowulf that men like Sigemund
could become tyrants like Heremod, susceptible to vices like oferhygd. It
seems surprising that Beowulf could be thought of as imperious, but the
thane contemplates Beowulf s future from the subaltern vantage of the
Grendel fight. For reasons I shall develop, this encomiast expects that
Beowulf could turn out like Heremod, should he become a king, and
Hrogar has the same worry. This anonymous poet, actually a warrior seemingly versed in traditional wisdom poetry, detects in Beowulf
a streak of reckless condescension that might evolve into arrogance
towards a warband. However, under different circumstances (presumably the right circumstances), Beowulf could rival Sigemund, whose
life is one that Beowulf should live up to but whose own achievement
expresses an important heroic limitation. In other words, both stories
offer comparisons to Beowulf, but only Sigemunds course is thought
to affirm Beowulf s.
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. Sigemund and arguably Heremod are identified as wreccan in Beowulf, inasmuch as we are told that Sigemund was
the most famous of wreccan . . . after Heremods war-strength failed:41
Se ws wreccena
wide mrost
ofer wereode,
wigendra hleo,
ellenddum
he s r onah
sian Heremodes
hild swerode,
eafo ond ellen. (898a902a)

41
This I take to mean that Heremod was the most famous wrecca before his death,
not that Sigemund was the most famous in the time after Heremods demise. Griffith
does not mention the possibility, but finds only three wreccan in Beowulf: Sigemund,
Hengest, and Eanmund (38). In the preceding description of Sigemund, wreccena
mrost varies wigendra hleo,a phrase used of Beowulf in lines 1972b and 2337b
and of Hrogar in 429b.

74

chapter one
After Heremods war-strength failed, his might and courage, [Sigemund]
widely became the most famous of wreccan among the nations of men, the
protector of heroes, for his deeds of glory. He had so prospered.

The contrast implies that Sigemund supplanted Heremod as the most

celebrated wrecca, and since Beowulf is compared to Sigemund and
Heremod, he may be thought likely to join their company. Often
translated exile or fugitive, OE wrecca is related to a host of Old
English nouns and verbs with meanings of force or misery, that
is a man driven or expelled (from his people) and consequently
suffering in exile. In fact, a verse from Maxims I attributes misery to
isolation in general, and confirms the duality of OE wrecca as exile
and wretch:
Earm bi se e sceal
wineleas wunian;

ana lifgan,
hafa him wyrd geteod. (172a3b)

He who must live alone, dwell friendless, will be wretched; destiny is

decreed for him.

The Anglo-Saxons distinguished many kinds of wreccan. The anonymous

woman in The Wifes Lament is identified as an exile, ostracized
from the kindred for reasons unknown, perhaps erotic. A second type
of wrecca, like the Wanderer or Seafarer in the Exeter Book poems,
or like the Last Survivor in Beowulf (223170), lives in exile because
war has taken their lord and companions.42 If the later Scandinavian
sources are any guide, Sigemund may belong to this category because
Siggeir slaughtered his family and kept him exiled out of enmity and
fear. At the same time, neither the Wanderer nor the Seafarer lives as
a fugitive committing fhu or fyrene. The Exeter Book lyrics seem to
have reworked familiar topoi of warrior exile to express a Christian
perspective on worldly mutability. In such terms a warriors loyalty
towards an earthly lord compares to a believers faith in a heavenly
king. The Beowulf poet, however, explores a different emphasis in the
wrecca identities he contemplates.

42
The woman in The Wifes Lament also calls herself a wrecca (10a) and twice speaks
of wrcsi (5b, 38b), almost certainly in exploitation of the exile trope in poems
like The Wanderer and The Seafarer. She represents a different kind of outcast, although
the reason for her isolation is unknown. Perhaps an exile like the Wanderer and
Seafarer is the dispossessed king, represented, for example, in the very late Chronicle
poem Death of Edward (16a21b) and in Aldhelms Prosa de uirginitate (see Jones,
Comitatus-Ideal).

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

75

A less familiar type of wrecca found in heroic poetry refers to warriors

who, on account of violent action or betrayal, have been exiled from
their homelands. Such men can attach themselves to royal comitatus
in defense of far-flung kingdoms, or to roaming warbands in commission of what today we might call piracy. In other words, wreccan are
foreigners with a history of aggression compelled to seek environments
where they can, as it were, express their ambition and belligerence.
The Beowulf poet explores this identity. Hunfer evokes it, for he allegedly killed his brothers and now lives abroad in Hrogars court.
Eanmund and Eadgils are called wrcmcgas as well. They rebelled
against their king Onela and fled to Heardred for protection. One has
the impression that Onela pursues them to Geatland because he does
not want his mutinous nephews to join forces with Heardred. Finally,
Beowulf s own father Ecgeow caused the greatest feud (fhe
mste, 459b) amongst the Wylfings, nearly precipitating a national
invasion (herebrogan, 462a), fled to Denmark (presumably sparing
his own homeland), and settled in Geatland. Simply on the basis of the
Wylfing feud, irrespective of its precise cause, and on his itinerancy, he
also calls to mind the social identity of the wrecca.
While Hunfer, Ecgeow, and the sons of Ongeneow are never
called wreccan in Beowulf, three characters are: Sigemund, Heremod,
and Hengest. Of these figures, only Hengest could be identified as an
exile in the terms I describe above. While the reasons for Hengests
exile are never stated, and the identification may even allude to his role
as the founder of the English nation, it has to be conceded that Hengest
has joined Hnf s warband as a foreigner in pursuit of glory. Hnf
has recruited other foreign fighters, too. In the Finnsburg Fragment,
the man Sigefer calls himself a wrecca known widely (wreccea wide
cu, 25a),43 and he is a prince of the Secgan. It seems plausible,
therefore, that Sigefer and Hengest have joined Hnf s warband either
for national defense or for an expedition, to use the euphemism.44
Sigemund and Heremod, the other explicit wreccan in Beowulf, have
been exiled for different reasons entirely. They are not fighters who

43
Hickess printed texts reads wrecten, probably in error for wreccen, emended
as above; cf. Hickes 1923. The standard edition is that in ASPR VI 716. Dictionary definitions of OE wrecca as a voluntary exile (soldier-of-fortune, glory-seeker,
mercenary, adventurer) rely largely on this attestion (see Griffith 378). More
plausibly, Sigefer was exiled involuntarily and joined Hnf s company.
44
North, Tribal Loyalties 14.

76

chapter one

attach themselves to warbands. As far as we can tell from evidence and

inference, Sigemund lives in exile because of Siggeirs hostility and not
from any violence that earned him expulsion. Nevertheless, Sigemund
goes on to commit acts of violence that characterize other exiles like
him, the feuds and crimes that would perhaps yield a less disparaging reputation in a warband context. Heremod, as we have seen,
was exiled for his behavior as a warrior-king. His rule began well but
turned violent in the expression of untempered ambition and jealousy.
His exile at the hands of his own peopleprobably the members of
his retinuerecalls the motivation of warrior appetites that he failed
to suppress. The wrecca exemplar that Heremod represents therefore
describes a psychopathy related to the unrestrained ambition that causes
a warriors banishment.
The Beowulf poets fascination with the wrecca identity has rarely interested critics, yet it characterizes a latent ambition in Beowulf detected
by some observers in the poems Germanic setting. When Beowulf
reaches Heorot, he is greeted by the foreigner Wulfgar, who concludes
that Beowulf has come for reasons of glory, not at all because of exile
(338ab). This calculated appraisal frames the ambiguous terms of
Beowulf s arrival. Not every foreign fighter could be called a wrecca, but
many, and especially the most ambitious, have the potential to become
wreccan. Both the voluntary fighter (a specific kind of mercenary) and the
compulsory exile share similar traits: ambition, aggression, and impaired
loyalties. As a man who has left behind his lord, comrades, and family to
confront monsters abroad, Beowulf seeks glory, a supreme victory that
will afford him an enduring reputation. He is a special case, different
from the native members of a royal retinue whose motivations would
hinge on kinship ties, tribal allegiance, and the patronage of long-term
gift exchange. This absence of natural affiliations by institutionalized reciprocity is the essential distinction between a native warband
member and a foreigner like Beowulf. In a world where ones identity
derives largely from relationships within a kindred, the uncoupled
loyalties expressed by foreign fighters engender profound anxieties
about personal ambition relative to group welfare. All foreign fighters
therefore have a liminal status, the potential for unchecked zeal, and
this ambivalence is especially worrisome when they are endowed with
exceptional strengththe usual case with such men.
As an unknown foreign fighter, Beowulf generates the reservations
associated with ambitious strangers, some of whom are wreccan, and some
of whom might become wreccan. Apart from his professed loyalty, and

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

77

Hrogars contact with Ecgeow, Beowulf betrays no evident ties to

Hrogar or to the Danes, for which reason his motivation for glory
may be seen to worry his hosts. They know that ambition unbounded
by the duties and respect owed to a king or to comrades can produce
wreccan. In my view, the Beowulf poet examines Beowulf s heroic motivation in just these terms. He describes an exiles distinctive mentality and
its reflexes in multiple social environments as a way of discovering the
proper, ethical limits of heroic action. The intradiegetic comparison of
Beowulf to wreccan and the men who resemble such exiles suggests that
Beowulf may share their identity. Hence, the hero must be cautioned
to suppress any possible venality in awareness of the potential for moral
and political depravity. Central to this potential failing, of course, are
the subjective authorities who confront Beowulf s promise, the limits of
his ambition, in light of his exceptionality. In the absence of confident
knowledge, the figures of Beowulf s world work to quash any latent
recklessness he seems to exhibit.
Comparisons of Beowulf to wreccan real or apparent suggest a specific heroic vice to which Beowulf may be prone, and Old English
writings document this failing as ambition, aggression, and impaired
loyalty. Both Cain and Lucifer are identified as wreccan in Old English
biblical poetry. In Genesis A Cain is described as a wineleas wrecca
(1051a) for having killed Abel, and the motivation is of special significance: anger lay heavy in his heart (979b80a), a surge of temper
(hygewlm) rose from his breast (980b1a), a hostility that made him
livid (blatende ni, 981b). Cains violence is a sudden, uncontrollable
fury.45 Moreover, his enmity is figured not only as improper jealousy of
a (moral) superior (cf. aldorbanan, 1033b; ordbanan, 1097a), but
as the overthrow of the humble by the arrogantthe terms used of
Lotherus in Saxos Heremod parallel. While Cain is typically viewed as
a criminal exiled as punishment for his violence, he goes on to found
a nation with a distinguished lineage. All wreccan who are not bereft of
lords plausibly exhibit Cains cynical jealousy and impetuous rage to
some extent. Perhaps the same could be said of Hunfer, implicated in
the deaths of his chief kinsmen (heafodmgum, 588a).46 This event
would explain his presence in Heorot.

On these attributes see the wrecca context proposed in Hanley.

Even in Saxos Gesta Danorum, the legendary Starkar, who distinctly resembles
Sigemund (and Beowulf ) in social identity, has been described as an alien within
45
46

78

chapter one

The notion of Satan as the chief wrecca is widespread in Old English

literature. The devil in Juliana is a wrcca wrleas (disloyal exile,
351a), God makes a home of exile for the disloyal angels in Genesis A
(Sceop am werlogan//wrclicne ham, 36a7b), and the identification of Satan-cum-exile is fully developed in Christ and Satan:47
Foron ic sceal hean and earm
hweorfan y widor,
wadan wrclastas,
wuldre benemed,
duguum bedeled,
nnigne dream agan
uppe mid nglum,
es e ic r gecw
t ic wre seolfa
swgles brytta,
wihta wealdend. (119a24a)
Lowly and wretched, I must traverse the paths of exile, wander all the
more widely, deprived of glory and divested of honors, possess no joy on
high amongst the angels, because I had said that I alone was the governor
of the skies, the ruler of creatures.

Disloyalty in these passages imparts the treachery of rebellion against

an established superior. By confronting his own lord, Satan disavows
the covenant (wr) of a sacred oath or implicit social harmony.
Arrogant, unjustified entitlement characterizes wreccan like him. The
devils presumptuous challenge of Gods supremacy justifies the punishment of exile, and the lesson is carefully elaborated in the Old English
Vainglory.
The Exeter Book poem Vainglory condemns the hall-life of warriors
as a secular distraction and warns against the flying spears of pride.48
Some warriors are given to vainglory. They plot, cheat and scheme
(Wrence he ond blence,/worn geence//hinderhoca, 33a4a);

society, and as having an implacability and non-restraint (Ciklamini, Starkar

170, 185 resp.). He commits three crimes or ningverk, one perfidious act, mostly involving murder, for every lifetime he is given to live (ibid. 180). Stemming from Viking or
troll ancestry, this cruelty, when mixed with fanatical daring, commonly describes the
socially marginal heroes of many Icelandic sagas.
47
See also 186ab: s e ic geohte adrifan/drihten of selde (because I intended
to drive my lord from his throne). Any figure who challenges his lords supremacy
becomes identified as an exile. In Elene 386a93a the Jewscalled cursed exiles
(werge wrcmcggas, 387a) oppose the fdera lare (teachings of the patriarchs,
388a), leading to foolish undertakings (dyslice/dd gefremedon (you committed
foolish acts, 386ab). The height of this arrogance is the Crucifixion, a crime against
the elinga ord (chief of princes, 393a). Similarly, Andreas describes Matthews
imprisonment in terms of exile, for Matthew scorned the heavenly kings instruction
(u forhogedes/heofoncyninges word, 1381ab).
48
On this image of the devils darts as featured in Hrogars sermon, see below,
pp. 20310.

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

79

they live a shameful life (hafa frte lif, 48b). The exemplum of
Lucifer in verses 57a66b illustrates how the proud shall be cast down,
made wretched, confined in hell, and held firmly in torments.49 This
gidd compares the predicted fall (or damnation) of a proud warrior in
terms matching the fall of the angels. The angels forsawan hyra sellan
(scorned their betters) just as the proud man bo his sylfes//swior
micle/onne se sella mon (boasts that he is much greater than the
better man, 28b9b). The fallen angels and the proud man resort
to deceit (swice, 31b, 61b), and both parties are afflicted by oferhygd
(23b, 43b, 58b). The angels and the proud are literally brought low
(grundfusne gst, 49a; nier gebiged, 55b), to hell. By repudiating
loyalty and honor, the wrecca fosters these sociopathic impulses.
Old English texts consistently document the nature of wreccan as
arrogant, contemptuous of their superiors, including kinsmen,50 and
unnaturally violentincapable of restraint, in other words. The poet of
Gulac A describes the devils temptation of Gulaca man who loved
many audacious deeds (gelufade//frecnessa fela, 109b10a)in
terms of the wreccas savagery:
Oer hyne scyhte,
t he sceaena gemot
nihtes sohte
ond urh neinge
wunne fter worulde,
swa do wrcmcgas
a e ne bimurna
monnes feore
s e him to honda
hue gelde,
butan hy y reafe
rdan motan. (127a32b)
Another [devil] urged him to seek out at night a party of raiders and
through daring to strive after worldly goods, just like exiles do who do
not care for the lives of the men at whose hands they gain booty, unless
through them they may learn about plunder.

This same attitude could be attributed to Satan as well as other infamous exiles in Old English poetry, especially Grendel.51 Grendel
49
Krapp and Dobbie end the gidd at line 77a, but I end it at 66b for structural
reasons. The analogy compares the fallen angels to the proud thane.
50
The Old English Orosius mentions a certain Lacedemonian wreccea named
Damera who commited treachery against his kin (se t facn to his cye gebodade) (Bately 46.910). Multiple homilies treat human existence as a kind of exile,
since Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden for their rebellion against God (e.g.
Willard 83.7880; Napier, Wulfstan 13).
51
Greenfield, Theme of Exile ; Baird, Grendel the Exile 380: [The poet]
demands that we see Grendel as both wicked monster and wretched man. As far
as I am aware, it has not been suggested that Grendel could be deemed a displaced
marauder in search of a dugu. Yet the context of OE wrecca can suggest as much.

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.52 At lines 168a9b Grendel is portrayed . . . as a lawless retainer
who refuses to respect civilized customs.53 Such a lawless retainer
could be described as a wrecca, a status explaining why Hrogar might
endure wrc micel or great torment (170a): this particular wrecca
cannot lay claim to the dignity of service in Hrogars warbandunlike
other foreign exiles (arguably Hunfer, Wulfgar, and Ecgeow) who
joined the Danish retinue.
Some celebrated heroes of Germanic legend are called wreccan,
and it seems logical that Beowulf might earn the same status, as predicted by the thanes comparison of him to Sigemund and Heremod.
Beowulf is praised for an unyielding ferocity or ellen (courage), a heroic
virtue which begets Sigemunds and Heremods supreme distinction in
both their social environments. Yet more than mere courage suggests
that Beowulf ought to be viewed as having the disposition of a wrecca.
He may well share his fathers constitution as a glory-seeker, killing
giants in an unspecified location, challenging Breca in Norway, and
traveling to Denmark to fight Grendel. The motivation for such acts is
not likely to be high-minded, as few have assumed. John M. Hill perceives Beowulf s voluntary aid to Hrogar as a generous commitment,
asserting that glory has yet to enter into this developing equation [the
free warrior duty-call . . . valiant proposal to battle Grendel], unless
it is implicit in his desire to help a glorious, famous, and illustrious
lord.54 Certainly, this partisan view of Beowulf s enthusiasm for the
52
No he one gifstol/gretan moste,//maum formetode,/ne his myne wisse;
Nor could he pay respect to the gift-throne (he despised treasure or he despised the
precious thing), nor could he know the devotion of it, 168a9b; for the suggestion
of Grendel as a lapsed retainer, see Howren and Orchard, Pride and Prodigies 62. My
translation pay respect to for OE gretan follows the argument in Robinson, Gifstol.
The reading formetode was proposed by Bammesberger, Five Beowulf Notes 2438;
for metode has been retained in Klaebers Beowulf.
53
Robinson, Gifstol 258; Baird, Grendel the Exile 37896. Stanley B. Greenfield
contemplated an opposing argument that Hrogar may not approach the gift-throne,
but Greenfield had not considered the meaning of OE gretan that Robinson elucidates,
nor would he have known of Bammesbergers reading formetode; see Gifstol and
Goldhoard 11112. John M. Hill has addressed this concern again in Narrative Pulse,
theorizing that Grendel does not have Hrogars royal permission as well as his welcoming or questioning or expectant thoughts (10), unlike Beowulf, into whose special
guardianship the hall has been given. In this case Hill retains Klaebers reading for
Metode and understands Grendel coming not as a guest but as something ghastly
(ibid.). I see in these terms the same parallel of Grendel as an anti-thane.
54
Narrative Pulse 21. We are led to believe that Beowulf s contest is unmotivated

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

81

Grendel fight contravenes Danish skepticism for Beowulf s readiness.

On the contrary, abandoning ones homeland to fight Grendel sounds
far more like ambition (the wlenco that Wulfgar acknowledges) or
exile (the motivation that Wulfgar rejects).
Being compared to wreccan puts Beowulf in the company of heroes
of pan-Germanic eminence, none of whom, it must be said, have
unimpeachable morals.55 At the start of the poem, Beowulf has yet to
be admired as mildust (3181a), monwrust (3181b) and leodum
liost (3182a), an assessment in any event arguably reminiscent of de
mortuis nil nisi bonum. Let me not impugn Beowulf, however, for
any inflexible criticism would misrepresent the poets own objectives.
At the outset at least, he aims for a deliberate ambivalence, innuendos and feints that, in sum, undermine ones complete confidence in
Beowulf s magnanimity. Rather like Achilles among the Achaeans,
the Danes admire Beowulf s daring and mistrust his potential volatility.
The secg who sings about Sigemund and Heremod therefore praises
Beowulf s heroic profile, but fears darker traits that confer both fame
and infamy. This crucial ambivalence explains the required indeterminacy of Sigemunds glory. Unless we follow Griffiths line and imagine
that the poet depicts Beowulf differently from Sigemund, the Sigemund
exemplum would suggest a moral ambivalence for Beowulf, a susceptibility to the transgressions implicit in the thanes coy parlance of fhe
ond fyrena, or in competing versions of the Volsung legend. This
coyness is quite deliberate, for men known as wreccan will commit acts
of ambiguous virtue. 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. His
game is suggestion.
Is Beowulf Responsible for Hondsciohs Death?
Beowulf has come to Heorot to face Grendelhopefully to slay Grendel. Based on his confidence and strength, he seems able to handle the
challenge. His men, however, are much less capable, 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 kings diabolical enemy.
55
Frank, Germanic Legend 90; Shippey, Old English Verse 29.

82

chapter one

leaders confidence may be attributed to the dangerous individualism

of the heroic ethos.56 In fact, the wreccas solo adventure is deliberately
set against the kings responsibility for his men in the fight with Grendel. Beowulf s comitatus seems not to have much standing with him:
apart from manning the ship, one wonders why they have come at all.
On the one hand, the narrator attests that the men went on wilsi
(216a; cf. wilgesias or willing companions, 23a). By choice they
joined a potentially reckless campaign. On the other hand, Beowulf
may seem reluctant to endanger the men in this notional warband.
When greeting Hrogar, Beowulf emphasizes his own valor and refers
to his men in passing:57
Ond nu wi Grendel sceal,
wi am aglcan
ana gehegan
ing wi yrse.
Ic e nua,
brego Beorht-Dena,
biddan wille,
eodor Scyldinga,
anre bene,
t u me ne forwyrne,
wigendra hleo,
freowine folca,
nu ic us feorran com,
t ic mote ana,
minra eorla gedryht
ond es hearda heap,
Heorot flsian. (424b32b)
And now against Grendel, the adversary and giant, [I ] shall settle the
dispute alone.58 I will ask you now, prince of the Bright Danes, lord of the
Scyldings, a single boon, that you not prevent me, protector of warriors,
lord and prince of the people, now that I have come thus from afar, that
I might aloneo band of my earls and this hardy troopcleanse Heorot.

Beowulf wants to cleanse Heorot without weapons and alone, the way
a risky venture should be handled.59 Just before the fight Beowulf will
repeat his pledge to kill Grendel alone:

Bazelmans 82 note 59.

Alfred Bammesberger argues for the manuscript reading in which ond follows
gedryht. He contends that minra eorla gedryht/ond es hearda heap is vocative
(Textual Note); the emendation has been accepted in Klaebers Beowulf. On Beowulf s
egocentrism, see Lehmann 2234. Lehmann suggests that ana might disguise an
otherwise unattested preposition meaning without, cognate with OHG OS no and
OIcel n.
58
The verdict is still out on the meaning of ing gehegan, but the legal context
of the phrase and related locutions could imply that Beowulf speaks ironically and
therefore glibly about settling disputes by assembly; see Stanley, Poetic Phrases.
59
Hill reads this spectacular boast as an act that would gratify Hygelac, for reasons
of fairness (Narrative Pulse 30). Lucas remarks on the tension between the hero and
the group of Geatish retainers to which he belongs, but he concludes on the basis of
56

57

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

foran ic hine sweorde
aldre beneotan,

83

swebban nelle,
eah ic eal mge. (679a80b)

Therefore I will not kill him, deprive him of life, with a sword, though
I may do so.

Despite Beowulf s own pledges here, his warband joins the fight
and uselessly battles Grendel with swords. The narrator states conclusively that a spell prevents swords from biting Grendels flesh (lines
801b5a), although it is important to recognize that the retainers know
nothing of the enchantment. They might presumably have helped, but
no champion in past years had any luck with swords. 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 Heremods deeds to Beowulf s, since Beowulf is thought to
bear responsibility for committing his warband to a dangerous exploit
for which he alone was suited.
During the Grendel fight, Beowulf appears to watch Hondscioh get
devoured in a moment that has seemed gratuitous to critics who find
Beowulf consistently honorable. Knowing that Beowulf fights righteously
in the context of Gods feud against Cains kin, the poet apparently
confirms Beowulf s hesitation as tactical:
mg Higelaces
under frgripum

ryswy beheold
hu se manscaa
gefaran wolde. (736b8b)

The mighty kinsman of Hygelac observed how the evil-doer would perform in his sudden attack.

Translators disagree on how to take the prepositional phrase under

frgripum (in his sudden attack), which is almost universally thought
to refer to Grendel: Beowulf beheld how Grendel would proceed
with a surprise attack. By this logic Beowulf unsympathetically exploits
his retainers death. Alternatively, however, the poet simply shows
Beowulf s inattention to Hondscioh. The phrase under frgripum
would then describe Beowulf s own attack, a reading that requires
the narrators interjection (698700a) that the action is to be carried out by the loner
for the benefit of the group (10910). Reinhard 96102 voiced this same conclusion.
Reinhard excuses Beowulf s boast as heroic superiority, which derives from selfunderstanding (97). For a summary of debate on perceiving Beowulf as an individual
and therefore responsible for his actions, see Clark, The Hero and the Theme.

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. Beowulf s reaction to Hondsciohs
death does not come across as disinterested in this less likely reading.
He is simply taken off guard, in which event Beowulf is still impeached
for unnecessarily losing Hondscioh.
Early critics appealed to folk-tale archetypes to explain Hondsciohs
death. W. W. Lawrence proposed that the younger hero had to wait
until his older or more renowned companions had fought and died.61
R. W. Chambers likewise believed that the poet had insufficiently
worked out the folk-tale structure.62 Still other critics have proposed
that Beowulf intends to ambush Grendel and that Hondsciohs death
is a necessary element in Grendels rout, a display of cannibal brutality.63 They also appeal to the folk-tale context.64 George Clark imagines
that Grendels victims slept helplessly, passively into death: 65 the
monsters approach may have had the power to charm his intended
victims to sleep and Beowulf s wakefulness . . . may represent a victory
of his will over Grendels power.66 Two critics have gone so far as to
claim that Beowulf s men owed him their lives because he was their
captain. Arthur K. Moore cites Tacitus: all are bound to defend their
leader . . .67 The problem remains that Hondscioh is not defending
Beowulf; he is asleep. Moores charge that the followers must act to
preserve the leader does not apply to these circumstances.68 T. M.
Pearce followed this line but went further, regarding Hondsciohs death
as the earliest instance in English literature of the practice of expendability in a military situation.69 Beowulf exploits the subalterns duty as

60
See DOE s.v.v. be-healdan sense B1 and ge-faran sense II.A.6. Another, less likely,
reading is provided by Greenfield, Three Beowulf Notes 16970. Greenfield argues
that Grendel is simply quicker than Beowulf and seizes Hondscioh before Beowulf
can react.
61
Epic Tradition 176. This is the view of Lord as well.
62
Beowulf 64.
63
Brodeur, Art of Beowulf 923: . . . the slaughter of Hondscio is the culminating
horror in an ascending sequence . . . Hondscio died so that the poets audience might
have final demonstration of the hideous power and fury of the foe whom the hero must
now face . . . Grendels first attack . . . was too swift to permit Beowulf s intervention.
64
Foley 23142.
65
Beowulf 745.
66
Ibid. 74.
67
Moore 168 (citing Moores reference to Tacitus).
68
Ibid.
69
Pearce 170.

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

85

Moore evaluated it, and he acts out of necessity. In fact, Pearce makes
a virtue of necessity and asks, 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,
and the expendability that Pearce alleges may be owed to less valiant
motivations. Finally, Robert L. Kindrick concludes that Beowulf shows
himself to be a tactician, a view he derives from observing Beowulf s
wisdom throughout the poem. In Kindricks view, the poets description of Beowulf as snotor ond swyferh (wise and stout-hearted,
826a) after killing Grendel implicitly justifies a wise decision leading
to Hondsciohs death.71
Why does Hondscioh go unnamed until Beowulf reports to Hygelac?72
Frederick M. Biggs attends an uneasy sense that Beowulf cares little
about his retainer.73 He takes the line that Hondsciohs death minimizes the importance of kin ties for the Geats, whereas scheres death
magnifies the value of kin for the Danes. I likewise see the deliberate
ambivalence surrounding Hondsciohs death and anonymity as a potential criticism of Beowulf s behavior. Kinship does not fail; leadership
might. The secg who recounts the Sigemund/Heremod lay implies that
Beowulf has just committed a deed, which, however great, ended with
someone elses deathjust the sort of woe that Heremod may be
accused of as an aldorcearu. To grasp the situation, one must accept
the Danish outlook: they have a dtente with Grendel, who inhabits
Heorot at night. By these terms they manage to stay alive. Their solution
does not prevent some men from risking an attack on Grendel: anyone
brave enough may try, should Hrogar entrust Heorot to themand
accept responsibility for the outcome. It only means that they will not
be forced to lose more lives, as Beowulf does when he risks his own
men in an unequal match. The comparison to Heremod therefore
reflects the view that Beowulf s si may have been acceptable for him,
but not for his more vulnerable followers. Sigemunds venture against
his dragon exposes the objection as well: a solo endeavor earns glory
but endangers no one else. Yet the mitigating factor is clear: Beowulf
intends to fight on his own. He pledges to do so twice. Can we not

Ibid. 171.
Kindrick 9.
72
On some further arguments exonerating Beowulf, see Biggs, Hondscioh and
schere 643 and 650 note 31.
73
Ibid. 645.
70
71

86

chapter one

find reason to exonerate him? In fact, the best exoneration is the poets
own somewhat weak allowance that other men would have died, if not
for Beowulf s fight (1055b7a).
The stories spoken by a thane mindful of gidd imply that Beowulf
could become a solitary warrior, a wrecca bent on personal glory
(rym), jealous of his reputation and a threat to his followers. Two
futures can be predicted for such a man: the heros path, Sigemunds,
involves supreme self-regard leading to violence and glory. Sigemund can
be admired for solitary daring but not for generosity or moral virtue.
The other future, the kings path, appears more dire, since an ambitious,
soldierly king could lead men to destruction. Beowulf is credited with
heroic greatness, true, but the wreccan he resembles seem to commit
offenses that qualify their fame. In no way does the singer claim these
outcomes as inevitable, but he sees a potential in Beowulf, I propose,
that critics have often disregarded. Moreover, this explanation of the
subaltern attitude exists in the larger context of Germanic wisdom.
Even before Beowulf fights Grendel, Hunfer will accuse Beowulf of the
same malfeasance. As I shall demonstrate, the Hunfer episode situates
Beowulf s potential recklessness in the context of warrior moderation,
a condition of self-restraint held to be wise.
The Hunfer Digression
The ambivalent Beowulf that the anonymous singer anticipates emerges
most visibly in the poems digressions. I will have more to say shortly
about specific episodes, but I need to answer the critics who allege
only a positive, heroic Beowulf in the poems first half. Their essential
proof, of course, is Grendels defeat: he is a monster cursed by God
and can only be eradicated by Gods chosen adversary. Unfortunately,
the Danes are completely unaware of Grendels lineage and Beowulf s
fortuitous moral alignment against Gods enemy, and they object to
Beowulf s interference, none more so than Hunfer. Yet the Hunfer
digression, my opposition says, shows Beowulf s decisive heroism, and
Hunfers jealous hostility and background as a kin-killer demolish his
prestige. Admittedly, Hunfers resentment may compromise his judgment, but the poet raises the broader issue of how to tell sincerity from
conceit in a man who could lead his companions to disaster. Whether
Beowulf is such a man depends on his motivation. In fact, Beowulf s
riposte to Hunfer betrays the potential egotism that the Danish secg
mentions in his recollection of Sigemund and Heremod.

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

87

Reservations bedevil analyses of Hunfers character; whether the

name means Discord has even provoked discord. R. D. Fulk has
lately shown that Hunfer/Hunfer (the manuscript spellings but
with )rather than an alleged poetic coinage Un-fri (Discord)
or Un-ferh (Folly or Bold)is attested in Germanic tongues.74
Hunfers official position in Hrogars court is also disputed, since
he is twice called a yle (even Hrogars yle),75 a puzzling word with
myriad translations. Old English glosses give a neutral or negative
denotation, either spokesman or jester:
ORATORES] yls76
RETHORICA] elcrfte R5, elcrft Bc, elcr O77
DE SCVRRIS] hofelum78
HISTRIONES] felas79

In classical Latin orator means (public) speaker and rhetorica designates

the art of forensic speaking. Yet other Old English translations of orator also include spelboda (messenger, spokesman, prophet)80 and

74
Unferth and his Name. Many readers have accepted Hunfer as a form of
Unferh and translated Folly, as Robinson (Personal Names), followed by others.
Early on it was theorized that fer disguises fri (peace, concord) which led to
the translation Mar-Peace (see, e.g., Shuman and Hutchings 219). Fulks objection to
these doubles ententes is linguistic, but the obvious pun on fer/ferh (118) makes it seem
that un+fer was transparent. Marijane Osborn observes that the poet himself
later provides an etymological gloss which cannot be ignored . . . gehwylc hiora his
ferhe treowde . . . Each of them [Hrothgar and Hrothulf ] trusted his ferth (Some
Uses of Ambiguity 24). On the sense that I have interpreted as Bold (i.e. Very
Courageous), see Roberts. For the view that Hunfer could give Hun-spirited,
see Patricia Silber, Emendation. Most recently, Robert Boenig has implied that the
name is deliberately ambiguous (Morphemic Ambiguity 280).
75
Swylce r Hunfer yle//at fotum st frean Scyldinga (Likewise, Hunfer
the yle sat at the feet of the Scyldings lord, 1165b6a); yle Hrogares (Hrogars
yle, 1456b).
76
Stryker 334 (no. 34). The context is from Aldhelms Prosa de uirginitate: . . . ut disertissimi oratores tam sagax uirginibis ingenium alterno experiri conflictu uererentur;
cf. Gwara, Prosa de uirginitate, vol. 124A, p. 471.
77
Gwara, Prosa de uirginitate, vol. 124A, p. 456.62; R5=London, BL MS 6 B.vii,
(Exeter, ca. 1078); Bc=Hand C of Brussels, Bibliothque Royale MS 1650 (Canterbury, s. x1/4); O=Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Digby 146 (Canterbury, s. xex).
78
Stryker 145 (no. 22). This is from II Sm 6.20: nudatus est quasi si nudetur unus
de scurris. While the element hof- has been interpreted as preposition of (translating
Latin de), it may also mean court, as elas attached to a court (Meritt, Hard
Old English Words 232). Yet Ida Masters Hollowell points out that OE hof can also
mean temple (Unfer the yle 251), suggesting a priestly function for the yle.
79
A scratched gloss from Oxford, St. Johns College MS 28, printed in Napier, Old
English Glosses 204 (no. 36, 2).
80
Hessels 86 (O240): oratores: *spelbodan.

88

chapter one

wordsnoter (word-wise [man]).81 Latin scurra designates an urbane,

clownish fellow who accompanies gentlemen in Roman comedies. Old
English glosses elsewhere render scurra by gligman (entertainer),82
which also translates the Latin terms musicus, iocista, cantor, ioculator,
mimus, and pantomimus.83 By this evidence neither OE gligman nor Latin
scurra is intrinsically negative. Nevertheless, the gloss scond to scurra in
the Corpus glossary may mean a shameful man,84 and James L.
Rosier drew attention to other unflattering Latin glosses to scurra from
the Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum: parasitus, subtilis inpostor, qui
incop<r>iatur, qui res ridiculas dicit et facit;85 and from SteinmeyerSievers, Die althochdeutschen Glossen: ioculator uerbosus, subsannatoris,
bilinguis accusatoris, parasitus ridiculosus.86 There is no context for
the glosses from the Abavus and Ab Absens glossaries, but excepting
parasitus, qui res ridiculas dicit et facit, ioculator uerbosus, and
parasitus ridiculosus, the senses are negative. Latin ridiculosus and
ridiculus can mean facetious (in a mild sense), and while parasitus
may remind us of a freeloader, in Latin it denotes a subordinate,
hanger-on, or attendant.87 The expression parasitus ridiculosus may
therefore mean facetious attendant, not absurd parasite. Finally,
passages from Aldhelms Carmen de virginitate and Epistola ad Heahfridum
reveal that to speak scurrarum more is to denigrate or criticize for
the purpose of ridicule.88 While Aldhelm expresses irritation with his
critics, he acknowledges their competence, too.
81
Gwara, Prosa de uirginitate, vol. 124A, p. 470.3456: ORATORES] wordsnotere Bcd
O; for the sigla, see above, note 77.
82
In lfrics glossary (Zupitza, lfrics Grammatik und Glossar 302.9: mimus scurra
gligmann). The Epinal-Erfurt gloss reads leuuis, but the term has not be satisfactorily
explained. It may be leas (deceitful); see Pheifer 125 (note to 977a); and Alan Kelsey
Brown, Epinal Glossary 802 (note to S264). The word is probably identical to the
first element (or word) of lewis plega (?<lewsa weakness) recorded in the Harley
Glossary 65 (C652), for which argument see Meritt, Fact and Lore 4, D, 35.
83
Bjork, Hermeneutic Circle 137.
84
Hessels 106 (S165); alternatively a scold. The gloss leuuis to scurra in the
pinal and Erfurt manuscripts has been interpreted as a form of OE leas scurrilous
(Pheifer 125: *laws).
85
Design for Treachery 2. The first three attestations come from the same context
in the Carolingian Abavus Glossary, the last one from the Ab Absens Glossary.
86
Ibid.
87
As in Isidores Etymologiae (Lindsay X.255: scurra, qui sectari quempiam solet
cibi gratia; X.152). In Felixs Vita Guthlaci Gulac is said to have paid no attention
to the falsidica parasitorum frivola or frivolous lies of attendants (Colgrave, Felixs
Life).
88
Ehwald 365 line 285 (where Elisha has cursed the children who called him baldy)
and line 2835, which describes the scurrarum dicta as senseless criticism; Gwara,

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

89

Latin histrio designates an actor in a play, but one Old English gloss
renders histrio as trumpeter (tru).89 Herbert Dean Meritt interpreted felas as plural adjective f (<OE fah criminal) plus plural
noun elas, therefore wicked jesters.90 The context from Gregorys
Pastoral Care describes wicked histriones, but reveals that histrio itself need
not be negative: one must add f to make them wicked.91 James L.
Rosier has found evidence from Alcuins famous letter stating Quid
Hinieldus cum Christo? that histrio means entertainer, quite possibly
the sort that would recite the vernacular poetry Alcuin denounces:
Melius pauperes edere de mensa tua, quam istriones and Melius
Deo placere quam histrionibus.92 Alcuin does not affirm that histriones
are bad but that they do not belong at the monks table. Yet Aldhelm
describes the histrio in his De metris as a speaker of ridiculosa commenta
or facetious remarks.93 At a minimum, one might interpret Alcuins
statement (quoting Augustine) that great a crowd of unclean spirits
follows [ histriones] to mean that some ill-will might be generated by
their performances.94
Rosier adduced some Old Icelandic evidence to bolster his negative
picture of Hunfer as a scurra, but Ida Masters Hollowell reviewed the
same passages some years later and sustained a now widely accepted
view of Hunfers office.95 Hollowell proposed that an Anglo-Saxon
yle probably reflected the function of a Norse ulr, an Odinic priest
responsible for sacrifice and for teaching Germanic wisdom:
The ulr emerges as one in a special profession, with a special place from
which he functions on occasion . . . He is familiar with reading, staining,
Anglo-Saxon Pedagogy 115 (line 105), where those speaking iociste scurreque ritu
do so dicacitate temeraria. Norman E. Eliason proposes that the Anglo-Saxon scop
was privileged to utter jesting scurrilities (Scop Poems 190). See now Biggs, Blame
Poem and Evans, Lords of Battle 81.
89
Kindschi 152.2.
90
Fact and Lore 4, B, 5 (1478). The Toronto DOE does not accept felas as adjective
+ noun; cf. fiela s.v. (where one would expect pl. fielan); the suggestion fielere (giving
pl. fieleras) was made in Napier, Old English Glosses 204.
91
Meritt, Fact and Lore 148. From context lfred rendered histriones in this passage
as yfle gliigman; cf. Bjork, Hermeneutic Circle 1345.
92
Rosier, Design for Treachery 2; for the text, see Dmmler 183 and 439 resp.;
for a translation of Alcuins letter Quid Hinieldus cum Christo? consult Bullough
1225.
93
Ehwald 166.25.
94
Dmmler 290: Nescit homo, qui histriones et mimos et saltatores introducit in
domum suam, quam magna eos inmundorum sequitur turba spirituum.
95
On the lineage of reading OE yle as a religious figure and purveyor of Germanic
lore, see Clarke.

90

chapter one
and carving runes, and, as this implies, with incantation and magic; he
deals in sacrifice and augury; thus, he can be considered an intermediary between gods (or, better, one god, inn) and men; he is a man of
wisdom, being apparently the repository of countless wise adages in verse
form, of which the large number in the Hvaml is illustrative; he was
learned for his time, having an encyclopedic knowledge of mythological
lore, and probably carried historical material in his mind together with
genealogies of importance to his people; with an ear for god and man,
he seems fitted for the role of adviser to his king and clan.96

In support of the connection between the Old English and Old Icelandic
evidence, Hollowell elucidated an obscure gloss in the Liber Scintillarum,
where a gelred yle is said to speak in few words:97
gelred yle fela spca mid feawum wordum geopena
doctus orator plures sermones paucis uerbis aperit
A learned speaker discloses many pronouncements with few words.

Disclosing many pronouncements with few words suggested to Hollowell the apothegmatic wisdom such as that transmitted in the Old
English maxims and catalogue poems.
Hollowell rebutted Rosiers position that the person designated as
ulr is treacherous, and . . . such an application of the word is consistent with what we have seen to be the associated meanings of yle in
Old English.98 In reaching this conclusion, Rosier overemphasized
the negative connotations of OE yle summarized above.99 In refining Hollowells work, Elizabeth Jackson has lately reaffirmed that the
ulr acted as the mouthpiece of inn and as both the repository
and the transmitter of traditional lore concerning counsel, runes, and
charms.100 Such traditional lore seems to be represented by gnomic
utterances like those in Maxims I and Hvaml.101 Caroline Brady
recognized that the Old Norse feminine noun ula denotes one of the
oldest types of Germanic poetry, a mnemonic device consisting of a

Unfer the yle 247.

Ibid. 252; Rhodes 119.
98
Rosier, Design for Treachery 3.
99
A convincing refutation comes from the Loddffnisml 134, in which Loddffnir
is told not to laugh at an aged ulr because what old men speak is often good (opt
er gott,/at er gamlir qvea . . .).
100
Seat of the yle? 186.
101
These texts are actually quite different. While Hvaml is indeed a series of
lists, it actually records gnomic lore of some moral or truth value; see Larrington
1572 and Shippey, Maxims 314.
96
97

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

91

running list, sometimes rhymed or alliterative, of gods, heroes, kings,

tribes, dwarfs etc. The earliest extant ular are in Widsith. . . .102 Brady
likewise drew attention to Vafrnisml, in which Vafrnir the
self-described old ulr trades arcane questions with the supreme old
ulr, inn.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.104 For sage
one might read yle. Jackson goes on to claim that ular impart three
types of warrior wisdom: gnomic instruction, runic lore, and spells or
charms.105 As a kind of Germanic sage, the ulr actually taught this
wisdom. In the Eddic poem Ffnisml, she notes, Ffnir the dragon
calls his deceitful brother Reginn a hra ul or old ulr,106 and
the prcis to Reginsml attests that Reginn instructed Sigurr.107
In disguise inn also instructs Sigurr, and according to a recapitulation of the scene in Norna-Gests ttr, inn sits at Sigurrs feet
and asks if he would take any advice.108 In the Hvaml inn is
called a fimbululr (mighty ulr, 80.5, 142.5), and the anonymous
character who sings from the seat of the ulr in strophe 111.1 (the
opening of the Loddffnisml section) claims to have gathered his
wisdom directly from inn. The wisdom of this ulr (if one can call
him that) is wholly proverbial, e.g.:109
fialli ea firi
ef ic fara tir,
fstu at viri vel. (str. 116)
Should you wish to travel over fell or firth, procure good provisions.

Hunfers position at Hrogars feet (1166a) recalls inns in NornaGests ttr, as well as that of a harpist in Fortunes of Men: Sum sceal

Warriors 222.
Ibid.; Neckel and Kuhn 46 (str. 9): inn gamli ulr. The verbal contest between
the giant Vafrnir and inn involves the recitation of arcane lore, often metaphorical, in lists.
104
Jackson, Seat of the yle 184.
105
For a taxonomy of lists in Old English and Old Norse wisdom contexts, see
Jackson, Not Simply Lists.
106
The same appellation hoary ulr is found in Hvaml 133. Starkar is the
only other yle we know of from the Germanic tradition (so-called in Gautreks Saga,
Ranisch 32 line 17). Here Starkar is called a glan ul or silent ulr, almost
certainly a wry comment on the ulrs silenced counsel at Uppsala.
107
Seat of the yle? 186.
108
Ibid.
109
Neckel and Kuhn 35. On maxims about travel, see Shippey, Maxims 313.
102
103

92

chapter one

mid hearpan/t his hlafordes//fotum sittan (one ought to sit at his

lords feet with a harp, 80a1a).110
No competing view of OE yle has received more attention. On the
basis of this evidence, we might speculate that Hunfer served as an
oracle of traditional gnomic wisdom, components of which arguably
survive in Maxims I, Maxims II, Widsi and other poems like Order of the
World and Vainglory. In fact, Margaret Schlauch and Lars Lnnroth have
already made the claim that elements of Norna-Gests lore resemble
aspects of Widsi,111 and I would allege that Norna-Gests anecdote of
Sigurrs deeds functions like the story of Sigemund in Beowulf. Yet
historian Michael J. Enright has gone even further in identifying the
role of Hunfer at Heorot. Like Jackson he portrays Hunfer as the
master of traditional wisdom and closely connects him to the Odinic
religiosity of the warband, for which reason he imagines that the Beowulf
poet belittles Hunfer.112 Yet Enright also sees Hunfer as a prominent
warband counselor and spokesman for Hrogar, a morale officer
responsible for egging on the men.113 By his reasoning, Hrogar uses
Hunfer to test Beowulf.114 Whether or not Hunfer was a prominent
officer (quite likely, in my view) or Hrogars inquisitor (less likely), it
seems natural for him to criticize Beowulf. If Hunfer is responsible
for preserving and reciting Germanic wisdom, he plausibly reacts to
Beowulf in ways that evoke his social calling. In fact, Hunfers resentment could be justified by gnomic wisdom codified in The Wanderer,
Precepts, and Vainglory. Furthermore, Beowulf actually parodies the formal
language of wisdom that Hunfer, I suspect, should have pronounced.115
110
The reference to a harp in The Fortunes of Men suggests that Hunfer may be a
poet of sorts. Some Germanic poets seem to have been conventionally disparaging.
Related to ModE skoff, OE scop (poet) belongs to a word-family that includes OIcel
skap abuse. However, Robert Fulks recent deduction that Healgamen in Beowulf
1066a is the name of Hrogars scop suggests the yle and scop did not share the same
duties (see Fragment and Episode 1957). The yles repertoire may have included
so-called wisdom literature critical of ambition.
111
Respectively: Schlauch; Lnnroth, Hjlmars Death-Song 4.
112
Warband Context 313. The position was first proposed by Adelaide Hardy;
see also Baird, Unferth the yle.
113
Enright, Warband Context 310.
114
Hill, Narrative Pulse 35: Although Unferth may be a sanctioned challenger, one
of his offices then being to goad strangers into revealing themselves, the poet motivates
him personally as well. Why? I suggest that just here Beowulf s posture as a foreign but
entirely friendly, legalistically and ethically minded giant-slayer is in question. Could
his real motive be glory, even vainglory as Unferths always seems to be?
115
Earl R. Anderson has proposed that ironic verbal echoes are a conventional
feature of heroic flyting (Flyting 199). I find echoes of a different sort in Beowulf s
exchange with Hunfer.

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

93

The wisdom contexts that I draw on here specifically denounce arrogance in terms descriptive of Beowulf s behavior, which could threaten
warband security by jeopardizing martial collaboration.116
We need hardly invoke Scandinavian sources like Hvaml to
understand why Beowulf s boasting sounds arrogant, for The Wanderer supplies one felicitous context for Hunfers challenge. Although
The Wanderer has been called elegiac, the term elegy to describe
a group of Old English poems has lately gone out of fashion as a
Victorian invention.117 Enigmatic poems like the elegies are troublesome to categorize, but one critic has quite recently proposed that
The Wanderer conveys proverbious features of Old English wisdom
poetry.118 T. A. Shippeys remarks apply as much to Beowulf as to The
Wanderer: Proverbiousness . . . allows one to say the common/recognised/accepted/socially-valued thing, but at the same time, by alteration, framing or juxtaposition, indicate an attitude towards the socially
acceptable which is quite different from mere parrot-repetition.119
One proverbial passage in The Wanderer exposes the proverbiousness
ostensibly staged in Beowulf. In The Wanderer a wise man ought to be
patient, not too hasty in speech, and especially never too eager to
boast until he readily understands. The ambiguous expression geare
cunne (readily understands), which applies to all the situations in
this passage, is later amplified by the clause whither the thought of
his breast will turn, specifically in reference to boasting:
ne sceal no to hatheort
ne to wac wiga
(ne to forht ne to fgen),
ne nfre gielpes to georn,
Beorn sceal gebidan,
ot collenfer
hwider hrera gehygd

Wita sceal geyldig,

ne to hrdwyrde,
ne to wanhydig,
ne to feohgifre
r he geare cunne.
onne he beot sprice,
cunne gearwe
hweorfan wille. (65b72b)

A wise man ought to be patient, not too hot-tempered, nor too hasty in
speech, nor too weak a warrior, nor too reckless (neither too cautious nor
too confident), nor too greedy nor too ready to boast before he knows

116
Evans, Lords of Battle 83: heroic poetry was used to reinforce those values and
beliefs that tended to strengthen the warbands structure, while condemning those acts
that would have had a detrimental effect upon it.
117
Mora 12939.
118
Shippey, The Wanderer and The Seafarer.
119
Ibid. 152.

94

chapter one
for certain. A man ought to wait whenever he speaks a boast until,
stout-hearted, he readily understands whither the thought of his breast
will turn.

The locution ne to forht ne to fgen appears to vary wac (weak)

and wanhydig (thoughtless, reckless) in a list of antitheses, and
even though fgen in 68a should correspond to wanhydig in 67b,
it has frequently been translated happy.120 T. A. Shippey rendered
a similar expression from the Durham Proverbs glad-too-soon (i.e.
optimistic): Ne sceal man no to r forht ne to r fgen (A man
should not be afraid or happy too soon).121 Optimistic is clever
indeed, since the opposite of cautious (too fearful) ought to be
overconfident, almost certainly the implicit meaning of too happy.
(Alternatively, the opposite of happiness ought to be sorrow, but OE
forht is not attested in this sense.) In a related passage, Wulfstans
Sermo de baptismo condemns premature exuberant happiness (i.e.
overconfidence: fringa to fgene) alongside arrogance (rance)
and enthusiasm for boasting (gylpgeorne) as traits to avoid: ne beon
ge to rance ne to gylpgeorne ne fringa to fgene ne eft to ormode
(do not be too arrogant or too boastful, nor right away too happy,
nor too despairing.)122 It seems here that being too arrogant and too
boastful defines the state of being too happy. A wise man in The
Wanderer should therefore recognize the risk attending an exploit.123

120
For a summary of the positions, see Thomas D. Hill, Unchanging Hero and
Gwara, Forht and Fgen. While OE forht may also mean formidable or terrifying, OE
fgen would not be its opposite, and the arguable parallelism between wac . . . forht and
wanhydig . . . fgen would be lost. On the complication that too may mean not at
all, see Bruce Mitchell, Some Syntactical Problems 11217 (translating to fgen
as sanguine). T. P. Dunning and A. J. Bliss propose too cringing, just the opposite
of what one should expect (11718 and 49: it seems then not quite impossible that
fgen should mean fawning, cringing, servile, sycophantic ). OE fgen yields ME adj.
fain or eager, a sense first attested in Lagamons Brut, according to the dictionaries.
I argue that OE fgen in The Wanderer anticipates the semasiological development, for
it can mean expectant or happy in the prospective fulfillment of desire.
121
The Wanderer and The Seafarer 150; cf. Arngart 293 (no. 23). Shippey alters to
rforht and rfgen, on which compounds see Bryan. Interestingly, to r fgen
in the Durham Proverbs is translated by the Latin nec ilico arrigens or not quick
to rouselacking any hint of happiness. Hill points out (Unchanging Hero 248
note 24) that to r fgen differs from to fgen, but I think the expression to r
fgen clarifies the meaning of to fgen. Happiness becomes acceptable when
it is not heedless.
122
Bethurum 184; see also De septiformi spiritu: ne bi on gefean to fgen ne on
wean to ormod (Do not be too happy in joy, nor too despairing in woe), ibid. 185.
123
Nolan and Bloomfield 503.

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

95

The question is, does Beowulf s enthusiasm for challenging Grendel

contravene this advice, 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, injury,
or death could result from reckless promises. But where experience is
lacking, wisdom poetry can substitute, for which reason so much Old
English and Old Icelandic wisdom poetry coaches warriors in proper
behaviors or attitudes. Now, Beowulf does not know for certain
what Grendel is like, since he has never seen him. In fact, he does not
know that Grendel cannot be cut by swords, so that his bare-handed
encounter without armor sounds even more reckless.124 Nevertheless,
by his own admission, Beowulf has fought monsters beforea race of
giants (420b1a)and by this experience he may perhaps be qualified
to fight Grendel. In this declaration to Hrogar Beowulf also adds that
he slew water-beasts on the waves at night (on yum slog//niceras
nihtes, 421b2a), possibly in reference to the contest with Breca.125
While these credentials sound like the right experience, Hunfer
believes that Beowulf lost a contest with Breca, quite possibly the only
independently verifiable experience of Beowulf s. From Hunfers
position, Beowulf s boast to face Grendel contradicts the evidence of
experience. Even though Hunfer concedes that Beowulf has everywhere survived the onslaughts of battle, fierce warfare (eah u
heaorsa/gehwr dohte,//grimre gue, 526a7a), losing the contest
with Breca is the best prediction of the outcome in the Grendel fight.
By this measure, Beowulf s manner ought to be cautious. Instead, his
boast conveys intemperate eagerness and immature haste, just the
opposite of wisdom in this Anglo-Saxon binary.
Hunfer concludes that Beowulf is reckless, 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, 23b). The situation in Vainglory almost perfectly
matches Beowulf s own circumstances, for the imagined hypocrite
depicted in Vainglory boasts before a warband in a hall. Proud warsmiths sit at a feast in the wine-precincts, the poet states (wlonce

Beowulf says that Grendel does not care for weapons (wpna ne recce,
434b), not that he cannot be injured by them. If it were known that swords could not
bite Grendels flesh, Beowulf s retainers would not have hacked at him uselessly.
125
Biggs, Nine Nicors 318.
124

96

chapter one

wigsmias/winburgum in,//sitta t symble, 14a15a),126 and as their

revelry mounts (Breahtem stige, 19b),127 the clamor (cirm, 20a) of
their various speeches resounds among the host (on corre, 20a). At
this moment the narrator remarks that their minds will be divided into
parts (swa beo modsefan//dalum gedled, 21b2a), an idiomatic
way of saying that they are not all sincere. In Gulac A God perceives
those holding good or bad customs (hadas cenna,//micle ond mte
52b53a). In 53b4a the statement Is es middangeard//dalum
gedled is followed by a disclosure of Gods perspicacity: Dryhten
sceawa//hwr a eardien/e his healden (The Lord knows where
those men dwell who keep his law, 54b5b). The Lord also perceives
those who do not keep his law (56a9b), as well as the hypocrites who
keep his law in word but not in deed:
Sume him s hades
wegan on wordum

hlisan willa
ond a weorc ne do. (60a1b)

Some men want to bear the fame of this calling in words but not perform
the works.

The verbal context of dalum gedled is that of men with hidden

intentions (compare the formulation of Latin discretio < discerno separate), and ME dlen to deal kept this rare sense to dissemble into
early Middle English. The Ancrene Riwle of London, British Library MS
Cotton Nero A.xiv records, Iob seide. pepigi fedus cum oculis meis
ut ne cogitarem du uirgine. ich habbe i vestned sei iob foreward mid
min eien. ich ne mis enche. v. deale.128
Relevant in this context are certain Old Icelandic expressions with
cognate deila and related vocables.129 In Helgaqvia Hirvarzsonar, Helgi tells Svva to divide her mind, i.e. subdue her emotions,

On the meaning of OE winburg as stronghold rather than hall, see Del Pezzo.
Probably a circumlocution for thoughtless boasting; see Precepts 57a8b:
Wrwyrde sceal
wisfst hle
breostum hycgan,
nales breahtme hlud.
A warrior firm in wisdom ought to think inwardly, [speak] cautious conversation,
not loud chatter.
128
Day and Herbert 27 lines 203.
129
References in Cleasby and Vigfusson s. v. deila I.4 are mistaken. Thus, deildusk hugir, sv at hskarlar hldu varla vatni which is translated their minds were
so distraught that the house-carles could hardly forbear weeping should mean, by
re-assignment of the adverb, their minds were so concealed that the servants held
themselves from barely weeping.
126

127

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

97

since his death is inevitable: Hug scaltu deila. 130 The expression
resembles one from Gurnarqvia II: Lengi hvarfaac,/lengi
hugir deilduz. . . .131 For a long time Gurn waited for Sigurr to
return, during which ordeal she divided (concealed) her thought.
When the illicit love-affair between Oddrn and Gunnar is exposed in
Oddrnargrttr, the poet states how hard it is to read a mans mind
when he intends to dissemble over love:
Enn slcs scyli
mar fyr annan,

synia aldri
ar er munu deilir.132

No one should speak with certainty, one man on behalf of another who
divides (conceals) his passion.

The proposed meaning of distressed in each of these passages ignores

the essential context of dissembling. Finally, Grettir is criticized for not
being a skapdeildarmar, translated in the dictionaries master of his
temper or hardened man. In other words, Grettir cannot camouflage
his discomfiture and is easy to anger.133
In Vainglory men are said to be different (sindon dryhtguman//
ungelice; noblemen are unalike, 22b3a), and in the poets conceit
a certain one expresses oferhygd (23b), here arrogance more than recklessness. This mans mind presses with majesty (rymme ringe,
24a) and swells with an immoderate spirit (rinte him in innan//ungemedemad mod, 24b5a).134 This inflated ego in turn leads to boasting,
the articulation of insidious jealousy (fonca, 26a):
Bo his sylfes
swior micle
onne se sella mon,
ence t his wise
welhwam ince
eal unforcu. (28b31a)
He boasts of himself much more than the better man does; it seems to him
that his manner [wise] would appear completely brave [unforcu] to everyone.

Neckel and Kuhn 149 (str. 40).

Ibid. 225 (str. 6).
132
Ibid. 237 (str. 24). The preceding stanza clarifies the sense:
Mlto margir mnir niiar,
qvuz ocr hafa
orit bi;
enn mic Atli qva
eigi myndo
lti ra
n lst gora.
133
Cleasby and Vigfusson s.v. deila sense I.4; Zoga s.v. deila.
134
On ungemedemad (<(ge)medemian), see Pickford 23 note to line 25; Thomas
D. Hill, Unchanging Hero.
130
131

98

chapter one

This observation is relevant to Beowulf s situation because Hunfer

believes that Beowulf lost his competition with Breca. To Hunfer, then,
Beowulf exhibits the insolence of an arrogant braggart, someone who
boasts about himself more than the better man. The better man
in this context could be Breca, the winner of the match in Hunfers
estimation. In the passage cited above, the subjunctive ince (his
manner would appear completely brave) supposes that some strongminded warrior might see through the proud mans bluster. Hunfer
thinks he has seen through Beowulf s. But obviously, more is at stake
than Brecas reputation. Hunfers standing in Hrogars court, his
conspicuous fame (widcune man, 1489b), and his celebrated hftmece suggest that he might be one of the better men implicitly faulted
in Beowulf s opening speech to Hrogar, and explicitly impugned in
Beowulf s retort that Grendel would not have committed so many
atrocities had Hunfer (and the Danes!) been as brave as Hunfer
implies by his pique (590a601a). Therefore, Beowulf not only seems to
issue a reckless boast, but he also appears to inflate his own ego the way
an arrogant warrior might boast to companions in a hall. In so doing,
Beowulf offends Hrogars yle, 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).
If scholars were willing to acknowledge the perceptionnot necessarily the realityof Beowulf s arrogance, native sententiae that chastise
recklessness and pride would be found to compliment the Hunfer
digression. Other evidence of proverbiousness suggests as much, too.
By no means does the poet gratuitously mention Hunfers status as
Hrogars yle. Beowulf realizes that Hunfer is charged to instill
counsels of wisdom and that he would be most qualified to assess the
courage and loyalty of Hrogars own men and guests. Hence, Beowulf
answers Hunfer ironically, appropriating Hunfers own professional
idiom to ridicule him. Beowulf appropriates Hunfers mockery of
Beowulf s self-proclaimed mastery in battle, eah u heaorsa/
gehwr dohte (though you succeeded on every occasion in the assaults
of war, 526ab) when he says eah in wit duge (though your mind
is strong, 589b). Beowulf sneers at Hunfers presumed mastery of
wisdom. Uttered after claiming that Hunfer will suffer torments in
hell for slaying his brothers, these terms are paralleled in the expression
gif e deah hyge (if your mind is strong) from Precepts 48b. Having
a doughty intellect is specifically linked to wisdom as the capacity
to perceive good and evil:

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

Ongiet georn
ond toscead simle
in sefan inum
A e bi gedled;
wuna wisdom in,
ondgit yfles;
feorma u symle

99

hwt sy god oe yfel,

scearpe mode
ond e a t selle geceos.
gif e deah hyge,
ond u wast geare
heald e elne wi,
in inum fere god. (45a51b)

Recognize zealously what is good or evil; always distinguish them in

your mind with keen insight, and choose the better one. Ever will it be
concealed from you. If your mind is strong, wisdom will dwell in you,
and you will know right away the appearance of evil [or: an evil man].
Zealously guard yourself against it [or: him], and always foster good in
your heart.

The phrase ondgit yfles (50a) could mean the appearance of evil
as translated here,135 but the alternative intention of an evil man is
equally possible. The expression a e bi gedled, which I have
translated as ever will it be concealed from you recalls the clause
Swa beo modsefan//dalum gedled in Vainglory 21b2a, in which
context some men are said to conceal their arrogance. For the AngloSaxons, having a strong mind means discerning concealed evil and
choosing concealed good, as implied in The Seafarer:
Stieran mon sceal strongum mode,
ond t on staelum healdan,
ond gewis werum,
wisum clne
scyle monna gehwylc
mid gemete healdan
wi leofne on wi lane. (109a12a)
A man should steer [ his boat and himself ] with a strong mind, and hold
it on course. Constant in promises and pure in his ways, every man should
hold himself in moderation both towards friend and foe.

Equating moderation with rectitude, specifically constancy and continence, The Seafarer compares the mariners business of battling the
wind (or tacking) to moral self-guidance.136 Being measured (gemet)

135
The DOE suggests an idiomatic rendering (s.v. 1.b.ii): to have knowledge of,
to know, hence you will have knowledge of evil.
136
Compare these lines to Maxims I 50a2b, where storms batter the shipman:
Styran sceal mon strongum mode. Storm oft holm gebringe,
geofen in grimmum slum;
onginna grome fundian
fealwe on feorran to londe,
hwer he fste stonde.
A man must steer with strong mind. A storm will often bring a storm, the ocean
in cruel seasons. Fiercely will fallow waves begin to advance from afar towards
the land, although the man may stand securely.

100

chapter one

therefore defines the moderation associated with patience and restraint.

The wise (arguably poets, ylas or witan) therefore discriminate
between honesty, courage, and humilityqualities characterized blandly
by the word godand deceit, condescension, and vanity, which ensue
from oferhygd (in Vainglory at any rate).
The Coast-Warden Reads Beowulf s Intentions
This concealed intent, the general yfel which the wise man must
fathom may be defined even more precisely, since this proverbious
cantthe professional jargon of the yle, I imagineoccurs also in
the watchmans assessment of Beowulf. Somewhat earlier the coastwarden regarded Beowulf s honor in terms nearly identical to those
in this same passage of Precepts:
ghwres sceal
scearp scyldwiga
gescad witan
worda ond worca,
se e wel ence.
Ic t gehyre,
t is is hold weorod
frean Scyldinga. (287b91a)
A sharp-witted shield-warrior (someone who thinks well) must have an
understanding of each thing: of words and of deeds. I hear that this is a
troop loyal to the Scyldings lord.137

The sharp(-witted) shield-warrior of Beowulf recalls the sharp mind

of Precepts, and understanding in Beowulf (gescad) sounds much like
the difference (toscad) of Precepts.138 He who thinks well recalls
the capacity of having a strong mind able to perceive a mans true
thoughts. Most significantly, both passages emphasize the discernment
of intentions. The one from Vainglory evaluates the concealed intentions
of boasters in a hall, whereas the second from Beowulf highlights the
concealed intentions of aggressive foreigners, whose boastful words
could mask dishonesty. In fact, the possibility of deceit is raised when
the coast-warden says that Beowulf seems not to be exalted by weapons aloneunless his appearance belies him: nfne him his wlite

137
Accepting the deletion of Klaebers comma after witan, as proposed by Bammesberger, Coastguards Maxim 4; Klaebers Beowulf retains the comma.
138
Shippey, Maxims 34 note 9.

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

101

leoge, 250b.139 In this instance, he sizes up Beowulf s appearance, as

he did the Geats bold landing. Somewhat later, however, he appraises
Beowulf s words, concluding that Beowulf and his troop are hold
(loyal) to Hrogar, not spies. From this context, one might assume
that ghwres 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. A. Shippey came very close to this sense in 1978 when he summarized the maxim, it is the duty of a sharp-witted shield warrior
to decide correctly, even on inadequate evidence.140 The watchman
concludes from Beowulf s words that the Geats are neither pirates nor
spies, but Shippey then takes the watchmans own deeds as the focus
of judgment. Rejecting Shippeys interpretation, Stanley B. Greenfield
popularized a slightly different reading of the maxim, but applied it to
the wrong context.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. 142 The confusion over context is understandable. Assessing the truth of Beowulf s
statement about his mission would mean evaluating whether he had a
chance of defeating Grendel. It would also mean assessing Beowulf s
modesty, a feature of his discourse so often attended here.
In 1988 Peter Baker accepted Greenfields context. The watchman
cannot assess Beowulf s deeds, Baker surmised, 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.143 While this statement is arguably true, Bakers theoretical
position that a phrase like empty words, so typical of mainstream
western thought with its anxiety about language that lacks substance,
seems foreign to Old English literature, distorts the exchange, for
empty words are exactly what the watchman is trying to intuit. We
139
For an interesting historical discussion of weapons and status in this passage, see
Thomas D. Hill, Beowulf as Seldguma.
140
Beowulf 14. This is also the sense in Pepperdene 416, but without elucidation.
Klaeber and others before him proposed as much, too, but never provided the linguistic justification.
141
Words and Deeds.
142
Ibid. 51.
143
Beowulf the Orator 10.

102

chapter one

need only read the verses that immediately follow the watchmans
maxim to learn that he has judged Beowulf s intent: I hear that this is
a troop loyal to the Scyldings lord (290a1b). The adjective hold
(loyal, 290b) emphasizes Beowulf s sincerity. In other words, the
coast-warden has decided that Beowulf intends to confront Grendel
and that he is capable of confronting himand that he will not plunder the interior.
R. E. Kaske had reached this conclusion in 1984, in a note that
generally confirmed Shippeys 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. . . . the coastwarden has been initially misled by observing only
works (the apparent audacity of the Geats landing); having now had that
opinion reversed or modified by listening to words (Beowulf s speech), he
remarks that a dependable watchman must bear in mind the quite different
impressions that can be created by different modes of perception.144

As Baker pointed out some years after Kaskes piece, the genitive
worda ond worca does not vary ghwres (to know the gescad of each, (of ) words and deeds), nor can it be ignored, making
worda ond worca dependent on gescad (the difference between
words and deeds). Rather, worda ond worca is a partitive genitive
dependent on the pronoun ghwres, and should mean of both
words and deeds.145 Baker went on to allege that gesc(e)ad witan
and gesc(e)ad cunnan should mean to have knowledge of, to understand.146 Unfortunately, this etiolated rendering fails to communicate
exactly what kind of knowledge or gescad the watchman claims for
himself, a crucial feature of his maxim. Alfred Bammesberger has lately
joined this camp, apparently independently, with the translation know
fully, have complete knowledge of rather than know the difference
between, for the idiomatic phrase gescead witan.147 It seems to me,
however, that gescead witan should be contextualized in the Anglo-Saxon
wisdom tradition.
Having a gescead of words and deeds generally means discerning good
and evil intent and should probably be translated moral discrimination. Even in the late tenth century, lfric used OE gescead as the
144
145
146
147

Coastwardens Maxim 18.

Beowulf the Orator 7.
Ibid.; see Bammesberger, Linguistic Notes 845.
Coastguards Maxim Reconsidered.

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

103

prime characteristic of soul that separates man from animal. He specifically thought of gescead as an instrument of personal judgment and
moral guidance: Gescead is re sawle forgifen to gewyssienne and
t styrenne hire agen life and ealle hire dda (Moral discrimination
is given to the soul to understand and to guide her own life and all
her deeds).148 Attestations of gescead in the Old English corpus suggest
two things about the gescead that lfric appreciates. First, it refers to
a moral distinction between good and evil, often figured as the
knowledge of Christian virtue. Such Christian knowledge or good
is sometimes described as contingent on humility or self-restraint. Second, this moral choice is not always transparent, and gescead identifies
a process of deliberation that distinguishes good from evil, that helps
one choose Christian virtue.
The evidence for gescead as moral intuition is widespread in the
corpus. The lfredian Boethius suggests that righteousness and discretion direct ones gescead:
Hu mg nig man
inga niges,
eah hine rinca hwilc
fter fringe
on his modsefan
rihtwisnesse

andsware findan
egen mid gesceade,
rihtwislice
gif he awuht nafa
mycles ne lytles
ne geradscipes?149

How may anyone find an answer to anything, a thane with gescead,

though a man should ask it of him properly, if he has no righteousness
and prudence for small or great matters in his mind?

This passage refers to ones personal judgment in making a decision

about moral virtue. In an anonymous Vercelli homily, gescead enables
one to overcome evil partly through patience: t [the sin of anger]
bi solice oferswied urh geyld 7 urh olomodnesse 7 urh andgytlic gescead e God onasw on manna modum (Truly [anger] is
overcome through patience, forbearance and the clear moral discernment that God implants in the minds of men.)150 Here one senses that
patience confronts intemperance, and lfric describes the function of
gescead elsewhere as policing temptation:151

148
149
150
151

In lfrics Nativity of Christ (Skeat, Lives of Saints 16 lines 1078).

Meters of Boethius 22.43a48b.
Szarmach 12 (lines 99101).
Norman 40 (from St. Basils Admonitio ad filium spiritalem).

104

chapter one
re sawle miht is t heo sylf s lichaman lustas undereode s
modes gesceade. t t gescead beo wylldre onne seo yfele gewilnung.
and t heo gitsunge forhogige and beo hire eahylde.
The souls power is that she herself subdues the bodys desires to the
moral discernment of the mind, such that ones moral discernment might
be stronger than the evil temptation, and such that [the soul] despise
concupiscence and be satisfied in herself.

A state of moral blindness exists among drunks and children because

they lack self-control, and give in to temptation because they cannot
resist it. The Rule of Chrodegang states, Se druncena ne . . . gescead ne can
betwyx gode 7 yfele (the drunk does not know the moral distinction
between good and evil),152 and a passage from Deuteronomy affirms
the same of children: Eowre lytlingas 7 a cild e nyton nanes inges
nan gescead ne godes ne yfeles . . . (Your little ones and the children
who do not know the moral distinction of anything, neither good nor
evil . . .).153
Having gescead for oneself can therefore mean exhibiting humility,
but using it to judge others might mean determining their motivation
as humble or arrogant. Relevant in this context is a passage from
Bedes Historia ecclesiastica, 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, credibile est quia iugum
Christi et ipse portet et uobis portandum offerat; sin autem inmitis ac
superbus est, constat quia non est de Deo, neque nobis eius eius sermo
curandus. Qui rursus aiebant: Et unde uel hoc dinoscere ualemus?
If this Augustine is meek and lowly of heart, it is to be supposed that he
himself bears the yoke of Christ and is offering it to you to bear; but if he
is harsh and proud, it follows that he is not from God and we have no
need to regard his words. Once more they said, 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. inmitis ac
superbus), engendering a general distinction between right and wrong.
Now, the Old English version of Bedes History translates inmitis ac
Napier, Rule of Chrodegang 74 lines 357 (translating Ebriosus . . . neque inter
bona et mala discernit).
153
Crawford, Heptateuch 336; cf. Dt 1.39: Parvuli vestri . . . et filii qui hodie boni ac
mali ignorant distantiam . . .
152

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

105

superbus as unmilde 7 oferhygdig, and the sentence Et unde uel

hoc dinoscere ualemus? with the expression be hwon magon we is
gescead witon? (How can we discern this moral distinction?).154 In
this passage, OE gescead explicitly designates a knowledge of hidden
intention: arrogance or humility. Wulfstan, too, talks of the man with
god ingehyd or good conscience, who knows the moral distinction
between truth and falsehood (can him gescead betweox soe ond
unsoe).155 He also alleges that gescead applies to truth and deceit in his
homily De septiformi spiritu: And se hf god ingehyd . . . e . . . can
him gescead betweox soe 7 unsoe (He has a good conscience who
knows the moral distinction between truth and deceit.)156 Ones moral
choice is often concealed, as the father in Precepts declares when he says,
a e bi gedled or ever will it be divided for you.
Based on this evidence, the Danish watchman judges the moral
quality of Beowulf s words and deeds, specifically in respect to humility
and arrogance. As Kaske has said, the Geats presumptuous appearance
on Danish shores (Beowulf s deeds) alarms the coast-guard, who has
to satisfy himself that Beowulf has come for his stated purposehis
words. He determines that Beowulf tells the truth, of course, but
if truth derives from humility or self-restraint, as it seems to in the
contexts cited above, the watchman discerns Beowulf s honesty by his
humility. In Vainglory evil explicitly designates arrogance, so that gods
own son embraces humility, while the devils spawn practices arrogance.
In the context of wisdom literature like Vainglory one can understand
why the watchman in Beowulf finds Beowulf s words reassuring. They
are not simply decorous, as so many have noticed, but conspicuously
submissive, just the attitude needed to defuse the situation. Beowulf has
come with loyal intent (urh holdne hige, 267a), asks to be given

154
Colgrave and Mynors 1389; for the Old English passage, cf. Miller 100 lines
29, 31. Greenfield (Words and Deeds) cited Cambridge, Corpus Christi College
MS 41, which reads ises gescead (the moral distinction of this, 270 note 9), but
Robert E. Kaske rejected Greenfields obviously correct view that ises gescead
refers to Augustines demeanor, either humility or pride (Coastwardens Maxim
17). Quite similar to this position is the laconic observation by Mackie, Notes upon
the Text 517.
155
In his sermon De septiformi spiritu: Bethurum 186 line 44. This gescead judges
thoughts, words and deeds in lfrics homily on the circumcision: we sceolan of deae
arisan. 7 agyldan gode gescead ealra ure geohta. and worda 7 weorca (we must
rise from death and yield to God the moral judgement of all our thoughts, words and
deeds); see Clemoes, Catholic Homilies 227 lines 1002.
156
Bethurum 186 lines 424.

106

chapter one

advice (Wes u us larena god! 269b), proposes a great mission

(micel rende, 270b), acknowledges the watchmans superior grasp
of the situation (u wast, gif hit is . . . 273), offers to teach Hrogar
counsel through magnanimity (urh rumne sefan/rd gelran,
278ab), grants that the old king is wise and good (frod ond god,
279a), and shows concern for his suffering (cearwylmas/colran
wura, 282ab). Baker terms Beowulf s speech understated and
deferential but grants that Beowulf does flaunt his own strength.157
Yet Beowulf s resolution (in the expectation that he alone can defeat
Grendel, lines 280a5b) is consistent with the heros need to state his
unwavering intent. From the passage one can draw two conclusions.
First, characters in the poem are liable to misjudge Beowulf s actions
as arrogant, and they react suspiciously. Second, at least one subaltern
concludes that Beowulf expresses the right degree of humility. As I shall
argue throughout, the judgment of Beowulf s behavior, the potential
misunderstanding of his words and works, comprises a central concern
in much of the poem.
The Jealous yle
To return once more to my premise, Beowulf s retort eah in wit
duge challenges Hunfers role as yle in command of the social customs
of Germanic wisdom. Men with wit or hyge have a penetrating
intelligence: they have strong minds or think well, and therefore
they can discern evil, the symptoms of arrogance. Though presumably Hrogars wisest retainer, Hunfer does not reach the same conclusion as the watchman about Beowulf s intent to face Grendel. The
poets proverbious exploitation of this wisdom topos invites a further
examination of Beowulf s attack on Hunfers position as a yle. Are
Beowulf s other statements compatible with provisions of Old English
wisdom verse? Significantly, the jeer eah in wit duge follows on
Beowulf s verdict that Hunfer will suffer punishment in hell for killing his brothers: s u in helle scealt//werho dreogan, 588b9a.
Because kin-killing is such a fundamental abomination in Beowulf, it has
escaped notice that hell also happens to be the domain of the proud
(cf. Cain). In Vainglory the arrogant man is described as the fiends own

157

Beowulf the Orator 1011.

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

107

child, a concealed devil clothed in flesh whose life will be useless to

God and destined for hell:
Nu u cunnan meaht,
gif u yslicne
egn gemittest
wunian in wicum,
wite e be issum
feawum forspellum,
t t bi feondes bearn
flsce bifongen,
hafa frte lif,
grundfusne gst
gode orfeormne . . . (44b9b)
Now you may understand should you meet such a thane dwelling in the
precincts. Know by these few preceding narratives that that man is the
devils own son clothed in flesh and that he will have a shameful life, a
spirit eager for hell and useless to god.

The narrator concludes that warriors given to oferhygd always end up

in hell:
Se e hine sylfne
urh oferhygda
ahefe heahmodne,
fter neosium
wunian witum fst,

in a slinan tid
up ahlne,
se sceal hean wesan
nier gebiged,
wyrmum gerungen. (52a6b)

He who inclines himself towards that time of hardship through reckless

ambition, who exalts his proud ego [scil. hine sylfne . . . heahmodne], shall
be wretched, humbled [ lit. bent downwards] after death, must dwell
fast in torments, pressed by serpents.

Only with some strain can one capture the metaphor that depends on
ahlnan to lean towards and gebiged bent downwards. It recalls the
biblical verse, Lc 14.11: quia omnis qui se exaltat humiliabitur et qui
se humiliat exaltabitur. Because the expression in a slinan tid is
accusative, the proud man should be thought to incline himself towards
the time of cruelty, a circumlocution for death.158 Beowulf does not
simply condemn Hunfer for murder (or cowardice), therefore, but for
the arrogance that led him to commit murder. This reasoning explains
the accusation that Hunfer killed his heafodmgumhis chief
kinsmen or older brothersa wreccas crime that Beowulf insinuates
would be motivated by Hunfers jealousy.
See, for example, Elene 855b6a Rodor eal geswearc//on a slian tid; Gulac
B 991b2b: ac him duru sylfa//on a slinan tid/sona ontyne. The expression in
Beowulf 184a urh sline ni (through cruel enmity) describes men destined for hell,
the fires embrace (185a), and should probably describe the manner of punishment,
as Klaeber, Beowulf 136 note to lines 1846. Hell may be an alternative to death,
for which see Andrew 40110.
158

108

chapter one

Of course, the Beowulf narrator explains that jealousy motivated

Hunfer to mention the Breca episode and predict that Beowulf would
not crush Grendel:
foron e he ne ue,
fre mra on ma
gehedde under heofenum

t nig oer man

middangeardes
onne he sylfa (503a5b)

. . . because he would not grant that any other man would have given more
thought to earthly honors under the heavens than he himself had.

Fred C. Robinson proposed that Klaebers gehde ( gehedde MS), theoretically derived from OE gehgan to perform, carry out, should rather
express (ge)hdan to heed, since every occurrence of (ge)hdan in Old
English is collocated with ing, seono, sprc, or mel as its direct object
and means to hold (a meeting).159 Robinson interpreted this statement
of Hunfers jealousy as a Falstaffian attitude toward heroic deeds,160
but John C. Pope has proposed a positive rendering for it: [Unferth]
would not grant that any other man on earth could ever . . . care more
for glorious deeds [mra, 504a] than he himself did.161 In other
words, Hunfer not only cared a great deal but had deluded himself
into supposing that nobody on earth could ever have cared more.162
Popes terms certainly mitigate Hunfers resentmentcompetitiveness
is the source of his jealousy. Alternatively, however, we could take
(ge)hdan in its root sense give thought to, 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. This probably means exactly what Pope conveys, that
Hunfer thinks himself the better man. But it may also portend that,
Elements of the Marvellous 31.
Ibid.
161
Beowulf 505 180.
162
Ibid. Pope likewise exposed two common mistakes in reading this passage, the
first exacerbated by Klaebers glossary, s.v. mro, where mra is queried as a genitive pluralunprecedented for predicate gehganand often mistakenly construed with
ma (acc. sing.) giving he would not allow that any man under the heavens would
achieve more glory . . . instead of the (correct) adverbial usage on ma, impossible to
construe with the MnE translation achieve; see Mitchell, Old English Syntax, vol. 2,
3246. Second, the form gehedde is a preterite (likely subjunctive) and, even if derived
from gehgan, ought to be translated would have achieved. The translation, he would
not allow that any man under the heavens would have achieved glory . . . logically
refers either to Beowulf s fight with giants, or else preempts Beowulf s upcoming fight
with Grendel. The editors of Klaebers Beowulf have revised the glossary to reflect the
verb gehedan + genitive obj.
159
160

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

109

having reflected on honor more than anyone else, Hunfer thinks himself to be the better judge of Beowulf s fitness to assail Grendel than
Beowulf. Coming from someone responsible for teaching men how to
achieve heroic deeds in moderationas the morale officer Enright
envisionsHunfers sanctimony would befit the context of wisdomas-moderation that motivates the digression as a whole. Hunfer thinks
Beowulf is not ready to fight Grendel, but Beowulf assumes, and the
narrator confirms, that Hunfer abuses his office to discredit Beowulf s
ambition.
Hunfers jealousy, I allege, has a specific context, again divulged
by wisdom verse. Just after Hunfer recites the Breca story, Beowulf says,
Hwt, u worn fela,
wine min Hunfer,
beore druncen
ymb Brecan sprce . . . (530a1b)
Well, drunk on beer, you have spoken very many things about Breca,
my friend Hunfer.

In a characteristically clever argument, Fred C. Robinson explains

that beore druncen in Beowulf 480b should mean having drunk
beer and therefore having participated in a ritual that elicits trust,
not shame.163 In his new volume Beowulf: An Edition Robinson extends
this reading to the Hunfer passage cited above,164 perhaps because
accusing Hunfer of being drunk sounds indecorous. Beowulf s harsh
reply could therefore be attributed to Hunfers infringement of social
dignity and group cohesion. Yet the accusation that Hunfer is drunk
on beer (confirmed in wine druncen, 1467a) connects directly to
wisdom verses in which drunkenness should be avoided specifically
because it causes one to utter offensive and therefore reckless words.
So in Precepts the father warns his noble son, keep yourself from a
drunken and foolish statement (druncen beorg e/ond dollic word,
34ab). In Vainglory, moreover, the drunkard deceived by wine (wine

163
Appositive Style 77. Robinson compares the Beowulf locus to dreore druncne in
Andreas 1003a, but the claim that to translate druncne as drunk, inebriated is logically
impossible in the Andreas passage seems overstated. In Beowulf 480b Hrogar implies
that drink induced his retainers to make reckless boasts they could not fulfil and so
his bencelu or bench-platforms (486a) ended up blode bestymed or drenched
in blood. I do not find Hrogars remark inappropriate in the context. On the
reluctance of scholars to acknowledge inebriation in the Germanic hall, and the
prospect that Hunfer is being accused of inebriation, see Stanley, Courtliness and
Courtesy 93.
164
Mitchell and Robinson, Beowulf: An Edition, in the glossary s.v. drincan.

110

chapter one

gewged, 41a) maliciously [or deceitfully] lets his words flow out
(searwum lte . . . word ut faran, 40b1b). Elsewhere in Vainglory
18b19a drink incites a mans spirit and engenders jealousy. Finally,
the wisdom poem Fortunes of Men explores the vice of warrior drunkenness at length. It can be fatal, according to the Fortunes poet, because
a sot cannot moderate his speech:
Sumum meces ecg
yrrum ealowosan
were winsadum;
Sum sceal on beore
meodugal mcga;
gemearcian his mue
ac sceal ful earmlice
dreogan dryhtenbealo
ond hine to sylfcwale
mna mid mue

on meodubence
ealdor oringe,
bi r his worda to hrd.
urh byreles hond
onne he gemet ne con
mode sine,
ealdre linnan,
dreamum biscyred,
secgas nemna,
meodugales gedrinc. (48a57b)

On the mead-bench the swords edge will crush the life from another one,
an angry ale-talker, a wine-sated man. He had been too hasty in his words.
One in his cups will become a mead-flushed fellow through a servers
hand. Then he will not know moderation, how to limit his mouth with
his mind, but full pitifully will give up his life and, deprived of joys, suffer
supreme destruction. Men will call him a suicide and lament with their
voices the intoxication of a man flush with mead.

These passages reveal how fundamental it was for a wise retainer to

control his speech while drinking. Beowulf does not merely accuse Hunfer
of being drunk, therefore; he accuses Hunfer of violating a cardinal
axiom of warrior virtue that Hunfer would be responsible for promulgating among Hrogars troops.165 Indeed, this explanation accounts for
Beowulf s taunt that Hunfer had uttered very many things (worn
fela, 530a)an excessive amount. For all his wisdom, Hrogars yle
sounds much like a boastful drunkard and loudmouth himself !
The narrator seems to confirm the wisdom topos of drunken boasting in the motivation for Hunfers challenge. Vainglory alleges that a
proud mans immoderate spirit (ungemedemad mod) will become
filled with the fiends darts of jealous irritation (bi t [leg. mod,
165
On warnings against drunkenness in Hvaml (Neckel and Kuhn, str. 11,
12, 19, 131), see Larrington 245. Appropriate to this context are verses 18 and 47
of Lokasenna as well. Hugh Magennis argues counter-intuitively that Hunfers
drunkenness provides an acceptable pretext for his verbal attack on Beowulf, a way
in which such an attack can be accommodated to the prevailing standards of hall
courtesy without implicating the whole company (163).

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

111

25a] fonca/eal gefylled//feondes fligepilum, 26a7a). Drunkenness

among a company in the hall specifically engenders such pompous selfregard, and Cynewulf s Juliana confirms that the psychological state of
fonca originates in drinking:
Sume ic larum geteah,
to geflite fremede,
t hy fringa
ealde foncan
edniwedan,
beore druncne.
Ic him byrlade
wroht of wege,
t hi in winsele
urh sweordgripe
sawle forletan
of flschoman
fge scyndan,
sarum gesohte. (483b90a)
I prompted some by my advice, brought them to strife, so that, when
drunk on beer, they might revive old annoyances. I offered anger from a
cup, that in the wine-hall they might let their souls be parted from their
doomed bodies, sought out by wounds, through the sword-stroke.

OE fanc/fanca is often translated as vexation, chagrin, annoyance,

displeasure, rancor, but here I prefer jealous irritation. The noun is
related to OE ofyncan, used in Beowulf to describe the irritation felt by
the Heaobards when members of the Danish retinue flaunt captured
Heaobard weapons (2032a). In this digression the poet describes a
kind of irritated envy directed at unworthy interlopers. In light of the
Vainglory passage describing the boaster whose spirit becomes completely
filled with jealous irritation, it seems relevant that Hunfer expresses
micel funca or extreme jealous irritation (502b) over Beowulf s
venture. From these Vainglory and Juliana passages we can deduce two
things about Hunfer. First, Hunfers funca should probably be
situated in the context of convivial drinking and possible drunkenness.
Second, although Hunfer thinks that Beowulf is arrogant and reckless, the poet seems to confirm the opposite: at this moment at least,
Hunfer displays the jealousy of a hypocrite.
In his mocking reaction to Hunfers challenge, Beowulf implies that
drink causes a second breach of decorum. Beowulf calls Hunfer my
friend quite sarcastically. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence
that OE wine or freond had a specific legal definition, but in the warband community it may have designated a man one could rely on for
aid, in war as in peace.166 In other words, friendship may have been
a social institution (loosely defined) in which peers took on risks and
166

Hill, Cultural World 99.

112

chapter one

responsibilities for each other as sacred obligations. This may be the

context of Hrogars address to Beowulf, wine min Beowulf (457b,
1704b), as well as the old retainers insinuation to his young friend in
the Heaobard digression (2047a). If so, Beowulf acts as a friend to
Hunfer in fighting Grendel on behalf of the Danes, and Beowulf implies
that Hunfer violates this voluntary friendship with his criticism.
Because trust motivates friendship, wisdom literature expresses contempt for betrayals between friends. Hvaml shows a particular
obsession with honest and dishonest friendship congruent in many
respects to that of Anglo-Saxon wisdom verse.167 Like Hvaml Maxims I recommends cultivating friendships (lines 144a5b), but injunctions against deceitful friendship are commoner in the Anglo-Saxon
wisdom corpus. Maxims I also warns earm se him his frynd geswica
(wretched the man whose friends fail him, 37b), and Precepts records
that one should never tolerate sin (man) in a friend or kinsman: ne
nfre freonde inum,//mge man ne geafa (17b18a). Later, the
father tells his son never to be deceitful against his friend:
t u nfre fcne weore

Rfn elne is,

freonde inum. (30b1b)

Do this with conviction, that you never become deceitful towards your
friend.

Finally, Dorothy Whitelock has pointed out, in reference to a passage

from Maxims I, that exile entailed friendlessness, a life among wolves:
Wineleas, wonslig mon/genime him wulfas to geferan,//felafcne
deor (A friendless, miserable man takes wolves for companions, quite
treacherous beasts, 146a7a).168 In the wisdom context appropriate
to a yle, Beowulf s taunt wine min Hunfer expresses the breach
of a social taboo, that betrayals of friendship were offenses against the
honor of the comitatus. Perhaps the old fathers advice (in Precepts)
that his son be neither too reproachful nor too doubting (Ne beo
u no to tlende,/ne to tweosprce, 90ab) contextualizes Hunfers
exchange with Beowulf.169 However appropriate this maxim might be,
in the Beowulf passage cited above Beowulf blames drunkenness for
Hunfers breach of etiquette.

167
168
169

Larrington 2935; 527.

Poetry and the Historian 91.
On mockery in Hvaml, see Larrington 289.

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

113

Beowulf s Competition with Breca

The insults that Beowulf directs at Hunfer deflect the problem that
Hunfers challenge seems entirely creditable, the argument of wisdom
against folly.170 Some considerable dispute has centered on whether
Beowulf and Breca row or swim, but swimming is almost certainly
intended.171 In a recent article of extraordinary importance, R. D.
Fulk has offered convincing evidence against the rowing hypothesis:
first, the expression earmum ehton would not describe rowing;172
second, boats are never mentioned, even when Beowulf is later said
to be in the water; third, analogous swimming matches abound in
Scandinavian sources.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, as lines 541b3b seem to
portend.174 Although Nelles thinks the Breca contest involved boats,
his emphasis on endurance strikes me as the right deductionwhen
applied to swimming. Apparently taking Brecas side in the matter,
Hunfer establishes uncertainty about Beowulf s success, but he also
criticizes Beowulf s overconfidence, susceptible to any rash challenge.
170
Gingher 19 note 1: It is possible, of course, that Unferths remarks . . . are perfectly true and that Beowulf indeed failed in the swimming [sic] contest. See, more
recently, Nagy 21.
171
The boating argument has a clear critical pedigree: Robinson, Elements of the
Marvellous; Wentersdorf; Earl, Rowing Match; Frank, Sea Changes; Nelles 3023.
R. D. Fulk has lately proposed what has to be the final word on the semantics of OE
sund, that it means natation, later developing the sense sea (Semantic Space).
172
Since OE eccan means cover, wrap, embrace, he proposed that ones arms
would embrace the eagorstream (sea-current) in swimming more likely than in
rowing (Semantic Space 461). I disagree with his analysis of the variand: mundum
bregdan, he avers, does not mean pulled quickly with your hands . . . and the parallel
arum bregda . . . rather damages the case for rowing than supports it, for as the Dictionary
of Old English suggests, if arum bregdan means move (across water) by means of oars, that
is, row, then mundum bregdan ought to mean move (across water) by means of hands,
or swim. The primary sense of OE bregdan is indeed pull (>MnE braid), so the
meaning is precise: pull with hands, an action that could describe rowing.
173
The remarks by Geoffrey R. Russom (Germanic Concept), that swimming
skill was often contested among nobles, may contextualize the Breca incident; see also
Jorgensen, Fulk, Semantic Space 463 note 20. To these positions I would also add
that boating seems tame as a competition, which seems to have entailed endurance,
not racing.
174
Beowulf s phrase no ic fram him wolde (not at all did I want [to float; fleotan, 542b] from him, 543b) suggests the endurance scenario. I cannot agree with
Nelless interesting conjecture that Breca drowns, because it is highly important that the
victory be disputed, a point Beowulf makes when he says, so ic talige (I maintain
the truth, 532b). Nelles argument is quite close to the proposition by Wentersdorf.

114

chapter one

He says the venture resulted from a stupid boast (dolgilpe, 509a)

made out of recklessness (wlence, 508a) and abetted by stubbornness (510b12b).175 Hunfer remarks explicitly that both youths made
a sorhfullne si, best translated as a venture that brings sorrow.176
The Beowulf poet uses the expression sorhfullne si consistently to
represent deeds likely to end in death. Grendels mother undertakes
such a sorrowful venture, and the water-monsters at Grendels mere
are said to enter on sorrowful ventures (against sailors, presumably).177 Hunfer makes the incident sound insane by stressing the
rushing current, open water, and winter weather. Neither Beowulf s
friends nor enemies could dissuade him from the challenge (511ab), a
point similar to that made by Hygelac about the Grendel expedition.
Yet Hunfer also criticizes Breca for recklessness, an inimical trait for
kings. He grants Breca secular responsibilities by emphasizing Brecas
triumphant return to the fair peaceful fortress where he ruled a nation,
his fortification, and treasury:
onon he gesohte
swsne eel,
leof his leodum,
lond Brondinga,
freooburh fgere,
r he folc ahte,
burh ond beagas. (520a3a)
Whence he sought his cherished homeland, land of the Brondings, the man
dear to his people, his fair peaceful fortress where he ruled a nation, his
fortification, and his treasury.

Brecas kingship is independently confirmed in Widsi 25a: Breoca

[weold] Brondingum (Breca ruled the Brondings). Significantly,
Heremod himself neglected precisely these symbols of responsibility:

175
Norman E. Eliason proposed that dolsceaa (foolish combatant) in 479a can refer
to Hrogars men rather than Grendel (Beowulf Notes 4467). He supplies a context
for God eae mg//one dolscaan/dda getwfan! (478b9b): The men, primed
with beer, would boast about what they would do to Grendel, but in the morning they
would be dead (446). OE dolgilp may be derogative in just this way.
176
Paul Beekman Taylor, Themes of Death 2614, esp. 262: . . . the inclusion of
Breca in the charge ( git) implies that the journey was indeed sorrowful because it was a
futile, silly, and vain exploit, characteristic of headstrong but foolish boys. Taylor suggests that because the nicors suffer death, Beowulf s reply to Unferth twists the latters
terms of abuse into descriptions of his own heroic deeds (263). I think, rather, that
sorhfull si describes any venture likely to end in death. Taylor identifies the expression
as a type E whole-verse formula (261) which the Beowulf poet alone uses.
177
Klaeber, Beowulf, lines 1278a (of Grendels mothers attack on Heorot), 1429a (of
the water-monsters at Grendels mere), 2119a (siode sorhfull: of Grendels mother,
as narrated by Beowulf to Hygelac).

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

115

scolde . . . // . . . folc gehealdan/hord ond hleoburh . . . (He should

have ruled his nation, treasury and defensive fortress, 910b12a).178
The accusation calls into question Beowulf s responsibility, present and
future. Hunfers message is twofold. First, Beowulf risked his life on
a stunt that should have brought disaster to himself and his companion. Had Breca died, his people could have suffered the fyrenearf
(describing the lack of a ruler) bemoaned by the Danes at the opening
of Beowulf. Second, Beowulf lost to Breca and failed to live up to his
boast that he could last longer at natation. Hunfer implies that the
Geats may lose Beowulf this time for swearing, yet again, to undertake
a mad escapade.
We are meant to infer that Hunfers jealousy may have affected his
judgment, and Beowulf certainly implies that Hunfer misjudges him.
In fact, Beowulf s admission that his act was youthful bravado (on
geogufeore, 537a), that his war-gear saved his life in the Breca match,
and that it was granted that he slew his foes sounds much like the
humility he expressed towards the coast-guard. 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
deflects Hunfers trenchant criticism. Hunfer has charged Beowulf
with reckless boasting, but Beowulf defends his masterful sword-play:
Breca nfre git//at heaolace . . . // swa deorlice/dd gefremede//
fagum sweordum (Breca has never yet in battle done such a bold
deed with shining sword, 583b6a). Beowulf established this rhetorical
misdirection by observing that he and Breca held naked swords (539a),
and therefore their competition involved defense against predators
(540b1a). But while Beowulf s sword-play may guarantee his readiness
and confirm his ability, his motivation for wlence and his victory
against Breca stand unresolved.
Of course, we now credit Beowulf s conviction, which Hrogar applauds.
Many have been misled by Hrogars response to Beowulf s put-down,
but the narrators precision should give pause: the old king heard in
Beowulf a firm intention (gehyrde on Beowulfe . . . // fstrdne
geoht, 609b10b), an example of linguistic implicature (on
Beowulfe) that subtly features what else was heard but not attended.179

Bazelmans 134.
Perhaps this passage may be elucidated by remarks made in Shippey, Principles
of Conversation 11112.
178
179

116

chapter one

The verb hyran almost certainly expresses just this kind of intuition in
Old English. The coast-warden hears that Beowulf is loyal, just as
Hrogar hears in Beowulf s invective a firm intent. Had Beowulf
stopped with his vindication, the ambiguity of his confidence would
not raise as many suspicions in the flyting or verbal debate context.
But he goes on to demean Hunfer in the way I outlined above, and
his rebuke sounds too defensive. Although many have praised Beowulf
for winning this dispute with Hunfer, the attack seems excessive, and
excessively vicious. In fact, the flyting context so often invoked for the
Hunfer interlude presupposes Beowulf s susceptibility to wlenco.
The Wisdom Context of the Hunfer Digression:
A New Theory of Flyting Rhetoric
Critical approbation for Beowulf s victorious response in the Hunfer
dispute has done away with an equivocation implicit in the flytings or
verbal debates attested in Old Icelandic sagas and Eddic verse.180 As
I have been emphasizing all along, Beowulf represents an ambivalent
figure: either a man like a wrecca prone to arrogance and recklessness,
or a warrior of surpassing virtue who has recognized the limitations of
his strength, which he does not exceed. Individual characters contribute assessments of each potential, but none is validated. As we have
seen, Hunfers insecurity conditions his own appraisal, and Beowulf s
put-down could be thought to affirm the warrior virtues of courage,
wisdom, amity, etc. that Beowulf claims for himself. At the same time,
Beowulf s victory in the flyting limits any confidence we might have
in his virtue. It may be true that Beowulf s defense of the swimming
contest with Breca and his protest of Hunfers acrimony vindicate
Hrogars judgment. Many have thought so, and substantial evidence
supports their intuition. Yet the poet has also engineered an opposing
position in the context of the Germanic flyting, which does not disprove,
but rather complicates, Beowulf s righteousness.

180
Peter Baker claims, here the insults seem quite in order, 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.). On the flyting, consult Lnnroth, De Dubbla Scenen 5380;
Harris, The Senna.

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

117

In an impressively perceptive paper Carol Clover once alleged that

the Hunfer episode impersonated the Norse mannjafnar or mancomparison, a quarrel over the heroic qualities of two combatants.181
The flytings could be described as ritualized abuse. While scathingly
contemptuous, the flyting still incorporates a sophisticated sarcasm
that generates deep humiliation, an objective it shares with the OIcel
n. I will suggest, however, that the flyting more subtly exploits moral
ambivalences to generate shame, and reveal how flyting discourse misrepresents truth. The flyting form has multiple variations, but many
follow a broad pattern in which one participant accuses the other of
dishonor, figured as cowardice, malingering, or infamy, versus honor,
identified as action (fighting and winning, in other words). Clover
maintains that boasts have to do with manly virtues: defeat of mighty
adversaries, participation in military campaigns, victory in contests of
strength, and rape.182 She reiterates this very same symptom only a few
pages later: Travel and adventure are otherwise unanimously favored
over domestic pastimes.183 And she noted the identical emphasis in
an earlier article on Hrbarslj: . . . the general bias . . . consistently
and unambiguously favors martial heroism over all other activities.184
It could be said that the flyting typically justifies violence. Even from
a native perspective, then, the flyting winner is often the dogmatic
troublemaker, the Odinic warrior capable of the greatest violence or
most reckless deeds.
Within the prevailing opposition of action-versus-passivity exemplified here, Clover summarizes the flyting contestants rhetorical skill and
delineates three categories of insult:
Inferior contestants (rr, Byggvir, Grep, and Sinfjtli) tend to be random and excessive in their remarks, while the first-rate performances
of feigr, Hrbarr, Ericus Disertus, and Skarpheinn are carefully
proportioned, use classical rhetorical techniques, and build on a few
standard oppositions: action vs. talk, hard life vs. soft life, adventurer vs.
stay-at-home.185

181
Clover, Unfer Episode 463; she sides with Lnnroth against Harris, who
classified the episode as a senna. In 1978 Geoffrey R. Russom proposed that the flyting between Hunfer and Beowulf was a device the poet used to highlight Beowulf s
abilities (Germanic Concept, 1113).
182
Clover, Unfer Episode 453.
183
Ibid. 456.
184
Clover, Hrbarslj 129.
185
Clover, Hunfer Episode 454.

118

chapter one

Within these distinctions, action vs. talk, hard life vs. soft life, adventurer
vs. stay-at-home, specific accusations can include acts of cowardice
(deserting a battle), heroic failure (losing a battle), trivial or irresponsible
behavior (pointless escapades, domestic indulgences, sexual dalliance),
failings of honor (unwillingness or inability to extract due vengeance,
hostile relations with kinsmen).186 The flyting combatants commonly
denigrate each others position: the adventurer accuses the shiftless
layabout of being a jeering coward. By contrast the hall-dragger
puffs up his own deeds, and attacks his opponents self-proclaimed prowess. A passage from rvar-Odds Saga perfectly documents this most basic
opposition between passivity (i.e. hall-dragging) and action. Oddr
interprets King Sigurrs rule as malingering and craven:
Sigurr, vart eigi,
er Slundi felldak
brr bhara,
Brand ok Agnar,
smund, Ingjald,
lfr var inn fimmti;
en heimi ltt
hll konungs,
skrkmlasamr,
skau hernumin.

Sigurr, you werent there

on Zealand when I felled
the battle-hard brothers
Brandr and Agnarr,
smundr and Ingjaldr,
and lfr was the fifth;
you were lying at home
in the kings hall,
full of tall stories,
a captive gelding.187

In many examples of the flyting such as this one, honor conceived

as campaigning vanquishes cowardice construed as shiftlessness,
even when action is reckless or unjustified, or when cowardice (so
named) should be espoused as a social good, the kind of cautious or
conscientious behavior that might arguably derive from wisdom. One
could conclude that accusations of shiftlessness come from murderous
adventurers, who enact strife, re-open settled feuds, and trade peace
for glory.
Underappreciated in Clovers study is the type of combatant engaged
in such flytings. He is often belligerent, malicious, and doctrinaire. As
treated in Lokasenna the rebellious Loki clearly has the last laugh,
even though rr chases him out of the hall where he has managed
to insult nearly every god and goddess. His vituperations certainly lack
delicacy:
Ibid. 453.
This is Clovers translation, but the term skau (as she explains, p. 457 note 39)
is far more ribald than gelding suggests.
186
187

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

119

egi , Njrr!
vart austr hean
gls um sendr at goom;
Hymis meyiar
hfo ic at hlandtrogi
oc r munn migo.188
Hush now, Njrr! You were sent by the gods as a hostage east of this
place. Hymirs maidens used you like a urinal, and pissed in your mouth.

By no means could Lokis insults be justified by his own moral conviction (Njr, in fact, fathered the beloved god Freyr in captivity), but he
is the clear victor in the verbal debate. So, too, is inn, the flyting
champion in Hrbarslj, but his verbal duel with rr compares
escapades of ever-escalating rapacity, alleviated by touches of toilet
humor:
rr afl rit,
enn ecci hiarta;
af hrzlo oc hugbleyi
r var hanzca troit,
oc ttisca rr vera;
hvrki orir
fyr hrzlo inni
hnisa n fsa,
sv at Fialarr heyri.189
Thor is powerful but not brave: out of terror and fear you squeezed yourself into a glove, and none would have thought you were Thor then.
Because of your terror you did not dare sneeze or fart lest Fjalar hear you.

Hrbarr (inn) takes pride in his own assaults, seductions, and verbal
abuse! This is no contest between gentlemen but a way of establishing
superior ferocity between competitors.
Having laid out the taxonomy of flytings, Clover professed that they
argue interpretations, not facts:190
Far from being unfounded taunts, flyting charges are, at least in the
hands of the chief practitioners, deadly accurate: the art of the boast lies
in creating, within the limitations of the facts, the best possible version of
the event; and the art of the insult lies in creating, within the limitations
of the facts, the worst possible version of the event.191

Clovers multiple examples convey her sense of these competing

versions. One stay-at-home who actually wins a contest with an
adventurer is the patently Christian King Eysteinn in Magnssona

188
189
190
191

Neckel and Kuhn 103 (str. 34).

Ibid. 82 (str. 26).
Clover, Unfer Episode 458.
Ibid. 459.

120

chapter one

Saga from Heimskringla.192 King Sigurr denounces his brother King

Eysteinn as a hall-dragger: at hefir verit ml manna, at fer s,
er ek fr r landi, vri heldr hfinglig, en sazt heima mean sem
dttir fur ns (It is commonly thought that my expedition abroad
was rather princely, while you in the meantime sat at home like your
fathers daughter).193 Sigurr harps on his valor again, Clover clarifies,
when he boasts about his travels and conquests in the Holy Land.194
Yet Sigurrs brother Eysteinn has a crushing reply: he stayed home
to govern the nation while his brother globe-trotted: [I] built hospices, churches, roads, harbors, towers, beacons, a royal hall, founded
a monastery and annexed Jmtland.195 Clover deduces, Eysteinn
challenges not the substance of Sigurrs boast . . . but its significance or
practical value. It is not, in other words, a question of factual true and
false but of moral plus and minus.196 She goes on to observe how the
flyting in general establishes moral character: If the flyting refers to
actual events or behavior, it constitutes a major and serious plot event
in which the moral character of the participants is at stake.197 While
shrewd, Clovers argument about fact and interpretation (voiced in
terms like significance or practical value) dislocates key ambivalences
in the flyting genre.
The moral plus and minus that Clover observes in the flyting,
I sense, reflects her view of the ethical valence of each participants
behavior. Is it morally superior to campaign or build churches? For
Clover, each flyting competitor tries to show that his opponents factually true event is somehow immoral, weak, or pointless. This is the
interpretation that Clover claims for the flyting, and she furnishes
an example from Magnssona Saga which epitomizes both the method
and the rhetoric.198 King Eysteinn claims to have more knowledge of
the law, but his brother Sigurr says that he only knows more legal
tricks and that his smooth but empty words only flatter those around
him.199 A problem with Clovers perspective is her insistence that the
opponents concede that the facts are true, when, on the contrary,
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199

Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.

4557.
456.
459.
457.
458.
4589.

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

121

the facts are actually distorted to create the flyting accusations. The
foregoing claim and counterclaim exemplify the method. The brothers
debate the fact of Eysteinns knowledge of the law. For Clover, Sigurr
acknowledges his brothers expertise but alleges that Eysteinn uses it
maliciously. In just this way Clover imagines that the art of the insult
lies in creating, within the limitations of the facts, the worst possible
version of the event.200 Yet this view cannot be true, at least in these
terms. In this case Sigurr actually challenges fact when he argues
against Eysteinns legal proficiency. Far from conceding the fact of
Eysteinns competence, he argues a different kind of interpretation,
that Eysteinns self-proclaimed skill is mere trickery, idle words and
false promises made to sycophants. This aspect of the flytingthat the
facts are distorted to suit the claimscan actually be proved from
other flytings that Clover analyzes, even when the flyting combatant
does not typically refute the alleged slander.
Clover classified Skarpheinns flyting from Njls Saga as a first-rate
performance of the adventurer vs. stay-at-home type. The Njlssons
seek allies to defend a charge for the killing of Hskuldr Hvtanessgoi,
whose unjustified murder ends up causing cataclysmic violence. At the
Aling Skarpheinn travels from booth to booth and seeks support from
various chieftains for his unpopular case. Each potential ally observes
Skarpheinns obvious doom, his monstrosity and his ugly face, as
Skafti Thorodsson: Hverr er s mar . . . er fjrir menn ganga fyrri,
mikill mar ok flleitr ok gfusamligr, harligr ok trllsligr?201 Few
could doubt that Skarpheinn has become more troll than human,
a victim of his own unnatural truculence and cold tenacity.202 When
turned down in his demands for assistance, Skarpheinn slanders his
prospective allies in the Norse equivalent of a flyting. He accuses Skafti
orodsson of cowardice for escaping his enemies by hiding in flour-sacks,
among other dodges. Of this moment Clover writes, Skarpheinns
charges at the Aling are not denied; they are acknowledged, one after

Ibid. 459.
Sveinsson, Brennu-Njls Saga 298: Who is that man, the fifth one in the line,
huge, pale-looking, luckless, cruel, and troll-like?
202
The malicious grin that Skarpheinn sports is a feature of trolls and giantsthe
literary ancestry of Beowulf, Grettir, and Starkar; cf. Low 102: . . . in OI glott [trans.
grin] there is none of the warmth of shared amusement; the tone is one of contempt for fools not suffered; 106: His grin is a blatantly brazen, inappropriate facial
expression for a man who is soliciting support for a bad murder; ibid.: consummate
defiance.
200

201

122

chapter one

the other, tacitly or directly, by the men in question.203 In fact, an

examination of Skarpheinns charges shows how the flyting actually
exploits ambiguities of fact disguised as truth.
The circumstances backing the insult directed at Skapti cannot be
confirmed in extant sources, but they can be in one other gibe. Skarpheinn alleges Snorri rgrimssons moral and physical weakness in
failing to avenge his fatherpresumably a failing of honor in Clovers
scheme. Snorris answer acknowledges the fact, but he asserts without any shame that taunts cannot move him: Margir hafa at mlt
r . . . ok mun ek ekki vi slku reiask.204 Skarpheinns charge reveals
his own disgraceful intemperance, for Gslis Saga documents that Snorris
maternal uncle killed Snorris father.205 Snorris revenge would be highly
objectionable, since he would have to murder a man whose relationship to him was, in Germanic societies, as close as that of father. The
imprecision of fact yields the opposing positions that define the flyting.
While it is a true fact that Snorri has not avenged his father, what
goes unstated is that such vengeance would be obscene and therefore
impossible. The flyting generally hinges on such equivocal facts that
contravene expectations for action. This delicate equivocacy misled
Clover into thinking that accusations had to be true, when they
really amplify half-truths, the difference between having legal skill or
exploiting a technicality. 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, in Snorris case.
How could one doubt this scepticism for the Anglo-Saxons, who held
that so bi swicolost or truth is most deceptive?206 The interpretation imputed to the flyting does not therefore derive from the absolute
morality of an opponents deeds but from the humiliating indecency
one contrives in exploiting their moral ambiguity. This position will
become clear when I turn to the Hunfer digression.
Skarpheinns flyting at the Aling reveals yet even more about the
flyting combatants in the context of action versus passivity. Although
Unfer Episode 458.
Sveinsson, Brennu-Njls Saga 300: Men have said that before, and I am not
angered by such things.
205
Benedikt Sveinsson, Saga Gsla Srssonar 346 (chapter 16); in fact, orgrmr had
murdered Vsteinn in an act called launvg or secret manslaughter, which complicates Snorris vengeance. What is more, Snorri was born after his fathers death:
the only father he knew was Brkr.
206
See Robinson, Old English Wisdom Verse. From the context Robinson conceives of this maxim as demonstrating the corruption of lucre.
203

204

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

123

maligned, Snorri and men like him are universally esteemed for their
tact and diplomacy, as Theodore M. Andersson has elucidated in a
study of honor in the family sagas:
. . . the most illustrious and successful diplomat in the sagas is Snorri
goi . . . Snorri is no gallant viking nor a memorable hero but a skilled
tactician . . . His greatness rests on keen judgment and a willingness to compromise, not on a jealous disputing of honor . . . I fail to find any evidence
that the Odyssean Snorri was less highly regarded than his more Achillean
compatriots, rather the contrary . . . I believe that anyone wishing to prove
that the mild-mannered man is more highly esteemed in the sagas than
the jafnaarmar [?arrogant man] would have little difficulty.207

In this episode of Njls Saga one could not say that the just cause
belongs to the flyting winner, an imprudent troll who urges men to
violence even in the most compromising circumstances. The chieftains
detect Skarpheinns luckless imprudence, and Njll himself only supports his sons because it would dishonor him not to. Yet in Clovers
scheme, Skarpheinns wins the debate by silencing his opponent.
Victory in this flyting, I would argue, does not prove virtue. It does
prove a jealous disputing of honor, in Anderssons terms. Moreover,
Skarpheinns aim to uphold a contemptible murder shows just how
dishonorable the flyting champion can be, and in Njla this sort of reckless courage opposes Njlls own sagacity. Njll frequently counsels
restraint and negotiation, and while maligned for being epicene, the
sagaman admires his discretion and condemns Skarpheinns heroic
temerity. Even though Njls Saga is late in the literary tradition relative
to Beowulf, and culturally distant, it highlights a dominant Germanic
opposition between passivity and action. The moral valence of this
opposition complicates Beowulf s response to Hunfer. While motivated by jealousy, Hunfer yet suggests with authority that the Breca
incident proves Beowulf s recklessness in fighting Grendel. Beowulf,
however, answers that the incident validated his swordsmanship. By
Anglo-Saxon standards of warrior virtuewisdom and warwhich of
them offers a moral position?
Clover points to Skarpheinns flyting when she highlights the
opposition between Beowulf the adventurer (sword-wielder, warrior)
and Unfer the hall-dragger, coward, and yle.208 Yet I have alleged
that Hunfer is neither a hall-dragger nor a coward but a man who

207
208

Displacement 5812.
Clover, Unfer Episode 463.

124

chapter one

has realistically assessed his chances against Grendel, like many other
Danes. The poet himself mentions that the Danes trusted (treowde,
1166b) Hunfers fighting spirit (ferhe, ibid.) and judged that he
had great courage (mod micel, 1167a). Furthermore, because the
poet confirms that swords cannot harm Grendel, Beowulf s insinuation of Danish cowardice seems insensitive. What good can anyone do
against this foe? While Beowulf has been said to win this debate,209
it has not been thought that winning could imply intemperance, as in
the case of Skarpheinn. Hunfer expresses annoyance at Beowulf s
presumption, and the Breca episode perfectly articulates his criticism:
the Breca duel was frivolous, a sorhfullne si made for wlence. Is
the duel with Grendel any different?
Having made this point, I want to re-open the way Hunfers challenge should be interpreted as a flyting, which, according to Ward
Parks, centers on the courage and capacities essential to the fulfillment
of such commitments as boasts or vows.210 Nearly two decades ago
Roberta Frank adopted Clovers approach to the flyting and suggested
that Hunfer denigrated Beowulf s match with Breca by exploiting
an ambiguity in the meaning of OE sund, either swimming or sea
(>MnE sound), meanings derivative of its originary sense natation.
With characteristic ingenuity, Frank proposes, the quarrelsome thyle
would have been delighted at the controversy he initiated, especially if
he had deliberately created a gap of indeterminacy by employing sund
in both its poetic and prose senses simultaneously, keeping a handle on
the truth while insinuating something quite different.211 In other words,
Hunfer appears to mean swimming when he remarks that Beowulf
ymb sund flite (contended around the sea, 507b).212 Supplemental
to this ambiguity is Franks charge that Hunfer depicts rowing as
swimming. When Hunfer says that Beowulf and Breca thatched the
sea-streams with their arms, measured the ocean-streets, pulled with
limbs, glided over the main, he hopes to ridicule their adolescent
exertion at the oars in terms suitable to poodles paddling furiously in

Greenfield, Interpretation of Old English Poems 1301; Polanyi; Silber, Rhetorical

Powers; Bjork, Speech as Gift.
210
Verbal Dueling 47.
211
Sea Changes 160.
212
Franks translation, ibid.; yet Fulks implicit reading competed at natation makes
better sense (Semantic Space 4656).
209

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

125

a pond.213 Antecedent to the accusation stated above, Hunfer admits,

git on sund reon (you two rowed on the sea), where OE sund is
not likely to mean swimming, since OE reon never has the sense to
swim outside of Beowulf.214 In fact, OE reon can only mean swim in
Beowulf if we accept the premeditated ambiguity that Frank senses in the
passage. What is more, Beowulf himself admits that he rowed in the
ocean (wit on sund reon, 539b). In Franks terms, however, OE reon
does mean row in the context of 512b, and she goes on to remark,
the progression in Unferths speech from rowing to covering with arms,
spanning, flinging hands, and gliding is a movement from specificity
to ambiguity, from the real to the disguised.215 In other words, what
starts out as rowing sounds much like swimming by the end.
While rowing might strike anyone as obvious in the context, the
ambiguity of OE sund as swimming or sea has only recently been
resolved. R. D. Fulk has argued that sund means natation, and
could apply as much to swimming as to rowing.216 This research has
important ramifications for the Hunfer episode because it resolves a
tension of the flyting. Influenced by Clovers formulation of the flyting,
Frank was led to imagine that Hunfers ridicule would have to discredit the Breca feat itself as somehow morally deficient. Hence, Frank
thought Hunfer depicted Beowulf as a poodle, the interpretation
of his drama as mere dog-paddling and therefore spurious proof of
success against Grendel. In other words, Beowulf at least engaged in a
feat against Breca, but it fails to impress. 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.217 For
Parks, Beowulf and Hunfer dispute the facts: The Beowulf-Unferth
exchange, he says, devotes much of its bulk to the rival versions of a
particular episode in Beowulf s career . . . on which each flyter imposes

Sea Changes 161. The text in Klaebers Beowulf reads:

r git eagorstream
earmum ehton,
mton merestrta,
mundum brugdon,
glidon ofer garsecg. (513a15a)
214
Frank, Sea Changes 160; Nelles 301.
215
Sea Changes 161.
216
Semantic Space.
217
Verbal Dueling 49 (my emph.).
213

126

chapter one

his own interpretative bias.218 In a footnote to this quotation Parks

elaborates: Specifically, Unferth wishes to characterize the adventure
as a contest, whereas Beowulf does not.219 By this reading, Hunfer
accuses Beowulf of losing a match, but Beowulf denies that there was
any match to be lost. Parks resolution to the Breca incident may be
idiosyncratic, but it correctly re-orients the flyting debate to a clarification of half-truths, and away from an interpretation of facts.
This way of reading the Hunfer digression dominated until Clovers
paper was published.
According to the argument I made above, the flyting distorts the
truth, its moral equivocation lying in a coy misdirection. In fact, Hunfer
exploits two ambiguities, both of which Beowulf immediately refutes. In
the first, he makes Beowulf appear reckless, a charge answered when
Beowulf confesses that he was immature, still acting from youthful
insouciance when he defied Breca (537a). Some in the Danish audience might not have gathered this detail from Hunfers accusation.
A second ambiguity in the Hunfer digression pertains to the contest
itself, the essence of Hunfers accusation, Beot eal wi e//sunu
Beanstanes/soe gelste (Beanstans son truly fulfilled his entire
boast against you, 523b4b). Breca lasted seven nights on the waves
(517a) and won the competition. What goes unregistered in Hunfers
accusation is the fierce storm that drove Breca and Beowulf apart on
the fifth day. Beowulf admits that he lost the contest because of this
storm and its effects in stirring up water monstersnot because of any
failure of strength or will. These extenuating conditions answer my definition of the flyting as an exploitation of a circumstantial ambiguity.220
Yes, Beowulf lost to Breca, but why he lost necessitated the defenses he
just supplied. Important to this debate is the lack of resolution in the
charges. Although claiming to have battled water-monsters, Beowulf
is still publicly untested against a human adversary, and his assertion
that he was spirited in his youth hardly dispels Hunfers charge of
recklessness in the Grendel confrontation. In concession to the poets
218
Ibid. 107. My reading of Parks implicit position actually derives from arguments
made in his book. His wording (rival versions of a particular episode . . . interpretative
bias) discloses his misunderstanding of Clovers argument regarding interpretation.
For this reading, see Harris, Senna 68: disingenuous characterization . . . Beowulf
denies it with a correct version of the story.
219
Verbal Dueling 205 note 20.
220
On this straightforward reading, see Kuhn, Life of Beowulf 109; John M. Hill,
Hrothgars Noble Rule 1723.

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

127

liminal heroism, accusations of overconfidence have been made, but

none unconditionally discounted.
The opposition between Beowulf and Hunfer reflects that between
two parties in a stay-at-home vs. adventurer flyting. Given the exaggeration that characterizes such exchanges, why should Beowulf s
accusation that Hunfer slew his brothers be any more valid than
Hunfers accusation of Beowulf s loss to Breca? Calling attention to
the fratricide theme in Beowulf, critics appear certain that Hunfer killed
his own brothers, as Beowulf accuses: u inum brorum/to banan
wurde (you were murderer to your brothers, 587ab).221 The poets
confirmation of Hunfers jealousy makes the hypothesis even more
attractive, as I have stated. Yet Beowulf s accusation sounds much
like the insult Skarpheinn leveled at Snorri. While the circumstances
alluded to in this insult are never confirmed, the narrator remarks
vaguely, he [Hunfer] his magum nre//arfst t ecga gelacum
(he was not dutiful/honorable to his kinsmen in battle, 1167b68a).
These terms convey why Beowulf used the expression to banan wurde,
with OE to marking the position occupied, the purpose fulfilled by an
object, to, as, for.222 In this sense, OE to is often translated as expressing certitude: you were your brothers slayer. But the simile could
be expressed, in this case at least, as circumstantial: you acted like
a slayer to your brothers. Beowulf s accusation of cowardice would
therefore reflect a distortion of the factsa reading, however, that
Clover discounts in concession to her premise that flyting charges
are . . . deadly accurate:223
Recourse to the Norse context brings into sharper relief Beowulf s charge
of fratricide, long the subject of scholarly questions. Kinship crimes, we
have shown, form a major theme in the genre, and it is a rare flyting
that does not exhibit at least one such accusation. It may furthermore
be concluded by extrapolation from documentable examples that such
insults tend as a group to be truetrue at least with respect to received
tradition. The duplicate charge in [Helgaqvia Hundingsbana I] ([
hefir] num brr/at bana orit) is verified elsewhere. The Norse
sources thus appear to substantiate Unfers fratricide, and there is no
reason not to take the Beowulf poet at face value when he later says that
Unfer was not honorable to his kinsmen at sword play . . .224

221
222
223
224

On this possibility, see Morey 3942.

Bosworth and Toller, OED, s.v. t sense I.5 (f ) (991).
Clover, Unfer Episode 459.
Ibid. 463.

128

chapter one

This claim is misleading. Gumundrs remark, hefir . . . brr nom/

at bana orit225 accuses Sinfjtli of murdering his (Sinfjtlis) brothers.
In fact, Sinfjtli killed his half-brothers, who are also his nephews (via
the incestuous relationship with Signy), and sons of his mortal enemy,
Siggeir. In Vlsunga Saga Sign brings the boys to Sinfjtli, and commands their deaths in vengeance for the treacherous capture, torture,
and murder of Sinfjtlis other half-brothers, Sigmunds sons, at Siggeirs
hands. By these terms, Gumundrs accusation obviously capitalizes
on a notable ambiguity in the Volsung revenge. But while Sinfjtlis
killings are indeed true facts, they are ameliorated, if not sanctioned,
in the context of the most celebrated retaliation in Germanic legend.
In just this way Beowulf s own accusation against Hunfer might be
distorted.
Others have been tempted to think so, too, but most critics, like
Clover, have been beguiled by granting Beowulf s virtue as the winner of the debate. If Beowulf were the hero, as they imagine, how
could he trounce his opponent with half-truths? Yet the Beowulf poet
excuses Hunfer by praising his fighting spirit and by referring to his
murders in such conscientious terms. Appreciating the poets ostensible tact, W. W. Lawrence and J. D. A. Ogilvy reasoned that Hunfer
killed his brothers by failing to help them in a crisis.226 This strikes
me as the obvious solution but not the only one. Even if Hunfer had
killed his brothers, kinslaying might [serve] the purposes of the commonwealth, as Nagy proposes,227 or, as Chambers advocates, might
reflect the tragic complexities of heroic life.228 Or had Hunfers
brothers simply undertaken a campaign that he wanted no part in?
Certainly the best parallel to this alleged murder comes from Beowulf
itself, where Hcyn accidentally murdered his brother Herebeald.229
By no means am I trying to pardon Hunfers jibe, which I understand
to reflect both jealousy and wisdom. I simply contend that Beowulf s
victory in the flyting does not prove Hunfer morally bankrupt. Nor
does it prove Beowulf morally virtuous, and it may even signify just
the opposite. While Hunfers charge of Beowulf s failure in the Breca
225
Neckel and Kuhn 135 (str. 36); this Norse expression parallels Beowulf s formulation.
226
Lawrence, Breca Episode; Ogilvy 3705. This reading contextualizes Beowulf s
quip, wine min Hunfer, which criticizes a man who has failed friends and kinsmen.
227
Nagy 25.
228
Beowulf 28.
229
Discussed below, pp. 25960.

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

129

episode appears discredited,230 the implicit accusation of recklessness

goes unresolved. Having perfected the art of the insult, Beowulf
now belongs to the rank of men like Skarpheinn, feigr, and the god
inn, who value action at all costs.
Potential Recklessness and the Apprehension of the Warband
Hunfers accusation against Beowulf has seemed mean-spirited
to many, but it highlights a common anxiety of the warband. Very
recently, Michael J. Enright has challenged views of a negative Hunfer
by alleging that the yle holds an important warband position as the
kings official spokesman.231 Enrights best parallels emerge from Irish
sources, and it is uncanny to observe how similar such military offices
can be in heroic societies. One of Enrights significant contributions has
been to formulate a realistic picture of warband behavior, so much
of which has been idealized out of existence. Following his lament that
the warband context is still much neglected, he naturally opines,
Scholars rarely question the practical organizational requirements of
such a group in gritty reality, 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, security-conscious, predatory military
organization to which they belong.232

In this aspect of his work, Enright follows the lead of John M. Hill,
whose books The Cultural World in Beowulf and The Anglo-Saxon Warrior
Ethic offer a detailed psychological portrait of comitatus membership.
The gritty reality that Enright speaks of in this context refers to his
own view of Hunfer as Hrogars adjutant, 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.
Scholarship in much of the last century backs Enrights view of a
vertical relationship between king and retainers. The king, that is,
dictates to his retinue, which owes allegiance in exchange for status
and material wealth. This hierarchical relationship could resemble the

230
231
232

Nagy 23.
Warband Context 310.
Ibid. 299.

130

chapter one

modern military establishment that Enright evokes when he speaks of

sergeant, sergeant-at-arms, and morale officer.233 If this hierarchy
were as rigid as that of the modern military, Hunfer could only act
as Hrogars spokesman when he tests Beowulf s resolve with his challenge. Correspondingly, Hunfer would have a legitimate obligation
for later making amends with Beowulf by loaning him a famous sword.
Most problematic, however, is the poets statement that Hunfer gave
up his honor by loaning the sword Hrunting: r he dome forleas//
ellenmrum (he lost glory, reputation for courage, 1470b71a). One
cannot imagine Hrogar condoning this humiliation. Another view of
Hunfers behavior is possible, if we surmise that within the military
hierarchy of Beowulf some latitude was granted to senior members of
the comitatus. The case has been made quite cogently by Stephen S.
Evans, who calls attention to the advice Hrogar receives from counselors in lines 1714, to Wulfgars laconic demand that Beowulf be
heard, and to Beowulf s presentation of his pledge to confront Grendel
(rd, 278b).234
My argument need not imply that an independent Hunfer capable
of confronting Beowulf on his own jeopardizes Hrogars authority,
nor does it suggest the warband had a horizontal relationship with
the king. A horizontal relationship would mean that the king and
retinue are co-dependent, issuing joint decisions and policies. Such a
social institution sounds much less like a modern military organization.
It goes too far to allege that a horizontal relationship best fits the
context of Beowulf, but a sympathetic conception of co-dependence
could explain why Hunfer challenges Beowulf. Admittedly jealous,
Hunfer speaks for the warband as a conscientious officer (yle), although
confronting Beowulf is not an official act. Hunfers criticism is
personal, defensive, and no doubt shared.235 Having lost so many lives
already, the comitatus has an arrangement with Grendel that nevertheless humiliates Hrogar. In other words, warband security is assured in
the current dtente with Grendel. The king could hardly order more
men to their deaths, but he condones Beowulf s intervention because
he sees that Beowulf might be capable of killing Grendel. That is why
he is said to express joy when Beowulf trounces Hunfer, even though,
as I have said, there may be some unease over Beowulf s vehemence.
233
234
235

Ibid. 304, 310.

Lords of Battle 667; Bazelmans 4.
Hill, Narrative Pulse 34.

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

131

In some sense, then, Hunfer speaks to Hrogar over Beowulf s head

when he invokes the Breca affair.
Hunfer expresses a majority opinionnot the view of cowards or
rogues but of Hrogars fighting menthat engaging Grendel is foolhardy. One has to understand an important emphasis in Beowulf, that a
king must learn to accommodate his warband. The word accommodation simply means that kings have to ascertain how much valor their
men are capable ofor could legitimately be expected to perform. The
antitype is represented by Heremod, a king who (as described above)
destroyed his own retinue and compromised the Danish kingdom. It is
an egregious fault of men like Heremod that they will not, or cannot,
recognize the limits of the warband after being crowned. As Saxo says
of Lotherus, he was as intolerant a king as he was a soldier.
Hunfer speaks for the subaltern when he chastizes Beowulf. He suggests that Beowulf overemphasizes his own accomplishments, embraces
recklessness, and interferes in a situation that the Danish warband
has resolved, however unhappily. Beowulf disrupts the compromise
at Heorot, by which the Danes abandon the hall for Grendels use
at night. He may endanger others for his own glory, even when he
does not know the stakes. From Hunfers point of view, Beowulf s
boast to kill Grendel without weapons sounds more like arrogance
than confidence. When contextualized in the flyting tradition, we see
Beowulf as a potential instigator, a breaker of truces, more an adventurer than a kinga man like Sigemund, in other words, wanting all
glory for himself, or like Heremod who plagued his people. In this
respect Beowulf s attack on Hunfer has an equivocal justification. In
fact, the moral sanction for Beowulf s fight comes only from outside
Beowulf s world: he prosecutes Gods feud. Nevertheless, Beowulf cannot be aware of this serendipitous moral alignment, and we are left
merely with a coincidental validation of heroic action. In fact, Hrogar
himself steers Beowulf away from vanity by setting Ecgeows moral
and financial debt against Beowulf s self-promotion. When Beowulf
says that he intends to cleanse Heorot, Hrogar retorts that Beowulf is
repaying a favor owed to Hrogar for defending Ecgeow years before.
Many have grappled with this inconsistency. Is Hrogar restating
Beowulf s reason for sailing to Denmark in humbler terms, or does he
reveal what Beowulf really thinks but cannot say openly during such
traditional introductions? In fact, the kings pretense creates a secular
justification for Beowulf s attack on Grendel, reason enough to break
the current dtente.

132

chapter one

Although reconciled to his current circumstances, Hrogar expresses,

in my view, a whiff of annoyance that his warband could not handle
Grendels threat. First, he mentions that his drunk pledgers very often
boasted about meeting Grendel with the terror of their swords:
Ful oft gebeotedon
ofer ealowge
t hie in beorsele
Grendles gue

beore druncne
oretmecgas
bidan woldon
mid gryrum ecga. (480a3b)

Very often my pledgers, drunk on beer, would boast over the ale-cup
that they would await Grendels assault in the beer-hall with the terror
of their swords.

Such pointed remarks sound insensitive. Of course, Hrogar may simply be warning Beowulf that beer will not make bold in this case, yet
behind these words Hrogar seems to be claiming that his own men
often failed to fulfil boasts like Beowulf s.236 Elsewhere Hrogar seems
to belittle his men when rewarding Beowulf for killing Grendel:
Ful oft ic for lssan
lean teohhode,
hordweorunge
hnahran rince,
smran t scce. (951a3a)
Very often have I bestowed a reward for less, hoard-honor to a lowlier
warrior weaker in battle.

Hrogar minimizes the effectiveness of his own retainers and suggests

that he has over-rewarded them. In both of these quotations, not to
mention Hrogars expression of joy following the Hunfer incident, the
old king appears to express disappointment with his men. Moreover,
Hrogar sets Beowulf up as heir in direct competition with his own
kin. If Enright is correct to see a strong relationship between Germanic
queens and royal retinues,237 Wealheows objection to Beowulf as
Hrogars heir indicates her position as spokeswoman for the retainers candidate, Hroulf. She reverses Hrogars decision to appoint
Beowulf, in the opinion of many.
Hrogars support for Beowulf seems undercut by scheres death,
a perfect equivocation for the old Scyldings exuberant advocacy. I
have argued that Beowulf could be deemed responsible for Hondsciohs
death, but the loss of schere questions Hrogars leadership in allow236
237

Magennis 161; Robinson, Appositive Style 67.

Lady with a Mead Cup.

the sigemund-heremod and hunfer digressions

133

ing Beowulf to pursue what might amount to personal glory. schere

represents the warband as its figureheadmore so than Hunferand
the savage decapitation of Hrogars chief counselor raises the question
of reparation. Was Grendels death an adequate trade for scheres?
Few could doubt that Hrogars loss is significant, although many
would disagree on its relevance in the poem. My own view is that
scheres death has to be viewed as the consequence of Hrogars support for Beowulf s intervention, just as Hondsciohs death results from
Beowulf s resolution to fight Grendel. One should not instantly accept
that Beowulf and Hrogar were right to confront Grendel. Instead, 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, for whatever reason. The loss of schere proves that even a
kings concession can unwittingly imperil the warband.
A distinctive polyvalence emerges from the foregoing discussion in
which Beowulf may or may not express excessive, glory-seeking ambition, depending significantly on the subaltern evaluation of the Grendel
fight. It cannot be doubted, I think, that Beowulf s potential excess is
thought to contravene Germanic wisdom in the Hunfer episode.
Yet Hunfers own jealousy may discredit his authority as a judge of
Beowulf s motivation, even when Beowulf emerges victorious in a verbal
contest that typically exalts action over passivity, no matter the risk.
It seems to me that Beowulf and Hunfer are rival opponentsone
endorsing a fight, the other a truceand that the poet intends to balance these competing impulses in evaluating how self-knowledge and
intent separate courage from recklessness. God favors Beowulf against
Grendel, and his victory confirms a greatness that Hunfer refuses to
welcome. But Beowulf s ambition still gainsays his promise. The Sigemund/Heremod digression investigates the fate of wreccan, suggesting
that Beowulf might become as famous as Sigemund, one wrecca who
acted properly. Sigemund may be reckless, and of indefinite virtue,
but at least he endangers no one else in the dragon fight. Casting its
shadowing over Beowulf s future is Heremods war-mongering, the
alternate destiny that awaits kings with Beowulf s potential.
The strategy of comparison found in the digressions I have discussed
is also found in the poems most elaborate episode, the subject of the
next chapter. In my view, Beowulf is compared to the wrecca Hengest
in the Finnsburh digression, which largely criticizes ambition as a dire
fault of kings. In Finnsburh, however, Beowulf is subtly disparaged as
a foreigner, too. The frank exploration of loyalty, group cohesion, and

134

chapter one

power which emerges in a scops performance exemplifies Beowulf s

unfitness for ruling Danes. Hnf s murder cries out for vengeance,
but Hengest does not respond until forced to by his own party. His
willingness to disregard even a sacred duty, the obligation of revenge
that ones retainers hold to be righteous, illuminates my allegation of
Beowulf s potential moral ambivalence. Motivated by the highest regard
for his stake in the joint rule of Frisia, Hengest would leave the Danes
humiliated by their service to Hnf s killer. Presumably based on his
own observation, the narrator concludes that Beowulf might also direct
his rule towards a private ambition and away from responsibility for
the warband.

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, and express an unresolved
worry that a kings ambition might compromise the nations security. In
the Grendel fight Beowulf has shown himself to be potentially ambitious and callous, eager for glory, and scornful of the ordinary mans
abilities against an inhuman adversary. Risking his men in what looks
to the Danes like certain defeat, he dismisses their own experience of
Grendel and ultimately says nothing of Hondsciohs death. As I have
proposed, Hunfer sees in Beowulf a threat to the warband: Beowulf s
allegiance to his men extends only as far as it intersects with his ambition. I suggest that the Beowulf poet broadens this perspective in the
Finnsburh digression, where Hengests righteous loyalty to a Danish
tribe is tested. Now that Beowulf is exalted by Hrogars adoptionhe
becomes a surrogate sonthere is a risk that the foreign Beowulf
could compromise the dignity of the Danish people. The Finnsburh poet
exposes the failure of Hengest, another wrecca implicitly like Beowulf,
to honor the sacred duty owed to his own retinue.
To exemplify the Danish position, the Finnsburh digression spotlights
the foreign Hengest, a Jute or Angle I argue, who has come to command a group of Danes, probably a marauding company joining up
with King Finn in Frisia. Details of the episode in Beowulf are notoriously baffling mostly because the story is conveyed so telegraphically.
In the following pages I spend considerable time explaining what I
take to be a very simple tale of reluctant revenge. The specifics will
matter a great deal because the tale answers charges of recklessness
and indifference made against Beowulf prior to the Grendel fight. In
the case of Finnsburh, however, the accusations will cut even deeper.
The central figure Hengest is accused of an irresponsible dereliction,
allowing the Danish leader Hnf to lie without vengeance. Hnf died
because of Frisian treachery. In such a situation vengeance would not
simply be imperative but righteous or jural, among the most sacred

136

chapter two

obligations for kin and retainers. In fact, the grief of the Danish noblewoman Hildeburg, a recurring figure in the episode, constantly reminds
us of the conspicuous duty for vengeance. The Danes demand blood,
but Hengest cannot bring himself to suborn even a righteous act
because he has retailed his loyalty to the Frisian king Finn. Only when
his Danish cohort threatens mutiny does Hengest finally concede the
warbands charge, and even then the planned revenge must accommodate Hengests sacred oath of allegiance to Finn.
Finnsburh belongs in Beowulf at this place because it exemplifies yet
again the conflict between a foreign leader (Hengest) and his retinue, a
host of Danes. In this gidd, the essential contrast between Hengest-asBeowulf and a hypothetical warband rests on the designation of Hengest
as a wrecca (1137b). This identification underscores the makeup of
Hnf s band, for the Fragment attests that the fighter Sigefer was
likewise a wrecca widely known (wreccea wide cu, 25a).1 The term
has a fateful resonance for Beowulf s own unformed identity. Yet no
longer does the poets attention rest on Beowulf s fight with monsters,
under which circumstances a retinue could be said to have volunteered
its support for their wrecca-leader. Not in the Finnsburh episode. As a
foreign warlord, Hengest may have no duty to avenge the fallen Hnf,
although he ought to recognize the duty of Hnf s Danes to do so.
The warband suffers from Hengests delay in vengeance, if not from
the very compromise that drove them into service to their lords killer.
Hence, the Finn episode in Beowulf concerns Hengests compliance with
an indisputably honorable duty that the warband should undertake in
direct conflict with their leaders sworn oathand personal ambition.
Hengest has become the Danish commander and Finns adjutant. With
Hengest as his model, the Finnsburh poet has indicted Beowulf for his
likely failure in promoting the unambiguous duty of his men. 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.
The sacred obligations of ones retainers, moreover, seem incidental to
the foreign war-leaders political objectives or alliances.

1
George Hickess printed text reads wrecten, probably in error for wreccen
(Thesaurus 1923). Sigefer and Hengest may plausibly have joined Hnf either for
national defense or for an expedition, to use the euphemism for piracy.

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

137

Reading Finnsburh as an Analogy

More or less covering lines 1071a1159a (not counting the introductory
verses),2 Finnsburh comprises the longest and most intensively studied
episode in Beowulf. Its context may be summarized briefly. Beowulf has
mortally wounded Grendel. War-leaders from surrounding territories
follow Grendels tracks to the mere, now boiling with gore. On the
way back a warrior sings of Sigemund and Heremod. Horse races are
held, and Danes gawk at Grendels arm, which has been hung from a
beam in Heorot. Hrogar acknowledges Beowulf as an adoptive son,
and a lavish celebration honors the hero, who secures five dynastic
treasures not only in recognition of his valor and but also as confirmation of retainership and possibly of Hrogars adoption.3 Immediately
following the bestowal of these gifts, a poet recites Finnsburh fore
Healfdenes/hildewisan (before Healfdenes warriors, 1064ab).
The tale commemorates a Danish victory over Frisians, a triumph
which all agree should compliment Danish resolve. In fact, just before
the episode opens, the Scylding Hnf is called a hle Healfdena
(hero of the Half-Danes, 1069a), an epithet explicitly linking audience and characters.4

2
Few agree on where the digression begins: . . . the Episode is generally printed within
marks of quotation. Holthausen, Wyatt, Sedgefield begin this quotation with 1068
Finnes eaferum (or eaferan); Schcking with 1071 N hru Hildeburg; the old Heyne-Socin
text (1903) with 1069, Hle Healfdena, so also Trautmann, loc. cit., p. 30. Gering, Child,
Tinker, and Clark Hall begin with 1068; Lesslie Hall with 1069 (Lawrence, Tragedy
of Finnsburg 399400). Alexander Green later elaborated: Marks of quotation are
placed before l. 1068, Finnes . . . by Ettmller, Grein, Wlcker, Bugge, Wyatt, Holder,
Arnold, Holthausen, Sedgefield, and Chambers; before l. 1069, Hle . . . by Heyne,
Socin and Trautmann; before l. 1071, N hru Hildeburh . . . by Schcking and Holthausen;
whilst Kemble, Thorpe, and Grundtvigthe latter assumes a considerable gap after
Scyldingaprint no signs of division or of quotation. Among the translators, l. 1068
forms the commencement of the quotation in Ettmller, Grein, Garnett, Clark Hall,
Child, Tinker (based on Wyatts text), Wyatt-Morris, and Gering; l. 1069 in Lesslie Hall,
Earle, and Trautmann, and 1. 1071 in Gering. As against all of these, Gummere has no
marks of quotation, but a simple indentation in l. 1069 . . . (Opening 7778). Kberl
brilliantly suggests that such referential ambiguity collapses distinctions between past
and present (Indeterminacy 160).
3
Some (Klaeber included) have questioned whether Beowulf actually gets Healfdenes
sword, as he does Healfdenes saddle. Klaeber emended MS brand Healfdenes Healfdenes
sword of 1020b to bearn Healfdenes Healfdenes son. Opposed to this emendation
are Kuhn, Sword of Healfdene and Further Thoughts; Mitchell, Beowulf 1020b;
Watanabe, Final Words. This brand of Healfdenes is almost certainly the weapon
once owned by Heorogar and given to Hygelac (2155a).
4
Healfdene was a Danish king, Hrogars father, whose name engendered the

138

chapter two

Even if the Anglo-Saxons did not all share details of the Finnsburh
episode as narrated, the audience plausibly knew of some events
rehearsed in the digression, since the story was popular. Its main figure
Hengest arguably inaugurated the Anglo-Saxon migration.5 The earliest versions of Hengests deeds in sub-Roman Britain are chronicled
in Bedes Historia ecclesiastica and the Historia Brittonum of Nennius.6
Elsewhere Widsi records that Finn son of Folcwalda ruled the Frisians,7 and the events recounted in Beowulf formed the subject of an
independent lay now designated The Fight at Finnsburh.8 In fact,
neither telling conflicts with the other except in the names Ordlaf (fragment) and Oslaf (Beowulf ) and in one other detail (discussed below),
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. In the following prcis 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; see Tolkien, Finn and Hengest 3745. Although Widsi
29a calls Hnf a leader of Hocings, Klaeber has alleged that Hnf and his party
represent a minor branch of the great Danish nation (Observations 544). Hoc is
father to Hildeburh in Beowulf 1076b, and since Hildeburh is deprived of a brother
and son (1073a4a), Hnf must be her brother.
5
See Aurner 578: 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. Grundtvig, the first to give a complete interpretation
of these passages, assumed as a matter of course that the Hengest in the tale was the
only Hengest referred to in heroic tradition . . . This understanding of Hengests identity
was not only accepted but was definitely reaffirmed by Price and Kemble. Kemble,
however, changed the translation of the important lines 11421144, making them tell
of the death of Hengest . . . It was this translation apparently, that raised the first doubt
of Hengests identity . . . But it was the compelling influence of Grein [Eberts Jahrbuch
1862] that caused general acceptance of the theory that the Hengest of the Finnsburg
tragedy was a person entirely distinct from the one in Bede and the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle. See also Van Hamel; Turville-Petre; Joseph; de Vries; Hawkes. Nicholas
Howe avers the Hengest of Beowulf may be the Hengest who led the Anglo-Saxon
Migration (Migration and Mythmaking 145), although John D. Niles (Locating Beowulf
98) is more direct: To take this Hengest to be the Hengest of the Migration Myth
seems only natural. Richard North accepts the identification unconditionally in Tribal
Loyalties. He repeats the same position in Heathen Gods 6577. Here I must mention
the judgment of Bruce Mitchell, that the modern identification of . . . Hengest with
the Hengest (of Hengest and Horsa) rests on highly tenuous evidence (19471987:
Forty Years On 338).
6
Colgrave and Mynors 50, 150; Dumville, Historia Brittonum 20, 247.
7
Line 27: Fin Folcwalding/Fresna cynne [weald] . . .
8
Klaebers Beowulf 2835.

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

139

A Dane named Hnf travels to Finnsburha stronghold of the Frisian

king, Finn. Finn has married Hildeburh, Hnf s sister, probably to reconcile a feud between Frisians and Danes. The Frisians apparently attack
Hnf s retinue at night, and the fragment concerns the Danish defense
of Finns hall. Hnf falls during the fight, and Hengest, possibly a Jute
or Angle, becomes leader of the Danes. Finns unnamed son, who fought
either with the Danish party as Hnf s foster-son or with his father, is
also killed. Given Hengests advantageous position and Finns losses, the
conflict cannot be resolved. An uneasy truce is established: Finns party
may not taunt Hengests over the indignity of following their lords
killer, Finn shares his hall with Hengest and the Danish squad, and Finn
swears binding oaths, accepting Hengest as bondsman and the Danes as
co-equals with his own Frisian retinue. Gold is produced: Either Finns
oaths are sworn on the god Ings sacred relics, or Finn pays wergild for
the slaughtered men. Hildeburh laments the killing of brother and son,
reciting a gidd at their funeral pyre. Finns retinue disperses for the winter.
Hengest stays on. Apparently goaded by his own party and given a sword
by one Hunlafing (son of Hunlaf ), Hengest engineers the dissolution
of his vow, kills Finn and takes both Hildeburh and the Frisian treasury
to Denmark.

The digression represents the narrators abridgment of the scops performance, a conjecture accounting for a number of missing details that
might otherwise clarify the scenario.9
The Beowulf poet undoubtedly intended his audience to identify Finnsburh as a gidd and, correspondingly, to have it bear a prophetic meaning
deducible from the narrative. Just prior to the performance the narrator
admits that a gidd was often recited (gid oft wrecen, 1065b) at the
gathering, when the poet had to recite the hall-joy along the meadbench (healgamen . . ./fter medobence/mnan scolde, 1066a7b).
This is a common rendering.10 More creatively, R. D. Fulk has proposed that Healgamen is the name of Hrogars scop.11 No matter
ones translation, however, the manuscript requires emendation in the
next verse, [be] Finnes eaferum (about the sons of Finn, 1068a),

9
Some have wondered whether the digression in Beowulf represents an actual performance (synoptic or otherwise) or the poet-narrators summary of events as recited
at that moment in Hrogars hall; see R. A. Williams, Finn Episode 1516. A. Campbell
suggested that evidence of an underlying lay of Finn could be observed in the scops
summary (Epic Style 1326; see also Frank, Germanic Legend 101).
10
Malone, Hildeburg and Hengest 261: had to lament the hall-play along the
mead-bench.
11
Fulk, Cruces in the Finnsburg Fragment; the emendation is adopted in Klaebers
Beowulf.

140

chapter two

apparently in need of a preposition to govern Finnes eaferum.12

Because one commonly recites a gidd about (be) someone, this emendationamong the earliest ever proposedis contextually satisfying.
The scop Healgamen either laments about Finns kinsmen or else an
anonymous poet recites hall-joy (healgamen, a poem) about them.
Directly following the Finnsburh digression, the poet acknowledges the
genre by concluding, the poem, the singers gidd, was sung (leo
ws asungen,/gleomannes gyd, 1159b60a). Finnsburh apparently
represents the gleomannes gyd just referred to.
While the Anglo-Saxons learn that Finnsburh is a gidd, a problem
lies in determining whether the characters in the world of Beowulf
recognize it as one. On the one hand, we may simply assume that the
poets use of the word gidd implies as much. A gid wrecen could
acknowledge the narrators omniscient reporting. On the other hand,
Beowulf appears to realize that Finnsburh is a gidd, from which he
draws a lesson when addressing Hygelac. After he returns to the Geats,
Beowulf reports that gidd were recited in Heorot (r ws gidd ond
gleo, 2105a) specifically in celebration of Grendels end, and that more
than once a gidd was uttered (hwilum gyd awrc, 2108b; cf. gidd
oft wrecen, 1065b):13
r ws gidd ond gleo;
felafricgende
hwilum hildedeor
gomenwudu grette,

gomela Scilding,
feorran rehte;
hearpan wynne,
hwilum gyd awrc

12
Klaeber, Observations 5478. Alexander Green wrote extensively on this
emendation, first proposed by Benjamin Thorpe as adopted in Kembles 1835 edition;
cf. Kelly 244, 268. Green suggests that eaferum in 1068a is a dative-instrumental of
personal agency (Opening 770) and translates, By Finns battle-fighters . . . Hnf of
the Scyldings . . . was fated to fall (ibid. 792). Mitchell calls the emendation disputed
and voices doubts about the formulation; cf. Old English Syntax vol. 1, 13718. Yet
[be] Finnes eaferum creates anomalous meter, and an ambiguity whereby the poet
may lament about Finns men (one frequently recites a gidd about (be) someone or
something) or may lament that Hnf was destined to die by Finns men. The problem
that eaferum should means sons and not men is resolved in Klaebers Beowulf by
the emendation to eaferan, which requires the subject Healgamen.
13
On such examples of incremental repetition, see Orchard, Critical Companion
58 note 10. Kemp Malone sees multiple performances leading up to the recitation of
Finnsburh and attributes them to amateurs or lesser artists (Hildeburg and Hengest
260). 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, the end of that lay in Beowulf makes it clear that this kind of narrative
can be called a giedd (as well as a leo) (363). It has often been noticed that Beowulf s
recollection seems muddled (see Waugh, Competitive Narrators 21012).

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

so ond sarlic,
rehte fter rihte
hwilum eft ongan
gomel guwiga
hildestrengo;
onne he wintrum frod

141

hwilum syllic spell

rumheort cyning;
eldo gebunden,
giogue cwian,
hreer inne weoll,
worn gemunde. (2105a14b)

There was gidd and mirth. (An, The) old Scylding recited things inquired
of from far back in time. Sometimes (a, the) battle-brave man greeted
the play-wood, harps joy; sometimes he recited a gidd, true and sorrowful; sometimes the big-hearted king recited a marvelous story according
to custom. Sometimes, bound by age, the old battle-warrior began to
lament his (lost) youth, his war-strength. His breast welled up from within,
whenever, wise in years, he recalled so much.

Beowulf s reflection on the gidd ond gleo in Heorot comes directly

after his narration of Grendels death. One naturally assumes that
Beowulf has Finnsburh in mind when speaking of giddthe only one
we know to have been recited at length. Furthermore, in Beowulf the
collocations gomenwudu gretan and gidd (a)wrecan describe only
the scops performance of Finnsburh and Beowulf s recapitulation of the
entertainment at Heorot. Even so, the narrator describes the gomenwudu greted (1065a) just before Finnsburh, and Beowulf s recollection
might memorialize Hrogars performance, not the scops.
Heeding the syntactic parallelism of hwilum, Klaeber punctuated in a way that attributes all of the recitations to Hrogar, the old
Scylding, (gomela Scilding, 2105b), big-hearted king (rumheort
cyning, 2110b), and old battle-warrior (gomel guwiga, 2112a).
The editors of Klaebers Beowulf have retained this punctuation. In fact,
modern editors adopting this punctuation implicitly identify Hrogar
as the hildedeor of line 2107a.14 The old battle warrior began to
lament his (lost) youth and war-strength evokes the content of gidd,
and the verb cwian (lament, 2112b) is often collocated with gidd. The
problem arises that we have not seen Hrogar play the harp before,
although he does recite at least one gidd in his sermon. While the
phrase gomela Scilding may refer just as much to an old Scylding

14
On this conundrum see Opland 4557 and Creed 47. Citing Kock and Hoops,
Klaeber still concedes, hildedeor 2107 may be taken as an epithet relating to an
unnamed retainer (Beowulf 205). Earlier in his note he posed the question, was the gyd
recited by Hrothgar? (ibid.). The editors of Klaebers Beowulf have reformulated Klaebers
questions, suggesting that Hrogars skills as a singer and musician . . . complete the
portrait of him as a warlord (note to lines 2105 ff.).

142

chapter two

as to the old Scylding, elsewhere it does describe Hrogar (1792a).

Yet OE hildedeor, which means battle-brave (man), is used seven other
times in the poem, three times of unnamed warriors (312a, 834a,
3169b), three times of Beowulf (1646a, 1816a, 2183a), and once of
Wiglaf (3111b). The related compound heaodeor, used twice, refers once
to Beowulf (688a) and once to Beowulf and Grendel together (772a).
Describing Hrogar as battle-brave seems incongruous, especially
when hildedeor so often denotes anonymous but distinguished and youthful fighters, such as the coast-warden. As I see it, no clear solution to
this problem presents itself, but Beowulf may be attributing the gidd
mentioned here to an anonymous warrior.15
The indebtedness could be important because Beowulf seems to
acknowledge Finnsburh when he tells the Heaobard digression, and
events in the Heaobard feud might elucidate obscurities in Finnsburh.
A brief summary of the Heaobard digression is necessary:
Beowulf observes that Hrogars daughter Freawaru will marry the
Heaobard king Ingeld to settle a feud. At the wedding a Danish attendant wearing a captured Heaobard sword will offend the Heaobards.
An old warrior will then incite a young Heaobard to kill this offender
and take the sword. The murderer runs away. After the killing, Ingelds
love for Freawaru will cool and hostilities resume.

Many readers have drawn connections between the Finnsburh and

Heaobard digressions, even though the Heaobard episode is not a
gidd. Adrien Bonjours analysis, which equates Hengests situation with
Ingelds, ultimately derives from William Lawrences views that Hildeburh, Freawaru, and Wealheow are to be equated.16 Bonjour reasoned:
The Wealhtheow scene is thus, in a way, the link connectingin their
striking analogythe situation of Hildeburh in the Finnsburh Episode,
and that of Wealhtheows daughter Freawaru in the Heathobards Episode. Linking Hengest to Ingeld, Bonjour extended his findings:
Beowulf s prophecy concerning Freawaru is in fact but another effective
illustration of the theme of the precarious peace. Ingelds tragic dilemma
is almost the exact counterpart of Hengests, and in both cases the aspect

15
Riley identifies this singer as the anonymous reciter of the Sigemund/Heremod
digression (189).
16
Lawrence reasoned in 1915, so far as the woman is concerned, the general
situation underlying both stories [Finn and Ingeld] is much the same (Tragedy of
Finnsburg 382); see also Girvan, Finnsburuh 15; Ayres 289: The tragic situations both
of Hildeburg and of Freawaru are keenly present to [the poets] mind.

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

143

of the sword . . . meant the decisive call to action resulting in the victory
of the urge for revenge and the outbreak of fresh hostilities. We said
almost, because, if compared with the situation of Hengest, Ingelds
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, as in Hengests case, but he is now connected by the
bonds of marriage with Freawaru, the Danish princess, and such bonds
render the dilemma even more tragic. It is, to a certain extent, as if he
had been married to a Frisian princess, say a daughter of Finn! And yet
vengeance triumphs, again emphasizing how fateful indeed was a renewal
of the enmity between the two tribes.17

The situations are similar: Hengest parallels Ingeld in the Heaobard

digression, since both men are now confronted with breaking a truce.
Hengest must fight his king and benefactor Ingeld, his father-in-law.
Both do so with supreme reluctance because each confrontation means
voiding a sworn treaty. Ingeld will be forced into confrontation because
the murderer of the young Dane cannot be found and punished, and
(one imagines) the animosity grows on both sides. It takes time for the
humiliation to become intolerable, as Beowulf says: ond him wiflufan//fter cearwlmum/colran weora, 2065b6b. Furthermore,
both Hengest (as I shall argue) and Ingeld are constrained to honor
the wishes of their men in a situation of shame.
Three other parallels are obvious. First, both Freawarus and Hildeburhs marriages confirm truces made between Danes and their nonDanish adversaries.18 At least one collocation in the Heaobard episode
clearly evokes the Finnsburh context: on ba healfe (on both sides,
2063b) recalls on twa healfa of Finnsburh (1095b). The Heaobards
and Danes are sworn enemies. Second, the fact that Danes are visiting
their national enemies the Heaobards closely matches the events of
Finnsburh, in which Danes are visiting their rivals, the Frisians. My
final parallel is frequently alleged, but my reading of its significance
differs from others. The central moment in the Heaobard digression, extending for over twenty lines, describes Freawarus attendant
flaunting a sword taken from a defeated Heaobard warrior named
Wiergyld.19 Because Hengest receives a sword in Finnsburh and, as

Bonjour, Digressions 612.

In Finnsburh Danes and Frisians are said to share a fste friouwre (firm
compact of peace, 1096a), whereas the Heaobard digression refers to a freondscipe
fstne (firm friendship, 2069a).
19
The name is elsewhere known only from Widsi 124a, in context with Hama,
17
18

144

chapter two

I shall argue, flaunts it, the swords themselves are strong parallels in
both episodes. The attendant is murdered on account of this sword,
and the delicate alliance, the motivation for the wedding itself, disintegrates. Since a sword will re-ignite the enmity of Danes and Frisians
in the Finnsburh digression, details from the Heaobard digression
have particular relevance for Finnsburh.20 In fact, I think the parallel
answers an enduring crux.
The Heaobard Digression
Ingeld and his thanes are said to dislike (ofyncan) the marriage to
Freawaru, to exhibit discomfort over an enforced peace. Escalating the
humiliation, the Danish dryhtbearn or noble sons sport the gomelra
lafe or heirlooms of elders, not of Danes, however, but of Heaobards.21 Slain in war by Danes, the former Heaobard owners were
once dear companions (swse gesias, 2040a), their weapons hard
and ring-adorned treasures of Heaobards, (heard ond hringml/
Heaa-Beardna gestreon, 2037). Beowulf (the narrator) contrasts the
immaturity of the Danish owners with the glory of the former fallen possessors. Possibly because Grendel has killed all the experienced warriors,
these boys are dugua biwenede, the accompanying (or honored)

mentioned in Beowulf 1198b. Wiergyld (Retribution) may not be the Heaobards

fathers name; the connection was first proposed by Mead 4356. Bonjour also
expatiates on the swords in both episodes and connects them to Wiglaf s sword. He
expects that Eanmunds sword, now in Wiglaf s hands, will induce a conflict with the
Swedes, ruled by Eanmunds brother Eadgils (ibid. 38); Cronan rejects the position in
Wiglaf s Sword.
20
Hupp, Reconsideration 221; cf. Ayres 293: Suppose, now, the son of Hunlaf
offered the sword to Hengest with egging words similar to those of the eald sc-wiga in
Beowulf s account of the Ingeld-Freawaru episode . . . Such a hint would do much to
teach Hengest his course. . . .
21
The syntax here is strained; I prefer to take the line dryhtbearn Dena,/dugua
biwenede as a loose appositive to s (2032a) particularizing the annoyance to Ingeld
and his troop and referring to him (2036a): noble sons of Danes, honored hostson
them the weapons of elders shine . . . He therefore refers to Ingeld. Some read
dryhtbearn as singular and connect it to fmnan egn of 2059a and he of 2034a
because of the repetition of fmne and of on flett g (2034b) and on flet g
(2054b) (Hupp, Reconsideration 220; Girvan, review of Hoops, Beowulfstudien 246).
Either reading works well with the solution I propose here: singular dryhtbearn may
be an equivalent of dryhtguma or dryhtealdor in the sense brides attendant (Green,
Carolingian Lord 270, 274).

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

145

senior retainers.22 Unless we see the Danish youth as particularly

callow, they must be deliberately taunting the Heaobards by wearing
such trophies.23 Beowulf uses the locution on him gladia (2036a)
to describe the gear. The verb gladian means to shine in poetry, but
other meanings common to prose overlap, to gratify especially.24 The
weapons shine on the Danes and unavoidably attract the eye. Beowulf
underscores the deliberate indignity, as well as the irony.
The humiliation annoys the Heaobards. An old spear-warrior
(eald scwiga, 2042a) then begins to test the spirit of a young
fighter through the thought of his breast.25 A young Dane is singled
out, and his youth and dubious birthright emphasized. The scwiga
calls him a byre or lad of unknown parentage: a lad of I know not
which of those slayers (ara banena/byre nathwylces, 2053ab).
The boy is said to exult in the trappings, a sword in particular, and
here Beowulf deploys the adjective hremig typically used of booty
in Beowulf.26 Thus, Grendel is hremig in his Danish corpses (124a), and
Beowulf hremig in the twelve treasures awarded by Hrogar (1882a). The
unnamed Danish boys father killed the Heaobards father Wiergyld,
and took the sword from him as a prize. The old champion claims that
the young Dane boasts of the murder: morres gylpe, 2055a. OE
moror does not typically describe a noble battlefield killing but (as
mentioned above) a deceitful, anonymous one.
Two verbs linking this section with the Finnsburh episode are myndgian
to remind and (ge)munan to recall. The veteran remembers all
(eall geman, 2042b) and reminds (myndga, 2057a). In Beowulf
OE myndgian is found only here and in Finnsburh, attested as myndgiend
wre (calling to mind, 1105b), specifically used in context of the oath:
a disgrace someone should not call to mind or hostilities would erupt.
In the Heaobard digression the cempa or warrior emphasizes the

22

297.

The phrase dugua biwenede is difficult; see Mitchell, Two Syntactical Notes

Hupp, Reconsideration 223.

Owen-Crocker, Gracious Hrothulf 45. The Beowulf poet calls Ingeld the
gld son of Froda (2025b), underscoring an ironic appreciation for his marriage to
Freawaru.
25
This Heaobard is described as fmnan egn or ladys thane, not untried
warrior as Malone proposes (Ingeld 259) but the warrior accompanying a bride; see
Girvan, review of Hoops, Beowulfstudien 246, where se fmnan egn is compared to Bedes
description of Bishop Paulinus as comes copulae carnalis (Colgrave and Mynors 164).
26
Riedinger 30911 (310: a thematic formula whose function it is to signify the
victors reward ).
23

24

146

chapter two

disrupted inheritance. The young Heaobard should own the sword

mid rihte (by right, 2056a). He ultimately kills the Danean act
predicated on an event from a previous generation that nevertheless
results in the dissolution of Ingelds marriage. This situation, I shall
argue, explains precisely what happens in the Finnsburh episode and
incidentally explains how Finnsburh functions in its dramatic context.
For the time being, therefore, we must turn from the Heaobard episode.
Proposed Functions of the Finnsburh Digression
As a digression, Finnsburh parallels its context, the specific moment
in Hrogars hall, and predicts how the situation might evolve. Since
1915 nearly every critic reflecting on the Finnsburh episode has analogized its characters and plot in just this way.27 Two widespread interpretations have emerged.28 Grendels mothers forthcoming attack
prompts the first, which emphasizes Bonjours precarious peace; as a
social imperative revenge supersedes all other claims, including sworn
reconciliation. So highly is vengeance prized that peace always fails in
the face of any incitement, no matter how trivial. Grendels mother
is said to indulge in the blood feud in a way analogous to Hengests
inevitable retribution, and schereHrogars runwita (counsellor,
27
The earliest commentators saw no relevance in it, or else deemed it an example
of Danish resolve. Green calls it an interlude (Opening 782). R. A. Williams went
further than most of the nineteenth-century philologists, suggesting that the poet wished
to describe momentous events in another hall. He paraphrased: Now in the evening,
gathered together in Heorot, which still shows plain traces of the terrific struggle, they
wonder whether in any other hall such a game had eer been played as Beowulf played
there with Grendel. Can any other hall compare with theirs as the scene of events
so momentous? (Finn Episode 1011). Brodeur wrote the circumstances under which
the minstrel sang his lay have no bearing whatever on the interpretation of the Finn
Episode. Our poet introduces the Episode simply as an illustration of the songs which
furnished entertainment for Hrogars feasting warriors (Design and Motive 412).
Malone queries, Why does the poet treat as he does this great story of the English
heroic age? and goes on to conclude weakly that the poet had an interest in Hengests
repentance for his hesitation in taking vengeance (Finn Episode 171).
28
Bruce Moore proposed a number of parallels between events in Beowulf s
purview and in the scops narrative: treachery and its association with the world of
monsters, kinship relationships (particularly those between uncle and nephew), the
hall, treasure, and more general questions concerning political and social order (317).
Moore compares Hroulf s duplicity to Finns, underscores the persistence of feuds
(Grendels mother), and reflects on the negative value of treasure-giving as a kind of
institutionalized bribery.

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

147

1325a), rdbora (herald, 1325b), and eaxlgestealla (close warcompanion, 1326a)dies for this sterile heroism. Here the suffering
of Hildeburh must stand for the suffering of all the collateral victims
of the revenge ethic, and the precarious peace becomes universalized. Bonjour closes his argument by reading the dragons revenge
as symbolic of the great epic prophecy of the downfall of the Geatish
people29a consequence which the poet himself never confirms.
The second argument made about Finnsburh heeds the tension
between Wealheows sons Hreric and Hromund and her nephew
Hroulf, a situation that Saxo Grammaticus records in a fuller but more
convoluted form:30 . . . wene ic t he mid gode/gyldan wille//uncran
eaferan (1184a5a). Wealheows expectation that Hroulf will support his cousins after Hrogars death sounds apprehensive.31 In fact,
the poet adumbrates discord between Hroulf and Hrogar, a rivalry
that apparently involves Hreric and Hromund:32

Bonjour, Digressions 62.

Sarrazin 1445. R. W. Chambers expounded on this evidence for Hroulf s
treachery in the Historia Danorum, and his argument (Beowulf 267) deserves summarizing. Drawing on the now lost Bjarkaml, Saxo reports that Roluo, whose name is
identical to OE Hroulf, slew a king named Rricus, a name identical to OE Hreric.
Saxo calls Rricus the son of the covetous Bkus, hypothetically translating the Old
Icelandic epithet hnggvanbaugi or ?greedy for rings (i.e. treasure). Coincidentally,
the Langfegatal, a genealogy of the ancient Danish kings, calls this Rricus Hrrek
Hnauggvanbaugi and records his succession after Rolf (= Hroulf ). Chambers asserts
that the genealogy identifies Hrrek as Hrogars son and further reasons, Hrrek
has been moved from his proper place in order to clear Rolf of any suspicion of
usurpation (Beowulf 26 note 3). Chambers clever speculation is ultimately unnecessary
to demonstrate Hroulf s intentions, for the intimations in Beowulf and Widsi present
the case convincingly enough. However, Gerald Morgan disagrees with Hroulf s
implication in treachery.
31
Hroulf is Hrogars nephew, son of Halga the Good (Halga til, 61b). The
succession in Germanic lands, as in post-migration England, generally followed on
seniority and often generated strife between uncles and nephews. Hrogar himself
seems to have shared in this tradition, for Heoroweard did not rule after his father
Heorogars death. The poet specifically mentions Beowulf s receipt of Heorogars sword.
For the subtleties of Wealheows reply, see Owen-Crocker, Gracious Hrothulf 45
and below, pp. 17980.
32
These words mirror the ominous tone in Widsi, where Hrogar and Hroulf are
said to have held their peace until after they had devastated Ingelds army:
Hrowulf ond Hrogar
heoldon lengest
sibbe tsomne
suhtorfdran,
sian hy forwrcon
wicinga cynn
ond Ingeldes
ord forbigdan,
forheowan t Heorote
Heaobeardna rym. (45a9b)
29

30

148

chapter two
medoful manig
swihicgende
Hrogar ond Hroulf.
freondum afylled;
eod-Scyldingas

. . . fgere gegon
magas ara
on sele am hean,
Heorot innan ws
nalles facenstafas
enden fremedon. (1014b19b)

Their stout-hearted kinsmen, Hrogar ond Hroulf, joyfully relished many

a mead-cup in the high hall. Heorot was filled with friends within. Not
yet had the Scylding countrymen prepared malicious plots.

John M. Hill explains how Beowulf carefully negotiates the competing

interests in the scene, especially Wealheows appeal to Beowulf to serve
as an ally to her family instead of its king.33 Her bestowal of a precious torque counters Hrogars gift of family heirlooms. Wealheows
gift encumbers Hrogars plan to enthrone a foreign mercenary and
highlights the conviction that her native children have more trustworthy
allegiances than an outsider.34
This particular reading of the situation has been mapped onto
Finnsburh, which features the precarious peace between Finn and
Hengest. Because (the argument goes) human relations will always
deteriorate and because even the sincerest pledges will fail, Hroulf
will ultimately kill his cousins, and Wealheow will suffer. This future
stands in ironic juxtaposition to the present hall-joy and Wealheows
(misplaced?) trust in her nephew.35 Hrogars adoption of the Geat
Beowulf is then seen as enhancing the dramatic irony. Again, this
moment has been universalized, made to confirm the view that the
Beowulf poet condemns heroic brutality:
The disaster at Finnsburg casts its pall over Wealhtheows ministrations,
creating an ironic distance between her hopes for the future and the
bloodshed that every member of the audience knows will follow. The
same theme is again expressed . . . in Beowulf s later prophecy concerning
Freawaru and Ingeld.36

Danish Succession; Cultural World 1004.

Alfred Bammesbergers interpretation of druncne dryhtguman/do swa ic bidde
(1231) as oh retainers, having drunk [the royal mead], do as I ask! (Bammesbergers
brackets) accords with this view (Conclusion of Wealhtheows Speech). On Wealheows status, see the remarks of Thomas D. Hill, Foreign Slave 10612.
35
Orchard, Critical Companion 1801. Yet Hill has admirably shown that Wealheow
is not a passive onlooker in a much wider and more vicious game (Danish Succession 181).
36
Camargo 127. Camargo summarizes, the function of the Finn episode, in short,
is to cast doubt on the revenge ethic at the very point in the narrative where such a
code [of vengeance] appears most glorious (132).
33
34

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 . . . sooner or later peace-weaving will become
war-making.37 Insistently trained on Hildeburhs sorrow and consequently suspicious of revenge, these voices radically impugn the status
of the digression as Danish triumph.38
In one respect a serious problem compromises these two readings
of Finnsburh. Both solutions are incompatible with the poets dual
perspective, since they focus on the narrators point-of-view and neglect
the reason why Finnsburh might be relevant for the Danes. Hrogar
wants to appoint Beowulf as a regent, but Wealheow thinks Hroulf
is a better candidate, for reasons of obligation. Yet Fred Robinson,
among others, senses anxiety in Wealheows statements,
gldne Hroulf,
arum healdan . . . (1180b2a)

Ic minne can
t he a geogoe wile

I know that my gracious Hroulf intends to treat the youths honorably . . .

and
. . . wene ic t he mid gode
uncran eaferan,
hwt wit to willan
umborwesendum r

gyldan wille
gif he t eal gemon,
ond to wormyndum
arna gefremedon. (1184a7b)

I expect that he will reward our kinsmen with kindness, if he bears in

mind all that: what honors we two awarded him as a child, both for his
desire and his glory.

The first claim is unambiguously optimistic: Wealheow knows (can)

that Hroulf intends (wile) to act honorably (arum). In this context OE gld has recently been translated appreciative. Wealheow
therefore highlights Hroulf s consideration: he appreciates Hrogars
generosity to him when he was a boy and is obliged to reciprocate.39
Wealheows trust mitigates the suspicion implied in the second quotation, that Hroulf might forget the honors (hwt . . . arna) once
bestowed on him: I believe that Hroulf will reward . . . if he bears
37
Berger and Leicester 43; these critics envision Grendels mothers revenge as
symbolic of Hroulf s future treachery. See also Leyerle, Hero and the King.
38
As John M. Hill acknowledges in a different context (Warrior Ethic 67): We
have . . . failed to understand the extent to which Hildeburhs bitter appropriation of
the funeral pyre is a mute demand for retribution. Robert A. Albano would go further
and implicate Hildeburh in the revenge.
39
Owen-Crocker, Gracious Hrothulf 4.

150

chapter two

in mind. . . . Secondarily, Wealheow here stresses Hroulf s duty to

protect her children in return for Hrogars past generosity,40 a benefit that Beowulf cannot lay claim to. In effect, she observes that the
foreigner Beowulf cannot bear in mind any longstanding debt of
personal generosity. Although some misgivings have been conceded,
Wealheow does not know that Hroulf will inevitably usurp Hrerics
place. On the contrary, she finds Hroulf more trustworthy because he
is an appreciative kinsman and socially indebted to Hrogar.41
Inevitably, Wealheows coy remarks about Hroulf in lines 11857
become unusually apprehensive in light of the poets comments,

ston suhtergefderan;
ghwylc orum trywe. (1163b5a)

. . . r a godan twegen [Hrogar

and Hroulf ]
a gyt ws hiera sib tgdere,

. . . where the two good men [Hrogar and Hroulf ] sat, uncle and
nephew. At that time they were still united in goodwill, each loyal to
the other.

and
eod-Scyldingas

. . . nalles facenstafas
enden fremedon. (1018b19b)

. . . not yet had those Scylding countrymen prepared malicious plots. (my
emph.)

The dramatic irony could not be plainer: the narrator confirms Hroulf s present loyalty. In fact, the poet further justifies Wealheows
confidence in him: Heorot innan ws//freondum afylled (Heorot
was filled with friends within, 1017b18a). If Wealheow expects no
betrayal, 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
Wealheow as failed peace-weavers, since the parallels are too inexact.
Hroulf s expected betrayal therefore does not emerge from Finnsburh
as an example of the precarious peace.
Nor do the Danes expect retaliation from Grendels mother, who takes
them completely by surprise: Wyrd ne cuon,//geosceaft grimme,/swa
hit agangen wear//eorla manegum (they did not know of their
40
41

Ibid.
Damico, Valkyrie Tradition 128.

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

151

fate, their grim destiny, as it had been ordained for many an earl,
1233b5a).42 Unless it could be shown that the Danish scop foresees
Grendels mothers inevitable vengeance, the Finnsburh digression
could not warn of any precarious peace relative to her revenge. In
fact, the whole precarious peace derived from the episode seems
unrealistic. Are we really invited to compare the situation of national
enemies trapped in a fragile dtente (Finn vs. Hengest) either to the
predatory retaliation of a cannibal monster or to a contest between
blood kin from different family branches (Hreric and Hromund vs.
Hroulf )?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. Notwithstanding Hildeburhs
emotional agony and Finns duplicity, the action in Finnsburh clearly
concerns Hengest, who should be compared to another hero of similar
renown and not stand for an abstract principle. Since Beowulf is the
central figure of the narrative throughout and especially at this moment,
the Finnsburh recitation may pertain to him and his motivations, in
the same way that the Sigemund/Heremod and Herebeald/Hcyn
digressions do. Beowulf is being compared to Hengest. As I shall argue,
Finnsburh subtly reflects a grave unease over Beowulf s appointment as
Hrogars heira worry that Wealheow responds to, but not entirely
for the reasons that have been presented hitherto. In order to clarify
this moment and its relevance for the Danish audience, we need to
investigate the episode more closely.
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. The

42
Donald K. Fry avoids the problem of perspective by alleging that Grendel is
expected to return (New Interpretation 2). Ward Parks reveals the poets opinion
that the mothers aim was revenge (wolde . . . sunu deo wrecan,1277b8b) but her
method predation (Prey Tell 13): In keeping with the habits of her clan, [Grendels
mother] too introduces herself to the Danes predatorially . . . All the same, while her
behavior is predatory, her motives are not).
43
The monsters in Beowulf are popularly metaphorized as human evils. Whenever a
monster appears, a whiff of crime hangs in the air; see, for example, Fajardo-Acosta,
Intemperance.

152

chapter two

truce has often seemed suspicious: . . . If Finns men were too few to
prevail over the Danes, why did the latter assent to a condition which,
according to Germanic ideas, was in the highest degree dishonorable?44
Chambers likewise questioned Finns complicity in the attack, asserting
that he was the dupe of a Jutish faction in his warband rather than
the principal conspirator. In part, this deduction stems from Chambers
examination of Germanic story, where enemies accept quarter from
attackers. Yet Chambers also bases his interpretation on the meaning of
the word eoten in the verses, Ne huru Hildeburh/herian orfte//eotena
treowe (Indeed, Hildeburh did not have need to praise the faith of
the eotena, 1071a2a). I shall defer my discussion of this word momentarily, while I show why Finn must be the leading villain in the tale.45
He is, after all, called Hnf s bana (slayer, 1102b), and the narrator
explains that Finn cannot conclude his war against Hengest:
. . . t he [Finn] ne mehte
wig Hengeste

on m meelstede
wiht gefeohtan . . . (1082a3b)

. . . that he (Finn) might not at all win his battle against Hengest in the
meeting-place.

According to the Fragment, the battle lasts five days, during which span
it is hardly conceivable that King Finn could not manage his own retinue. And finally, retribution meted out to the fierce (ferhfrecan, 1146a)
Finn seems to have been deserved, and in his own home, to boot (t
his selfes ham, 1147b).46 In Chambers argument, the Danes would
appear to have wronged Finn by disregarding his innocence in the
clashleaving us with a besmirched Danish victory. Much back-pedaling and special pleading disappear, however, if we simply acknowledge
that Finn attacks his Danish guests duplicitously.
To return to the problematic truce, the poet explains why the
settlement is reached. On the one hand, Hengests retinue is called a
woeful remnant (wealaf, 1084a and 1098a) after the fight, belying

Lawrence, Tragedy of Finnsburg 403.

Many others have alleged Finns innocence, e.g. Brodeur: [Finns] 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. 39).
46
OE ferhfrecan is a hapax, but frec is often attested in Beowulf, where it can mean
fierce, terrible, or dangerous. The repetition of begeat (befell, 1146b), used to
describe Finns attack against Hnf (1068b), highlights Finns death as retributive.
44
45

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

153

the evidence of the fragment that few Danes had been killed.47 But
because Finn has lost so many men (1080b1b), the Danish survivors
cannot be dislodged ( forringan) from their defensive position.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; the Danes could not
hold out indefinitely because in time they would run short of food and
drink . . . Finn offered the Danes the best of terms because, above all, he
did not wish to drive them to desperation: as desperate men they could
do him the gravest damage.

Hengest emerges as leader of the Danes, and he negotiates the peace

which they are constrained to accept:50
eah hie hira beaggyfan
eodenlease,

banan folgedon
a him swa geearfod ws . . . (1102a3b)

Though lordless they followed the slayer of their ring-giver, when it was
necessary for them to do so.

OE geearfian is exceptionally rare in Old English, occurring just this

once in verse. The poet relays the unique situation by the verb and
Danish blamelessness by the passive construction. The Danes had to
compromise at an impasse, and nothing but the circumstances dictated
their truce.
In 1917 Henry Morgan Ayres declared that the Finnsburh digression precipitated a tragic situation for Hengest,51 since he follows his

Wig ealle fornam//Finnes egnas/nemne feaum anum . . . (1080b1b).

A very close verbal parallel is narrated in the Old English Meters of Boethius. The
Goths demolish the Romans: Ne meahte a seo wealaf/wige forstandan//Gotan
mid Gue (1.22a23a). In this case the Romans give treasure and land, and swear
oathsthe same capitulations that Finn has to make: giomonna gestrion//sealdon
unwillum/eelweardas,//halige aas (1.23b25a). A passage from Wulfstans homily
Be godcundre warnunge confirms the sense of a diminished war-band: And onne
land wyre for synnum forworden 7 s folces dugo swyost fordwine, onne
feh seo wealaf sorhful 7 sarimod geomrigendum mode bemnan 7 sarlice syfian . . .
(Bethurum 253.6871). For a highly heterodox view of lines 1085b96a, see Gray, who
argues that the Danes offer terms to Finn.
49
Finns Stronghold 85; see also Diller 18.
50
Malone, Hildeburh and Hengest 267: the poet gives Hengest credit (1) for the
fact that the Frisians offer terms of peace at all, and (2) for the highly favorable nature
of these terms. In fact, Arthur G. Brodeur criticized Malones view of Hengest as
a craven weakling by praising Hengests negotiation which [saved] his men from
needless slaughter (Design and Motive 7).
51
Tragedy of Hengest; see also Stanley, Narrative Art 177.
47
48

154

chapter two

lords killer after swearing a binding oath.52 The poet affirms, those
on the two sides trusted in the firm compact of peace (a hie getruwedon/on twa healfa//fste friouwre, 1095a6a). The oath is
solemnized elne unflitme. OE flitm is no doubt related to flitan to
compete,53 and North underscores two legal parallelsboth from Ines
Lawswhich James L. Rosier once noted: unceases [<un+ceast] a =
oath setting aside quarrel and aas unfha = oaths renouncing
feud.54 Finns oath is sworn with zeal renouncing competition. In other
words, Finn and his men will not compete adversarially for superiority
with Hengest and the Danes, a stipulation that reinforces terms of the
agreement, that Finn will encourage (byldan) the Danes just as much
as (efne swa swie) his own men:
. . . ond t feohgyftum
dogra gehwylce
Hengestes heap
efne swa swie
fttan goldes,
on beorsele

Folcwaldan sunu
Dene weorode,
hringum wenede
sincgestreonum
swa he Fresena cyn
byldan wolde. (1089a94b)

52
North has argued that Finn pledges on the god Ings sacred relics, possibly a boaridol taken from the Frisian treasury. He understands the lines A ws gefned/ond icge
gold//ahfen of horde (an oath was performed and [Ings] gold was taken from the
treasury, 1107a8a) to refer to an oath sworn on a golden artifact (Tribal Loyalties
328). It also seems plausible that gold taken from the hoard is meant to be shared
among Hengests retinue in compensation of Hnf s death (see lines 1089a94b and
Lawrence, Tragedy of Finnesburg 406 note 22). Coming right after the oath (a ws
gefned, 1107a), it seems most convenient to speculate that wergild is being paid out.
R. D. Fulk has also suggested that icge and incge disguise idge shining (Old English
icge and incge). Klaeber emended a oath to ad pyre and translated the pyre was
prepared (Beowulf 173); this emendation has been retained in Klaebers Beowulf.
53
Not all agree on the meaning, and some prefer to read unhlitme here; Rosier
summarizes the history of this reading in Unhlitm of Finn and Hengest; but see now
Taylor, Beowulf 1130 3578 and Boenig, Time Markers. W. S. Mackie (Notes upon
the Text 521) proposed emending unflitme to *unflitne, and the reading suggests how
unflitme has almost universally been thought to modify ellen, as in with undisputed
zeal instead of with zeal renouncing dispute.
54
North, Tribal Loyalties 22 (Finn would thus forswear vengeance for his son by
cancelling him out with Hnf ) and Rosier, Unhlitm of Finn and Hengest 173. The
language is exotic, but ceast is attested in the Antwerp Glossary (Kindschi 64: Seditio,
flocslite [leg. folcslite] uel swicung, sacu, ceast) and ceas in Aldhelm glosses (Gwara,
Prosa de uirginitate, vol. 124A, p. 430: insectationes i. persecutiones, rixas uel csa).
The context makes it clear that an oath sworn unceas would mean that no guile
would be tolerated. An oath of unfh means forgoing vengeance.

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

155

And in gift-giving the son of Folcwalda [Finn] would honor the Danes,
Hengests heap, every day, would ennoble them with rings, jeweled treasures, and plated gold just as much as he would encourage Frisians in
the beer-hall.

No cavil endangers this agreement. OE benemnan to solemnize is

used only twice in Beowulf, here and when the ancient warriors solemnly declared their intentions for the treasure later claimed by the
dragon (3069b).55 Few critics doubt that the oath is bindingindeed,
that breaking oaths in general is unendurably disgraceful.56 Beowulf
says, Ic . . . ne me swor fela//aa on unriht (2736b9a), about which
the editors of Klaebers Beowulf comment, a conspicuous example of
litotes. Although Robert A. Albano thinks the Anglo-Saxons would
break any pledge if the greater commitment to revenge was already
in force, his argument contradicts what we know of oaths.57 Albano
finds vengeance ethical and concludes, if Hengest sees himself as
doing his duty and by doing that duty there is no breach of ethics,
then there is no dilemma.58 This argument evokes Brodeurs regard
for the friouwr as the mere abstract sanctity of an oath.59 If so, this
position renders Hengest despicable, given all the evidence to suggest
that Hengest does not want to break the truce. These critics and others would deny any heroic choice for Hengest.60 No, the difficulty for
Hengest becomes whether and how to escape the truce, but he arrives
at his decision to act with the greatest reluctance, and even then he
seems to doubt his plan.61

55
I realize that the usage of benemdon in this passage is disputed, but I agree
with Alan Blisss reasoning as laid out in Beowulf, Lines 307475, and with Tanke,
Gold-Luck.
56
Renoir, Heroic Oath 23766; on the sanctity of Germanic oaths, see North,
Tribal Loyalties 323.
57
Role of Women 4. Other remarks of Albanos cannot be substantiated either:
Once a bond of loyalty was established in either Anglo-Saxon or Old Norse culture,
such loyalty would last indefinitely (4). Albano ultimately denies Hengests dilemma:
Both Hildeburh and Hengest probably already had their minds made up as to what
action to take in connection with Finn (34). By this reading, Finn must have been
a fool to trust Hengests oath.
58
Role of Women 4.
59
Design and Motive 38.
60
Such as Fry, New Interpretation 10: I interpret Hengest as awaiting his chance
to avenge Hnf . . . Hengest must break his oath to Finn . . .
61
Although Hengest takes his oath so seriously he will not break it, references to
him as a traitor are somewhat overstated; cf. Stanley, Hengestes heap.

156

chapter two

The articles of the oath are given in detail. The poet emphasizes
the Frisian side of the agreement: Fin Hengeste . . . aum benemde
or Finn solemnized it with oaths to Hengest, 1096b7b. Thereafter
follow the stipulations:
1. t he a wealafe/weotena dome//arum heolde, 1098a9a: that
Finn would govern Hengests retinue honorably according to the judgment of his (Finns) counselors;
2. t r nig mon//wordum ne worcum/wre ne brce,1099b
1100b: that no one there would break the covenant by word or
deed;
3. ne urh inwitsearo/fre gemnden, 1101ab: nor would they
ever mention it through malicious cunning.

The referent of the unstated plural subject theyof gemnden (1101b)

has been disputed. North thinks it refers to Danes because the stated
subject hie of 1102a certainly does.62 It makes sense, however, that
the unstated subject of 1101b refers to the subjects, Frisians, already
under discussion, 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, nor would they even mention it, however subtly.64
Furthermore, the passage as a whole focuses on Finns oath. Since he
perpetrated the assault on Hnf, he is under pressure to prove that
no such attack would ever take place again. He must hold everyone
accountable. The passage naturally concludes by discussing a Frisian
violation:
gyf onne Frysna hwylc
s mororhetes
onne hit sweordes ecg

frecnen sprce
myndgiend wre,
syan scede. (1104a6b)

If any Frisian should ever recall the murderous hatred with bold speech,
the swords edge would afterwards settle it.65
Tribal Loyalties 23.
Pogatscher 261301.
64
The element searo denotes skillful artifice, and in prose always has a negative sense;
see Taylor, Searonias 11415.
65
Klaebers sean scolde (1106b) has been emended here in consideration of R. D.
Fulks reading syan scede (Cruces in the Finnsburg Fragment), where scede is
the preterite subjunctive of OE scadan decide. This emendation has been incorporated
into Klaebers Beowulf. The sense is not substantially changed from that of Klaebers
reading, but the syntax, phrasal parallelism, and metrical expectations are far superior.
Malone thought that the Klaebers original formulation, onne hit sweordes ecg/sean
scolde, meant that the man [guilty of trouble-making] will be put to death (Finn
Episode 163, my italics); but the fact that the swords edge should settle it rather
62
63

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

157

The concluding phrase Frysna hwylc . . . keeps us in mind that these

are the terms of Finns oath to Hengest, so that nig man (1099b)
means any Frisian.
Hengest and the Danes now obey a new lordFinnsince half of
Finns hall is given over to the Danes, and Finn dispenses treasure to
them as he would his own Frisians. While OE flett can mean hall, as
part of Finns terms it has a specific meaning: the platform of a hall
where retainers eat and sleep.66 The verb gerymdon (made room,
1086b) confirms this sense: Finn will clear one of two platforms for
Hengest and the Danes. Nothing suggests that Finn fails to treat the
Danes like his own men. For the Danes, however, loyalty to this oath
means serving Hnf s killer, a situation that compromises Hengests
allegiance to the Danish retinue. Indeed, the poet unconditionally
condemns Hnf s death, calling it mororbealo (1079b) or grief
resulting from murder. OE moror usually has a precise meaning: a
pointless or random killing, one for which no culprit or motive can be
identified.67 Hildeburhs grief likewise reminds the Danes of their suffering and humiliation, as John Hill points out.68 It has to be a sign of
profound reluctance that any provocation endangering such a precarious
detente will be punished by death.
Although binding, the truce becomes deeply shameful. A common impulse has therefore been to exonerate Hengest whose service
to Finn dishonors Hnf s memory: one cannot blame the Danes
overmuch . . . unheroic though their submission to Finn undoubtedly

implies that the entire episode of mororhete would be settled by all-out war, the
sort of risk that would prevent any baiting. Here the ingenious solution proposed by
Robinson (Textual Notes 111) should also be mentioned, in light of many cogent
parallels. Retention of syan would yield it will be left to the sword.
66
DOE s.v. flett sense 1; the editors cite this passage under sense 2 (dwelling, house,
hall).
67
OE mororbealu and its morphological equivalent morbealu are used only three
times in Beowulf. Grendel commits more murderous destruction (morbeala mare,
136a), because he is an indiscriminate killer without motive. The second attestation
comes during the Herebeald/Hcyn digression: Hcyns killing is called murder,
not because the crime was secretly committed but because it was both heinous and
motiveless. On compounds with the second element in -bealu, see Shippey, Wisdom and
Learning 130 note 6.
68
Hill, Cultural World 26; Warrior Ethic 645. 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, as Orchard has concluded in Critical
Companion 1778: The Beowulf-poet is a particular pains to highlight her impotence
and passivity, as well as her innocence: she is portrayed purely as a victim.

158

chapter two

remains.69 In part, the claim responds to the episodes triumphal mood

as entertainment for Hrogars company. Rebutting the allegation of
Hengests impiety, Rosemary Woolf identifies an ideal of effective
vengeance in the Finnsburh episode, part of an extensive argument
questioning the pointlessness of dying with ones lord in revenge.70 The
claim imposes a positive slant on Hengests behavior, that his service
must be a temporary expedient, his revenge already planned.71 The
case cannot be true, however, since Finn trusts not only the wording
of the oath but also Hengests allegiance to it. Finn is vulnerable. His
men have gone home for the winter, presumably leaving him only a
bodyguard:
Gewiton him a wigend
freondum befeallen,
hamas ond heaburh. (1125a7a)

wica neosian
Frysland geseon,

The warriors departed to seek out the towns, to see Frisia (now bereft of
friends),72 homes and high-dwellings.

Yet as I shall argue, Hengest never intends to break his oath, the
conditions of which he and Finn understand to be completely secure.
Therefore, Hengests 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.
William Lawrence has questioned why Hengest accepted the brokered
compromise, but the episode sidesteps this issue entirely and asks instead
why he should abide by the oath at all. One explanation bears on his
ambitions, another on his nationality. Hengest has competing allegiances
as a wrecca (1137b), a mercenary warrior or gist (guest, 1138a),
and Finn takes advantage of Hengests self-interest. The words of D. H.
Green, who has written extensively on early Germanic lordship, perfectly

Malone, Hildeburg and Hengest 270.

Ideal 69
71
Ibid. 71. Others have also suggested that the truce is only temporary (e.g. Fry,
New Interpretation; Boenig, Time Markers), but I prefer Norths argument (Tribal
Loyalties) that Finn intends to supplement his diminished warband with Hengests
recruits.
72
On this reading of freondum befeallen, see Bammesberger, OE befeallen;
Mitchell rejects Bammesbergers position in OE befeallen in Beowulf. Malone conjectured that the Danes were allowed to wander about Frisia, but the locution hamas ond
heaburh would then make little sense: why would Danes wish to see their enemies
homes? (Finn Episode 165).
69
70

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

159

describe Hengests role in Hnf s retinue: a leader who had proved

successful could attract warriors from outside his own tribe, lured by
the prospect of further success . . . However, in thus cutting across the
boundaries between tribes the war-band was also a disruptive force in
Germanic society.73 Finnsburh depicts such a disruption. In a single
enterprise Hengest vaults from subaltern, to Danish warband leader, to
co-equal with one of the celebrated kings of Germania. Like Beowulf,
who advances from untried foreign mercenary to great hero to royal
heir, Hengest must be feeling gratified by his fresh prominence. Other
parallels between Hengest and Beowulf emerge. Hengest ultimately
becomes a leader of Danes in a time of crisis, when Hnf is killed,
and Beowulf waits to be elevated now that Grendel is dead. Hrogars
Danes may be unhappy with this situation (at least Wealheow and
Hunfer are), just as Hnf s Danes seem to exhibit annoyance over
following Finn. However, my reading of their reaction to Hengests
delayed retribution derives from a context for which the chronology
requires justification.
The verses following Finns death describe the complaints of Gulaf
and Oslaf, the chief Danes in Hengests retinue:
Swylce ferhfrecan
Fin eft begeat
sweordbealo slien
t his selfes ham,
sian grimne gripe
Gulaf ond Oslaf
fter ssie
sorge mndon,
twiton weana dl . . . (1146a50a)
So [such?] cruel sword-killing again befell the bold Finn in his own home
once Gulaf and Oslaf lamented the sorrowthe grim assaultfollowing
their sea journey, and censured the number of their woes.

Two problems have puzzled readers here. Lawrence reasoned that

Gulaf and Oslaf had traveled home to Denmark and returned with
a larger force.74 This is entirely unnecessary if we accept these lines as
a recapitulation and consider fter ssie in reference to the original
sea-voyage that brought Hnf s party to Finnsburh. In such a way
fter could simply mean either following or attendant to/following

Language and History 108.

Tragedy of Finnsburg 41516; see also Malone, Finns Stronghold 85 (the
whole wealaf presumably left Frisia with them); idem, Hildeburg and Hengest 282;
Brodeur, Design and Motive 26; Tolkien, Finn and Hengest 138.
73
74

160

chapter two

from:75 Gulaf and Oslaf bemoan the sorrow following their sea-voyage to Frisia. If they had sailed home for fresh recruits, as Lawrence and
others alleged, Gulaf and Oslaf must be lamenting to their Danish
friends. In this event, Hengest would need no urging to make up his
mind. Of course, the problems with this reading abound. First, where
else are the fresh recruits mentioned, and is Finn so utterly naive that
he never suspects a Danish reprisal of such magnitude? Second, why
would Hengest exhibit such scruples over the truce, 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,76 but
here Shippey imagines that Hengest breaks the oath: Hengest goes
back on it by attacking Finn as treacherously as Finn attacked Hnaef.77
In fact, the choice to act lies with Hengest all along.
A further complication concerns the subject of Gulaf s and Oslaf s
complaint. Some readers have seen them prematurely breaking Finns
truce by enticing the Frisians to break their oath.78 These critics read
twiton weana dl in reference to Finn, that Gulaf and Oslaf baited
Finn and therefore broke the agreement. North proposes, however, that
Gulaf 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, making their taunts,
and signal to Danes, Jutes and others to fall on the Frisians.79 The
problem with such readings as these is, again, they do not acknowledge
that breaking a sworn truce would be reprehensible. The Danes should
be praised for a just action, but how can betrayal ever be praiseworthy?

75
DOE s.v. sense II.C.1 following (someone/something) in succession, succeeding,
after; sense II.C.7 subsequent to and in consequence of, as a result of, because of.
76
Old English Verse 25. Girvan also dislikes the duplicity, but the suggestion that the
episode praises the Danes disturbs him more (Finnsburuh 11). Phillip Pulsiano attempts
to show that Danes especially were known for verbal duplicity. Pulsiano nowhere alleges,
however, that Danes actually break oaths, but his general observation on duplicity as a
Danish national attribute could imply that Gulaf and Oslaf come up with the plan
that Hengest adopts.
77
Old English Verse 25.
78
Klaeber, Beowulf 176 note to lines 1148 ff.; Orchard, Critical Companion 1856;
Brodeur, Design and Motive 27: Gulaf and Oslaf cast in Finns teeth all the woes
that had befallen them since that first fateful journey across the sea, to Finnsburg (Brodeurs
italics); Earl R. Anderson, Formulaic Typescene Survival 295.
79
Tribal Loyalties 31. Fry suggests that Guthlaf and Oslaf embolden the Danish
spirits by reciting all their woes since the original voyage to Frisia (New Interpretation 12).

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

161

Furthermore, if Gulaf and Oslaf break the truce, what good could be
said of Hengest, whose role as agent provocateur has been diminished?
Another view may be easier to accept. Hengest decides to bring about
a conflict only after complaints from the highest quarters. Gulaf and
Oslaf therefore recount the sufferings that follow on their venture, the
sea-journey to Frisia. For the sake of argument, let me suggest that
Hengests vacillation disgusts them, and that their criticism is piercing.
Yet agreeing that the Danish party criticizes Hengest means agreeing
that Hengest has earned their reproach. I think he has. Admittedly
polysemous, OE mnan generically means bewail in Beowulf, and
in the passage it varies OE twitan to reproach: Gulaf and Oslaf
reproach Hengest for the number of woes they have suffered. In vernacular poetry, even poetry not contemporaneous with Beowulf, OE
twitan describes the reprehensible behavior of a retinue that fails to
avenge its fallen lord, as in Maldon:80
Ne sceolon me on re eode
t ic of isse fyrde
eard gesecan,
forheawen t hilde. (220a3a)

egenas twitan
feran wille,
nu min ealdor lige

Retainers among my countrymen shall not reproach me, that I intend

to leave this host to seek my homeland, now that my lord lies dead, cut
down in battle.
Ne urfon me embe Sturmere
wordum twitan,
t ic hlafordleas

stedefste hl
nu min wine gecranc,
ham siie . . . (249a51b)

Steadfast heroes from Sturmer need not reproach me with words, that I
would go home lordless now that my friend has fallen.

Gulaf and Oslaf accuse Hengest of the worst dereliction.

Yet this criticism of Hengest has dismayed some readers, such as
Kemp Malone: A Hengest who hangs back, reluctant to take action
and in need of prodding by his more heroic fellows, has no proper place
in heroic poetry.81 Furthermore, Finns apparent trust in Hengesthe
must be utterly devoted to the Frisian camp for Finn to suspect no retributionfurther impugns Hengests character. Some have seen Finns
There are only five occurrences of OE twitan in verse. It translates exprobraverunt
(they accused) twice in the Paris Psalter (73.16, 88.45).
81
Hildeburg and Hengest 278; see also 2823. This is also the opinion of Taylor,
Beowulf 1130 358.
80

162

chapter two

innocence in his trust of Hengest, especially Chambersone obvious

reason why Hildeburh is thought to have no faith in Jutes. Rather, Finn
places his trust in the solemn oaths that Hengest swears.
Hengest is quite clearly the leader of Danes, principal to Gulaf
and Oslaf, who demand revenge. Yet Hengest has no tribal, let alone
blood, ties making revenge imperative, and as I have pointed out, he
has everything to gain from an alliance with Finn. The explicit terms
of the sworn oath reveal Hengests position: eah hie hira beaggyfan/
banan folgedon//eodenlease . . . (although, lordless, they followed
their ring-givers slayer, 1102a3a). OE eodenlease can be translated
lordless, but it literally means without a national leader or head of
the eod,82 the present circumstances of Hengests followers. The Danes
still follow Hengest, neither a member of their eod nor, by extension,
of their blood.83 Like Beowulf he may be said to be eleodig or
belonging to another eod (336b). Since Germanic national revenge
devolves on the eod, just as feud does on the kin,84 Hengests position
becomes confrontational within his own faction. As Richard North
acknowledges, there is no evidence in this text that Hengest has any
duty to avenge a leader who was not a blood-relative.85 Perhaps this
fact explains why the Cynewulf and Cyneheard episode from the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle poorly reflects the motivations of Finnsburh, even
though it is frequently used to support claims of Hengests duty to
avenge Hnf. Allegiance to ones king could apparently override duty
to ones kin. Yet Hengest is no king but a war-leader, maybe even of
a mercenary band.86

82
Just as dryhten means leader of a dryht (war-band), eoden means leader of a eod
(nation or tribe in a quite restricted sense); see Green, Language and History 1267;
Storms, Subjectivity 178.
83
The point is emphasized in the expression eodnes egne (1085a) in reference
to Hengest; see Carleton Brown 1813.
84
Evans, Lords of Battle 68; Bazelmans 3.
85
Tribal Loyalties 25.
86
Ibid. 18, 28. North suggests that Hengest transfers power and responsibility for
the oath to the Danes. While I do not follow his argument about the transfer of
power, his remarks on Hengests role in the confederacy are germane. The problem
is, of course, that Hengest seems to hold sway over the Danes as more than a leader
in name alone.

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

163

Jutes and Giants in Finnsburh

As impossible as it is to know Hengests nationality, I would argue that,
at the very least, he cannot be Danish. Relying on the testimony of
the Historia Brittonum, some critics deduce that Hengest was an Angle,
designating a relatively small tribe occupying the territory of present-day
Angeln, between the Schlei river and Flensborg Fjord. Most, however,
would claim Hengest as a Jute on the basis of evidence from Beowulf
and Bedes Historia ecclesiastica.87 Bede tells that Kent was settled by
Jutes and that Hengest ruled in Kent, so by inference Hengest could
have been a Jute.88 In fact, it seems certain that Hengest is the originary Germanic settler of Kent, as stated in Bede. Yet Jutes, I contend,
are nowhere mentioned in Beowulf, and neither is Hengests nationality. The matter has been thought important, because the word eotena
(of the giants/Jutes) appears throughout the Finnsburh digression,
and much has been made of its meaning. The Old English word for
Jute was the weak feminine eote, with plural forms: nom./acc. eotan,
gen. eotena, and dat. eotum.89 OE eoten, a noun denoting a creature like
a giant, is found only four times in Beowulf, and twice in the Trinity
College Psalter, where it glosses Latin gigas (giant).90 As Robert
Kaske observes, three additional attestations preserve the grammatically ambiguous genitive plural form, eotena. All three come from the
Finnsburh digression: eotena treowe (1072a) and eotena bearn
(1088a, 1141a). Although weak eote (Jute) is morphologically distinct
from the strong eoten (giant), some still allege that eotenas in Beowulf
means Jutes. Just how this happened can be summarized from the
commentary in J. R. R. Tolkiens posthumous lectures on Finnsburh,
edited by Alan Bliss:
Orchard, Critical Companion 183.
The archaeology supports Bede; see Myres; Suzuki 10321. However, Hengest
is never called a Jute, and it makes sense that he could be an Angle, as Alan Bliss
proposed on the evidence of the Historia Brittonum (Tolkien, Finn and Hengest 16880).
On the impossibility of discovering facts of Anglo-Saxon settlement history from the
written sources, see Sims-Williams.
89
Chambers, Widsith 23741.
90
In Beowulf, alongside the adjective eotenisc (made by giants, giant) and compound noun eotonweard (watch against a giant); see DOE s.v. eoten. Klaeber marks
this word with the symbols denoting its exceptional rarity in prose (s.v.). On the poets
linguistic precision in using eoten and gigant, see Bandy 240. Eric Stanley facetiously
proposes Jutish giants in his translation of eotena cynnes, 883b (Notes on Old
English Poetry 333).
87
88

164

chapter two
I have no hesitation in saying at once that Jutes are undoubtedly referred
to. The argument on which this conclusion is based is essentially bound
up with the identification of Hengestand also, for all these problems
are intricately bound up with traditions concerning early Danish history,
with the identification of Heremod and the explanation of the dark allusions in Beowulf 898915 and 17091722.91

By a chain of association, Tolkien identified Heremod as the Danish

king Lotherus, who had been deposed by his barons for belligerence
in Saxos Gesta Danorum. We learn in Beowulf that Heremod had been
driven mid eotenum (902b). Tolkien then invoked Messeniuss remark
in the Scondia Illustrata that Lotherus had been driven in Jutiam.92 He
concludes that eotenum therefore means Jutes, both here and elsewhere
in Beowulf. Tolkien tried to rationalize the genealogical evidence with
the philologicalsupporting the form as a late morphological development along the lines of OE oxnum93but even Alan Bliss demurred
in a footnote: Actually, no such late forms are found . . . with proper
nouns.94 By reading eoten as Jute, Tolkien (and many others besides)
have seriously complicated the action in the Finnsburh episode.
Richard North extended Tolkiens observations, which seem now to
have been widely accepted.95 Tolkien made much of the phrase on
twa healfa (on the two sides, 1095b) describing the truce, sensing
that the poet could not say on ba healfa (on both sides) because
more than two parties were involved.96 It has therefore been theorized
that Jutes served with Hnf and Finn, and that Finns Jutes attacked
Hnf s.97 Thus, North imagines Finns Jutes to have been resident in
Frisia long enough to have adopted a Frisian identity. This incipient
loyalty to Finn is the Eotena treowe that Hildeburh should not have
trusted. North likewise argues that the terms of the treaty include
establishing a second hall where Hengest would rule the Jutes in

Finn and Hengest 534.

Messenius.
93
Cf. Campbell, Old English Grammar 619.
94
Finn and Hengest 62 note 64. Bliss does offer an unlikely parallel in OIcel gotnar,
gotna, gotnum (Goths, men).
95
Suzuki 11617.
96
This does not seem to be the case, however, in Beowulf 1305a (on ba healfa),
describing the Danes and Grendels sides. The genitive singular adjective healfre
in the phrase t hie healfre geweald . . . agan moston modifies a feminine noun,
almost certainly heal.
97
Thorkelin first identified the eotenas as Jutes in his 1815 translation of Beowulf:
Jutorum foedus/Injuste fuit/Fractum adversus dominum.
91
92

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

165

both factions, Hnf s and Finns, as North translates the verses t

hie healfre geweald//wi 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, 1087b8b).98 Unfortunately, the complications
of reading eotena bearn as sons of the Jutes in the episode means,
first, that Finn could be absolved of responsibility for Hnf s death,
an unlikely position. Second, if Hengest took revenge on Jutes rather
than Frisians, 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 Tolkiens complex version of events in Finnsburh.
In 1967 R. E. Kaske argued that eoten throughout Beowulf means giant,
either enemy or Frisian and that Hengests Danes ridicule the
Frisians with the epithet.99 Giants were the traditional enemies of the
sir and Vanir in the Scandinavian cosmology, and the familiarization
seems as natural as calling someone a devil today. Kaskes view has
gained some recent strong support from John F. Vickrey, who alleges that
eorcyninges in Beowulf 1155b and eorbuendra in the Fragment
32b denote figurative earth-dwellers or giants.100 Jacqueline Stuhmiller,
moreover, observes that Beowulf has just trounced Grendel, an eoten of
sorts.101 She suggests that Beowulf, like Hengest, is an eoten-slayer. Kaskes
work was less context-specific, however. He noted that Skldskaparml attests that giant terms (jtnaheiti) are insulting designations
for men. Yet another recension of the text claims that a man can be
called a jtunn (kent er ok til itna), the Old Icelandic cognate
of eoten, and exemplifies the heiti with a verse.102 jlfr of Hvinirs
late ninth-century Haustlng deploys the phrase enemy of Thor

Tribal Loyalties 21.

Eotenas in Beowulf ; see also Holthausen, Zu altenglischen Denkmlern 180;
Lawrence, Tragedy of Finnsburg 393: . . . Frisians, the men of King Finn, who
are also called Eotenas . . .; Malone, Finn Episode 161: . . . Euts and Frisians are
equivalent terms, for our poet, and from that we may infer that the treachery was on
the Frisian side.
100
Eor-Compounds.
101
Her point is that the Geats may have vanquished this particular eotena [Grendel],
but the Danes have eradicated whole hosts of them in the past, against tremendous
odds (11). Stuhmiller concludes with an observation similar to mine: it is no less
important to acknowledge that Beowulf himself, from a Danish viewpoint at least, is
a rapacious eoten of sorts (12).
102
Kaske, Eotenas in Beowulf 289.
98
99

166

chapter two

for giant.103 Interestingly, the Frisians seem to have been reputed for
their size. Kaske observes that jlfrs expression, fjalla Finns ilja
br minni (on my bridge of the foot-soles of the Lapp [= Finns]
of the Fells), refers to the giant Hrungnir, who protects himself from
the god Thor by standing on his own shield.104 Finnr has to mean
giant here.105 To continue, the runic Rk Stone seems to refer to a
man as a killer of giants, very tentatively identified as Frisians. Finally,
Kaske brings forward some medieval Italian references to the height of
Frisiansimplying that Frisians were known in Dantes circles for their
size. Here I must mention that details about Hygelac in the English Liber
Monstrorum have been attributed to Frisian oral talesperhaps accounting for the morbid interest in the dimensions of Hygelacs bones.106 On
the basis of Kaskes Norse evidence, then, OE eoten could mean giant
in the Finnsburh contexts. If so, it may denote an enemy or specifically a Frisian, should one wish to emphasize the minuscule evidence
of Frisian gigantism. Ultimately, reading eoten as a Frisian or enemy fits
the context I furnish for the poem. In this context, Hengests position
is tragicas Brodeur alleges. He must choose service to Finn or
vengeance for Hnf regardless of the cost to his personal reputation.
Hengest can either break a sworn oath or deny vengeance to his lord.
While the Danes censure Hengest for following Finn, Hengest does find
a solution to his predicament, one that preserves his honor.
Hengests Resolution
Malone does observe, for all the wrong reasons,107 the poets accusation
of Hengests failure:
. . . Hengest, however eager, was unable to fulfil his obligation of taking
vengeance . . . We are told, not that Hengest left Finns court, but that he
was eager to leave; not that he brought on a battle, but that he had it in
mind to bring one on; not that he took vengeance, but that he thought of

North, Haustlng 8, 69.

Ibid. 56.
105
See the comments of Russchen 351 and Wilts.
106
Magoun, Beowulf and King Hygelac; Backx 61; Whitbread, Liber Monstrorum
and Beowulf 463.
107
Brodeur is especially dismissive of the view that Hengest made no [heroic] choice
at all . . . between duty linked with desire to avenge . . . and his own weak irresolution;
see Design and Motive.
103
104

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

167

taking it. This is surely apologetic material: the poet lays so much stress
on his heros good intentions that we must suspect the hero of failing to
carry them out.108

Malone calls Hengest a sinner, a judgment raising the issue of blame

for Hengests delay: The poet warms to him . . . because he repents of
his sin, even though he is unable to make amends.109 Malone makes
this claim because he sees Gulaf and Oslaf, not Hengest, as Hnf s
avengers. Hengests resignation incriminates his resolve, but he does
make amends in my reading of the episode. Yet Malone reasonably
detects Hengests equivocation, as some evidence discloses Hengests
hesitation to pursue vengeance for Hnf. As Brodeur avers, Hengests
followers were separated from him by an abyss of incomprehension
and mistrust; 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.111
Hengest a gyt
wlfagne winter
wunode mid Finne
[ea]l unhlitme;
eard gemunde,
eah e he [sic MS] meahte
on mere drifan
hringedstefnan
holm storme weol,
won wi wind,
winter ye beleac
isgebinde . . . (1127b33a)

Finn Episode 168.

Ibid. 171.
110
Design and Motive 23. Brodeur, however, thinks that Hengest resolves to break
his oath.
111
Stanley, Poetic Diction 252, 257; Burlin, Inner Weather. 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.). The editors of Klaebers Beowulf adopt
the following emendation of 1128b29a:
wunode mid Finne;
he unhlitme
eard gemunde,
eah e ne meahte
on mere drifan
hringedstefnan . . . (1128b31a)
[Hengest] dwelled with Finn. He eagerly remembered his homeland, although
he could not drive his ring-prowed ship on the sea.
Yet it seems imprecise to allege that unhlitme (not by lot) has lost its originary sense and
simply means eagerly, in the sense he fondly remembered. The negative adverb ne in
1130a seems more defensible: Hengest remembered a homeland but could not leave.
108
109

168

chapter two
Hengest then voluntarily dwelled with Finn for a slaughter-stained winter;
he recalled a homeland, although he might drive his ring-prowed ship on
the sea. The ocean weltered in storm, struggled against the wind, winter
locked the wave, the ice-fetter.

The winter Hengest spends with Finn is wlfag, stained by the

remembered slaughter. Hengests growing discomfort with his position
is demonstrated by the expression eard gemunde (1129b): Hengest
remembered [his, a, the] homeland.
The precise meaning of eal unhlitme has been contested (the manuscript reads finnel unhlitme), but nearly all views connect it to OE
hlitm and translate not by lot.112 Donald K. Fry takes eal unhlitme as
voluntarily113 and John F. Vickrey renders it not by necessity.114
They jointly argue that Hengest willingly stays in Frisia to avenge
Hnf, and Vickrey extends the case by reading eard gemunde as bore
in mind where disaster had befallen his lord.115 North connects the
curious expression to Gildass remark that the Germanic invaders read
omens before venturing to Britannia. Gildass words are omen and
auguria.116 Historia Brittonum, however, records that Hengest was forced

112
While many have offered reconstructions of the text, the solution (Finn) eal
unhlitme has found favor, the last two words being translated not at all by lot. This
reading connects unhlitme to OE hleotan to cast lots and OE hliet chance, lot, share;
cf. on hlytme, Beowulf 3126a. Orchard translates ill-fated (Critical Companion 186).
113
Finnsburh 22.
114
Narrative Structure 91: Any hlitm, casting of lots, would imply choice in
the sense decision pursuant to lots and not to ones desires. But the translation having no choice means much more than this; it means unwillingly, and shows that
-hlitm here is really taken to imply free choice, choice pursuant to ones desires. The
translation voluntarily may be euphemistic, as Fulk implies in his treatment of the
term as not reluctantly, eagerly, fondly (Six Cruces 199). Having accepted
the sense eagerly, he applies unhlitme to the following half-line eard gemunde,
partly because the subsequent verses about the winter weather suggest the impossibility
of travel. Fulk therefore accepts the emendation ne < MS he in 1130a. In proposing
the clause onset, he also recommends emending eal to he. These suggestions have been
incorporated into Klaebers Beowulf. Given the telegraphic style of the passage, I do not
think that the verses on the winter weather need to explain the reason for Hengests
predicament, as the punctuation (a dash) implies. One could intuit, Hengest stayed
happily, even though he could sail home . . . the winter squalls set in.
115
Narrative Structure 95; Vickrey claims, Hengest meditates a dire revenge
(ibid.). Vickrey further argues that Hengests revenge is implicated twice in the telling.
When the poet describes the dread winter he actually portrays Hengests mood. The
arrival of spring represents Hengests revenge: The first ending hints at rage and a
slaughterous revenge; the second records the details of revenge (101).
116
Tribal Loyalties 27: Hengest does not sail, therefore he does not look for omens . . .
[he] plans to settle a new land [Britain], but his private feud takes precedence.

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

169

to leave his homeland, although omens as such are not mentioned:

Interea tres ceolae, a Germania in exilium expulsae, Bryttanniam
aduenerunt.117 Geoffrey of Monmouth seems to have embroidered the
tradition of Hengests exile by adding details of a lottery:
Fueramus etenim expulsi a patria nostra nec ob aliud nisi quia consuetudo regni expetebat. Consuetudo nanque in patria nostra est ut, cum
habundantia hominum in eadem superuenerit, conueniunt ex diuersis
prouintiis principes et totius regni iuuenes coram se uenire precipiunt.
Deinde proiecta sorte potiores atque fortiores eligunt qui extera regna
petituri uictum sibi perquirant [ut] patria ex qua orti sunt a superflua
multitudine liberetur. Superfluente igitur nouiter in regno nostro hominum
copia conuenerunt principes nostri sortemque proicientes elegerunt iuuentutem istam quam in presentia tua cernis; preceperunt ut consuetudini
ab antiquo statute parerent.118
We were expelled from our homeland for no other reason than that our
nations custom required it. For the custom in our land is that when there
is an abundance of men in it, the nobles from various districts meet
and command the young men from the whole kingdom to come before
them. Lots are then cast, and the powerful and strong choose those who
will seek out foreign kingdoms to earn their bread, so that the homeland
where they were born may be freed from an inordinate multitude. Since
a superabundance of men has lately befallen our homeland, our princes,
casting lots, selected the youth which you see in your presence; the nobles
commanded that they adhere to the custom by ancient decree.

Given Geoffreys celebrity for invention, the sentiment may express nothing more than his impulse to amplify Gildas remarks. If the lottery
reflects an actual tradition, however, 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
Hnf. The fact that Hengest stays eal unhlitme in this instance could
mean one of two things: no lottery compelled Hengests service to Finn
or no lottery forced him to leave. Taking not by lot as voluntarily
perfectly captures the sense of the expression.
From the parallels in Gildas, North ingeniously suggested that
Hengest recalls a homeland: Britain.119 Presumably Hengest stayed on
to consummate his revenge, as lines 1137b9b suggest:

117
118
119

Dumville, Historia Brittonum 82.

Neil Wright, Historia Regum 65 (emending et to ut).
Tribal Loyalties 267.

170

chapter two
gist of geardum;
swior ohte

Fundode wrecca,
he to gyrnwrce
onne to slade . . .

The wrecca was eager to set out, the guest from those precincts. He thought
more about vengeance than his sea venture.

Notwithstanding his ambitions, Hengest thinks more about vengeance

than any sea venture. For some reason, however, he continues to honor
his pledge to Finn. While he had the opportunity to go home, he is
trapped in Finnsburh.120 Something is holding him back.
In the end Hengest cannot restrain his wfre mod (1150b) or hesitant disposition. In describing Beowulf s action with the dragon I will
suggest that the term wfre describes a psychic paralysis, an indecisiveness
about proper behavior. The sense flickering, as of igniting a flame
(Daniel 240b) or gutturing might also be defended here. Others have
translated wfre more vaguely by attributing an indistinct restlessness
to the Danes. Translating the clause ne meahte wfre mod/forhabben
in hrere (115051a) as the restless spirit [of the Danes] could not
restrain itself in the breast, Kemp Malone simultaneously makes the
verb reflexive and writes Hengest out of the Danish revenge.121 Yet
Hengests uncertainty finds direct expression in the clause,
. . . gif he torngemot
t he eotena bearn

urhteon mihte,
inne gemunde. (1140a1b)

. . . if he could engineer an angry meeting, that he might remind the sons

of the giants within.

The hapax legomenon torngemot consists of elements torn angry, indignant plus gemot counsel, meeting, assembly. Others have interpreted
torngemot as I do, but these critics insist that the Danes intend to hold
such a meeting.122 On the contrary, Hengest does not intend to break the
oath, but he engineers an angry meeting where he goads the Frisians
into breaking it. In this way he might remind the sons of the giants
[= enemies, Frisians] within [inne]. The semantic problem here is
twofold: the meaning of adverb inne and of verb gemunde. OE
inne has occasionally been emended to irne (with iron), but inne may
120
The half-line eah e he meahte has often been emended to eah e ne
meahte, but the negation should be rejected; see Taylor, Beowulf 1130 and North,
Tribal Loyalties 26.
121
Finn Episode 159.
122
Fry, New Interpretation 11.

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

171

stand as an adverb of position.123 North alone has argued that inne

here means within the nation,124 although inwardly (of a mental
state) could make sense, too.125 Yet the context is more specific: inside
the hall. Adverb inne can be found seven other times in Beowulf, and
in five of these it means inside a hall.126 The best parallels occur in
1866b, where Hrogar is said to have bestowed gifts inside (inne
gesealde) and in 3059b, where the dragon is said to have hidden his
treasure inside (inne gehydde). The context of inne inside the hall
or barrow has to be inferred, since mention of either location is several
lines away. A further parallel from Vainglory shows that inne can mean in
a hall: witan fundia//hwylc scstede,/inne in rcede//mid werum
wunige (Inside the building prudent men are eager to know where
the battlefield will be among their peers, 16b18a). This is exactly the
circumstances of the passage in Finnsburh. Hengest makes Finns hall
the scene of his revenge.
Hengest intends to remember (gemunan) the sons of the giants/
enemies inside the hall, where he can press an advantage. OE gemunan
generally means to remember, but how would one remember the
sons of giants/enemies?127 The collocation recalls Norse expressions
meaning take revenge,128 since the Beowulf poet uses gemunan to denote
the promise of compensation for acts committed or pledged. Ic e
s lean geman (I will remember a reward for you for that) says

123
The emendation proposed by Trautmann. Bruce Mitchell offers a discussion of
this line in his Two Syntactical Notes.
124
Tribal Loyalties 1920.
125
An excellent precedent for the sense mental state can be found in Beowulf
2113b.
126
Lines 390b, 642b, 1281b (adverb of motion), 1570b, 1800b, 1866b; 3059b refers
to the dragons lair. The phrase is highly formulaic. It occurs solely in the b-verse, and
three times in Beowulf (I count inne gemunde) inne is found with a preterite verb
form having prefix ge-.
127
Orchard suspects that gemunan remember can also mean call to mind (Critical
Companion 186), but this sense would require justification if it meant call to (someone
elses) mind. Yet Orchards 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. The
form gemunde appears to be preterite subjunctive, but a translation would be crabbed:
might have remembered.
128
Cleasby and Vigfusson s.v. muna sense 2. It has to be conceded that in all the Old
Icelandic citations, one does not remember a person (as in Beowulf ) but his doings. One
remembers (humiliations or miseries) just before seeking revenge in Beowulf 1259b
(Grendels mother remembers yrme or humiliation) and 2488b89a (Eofors hand
remembered feuds). In the Heaobard digression the eald scwiga remembers all and
goads a youth to murder (2042b).

172

chapter two

Wealheow in 1220b when she asks Beowulf to protect her sons. Elsewhere Beowulf remembers a requital (lean gemunde, 2391b) for
Heardreds death: Se s leodhryres/lean gemunde (he remembered
a requital for the princes [or: nations] fall, 2391). When Hengest says
eotena bearn . . . gemunde, that he means to remember the Frisians
inside the hall, he intends to pay them back for their earlier attack.
The understatement euphemizes Hengests determination and makes
the scene of his suffering the arena of his vengeance.
To this end, the Danish Hunlafing129 presents Hengest with a sword
whose edges are known among the giants [that is, the Frisians]: s
wron mid eotenum/ecge cue, 1145ab. While Kaske interprets this
passage to mean that the sword was oldknown among the ancient
race of giantshe suggests the alternative known among Frisians
as well. This reading is arguably preferable, since it has lately been
established that the Beowulf poet uses eoten consistently for post-diluvian
creatures.130 The emphasis on the swords edgesnot on the common
Old English metonymy ecg for a sword in generalimplies violence.
On the one hand, this sword may have been used to kill Frisians in the
surprise attack, perhaps even Hnf s, thereby making it known.131 On

129
This character is the son of Hunlaf (see John R. Clark Hall) known from
the pages of the lost Skjoldunga Saga epitomized by Arngrmur Jnsson in his Rerum
Danicarum fragmenta (Hunleifus, Oddleifus, Gunnleifus, which correspond exactly to
Hunlaf, Oddlaf (Ordlaf/Oslaf ), and Gulaf ), and from an important reference in
Cotton Vespasian D. IV fol. 139v, deriving from an anonymous history de Bruto et
Brittonibus secundum Bedam (Imelmann, review of Heyne and Schcking, Beowulf
col. 999): In diebus illis, imperante Valentiniano . . . regnum barbarorum et germanorum exortum est. Surgentesque populi et naciones per totam Europam consederunt.
Hoc testantur gesta rudolphi et hunlapi, Unwini et Widie, Horsi et Hengisti, Waltef
et hame, quorum quidam in Italia, quidam in Gallia, alii in britannia, ceteri vero in
Germania armis et rebus bellicis claruerunt. Various readings have been proposed (for
which see Klaebers Beowulf note to lines 11424), a heterodox one revived by Friend.
Two questions arise if we accept the reading Hunlafing: Is Hunlafing the name of a
sword (Olrik, Danmarks Heltedigtning vol. 1, p. 68; Malone, Hunlafing) or a person?
The question arises whether one can call a son Hunlafing without a full first name,
but Brodeur seems to have resolved the question to the extent that it can be (Climax
33054). Girvan perversely identified Hengest as Hunlafing: it was on his own lap he
laid and wore the sword (Finnsburuh 24).
130
Bandy.
131
Although this is not the only explanation: Van Meter recalls an earlier explanation (i.e. Girvan, Finnsburuh 24) that the sword may have been Hnf s and that a
ritual of political legitimation renders Hengest fully responsible for blood vengeance
(185; the notion of an heir seems implicit). If so, we would need to account for the
delay of the ceremony, Hengests own reluctance to break the treaty (does one require
a ceremony to perform ones duty?) before and afterwards, and the ambiguity of the
swords history.

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

173

the other hand, the sword may have an even older history, one I am
prepared to argue for. My claim for the function of the sword in the
episode derives from the parallel I noted above between the Finnsburh
and Heaobard digressions.
In the Heaobard digression, a byre provocatively wears a Heaobard
sword captured in a battle that had been waged in a prior generation.132 The sword was passed from father to son. This is exactly the
circumstances of Hunlafings sword, already passed down from the
previous generation. The anomalous sobriquet Hunlafing or son of
Hunlaf emphasizes this important distinction. While the boys name
is irrelevant, his parentage is not. 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.
In short, an insensitivity recalls a past conflict, which in turn affects
Ingelds marriage, despite Ingelds best efforts to prevent any breach
of trust. Recall that the perpetrator escaped, making punishment or
compensation for the slaughtered Dane impossible. Like Ingeld, 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. But to be faithful to the terms of the treaty,
Hengest would want just this eventuality, since he expects the treaty to
be breached by infuriated Frisians.
Hunlafing presents the sword not to bait Hengest but for him to wear
it and precipitate an incendiary reaction among Frisians in the hall.133
Hence, the verb urhteon, literally to pull through but here to effect,
highlights Hengests ostensible conspiracy. This strategy answers the
detail that Hengest wanted to provoke a torngemot or angry meeting.
The point is to make the Frisians remember grievances against Danes,
for which reason the poet emphasizes the Frisian oath. One must not

Hanning 6, 8.
Frank, Germanic Legend 90: The silent placing of a sword on Hengests lap
screams out vengeance. Frank is not quite clear how the sword prompts Hengest,
and neither is Klaeber, writing, Hunlafing . . . presents Hengest with a famous sword
with the stipulation . . . that the vengeance he is brooding over is to be carried into
execution (Observations 547). For Klaeber, it almost seems as if the sword were
a giftor bribe. Malone (Hildeburg and Hengest 276) proposes that receiving the
sword signifies Hengests intent: On this earlier occasion the Eotens had got well
acquainted with his sword; he is intent on having them renew this acquaintance; see
also Finn Episode 167. Brodeur alleges, acceptance of the sword was a promise
to Hengests men; it restored him to unity with them, and ended his tragic isolation
(Design and Motive 24).
132
133

174

chapter two

say anything related to the settlement, but it might all emerge if emotions can be provoked. Hunlafings sword must have had a transparent
history if Hengest is using it to make the Frisians speak of remembered
killings, the essential reason why it is known among giants. It has
been suggested that Hunlaf fell in the attack on the hall and that his
son received the fathers sword. This seems unlikely, since the prominent Hunlaf is not made the object of vengeance. More likely, it would
violate the oath to bring up an issue related to the current feud, but
the past is not off limits.
North follows some readers who allege that Hunlafing receives Hengests rule over the Danes by placing his sword in Hengests lap.134 In
this way, Hengest transfers his power and responsibility for the oath,
presumably to Hunlafing. On the basis of four episodes (two from the
sagas, one from Beowulf, and one from Saxo), North reasons that receiving a sword indicates vassalage. In each of Norths cases, however, a
king delivers the sword, whereas in Finnsburh a subordinate (Hunlafing)
hands it over. Hunlafing would therefore have to be a king alreadya
status the alleged ceremony preempts. Norths 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, is an attack ethical by heroic standards? Why should the
young Hunlafing become king and not Gulaf or Oslaf ? Why are
the swords edges known among giants? Two more questions emerge
as well: Of what parallel relevance is the detail of the sword-wearer in
the Heaobard digressionif it indeed echoes Finnsburh? If the Danes
could slaughter Finn with impunity, why do they need Hengest to cede
power? He need not break the oath if they assaulted Finn on their own.
Finally, in yielding power does Hengest capitulate in his duty to seek
revenge, as Malone charged, 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 Hengests plot. North alleges Hengests reluctance
to break the oath, but the pledge is broken in his reading.
Handing over the sword is described by the idiom don + on, which
generally means put on in Old English, a locution different from
alicgan + on in 2194ab (. . . on Biowulfes/bearm alegde or laid in

134

Tribal Loyalties 289.

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

175

Beowulf s lap).135 The phrase on bearm could mean on his lap

by synecdoche but could equally represent attaching a sword to a baldric.136 Most plausibly, Hunlafing puts his own famous swordperhaps
Hunlaf s own (?captured) swordon Hengest. This moment has a
strong correlate in the Ingeld digression, where a sword worn innocently provokes a murder. The parallel is being exploited: a sword is
being used as provocation in a scene like that in Finns hall. Interestingly, the sword mentioned in the Ingeld digression had been taken
from Heaobards at some time prior to the marriage settlement. So,
too, was Hunlafings sword, almost certainly inherited from Hunlaf. Its
edges are hypothetically known among giants because Hunlaf either
killed many giants with it or took it from giantsFrisians, in other
words. The expression simply suggests why Frisians would react when
they see the weapon. In the Heaobard digression the tauntings of
the eald scwiga and the murder that incites war trigger this reaction.137
Hengest wears the sword as provocation, thereby preserving the letter
of his oath. Hengest expects that a Frisian will see the sword, recall
a fatal incident unrelated to the current delicate situation, complain
of it, and thereby bring up the feud. In fact, this strategy answers the
specific clause in the treaty between Finn and Hengest:
gyf onne Frysna hwylc
s mororhetes
onne hit sweordes ecg

frecnen sprce
myndgiend wre,
syan scede. (1104a6b)

If some Frisian should call to mind through audacious talk the murderous
hostility, then the swords edge would afterwards settle it.

Hengest makes the Frisians resort to such audacious talk, so that he may
exploit this provision and settle the dispute honorably, by not breaking
the truce himself. Hengest remains leader of the Danes throughout but
only earns respect by making the Frisians break the oatha situation

Gwara, Second Language Acquisition 14.

Collinder 201. A verse from Maxims II 25b bears on this question: sweord sceal
on bearme. This occurs in a long section patterned X sceal on Y describing where
men or objects should be positioned. Thus, a gem should stand in a ring (23b4a),
a mast on a ships keel must support a sail-yard (24b5a), a king should give rings
in his hall (28b9a). The context (as well as the dative of position) here indicates that
the sword be attached to the bearm, and there is every reason to think that Hunlafing
places the sword where it belongs, and not on Hengests lap.
137
Hill suggestsand there is no avoiding the realistic possibility of his readingthat
Hengest then carried out his vengeance using the sword (Warrior Ethic 67).
135
136

176

chapter two

identical to Ingelds. Even so, Hengest can be faulted for making his
decision only after Danish intimidation.
Hunlafings act ultimately coincides with my reading of the passage
mentioning Gulaf and Oslaf. Hengest does not refuse the counsel
of the world or woroldrdenne (1142b), which is often uselessly
emended to weorodrdende (host-ruler, king), but neither does he
embrace it actively. His hesitation, which North also envisions, evokes
the tragic sense often seen in the digressionthat he is compelled
to act against his better judgment (or self-interest) and break a truce.138
Arthur Brodeurs paper on The Climax of the Finn Episode brilliantly clarified the meaning of woroldrden and demolished competing
emendations.139 In nearly all Old English compounds terminating in
-rden, the element rden functions as an abstract suffix. However, in
cases like landrden law of the land, sinrden widespread counsel,
and folcrden national law, the second element retains its meaning
counsel, stipulation, law, decree and should be translated counsel
of the world.140 To my mind, the worlds counsel could be as vague as
duty or as specific as vengeance, but many have offered other suggestions: what pertains to the world,141 revenge and destruction,142
the course suggested by public opinion. 143 Hengest apparently scorns
a duty that the world demands. Why should he hesitate for so long?
First, he is not a Dane and therefore not compelled to exact revenge
to the extent the Danes are.144 Second, Hengest has been elevated to

Burlin, Inner Weather 834.

Climax 31330.
140
Ibid. 3289; see DOE, s.v. folcrden: public policy (Gifts of Men 42) and national
legislation (Cleopatra Glossary 1, no. 3807).
141
Lawrence, Tragedy of Finnsburg 418.
142
Burlin, Inner Weather 83.
143
Garmonsway 141. For a summary of the earliest suggestions, see Klaebers Beowulf
note to line 1142b (189) and Sanderlin 501 note 1: worldly intercourse, retainership, way of the world, destiny, custom of the world, condition, worldly
duty, universal obligation.
144
Malones view (Hildeburg and Hengest 267) holds good in one respect: In
truth, all the Danes were in the same boat. Every man of them, when he entered Finns
service, made sacrifice of his honor. The tragedy of Hengest is representative; it is not
his peculiar personal property. All suffer humiliation, but only the Danes represented
by Gulaf and Oslaf insist that the oath must be voided. For this reason, Malone
proposes that Hunlafing must be a sword name: In getting rid of [Hunlafing as a
character] we also get rid of the hypothetical and inherently improbable difference of
opinion (not to say ill feeling) between Hengest on the one hand and his fellow members of the wealaf on the other (278). Malone then proceeds to vitiate his own theory
when he says, In my reconstruction, the other Danes became unjustifiably suspicious
138
139

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

177

a supremely high rank and capitalizes on his status. Third, he cannot

imagine how the oath could be violated without an accusation of perfidy. But Gulaf and Oslaf make Hengest see his duty, and Hengest
redeems his vacillation.
Beowulf the Foreign King of Danes
This reading of multiple parallels between the Finnsburh and Heaobard digressions not only eases difficulties in Finnsburh but also has the
added virtue of greatly simplifying the plot, so that its meaning for the
poems internal audience of Geats and Danes becomes transparent. In
essence Finnsburh describes reluctant but eventual revenge. Ambition
and duty are its key terms. The episode dramatizes the ethical consequences of electing an ambitious outsider, someone eleodig, to
defend the interests of ones people. Even when an obviously righteous
choice lies before such a man, his duty to his sworn allies will be compromised by the prestige and wealth garnered fromastonishingly!a
treacherous enemy. 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 re eode e hf leodigne cyngungemetfstne, feohgeorne,
7 unmildheortnefor on re eode by his gitsung, 7 his modes gnornung on his earde.145
Woe to the nation that has a foreign kingimmoderate, eager for treasure and pitilessfor his own rapacity will be among the people, and
the sorrow of his spirit will be for his homeland.

Finn gigs Hengests ambition with precisely these expectations. Hengest

sacrifices Danish honor for his own self-interest, and he abuses the
trust of his Danish subalternsthe men whose trust he supposedly

of Hengest because of his failure to act, and made their escape without him, under
the leadership of Guthlaf and Oslaf (284, my italics).
145
Cox, Dicts of Cato 15. London, British Library MS Cotton Vespasian D.xiv
(s. xii med.) alone preserves this aphorism, which does not derive from the alleged source,
the Distichs of Pseudo-Cato. The expression his modes gnornung on his earde may
have some bearing on the phrase eard gemunde in Beowulf 1129b. Just as the tyrant
laments for his homeland in a way that compromises his duty, Hengest may miss his
people. By staying with Finn Hengest starts to resemble the rapacious foreign king.

178

chapter two

safeguards. The very notion that he goes on to conquer territory in

sub-Roman Britain suggests, in fact, that supreme glory rather than
loyalty, kinship, or honor motivates him from the start. And, ironically,
Hengest defends his own reputation, not the dignity of his men. Only
Danish complaints force Hengest to retreat from his seemingly ironclad
treaty, and he must devise a plan that will not contravene his sworn
allegiance to Finn. The allegiance to Hnf seems forgotten.
The Finnsburh poet poses questions of revenge and feuding, to be
sure, but he centrally features a foreign-born leader whose interests lean
towards self-promotion rather than an expected good, the natural retaliation for betrayal, murder, and humiliation. The scops narrative archetype
Hengest must choose between two conflicting obligations, and Hengests
choices disclose hesitation and compromise. This factitious comparison
applies to Beowulf. In the same analogous terms that characterize all the
Beowulfian digressions, Hrogars scop compares Beowulf to Hengest,
implicitly identifying Beowulf as a wreccaa trusted outsider whose
sword and counsel are valued even above those of native kinsmen.
While Beowulf belongs to this class of warriors more in imagination
than fact, the Finnsburh scop chooses to presage Beowulf s ostensible
ambition. In fact, he opposes ambition to loyalty in a scenario analogous
to Beowulf s present circumstances as Hrogars protg.
Through this extended parable the scop imaginatively critiques
Hrogars intention to adopt Beowulf as his son and heir. Having
praised Beowulf s mother (lines 942b46a) for producing such a man as
Beowulf,146 Hrogar promises an emotional tie resembling fosterage:
secg betsta,
freogan on ferhe;
niwe sibbe. (946b49a)

Nu ic, Beowulf, ec,

me for sunu wylle
heald for tela

Now I, Beowulf, best of men, will honor you in my heart like a son. Hold
well this new kinship henceforth.

The choked expressionI, you, me, sonconfirms Hrogars strong

feelings. Beowulf is a new son in sentimental terms, though not yet a
political successor. But when Hrogars dynastic treasures are distributed,
Beowulf s position as heir becomes solidified politically. He receives five
items: a standard, helmet, mailcoat, and sword, all formerly owned by
146
Hill, Danish Succession 182: The thought of Beowulf s parent, his mother
only, may have led Hrogar to offer himself as a father.

the foreign beowulf and the fight at finnsburh

179

Heorogar, so it seemsand Hrogars war-saddle.147 These status objects

confirm Hrogars intention to promote Beowulf as regent, and this
alarming development poses a threat to the social cohesion of Heorot
and especially to the solidarity of the Danish warband. After all, the
foreigner Beowulf is unknown to any of them, and he is, even at his
death, lofgeornost (most desirous of praise, 3182b). To the Danes
celebrating Grendels defeat, Beowulf is an extraordinary fighter, but
as their leader he might fail to heed the worlds counsel and become
that rapacious foreign king mentioned in the Vespasian maxim.
Suspicious of Beowulf s standing as Hrogars designated heir, Queen
Wealheow registers her own doubts about the Geats throne-worthiness. John M. Hill observes how Wealheow discerns Hrogars intent
to thrust Beowulf into the succession and that she counters the kings
gambit with a competing offer and admonition.148 For Hill, Wealheow suggests rewarding Beowulf with exceptional treasures received
in tribute or won in war.149 Beowulf, she observes, has no long-standing
debt of gratitude and reciprocal obligation that would tie him to
Hrogar or the Danes. Having instead committed a glorious deed,
he should be honored as a champion, the way heroes are recognized.
Most significantly, however, Finnsburh intervenes before Wealheow
presents her counter-offer. Her remonstration is a disjunctive moment
in the poem and in my view a direct reaction to Finnsburh, which
rehearses the circumstances of potential Danish disgrace at the hands
of a foreign leader. In other words, the Finnsburh scop recites a poem
full of anxiety over righteous duty, and Wealheow may be seen to
respond sympathetically.150

147
Ibid. 184. It is often noted that these four gifts are delivered to Hygelac in exactly
the same order in which they are received (2152a54a) and at that time Beowulf
recounts that Heorogar once owned them. Apparently Beowulf keeps the saddle; see
Orchard, Critical Companion 226.
148
Ibid. 18690. Hill reads suspicion and distrust in Wealheows reaction: She
seems to imply that Beowulf, much favored, might be unkind to her sons, that he might
commit deeds against their interest and against his own present fame (190).
149
Ibid. 186. Bazelmans makes the important point that the valuables presented by
the lord to his retinue are not to be regarded as a mercenarys wages (111), and the
same consideration applies equally to Wealheow, who does not pay Beowulf cash
in any sense.
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 Wealhtheows
relationship to Hrothulf from that of aunt to that of aunt-mother helps to demystify
the queens behavior (ibid. 130).

180

chapter two

The gidd of Finnsburg may criticize the revenge ethic, as many

imagine, but for a Danish faction that includes Wealheow its relevance
chills their conviviality. Beowulf s loyalties may lie with strangers or
adversaries and not with the nation to which he has little allegiance, or
at least far less than Hroulf has. To his credit, Beowulf perceives this
warning and understands the implications of the Finnsburh parable,
one reason why he later recites the Heaobard digression. He tacitly
rejects Hrogars offer of kingship but acknowledges the role of son.
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. For this reason, 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. In fact,
the Heaobard digression confirms Beowulf s percipient appropriation
of the Finnsburh gidd. He applies the scops lessons to Ingelds predicament when he anticipates how a past incident could ignite a feud, even
when Ingelds marriage was intended to settle hostilities. Just like Finn,
Ingeld expects that his alliance is secure. Betrayed, however, by the heat
of a boy who covets his fathers sword, Ingeld will come to experience
unforeseen violence. For Beowulf, then, Finnsburh analogizes a pattern
of oath-breaking, and the relevance of the Heaobard interlude for
Finnsburh as I theorize it derives from Beowulf s recollection of King
Hrogars court entertainment.

CHAPTER THREE

THE RHETORIC OF OFERHYGD IN HROGARS SERMON

Wulfgar, who announces Beowulf to Hrogar, seems to conclude that
Beowulf has come to Heorot for wlenco or glory. As I have explained,
in Beowulf OE wlenco can describe potential recklessness related to
oferhygd, a kings indulgence in risk. Beowulf s arguable impulsiveness
and inconceivable success portend a susceptibility to oferhygd, fear of
which explains wise (1698b) Hrogars anxieties over Beowulf s future
conduct.1 Nowhere are Hrogars misgivings more transparent than in
a passage popularly called Hrogars sermon, which includes a recapitulation of the Heremod story (1709b24a) described by Hrogar as
a gidd (1723b). Not only does the sermon reveal Beowulf s potential for
oferhygd, it also details how oferhygd emerges from prosperity, and how
it may be avoided by a practice of moral introspection. At birth ones
endowments can create the ambition to extend gods favor, especially
when profound success or robust health foster a sense of invincibility.
One might be tempted to seek a little more divine favor, and then a
little more, until an inevitable and cataclysmic reversal occurs. For this
reason the Anglo-Saxons believed that lessons of moderation could be
drawn from personal or military defeats, and where experience could
not provide guidance, literature could. In fact, many of the terms associated with Beowulfian oferhygd can be documented in wisdom poetry,
where snyttru frequently counters arrogance. Nevertheless, the precise
Beowulfian meaning of OE oferhygd is awkward to document in contexts outside of the poem. Elsewhere it often translates Latin superbia,
chiefly in the glossed Psalters and Gospels and in the Paris Psalter.2 In

1
By no means is mine a prevailing or popular view. Most critics will try to disarm
any potential criticism, as John M. Hill, for example: Readers have responded to
Hrothgars speech in various ways, but not fully enough in the sense that this warning
is no hint about Beowulf, incipiently criminal in some way. Beowulf is fully exemplary
and fully dedicated to the good at all times throughout the poem. What we have here
is the anxious love of an old king for a retainer whom he would have as his son. The
world is not a friendly place and weird, strange reversals can and have occurred
(Hrothgars Noble Rule 177).
2
See Schabram on the distribution of the term in the Anglo-Saxon sources, especially 1239 for occurrences in verse.

182

chapter three

homilies, too, oferhygd and related vocables commonly render superbia,

a term which lacks the nuance encountered in Beowulf. In most cases,
the context reflects the fall of Lucifer, the source of superbia in the
Christian tradition.
Yet in a few departures from the trivialized sense of pride, the
Anglo-Saxon oferhygd psychosis expressed in Hrogars sermon shares
conspicuous lexemes and collocations with other Old English texts, specifically Genesis A and Daniel. Anglo-Saxon poets had a notably coherent
picture of oferhygd as the mental state of tyrants. Beowulf, Genesis A, and
Daniel all deploy a distinctive lexical taxonomy for the sin portrayed
as superbia in Christian teachings: bealuni, betera/selra, dreamleas, ece rd,
egesa, eoran wynn, forgesceaft, fremde, gebolgen/bolgenmod, gram, snyttru, weorc
gewinnes, weormund, wlencu/wlonc, woh/wom. Oferhygd seems to have been a
literary fixation in these early texts, inasmuch as the same locutions for
oferhygd in Beowulf characterize Lucifer in Genesis A and Nebuchadnezzar
and Belshazzar in Daniel. They probably represent the adaptation of a
native theme: the tyrants moral degeneracy. However, Lucifers rebellion in Genesis A equates arrogance with warband sedition rather than
with a rejection of morality conceived as ece rd or eternal counsel.
Oferhygd in Beowulf therefore represents the kind of moral corruption
documented elsewhere only in Daniel. While the vices of soldier-kings
seem to have been a preoccupation of poets and even churchmen,
Hrogars discussion in Beowulf has a specific relevance for the poems
inconclusive ending. The psychology of overconfidence drawn in the
sermon establishes the terms by which Beowulf s actions in the dragon
episode should be weighed. Far from being a pointless digression, it actually explains how Beowulf s final venture explores whether he heeds the
virtues that Hrogar has imparted.3 In other words, Hrogars speech
elucidates the dragon episode as a test of Beowulf s potential oferhygd.
Hrogar and the Ancient Strife of Giants
After returning from Grendels mere, Beowulf presents Hrogar with
an ancient hilt, all that remains of the sword he used to kill Grendels
mother and decapitate Grendel. The hilt bears an enigmatic inscription, the nature of which is important because Hrogar self-consciously

Smithers, Meaning of The Seafarer 8.

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

183

responds to it.4 The audience is told that the origin of an ancient

conflict (or . . . fyrngewinnes, 1688b9a) was carved (writen,
1688b) on the hilt, and that the conflict preceded a flood (flod,
1689b) that wiped out a race of giants (giganta cyn, 1690b). This
race was alien to the eternal Lord (1691b2a), and he gave them a
final retribution (1692b3b):
fyrngewinnes;
gifen geotende
frecne geferdon;
ecean dryhtne;
urh wteres wylm

On m ws or writen
syan flod ofsloh,
giganta cyn,
t ws fremde eod
him s endelean
waldend sealde. (1688b93b)

On it was carved the origin of ancient strife. Afterwards the flood, the
rushing ocean, slew a race of giants; they committed audacity. That
nation was estranged from the eternal lord; the ruler gave them a final
retribution through the rising water.5

While the narrator says that the owners name is carved in runstafas
(secret letters, 1694a8a), he fails to mention whether the story of the
giants is recorded in words, symbols, or images, and whether Hrogar
can even understand the carving.6 It has been typically assumed that
Hrogar is reading a runic message with an accompanying pictograph.7
Engraved letters alone, the argument goes, could not convey such
information concisely, and the poet says specifically that the owners
name was recorded in runstafas.8 Yet this minor controversy over the
engraving may be irrelevant. Since details in the sermon so aptly evoke
this history of giants and a retributive flood, Hrogars knowledge
of it must be assumed, whether or not he can read the hilts script
or language. For the sake of argument, I would propose that images

4
Although not everyone thinks so: If [Hrogar] cannot decipher the story, the
content of the sermon . . . would seem to suggest that the mere possession of the
object adds wisdom to Hrothgars speech-making . . . (Waugh, King-Poet Relations
307). Waugh contends that morality . . . does not seem suitable for the celebration of
Beowulf s victory over Grendels mother (ibid.).
5
Dennis Cronan proposes reading syan (1689b) as adv. afterwards in Ancient
Strife, and the suggestion has been adopted in Klaebers Beowulf.
6
Schrader concludes that the runstafas (secret, runic letters, 1695a) on the
sword-hilt are to be seen as indecipherable Hebrew (Giants Sword-Hilt 1417). On
the difficulty of interpreting the hilt, and the possibility of a magical inscription based
on a passage from the poetical Solomon and Saturn, see McNelis 17980.
7
Klaeber, Beowulf 18990 note to lines 168898.
8
Cramp, Beowulf and Archaeology 66; Osborn, Great Feud 977.

184

chapter three

of warfare and of the flood are engraved, but that only the owners
name is given in (possibly unreadable) runes.
More consequential is the problem of audience occasioned by the
reported speech. As Marijane Osborn has observed, the poet has distinguished between two levels of knowledge, 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, Hrogar may
be incapable of interpreting it as Christian history. Furthermore, the
comment that the giants were alien to the eternal Lord (1691b2a),
who avenged himself on them with a flow of water (1693b4b),
sounds much like the poets own interjection, especially in the use
of pronoun t: that was a race estranged from the eternal Lord.
Elsewhere in the poem the expression t ws . . . commonly occurs
in the poets own voice, rarely in the voice of the characters.10 But in
this case, it may be that Hrogar is drawing such a conclusion while
inspecting the hilt, and that the poet expresses the kings thoughts. If so,
Hrogar may suspect a calculated divine punishment for the drowned
giants, not an accidental retribution.
A problem has been to intuit what Hrogar gathers from this inscription.11 Concluding that Hrogar never comprehends the carving, Marijane Osborn alleged a contextual allusion.12 Just as God perpetrates
a feud against giants, men confront the soul-slayer, a malicious force
mentioned in Hrogars sermon: [Hrogar] gazes upon the hilt, 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 mankinds enemy within the human
breast.13 Gods feud with the giants ultimately validates a warriors
Great Feud 973.
Stanley B. Greenfield avoids discussing this phrase in Authenticating Voice (60),
but see McGalliard, Poets Comment 24451. McGalliard examines every instance
of such expressions and others of similar arrangement, i.e. Ne ws t gewrixle
til, 1304b. Hideki Watanabe has lately concluded that expressions of the t ws
type represent a formula employed to end various units of a body of text: a verse, a
stanza, a fitt, a direct speech, or a whole poem (Sentences 152).
11
Some interpretations of the hilt are summarized in Waugh, King-Poet Relations
304. Robert W. Hanning proposes, a reminder of Beowulf s own monster-killing
deeds . . . the sad end that may await the Geatish hero . . . the transitoriness of all life
(Poetic Emblems 3).
12
This seems to be the position of Allen J. Frantzen as well in Unreadable Beowulf
347: Hrothgars reading of the hilt is likewise closed, since it is merely looking or
seeing rather than cutting through and offers no exegesis.
13
Osborn, Great Feud 978.
9

10

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

185

spiritual struggle against unheroic temptations (excessive aggression or

stinginess, for example), and Grendels descent from these giants corroborates Beowulf s heathen righteousnessthe nobility of his cause:
. . . the highest conduct of Germanic heroes is not in opposition to that
of any hero aligned with Gods forces in the Great [cosmic] Feud.14
The highest conduct turns on the heroic virtue of generosity: The
Germanic ethos of wise magnanimity, Osborn proposes, supports
the will of God.15 Osborn therefore sees Hrogar embracing a natural wisdom that confers (or entails) spiritual knowledge, although this
part of the argument becomes slightly problematic. She dismisses the
purely secular reading of Hrogars sermon proposed by Michael D.
Cherniss (the duties and proper conduct of Germanic lords),16 thinking that propriety ensues from spiritual as well as political instincts.17
Because the inscription alludes to Genesis and is therefore inaccessible to
Hrogar as Christian history, she theorizes an impaired moral intuition:
Hrothgars 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, a Boethian ruler of the universe.18 Hrogars god is
Boethian, I infer, because a remote divinity grants men the capacity
for stable interactions through gift exchange, even in a mutable world.
The sermon validates this moral decency.
While the narrator makes Hrogars suffering bearable in the
(Christian) cosmic context where the pagan gropes blindly for moral
purchase, I do not see how Hrogar can intuit a generous god without having read the hilt inscription and connected the giants behavior
to their destruction. The sermon suggests as much. My objection to
Osborns reading therefore centers on the perception that Hrogar does
not respond to the carving in his sermon. While, as Osborn sensibly
theorized, Hrogar remains unaware of a scriptural context for the
hilt inscription, I make out a different Boethian premise behind the
giants drowning. Their behavior does not precipitate a retributive flood.
A Germanic fatalist might argue that destruction occurs merely from
an unpredictable incident the giants endure, not as an administered

14
15
16
17

36.
18

Ibid.
Ibid.
Ingeld and Christ 149.
On political wisdom in the poem as a reflex of moral behavior see Kindrick
Osborn, Great Feud 978; for a similar position see Hamilton.

186

chapter three

punishment. But Hrogar seems to infer that a conscious will, rather

than destiny, suborns ones actions. A god, as it were, governs events
that might otherwise appear random. In this respect, the poets remark
that the giants were fremde . . . ecean Dryhtne or estranged from the
eternal lord could belong to Hrogars level of consciousness as the
basis of a theorized punishment.
Seth Lerer espouses quite a different view of Hrogars sermon.19
He believes that Hrogar reads the incised markingspictographs and
runesand he concedes the poets reference to cosmic feud as Osborn
defines it. Furthermore, he credits Hrogar with an understanding of
lines 1691b3b, which I also ascribe to Hrogars level of consciousness.
For Lerer, however, Hrogar cannot fathom figurative interpretations,
Christian or not. In many respects, Lerers position emerges from an
analysis of Riddle 42 (solution: Cock and Hen), which approximates
Hrogars 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. From Lerers perspective, establishing a governing distinction
between things hidden and things apparent, [Riddle 42] ostensibly
sets out to oppose everyday experience with learned runology.21 The
description of the copulating chickens expresses a visual hermeneutical
experience open even to drunken men.22 In other words, commoners
understand what the chickens are up to, but clerics perceive how writing could encode an image of copulation. The bind-runes representing
the animals (since these runes also encode the animals names) derive
from the different hermeneutical environment of writing, one accessible
only to a learned coterie: [Riddle 42] asks us to hold two potentially
competing sets of interpretive environments in mind, the one, a set of
heightened literate skills drawn from runology or scriptural interpretation; the other, a set of common experiences drawn from farm life or
from men at their wine.23 For Lerers illiterate men at their wine
in Riddle 42, the cock and hen exhibit no more than barnyard antics.

Literacy and Power 15894.

As detailed in chapter 3 The Riddle and the Book (97125); see the remarks,
p. 173: If the hilt presents, figuratively speaking, a kind of riddle, then it is a riddle
on a par with the inscribed chalice of Riddle 59, or more generally, with the self-conscious reading riddles explored in chapter 3. We might do well, therefore, to consider
Hrothgars sermon as a solution to the riddle of the hilt.
21
Ibid. 116.
22
Ibid. 122.
23
Ibid. 119.
19
20

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

187

For men without access to writing, the runes make no hermeneutic

statement.
The hermeneutical skills Lerer obviously associates with literacy
are metaphor or analogy, mostly in the specific context of Christian
book-learning, the acquired code or key for an abstract hermeneutical system. He disenfranchises the lwed or the pagan not only from
Christian knowledge but from the interpretive strategies suggested by
readingthat letters can represent sounds that represent things. As
a response to the runic hilt, then, Hrogars sermon cannot decode
the symbolism of the flood. The old king responds with a superficial, literal acknowledgment of the object as correctly fabricated:
What Hrothgar sees . . . are these Continental, pagan representations
of memorial inscription and interlace design . . . a familiar object of
memorial epigraphy . . . he reads . . . the memorial conventions of the
rune master.24 Lerer emphasizes the order evoked by runic artifice
as Hrogars response to the hilt inscription:
. . . the sermon solves the hilt by answering its enigmatic story of a war
with a precise account of a divinely governed peace . . . it posits a political and moral world where everything turns towards Gods will . . . In this
concern with governance, the speech answers the hilts story of strife and
challenge . . . the speech responds to the report of challenge and retribution
written on the hilt. To speak more generally, 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. A god who overpowers giants,
a runesmith who rightly sets his text, a king who wisely governs his own
and his peoples impulsesthese are the interests that yoke together the
run and rd and which render Hrothgars sermon an informed response
to the specifics of the hilt.25

Lerers opinion derives from his understanding that the poet has
depicted the pagan Hrogars reading nativelyliterally or superficially, one might sayas reverence and order. In fact, it seems
highly plausible that the poet endows Hrogar with more sophisticated
interpretive strategies that Lerer associates with literacy, Christian or
runic.26 My argument, in fact, can be universalized to include the gidd
embedded in Hrogars sermon.
Ibid. 171.
Ibid. 173.
26
Here I must acknowledge Lerers more persuasive claim that Christian readers
depicted (invented) acts of pre-Christian literacy (reading and writing, say) as a
mythology of literacy. The Beowulf poet could attribute reading skills to Hrogar
24
25

188

chapter three
Hrogars Anxiety over Beowulf s Excellence

Hrogars sermon responds to the hilt explicitly, as Lerer and others

assert. The king begins with an edgy affirmation, that Beowulf was born
betera or superior (1703a), and acknowledges that his reputation will
spread throughout the Germanic world. The term betera recalls the
antediluvian giants, whose birth, either through Angels or the children
of Seth, afforded them supreme strength. (Of course, Hrogar does not
know this Christian history, but he at least recognizes that the drowned
foes are giants.) Hrogar self-consciously claims that Beowulf controls his
giant strength steadily (geyldum) through sagacity of mind: Eal
u hit geyldum healdest,//mgen mid modes snyttrum (1705b6a).27
The wisdom context clarifies Beowulf s steadiness as self-restraint or
moderation. In its list of ideal heroic attributes The Wanderer makes clear
that the wise man is geyldig: Wita sceal geyldig (65b). Hrogar
exclaims how mysteriously God bestows snyttru (wisdom), as well
as land and nobility.28 He expects that Beowulf will be a comfort to
his people, a help to warriors. Yet Hrogar simultaneously ponders
the once-promising race of giants that lost their lives in a flood, and
introduces Heremod as a link between them and Beowulf. As he says,
ic is gid be e//awrc wintrum frod (Wise in years, I have told
this gidd about you! 1724b5a).
Hrogar 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. 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,
1691a).29 The verb geferdon (geferan) may be translated behaved or

that resemble Christian modes of reading, the deliberate dodge, I would say, of a man
bent on dignifying his characters.
27
Klaeber suggests steadily for geyldum (Textual Interpretation 459).
28
On the gifts of men topos, see Russom Germanic Concept. The Beowulfian
passage 1724b7b resembles that in Deor 31a4b:
Mg onne geencan,
t geond as woruld
witig dryhten
wende geneahhe,
eorle monegum
are gesceawa,
wislicne bld,
sumum weana dl.
One may then reflect that throughout this world the wise Lord frequently brings
changes; to many a nobleman he shows mercy, a reputation for judgment, to
some a share of woe.
29
OE geferan occurs five times in Beowulf in the sense reach, obtain, bring about

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

189

brought about, depending on ones understanding of frecne, either an

adverb or adjective. Definitions of OE frecne in Beowulf are confused.
There are four attestations of a noun, 22 of an adverb, and 75 of an
adjective. Klaeber deemed frecne a substantive adjective in this line,
but some (including the editors of Klaebers Beowulf ) have opted for the
adverb, translating they acted boldly or they fared terribly.30 OE
frecne (adj) can refer to a daring act or a fatal presence, and in Beowulf
it describes death (twice), Beowulf s dragon, Sigemunds act of killing the dragon, speech that incites retribution in the Finn digression,
Grendels mere, and the path leading to it. To these attestations of
the adjective I would add an alleged occurrence of adverbial frecne in
Beowulf. Lines 958a60a describe Beowulf s assault on Grendel and
could be translated, we ventured a perilous thing [frecne genedon],
the strength of an unknown foe. In this case frecne in 959b would
vary ellenweorc in 958a. In all these instances OE frecne emphasizes
peril, audacity, and terror, whether or not one settles ultimately on a
precise translation of the line.
Behaving frecne means inviting death, as Sigemunds killing of the
dragon, Beowulf s attack on Grendel, and the inflammatory speech of
Frisians suggests. The path to Grendels mere and the mere itself are
frecne because they portend death, similar in tone to the sorhfullne si.
One could reasonably conclude, then, that the giants mentioned on the
sword hilt committed perilous deeds without fear of any future consequence. Hrogar observes how these deeds endangered the whole race,
just as Heremod (he mentions) endangered the Danes by wlfealle (i.e.
wlfyll: slaughter-death, 1711b) and deacwalum (violent death,
1712a). OE wlfyll is used elsewhere in Beowulf to describe Grendels
(Klaebers Beowulf 375 s.v. ge-feran). The DOE records this sense for the past participle
gefered (sense IV), citing two attestations from Beowulf; see also DOE frecne adv. 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. The DOE documents the
sense behave for feran (sense II, intransitive); cf. Beowulf 738b gefaran wolde in
which Beowulf observes how Grendel would behave.
30
DOE s.v. frecne adv. The DOE editors suggest the noun form (s.v. frecne noun)
in the same collocation from Andreas 516a frecne geferan, which varies si nesan
(to survive a journey). In this context, to accomplish something audacious (or to
fare boldly) describes crossing the sea earfolice (with difficulty); see also Frster,
Beitrge 32939. The editors of Klaebers Beowulf supply the rendering they fared
terribly,suggesting that frecne modifies fare in the sense drowning rather than
behave in the sense audaciously. However, frecne in this verse is still regarded as
a neut. sing. acc. adjective in the glossary, where the verb in the passage is identified
as ge-feran bring about.

190

chapter three

prize of thirty men (120a5b) and the contemplated extinction of the

Geats (3152b5a), and in Genesis A 2565a to characterize the extinction
of Sodom. In Genesis A 1523b8a, wllfyll also describes the class
of homicidesunnatural or vindictive killings. OE deacwalu similarly
denotes violent death, of the sort encountered in battle, although it
may also describe murder. By Hrogars implicit analogy, the giants
behavior in the commission of audacious deeds may have resembled
Heremods.
According to Beowulf 1689a, an ancient conflict or fyrngewin followed on from the extermination of giants in a flood. The fyrngewin
designates the ongoing feud between God and monsters, descendants
of those giants wiped out in the cataclysm.31 Gods indignation began
with Abels murder. Patrizia Lendinara established a connection between
antediluvian giants and violence in Maxims I 192200, where Cains
murder of Abel awakens national enmities,32 described as wpna gewin
(strife of weapons, 199a). Charles D. Wright confirmed how social
discord and treachery originated in the first murder, committed in
the context of an ostensibly cooperative and brotherly observance.33
Andy Orchard explains the patristic, biblical, and apocryphal origins
of recorded histories of antediluvian traditions, monstrosities associated with miscegenation, the gigantism resulting from unions between
the kin of Seth and Cain, and the cruelties committed by such reckless
warriors.34 Emphasizing superbia or pride, 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, not its end, and in Beowulf it serves to establish
continuity between the curse of Cain, the descendants of creatures who escaped the
flood, and the evil that has escaped Beowulf s own retribution and that, in the form
of the fire dragon, will destroy him. James W. Earl appreciates that the inscription
represents the divine judgement upon the race of Cain, now fulfilled once again by
Beowulf (Necessity of Evil 84). However, Dennis Cronan (Ancient Strife) proposes
that the fyrngewin depicted on the hilt must be the murder of Abel. By this logic, lines
1689b93b are narrative commentary. But in terms reminiscent of the hilt passage, the
Beowulf poet earlier confirmed that the giants (gigantas, 113a) strove against God
for a long time; [God] gave them a reward for that (a wi Gode wunnon//lange
rage;/he him s lean forgeald, 113b15b). This ancient strife seems to include
Grendels assaults on the Danes.
32
Unallusione 8598; . . . micel mon ldum,/monegum eodum//bealoblonden ni (a serious crime for men, enmity mixed with malice for many nations,
195a6a).
33
Wright 17.
34
Pride and Prodigies 5885. His evidence augments that first brought to light in
David Williams 1939 and elaborated in Mellinkoff. Cronan challenges the view that a
giganta geweorc could refer to the flood (Ancient Strife 65), but Orchards position
elegantly affirms the possibility. On the problems of the giants paternity, cf. Kaske,

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

191

the giants as inscribed on the hilt a depiction of overweening ambition

laid low.35 In fact, few sources refer to pride per se among the antediluvian
giants, although Orchard alleges a plausible link to post-diluvian traditions of superbia through the orthographical confusion of Cain and
Cham. Cassians Collationes VIII.xxi attributes tyranny and violence
to these antediluvian men, called giants on account of their size and
cruelty.36 Alcuin calls these giants uiribus superbi, but superbus
in this way almost certainly means outstanding in a neutral, even
admiring, sense.37 A reference to gigantes in Job 26.5 amplified in the
Hiberno-Latin poem Altus Prosator with an accompanying scholion,
mentions the tyrannical glory of kings (tyrannica . . . regum . . . gloria)
in reference to giants drowned in a flood.38 A comment in Philip the
Presbyters Commentarium in librum Iob calls all giants proud, war-mongering, and obstinate men.39 Orchard imagines a cross-fertilization of
concepts between the (postdiluvian) proud hunters like Nimrod, and the
Beowulf poet may indeed have had such models in mind. For the poet
overweening ambition takes the form of aggressive action, predicated,
it seems, on ones might, the accident of birth. This profound, god-given
strength was abused for the purpose of glory, the commission of frecne.
Implying that wlenco or oferhygd (pride in Orchards terms) might be
one motivation for the giants aggression, the poet stresses that by acting
frecne the antediluvian giants became alienated from god.
One reason why Hrogar recalls Heremod in reaction to the sword
hilt therefore derives from the inscription about an extinct race of
giants bent on committing frecne. Osborn shows how the audience
of Beowulf realizes that the giants wage war against God in a cosmic
feud and, correspondingly, that a divine will governing nature punishes their arrogance by a flood. For Hrogar, however, the giants did
not commit atrocities against god. They simply frecne geferdon, and
Book of Enoch. The apocryphal Book of Enoch confirms the view of giants as
destroyers: And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and
work destruction on the earth . . . (cited from Kaske, ibid. 425).
35
Pride and Prodigies 67.
36
Petschenig 240: . . . de illis ergo quemadmodum diximus filiis Seth et filiabus
Cain nequiores filii procreati sunt, qui fuerunt robustissimi uenatores, uiolentissimi,
ac truculentissimi uiri, qui pro inormitate corporum uel crudelitatis atque malitiae
gigantes nuncupati sunt.
37
Orchard, Pride and Prodigies 789.
38
Ibid. 80.
39
Ibid. 81: Gigantes autem appellat scriptura diuina homines superbos, rebelles
et contumaces. Diabolus quoque, et sui, propter superbiam translato nomine gigantes
nuncupantur.

192

chapter three

Hrogar may be seen to impute their downfall to wyrd, behind which

may lie (as he supposes) a divine reprisal. That is why verses 1691b3b,
beginning t ws fremde eod//ecean Dryhtne . . . (that nation was
estranged from the eternal lord), might represent the poets synopsis of
Hrogars own reaction to the giants history, a rare example of erlebte
Rede or narrated internal monologue.40
When speaking only somewhat later about ones corruption by
oferhygd, Hrogar lists certain forms of death, some accidental:
sickness, war, flame, and flood (flodes wylm, 1764b).41 Flood is
a conspicuous choice here. As I see it, Hrogar alleges a passive (or
Boethian) morality, that vainglorious provocation begets its own
penalty, a fate potentially attributable to a gods judgment. This is
precisely the sentiment characterized by Beowulf s gnomic expression
fate often saves the undoomed man if his courage is strong (Wyrd
oft nere//unfgne eorl,/onne his ellen deah! 572b3b). In other
words, a mans courage in evading violent death may be looked upon
as the action of fatea gods protectioneven when survival appears
circumstantial. Osborns deduction that Hrogar seems able to accept
(if not precisely to imagine) a generous God superior to wyrd, a Boethian
ruler of the universe42 could be applied to Hrogars indistinct sense of
divine retribution for the giants arrogance. Hrogar therefore appreciates that aggression resulting from oferhygd could be impious, but only
through this intuition would he advocate what Osborn expresses: the
Germanic ethos of wise magnanimity supports the will of God. His
gidd about Heremod promotes such wise magnanimity in its emphasis
on humility and self-restraint, partially realized in gift-giving. Concerned
that recklessness (oferhygd) could master Beowulf, Hrogar proposes a
logical deterrence in narrative: a king victimized by oferhygd will destroy
his own people through ambition.
The marvel of the colossal sword itself also inspires Hrogars
sermon. Described as ealdsweord eotenisc (1558a) and giganta
geweorc (1562b), the weapon was indisputably forged for a giant.43
Now handled by the gigant Beowulf,44 survivor of a flod (Grendels
Harris, Beowulf s Last Words 25. Harriss example is Beowulf 2419b20b.
J. E. Cross alleges that these modes of death are Christian in origin (The Wanderer Lines 8084 99100).
42
Osborn, Great Feud 978.
43
Orchard (Pride and Prodigies 66) describes apocryphal and biblical traditions that
may have led to the attribution of metal-work to Cains descendants.
44
Orchards Pride and Prodigies has, I think, settled any dispute over Beowulf s affini40
41

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

193

mere), the hilt makes Hrogar wonder whether Beowulf could perish
for the same wrong that afflicted its original owner. In some respects
Hrogars misgivings of Beowulf s future qualify his enthusiasm for
Beowulf s killings, especially, in my mind, the eagerness with which
Beowulf took on the challenge of Grendels mother.45 Of course, one
could speculate at length why Hrogar suspects that Beowulf could
become the victim of oferhygda dl (some over-confidence, 1740b)
as Hrogars sermon implies, but the giants story yields the obvious
solution. The relevance to Beowulf s position lies in the difficulty with
which Beowulf subdued Grendels mother, and the acknowledgment of
gods intervention in the attack. The battle was all but settled, if god
had not shielded me, Beowulf says in 1657b8b (trihte ws//gu
getwfed,/nyme mec God scylde). He explains, the ruler of men
granted that I saw a huge ancient sword hanging bright on a wall (ac
me geue/ylda waldend//t ic on wage geseah/wlitig hangian//ealdsweord eacen, 1661a3a). Beowulf credits god with an even greater
intervention here than in the Grendel fight, where the metod merely
failed to impede Grendels escape (967b).46 In attributing his success to
god, Beowulf has admittedly acquired some of Hrogars wisdom. Yet
Hrogar broods that Beowulf might be tempted to extend his record
and alienate gods favor.47 His impaired judgment might then induce
him to tackle ever greater risks, an idea felicitously described in the
poetic Solomon and Saturn:
Dol bi se e g
se e sund nafa
ne fugles flyht,
grund gercan;
full dyslice,

on deop wter,
ne gesegled scip
ne he mid fotum ne mg
huru se godes cunna
dryhtnes meahta. (225a9b)

Foolish is he who ventures into open water without any swimming skill, or
sailing ship or birds capacity for flight; or who cannot touch bottom with
his feet. In fact, he tests God, the powers of the Lord, in utter folly.

ties to giants. OE flod bears the primary sense of flowing water, which may also
evoke Grendels mere.
45
See Eliason, Beowulf Notes 4523.
46
Garde, Heroic Ideal in Beowulf 165; Louden 357.
47
Bazelmans 82: [Hrogar] warns against the temptations that accompany success,
i.e. against the advent of pride and avarice . . . Hrogar gives expression not to Christian
teaching but to a secular wisdom with which the poet is sympathetic.

194

chapter three

The prospect for oferhygd in Beowulf s case is especially sinister because

Hrogar predicts that Beowulf will one day become a king and have
to disregard his own ambitionsas Hrogar did in the Grendel affair.
He might then endanger his people with an unforeseen consequence,
a divine retribution, as it were.
A Condition of Germanic Tyranny
Ancient giants given to audacity and Beowulf s potential as a giant
inspire the gidd of Heremod. Hrogar mentions how Heremod, like
Beowulf and the giganta cyn, was endowed in strength: . . . hine
mihtig god/mgenes wynnum,//eafeum stepte/ofer ealle men
(mighty God advanced him in the joys of power, of strength, over all
men 1716a17b). The verb stepte is varied by for gefremede
(1717b18a), where gefremede means either promoted or advanced.
Hrogar then describes a turn away from the Danes desire (him
to willan, 1711a) and towards the violence implied in the terms
wlfeal and deacwalu. Heremod is characterized as bolgenmod
(enraged), a word used elsewhere in Beowulf to describe only Beowulf
(709a, awaiting Grendel), although gebolgen describes Beowulf when
he fights Grendels mother (1539b) and the dragon (2550b), and depicts
the dragon (2220b, 2304a) and water-monsters at Grendels mere
(1431a). In a state of utter rage, Heremod is said to breat (1713a)
or crush his beodgeneatas, a word used only twice in the corpus,
both times in Beowulf: here and where Beowulf calls himself and his
men Hygelacs table-companions. The contrast of violence and calm
sociality emphasizes Heremods ferocity. OE breotan occurs two other
times (in verse), where both idols (hergas, Christ B 485b) and the
learned (boccrftge, Juliana 16a) can be smashed.48
Heremods obvious viciousness results in isolation (ana, 1714b),
a condition which afflicted the young Beowulf, as I have argued, and
which characterizes Sigemund and Heremod in the Sigemund/Heremod digression. Heremod has turned from mondream (1715b), just
as Grendel has (1264b). Lucifers punishment in hell likewise entails

48
OE abreotan is better attested. It translates extermino exterminate in the Vespasian
Psalter, and most contexts suggest extreme violence, as in Fortunes of Men 16b: sumne
gu abreotan; see DOE s.v.

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

195

the loss of dream (Genesis A 56b), which the loyal angels enjoy (81b).
Similarly, Heremod is said to be dreamleas (joyless, 1720b), a situation linked to the undefined pain for strife: t he s gewinnes/
weorc rowade,//leodbealo longsum (he suffered pain for that strife,
a long-lasting national tribulation,1721a2a).49 Therefore, OE mondream,
literally joy of men/mankind, suggests the delights of civilization
associated with peace.
OE leodbealu occurs only in this passage and one other in Beowulf,
and the meaning is uncertain. The editors of Klaebers Beowulf have
retained Klaebers harm to a people, adding widespread affliction,
but the reading needs justification. OE leodbealu resembles OE eodbealu
and folcbealu, for which it has been suggested that the sadness of the
second element . . . is caused by having lost the first.50 Now, OE bealu
has a range of meanings beyond sadness, including destruction,
malice, assaultthe harm or affliction that Klaeber alleges. It is
not consistently true, either, that harmderives from the loss of the
first element in the -bealu compounds. For example, in Andreas 1136a
the term eodbealu describes the possible murder and cannibal devouring of a young boy. While the term may mean great afflictionas
Klaeber once alleged for Beowulfit seems to imply affliction caused by
a nation. This meaning is attested likewise in Menologium 125b, at which
moment Peter and Paul endure public martyrdom, an affliction caused
by a nation. In Christ C 1267ab, however, humans condemned to hell
suffer eodbealu, referring to anguish experienced by a people [hell-dwellers]. In Beowulf there are ten compounds terminating in -bealu, five of
which refer to harm caused by the first element: cwealm-, mor-, moror-,
sweord-, wigbealu. The terms ealdorbealu, feorhbealu, and hreerbealo (1343a)
describe harm afflicting the first element, life or breast, emotion.
This evidence suggests that context alone will determine the meaning
of leodbealu in Beowulf, whether affliction experienced by a nation or
affliction caused by a nation.

49
N. F. Blake has translated s gewinnes/weorc as hell on the basis of attestations from Genesis A and Christ C (Heremod Digressions 2857). Yet the variation
with leodbealo implies that the affliction for that strife means a national calamity,
a possibility that Blake wrongly dismisses when he argues that leod- seems to have
lost its primary meaning of of or belonging to a people (286). OE weorc actually
disguises the Anglian form wrc and should be translated pain; cf. Fulk, OE weorc
(in response to Frank, Aspirin).
50
Shippey, Wisdom and Learning 130 note 6.

196

chapter three

Heremod suffered s gewinnes weorc (pain for that strife), an

expression that occurs elsewhere only in Genesis B (worc s gewinnes,
296a), where it describes the punishment of Lucifer for ofermede
micel (great arrogance, 293b). Presumably this torment is the sorhcearu
that lamed Heremod for so long. If s gewinnes weorc denotes
punishment for pride, leodbealu may describe the harm inflicted by a
people, a notion that could support Heremods exile. Yet this harm is
described as longsum or long-lasting, for which reason it seems more
likely that the nation despaired for a long time and that the nations
hopelessness was Heremods undoing. The strife Heremod endured was
an affliction experienced by his people. This reading accommodates
lines 905a and 907, which imply Heremods long rule, as well as the
remark that his death was quick (snude, 904a).
While Hrogar elaborates on the consequences of Heremods belligerence in his gidd, he also describes Heremods emotional disintegration. The breosthord in Heremods ferhe, we are told, grew
blodreow (1718b19a). OE ferh means spirit, either the seat of
wisdom or knowledge as the Toronto DOE defines it, or the seat
of affections. OE breosthord means treasure-house of the breast, a
cognitive part of the intellect associated either with speech or emotion, the evidence is unclear. OE blodreow is unique, although it may
disguise *blodhreoh (blood-fierce) or blodhreow (bloodthirsty, attested
four times in the Paris Psalter).51 Both possibilities seem apt. Healfdene
is described as gureouw (battle-fierce, 58a), Beowulf as wlreow
(slaughter-fierce, 629a) just before fighting Grendel, but ferocity for
blood differs from these other usages with respect to objective: Heremod is bloodthirsty. The phrase on hreoum mode (2581b) describes
Beowulf when he fights the dragon and Hrogar when he learns of
scheres death (1307b). Beowulf is likewise hreoh (1564a) when he
seizes the large sword from Grendels lair. Finally, in a locus that may
reflect Heremods condition of blodreow, the narrator establishes
that Beowulf never slew his hearth companions, that he did not have
a hreoh sefa (2180b). Heremod, by contrast, fails to reward his men
even in defiance of his own destiny (fter dome, 1720a).52

51
See DOE svv. and Paris Psalter 54.23 (trans. uiri sanguinum), 58.2 (bis; trans.
de uiris sanguinum), 138.17 (trans. uiri sanguinum).
52
Ernst A. Kock takes the view that fter dome refers to the giver, Heremod: for
Heremods own glory, rather than in recognition of a retainers glory (Interpretations and Emendations IV 11314). On the important parallel in the Old English
Rune Poem, see Klaebers Beowulf, note to line 1720.

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

197

Hrogar proceeds to analyze his gidd about Beowulf and to define

the symptoms of a kings failure in lines 1724b57b. The passage bears
a number of homiletic traits, but on the basis of parallels in Precepts
Elaine Tuttle Hansen has called it parental wisdom.53 More specifically, however, she describes the father as a king speaking to his son,
a prince, although this part of the argument is largely undeveloped.54 I
prefer to interpret Precepts as a special kind of parental wisdom: warrior
wisdom, the expression of an ideal kings virtues. A number of extant
poems share parallels. The admonition to choose the better can be
found in Precepts and Christ B, and the topos of the devils darts turn up
in Vainglory 34b5a and Christ B 779b.55 In characterizing a shieldless
state as one of psychological vulnerability (8a, 35b), Vainglory describes
an assault against judgment as a devils shaft breaking ones spiritual
armor, the rational defenses associated with humility, judgment, or
wisdom.56 Finally, some vocabulary in the sermon proper is replicated
in The Seafarer, although one could not extrapolate in this context any
link between the sermon and the elegies.
Wisdom as Moral Defense Against the Devils Darts
Hrogars analysis of his gidd has a structure that one can intuit from
language and situation. Hrogar declares that God endows men with
wisdom (snyttru), land, and nobility and then imagines a king with
just these attributes, one possessed of earthly joys (eoran wynne,
1730b), specifically a kingdom (1731b3a).57 Yet in his unsnyttrum
(folly or ignorance) the king does not acknowledge his ende, most
likely mortality that would terminate his joy. The condition of unsnyttru
results from good health, youth, no emotional dread (inwitsorh), and
successive victories:58
53
Solomon Complex 617, incorporating elements of an earlier article, Hrothgars
Sermon. One homiletic trait is paired alliterating verbs, such as weaxe and wrida
(1741a), forgyte ond forgyme (1751a), and forsite ond forsworce (1767a); see
Orchard, Pride and Prodigies 51.
54
Ibid. 61.
55
Ibid. 64, 198 note 59.
56
On the pun intended by OE scyld, which means both shield and guilt, see
Trahern 172.
57
Kaskes claim in The Sigemund-Heremod and Hama-Hygelac Passages 492.
On this formulation of Gods endowments, see Andreas 317b20a and below, pp.
1989.
58
Deor may supply an example of inwitsorh in the occurrence of on sefan sweorce

198

chapter three
no hine wiht dwele
adl ne yldo,
ne him inwitsorh
on sefan sweorce,
ne gesacu ohwr
ecghete eowe . . . (1735b8a)
Neither sickness nor age mislead him, nor does dread darken his mind,
nor does battle offer sword-hate anywhere . . .

While some have argued that gesacu parallels ecghete, The Seafarer makes
it clear that ecghete means wound received in battle:
Simle reora sum
r his tid aga,
adl oe yldo
fgum fromweardum

inga gehwylce,
to tweon weore;
oe ecghete
feorh oringe. (68a71b)

Likewise at each opportunity before ones time comes, one of three things
will be in doubt: disease, age or sword-hate will crush the life out of each
man doomed to depart hence.

Much of this passage approximates remarks made in The Gifts of Men,

in which a king endowed with wisdom is never given too much lest he
despise the unfortunate for wlence:
Nnig eft s swie
in eode rym
for gestige,
urh his halige giefe
wise geohtas
under anes meaht
y ls he for wlence
mon mode swie
ond onne forhycge

urh snyttrucrft
isses lifes
t him folca weard
hider onsende
ond woruldcrftas,
ealle forlte,
wuldorgeofena ful,
of gemete hweorfe
heanspedigran . . . (18a26b)

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, and
relinquish all of them to the control of one man, lest he for arrogance,
full of glorious gifts and strong of mind, should turn from moderation
and despise those of less success.

(29a), a result of dread in Beowulf 1737a. In Deor a man whose mind darkens
imagines endless sorrow (t sy endeleas/earfoa dl, 30ab) due to unexpected
reversals. This misery could describe any of the characters Deor mentions in his lament,
or Deor himself. He has been deprived of his londryht (40b), which was bestowed
on a rival scop, Heorrenda.

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

199

The temptation to wlenco comes from a deficiency of snyttru. Having been

awarded glorious gifts (wisdom, land, and nobility), Hrogars imagined
tyrant comes to despise the less successful when he fails to reward his
men on gylp (for their pledge, 1749b).59 In Hrogars sermon,
the tyrant does not know the worse precisely because the world proceeds in accord with (but not because of ) his will. Knowing the worse
means enduring agonies that disclose either the worlds indifference (i.e.
fate) or gods will. Hrogar claims folly for himself when he states
that he counted no enemy under the skys expanse (1773b4b)a
condition occasioned by subjugating his territorial enemies for fifty
years.60 Ultimately, he compares this state of ignorance to the sleep
of a souls protector or guardian (1741b2a), possibly the simple
repetition of ones duties.
Hrogar claims that oferhygd steals upon a powerful and successful
king, and this false confidence derives from a sense of ones invulnerability. Underlying the proposition is a view that too much happiness
could lead to overconfidence and, following a reversal, to despair. In a
study of The Wanderer 68a, which advises a wise man (wita, 65b) to
be neither too fearful nor too happy (ne to forht ne to fgen),
Thomas D. 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.61 He connects heroic apatheia (equal indifference to joy

On this prepositional phrase, see below, p. 211.

Hrogars own thoughts on Grendel are vague. Right after the sermon he
claims,
Swa ic Hring-Dena
hund missera
weold under wolcnum
ond hig wigge beleac
manigum mga
geond ysne middangeard,
scum ond ecgum,
t ic me nigne
under swegles begong
gesacan ne tealde. (1769a73b)
So I ruled the Ring-Danes for fifty years under the heavens, and secured them
in battle, with spears and swords, from many tribes throughout this earth, that I
did not reckon anyone my adversary under the skys expanse.
A close parallel to the construction hig wigge beleac manigum mga comes from
a Psalm fragment in MS Junius 121:
heald me herewpnum
wi unholdum
and wige beluc
wraum feondum
e min ehtend
ealle syndon . . . (34.3)
I held myself in battle-weapons against the disloyal, and secured battle against
hateful foes who were all my persecutors.
The expression translates effunde framea[m] et conclude aduersus eos qui me persecuntur.
61
Unchanging Hero 249.
59

60

200

chapter three

or sorrow) to the related theme of stoic self-control . . . that it is necessary for an honorable man to conceal his feelings, and traces the
stoic convention of moderation to classical sources.62 For this same
passage I have proposed that to fgen means overconfident, not
too happy, and that the wise warrior is advised to avoid recklessness,
the result of overconfidence.63 While Hill ingeniously detects that
excess happiness was condemned as an Anglo-Saxon heroic failing, I
have to disagree that too much happiness involves concealing ones
feelings or relates to apatheia. Nor do I think that the attitude stems from
classical antecedents. In the Germanic tradition, wisdom derives from
pain or lossor from their literary evocations, as I holdand lack of
suffering makes for rash behavior because one has not learned to expect
setbacks. An undefeated, overconfident warrior is more likely to take
risks, and when he finally loses, the defeat may be unbearable, if not
fatal. Precepts expresses this very philosophy, that a wise man (snottor
guma, 54a) has experienced sorrow:
Seldan snottor guma
swylce dol seldon
ymb his forgesceaft,

sorgleas blissa,
dryme sorgful
nefne he fhe wite. (54a6b)

Seldom does a wise man rejoice without having experienced sorrow;

likewise the foolish man full of sorrow will seldom rejoice over his destiny,
unless he is experiencing violence.

In deriving snyttru from painful experience, this statement recalls line

1735a from the sermon: Wuna he on wiste. Hrogars imagined
tyrant lives in abundance.
Hill relies on Saxo Grammaticus for evidence of apatheiaas he
calls itbut in passages of the Historia Danorum that he does not cite,
the figure Ericus Disertus explains how too much happiness actually
inhibits moderation:
Nemo modeste se in prosperis agit, qui aduersa tolerare non didicit.
Preterea omnis bonorum usus post agnita gracius mala percipitur. Iocundior est uoluptas, que rerum amaritudini succedit.64
No one behaves humbly in prosperity who has not learned to endure
hardship. Furthermore, the entire benefit of good things is received
more gratefully after known evils. Pleasure which follows the bitterness
of things is sweeter.
62
63
64

Ibid. 237, 240 resp.

Gwara, Forht and Fgen.
Holder 143.

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

201

Insipidus est, qui numquam meroris poculum degustauit. Nemo dura

non passus temperanter facilibus utitur.65
He is a fool who never tasted the cup of sorrow. No one who has not
suffered hardships enjoys ease in moderation.

In Saxo the easy life makes Frode (Froda) suicidal at Ericuss lesson
in humiliation, a rout in battle. This despair recalls the inwitsorh that
afflicts a tyrant like Heremod, a poet like Deor, or the gomela ceorl,
whose son is hanged in Beowulf s story of his own personal grief (lines
2444a62a). In Beowulf, by contrast, prosperity without self-control or
moderation can lead to tyranny and thence to despair.
Anglo-Saxon wisdom poetry teaches moderation in order to ward
off the disasters that arrogance fosters, or to endure them when they
happen. It has long been recognized in the Old English wisdom verse
how experience of sorrow furnishes snyttru or wisdom. T. A. Shippeys
evaluation of two elegiac poems expresses Hrogars view about how
his imagined kings success could lead to unconscionable oferhygd:
In both The Wanderer and The Seafarer (and in several places elsewhere),
the speakers insist that experience of ones own is a necessary prologue to
wisdom. Wat se e cunna [he knows who makes trial of it], observes The
Wanderer; in a more negative way, The Seafarer presents three times the figure
of the man who does not know, who little believes what others have gone
through, because he has only lifes wyn gebiden in burgum [experienced the
joys of life in human dwellings]. . . . The alternating styles of The Wanderer
reflect the two traditional duties of the poet, to endure bitter experience,
and to give men relief through the expression of its lessons.66

Corollary to the poets expression of relief for misery is the function

of guidance, for wisdom is not only the capacity to expect or endure
change67 but also to create change in behavior. The poetic Solomon and
Saturn, Shippey notes, asks why the young will not struggle for wisdom
(388a90b) by discussing the problem of fate (wyrd) versus warning (warnung). The problem sounds Boethian: does foreknowledge
imply providence?
Citing Bosworths dictionary, Carolyne Larrington translates OE warnung as prescience, but the sense is unique, as she concedes.68 In fact,
Ibid. 1434.
Old English Verse 59.
67
Shippey describes this function admirably as the abandonment of personality
for a general historical perspective. He continues, along with this goes a concern,
not for the past alone, but for the past as a guide to future events (ibid.)
68
Larrington 152.
65
66

202

chapter three

Robert J. Menner, foremost editor of the poem, denied the connection to

strict Boethian philosophy, since in every other occurrence OE warnung
means admonition.69 From Menners perspective a verbal warning
(in poetry, say) can bring about a change in attitude and therefore an
alteration of fate. Solomon (who represents the Christian point of view
to Saturns pagan one) concludes that a wise man cannot change, but
can moderate, his fate(s): . . . him mg wissefa/wyrda gehwilce//
gemetigian (440a1a). One recalls at this moment the context of Order
of the World, in which only rincas rdfste (men firm in counsel,
13a) can moderate their behavior. OE rdfst is a penitential term that
could be parsed firm in counsel,70 and the implicit advice is righteous,
often opposed to ones willa or (base) desire. Order of the World later
states that a thoughtful man (deophydig mon, 18a) should fasten
lessons in his mind ([scyle] . . . wordhordes crft//fstnian fersefan,
19b20a), and the spirited nobleman should not reject this [advice]
(ne sceal s areotan/egn modigne, 21ab). Clearly, the advice of
the wisea warnungis difficult to put into practice. 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, nor
between Augustinian predestination and free-will, but between Germanic destiny and
foresight.
70
The Paris Psalter expresses the connection between OE rdfst and righteous living:
Me in se goda gast
gleawe ldde,
t ic on rihtne wg
rene ferde;
for naman ines
neodweorunge,
drihten usser,
do me halne,
t ic on inum rihte
rdfst lifige. (142.11)
Your good spirit has led me in wisdom, that I traversed the cruel in your righteous
way. In the compelling honor of your name, our Lord, make me safe, that I might
live resolute in your righteousness. (Translating Ps 142:1011)
lfrics Catholic Homily 17 (first series) confirms the connection between prophets
who declare what is riht and the rdfst men who follow them: Geslig bi t
folc e fela witan hf gif hi riht wylla and rdfste beo. 7 ond se is wita geteald
e wyle rihtwisnysse (Clemoes, Catholic Homilies 540.1746: Blessed is that people
who have wise leaders if those desire what is right and are resolute, and anyone who
wishes righteousness is considered a prophet). The link between riht and rdfst
is also confirmed in Waldere B, where Waldere says, eah mg sige syllan/se e symle
by//recon ond rdfst/ryhta gehwilces . . . (Although he who is swift and resolute
in everything that is right may bestow victory . . . II.25a26b). OE rdfst in these passages indicates the will to abide by proper (or promised) conductwhat is rihtnot
to falter in ones actions out of fear, temptation, pride, or other moral weakness. Being
rdfst is purely mental, therefore, and involves choice, desire, and, from the Christian
perspective, humility.

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

203

the kind of advice that sages give. Hrogar imagines them, I think, as
the inexperienced.
The poetic Solomon and Saturn contextualizes the struggle between
fate and warning as a Christian one, and Hrogar seems to offer
pseudo-pagan wisdom of comparable substance. Hrogar seems to
admit to oferhygd, either by failing to anticipate Grendels attack or
by sacrificing so many men in his feud with Grendel that his status
declined. Current glory predicated on past success, Hrogar reasons,
can make some men feel invinciblejust as he felt before Grendels
appearance. He specifically warns Beowulf against oferhygd (1760b),
precisely the trait of the arrogant warrior in Vainglory 43b and of the
giants on the sword hilt. Hrogar describes the origin of oferhygd as an
assassination (or wound) of the soul through a bitter dartallegorically pictured as the depraved, wondrous commands of a cursed spirit
(wom wundorbebodum/wergan gastes, 1747ab).71 (So I conclude
from the testimony that the dart is fired when the souls guardian
is asleep.)72 Vercelli Homily 4 uses exactly this metaphor to describe
the shield (in Beowulf the term is helm) needed to protect against
accursed spirits:
onne is mycel earf, men a leofestan, t we hbben a scyldas
rongean e dryhten us hf gesett mid to scyldanne. rest is an scyld
wisdom 7 wrscipe 7 fstrdnes on godum weorcum, 7 mildheortnesse 7
eamodnesse scyld, 7 ryhtes geleafan scyld 7 godra worca scild . . . 7 one
scyld nimen us to wige wi am awyrgedan deofle e lufu hatte. Ne mg
onne nan synsceaa a urhsceotan, for am e Godes englas bio mid
am scyldum gewpnod to feohtanne wi am awirgdum gastum.73
71
For an Aldhelmian locus see Orchard, Pride and Prodigies 1034. Describing oferhygd
(and even wlenco) as injurious occurs elsewhere in Daniel (am elinge/oferhygd
gesceod, 489ab and him wlenco gesceod, 677b). Mark Atherton has lately made
a connection between scenes of the devils darts and Psalter illuminations. Farrell,
Archer 112 investigated the archer on the Ruthwell Cross and reached a similar
conclusion: the archer is best interpreted as an inimical figure. In the poetic Exodus
the collocation wommum awyrged (cursed by depravities, 533a) varies wreccum
alyfed (yielded to exiles, 533b) in describing the condition of ones mutable prosperity (lne dream, 532b).
72
R. E. Kaske proposes to interpret the weard . . . sawele hyrde (17412) as sapientia
itself put to sleep by pride; but even if this guardian is to be thought of as conscience,
intellect, or reason, its sleep represents a turning away from sapientia coincident with
the growth of pride (Sapientia et Fortitudo 281). The souls protector could be any of
Kaskes suggestions, but I disagree that the hypothetical king is endowed with sapientia
at all, and the sleep specifically derives from ones daily cares (bisgum).
73
Scragg, Vercelli Homilies 103.321104.2. Scragg notes that there is no Latin source
for this passage: it is possible that the final section, lines 308 to the end, is from a

204

chapter three
Then there will be great need, dear men, that we hold our shields,
which the Lord has set amongst us for protection, against it. The first
shield is wisdom and prudence and resolution in good works, and the
shield of mercy and humility, the shield of firm belief, the shield of
good works . . . And let us carry that shield called Love to war against
the accursed devil. No sinful enemy may pierce it, for Gods angels are
themselves armed with those shields to fight against cursed spirits.

Presumably the shield of wisdom in its reliance on mildheortnesse

ond eamodnesse defends from attacks of arrogance, and demands
the conviction of fstrdnes. Each shield protects against a cursed
devil (awyrgedan deofle) or cursed spirits (awirgdum gastum).
Because Christ A documents that exiles have cursed spirits (Habba
wrcmcgas/wergan gstas, 363ab), having such an affliction may
presuppose a state of exile.
Interestingly, this metaphor of the devils darts is widely paralleled.
Cynewulf used it in Christ B, uninfluenced in the context by his Gregorian source:
Foron we a sculon
synwunde forseon,
Habba we us to frofre
lmihtigne.
halig of heahu,
a us gescilda
eglum earhfarum,
wunde gewyrcen,
in folc godes
of his brgdbogan

idle lustas,
ond s sellran gefeon.
fder on roderum
He his aras onan,
hider onsende,
wi sceendra
i ls unholdan
onne wrohtbora
for onsende
biterne strl. (756a65b)

Therefore we should ever despise vain desiresthe wounds of sinand

rejoice in the better. We will have the almighty father in the heavens as
our comfort. Holy, he sends his messengers from on high who will shield
us against the terrible volley of our enemies, when the bringer of enmity
sends forth amongst Gods people the bitter dart from his drawn bow.

The wounds of sin are precisely idle lustas or vain desires. As

in Beowulf, one ought to reject ones lusts and embrace the better.
Cynewulf urges all to hold out against the poisonous point (attres ord,
768a), which could lodge under banlocan or in the flesh (769b).
This ambush (later called devils darts or deofla strlas, 779b) is

vernacular source independent of that which provides the main part of the homily
(89).

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

205

specifically the sudden cunning of fiends (feonda frsearo, 770a).

This metaphor is fully explored in Cynewulf s Juliana 225a88b, where
an exiled devil concealed as Gods righteous angel tempts the saint
to marry the pagan Eleusius. The devils disguise proves that victims
of oferhygd in Beowulf may be blind to their moral benightedness, and
deem their actions to be justifiable. Only Julianas prayer saves her
from succumbing to the devils temptation. Her confidence is intuitive,
not intellectual.
The image of the flying spears of pride also recurs in the Exeter
Book poem Vainglory, as symptomatic of vainglorious men carousing
in a beer-hall:
rymme ringe,
ungemedemad mod;
bi t fonca
feondes fligepilum,

Sum on oferhygdo
rinte him in innan
sindan to monige t!
eal gefylled
facensearwum. (23b7b)

A certain man given to arrogance brims with majesty; his immoderate

spirit swells from within. Too many are like that! That vexation is entirely
filled with the fiends flying spears, his treacherous deceits.

The suggestion that oferhygd might be glossed majesty from the perspective of the arrogant man recalls the potential sarcasm of Wulfgars
remarks to Beowulf: I suppose you have sought Hrogar for glory
majesty of mind, as it wereand not because of exile (Wen ic t
ge for wlenco,/nalles for wrcsium//ac for higerymmum,/Hrogar
sohton, 338a9b).74 More conclusively, oferhygd in Vainglory is said to
derive from immoderation (ungemedemad mod, 25a), a state different from general boastfulness characterizing the other warriors. The
psychological wound happens from within, the reason why treacherous
deceits varies the devils flying spears. These darts, we later learn,
penetrate this warriors defenses simply because of his (moral) inattention: lte inwitflan//brecan one burgweal (He allows deceitful
74
While OE higerym is often considered positive (i.e. majesty of mind), OE rym
could be at least equivocal if not pejorative as an inducement to violence. Maxims I
attests,
rym sceal mid wlenco;
riste mid cenum
sceolun bu recene
beadwe fremman. (60a1b)
Glory goes with recklessness, rash men with the bold must both quickly do
battle.
I translate wlenco as recklessness because the maxim seemingly pairs it with rist
rashness and states that rash men battle impetuously.

206

chapter three

darts to break the shield-wall, 37b8a). He is now vulnerable to an

affliction he cannot perceive.
The Old English prose Life of Saint Gulac likewise preserves the
image of the poisonous dart of a cursed spirit (mid re gettredan
streale gewundod ws s awerigedan gastes),75 but it leads to despair
rather than arrogance. Gulacs ormodnysse results from a wound
to his human heart (menniscan heortan).76 Temptations (costunga)
are consistently proffered by a cursed spirit, too. Because Gulac was
once a warband leader, 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. He noticed in himself vainglory checked only by a devotion
to humility and isolation from the temptations of campaigning. Gulac
A, at least, suggests just this impulse:
mara in gemyndum
rymme fter once

him ws Godes egsa

onne he menniscum
egan wolde. (167b9b)

The fear of God was greater in his thoughts than for him to wish in his
mind to receive human glory.

In the poetic Gulac A, these demonic blandishments tempt Gulac to

trade his saintly exile for that of a wrecca:
Oer hyne scyhte,
nihtes sohte
wunne fter worulde,
a e ne bimurna
s e him to honda
butan hy y reafe

t he sceaena gemot
ond urh neinge
swa do wrcmcgas
monnes feore
hue gelde,
rdan motan. (127a32b)

75
Gonsor 120.525; cited from Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Laud Misc. 509 +
London, BL MS Cotton Vespasian D. xxi fols. 1840 (s. xi2). The Vercelli translation
has a nearly identical reading; see also p. 119.3950: a se ealda feond mancynnes
gengde geond t grswang efne swa grymetigende leo, t he his costunga attor
wide todle. Mid y he a his yfelnysse mgen and grymnysse attor teldode, t
he mid an a menniscan heortan wundode, a semninga swa he of gebendum
bogan his costunge streale on am mode gefstnode s Cristes cempan (Then the
ancient enemy of mankind traversed the grassy area like a roaring lion, that he might
widely propagate the poison of his temptation. He had then so spread the poison of
his evil and savagery that he had wounded the human heart by it, just as if he had
straightaway fixed an arrow of temptation from a drawn bow in the soul of Christs
warrior). Gulac A has a more attenuated image: feonda frscyte (sudden shots
of fiends, 186a).
76
Ibid. 119.46.

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

207

Another [devil] urged him to seek out at night a party of raiders and
through daring to strive after worldly goods, just like exiles do who do
not care for the lives of the men at whose hands they gain booty, unless
through them they may learn about plunder.

The depravity of this behavior lies in the absence of humanity in the

single-minded pursuit of plunder: wreccan do not care for mens lives.
This reputation likewise describes tyrants.
The specific connection between the devils darts and a kings tyranny is found elsewhere only in Beowulf and in a letter of Boniface
(written ca. 744 747) to ilbald of Mercia (d. 757). S. J. Crawford
first revealed this significance of this epistle in 1931, when he called
attention to multiple parallels in Hrogars sermon:77
Et memor eris, quia indecens conprobatur, ut imaginem Dei, quae in te
creata est, per luxoriam ad imaginem . . . maligni diaboli converteris et
tuquem non propria merita sed larga pietas Dei regem ac principem
multorum constituitte ipsum per luxoriam servum maligno spiritui
constituas. Praeterea, fili carissime . . . si in iuventute adolescentiae tuae
putridine luxoriae inquinatus et foetore adulterii involutus et voragine
libidinis quasi puteo inferni demersus fueras, iam tempus est, ut memor
Domini tui a diaboli laqueis resipicas . . . Hi duo reges [Ceolred and
Osred] haec duo peccata maxima in provinciis Anglorum diabolico
instinctu . . . monstraverunt. Et in istis peccatis commorantes, id est in stupratione et adulterio nonnarum et fractura monasteriorum, 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. Nam Ceolredum . . . apud comites suos splendide
epulantem malignus spiritus, qui eum ad fiduciam dampnande legis Dei
suadendo pellexit, peccantem subito in insaniam mentis convertit, 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 . . . Quapropter, fili carissime, cave tibi foveam, in quam
vidisti coram te alios cecidisse. Cave tibi iacula antiqui hostis, per que
propinquos proprios coram te vulnerators cadere vidisti. Adtende tibi a
laqueo insidiatoris, in quo notos et commilitones tuos videbas strangulatos et presentem vitam et futuram perdere. Noli talium ad perditionem
exempla sequi . . . Quid nobis profuit superbia, aut quid divitiarum iactatio
contulit nobis? [Sap 5:8] Transierunt omnia illa tamquam umbra . . . Et
alias: Numerus dierum vitae hominis, si multum, centum anni, quasi
parvula gutta de magno mari deputatus est [Sir 18:8] . . . Desere vitia et
studium inpende sacris virtutibus adimplendas.78

Beowulfiana.
Tangl 14655 (no. 73). In Assers Vita Alfredi Regis the striking phrase diabolico
instinctu describes a discordia that afflicted the Northumbrians ca. 867 (Stevenson
77
78

208

chapter three
And you will recall, because it is affirmed obscene, that you turned the
image of God in which you were created to the image of the wicked
devil. And you, whom not your own merits but the generous will of
God established as king and prince of many menyou confirm yourself
through lust as a servant to an evil spirit. Moreover, dear son, if in the
immaturity of your adolescence you had drownedpolluted by the filth
of wantonness, immersed in the stink of lust, and enveloped in the filth
of adultery and in the vortex of desire as if in the pit of hellit is now
time that you recover yourself from the devils snares. Through a demonic
influence both those kings manifested these two great sins in the lands of
the Angles. And wallowing in these sins, that is, in sexual filth and lust of
nuns and dispossession of monasteries, condemned by Gods judgement,
cast down from the kingly heights of this life and cut off by a premature
and terrible death, exiled from the perpetual light, they sank in the depths
of hell and the perdition of the pit. For an evil spirit, which, through
persuasion, had beguiled him to lose faith in Gods law, suddenly turned
the sinner Ceolred, who had been feasting splendidly among his thanes,
towards derangement of mind, that without penance or confession,
enraged and delusional (speaking with devils and cursing Gods priests)
he doubtlessly made his way from this light to the torments of hell. On
which account, dear son, beware the pit into which you saw others fall
before you. Beware the darts of the ancient enemy. Keep yourself from
the noose of the deceiver, by which your nobles and fellow soldiers were
strangled and lost both present and future life. Do not follow the example
of those men to perdition. What has pride profited us, and what has the
pomp of riches ever brought us? All those things will pass like shadows.
And elsewhere: the number of a mans days, if great, are no more than
one hundred years, as if measured as the merest raindrop from a vast
ocean. Avoid these vices and devote your ambition to the holy virtues
which ought to be cultivated.

Boniface warns ilwald through historical exemplathe conduct

of Ceolred and Osredand the letter captures multiple Beowulfian
affinities:
Boniface
non propria merita
sed larga pietas Dei
fili carissime

Beowulf
1. God-given prosperity
2. paternal advice

Lines 1724b27a
[Beowulf s adoption]

22 [27 line 2]). King Osberht was deposed in favor of lla, a tyrant (tyrannum)
outside the royal family. As in Bonifaces letter and Beowulf, the expression connects
tyranny to diabolical instigation.

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

209

Table (cont.)
Boniface
iacula antiqui hostis
luxoria
diabolico instinctu
subito in insaniam
mentis convertit
in profundum inferni
et tartarum abyssi
superbia
Numerus dierum vitae
hominis, si multum,
centum anni

Desere vitia et studium

inpende sacris virtutibus
adimplendas

Beowulf
3. the devils darts
4. the sin of desire
5. the demonic
prompting
6. an unexpected
possession
7. potential damnation
8. the focus on pride
9. the inevitability of
death

10. the exhortation to

avoid sin and
embrace holy
virtues

Line 1745ab
Lines 1738b9b
Line 1747ab
Line 1746b
Lines 1750b2b
Lines 1748a50a
Lines 1753a7b;
1761b8b

Lines 1758a61a

There emerges as well an arresting acknowledgment that youthful

luxuria could be excused but that mature leadership demands more
stringent moral principles. We learn from this reflex that the moral
failing Hrogar describes afflicts kings, not just churchmen.
Both in outline and detail Beowulfian oferhygd resembles Homeric ate,
a term often rendered madness, delusion, folly, ruin or the like but
whose root sense is blindness.79 In the Iliad especially, ate seems to
be the silent term by which Achilless rage is evaluated as justifiable or
excessive. Ate represents a moral debility that afflicts ones thymos, the

79

On the concept of Homeric ate see Doyle 722.

210

chapter three

seat of the passions. In Homer it is figured as an external daimon, or

even the goddess Ate, a daughter of Zeus. This divine possession leads
to the blindness of disproportionate erotic passion or excessive rage,
the fury that Achilles exhibits. In other words, the possessed man (or
woman) will not perceive the immoderate nature of his desireshe is
figuratively blind to his obsession. Such a man contravenes the expectations of responsible behavior without realizing it. At the same time,
other observers condemn his abnormal passion as a failure of restraint
and duty, and diminished glory frequently results from ate. Interestingly,
Homeric ate is difficult to attribute to characters, including Achilles, and this uncertainty characterizes Beowulf s dragon fight, where
heroic action and oferhygd seem practically coextensive. Independent
of the narrators confirmation, the surest sign of ate is a characters
acknowledgment of it. Agamemnon admits to having ate in Book 9,
and while his capitulation to Achilles is no formal apology, his generous
gifts manifest some degree of culpable excess. As a fatalistic concept,
however, Homeric ate removes the agent from complete responsibility
for immoderation, a reason for the bewilderment that follows Beowulf s
dragon fight. The Geats simply do not know how to fathom their kings
motivation.
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 Hrogars attitude towards temptation and sin. Maliciously discharged (fyrenum sceote, 1744b), the
missile Hrogar describes penetrates the hreer, the domain of emotional
life, and slays the guardian. The guardian represents a faculty like
conscience that resists wrongdoing that might stem from arrogance. He
imputes injury to the soul (OE sawol), which is consistently vulnerable
to arroganceCynewulf s vain lustsin Old English wisdom literature. In Vainglory, for example, the man afflicted by arrogance does not
know guilt for the crime he committed (He a scylde ne wat//fhe
gefremede, 35b6a). Even in the prose Gulac the saints despair
sounds much like the dissatisfaction afflicting Hrogars fictitious king
immediately after the attack: ince him to lytel,/t he lange heold
(what he long held seems too little to him, 1748ab). One might say
that Gulac controls his malaise by being rdfst or firm in (wise
or righteous) counsel.
The use of fyren in the context of Hrogars sermon recalls the
undertakings of Sigemund and Heremod described earlier, especially the
allegation that fyren entered Heremod (915b). The arousal of oferhygd

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

211

elicits the fyren the anonymous secg condemned in the Sigemund/Heremod digression. This fyren derives from the cursed spirit mentioned
both in Gulac and the Vercelli passage. A corresponding association
between oferhygd and fyren arises in Genesis A 18b19a, where Lucifer and
his angels, afflicted by oferhygd, did not know audacious deeds prior
to their fall: Synna ne cuon,/firena fremman. Lucifers rebellion
seems to have been a locus classicus of oferhygd in the biblical tradition.
The gidd of Lucifer in Vainglory 57a66b characterizes oferhygd as a revolt
against righteous authority which results in a national calamity, the
fall of the angels.
The oferhygd of Hrogars imagined king ultimately destroys the
nation. Once the soul is wounded, the king becomes gromhydig,
resulting in his cupidity: he no longer bestows rings for the fulfillment
of pledges (on gylp, 1749b). Describing a state of ferocity most often
associated with combat, OE gramhydig matches Heremods condition of
bolgenmod. OE gramlice describes Belshazzars boastfulness in the Old
English Daniel, right at the moment of his utmost arrogance: gealp
gramlice/gode on andan (He boasted pompously in hatred for God,
713ab). Being gram (fierce) often entails forgetting ones duty or
obligation, as in Exodus: Ealles s forgeton/sian grame wurdon
(they forgot all that after they became fierce, 144ab) or the Paris
Psalter 118: Gearo ic eom symble,/nals grames modes,//t ic betst
cunne/ine bebodu healdan (I am ever ready, not at all of fierce mind,
that I may best know how to obey your commands, 118.60). In Judgment Day I, the gromhydge guman (14a) who rule become deceived
by the guardians of sins and seek hell with their hosts (16a17b),
and being fierce as an aspect of oferhygd answers the proud angels
description as reemode in Genesis A 47b.
Right after becoming gramhydig, Hrogars fictional king quite
appropriately forgets and neglects (forgyte ond forgyme, 1751a)
the destiny (forgesceaft, 1750b) which god had given him, specifically a weormynda dl (1752b) or share of honors. In reference
to kings in Beowulf OE weormynd describes national campaigns: Scyld
Scefing prospered in honors (weormyndum ah, 8b) until his
neighbors submitted to him, and Hrogar enjoyed wiges weormynd
(honor in warfare, 65a)specifically heresped (military success,
64b). These justified honors seem limited to political consolidation,
the share (dl) that god bestows. Hrogar proposes a definable
limit to aggression, in other words, beyond which a king could express
oferhygd.

212

chapter three

Hrogar divulges that an imagined successor to this vainglorious

and bloodthirsty king would freely distribute treasure and forgo egesa.
Reviving John F. Vickreys reading of egesa as timor Domini,80 Andy
Orchard affirms in Heremod the failure of Christian reverence.81
Alternatively, Heremods successor may not care for national warfare,
the sense of the term in Beowulf. OE egesa occurs six times in the poem,
alongside the compounds gledegesa (2650a), ligegesa (2780b) and wteregesa
(1260a). Three of the simplex forms occur in the context of national
warfare.82 Beowulf promises aid to Hrogar should his neighbors
threaten egesan (1827b); Beowulf proclaims that no neighbor risked
egesan (2736a) while he ruled the Geats; and the Geats fear a time
of egesan (3154b)of countless wlfyll or national slaughters,
humiliations [hyno], and enforced slavery (3154a5a)once news of
Beowulf s death becomes general. Both humiliation and slavery
indicate genocide. Other occurrences of egesa describe Grendel or the
dragon, both national terrors. The cry of Grendel, a leodsceaa
(national enemy, 2093b) and a eodrea (national threat, 178a),
is an egesa heard by North-Danes (783b8a), his unnatural violence,
shame [hynu], and corpse-felling [hrafyl, cp. wlfyl] (276a7a) endured
by Scyldings.83 The dragon, too, is a national enemy (eodsceaa,
2278a), which spouts unnatural and deadly flame, a gledegesa and ligegesa.
Finally, this seems to be the underlying sense of egsode eorlas in 6a.
In the consolidation of his kingdom, Scyld did not merely terrify earls.
As one of the first Danish warlord-kings, he invaded or exterminated
his enemy earls, thereby establishing the Danish nation. Given this
constellation of concepts centering on national terror, Hrogar may
conceive of Heremods offense as unjust invasion or assault of a terrifying magnitudeexactly the kind of bellum iniustum decried by Church
authorities. J. E. Cross has compiled and analyzed evidence showing

80
81
82

Egesan ne gyme.
Pride and Prodigies 53.
See also eodegsa from Christ B:

eodegsa bi
hlud gehyred
bi heofonwoman
cwaniendra cirm,
cerge reota
fore onsyne
ece deman (833b6b)
In a heavenly tumult, loud national terror will be heard, the noise of those lamenting; in sorrow they will grieve before the sight of the eternal judge.
The sense of the compounds may be quite different; see Klaeber, Textual Interpretation 263.
83
On the possibility of puns on hrafyl/wlfyl, see Whitesell 146.

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

213

that the Anglo-Saxons condemned wars waged for glory, both in their
poetry and religious writings.84 I see no reason why Hrogar does not
also warn Beowulf against such expeditions.
Germanic Warrior Wisdom: A Counsel of Restraint in Consideration of Virtue
Hrogar concludes his narrative at line 1757 and immediately applies
the story to Beowulf. Recalling the fictional king who did not know
how to protect himself (bebeorgan), Hrogar demands that Beowulf
protect himself (Bebeorh,1758a) from bealoni. OE bealuni occurs
only six times in Old English, three times in Beowulf. Most significantly,
it describes the poison that has penetrated Beowulf s body, the attor on
innan which wells up from within and causes death. In the Kentish Psalm,
the exiled David is said to have relieved a hoard of bealuni with a
humble conscience (mid eamede/ingeance, 152ab). Specifically
wounds of the spirit (gastes wunde, 154a), these bealuni are said
to afflict the fere (spirit, 153a), the seat of emotion. In Gulac A
the collocation beorga him bealoni (they protect themselves from
rancor, 809a) occurs in a list of accomplishments committed by those
assured of heaven. They love fasting and seek prayer, deeds which
suggest that avoiding bealuni might call for self-restraint, asceticism,
or humility. After the dragon burns Beowulf s hall, Beowulf is said
to inquire whence the hostility [ fhu] arose, a phrase which varies
bealoni biorna (2403b4a). From this passage we might conclude
that OE bealuni describes an act that initiates strife, and rancor that
leads to strife is perhaps the best translation.
Just after this warning, Hrogar calls Beowulf the best mannot
the better manand urges him to choose the better (t selre
geceos, 1759b).85 In 1703a Hrogar lavished praise on Beowulf and
called him better born (geboren betera), an affirmation of Beowulf s
moral virtue and exceptional promise. Choosing the better in Precepts
47b means choosing between good and evila fruitless injunction when
over-confidence distorts ones judgment. Choosing the good is impossible for Hrogars fictional king. In Beowulf Hrogar advises Beowulf to
choose the better by protecting himself from bealoni, a snare from

84
85

Ethic of War.
On the better man see also Hansen, Solomon Complex 75.

214

chapter three

which Hrogars imagined king does not know how to protect himself
(he t wyrse ne con, 1739b). At this moment the better is varied
by ece rdas or eternal counsels, and many have compared this
collocation to the choice of ecne rd that Hama made in Beowulf
1201b: [Hama] . . . searonias fleah//Eormenrices,/geceas ecne rd
(Hama fled Ermanarics plots; he chose eternal counsel, 1200b1b).
Most critics interpreting this passage cite the thirteenth-century Icelandic ireks Saga af Bern, which states that Heimir (= Hama) entered
a monastery after fleeing from Erminrekr (= Ermanaric).86 Yet the
notion that Hama earned eternal life (i.e. ecne rd) by professing
a monk has been discredited as false to the context of the episode.87
In fact, the Beowulf poet supplies his own calque on ecne rd, stating searonias fleah//Eormenrices (he fled Ermanarics planned
enmities, 1200b1a).
Almost fifty years ago R. E. Kaske suggested a contrast between
Hamas flight and Hygelacs loss of the collar given Beowulf by
Wealheow on a daring and presumably needless expedition. 88
Whatever the searonias Eormenrices may have been, Kaske insisted,
they certainly represent an evil avoided; whatever the ecne rd may have
been, it certainly represents a good chosen.89 Kaskes reading demands
that fleah be interpreted fled (and so the passage is universally
interpreted),90 making Hamas flight from Ermanarics searonias a
good chosen. What could this mean? Thomas Hill has explicated
the compound searoni as a hostility hatched by menmalicious plots
or wars of aggressionand every context in Beowulf supports this
reading.91 The Beowulf poet could therefore be imagining the moment

86
The matter is still further complicated by the collocation floh . . . Otachres nid in
Hildebrandslied 18 (Klaebers Beowulf 340), about which Klaeber stated in the third edition
of Beowulf, Odoacers place as the adversary of Theodoric was afterwards taken by
Ermanaric (Beowulf 179 note to line 1200b1a).
87
Kaske, The Sigemund-Heremod and Hama-Hygelac Passages 491 note 3.
88
Ibid. 491.
89
Ibid. 490.
90
The reading fleah emends MS fealh, but the attempt by Hintz to retain the scribal
form seems highly strained. Klaeber regarded this article as hazardous (Beowulf 179
note to line 1200b1201a), and the editors of Klaebers Beowulf note that feolan, which
actually means enter, penetrate, is elsewhere only intrans.
91
Paul Beekman Taylor proposes, Hama had fled searonias to save his life. He
had fled a curse on treasure as well as the malefic power of Eormenric himself, whose
searonias marks him as one of the monsters (Searonias 124). I do not perceive the
connection between searoni and magic, and prefer the reading of Thomas D. Hill that
searo- means man-made, intricate, or artificial and that searoni denotes a manufactured
hostilityone instigated by men (Confession of Beowulf 173).

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

215

known from ireks Saga when Heimir denounces Erminrekrs tyranny,

specifically the false charges leveled against irek:
Heimir gengr n fund Erminreks konungs me reii mikilli ok mlti:
, Erminrekr konungr hefir margt illt gert num frndum. Frirek
ok Reginbald sendir fyrst sjlfr til daua, ok inn unga Samson draptu,
ok na brursonu Egar ok ka lztu hengja, ok hr ofan hefir
brott rekit r snu rki inn frnda, irek konung, ok ethir ok lfr,
inn systurson, ok inn ga dreng Hildibrand ok marga ara ga riddara, suma drepit, en suma brott rekit . . . 92
Heimir went to meet King Erminrek with great rage and said, King
Erminrek, you have committed great ill against your kinsmen. You first
sent Frirek and Reginbald to their deaths, and then you killed the young
Samson, and you had your nephews Egar and ka hanged. And now
you have exiled your kinsman King irek from his kingdom, as well as
ethir and lfr, your sisters son, and the good warrior Hildebrand
and many other fine fighters, some [of whom] you have killed, and some
exiled . . .

Although we cannot be sure the Anglo-Saxons knew the story as transmitted in this saga,93 Heimir did choose exile over dishonor; he literally
fled. According to the saga, only after long exile, perpetual readiness
for ambush, and constant harassment of his enemies did Heimir earn
a place at ireks court.
Alternatively, OE searonias perfectly describes the general conduct
imputed to the legendary Ermanaric (i.e. Erminrekr), who became
in heroic poetry the type of a ferocious, covetous, and treacherous
tyrant.94 Frederick Klaeber summarized the highlights: [Ermanaric]
causes the fair Swanhild to be trodden to death by horses, and his
son . . . to be hanged at the instigation of his evil counselor . . . he slays
his nephews . . . and oppresses Theoderic [i.e. irekr].95 By this reasoning, Hama may have fled Ermanarics habitual conspiracies, a way
of saying that Hama earned ecne rd by fleeing depravity. Yet the
expression fled conspiracies may also be figurative, since OE fleah can
mean shunned or rejected in prose or poetry, especially in reference to moral offenses.96 Hama may simply have rejected Ermanarics
tyranny, and not any specific malice.
Guni Jnsson vol. 2, p. 388.
Brady, Legends 14968, esp. 162.
94
Klaeber, Beowulf 178 note to lines 11971201.
95
Ibid.; cf. Ashdown 327; Brady, Legends 166.
96
Thus, Vercelli Homily 21 states, oferhygde fleo 7 unnytt word, fste 7 andan
(flee recklessness and vain words, spite and anger, in Scragg, Vercelli Homilies 357 (lines
92
93

216

chapter three

Whatever sense may be imputed to the expression searonias fleah//

Eormenrices, Genesis A appears to offer a close parallel for the ece
rdas Beowulf is urged to embrace. The Sodomites practice ecne
unrd, and Lot is said to have fled (fleah) re mge monwisan
(the criminal ways of that people, 1939ab), an expression which
varies facen and fyrene (treachery and audacity, 1941a).97 The
poem elaborates on the consequences of Lots choice: eah e he
on am lande/lifian sceolde (although he had to live in the land,
1940a). Lot chose exile, in other words, just as Hama did.98 Moreover,
the commission of unrd specifically marks Lucifers lapse into oferhygd
in Genesis A: e one unrd ongan/rest fremman (which first
began to undertake folly, 30ab). OE rd, in fact, designates what the
angels obeyed before their fall (24a), and hell becomes their rdleas
hof (home without counsel, 44b). Finally, Moses teaches the exiled
Israelites his ece rdas in the poetic version of Exodus, and these
counsels, when internalized in the soul, fortify the nation: we gesne
ne syn/godes eodscipes,//metodes miltsa (we should never lack for
good conduct [or: community], the Measurers mercy, 529a30a). As
the objective of wisdom, OE eodscipe surely means righteous living.
Athough Hama fled Ermanarics plots and chose ecne rda
kind of Germanic righteousnesscritics have defamed him. Called
a wrecca in Widsi 129a, he is said to have accompanied a band
of seven other heroes that persecuted a grome eode (hostile or

13940: the text is repeated in An Exhortation to Christian Living); and Precepts 81a2b:
bi him geofena gehwylc/gode geyced,//meahtum spedig,/onne he mon flyh (for
him will every gift be multiplied in goodness, supremely favored, when he flees sin);
the full context is given below, note 98.
97
In deference to context, dictionaries consistently treat OE monwise as mens ways,
but the first element may likewise be construed as man (criminal) without any
injury to sense or meter. A pun may also be intended. R. T. Farrell defines unrd
as the totality of all that is most ill-advised in Daniel and Azarias 57.
98
The advice sounds much like that in Precepts 78a82b:
Snyttra bruce
e fore sawle lufan
warna him wommas
worda ond dda
on sefan symle
ond so freme;
bi him geofena gehwylc
gode geyced,
meahtum spedig,
onne he mon flyh.
He enjoys wisdom who for love of his soul ever warns himself off iniquities of
word and deed in his spirit, and holds truth; for him will every gift be multiplied
in goodness, supremely favored, when he flees sin.
The soul is specifically affected, as snyttru becomes that which always warns against
sins of word and deed in ones mind. When one flees crime (mon), ones gifts will
be multiplied.

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

217

cruel nation, 128b).99 This cruel nation was plausibly identified in the
preceding lines as tlan leodum (Attilas people, 122b), the Huns.
In fact, the detail that Wudga and Hama fight together with six other
men of am heape suggests a battle waged against Attila rather than
an expedition of exiles against Ermanaric. Unfortunately, the view
of Hama as a fugitive robbing Ermanaric inspired Chambers and
Klaeber, among others, to suggest that Hama stole the Brosinga mene
from Ermanaric: . . . in Beowulf, the Brosinga mene is in the hands of Eormenric, and is carried off by Hama.100 Nothing in Beowulf convincingly
links Hama to this theft, arguably contradictory to the ecne rd
that Hama chose.101 Furthermore, the text states that Hama carried
off (twg, 1198b) the Brosinga mene,//sigle ond sincft (the
torque of the Brosings, brooch and jeweled setting, 1199b1200a) to
some bright town (to re byrhtan byrig, 1199a).102 The unspecified
bright town may be Hamas own or Ermanarics, especially because
of Ermanarics reputation for vast wealth. But in all events, no reference
conclusively links the Brosinga mene to Ermanaric, either.
In the details of his career, Ermanarics cruelty resembles Heremods
rapacity and the betrayal of his own men.103 Ermanarics tyranny is
known from Deor, in which the grim cyning (savage king, 23b) is
described as having a wylfenne geoht (wolvish temperament,
22a). As I have already discussed in reference to the phrase wean on
wenan from Deor 25a, the Goths expect that Ermanarics behavior
could lead to national extermination. By contrast, Hama seems to be
an ideal king in Beowulf. Widsi 129a30a confirms that he ruled men
and women with twisted gold, a compliment on his liberality. Kaske
draws attention to the loss of Wealheows necklace on Hygelacs
raid (where Hygelac sought hostilities (ahsode//fhe, 1207a8b

Chambers, Beowulf 54.

Widsi 33; Klaebers opinion has been retained in Klaebers Beowulf 193: Reading
between the lines of the Beowulf passage, we judge that Hama had robbed Eormenric
of the famous collar. ireks Saga af Bern does attest that Heimir pillaged the Goths.
101
Brady, Legends 1612.
102
OE re has been emended from here (army). Helen Damico (231) has proposed a mythological context that conforms to this hypothesis. The adjective bright
describes other towns and dwellings, twice in Beowulf, for example, once in The Ruin, and
once in The Riming Poem. At the risk of being too literal, the leoma (light, gleam,
311a) of Heorot itself is said to shine over many lands (311ab). (In a West Saxon
genealogy text, the minster at Glastonbury is also said to be bright; cf. Wright and
Halliwell vol. 2, p. 1723, line 6).
103
Brady, Eormanric of the Wds.
99

100

218

chapter three

among the Frisians) and emphasizes that Hama preserved wealth

whereas Hygelac squandered it.104 I see the contrast somewhat differently: Hygelac endangered the Geats in his pointless expedition, unlike
Hama, who fastidiously avoided the behavior imputed to Ermanaric
and rewarded his men with gold.
How Hrogar elaborates on the expression ece rdas confirms
my reading of Hamas probity. Just after stating that Beowulf ought to
choose enduring counsels, he announces that oferhygd ought not to be
heeded: oferhyda ne gym (1760b). OE gyman likewise characterizes
Heremods penchant for egesa, which a more liberal king would not
heed (gyman) but which Heremod chose, neglecting (forgyman) his
destiny. The reason not to heed oferhygd is completely material. Hrogar
warns Beowulf against trusting his strength in the same terms used of
Heremod (mgen and eafo, 1761b and 1763b resp.), and he emphasizes
the physicality of Beowulf s power with the verb oferswian: sickness,
wounds, flood, blindness, etc. will eventually over-power Beowulf. In
the story of the hilt, this false security led the giants to their deaths in a
flood. The best strategy is therefore to avoid rancor in situations where
one might be tested needlessly by being drawn into a fatal challenge.
Mastering such ambition means being snottor (wise) or having snyttru
(wisdom), and this is clearly the injunction to foresee ones positive
forgesceaft, either destiny or promise,105 by a kind of moral
readiness. Hrogar calls attention to his own arrogance in predicting
Grendels advent as a failure to imagine an enemy (1772b3b). This
specific kind of wisdom, which might be termed moral, quite
clearly derives from admonition and narrative. At the opening of Order
of the World a stranger asks a prophet about his forgesceaft (3b),
revealed to warriors in days past through story. In Precepts, too, the
father bemoans that so few obey the fyrngewritu or ancient writings

Sigemund-Heremod and Hama-Hygelac Passages 491: . . . the SigemundHeremod and Hama-Hygelac passages both employ the device of a positive followed
by a negative example, to dramatize two parallel but different themes: the preservation of fame through prowess and courage, and the preservation of wealth and life
through wisdom.
105
OE forgesceaft occurs only seven times in the lexicon, and while it could mean
afterlife (cf. Maxims II 61b), the sense of secular destiny is suggested here. In fact,
the passage from Maxims II observes that ones forgesceaft (61b) is digol ond dyrne
(hidden and secret, 62a), terms which evoke what a nobleman ought to ask of a
wise man in Order of the World: dygelra gesceafta (hidden destiny, 18b). In the
Kentish Psalm a penitent asks that Christ might guide him to his forgesceaft (an
forgesceaft/feran mote, 52ab).
104

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

219

(67a8a), a term which evokes the ece rdas the wise are enjoined to
observe.106 By neglecting the ancient writings, the mind decays, courage
cools, and discipline falters (him hyge brosna,//ellen cola,/idla
eodscype, 68b9b). Like the king who cannot protect against oferhygd,
they have nothing for it (ne habba wiht for t, 70a). Precepts
explicitly links ignorance of ancient writings to the onset of wom
or evil. In lines reminiscent of Hrogars imaginary king who follows
the perverted, bizarre commands (wom [<woh] wunderbebodum)
of a cursed spirit (1747a),107 those who do not hold with the fyrngewritu
in Precepts commit crimes (wom) against the Measurers command
(meotudes bibod). In Precepts, we observe how the wise hero must
think cautious speeches in his breast, not loud noise :
Wrwyrde sceal
breostum hycgan,

wisfst hle
nales breahtme hlud. (57a8b)

For a successful king who has never experienced a reversal, narrative

is the only warning against oferhygd. Wite be issum (learn from
this) we hear from the speaker in Vainglory in reference to his story of
the proud and humble. And Precepts concludes, gemyne//frode fder
lare/ond ec a wi firenum geheald (remember your fathers wise
teachings and always keep yourself from crimes, 93b4b). This must
be the way in which Hrogar intends his own gidd and sermon to
be internalized and recalled.
T. A. 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, 431a)
if the true cross were ever discovered. The term fyrngewritu is varied by fderlican
lare (paternal or traditional instruction, 431b2a), possibly like the moral lessons
imparted by the father in Precepts. The fyrngewritu of Elene 560b, however, refer
to prophecies about the Incarnation (hu on worulde r/witgan sungon,//gasthalige
guman,/be godes bearne, 561a2b).
107
King lfreds description of Nero from Meters of Boethius 9.34a38a also draws
on the typology of Germanic tyrants:
Nalles sorgode
hwer sian a
mihtig drihten
ametan wolde
wrece be gewyrhtum
wohfremmendum,
ac he on fere fgn
facnes and searuwa
wlriow wunode.
By no means did Nero grieve that the mighty lord would ever afterwards mete out
vengeance for those perverse iniquities, but he remained slaughter-fierce, happy
in spirit for enmity and plots.

220

chapter three

to stir up passion so that it may be bridled through restraint.108

He describes this operation as an anguished struggle in the mind
between outburst and repression, fact and illusion, present and past.109
Anglo-Saxon wisdom literature generally, and some Beowulfian gidd
specifically, function the way memory does in The Seafarer, not only
as entertainment but also as philosophical reflection from which one
draws consolation. It seems more restrictive, however, since much of it
is directed at ones false sense of immunity from adversity. Old English
wisdom literature teaches that curbing ones ambition and forgoing glory
may be both practical and ethical. Practically speaking, tyranny can ruin
nations and ultimately discredit ones heroic reputation. Hrogars ece
rdas or eternal counsels could imply ethical mandates potentially
contravened and punished by a Boethian deity. It is often remarked
that Scylds funeral proves the characters skepticism in their (imagined)
pagan afterlife. Men do not know who received that load, the poet
says of Scylds funeral ship, and metaphorically of his soul (50b2b).
This statement resonates with Hrogars own unconfirmed sense of
divine morality, in contention with the practical demands of a wreccas
heroic ambition.
While culled from disparate contexts, the foregoing analysis yet
enables us to reconstruct the Germanic tyrants personality and descent
into oferhygd. As I see it, the stages of corruption are reasonably transparent. Endowed with strength, an aristocratic genealogy, and rule of a
nation, the king enjoys political and military success (weormynd). He
becomes complacent in his duties, his earthly joys or eoran dreamas,
largely the maintenance of his boundaries and the disbursement of
the nations wealth to his comitatus. By not suffering any defeats, he
becomes too happy, and he seeks to extend his fortune as his ambition grows. The king cannot check himself because he does not know
the worse. Moreover, his wisdom, a divine endowment, fails to curb
his zeal. He neglects the better, those eternal counsels or ece rdas
associated with moderation and self-restraint. Then his empathetic or
rational faculties, once protected by a shield-wall, become wounded by
a psychological affliction, a dart. Succumbing to rancor (bealoni),
he starts to obey the perverted, bizarre commands of an evil spirit.
The king becomes gram or fierce and now cannot heed the better.

108
109

Old English Verse 58.

Ibid.

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

221

Counsels cannot sway him, since he now believes his decisions to be

righteous. He forfeits his higher destiny (forgesceaft). In his arrogance
the tyrant commits reckless deeds (fyren) and either national invasions
or hostile acts of extreme terror (egesa). He imagines that he can
achieve greater glory. Joyless (dreamleas), he scorns his own men,
neglects to reward them for their loyalty, and eventually kills them out
of jealousy or fear. He lives alone and comfortless, possibly because of
an insuperable defeat that has left his nation bereft. He dies alienated
from gods favor and from mens praise.
As hard as it might be to accept, Hrogar sees in Beowulf the potential for this self-destructive oferhygd. Otherwise, the entire sermon seems
otiose as a general caution against pride. For reasons I have outlined
in the preceding chapters, and intend to augment in pages to come,
Beowulf expresses traits that resemble those stemming from oferhygd. He
seems susceptible to vice of this kind, and subalterns object far more
strongly to his meaner, heroic bias. One emphasis in the sermon on
Heremods 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 at least seems to crave ever more renown.
Yet Hrogar has also taught him moderation. Is the old king satisfied
that lessons have worked? His warning suggests faint apprehension,
but he cannot do any more than offer advice. Hrogars fatherly
counselwisdom for Germanic noblemenis simply to identify the
symptoms of oferhygd so as to recognize them, flee overconfidence, and
avoid Heremods appalling fate. Whether Beowulf evades oferhygd is a
question raised in the dragon episode.
A Demonstration of Oferhygd in the Old English Daniel
The tyrant represented by Heremod and by Hrogars imagined king in
the sermon is depicted elsewhere in Daniel. Metrical tests support the
case that Beowulf and Daniel are more or less coeval110written between
725 and 800although a recent lexical study is inconclusive.111 Both
poems express a profile of kings given to oferhygd, a focus that has never
been stressed enough in the critical tradition. Instead, most studies of

110
111

Fulk, Old English Meter 3912.

Cronan, Poetic Words 489.

222

chapter three

Daniel rehearse multiple departures from the biblical narrative.112 Robert

T. Farrell describes the thematic emphasis as a conflict between Daniel
and the Three Children in their struggle against Nabuchodnossor and
his line.113 He goes on to describe oppositions (enhanced by verbal
repetitions) between Gods law and devils cunning, earthly bliss and
eternal counsel, wisdom and pride.114 In stressing pride Graham D.
Caie comes closest to my own view of the Daniel poets concern to
illustrate biblical kings afflicted by oferhygd:
The poets aim is to warn his audience in times of prosperity of the dangers of wlenco and oferhygd, respectively the pride which results from the
abuse of worldly gifts, and the vainglorious presumption, such as Lucifers,
of considering ones good fortune the result of owns own endeavors.115

Caie describes the poets depiction of a proud society (Israel before

the captivity) and of two proud Babylonian men, Nebuchadnezzar and
Belshazzar.116 A slight adjustment to Caies scheme changes the poets
focus from proud men to proud kings, tyrants whose reckless behavior
endangers entire nations. Interestingly, Nebuchadnezzar possesses
the exact characteristics and fortune of Heremod and of Hrogars
imaginary tyrant, and the poets account of him invokes the linguistic
symptoms describing Heremods rashness.
Although vocables shared by Beowulf and Daniel have been noted
before, they have never been examined as a linguistic taxonomy describing oferhygd.117 At the opening Nebuchadnezzar is called wlhreow
(53a), just as Heremod is blodreow. Consistently swimod (100a,
161b, 268a, 449a, 528a, 605a), Nebuchadnezzars portrayal as wlancan (96a) at the opening leads to oferhygd (297b, 489b, 494a) after the
three youths predict no lack of abundance for him and his troops (102a
3b).118 On two other occasions the poet reinforces Nebuchadnezzars

Craigie; Alison Jones; Farrell, Possible Source.

Daniel and Azarias 30.
114
Ibid. 345.
115
Caie 1.
116
Ibid. 2.
117
Among the earliest to expose the linguistic overlap between Daniel and Beowulf was
P. G. Thomas; see also Klaeber, Beowulf cxi (theorizing the indebtedness of Beowulf to
Daniel ), though rebutted in Klaebers Beowulf clxxvii; Brodeur, Art of Beowulf 209 (The
parallelism seems superficial to me); Betty S. Cox 1501 (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, 151).
118
See Caie 4.
112
113

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

223

invulnerability. Nis e wierbreca,//man on moldan,/nyme metod

ana (No man on earth is your adversary but God alone, 565b6b),
Daniel assures him, later adding that the king had no rivals at the time
of his death (668ab). Learning of his prosperity, the tyrant immediately
becomes terrifying to men (egesful ylda bearnum, 106a) and lives
in oferhygde (107a). Nebuchadnezzar becomes bolgenmod when
defied (209a) and hreohmod (ferocious, 241a) when he sees the
youths unharmed in the furnace. His irrational reaction is to sharpen
his cruelty by heaping more fuel on the fire.
The details of Nebuchadnezzars first dream go unreported in lines
11015, and while Daniel interprets the dream, the poet departs from
the biblical source by omitting the prophecy. Uncanny verbal details
from this first dream occur in Hrogars sketch of an imaginary tyrant.
Nebuchadnezzar refuses to acknowledge the wisdom that Hrogar
approves in own dilation on oferhygd (1724b34b):
. . . com on sefan hwurfan
swefnes woma,
hu worold wre
wundrum geteod
ungelic yldum
o edsceafte.
Wear him on slpe
so gecyed,
tte rices gehws
ree sceolde gelimpan,
eoran dreamas
ende wuran. (110a15b)119
. . . the disturbance of a dream came to roam in his mind, how the world
was mysteriously created dissimilar for men until its renewal. The truth
was made known to him in his sleep, that the end of every kingdom would
happen cruelly, the termination of earthly joy would occur.

Hrogar describes precisely how the world is unequal to men: some

have greater wisdom, land, and lordship. The allocation of fortune, says
Hrogar, is mysterious to relate (wundor is to secganne, 1724b), as
gifts in Nebuchadnezzars world are mysteriously awarded (wundrum,
111b) on unequal terms. 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 (hfdon lufan, lifwelan/enden hie let metod,
56ab). Mighty god (mihtig God, 1725a) likewise allows (lte)
the nobleman in Beowulf to experience joy or lufan (1727a8b). In
Daniel the cruel end of every kingdom is explained in the following line
as the end of earthly joy. Hrogar not only remarks that god bestows
earthly joy (eoran wynne, 1730b) but also defines it metonymically

119

I have removed commas after geteod (111b) and dreamas (115a).

224

chapter three

as a stronghold of men (1731b)a kingdom in other words. Moreover,

he specifically mentions that a foolish king would not imagine his own
ende (1734b). Hrogar alleges that no counsel succors a man afflicted
by oferhygd, and Nebuchadnezzar in fact gains nothing from the wisest
refugees whom he appoints as his teachers:
. . . nales y e he t moste
t he ara gifena
e him r to dugue

oe gemunan wolde
gode ancode
drihten scyrede. (85a7b)

. . . 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.

Nebuchadnezzar will not acknowledge any authority outside himself

and needs to remember what he had forgotten with the experience
of defeat.
Daniels multiple warnings approximate the lare (counsel, 25b)
God sent to the Israelites just before Nebuchadnezzar occupied their
kingdom. This counsel is said to be wisdom, but the Jews believed
in the truth of that wisdom (re snytro so, 28ab) only briefly.
The Israelites suffered moral blindness and subsequent enslavement
because recklessness entered them (hie wlenco anwod, 17a). 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.120 The Israelites committed unriht (wrong, 23b), and longing for earthly joys, the
narrator claims, seduced them from eternal counsel: hie langung
beswac//eoran dreamas/eces rdes (29b30b). The one is the lords
decrees, the other, the devils power (32ab). At this moment the text
becomes vague, elucidating a point not found in the source. Earthly
joy is opposed to eternal counsel (ece rd), the same locution used
of Hama and the condition which Beowulf is enjoined to choose.121 In
Daniel the langung eoran dreamas (desire for earthly joy) repre120
Thomas, Beowulf and Daniel A 537. Note, too, how this pride enters ones
consciousness through drunken thoughts (druncne geohtas, 18b), prompted by
a devils deeds (deofolddum, 18a). The failing entails disloyalty (16a) and brings
about exile.
121
See the Chronicle poem Edgar s.a. 975:
Her geendode
eoran dreamas
Eadgar, Engla cyning,
ceas him oer leoht . . . (1a2b)
Here Edgar, King of the English, ended his earthly joys; he chose another light
for himself.
The expression earthly joys apparently refers to worldly power, not happiness.

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

225

sents political ambition, the seduction of kingship, discontent with ones

position. Reminiscent of the willa (1739a) which subverts Hrogars
imagined king, OE langung in particular expresses unsatisfied desire.
By contrast, ece rd, which I have discussed above, must be what the
Israelites refuse in abandoning the law (19ab), turning towards gedwolan (error, 22b), committing unriht (unrighteous deeds, 23b)
and wommas (crimes, 24a). All of this leads to national destruction,
plunder, and enslavement.
Nebuchadnezzar ignores the warning in both dreams, the second of
which predicts his exile. Daniel reveals the egesan (terror, 540a)
disclosed in the vision: the king is to be sent on wrc (into exile,
568b) where he will not recall mandreame (570b). Daniel had previously predicted that Nebuchadnezzar will be dreamleas, like Heremod
(Beowulf 557b). Attested three times in the lexicon, OE dreamleas occurs
only in verse; in Christ C it modifies hus (dwelling, 1627b) as an
appellation for hell, a place of exile. Exile ultimately proves fortunate
for Nebuchadnezzar, in whose spirit (in gast, 650b) a rdfst sefa
(651a) lodges afterwards. The term recalls those rincas rdfst in
Order of the World who alone benefit from traditional wisdom.
It has not escaped notice that Nebuchadnezzars exile follows his
acclaim for the Tower of Babel, built in celebration of earthly honors
(to wurmyndum, 609b): he imagines himself completely safe in his
eard ond eel (dominion and homeland, 611a). At this point he is
said emphatically to be alone in his recklessness over all men (ana on
oferhyd/ofer ealle men, 614ab). Hrogar, too, suffers Grendels attacks
after building his own colossal hall, although I would not compare
Hrogar to Nebuchadnezzar as prone to oferhygd.122 More significantly,
the Daniel poet connects national extermination with Nebuchadnezzars
leadership. Nebuchadnezzars people become fremde (185a), like the
race of giants depicted on the swords hilt,123 when they worship idols:
Fremde folcmgen,/swa hyra frea rest,//unrd efnde . . . unriht dyde
(the estranged nation performed unrighteous deeds, as their lord had
done, 185a7b). Nebuchadnezzars nation is promised an endelean
122
Bosse and Wyatt 2657. Bosse and Wyatt cleverly identify a conversion trope,
a process of humiliation leading to acceptance of new beliefs. Yet the anachronism
of Christianity and reversion to idol-worship (257, my emph.) complicates the identification of a conversion paradigm in Beowulf. I propose that the poet describes how
oferhygd is reproved.
123
The population is said to have despised the condition of a holy life (had oferhogodon/halgan lifes, 299ab).

226

chapter three

(final reward, 187a), exactly the sort of retribution the giants warranted. OE endelean occurs uniquely in these passages of Beowulf and
Daniel. The emphasis on the shared fate of the king and his people is
prominent throughout Daniel. The Babylonians do not undergo such
privations under Nebuchadnezzar, but their seven-year preservation is
unusually emphasized. Moreover, 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 alt
wyrcan bote,
fyrene fstan . . . (589a91a)

monige eode
onne hie woldon sylfe,

Daniel concludes with the downfall of Belshazzar and his Chaldeans

specifically because of wlenco (677b), oferhygd (678a), and onmedla (747a).
One could not call this a genocide like that of the giants depicted on
the hilt, but it is a national vengeance. While God allowed the Chaldean bld to flourish, he knew that the ealdormen were living in
impiety (in unrihtum, 684b). The leader of the Medes then became
confident (gehogode, 686a) that he could overthrow Babylon. Then
Belshazzar begins to tempt God by eating off the vessels ransacked
from the temple, whereupon the angel delivers the warning of disaster.
In this context tempting God (godes frasode, 694b) is expressed by
OE frasian, which could mean to test by making a demand.124 Like
Nebuchadnezzar and Heremod, Belshazzar performs a deed predicated
on his presumed invincibility. As far as the text goes (it ends defective),
Belshazzars enemies overcome him as a matter of fate, construed as
a Boethian directive, a deed passively sanctioned as punishment
for the Jews or Babylonians. Hrogar imagines the same for the giants
and Beowulf.
Nebuchadnezzars history in Daniel has a structure that replicates
that of Beowulf and suggests why Beowulf is episodic. A warning against
oferhygd in the first dream follows a deed (enslavement of the Israelites or
exile). Even after Daniels warning, Nebuchadnezzar builds his altar,
after which arises a second warning (dream of the tree), which is then
followed by the imagined tower and exile. Belshazzars downfall follows,
with its own warnung about the dangers of Gods displeasure, and

124

DOE s.v. sense a. The verb is emended from frea sde; see also frasung sense 2.

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

227

Belshazzars unrepentant egomania. In the case of each king, one senses

the poets adaptation of source material to the progression of Germanic
oferhygd. In this context one is constantly reminded of Daniels role as
the purveyor of Germanic wisdom, the righteous interpreter of gidd.
Daniels prophecies go unheeded, 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 Hrogars.
The Analogy of Fremu and Beowulf s Emergence into Responsible Kingship
Hrogar and his Danes express anxiety over Beowulf, whose standing among them is ambiguous. Although he has trounced Grendel
and Grendels mother, he either risked his life and the lives of others
unnecessarily, or else judged his own competence to a nicety. 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. The
Finnsburh episode reveals the disapproving position held by Hrogars
retainers. For them Beowulf resembles the ambitious Hengest who did
not acknowledge the counsel of the world until his men threatened
to revolt. Nevertheless, Beowulf s rejection of Hrogars throne reveals
a political maturity that Hengest never demonstrated. In fact, by the
end of the Danish section of the poem, Beowulf has managed to suppress not his arrogance but any potential arrogance others, right or
wrong, detected in him. In my view, Hrogar has instructed Beowulf by
example and by advice how to moderate behaviors that are potentially
reckless, and how to govern the men who make the kingdom strong.
Hrogars not-so-subtle guidance begins at Beowulf s introduction and
peaks with the sermon. In the sermon Hrogar affirms his faith in
Beowulf s virtue but warns against any failure of moral vigilance. The
old king who has himself experienced oferhygd contemplates Beowulf s
susceptibility to this fault. The sermon culminates Beowulf s apprenticeship, and the poet concludes Beowulf s youthful adventures with a
homecoming that proves his readiness for rule.
While it is universally agreed that Beowulf expresses this readiness
in his gracious modesty towards Hygelac, many critics have wrongly
extended this conduct backwards into the Danish adventures. They
commonly envision a static Beowulf who has always been generous
and trusting, for which reason they will be puzzled by the anxieties I
have been emphasizing. The sermon seems especially troublesome for

228

chapter three

those who resist Beowulf s status as a man given to ambition, someone

who could end up a wrecca. Yet the view that Beowulf earns respect
in Geatland has no countervailing position: Beowulf s loyalty is never
impugned in this section, nor does he ever display a whiff of ambition. In fact, the poet has shown Beowulf s consecration (the term is
Bonjours) in an unparalleled magnanimity followed by a swift summation of Beowulf s unprecedented success as a king. The dragon fight
will debate whether Beowulf ever falls from these heights, but before I
discuss its relevance I want to lay out the evidence of Beowulf s kingly
accomplishments.
Of course, the homecoming is exceptionally important in documenting Beowulf s self-restraint, generosity, wisdom, and humility, but it also
presents a neglected digression that confirms Beowulf s education. In
the past, the casual but copious remarks made about a queen formerly
thought to be Modry(o) were deemed to emphasize Queen Hygds
generosity, and, just recently, John M. Hill has tendered the view that
the digression underlines Beowulf s victory-enhanced movement.125
In fact, this neglected digression subtly documents the education that
I have theorized for Beowulf.
Having taken leave of Hrogar, Beowulf sails home. Just as he arrives
in Geatland, the poet anticipates his meeting with Hygd, Hygelacs
queen. Described as very young (swie geong, 1926b) but politically
mature (wis wel ungen, 1927a), Hygd (her name means Thought)
balances her husband Hygelacs arguable temerity.126 His name means
Impetuosity or the like.127 Like any good queen (or lord), she generously rewards the Geats with treasure:
ne to gnea gifa
mamgestreona. (1929b31a)

ns hio hnah swa eah,

Geata leodum,

. . . nevertheless she was not lowly, nor too sparing of gifts, of precious
treasures for the people of the Geats.

Hygd was not lowly (hnah) because she had spent few years among
Geats. As we have seen, hnah typically describes male status. The
Old English hapax legomenon gnea means stingy, and the claim that
Hygd was not stingy recalls the criticism directed at Heremod, who did
125
126
127

Narrative Pulse 66.

Kaske, Hygelac and Hygd 201.
Ibid. 205.

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

229

fail to reward his men. The association with Heremod gains prominence
when the poet introduces another famous queen right after commending Hygds liberality. In the past the digression concerning this has
been thought to pertain to Modry or Modryo, on the basis
of lines 1931a2b in Klaebers third edition of Beowulf: Modryo
wg,//fremu folces cwen,/firen ondrysne (Modryo, famous queen
of the people, committed dreadful atrocities). Lately, however, R. D.
Fulk has revived Ernst Kocks proposal that the queens name is actually Fremu and, following Sisam, that she committed modryo or
wilfulness.128 Klaebers Beowulf now reads: Modryo wg//Fremu,
folces cwen,/firen ondrysne (Fremu, the peoples queen, exhibited
arrogance, terrible atrocities). Key evidence in Fulks analysis stems
from three observations. First, the nominative form modryo is unrecorded (hence the common emendation Modry). Second, modryo
wg has a close parallel in Genesis A 2240b higerye wg,129 and,
third, the expression firen ondrysne would seem to suit the context
as a consequence of modryo. Set against Fulks analysis is evidence
from the twelfth-century Vitae duarum Offarum, in which Offa of Mercias
queen has a profile identical in many details to the wife of Offa of
Angeln in Beowulf, and is identified first as Drida and later as Quendrida.
Drida and Quendrida disguise the element ry(o). Sources confirm
that Offas queen was named Cynery,130 circumstantially explaining
why modryo was taken to be a personal name. On balance, the
evidence is stronger that Fremu represents the name of Offas queen,
and the episode known as the Offa-Modry(o) digression ought
therefore to be called the Offa-Fremu episode. The nomenclature

128
Fulk, Offas Queen; Sisam, Studies 41 note (ii); on the view that Fremu is
actually Hygd, see Eliason, Thryth-Offa Digression.
129
This passage describes Hagars arrogant behavior towards Sarah when Hagar
discovers Sarahs pregnancy:
Hire mod astah
a heo ws magotimbre
be Abrahame
eacen worden.
Ongan fancum
agendfrean
halsfst herian,
higerye wg,
ws lawendo,
lustum ne wolde
eowdom olian,
ac heo riste ongan
wi Sarran
swie winnan. (2237a43b)
Her attitude inflated when she became pregnant with a child by Abraham. Stiffnecked, she began to show supercilious wilfulness towards her lord and owner,
became hostile; she would not willingly endure servitude but audaciously began
to strive mightily against Sarah.
130
Fulk, Offas Queen 623.

230

chapter three

will appear inconsistent in the following pages, as I cite critics who

heeded Klaebers argument that Modryo was Offas queen. I take
the liberty of substituting the name Fremu (in quotes) for Modryo
when referring to these scholars still valid arguments, and use brackets
identifying Modryo as Fremu in quotations.
Unlike other digressions in Beowulf, the Fremu episode only acknowledges the Anglo-Saxon audience, not any intradiegetic one of Geats
or Danes, and this fact alone compromises its narrative function. The
intrusion has created the impression among scholars that Fremus
story has no purpose except to magnify Hygds liberality. Over two
decades ago Constance B. Hieatt reasoned on the basis of significant verbal parallels that Fremu was a feminine reverse-parallel
to Heremod.131 Like Heremod and other wreccan, Fremu commits
fyrene (1932b), which spring from a self-indulgent vanity, the newly
restored modryo of 1931b. The parallel higery from Genesis
A 2240b describes Hagars supercilious treatment of Sarah in terms
reminiscent of Vainglory, where the arrogant man does not respect the
better. Before becoming Offas queen, Fremu used to accuse members
of the comitatus (nnig . . . swsra gesia, 1933a4a) who stared
at her during the day of (presumably) a sexual crime. The men are
subsequently executed.132 Having members of the retinue dispatched
(cwealmbealu, 1940a) recalls Heremods deacwalu inflicted on the
dugu (1711a12b). Fremu plausibly kills men who might dominate or
desire her, as Heremod feared being overthrown.
King Offa stopped Fremus atrocities, and she presumably acquired
the cwenlic eaw (queenly custom) mentioned in 1940b. When
reporting that Fremu committed fewer national killings (leodbealewa/ls gefremede, 1946) after her marriage, the poet uses the
same noun leodbealu that characterizes Heremods actions.133 Hrogar
pictured how Heremod perpetrated leodbealo longsum or long-lasting national slaughter by killing his own men. The poet condemns
Fremus ligetorn, which can only be construed as false anger, similar
to the trumped-up charges of treason that Heremod, one imagines,
used against his rivals. Yet Fremus husband Offa curbs her behavior,
which seems like feminine arrogance: she thinks that the men staring
Hieatt 182.
Mary Dockray-Miller has proposed alternative readings of multiple terms in this
passage: handgewriene, mundgripe, ligetorne, among others.
133
Hieatt 182.
131
132

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

231

at her are contemptible. Through Offas intervention Fremu becomes

splendid, as her name implies. In my view, the Fremu digression
recalls one feature of Hrogars sermon and attests that ones sociopathy can change. Moderation emerges from the warrior community of
the hall.134 In Fremus rehabilitation one perceives the poets objective
to imply Beowulf s own transformation from ambitious young warrior
to sage ruler.
While never called a gidd, the Offa-Fremu episode illustrates the
parallelism characteristic of the genre. It seems disjunctive to mention
Beowulf s landing and then move swiftly to Hygd and Fremu, but Hygd
serves merely as an excuse to introduce Fremu, whose marriage to Offa
answers Beowulf s homecoming. Some could object to the comparison
of Beowulf to a woman, but Deor likened his own situation to that of
the pregnant Beaduhild and of Mhild, deprived of Geats love. By
this poetic model, the correspondences between Fremu and Beowulf
are worth venturing. In my view, Fremus reformation, her change from
jealous virago to peerless queen, signifies a change in Beowulf. The poet
emphasizes the moderation she acquires after leaving her fathers court.
What kind of change does Beowulf undergo? Hieatt treats Fremus
conduct as an analogue of Beowulf s unpromising youth,135 although
she denies that Beowulf ever engineered the deaths of men through
vanity.136 I sense that, having plumped for Beowulf s virtue, Hieatt has
to find the analogy with Fremu asymmetrical:
The [Fremu] episode, then, is like the first Heremod episode in more
than one way, for the poet may be making a triple comparison of Hygd/
[Fremu]/Heremod as he earlier made one tripling Sigemund/Heremod/
Beowulf. Or, and this seems very likely, it may be more complex than that,
with Beowulf also drawn in as another slow-starter on the road to success
in life, like [Fremu], but, on the other hand, one who unlike [Fremu] was
never at any time guilty of the blood of his companions.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 Hondsciohs death and indirectly for scheres.
Is it too impressionistic to draw a connection between Fremus and
Beowulf s audacity? The poet remarks that Fremus plots were no
134
135
136
137

Kroll 119.
Hieatt 177.
Ibid. 179.
Ibid.

232

chapter three

queenly custom, even if she were nlicu. OE nlic means peerless (hence beautiful, handsome), and the only other occurrence in
Beowulf describes the coast-wardens reaction to Beowulf s peerless visage (nlic ansyn, 251a). Fremu exhibits extreme sensitivity to insults
of honor, and her customs afflict the warband. Due to what sounds
like arrogance, no dear companions dared approach her, and the
expression swsra gesia ([of ] dear companions, 1933a4a) evokes
the warband setting. On three other occasions in Beowulf (29a, 2040a,
2518a), swse gesias refers to the most trusted members of ones
retinue. In fact, the entire context sounds martial: bondage described
as mundgripe (hand-grip, 1938a; cf. 380b, 753a, 965a, 1534a),
the sword ordained (mece geinged, 1938b; cf. hilde geinged,
647b), the damascened blade settling it, the infraction (hit sceadenml/scyran moste, 1939ab; cf. 1106ab, hit sweordes ecg/syan
scede). The poet describes the execution of these men as a conflict
with Fremu, an adversary, and it recalls Heremods leodbealu.
My alleged parallel between Fremu and Beowulf highlights a personal
transformation which Theodore M. Andersson has also sensed in the
digression: whatever the exact relevance of the account, it illustrates
that the most startling changes are possible.138 Fremu has left a father
for a husband in new relationship emphasizing political responsibilities.
The poet stated earlier that Heremods men wished him to follow a different course (si, 908a), to assume his paternal virtue (fderelum
onfon, 911a). Heremod fails to listen. Yet Fremu heeds her fathers
council and moderates her conduct: be fder lare//sie gesohte (by
her fathers counsel she sought her course, 1950b1a).139 Fremus role
at Offas court fulfilled her promise:
in gumstole,
lifgesceafta

r hio syan well

gode mre,
lifigende breac . . . (1951b3b)

There [in Offas court] afterwards, while alive, she well achieved her
destiny on the throne, a woman esteemed for good.140

Tradition and Design 102.

Ibid. 182.
140
The noun god in Beowulf entails liberality to some extent: a young prince should
work good with gifts (20b1a); God dispenses favors (gode, 956a), and Wealheow
says that Hroulf will re-pay his cousins with good (mid gode, 1184a). In general
dispensing good is the political behavior of a king.
138
139

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

233

The term lifgesceafta (destiny, as lifetime accomplishments) recalls

the forgesceafta (destiny, as future promise) that Hrogars anonymous king neglects when he turns to oferhygd. Fremu fulfills her promise
because she was turned from despotism and vanity. The gumstol or
throne represents a political office, from which position one dispenses
the good to men. Finally, we discover that Fremu bore a famous
warrior son, Eomer, meeting the expectation, one might say, of begetting an ideal king, hleum to helpe (a help to warriors, 1961a).
Hrogar himself expects Beowulf to become hleum to helpe
(1709a) as well. One is struck forcefully by the political nature of these
accomplishments: fulfillment of a royal destiny, dispensing of treasure
from a throne, earning a reputation for generosity, producing an heir
to lead Offas kingdom.
The change in Fremus behavior came about through marriage to
Offa, who onhohsnode (1944) her spiteful behavior. OE onhohsnian
derives from a noun hamstring, so that Offa did not simply check
but hobbled Fremus violence. The poet alludes to Beowulf s own
ambition as a glory-seeker. In this case Fremus marriage to Offa, an
experience of political training, corresponds to Beowulf s education
under Hrogar. With Hrogars advice Beowulf learns to moderate
behaviors that resemble Heremods, just as Fremu did when she joined
her husbands foreign court. Beowulf, the poet seems to say, will fulfill the
same promising destiny as Fremu, now that his potential for arrogance
has been hobbled. Hrogars campaign to teach Beowulf wisdom has
paid off, a success acknowledged at their parting: ne hyrde ic snotorlicor//on swa geongum feore/guman ingian (I have not heard
men at such a young age negotiate more wisely, 1842b3b). Beowulf
has just promised alliances between Geats and Danes, and friendship
to Hreric. While Beowulf s resemblance to Fremu may once have
reflected Hunfers evaluation of him, therefore, Beowulf s rehabilitation transforms him from possibly callow fighter into levelheaded king.
However, only the narrator confirms Beowulf s modified attitude, since
the Fremu digression is spoken to the audience, not the characters. All
along the poet has reinforced the opposed perspectives of retinue and
king, even while his own judgments might be said to favor Beowulf. In
fact, Beowulf s justifications for fighting the dragon will remain unknown
to his retinue and second-guessed even after his death.
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

234

chapter three

lacked in the Hunfer confrontation?141 The Fremu digression suggests

that Beowulf has developed a political sensibility, the consequence of
wisdom, by the time he leaves Heorot. Hrogar has taught Beowulf how
to lead menthe duguby which force a king magnifies the influence
he earned as a fighter.142 Beowulf s education can be observed in many
significant actions: having his men wait on the edge of Grendels mere,
returning Hunfers swordfinding no fault with it and even thanking
Hunfer for his generosity (1807a12a)bestowing a sword on the
coast-warden, promising troops to Hrogar,143 and declining to meddle
in the Danish succession. Furthermore, having come home, Beowulf
compliments Hondscioh, whom he had never mentioned before, and
for whom Hrogar has paid compensation. Among Geats, however,
Beowulf honors Hondsciohs death at Grendels hands in lavish terms:
a famous young nobleman (mrum maguegne, 2079a), a champion (cempa, 2078a), and a beloved man (leofes mannes, 2080a)
to whom battle was fatal (hild onsge, 2076b), Hondscioh was first
to fall (2077b). Being first to fall was high praise for ones courage.
Anonymous and apparently expendable before the fight, Hondscioh
now earns praise for fightingeven though he was snatched in his
sleep. Naming a mans killer, manner of death, and deposition seems
to have been customary, so Beowulf describes Grendel as a mubona or
devourer (2079b) and remarks that Hondsciohs remains were not
recoverable: [Grendel] swallowed the whole body (lic eall forswealg,

141
For the following passages John W. Schwetman has suggested views completely
opposite to my own: What, then, do the details in Beowulf s long speech to Hygelac
suggest? That Beowulf used his speech to warn, or at least to hint, that the Danes
might once again stand in need of aid (though not mentioning that he had pledged
such aid). That he desires to appear wise to his own people as he has to the king of
the Danes. That he is eloquent enough to praise the man [Hondscioh] for whose death
he may have felt some guilt, reminding Hygelac that warriors fall in battle. That he is
eloquent enough to stress his own valor in defeating an otherworldly foe of gigantic
proportions, of a size hardly hinted at by the narrators description. And that he has
become a hero vital to the survival of another people . . . [These observations] merely
suggest that the young Beowulf was still finding his place, here in the first half of the
poem . . . They suggest that he was overcoming an earlier reputation which the narrator
refers to at the end of the scene (146).
142
Edward B. Irving, Jr. proposes that characters are made to emulate each other
in heroic poetry (Heroic Role-Models). Irving suggests that Beowulf is Hrogars
and Hygelacs model rather than vice versa (356, 359, 3601).
143
Hill has investigated the complexities of Beowulf s astonishing treaty, which seems
rather to usurp Hygelacs prerogatives, in Narrative Pulse 58.

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

235

2080b). In these terms Beowulf explains why a traditional servicewith

a pyre, perhapsdid not take place.144
Moreover, as many have observed, Beowulf casts himself in the role
of avenger, the killer of Hondsciohs bloody-toothed slayer (bona
blodigto, 2082a). Beowulf requited every death that Grendel caused,
including Hondsciohs: ic am leodsceaan//yfla gehwylces/ondlean
forgeald (I made requital for every evil on that national scourge,
2093b94b). Beowulf s flattering remarks, which honor a man who
died without lifting a sword, reveal a new motivation for Beowulf s
fight: vengeance rather than glory. We recognize the gambit from
Hrogars reception of Beowulf, when the old king re-contextualizes
Beowulf s journey to Denmark as reparation for Hrogars consideration
for Ecgeow, specifically settling the Wylfing feud. In respecting the
fallen, Beowulf likewise honors his men the way a king would honor
his dugu. He has learned generosity, I think, from Hrogars reaction
to scheres death: naming the hero, praising his warfare, identifying
Grendels mother as the handbana (bare-handed killer, 1330b). Beowulf
has successfully completed an apprenticeship.
The Heaobard digression is yet another demonstration of Beowulf s
acumen. In the previous chapter I mentioned how Beowulf patterns his
narrative on the Finnsburh digression, that a sword worn by a Dane in
the Heaobard episode actually resolves the complication of the sword
bestowed on Hengest. Much has been written about the Heaobard
episode but little on its function in Beowulf s speech. In my mind it
predicts a moment when Hygelac and the Geats might be called upon
to fight for Hrogar. Beowulf committed a Geatish force specifically to
repulse invasion: t ec ymbsittend/egesan ywa (that your neighbors intend invasion, 1827ab). On the one hand, Beowulf plants the
first seed that the time for Hyeglacs aid may not be far off: Freawaru is
still too young for marriage, but mature enough to be betrothed and to
serve men in the hall. On the other hand, Beowulf asserts that Hrogars
position will be defensive, the war unjustly provoked. Alternative justice
will not be possible, since the murderer he foresees will have escaped,
and escalation will inevitably result as Ingelds love for his wife grows
cool (2066b). In other words, a Heaobard invasion matches the
circumstances under which Beowulf has promised a thousand Geatish

144
On the relevance of Beowulf s comment, see Owen-Crocker, Horror in
Beowulf.

236

chapter three

spears (1826a35b). Beowulf has called Hygelac young (1831b) but

willing to support Beowulf, and it seems likely that Beowulf has begun
to educate Hygelac on a beneficial alliance.
Beowulf s distribution of Hrogars dynastic riches constitutes a
final illustration of Beowulf s political intuition and royal apprenticeship. In his remarks and actions Beowulf both acknowledges his newly
acquired prestige and minimizes his ambition at home. He is likewise
seen to understand the magnitude of Hrogars adoption, and to follow
Hrogars plan of delivering the Danish treasures to Hygelac with a
specific codicil. The narrator claims that this speech comprises a gidd,
an exemplum by which Hygelac can appraise Hrogars esteem:
Het a in beran
heaosteapne helm,
gusweord geatolic,
Me is hildesceorp
snotra fengel;
t ic his rest e

eaforheafodsegn,
hare byrnan,
gyd fter wrc:
Hrogar sealde,
sume worde het,
est gesgde. (2152a7b)

He commanded the boar figure, a leaders standard, to be brought in,

a battle-tall helmet, grey mailcoat, splendid battle-sword. Afterwards
Beowulf recited a message: Hrogar the wise king gave me this battlegear. He commanded that I first say a few words to you about the
magnanimity of it.

Karl Reichls reasoning that gyd cannot mean poem or song here but
must have a more neutral meaning, possibly wise words 145 ignores
the implicature of Beowulf s utterance:
cw t hyt hfde
leod Scyldunga
no y r suna sinum
hwatum Heorowearde,
breostgewdu. (2158a62a)

Hiorogar cyning,
lange hwile;
syllan wolde,
eah he him hold wre,

He said that King Heorogar, lord of the Scyldings, owned it for a long
time. By no means would he give such breast-ornaments to his own son,
blessed Heoroweard, though Heoroweard was loyal to him.

David C. Van Meter has persuasively affirmed that the artifact is the
tangible and intergenerational source of status and power for a bloodline; and to transfer the artifact to an heir is to assert the societal rank

145

Reichl 363.

the rhetoric of OFERHYGD in hrogars sermon

237

and authority of a bloodline into another generation.146 In this case,

awarding Heorogars sword to Beowulf evokes all three of Van Meters
explanations for transferring weapons: legitimation of an heir, affirmation of retainership, and reward for service.147 In telling this analogy,
then, Beowulf reveals the value of accomplishment and Hrogars
estimation of him not merely as a loyal son (Heoroweards status) but
as great fighter, loyal servant, and exceptional son worthy of rule.
Astonishly, the history of the sword recounted in Beowulf s brief gidd
proclaims the terms by which Beowulf rejects these magnificent gifts
and implicit mutuality. That Heorogar owned the sword for a long
time (lange hwile, 2159b) suggests a precocious aptitude for war
that may have led to Hrogars own election as king.148 Apparently,
Heoroweard did not show the same promise as Hrogar. Beowulf
understands the gyd of the swords bestowal; he does not undervalue Hrogars adoption. Moreover, he wants Hygelac to appreciate
the value of his loyalty in the sacrifice of such material and relational
benefits. On such terms he situates himself in this analogy as comparable to the unworthy nephew Heoroweard who remained loyal to
the rightful king, wielder of a dear fathers weapon. Beowulf accepts
Hrogars designation as son but yields this status to Hygelac. In
bestowing the sword on his own king, Beowulf both flatters Hygelac
and analogizes his renunciation of the Danish throne. As John M. Hill
has reasoned, Beowulf minimizes his own political allegiance with the
Danes as Hrogars retainer and heir.149
Relevant in the implicit wrecca context that I have theorized is
Beowulf s profession of loyalty. In the most extravagant and convincing
terms, Beowulf publicizes that he will not become a usurpatious nephew
or, by extension, a despicable tyrant. He remains Hygelacs nephew and
thane, and his gesture radiates goodwill. This exaggerated gesture yet
brings out what had earlier been thought of Beowulf as a potential
wrecca, a man prepared to challenge his own kin for supremacy. Like

Van Meter 178.

See Kaske, Weohstans Sword.
148
It has been suggested that Hrogar has usurped Heorogars claim, but this passage rather implies that kingship is earned and conferred. Oddly, Hill suggests that
Beowulf s explanation of Hrogars generosity is false (Narrative Pulse 72). I see no
reason why Hrogar could not have spoken privately to Beowulf about the disposition
of these treasures now that Beowulf will not become king of Danes. Beowulf instead
will leverage them to become a sub-king of Geats.
149
Danish Succession 181.
146
147

238

chapter three

the meeting with the coast-warden, this conspicuous humility disarms

any anxiety attending Beowulf s triumph. By alluding to Heoroweards
situation as Hrogars complacent nephew, Beowulf rejects the ambition that would ensue from supreme accomplishment and embraces
loyaltyeven though the Geats had mistreated him earlier. He becomes,
as we learn, a very loyal nephew (nefa swye hold, 2170b) and
ultimately fulfills the dictum that Heremod neglected:
nealles inwitnet
dyrnum crfte,
hondgesteallan. (2166b9a)

Swa sceal mg don,

orum bregdon
dea renian

So should a young kinsman behave, not weave a malicious trap for another
kinsman by secret plotting, preparing death for a close comrade.

Beowulf avoids the spiteful plotting against a superior that afflicts the
reckless man full of oferhygd in Vainglory 33a44a.150
The poet closes with a summary of ideals associated with kingship,
some of which I have discussed elsewhere. In acknowledgment of
the Heremod stories, Beowulf is said never to have slain his drunk
hearth-companions or expressed a savage disposition.151 He ruled with
the greatest skill (mste crafte, 2181b). This final reckoning answers
Beowulf s characterization in youth as an eling unfrom (cowardly
nobleman, 2188a) by charting his progress from an ambitious fighter
to a beloved king. The poets emphasis could not be more transparent: by avoiding the vices of Heremod and Fremu, Beowulf secured
prosperity and fame. The passage underscores Beowulf s deflection of
heroic egotism and does not celebrate heroic virtue per se. Those who
see Beowulf as a Frstenspiegel perhaps come closest to appreciating the
poems movement as one of apprenticeship and initiation.

Because Hygelac is superior in rank, he is the better man, as the poet maintains:
Him ws bam samod
on am leodscipe
lond gecynde,
eard eelriht,
orum swior
side rice
am r selra ws. (2196b9b)
They both ruled the land together, in territory and in jurisdiction, but [Hygelac],
who was the better man there, [ruled] a more extensive realm.
151
Palmer 11.
150

CHAPTER FOUR

BEOWULFS DRAGON FIGHT AND THE

APPRAISAL OF OFERHYGD
Often divided into halves, Beowulf falls more naturally into three parts.1
In the first the young Beowulf may be thought to display either warrior virtue or the ambition associated with wreccan. Hrogar predicts
Beowulf s future kingship, for which he is readied by Hrogars counsel
and the earnest warnings implicit in the old kings admonitory gidd. In
the second part of the poem, Beowulf s homecoming, 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. The dragon episode, the poems coda, extends this reflection
on heroic restraint by inviting a final assessment of Beowulf s wisdom.
To a large extent the dichotomy between heroic action and kingship
motivates the dragon-fight, but in this final appraisal of Beowulf s
leadership, the poet also contemplates Beowulf s potential for oferhygd.
The expression of Beowulf s motivation, in my view, achieves an
improbable balance of countervailing judgments, those of Beowulf, his
warband, and the narrator. Innumerable and irresolvable ambiguities
continue to impart for us the nature of Beowulf as potentially immoderate, a king whose actions may be indecorous, offensive, or tyrannous.
Although the poet discloses multiple contours of oferhygd as laid out
in Hrogars sermon, his deliberate coyness is meant to frustrate any
conclusive evaluation of Beowulf s decisions and behavior. With few
exceptions, traditional readings of Beowulf s demise have nearly always
tried to downplay any hint of criticism, in elaboration of the heros
presumed virtue. But the conventions of oferhygd, and in fact, the whole
scope of Beowulf as presented here, invite us to weigh the prospect of

1
John M. Hill summarizes the large-scale, structural views of Beowulf in Narrative Pulse in two ways, first as a series of approximately twenty arrivals and departures
(that include approaches and returns or exits, 4), and second as a work in two
parts: the extended account of the Danish dynasty (3) and the awakening of the
dragon (ibid.).

240

chapter four

a ruinous failing. Once we admit the mere possibility that Beowulf succumbs to oferhygd, and perceive his own self-doubt, we can appreciate
the social or literary context for the poems anomalous incidents: the
decision to enlist only a handful of exceptional warriors but to leave
them out of the fight, the double death of Beowulf and his adversary, the nature of a pagan curse on the treasure, the splintering of
Beowulf s sword.
My own position on Beowulf s dragon fight partially coincides with
that of John Leyerle, 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, but society requires a king who acts for the common
good, not for his own glory. The greater the hero, the more likely his
tendency to imprudent action as king.2 Leyerle asserts Hrogars misgivings over Beowulf s tendency to unreflective confidence in his own
strength and reasons that the heroic king, however glorious, was apt
to be a mortal threat to his nation.3 Citing the Heremod exempla, the
conspicuous vice of oferhygd, Carolingian sources on royal power, and
the innumerable passages declaring Beowulf s potential recklessness
(all examined here), he concludes, men who had been accustomed to
conduct suitable to an individual hero could not adjust to the rather
different conduct suitable to a king.4
Although critics have been slow to welcome Leyerles views, let alone
concede them,5 they coincide with those I present here, with some vital
exceptions. First, it would be erroneous to say that the Germanic king
has to imperil his people, although the Beowulf poet suggests that such
rulers may betray a passionate urge to win glory. Leyerles treatment of
Heremod manifests this deterministic approach to heroic kingship. He
imagines that, because Heremod died killing giants, Beowulf wants
to perform a heroic deed by killing the dragon. However, I do not think
that heroic society inevitably encouraged a king to act the part of a
hero,6 unless it were under the most dire circumstances. Leyerle quotes
Leyerle, Hero and the King 89.
Ibid. 93, 97 resp.
4
Ibid. 98.
5
See the remarks of Irving, Rereading Beowulf 801: [Leyerle] blames Beowulf for
personal vanity and insufficient attention to his peoples needs, maintaining that Beowulf
brings dire affliction upon them by his unnecessary death. This is a way of distorting
meaning by implying the presence in the poem of options that do not exist . . . (81).
6
Hero and the King 97.
2
3

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

241

a letter of Alcuins stating mors regum miseriae signum est in illustration of the consequences he foresees in heroic kingship, but I would
emphasize the opposite: a concern for continuity and prosperity, of
mondream, as it is known in Old English verse. From my perspective,
no ascertainable social expectation or imperative of Germanic kingship
compels Beowulf to fight the dragon; he chooses to do so, for reasons
of oferhygd or national security. I do not contend that Beowulf must be
guilty of oferhygd, then, only that he could be guilty of it: the poet gives
evidence on both sides.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, arguably reckless
men like wreccan. Beowulf may undertake a reckless deed because he
cannot reconcile his own ambition with mondream, and his prestige
displaces the national interest.
One of the exceptional merits of Leyerles article has been to harmonize the first two parts of Beowulfthe Grendel fights and homecomingwith the enigmatic single combat of the dragon episode. The
abrupt transition at line 2200 has prompted more than a few critics to
think that the dragon episode represents an afterthought of sorts.8 Those
who wish to connect the dragon and Grendel episodes disagree on what
links them. Does the brilliance of youth in the Grendel fight contrast
the decline of age in the dragon section, as Tolkien alleged?9 Tolkiens
Oxford colleague Kenneth Sisam posed the same contrastthe two
parts of the poem are to be solidly bound together by the opposition of
youth and agebut he found Beowulf triumphant.10 Again, Edward B.
Irving, Jr. proposed a reading in general accord with Tolkiens, one in
which the dragon episode represented the slow erosion of [heroic] identity by time.11 Others are not so pessimistic: Phyllis Rugg Brown and
Theodore M. Andersson envision a rhythm of sorrow and relief (the
terms are Anderssons) leading to redemption.12 In emphasizing community as the controlling theme of Beowulf, John Niles suggests that

7
On the position that oferhygd afflicts Beowulf, see Swanton, Crisis and Development
14054. Swantons book makes a strong case for the negative Beowulf but does not
allow for the virtue which I think is equally emphasized.
8
See, for example, Magoun, Bowulf B.
9
Monsters and the Critics 32.
10
Structure of Beowulf 26.
11
A Reading of Beowulf 205; compare Brodeurs sentiment, the shadow of ineluctable
doom (Art of Beowulf 83).
12
Respectively Cycles and Change in Beowulf ; Tradition and Design 102.

242

chapter four

the dragon fight discloses the continuing vulnerability of human society,

rather than the restoration of communal order.13 Having found that
the digressions emphasize presumptuous, ambitious heroes, J. L. N.
OLoughlin 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.14 Some positions are negative in a different sense. Arthur E. Du Bois made the case that the dragon, as a
symbol of arrogance, implicated Beowulf in a national failure: his
fault is originally similar to Hrogars, a result of overconfident pride
and careless sloth leading to a debasement of Geats.15 Fidel FajardoAcosta determines that the dragons attack punishes Beowulf for the
past crime of killing Grendel and Grendels mother.16 Resolutions
like these most often express grand, impressionistic themes generated
by twentieth-century Formalism, and frequently entail the reduction of
awkward conundrums to manageable intelligibility. By no means would
I imagine Beowulf s motivation to be obvious or simple.
My own view is that Beowulf ends with an invitation to judgment in
an incident of excruciating complexity. The poet has formulated equally
opposed, but delicately expressed, reasons why Beowulf may or may not
exhibit oferhygd in the dragon fight. This proposition perfectly harmonizes
with my reading of the Grendel fight, where Beowulf expresses either
courage by killing Grendel or recklessness by jeopardizing his men,
or by just facing Grendel and Grendels mother. While both positions
have formidable evidence, neither can be proven. In the dragon episode
it must be pointed out that others have observed Beowulf s potential
for oferhygd, but they consistently resolve it in Beowulf s favor. The
impulse to exonerate Beowulf from any whiff of oferhygd has entailed
some scrupulous readings of this episode, outlining the precise issues
that would impugn Beowulf s judgment. Among the best of these was
contributed by John Niles, who intuited key intricacies of the dragon
fight. Niles posed four questions pertaining to Beowulf s responsibility
in a chapter, The Fatal Contradiction, from his book Beowulf: The
Poem and its Tradition. The heading Fatal Contradiction at least gives a
nod to Leyerles position, but as Niles develops the chapter, his method
perfectly maps the poets intentional equivocations as I draw them.
13
14
15
16

Beowulf 230.
OLoughlin 13.
Du Bois 401.
Condemnation of Heroism 106.

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

243

Niless answers to these contradictions betray an unalloyed optimism

for Beowulf s virtue, a position he continues to hold in his contributions
to the influential Beowulf Handbook. But because his volume Beowulf: The
Poem and its Tradition has dealt so thoughtfully with the subject of Beowulf,
I intend to answer its questions just as he dealt them. In this dialogue, I
will be resisting Niless positivism, showing just where the poet intended
us to intuit Beowulf s virtue, and where he otherwise rendered more
disparaging (or at least equivocal) symptoms of a darker trait.
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. Wiglaf criticizes
Beowulf s retaliation, and the retainers, Wiglaf testifies, tried to dissuade
Beowulf from an attack:
Oft sceall eorl monig
anes willan
wrc adreogan,
swa us geworden is.
Ne meahton we gelran
leofne eoden,
rices hyrde
rd nigne,
t he ne grette
goldweard one,
lete hyne licgean
r he longe ws,
wicum wunian o woruldende. (3077a83b)
Many a nobleman must often suffer agony for the desire of a single man,
as has happened to us. We could not teach our dear prince, protector
of the kingdom, any counsel that he not meet the gold-guardian, just let
him lie where he had been for so long, dwell in the precincts until the
worlds ending.

Niles challenges Wiglaf s apparent disapproval on two fronts. First,

he questions whether the phrase anes willan means through one
mans will or for the sake of one [person].18 As far as I have been

Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition 23547.

Ibid. 238. Klaeber proposed for the sake of in this single instance (s.v. willa),
probably because he found Wiglaf s potential criticism inconsistent with his view of
Beowulf s heroism; the interpretation has been removed from Klaebers Beowulf. The
lengths to which distinguished critics will go just to exonerate Beowulf always surprise:
Mitchell, Until the Dragon Comes . . . 8: the anes could well be the thief who first
plundered the dragons hoard . . . But this is not vital. These comments ignore the
context apparent in my translation above.
17
18

244

chapter four

able to determine, OE willa always means desire or gratification,

and comparable expressions with OE willa plus genitive never mean
for the sake of. Second, Niless argument that wrc means present
(emotional) suffering over Beowulf s death rather than future national
suffering strikes me as partial to his optimism, especially in light of the
subsequent statement that Beowulf did not heed the retainers advice.19
Narrowly interpreted, the expression swa us geworden is (as has
happened to us, 3078b) seems like it could refer only to Beowulf s
death. But OE wrc can denote extreme suffering, the worst pain, such
as Hrogars agony over Grendels unabated hostility in line 170a. While
OE wrc means pain, therefore, 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. Beowulf s decision precipitated this
crisis; his destiny was too firm: ws t gifee to swi (3085b).
Nor is this Wiglaf s only criticism of Beowulf, for in line 2646b he
calls his lords assault on the dragon reckless or even foolish:
is ellenweorc
to gefremmanne,
foram he manna mst
dda dollicra. (2642b6a)

. . . eah e hlaford us
ana aohte
folces hyrde,
mra gefremede,

. . . although our lord intended to perform this deed of courage alone,

because he performed the most famous deeds of men, the most reckless
acts.20

19
See Hill, Warrior Ethic: . . . willfulness presumably rendered Beowulf deaf to the
offstage advice (rd) Wiglaf and others offered that he, Beowulf, should leave the enraged
dragon alone . . . good advice for sleeping dragons, but paradoxical for the angry and
wakeful (31); see also Irving, Rereading Beowulf 1267: We could conclude that the
Geatish nation has been ruined because of Beowulf s arrogant folly in daring to fight
the dragon. His conceited and inflexible willa has destroyed him and with him his
people, who were unable to deter him from the irrational venture. But this answer is
not acceptable. Irving is reluctant to acknowledge what he deems inconsistent (127),
but I have tried to show that such liminality is consistent in Beowulf s character. Niles
and Irving (Rereading Beowulf 126) follow McGalliard in deriving this statement from
Wiglaf s grief. Hill likewise presumes that Wiglaf and the nobles suffer this pain, but
not the Geats generally, and he concedes, Wiglaf has identified himself with them
and them with him, while seeming to set their plight as an outcome of something like
high willfulness or tyranny on the part of one person, in this case Beowulf (Narrative
Pulse 86, my emph.).
20
It is possible to translate mst apo koinou, but Klaebers assignment of the
genitives makes better sense. Nor I do not think it possible to read OE mst as an
adverb.

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

245

A problem lies in construing OE mst (most, 2645a), which Klaeber

interpreted as the superlative of OE ma more, rather than the
superlative of OE micel, i.e. biggest, greatest. He implicitly intended:
because he performed the greatest number of glorious deeds of men,
of foolhardy acts. Yet the context presupposes greatestBeowulf
intended to fight alone because he had always performed the most
eminent deeds worthy of praise.21 Although OE mst plus genitive is
frequently translated as greatest of, with the sense superior, here
it should be expressed straightforwardly by the superlative: Beowulf
could be said to commit not the greatest of reckless acts, but the
most reckless acts. Translations of dollicra, which I have rendered
reckless, betray the anxiety of critics who find Beowulf consistently
virtuous. The relevant attestations have been gathered by Deborah S.
Frisby, who concludes that dol and dollic have the same purpose in prose
and in poetry: to express disapproval, not praise.22 Frisby notices an
important detail, that being wise (snottor and wis) occasionally
challenges being dol.23 Precepts conveys that drunkenness gives rise to
dollic word, the kind of thoughtless gloating that identifies vainglorious boasters. The only other occurrence of OE dollic, from Wulfstans
Institutes of Polity, suggests that dollican ddan suit children, who
are irresponsible and incapable of self-restraint.24
While OE dol and related terms are always pejorative, scholars have
tried ingenious ways of neutralizing Wiglaf s criticism of Beowulf s
deeds. In a reply to Frisbys article, Fred C. Robinson defended the
position of Norman E. Eliason, 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 mst 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.26 Robinson at
21
The editors of Klaebers Beowulf retain Klaebers interpretation ma, as the glossary documents, s.v.
22
Frisby 59.
23
Ibid. 60.
24
Jost 267: t nfre ne gerise/to geonclic wise/ne ealdan esne/t he hine
sylfne/on dollican ddan (noch ist es fr einen alten Knecht [Gottes] ohne Tadel,
wenn er sich selbst zum Kind macht durch trichtes Tun oder Benehmen).
25
Robinson, Further Word 12; Eliason, Beowulf Notes 4546.
26
Ibid. 455. Eliason seems to have translated manna as among men, rather
than of men, dependent on mra, which he parses either as a genitive plural
(as here), or an accusative plural with singular meaning.

246

chapter four

once impeached Frisbys reading and upheld Eliasons by invoking the

diversity of an audiences perceptiveness and sensitivitythat we
moderns (i.e. Frisby) have yet to divine how discerning and sensitive
people in other times thought, felt, and perceived.27 Yet to dismiss
Wiglaf s reproach of mst dollicra dda, Robinson must also defer
the grievance implicit in anes willana suspicion that goes unanswered.28 In fact, Frisby poses the better solution: That Wiglaf should
have such a moment of critical thought need not detract from his loyalty.
Rather, his loyalty is enhanced when we see it complemented by a keen
assessment of Beowulf s actions.29 The comitatus gains glory from loyalty, even if the king acts recklessly, as Wiglaf acknowledges. Accusing
Beowulf to the warband validates the retainers fear, dispels Wiglaf s
potential arrogance (in resigned acknowledgment of the challenge they
faced), and endears them to Beowulf: he always was attracted to danger . . . Yet Wiglaf s protest does not, in theory, relieve the retainers of
their duty. They swore oaths, accepted treasures, and were chosen for
this expedition. In one sense, then, Wiglaf s assessment of Beowulf s
deeds as reckless reveals what Eliason and Robinson could be said to
perceive, that Wiglaf does not disparage the retainers in ignorance of
Beowulf s potential folly.
Wiglaf s attitude, half resigned and half resolved, divulges the rift
between king and comitatus, a central feature of the oferhygd complex.
In fact, Wiglaf will mention that Beowulf chose the retainers for the
dragon fight sylfes willum (at his own desire, 2639b). This and the
expression anes willan recall the earlier description of Heremod in
Hrogars sermon as satisfying his own desires: ne geweox he him to
willan (1711a) and him eal worold//wende on willan (1738b39a).
The tyrant disregards his warband and gambles his own and his mens
lives on expeditions for glory that imperil the entire nation. Clearly, the
retainers do not find it expedient or necessary to provoke the dragon.
Wiglaf says they counseled Beowulf to let the dragon lielet him dwell
in his precincts (wicum wunian, 3083a). The term wicum here
refers to the dragons lair, not the Geats territory; indeed, most occur-

Further Word 1112.

See Mitchell and Robinson, Beowulf: An Edition 157 note to line 3077: through
the will of one. One could refer to Beowulf, the dragon . . . the man who first plundered the hoard . . . or wyrd. No mention is made of the context, that retainers tried
to dissuade Beowulf from the fight.
29
Frisby 61; Hill, Narrative Pulse 87.
27
28

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

247

rences of OE wic in Beowulf refer specifically to Grendels abode. These

remarks invoke a parallel commonly drawn between the dragon, which
began to be powerful in Geatland (ongan . . . ricsian, 2210b11b)
and Grendel, who was powerful (rixode, 144a) in Heorot. In Beowulf
OE ricsian (rixian) is used only in these two passages. The parallels seem
indisputable: Beowulf and Hrogar are old, Grendel and the dragon act
at night, the retainers resist engagements. But while Beowulf s dragon
is figuratively Hrogars Grendel, these passages do not mean that both
enemies expressed the same kind of power, only that they both came
to power. The dragon seems quite different from Grendel.
The Nature of Beowulf s Dragon
While Niles has concluded that the poet does not specify the dragons
intentions,30 the witans proposition to let it sleep in its barrow forever must represent a legitimate solution to the crisis.31 As a national
scourge, however, the dragon looms so much larger than Grendel ever
did. We cannot therefore suspect that the Geats would let it drive them
to extinction without hazarding a reprisal. Even the Danes attacked
Grendelfor a time. But what if such a reprisal were thought suicidal? The risk of death has to be weighed against the prospect of the
dragons attacks, and its behavior may be unpredictable. The dragon
may attack the Geats nightly, as it has done since awaking. But could
the Geats expect a mitigation over time? The dragons behavior is not
drawn finely enough for us to judge, but the retainers counsel to let
the dragon lie implies that its threat could be accommodated. The
scenario resembles that of Danes at Heorot: joyless lives of dread and
humiliation, led in expectation of future relief. To escape Grendels
raids Hrogar and his men only need to sleep in the outbuildings, no
doubt mortifying but tolerable when compared to the alternative. 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.
In this unlikely scenario, the dragon could re-awaken at an unspecified date, but since the theft of a cup aroused him in the first place,

Beowulf 240.
Pace Hill, Narrative Pulse 87: Wiglaf here raises the fiction of counsel, of something
he and the remaining nobles attempted but which of course they did not.
30
31

248

chapter four

one has trouble imagining unmotivated periodic attacks. Of course,

none of these questions is actually voiced in Beowulf, yet critics rightly
sense that they underlie the whole dragon episode, even if they reject
proposed solutions to them.
It seems to me that, with the exception of Beowulf, the Geat subalterns think they can, and should, accommodate their enemy. Their
policy towards the dragon resembles Hrogars towards Grendel, since
his men abandon their hall every night for twelve years instead of
confronting him. At the start, however, fighting Grendel decimated
their ranksuntil Hrogar came to understand the magnitude of his
expectation and relented. Therefore, one should approach the dragon
fight like the Hunfer digression, evaluating the evidence for Hunfers
perspective (restraint that looks like cowardice) or Beowulf s (action
that looks like recklessness). The central conflict pits the king against
his warband. Beowulf, however, seems to face a choice at least more
exaggerated than Hrogars, since the dragon besets the populace as
a whole rather than the warband alone. Because it inflicts greater
ruin more widely, the imperative to kill it seems stronger, and the risk
greater. Hrogar faced a (mere) troll, and even though Beowulf may
be thought greater than Hrogar, he faces a dragon. Is Beowulf s fight
proportionate to his accomplishments, or has he finally exceeded his
capacity and tempted Gods favor? Both views are held at one and the
same time, and both are justified on the basis of deliberate equivocacies and contradictions. Beowulf s decision, for example, evokes the
context of wisdom learned from Hrogar in the first half of the
poem, especially in respect to warband security. Hrogar did not fight
Grendel directly, the way Beowulf fights the dragon. Beowulf disavows
the advice of his own retainers, admittedly, but he accommodates their
position by stationing them in the woods and enlisting their aid under
the strictest terms. As I shall propose, Beowulf thinks that he will prevail
and that his men will not need to risk their lives. The decision whether
and when to risk their lives will be theirs alone.32 Yet as I shall show,
Beowulf s plan still puts his men in jeopardy, perhaps unfairly. Worse,
Beowulf s act may bring about exactly what it was intended to forestall:
devastation, exile, and death.
Beowulf s decision to fight the dragon may rest in no small part on
his perception of it as sentient and evil. One thinks ultimately that

Irving has argued that Beowulf s scenario lets the individual decide whether to
attack, and when; see Reading of Beowulf 155.
32

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

249

any attack on the dragon is as much retaliatory as strategic, the next

(hopefully final) stage of a feud. The witan arguably counsels Beowulf
not to engage the dragon either as an animal independent of the social
conventions of feudinga dog whose tail has been troddenor as a
tolerable evil. My regard for the dragon as a tolerable evil may suggest
that Beowulf fights it for reasons of principle, and the obvious parallel
is Grendel. Edward B. Irving, Jr. contrasts Grendels consciousness with
the dragons bestiality:
. . . the Grendel race is named repeatedly as Cains descendants and Gods
enemies; nothing of the sort is ever said about the dragon. In certain ways,
to be sure, the dragon may be considered evil . . . Yet, though he may be
evil, he is not Evil. There is an amoral aspect to him, alien and remote.
In some sense, there is nothing personal about what he does . . . A great
deal of space in the poem is devoted to exploring Grendels thoughts,
but very little is given to explaining the dragons motivations or feelings.
We look at the dragons external behavior rather than at his thoughts,
because the dragon has no thoughts: he is an animal.33

Although Irving observes that the dragon behaves like an animal when
it sniffs around the lair to find a scent,34 his view allows for some evil on
the dragons part (though he may be evil). Burning down Beowulf s
hall appears to be an excessive, unjustified reprisal, the sort of evil
one could associate with even non-sentient dragons.35 As the narrator
says, no r aht cwices//la lyftfloga/lfan wolde (The hateful flier
did not intend to leave anything alive, 2314b15b). Yet I have trouble

Reading of Beowulf 21415.

This is an aspect of Tolkiens position, and the essence of John Niless: From
the first time he appears, he is presented as a living creature of the same general sort
as any lion, bear, or other wild beast, only more fearsome (Beowulf: The Poem and its
Tradition 25). Daniel G. Calder extended the symbolic reading of the dragons 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. In confronting this symbol of
eternal and unknowable evil, even the heroic forces of humanity are doomed . . . The
dragon . . . is the force for negation at once present as fact in the world and eternally
present in the universe (35, 36 resp.). For this position to be true, the dragon has to
threaten the survival of the Geats, and that jeopardy is not certain. Calder conveniently
summarized the symbolic readings of the dragon in this article at page 33: the dragon
is death [Nora K. Chadwick], an expression of the evil of a debased society [Du
Bois 391], internal versus external evil (Grendel) [Kaske, Sapientia et Fortitudo], and,
like Grendel, a feond mancynnes, of a similar order and kindred significance [Tolkien,
Monsters and the Critics 276]. He separates these approaches from the Christian,
which he calls allegorical.
35
John M. Hill suggests that in the dragon we have the primal infants first, purest
and most uncomprehending, unrelenting rage, which he parses as an evil omnipotence (Cultural World 137). This alone may justify Beowulf s reprisal.
33
34

250

chapter four

dissociating Irvings evil (because of its harsh reprisal) from Evil,

the possibility that Beowulf s dragon is evil through its intentions despite
its amoral . . . alien and remote image. For Irving the dragon can be
evil the way any animal can be instinctively harmful. By contrast, being
Evil amounts to having consciousness, as Irving implies of Grendel,
whose murderous thoughts necessitate intellect.
Irvings appraisal of the dragons nature as evil (a consequence) but
not Evil (an intention) conjures one of the poets deliberate equivocations, one that depends on the dragons motivation. Either the dragons
attack is like fatally startling a poisonous snake (the only an animal
position), or else it behaves maliciously because it is Evil and intends
malice. This dichotomy goes straight to the matter of the dragons future
threat (animals instinctively strike when threatened; malicious beings
have no scruples), or to Beowulf s own motivation in the duel (monsters
intending Evil must be exterminated). For Beowulf to appear virtuous
in light of Wiglaf s criticism, the dragon should present a baleful threat.
Its menace, however, has to be assessed relative to the motivation for
its rage. Theft of the dragons precious cup seems a defensible reason
for the dragons rampage, but the poet has already predicted, and
confuted, this argument against Beowulf s reprisal. The narrator says
that someones slave (eo nathwylces, 2223b) unintentionally
(Nealles met gewealdum . . . sylfes willum, 2221a22a) broke into the
lairand out of distress to boot (2224b). He offered the treasure to his
lord in settlement for the unstated offense that earned him a beating
(2281b2b). Such precise details seem gratuitous until we realize that
they relate directly to our judgment of the dragons malice, the grounds
for its provocation. Innocent desperation may explain why the cup was
stolen and may therefore vindicate Beowulf s defiance. But Germanic
warriors still understand that even innocent theft can earn terrifying
reprisals under the terms of feuding.
The narrators opinion that the dragon wrongly (unrihte, 3059a)
held the treasure and the slaves unintended offense make a case for
the dragons evil nature. But it would present a greater danger, and a
threat of a different magnitude, if it embodied Evil like Grendel did
as Cains kin. 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. To explain
the Evil of Beowulf s dragon, J. R. R. Tolkien invoked draconitas, a
vague, cosmic malice that ultimately obligates and ennobles Beowulf s

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

251

attack.36 For Tolkien, who envisioned a secular story, dragons were

Evil by nature. In concession to this potential, Raymond P. Tripp,
Jr. supported the theory that Beowulf s dragon was originally a man
turned into a dragon because of greed, deviousness, and unnatural violence.37 Nora K. Chadwick had espoused much the same view in 1959,
although some of the examples of dragons she remarks on belong to
the mere animal class, though potentially semi-divine. Chadwick and
Tripp seem to be responding to the apparent sentience of the dragon:
while it is an animal, it seems to have more than animal sense. The
narrator calls Beowulf s enemy a hostile dragon (nidraca, 2273a),
strong-minded (stearcheort, 2288b), a hateful avenger (wolde se
laa/lige forgyldan//drincft dyre; the hateful dragon intended to
repay with flame the precious cup, 2305a6a; see also the possible
intentionality in seeking out his adversary, lines 2294b5b), thoughtful
enough to trust in his barrow (beorges getruwode,//wiges ond wealles;
he trusted in his barrow, his warfare, and his wall, 2322b3a), and
hostile to the voice of man (hordweard oncniow//mannes reorde;
the hoard-guardian recognized a human voice, 2554b5a). None of
this evidence proves the dragons sentience, but it could suggest more
than mere animal nature, and I think the mere hint of malice is quite
deliberate. On the level of physical animal nature, the poet wants us
to debate whether the dragon can intend evil. This position differs from
Niless and Irvings, to name only two critics interested in the dragon
as an effect or consequence.
Other critics have proposed that Beowulf s dragon intentionally
evokes the Devil, and Joyce Tally Lionarons elucidated the Christian
resonances, 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, where
the dragon appears as a direct manifestation of Satan and therefore

36
Monsters and the Critics 17: a personification of malice, greed, destruction
(the evil side of heroic life). In Monsters Crouching Adrien Bonjour rejected the
opinion of T. M. Gang, who saw no reason to universalize the dragon as anything
other than a human foe. On the basis of Norse dragons, Jonathan D. Evans has
proposed that the dragons characteristic behaviors distinguish it as non- and antiheroici.e., as a villain (100).
37
More About the Fight; see also Jensen, who proposes that Onela turns into the
dragon (12).

252

chapter four

takes on connotations of absolute evil. 38 Lionarons refers to the

originary locus from Apc 12.9 (proiectus est draco ille magnus serpens
antiquus qui vocatur Diabolus et Satanas) and adds, here the dragon
is explicitly identified as Satan, 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.39 In drawing
attention to the Exeter Book poem called Panther, Lionarons shows
how this allegorical depiction of the Savior fought against its only
natural enemy, the dragon.40
What may be even more important to the alleged Christian intertexts
of Beowulf s dragon fight is the medieval saints life. Alan K. Brown
proposed that a dragon fight in the Life of St. Samson shares common elements with the episode in Beowulf,41 and James Carney has
gone so far as to suggest that the Beowulf poet may have drawn from
the Life.42 Most recently Christine Rauer has sketched even stronger
parallels between two lives of Saint Samson and the dragon fight in
Beowulf, concluding that a theory of hagiographical influence on the
dragon episode can, but need not necessarily, have implications for
the symbolic content of Beowulf.43 Rauer insists that the poet may
have used religious source material for emphatically secular contexts in
Beowulf,44 but details in some sixty dragon fights from hagiography
sustain Fred C. Robinsons contention:
So carefully does the poet maintain this two-leveled portrayal of the
monsters [Grendel and Grendels mother] that in the last part of the
poem he need only introduce a monster with well-established credentials
in both worldsa dragonand trust that the audience will, without
further prompting, see the creature in its full complexity. It is on one
level of perception like the dragon that Sigemund slew; on another it

Medieval Dragon 17.

Ibid. 18. Lionarons also explains why some dragons do not conform to the diabolical archetype (19).
40
Ibid. 19.
41
Firedrake 4434.
42
Carney 1245. These hypotheses succeed the speculation of Cook, that the dragonslaying in Aldhelms treatment of Saint Victoria proved the Beowulf poets familiarity
with Aldhelms Prosa de uirginitate (Source of Beowulf 2523).
43
Beowulf and the Dragon 141. Rauer makes an intriguing case for the Beowulf poets
knowledge of the Vita I s. Samsonis and Vita II s. Samsonis, both printed and translated
in her Appendix A (1549).
44
Ibid. 142; see also 57: no single hagiographical tradition has so far been identified
which would present detectable evidence for direct influence [on Beowulf ].
38
39

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

But while the Christian resonances must be present for the poets symmetry to work, I do not sense that the connotations of Satanic evil
have to be conclusive, only latent. One has to recognize that, unless one
appeals to Christian allegory of Beowulf as Christ,46 the poet himself
never identifies his dragon as Gods enemy, and regard for the dragon as
mere animal discourages any conclusive identification. In fact, dragons
in the saints lives that Rauer examines are more obviously animal, not
demonic. Lionarons therefore posits my own view, that [the Beowulf
dragons] 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 audiences
horizon of expectation.47 Niles preceded Lionarons in this deduction,48
but by denying any Christian resonance for the dragon, 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
dragons stature. It is simply to clarify his character . . . He is evil in the
sense that an earthquake or tornado is evil when people are in its path.
Of course the dragon is frightful, but he is not therefore Satanic . . . If
we fail to make this distinctionif we do precisely what he does not
and identify the dragon with Satanwe risk distorting the meaning of
the end of the poem by polarizing it along the lines of a false spiritual
dichotomy. However essential the contrast of good versus evil or God
versus Satan may have been in the first part of the poem, by the time of
the heros combat such terms of moral opposition have ceased to apply.
Instead we are shown the heroic end of a heroic life.49

In my opinion, Niles has judged the case in asserting Beowulf s heroic

life, when an arguable spiritual dichotomy may actually motivate
the dragon episode.

45
Appositive Style 32. Of course, it is Rauer who gathered and analyzed sixty-three
dragon fights from the hagiography in Beowulf and the Dragon 5286.
46
Klaeber, Beowulf li note 2 and 217 note to line 2596ff.; Putnam Fennell Jones;
McNamee; Brown, Firedrake 454.
47
Medieval Dragon 28.
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.
49
Ibid. 27. Gang compared the dragon to a disease (6).

254

chapter four

Refusing to call upon his omniscience, the poet discloses little

information about the dragons nature, nor does Beowulf allude to
the dragon as Evil. In this silence, the poet evokes in his audience the
moral blindness that Beowulf experienced in the Grendel fight.50 As
demonstrated in Chapter 1, Beowulf could be said to fight righteously
when he challenges Grendel, even if Geats and Danes in the world
of the poem do not perceive Grendel as the Christian Gods enemy.
Beowulf s success against Grendel and Grendels mother seems validated
mostly for this reason, even if Beowulf had been motivated by inordinate ambition. In the dragon fight, however, the Christian audience
can have no absolute faith that Beowulf is confronting a malevolent
being, Gods natural adversary, or even a saints enemy. By this reading,
it could not be said with assurance that Beowulf rids Geatland of Evil,
or even of a sentient evil being. In support of the view that the dragon
is Gods enemy, and that Beowulf s fight was therefore righteous, one
has to account for the opposing evidence that challenges the expedience of Beowulf s retaliation, the automaticity of his vengeance: him
s gukyning,//Wedera ioden/wrce leornode (The battle-king,
prince of Geats planned vengeance against him for that, 2335b6b).
Of course, even if the dragon does not intend Evil, it may yet intend
evil in Irvings or Niless terms, whether or not it is merely an animal
or may be thought to have a rudimentary consciousness like dragons
transformed from men. Yet this reading legitimates Beowulf s dragon
fight only as a matter of practical or strategic importance. If the dragon
is merely an animal, however evil, the fight may be deemed either
sensible (or essential) in disarming a threat (or taking vengeance), or
reckless because it is strategically dangerous. How Beowulf s decision
may be justified as essential or reckless then motivates the ambiguities
and contradictions of this section. Recognizing this fatal contradiction
not only legitimates Wiglaf s criticism of Beowulf but also evokes the
context of oferhygd, in which potential recklessness has to be gauged by
a critical intuition.
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 1301; Tanke 3779.

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

255

Oferhogode a
hringa fengel
t he one widflogan
weorode gesohte,
sidan herge;
no he him a scce ondred,
ne him s wyrmes wig
for wiht dyde,
eafo ond ellen,
foron he r fela
nearo neende nia gedigde,
hildehlemma . . . (2345a51a)
The prince of rings then scorned to seek out the wide-flier with a troop,
a big army. He did not fear the battle, nor did he care one whit about
the dragons combat, its strength and courage, because he had previously
endured many assaults, battle-clashes, braving many straits.

Etymologically OE oferhogian to despise, contemn, scorn, disdain is

related to OE oferhycgan to despise, contemn, disdain, scorn and to
oferhygd.51 Beowulf s potential overconfidence is transparent in his attitude: ne him s wyrmes wig/for wiht dyde. In case we missed it the
first time, Beowulf will repeat his confidence just before the fight: Ic
eom on mode from,//t ic wi one guflogan/gylp ofersitte (I am
confident in my heart that I will fulfil my boast against the battle-flier,
2527b8b). In consideration of the oferhygd complex, the poet enumerates
the nia52 and hildehlemma that Beowulf has hitherto triumphed
in: killing the Grendelkin, avenging Hygelac, and helping Eadgils kill
Onela. Each accomplishment led to more substantial success, with the
result that Beowulf now does not fear fire-breathing dragons at all. It
might be objected that the narrator lists Beowulf s feats, but they are
in fact the reason why Beowulf scorns the dragons power: foron he
r fela//nearo neende/nia gedigde (because, risking constraint, he
had survived many hostilities, 2349b50a). Furthermore, right before
fighting the dragon, Beowulf will recall his victories in similar terms:
Ic genede fela//gua on geogoe (I ventured many battles in my
youth, 2511b12a). Like Nebuchadnezzar, Heremod, and Hrogars
fictional king, the victim of oferhygd cannot foresee any defeat because
he has never experienced any loss. Tallying Beowulf s past victories like
this raises the specter of oferhygd. When a king despises a fire-breathing dragon, it could manifest arrogance and forebode irresponsibility
that would engender aggression and national annihilation.

The citations come from Bosworth-Toller, svv.

The poet will emphasize Beowulf s achievements at the conclusion of his list
by alleging Swa he nia gehwane/genesen hfde,//slira geslyhta . . . (so he had
survived each hostility, each terrible onslaught, 2397a8a).
51

52

256

chapter four

Yet the poet merely evokes the question of oferhygd in Beowulf, which
seems countered in Beowulf s reaction to the attack. First, we are told
that Beowulf, the leader, expected that he had bitterly enraged the
Wielder, the eternal Lord, over an ancient custom (wende se wisa/
t he Wealdende//ofer ealde riht,/ecean dryhtne//bitre gebulge,
2329a31a). Without knowing about the stolen cup, Beowulf tries to
imagine why the dragon attacked him. The poets terminology sounds
mildly Christian (ecean dryhtne, 2330b), but Morton W. Bloomfield
has proposed that ealde riht refers not to Old Testament (i.e., Sinaitic)
law but natural law which was implanted in the hearts of pagans, including the pre-Mosaic pagans of the Old Testament.53 In keeping with
my own strict narratology, however, the custom Beowulf imagines
offending is undoubtedly a pagan one, even if the Old Testament resonances are valid. Beowulf thinks he has failed to uphold an expected
behavior or duty, a law of sorts, but I propose another, vaguer kind
of right action may be intended: the counsel of pagan moral virtue
explicitly opposed to oferhygd.
Offending an ealde riht is the badge of a tyrant in King lfreds
Consolatio Philosophiae. The heretic eodric promised Romans his friendship such that they could keep their ancient customs in honor (He
gehet Romanum his freondscipe, swa t hi moston heora ealdrihta
wyre beon),54 but instead he persecuted the nation.55 Gulac A discloses that doing ryht (32b) means holding divine commandments
(halig bebodu, 34a). Order of the World describes gieddinga (sober narratives) as revealing what is ryht (13b), quite often the lessons of
moderation comprising ece rd. In Daniel the Israelites and Chaldeans
commit unriht (23b, 187b respectively), contrary to the prophets
advice, and unriht leads to extermination for both peoples. The passage recalls Hrogars surprise at Grendels attack, or Heremods loss
in battle, even in the tyrants ensuing dark thoughts: breost innan
weoll//eostrum geoncum (His breast welled inwardly with dark
thoughts, 2331b2a). Heremod suffered from such wrack as well, and
his dark thoughts probably stem from helplessness in the face of defeat,

Patristics 3941.
Sedgefield, Boethius 7.78.
55
In reference to Nero Nicole Guenther Discenza remarks, anecdotes about the
kings themselves also illustrate the necessity of self-control, showing rulers lack of
restraint and inability to attain the ends they desire . . . Nero may represent Theodoric,
but his role as a figure lacking self-control overshadows other meanings (80).
53
54

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

257

too. By these terms the narrator depicts Beowulf s reaction to Hrogars

warning of oferhygd. In these terms we could not say that Beowulf has
been blind to the insinuation of oferhygd, or that his souls guardian has
slept. On the contrary, Beowulf s thoughts on the ealde riht invoke
humility, which opposes national arrogance, the overconfidence a people
derives from longstanding security. In this case Beowulf s anxiety proves
his virtue, since he searches his own past for present miseries, just like
Hrogar did. Similarly, Beowulf arguably attributes the dragons rage
not simply to fate, but to a Boethian divinity theoretically in charge
of moral punishment. Punishment in this case can mean either
conflagration in Geatland and/or Beowulf s death. The parallels suggest that Beowulf has acquired Hrogars semi-enlightened outlook on
fatalism. At this moment, then, the evidence would appear convincing
that oferhygd has not mastered Beowulf.
Confronting the dragon seems reckless, but Beowulf s reaction implies
conscience. In fact, this conscience engenders many of the tensions
that I identify in the dragon episode, for Beowulf himself may suspect
that confronting the dragon could be irresponsible. In his sermon
Hrogar identified the inevitability of oferhygd once it steals upon a king
asleep in his cares. After the dart poisons the kings mind, he cannot
protect against it. The afflicted king follows the perverse, wondrous
commands of a cursed spirit in utter ignorance of his recklessness.
Nevertheless, Hrogars sermon envisions an act of conscience in
avoidance of oferhygd. Bebeorh e one bealoni . . . oferhyda ne gym
(1758a60b), warns Hrogar, who suggests that vigilance may inhibit the
complacency that leads to arrogance. 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. The arrogant
king would give in to bealuni or rancor, but Beowulf s ostensible
compunction belies any rashness, and this conscience indicates that
he has not yet fallen prey to oferhygd. Nevertheless, Beowulf reaches no
conclusion about transgressing an ealde riht, 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. He fights the dragon because
he thinks it is right to do so, in other words, but we have no way to
evaluate his rationale.
While oferhygd can distort self-awareness, Beowulf could be said to
respond explicitly to Hrogars warning and to wonder whether he has
already been infected by oferhygd. Yet he still decides to fight the dragon

258

chapter four

and irrationally scorns its strength. Seemingly in doubt of his decision,

however, he takes steps to ensure that his behavior cannot easily be
impugned. He orders a metal shield to be made (2337a41a), and vows
that he will not seek the dragon in its lair (2514b15b). Absent any
motivation to fight the dragon, these decisions sound like they come from
a cautious man, not someone given to oferhygd. In light of the wrong
motivation, however, they become the miscalculations of a benighted
warrior. The question of Beowulf s conscience in the context of oferhygd
therefore highlights Beowulf s possible moral ignorance.
Beowulf s Lament
Beowulf s own attitude towards the dragon fightthe expression of his
conscienceis voiced in a long passage which I think of as Beowulf s
lament. Right before the dragon fight Beowulf slips into a reverie that
clarifies his uncertainty and corresponding resolve. The poet relates:
wfre ond wlfus,
se one gomelan
secean sawle hord,
lif wi lice . . . (2419b23a)

Him ws geomor sefa,

wyrd ungemete neah,
gretan sceolde,
sundur gedlan

His spirit was doleful, hesitant and eager for battle, the fate immeasurably close, that would meet the old man and seek out the souls hoard,
divide asunder life from body.

Beowulf s earlier scorn for the dragon has disappeared, but one senses
that the retainers do not perceive his reservations. Both hesitant
(wfre) and eager for slaughter (wlfus), Beowulf vacillates
because he doubts whether he should, or can, avenge himself at all.56
OE wfre is a difficult term because of its rarity: attested only four times
in Old English, it occurs three times in Beowulf. In the Finn digression Hengest cannot restrain his wfre spirit, a vacillation deriving
from the uncertainty of his position. In line 1331a Hrogar says that a
wlgst wfre (Grendels mother) slew scherea detail actually
confirmed by the poets remarks:

56
Wood, Etymologies col. 98; Klaeber interprets the word as vagans (Christlichen Elemente 256): Garmonsway argues that OE wfre means furious, raging and
denies that Beowulf is hesitant (1436). On wlfus as bound for death, see James
W. Earl, Necessity of Evil 96 note 15; Smithers, Meaning of The Seafarer 103.

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

Heo ws on ofste,
feore beorgan,

259

wolde ut anon,
a heo onfunden ws (1292a3b)

She was in a hurry, wanted to get out of there and protect her life after
she had been discovered.

In Beowulf to be wfre means to exhibit hesitation, the same indecision expressed in the ModE reflex, wavering.57 The poet, I think,
confirms Beowulf s hesitation when he says that he himself did not
know what form his parting from this world should take (seolfa ne
cue//urh hwt his worulde gedal/weoran sceolde, 3067b8b). Yet
Beowulf resolves to fight, and his reasons for doing so stem from the
narratives he tells right before encountering the dragon.
Beowulf the Storyteller
In my view, Beowulf turns to a story to reflect on a pivotal childhood
incident as an evaluation of his present circumstances. He recounts
the history of Herebealds death at his brothers hands, which draws
vaguely on the legend of Baldr and Hr from Norse mythology.58
Hreels eldest son Herebeald dies unfittingly or inappropriately
(ungedefelice, 2435b) when his brother Hcyn misses a target
(miste mercelses, 2439a) with a bowshot.59 The incident is called a
feohleas gefeoht (2441a), which Dorothy Whitelock described as a
crime ineligible of composition.60 Even in 1939, therefore, Herebealds
death was considered accidental, an opinion formed partly from the
Scandinavian parallels to Baldrs death and partly from the expression miste mercelses. Yet the vehement language implies that the

The other attestation of OE wfre occurs in Daniel 240a, where it has to mean
flickering or perhaps guttering; see above, p. 170.
58
See, most recently, ODonoghue. Three other works are important: North, Heathen
Gods 199203; Frank, Skaldic Verse 132; Dronke.
59
Frank, Skaldic Verse 132: the Beowulf poet inserts what seems to be a Nordicism:
missan (ON missa) to miss, not hit with a genitive of the object, a usage common in Old
Norse but otherwise unknown in this sense in Old English; see also Frank, Memorial
Eulogies 11. It seems to me that these polar meanings could express the ambiguity of
the crime, either murder (hit the target) or accident (miss the target).
60
Beowulf 24442471 1989: . . . the accidental nature of the slaying would not
in itself have saved the perpetrator from the penalties of homicide. The historical
precedents come entirely from the Germanic, not Anglo-Saxon, law-codes. Whitelock
cites evidence collected by Liebermann that vengeance could not be taken for a
slaying within the kindred (199). James H. Morey makes the allegation of murder in
Fates of Men 301.
57

260

chapter four

killing was the equivalent of murder.61 Hcyn strewed a murder-bed

(mororbed stred, 2436b) for his lord,62 friend (freawine, 2438a),
kinsman (2436a, 2439b), brother (2440a), and heir to the kingdom
(yldestan, 2435a; eling, 2443a). Hcyn pierced Herebeald through
in a direct, lethal hit (ofscet, 2439b) with a bloody spear (blodigan
gare, 2440b). The event, described as a fyren (2441b), an act mindnumbing (hygemee, 2442a) and loathsome (laum, 2467a),
causes King Hreel to despair.63 Hreel finds himself unable even to
hate his son, who became estranged from him (him leof ne ws,
2467b). Clearly, the language describes a jealous rage as much as an
innocent accidentin which event Whitelocks parallels may not apply.
Ultimately, however, the episode debates accountability for a potentially
excusable crime: is vengeance appropriate at the cost of further personal
sacrificethe agony of Hreel?
Hcyns suspicious killing of Herebeald seems an odd recollection
at this moment, but the poet in fact dramatizes Beowulf s narration in
response to the heros circumstances. The same ratiocination continues
in the parable of the gomela ceorl or old man that follows the story
of Herebeald and Hcyn. In it Beowulf recounts an old mans grief
at a beloved sons execution. Many readers of these paired anecdotes
acknowledge that they comment on Beowulf s current situation, like
Laurence N. De Looze: This heroic simile is a fictional projection
which allows Beowulf to distance himself from the class of obligations facing him, to examine them more objectively, and to resolve the
Hamlet-like question of whetherand howto act or not to act.64
Observing that the old mans story is a central fiction in Beowulf, De
Looze proposed one way the hero analogizes his situation.65 A synopsis of the Swedish-Geatish wars (lines 2354b99a) which immediately

61
The best examination of the poets ambiguity in this passage is that by Georgianna.
62
The collocation mororbealo maga is found both in the Finn digression (1079a)
and, as Beowulf s last words (2742a), something the Ruler of men could not accuse
him of. Moror is a deliberate, secretive act.
63
It is often assumed that Hreel cannot expect compensation for his sons death,
but a historical parallel from ca. 700 shows that kin can pay wergild for relatives they
have slain. The Mildry legend records how King Egbert of Kent ceded land to his
cousin Mildry in compensation for killing her brothers elberht and elred; cf.
Rollason 4951; Wehlau, Seeds of Sorrow.
64
De Looze 243.
65
De Looze calls this the only fictional moment (243), but Hrogars story of a king
seduced by oferhygd is also fictional.

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

261

precedes the Herebeald/Hcyn exemplum illustrates how Beowulf s

decision whether to fight the dragon is closely tied to the Geats future.66
Herebealds accidental death leads to Hreels incapacitation, which in
turn prompts attacks from Swedes. Beowulf s own death would cause
as much instability. Either retribution or toleration, however, would
generate identical misfortunes. De Looze explains: the two extremes
of inaction (Hrethels response) and excessive (re)action (characteristic of the [Swedish-Geatish] wars) . . . lead to doom.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.68 Attacking the dragon becomes a matter of urgent practicality, and Wiglaf s criticism of Beowulf s fight is implicitly dismissed.
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.69 By
insisting that the dragon will continue marauding, De Looze will later
make the staggering claim, there is the obligation on Beowulf to take
vengeance for the dragons attack on his realm, an obligation which
is indifferent to the effectiveness or the ultimate consequences of such
action.70

66
As De Looze sees it, Hygelac undertakes a rash action in Frisia, Beowulf a
thoughtful one at the dragons lair (244). Yet only the narrator recounts the Swedish
feud, and one wonders how immediately it impacts Beowulf s thinking at this moment,
especially because he singles out his vengeance for Hygelac as a moment of glory.
According to Stanley B. Greenfield, the narrator first recapitulates the engagements
Beowulf has lived through since he cleansed Heorot of the Grendel clan (Geatish
History 121). For Greenfield, Beowulf s miraculous escape from Frisia evokes the
theme of survival, an ironic, elegiac comment on Beowulf s death in the dragon
fight (ibid.). Survival might be one focus of the passage, but a second covers both
the historical background of events succeeding Beowulf s death and the inevitable
uncertainty of outcomes; see Kahrl 196. The evocation of human miseryHygd and
Heardred are feasceaft, Eanmund and Eadgils wrcmcgasblunts Beowulf s moral goodness and obvious maturation from warrior to king (Greenfield, Geatish History
122). The poet depicts telescopically the slow rise and brisk fall of kings: Hygelac,
Heardred, Onela, Eadgils . . . Beowulf.
67
De Looze 246.
68
Ibid. 247. Much hinges on De Loozes speculation that the dragon poses a continuing threat, but the poet deliberately avoids saying whether the dragon plans any
further raids. De Looze also proposes that the historical analogue chosen by Beowulf
literalizes the patriarchal relationship of Beowulf to his realm; the father is unable to
save his charges through effective action (ibid.).
69
Ibid. 250.
70
Ibid. 2478.

262

chapter four

De Looze suggests that the gomela ceorl story matches Beowulf s circumstances more realistically, since Hreel could not demand vengeance
and the dragons appearance could not be attributed to chance in the
way the accidental shooting could. In other words, Beowulf manufactures a projection. De Looze then reasons, the father of the condemned
criminal finds himself subject to two strong social demands: one that
he take vengeance for his sons death, the other that he take no action
because his son was a condemned outlaw.71 Hence, the old ceorl must
respect the social justice that penalized his heir, just as Beowulf would
need to set aside personal vengeance (fighting the dragon) in respect of
a duty owed to his folc (not fighting). In fact, De Looze claims, Beowulf
again projects himself as a father figure, this time as an old man without
progeny.72 Vengeance conflicts with duty, but imagining the gomela ceorl
dying from grief even without vengeance, Beowulf pursues retribution
regardless of the personal consequences. Like Dorothy Whitelock, for
whom the passage affirmed a second kind of inexpiable occasionlegal
execution for a crimeDe Looze appreciates the story of the gomela
ceorl as a comment on revenge. Unlike Whitelock, he thinks that the ceorl
actually has the option of reprisal!73 Furthermore, De Looze imagines
that the old man represents the state, and he then universalizes the
ceorls sentiment and concludes, the poet depicts a culture whose social
institutions are strained almost to the breaking point.74 By these terms
he subtly argues that Beowulf s reliance on heroic attitudes discloses a
moral impoverishment related to heroism generally.
The argument resembles Linda Georgiannas, which stressed the
same failure of heroic idealism, especially vengeance: In destabilizing
or confusing the categories of innocence and guilt, victim and villain,

71
Ibid. 249. The position is shared by many, expressed in Hills words: Hrethel
cannot avenge himself on one son for the death of another. Thus he suffers sick at
heart in much the same way, Beowulf imagines, that a father would suffer who must
bear the death by hanging of his outlaw son. These expressions of impotence, of a
harrowing inability to act, are terrible because there can be no satisfactory or allowable
revenge in either case (Warrior Ethic 14); see also Owen-Crocker, Horror in Beowulf
86. Owen-Crocker asks whether this byre is a criminal or sacrificial victim.
72
De Looze 249.
73
Ibid.: The lamenting father can choose the societal obligation by which he will
be bound, as does Beowulf. The position, too, of Kahrl: The poet, through Beowulf,
appears to be stating that killing the murderer of ones kinsman or friend, rather than
mourning, provides a release for emotions of hate that are sufficiently powerful, if
uncontrolled, to destroy not only the peace of mind but even the life of the individual
governed by such emotions (195).
74
De Looze 248.

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

263

insider and outsider, the poet begins to undo the basis of heroic action
as it is represented in the poems first half.75 Georgianna proposes the
poets condemnation of disastrous, unending conflict by the deliberate
confusion of social categories for which no action is viable. She, too,
thinks of Herebealds death as accidental and of the old mans predicament as resulting from frustrated revenge. In her arguments and De
Loozes, however, I am troubled by the expectation that the dragons
threats must be intolerable, that the old man can take vengeance for
a state punishment (against whom?), and that Beowulf s predicament
should be universalized as a criticism directed against his society. Specific to De Loozes position, I find it unlikely that Beowulf would tell
the tale of Herebealds death and then supplant it with a more cogent
analogy.
The exempla of Herebeald and the old ceorl actually portend Beowulf s retribution against the dragon. In the part of this digression
Hcyn is seen to commit murder and go unpunished, 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 Hreel would feel if Hcyn
expiated on the gallows his slaying of Herebeald.76 This view strikes me
as wholly accurate, but with a different application. De Looze reasons
that the byre mentioned in the ceorls tale is a condemned criminal,77
and, in deference to Whitelocks article, most will treat the byre as a
felon, the term used by Georgianna. It has escaped notice, however,
that OE byre (lad best captures the sense) is contextually significant.
Often in collocation with geong (young), the poeticism byre occurs seven
times in Beowulf, where it generally implies the thoughtless impetuosity
of youth.78 For example, in the Heaobard feud the old agent provocateur
slanderously pictures a Danish byre wearing a sword taken from a
murdered father.79 We learn how passionately and disastrously this
Georgianna 841.
Beowulf 177. Whitelock noted that this position advanced that by Brunner I.213.
Brunner suggested that the gomela ceorl was Hreel himself, but because Whitelock
thought such killings inexpiable (at least in Anglo-Saxon sources), she did not pursue
Brunners (or Sedgefields) reasoning.
77
De Looze 249.
78
Bck 66.
79
The language Beowulf uses when depicting the scene is deliberately outrageous,
the sort of taunt to which a youth might quickly react. Brodeur has made the case
that the killing at his home almost certainly displeased Ingeld (Art of Beowulf 167), and
he further exonerates the byre who wears the sword: . . . the poet tells us, not that the
young Dane was slain for any deliberately provocative conduct of his own, but that
75
76

264

chapter four

boy reacts. Byre describes Hrogars two immature sons, for whom
Wealheow seeks a guardian in Hroulf. When Beowulf recalls this
episode in his recapitulation to Hygelac, he says that the queen urged
on the young boys (cwen . . . //. . . bdde byre geonge, 2016b18a),
not just her own sons but her sons friends, too. Reflecting on the origin of the sword that Wiglaf carries, the poet remarks that Weohstan
bestowed it on his byre when Wiglaf became capable of heroic deeds.
In fact, Wiglaf was very young, engaging in his first battle:
geongan cempan
mid his freodryhtne

a ws forma si
t he gue rs
fremman sceolde. (2625b7b)

In two other places Wiglaf is also called byre Wihstanes (Weohstans

boy, 2907b and 3110b). Therefore, in the episode of the gomela ceorl,
OE byre reveals that youthful irresponsibility probably motivated the sons
offense, a capital crime for which one can bear only restricted blame.
This anonymous, fictional byre undoubtedly corresponds to Hcyn,
but unlike Hcyn he gets punished according to tribal custom. In fact,
Dorothy Whitelock recounted that in certain old Germanic law codes
the state punished unintentional murder, and the boys hanging bears all
the hallmarks of a state sentence. Yet executing him for an ambiguous
crime still leads to a paralyzing grief identical to Hreels.
These nested stories operate analogically and describe Beowulf s
attitude towards the dragon, whose motivation for such widespread
ruin was the mere theft of a cup.80 One could not fail to call this devhe was killed fore fder ddum. This comes close to an exoneration of deliberate offense.
It was natural enough that he should wear a sword which he had inherited from his
father; he may have been ignorant of its provenience, or, at worst, he may have worn
it in careless forgetfulness. Certainly the son of that Heaobard who originally owned
it shows no knowledge that it had once been his fathers, until the old spear-warrior
brings the fact to his attention. The reason for the young Danes death is not simply
that he wears the sword of a slain Heaobard; it is that his father had slain that
Heaobard, and that killing calls for killing. 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
Heaobard that splendid weapon which should have been his inheritance but is now
being worn in his presence by the son of his fathers slayer (ibid. 169).
80
For this reason it is important for the audience to know that the thief betrayed
no malice when he stole the dragons cup, but did it for reanedlan (dire necessity, 2223a). The view of Theodore M. Andersson (Thief ) that stealing the cup was
criminal might be contradicted simply by context: the dragon is no owner in any
moral sense, and no one would dare take responsibility for the theft. T. A. Shippey
metaphorized the dragons hostility: The dragon is like Revenge. It sleeps but can be
woken; it is monstrously sensitive to the slightest of injuries . . . So the entire conflict

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

265

astation an over-reaction, but, even worse, this carnage may represent

the unintentional over-reaction of a provoked animal. Two similar
criminals were Hcyn and the anonymous byre, whose involuntary
malicethe actions of immature, unthinking boysrendered their
deeds morally ambiguous. These narratives therefore stand for Beowulf s
theoretical reactions to the choices forced upon him, as if he observed
himself in two imaginary roles. Failing to punish Hcynlike leaving the dragon alonecomes down on the side of expedience, since
Hcyn is the eling and will be king.81 Exacting wergild is no option,
as it would amount to the same impossibility as revenge. Yet ignoring
vengeance does not conform to social expectations, and Hreels grief
derives from a paralyzing, irremediable shame. Yet again, avenging the
dragons raid may be just as paralyzing for Beowulf and the Geats.
Punishing the anonymous byre asserts retribution (if not justice in the
Germanic sense) but begets a different kind of self-inflicted misery.
As readers have consistently stated, the options of excusing crime
and punishing it both lead to a paralyzing grief for the father, but in
each case the grief stems from a different cause. Staying alive, on the
one hand, means continued rule but (like Hrogars situation) a life of
humiliation and misgivings. 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. Peculiarly, Beowulf s narrative describes a father who loses his only
son, a calamity that terminates his bloodline. Yet the story of Hcyn
involves no such extermination, since Hcyn and Hygelac survive
Herebeald.82 The disparity, I think, reflects the outcomes of punishment
versus non-punishment in the dragon episode. Unpunished, Hcyn
goes on to rule, but Geats mourn the failure of reciprocal vengeance.
This is Hrogars fate against Grendel. Punished, the fictional lad dies
without issue, and the father bewails his barren future, the repercussion
of a moral obligation. This future, it has been pointed out, closely
resembles the bleak national extermination in the digression of the

[between Beowulf and the dragon] is an accident from the start, swinging from one
frightened or vengeful reaction to another (Old English Verse 489); see also Kahrl 195;
Andersson, Thief 507 (metaphorical elaboration of civil disorder).
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, while a nobleman might not be, or else get
away with a fine.
82
Bragg 82.

266

chapter four

leaderless Last Survivor (2231b70a).83 Beowulf understands, I think,

that attacking the dragon could ensure his death, the termination of
his bloodline, and possible genocide.
The exemplum of the gomela ceorl universalizes the sad (geomorlic,
2444a) experience of any man who laments the death of his only son
by reciting a gidd: he gyd wrece (2446b), a sarigne sang (2447a).
The lament concerns the wider context of Beowulf s fated death and
the outcome of his vengeance.84 Although we cannot prove that what
follows in lines 2450a9b constitutes a synopsis of the grieving mans
gidd, it seems contextually logical to imagine that Beowulf voices not
only his future conduct but also the finality of his lineage in a narrative. The episode of the gomela ceorl concludes with the tropes of exile
appropriate to the sole survivor of a clan: an empty hall, a windy grave
devoid of cheer, riders who sleep, heroes in the tomb, no joy of the
harp or play in the precincts:
Gesyh sorhcearig
winsele westne,
reote berofene;
hle in homan;
gomen in geardum,

on his suna bure

windge reste,
ridend swefa,
nis r hearpan sweg,
swylce r iu wron. (2455a9b)

The grieving man looks upon, in his sons chamber, an empty wine-hall,
windy resting-place deprived of joy; the riders sleep, heroes in their graves.
There is no harp-song, play in the precincts, as there once had been.

Earlier in Beowulf the earl who buried the dragons future treasure issued
a lament very close in phrasing to this one. He conceals the treasure
on a headland (be nsse, 2243a). Its polishers sleep (feormynd
swefa, 2256b). Neither harp-joy nor play of the lyre (Ns hearpan
wyn,/gomen gleobeames, 2262b3a) can be heard. Like the gomela
ceorl who laments an fter anum, the last survivor mourns an fter
eallum (2268a). The gidd arguably uttered by the gomela ceorl reflects
the survivors language as well as his despondent mood: giomormod/
gioho mnde, 2267ab. It would seem fitting that the survivor utters
a gidd, therefore.
This sober reflection on responsibility shapes Beowulf s conscience.
He could ignore the dragon and endure self-inflicted grief, like Hreel.
Or he could take action and endure a different self-inflicted grief. Readers like De Looze and Georgianna allege the inadequacy of heroic
83
84

Ibid.
Schrader, Deserted Chamber.

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

267

retribution to resolve Beowulf s dilemma, and they profess a categorical denunciation of vengeance as a social institution. They and others
extend this rejection to the entire heroic ethos, the constituents of which
are coextensive with vengeance as a cultural obligation. Many adages
in the poem support Beowulf s decision to attack the dragon, even at
the expense of his life, bloodline, and nation:
Fate often saves the undoomed manif his courage endures: Wyrd oft nere/
unfgne eorl,/onne his ellen deah! 572b3b
It is better for everyone to avenge his friend than mourn much: Selre bi ghwm/
t he his freond wrece/onne he fela murne, 1384b5b
Death is better for every nobleman than a life of shame: Dea bi sella/eorla
gehwylcum/onne edwitlif, 2890b1b

Action is the essential protocol of heroic life, but I cannot agree that
Beowulf s action is reprehensible because it is thought to be necessary
according to a social prescription. Beowulf appreciates that his choice
to fight the dragon entails doubt, the risk of death for himself and
jeopardy for his leaderless people. This self-consciousness personalizes
Beowulf s choice of heroic action, but the narratives do not justify it.
Beowulf understands what both choices entail. For this reason, I sense
that, while the narrator endows Beowulf with conscience, he does not
endow him with motivation. Even after a long meditation that lays
out his options, Beowulf never lets on why he prefers fighting to not
fighting. The audience has to determine why. But because the poem
also turns on Beowulf s worthiness to rule others, Beowulf plausibly
sets aside the responsibilities of kingship to take up arms. Critics Harry
Berger, Marshall Leicester, Jr. and John Leyerle make this claim persuasively, although I doubt that the poet intended any firm conclusion
on the matter of Beowulf s culpability. In light of the equivocacy I am
arguing for, it would be supremely important for Beowulf to appear to
fathom his heroic choice, and for the audience to rationalize it. In spite
of Beowulf s mental distress and apparent self-doubt, the prospect of
oferhygd cannot be ruled out as a competing factor in his resolution.
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,
with an additional force in reserve, has generally seemed normal to

268

chapter four

readers when, in fact, it should be thought highly unorthodox. Another

formulation of the question befits the context I propose, Niless inverse
proposition: Can Beowulf defeat the dragon alone? Beowulf s awareness of oferhygd explains all of the most intractable contradictions in
the dragon fight, including the eccentric decision to bring twelve handpicked men to the dragons barrow, but to leave them in relative safety.
Wiglaf admits that Beowulf chose them because the old king thought
they were worthy of glory (perhaps they wanted it, too): onmunde usic
mra ([Beowulf ] considered us worthy of glories, 2640a). Some
of these fighters may have been conscripted from Beowulf s warband
and owed him the greatest debts of loyalty. But the passages on herge
geceas (he chose us from the army, 2638b) and fyrdgesteallum
(army companions, 2873b) may be quite accurate, for at least one of
them would not have belonged to the dugu: Wiglaf, Beowulf s nephew.85
The byre Wiglaf has never fought in battle before. Beowulf tells this
select squad to stay in the copse and observe the outcome of the duel,
which he claims as his sole duty:
Gebide ge on beorge
secgas on searwum,
fter wlrse
uncer twega.
ne gemet mannes
t he wi aglcean
eorlscype efne. (2529a35a)

byrnum werede,
hwer sel mge
wunde gedygan
Nis t eower si,
nefne min anes,
eofoo dle,

Await in the woods, protected by mail-coats, men in armor, which of

us two can better endure his wounds after the attack. This is not your
venture, nor is it fitting for any man but for me alone to dispense might
against the foe, perform a noble duty.

Beowulf orders his men to await which of us two can better endure
his wounds. The assumption has always been that if battle favors the
dragon, the retainers should assist Beowulf; otherwise, they are to let
him do the killing. Wiglaf later confirms Beowulf s plan to act alone
when he says eah e hlaford us//is ellenweorc/ana aohte//to
gefremmanne (although our lord intended to perform this courageous
deed alone, 2642b4a).
Lines 2532b5a in this passage have been the subject of a rather
neglected article in which Raymond Carter Sutherland explains

85
For the Beowulf poets indiscriminate use of OE here and fyrd, see Pulsiano and
McGowan.

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, that
this is no s (venture, i.e. opportunity for winning renown and gold)
but is his eorlscype.86 Contrary to Sutherlands view, Beowulf here calls
his own participation in the dragon fight a si. Sutherland argues
that OE monn in such heroic contexts describes a warrior to whom
security is owed, the inferior of a contractual relationship, as M. J.
Swanton terms it.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), but that no retainer
should have to face it. In other words, Beowulf sees this venture as a
duty commensurate with his eorlscipe, for which reason the dragon fight
could be called sacrificial.
Yet I think that the expression gemet mannes has a significance
contrary to Sutherlands proposition. The wise man of The Seafarer proposes a behavior associated with the cultivation of warrior wisdom, that
every man should hold himself in moderation towards friend and foe:
scyle monna gehwylc/mid gemete healdan//wi leofne ond wi lane
(111a12b). Acting beyond this capacity, outside the bounds of warrior
wisdom, presumably means performing beyond ones measure, and
multiple texts prove that exertion beyond ones measure denotes heroic
action or even arrogance. In Genesis A the Shinarites build the Tower
of Babel out of arrogance (for wlence, 1673a), beyond what men
should hope to achieve in moderation, the measure of men:
. . . and to heofnum up
strengum stepton
ofer monna gemet,
hle mid honda. (1675a8a)

hldr rrdon,
stnenne weall
mra georne,

And they raised ladders to the heavens, men eager for glory erected with
their hands a mighty stone wall beyond the measure of men.

Striving beyond the monna gemet expresses the same eagerness for
glory (mra georne) that Beowulf arguably admits to. Furthermore,
when Nebuchadnezzar ignores Daniels warning in Daniel, the narrator
accuses him of oferhygd, in having a spirit mightier and thoughts
in his heart greater than was moderate or gemet:

86
87

Sutherland 1134.
Crisis and Development 67.

270

chapter four
ac am elinge
wear him hyrra hyge
mara on modsefan

No y sel dyde,
oferhygd gesceod,
and on heortan geanc
onne gemet wre . . . (488b91b)

He did none the better, but arrogance injured the prince [Nebuchadnezzar]. His spirit became mightier and the thoughts in his heart greater
than was meet.

Saint Gulac confronts his tormenting demons with a similar acknowledgment of excess, that the Lords servant should not love in his heart
more earthly wealth than is a single mans portion, that he might have
maintenance for his body:
in his modsefan
eoran htwelan
t he his lichoman

Ne sceal Dryhtnes eow

mare gelufian
onne his anes gemet,
lade hbbe. (386b9b)

In heroic terms the measure of a man was an allowance of glory

appropriate to his discretion (i.e. wisdom), sometimes seen as a divine
grace, as attested in Order of the World:
Nis t monnes gemet
t he mge in hrere
furor aspyrgan
to ongietanne

moldhrerendra,
his heah geweorc
onne him frea syle
godes agen bibod. (27a30b)

It is not within the compass of a manof earth-dwellersthat he may

see in his heart a noble deed, Gods own commandment, any further
than the Lord allows him to see.

The passage expresses a personal limitation even to virtuous action, an

attitude so compelling in Beowulf s dragon fight. In Order of the World
an individual is warned that a great deed (heah geweorc) can have
ignoble motivations unknown to its perpetrator. The problem lies in
grasping the right kind of noble motivation in the pursuit of what
is gemet. Without the moderation promoted in wisdom verse, one
could gamble recklessly.
Perhaps Beowulf s orders are explicit enough, but if this fight is not
gemet mannes, why were Beowulf s retainers ever involved? On the
one hand, the plan reinforces Beowulf s self-doubt, the condition of
being wfre. Beowulf expects injury or death, and he establishes
a means of rescue. On the other hand, it also expresses Beowulf s
uncertainty about committing oferhygd in the dragon fight. His extraordinary proviso emerges from the injunctions of the wisdom genre not

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

271

to jeopardize ones men for personal glory. Hygelac died in a raid

undertaken for wlenco, Hrogar 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 Hreels death, Beowulf describes his
own and Hygelacs deeds. He emphasizes revenge at desperate odds.
In line 2478ab Ongeneow is said to have often committed eatolne
inwitscear or hateful, vicious slaughter against the Geats. Having
killed Hcyn, Ongeneow plans to exterminate the remaining Geats
at Ravenswood, but Hygelac charges Ongeneows troops and avenges
his kinsmans death (mg oerne//billes ecgum/on bonan stlan;
one kinsman avenged another with swords edge, 2484b5b). 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/rest
gesohton//Geata leode/Gu-Scilfingas (The people of the Geats first
sought the Battle-Swedes out of arrogance, 2926a7b). 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 Ongeneow that Ongeneows 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 Ongeneows culpability, vengeance is still demanded for the breach and for Hcyns death.
Yet one other detail is highly relevant to Beowulf s last speech. The
killing of Ongeneow for Hcyns 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
Ongeneow.
Subsequent to Hygelacs rescue of Hcyn, Beowulf recounts
Hygelacs death and his own vengeance in lines 2490a2509b. In this
second of three re-tellings of the Swedish feud, Beowulf recounts slaying

88

Ethic of War 279.

272

chapter four

Dghrefn, probably Hygelacs 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 Gifas, 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 Dghrefn, the Frisian standard-bearer, by crushing him to
death. If the emendation Frescyninge is accepted, Beowulf prevented
Dghrefn from carrying off Hygelacs breostweorunge (Wealheows
jewel, presumably).
Quite obviously, Beowulf analogizes his present circumstancesbut
not in the way Stanley B. Greenfield, for example, imagines. For him,
Beowulf s vatic admonition91 describes his own dedication to vengeance against the dragon, though thwarted.92 Interpreting the Herebeald/Hcyn 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 Greenfields equivalence, in which Beowulf answers to the rescuer Hygelac
or to himself as Hygelacs avenger), the implicit parallels between the
Frisian raid, Ravenswood, and the dragon fight become submerged.
Moreover, Beowulf s wfre 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
Klaebers 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), hereni (enmity of an army, 2474a), inwitscear (hostile attack, 2478a),
fhe ond fyrene (feud and aggression, 2480a), gu (battle, 2483b). The messenger blames the Geats (2922a7b) for this strife, but Beowulf blames the Swedes
(2472a8b). As Greenfield remarks (Geatish History 123), Ongeneows sons did not
want to honor the peace: Ongeneowes/eaferan . . . freode ne woldon (2475a6b).
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 Ongeneow) or
a kinsman like Beowulf (who kills Dghrefn). Furthermore, the ambiguous pretext of the Swedish invasion and the folly of Hygelacs 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.
Hygelacs raid for wlenco did not prevent Beowulf s retaliation, the
obligation of a loyal retainer. Just as Hygelac gave Beowulf land and
treasure (2490a3a), Beowulf rewarded his mens 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 ones lord exists only in
Tacituss 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 (2650b2b), and state that leaving
Beowulf to die does not seem fittingto him, at least:
Ne ynce me gerysne
eft to earde,
fane gefyllan,
Wedra eodnes. (2653a6a)

t we rondas beren
nemne we ror mgen
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 rydlicost//ower
feor oe neah/findan meahte, 2869b70b). 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 lords serious need (a ne dorston r/dareum lacan//on hyra

274

chapter four

mandryhtnes/miclan earfe, 2848a9b). He focuses, moreover, on the

war-gear they bear from the woods, where they had fled to safety:94
. . . ac hy scamiende
gugewdu

scyldas bran,
r se gomela lg. (2850a1b)

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 receivedbeing hold (loyal) was their dutybut
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 lords
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, 2598b9a).
95
Markland 3413.
96
Putnam Fennell Jones 3001; Lawrence, Epic Tradition 2278.
97
Beowulf the Headstrong143; 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. Hills contention that

Wiglaf s aid is a free gift given that Beowulf has just told them all
to stay put, safely out of harms 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
dilemmaescaping or facing a dire enemy in a conceivably pointless
engagement that perhaps only a warrior of immoderate ambition
would undertakesuggests that Beowulf is abusing the obligation of
the dugu. 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
retainers glory, to avenge the kings death even if loyalty meant ones
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 retainers glory entails a death predicated on the kings suicidal impetuosity? The answer to this question
depends on whether Beowulf is reckless, but one demonstration of his
overconfidence may lie in the retinues flight. They imagine that his
chances are hopeless, that he will fall in battle:
t nron ealdgewyrht,
Geata dugue
gesigan t scce; (2656b9a)

Ic wat geare,
t he ana scyle
gnorn rowian,

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 wi sorgum;
wiht onwendan

Hiora in anum weoll

sibb fre ne mg
am e wel ence. (2599b2601b)

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 eah//ofer min gemet/mges helpan, 2878b9b). 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 1673a8a reveals. The Shinarites
build the Tower of Babel ofer monna gemet and venture on arrogance
and recklessness (for wlence/and for wonhygdum, 1673ab). 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 512. The reading of
sibb (= sibbe) in Klaebers 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 Klaebers 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 Hunfer 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 Niless 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 evaluationnot a wholesale dismissal of
heroic ideals, but a searching critique of their ultimate effectiveness,
and of a kings 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 Hrogars 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. Niless 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 goodhaving 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 (wrc adreogan, 3078a), as Wiglaf states categorically. Niles

is unwilling to concede that wrc 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 Girvans
reasoning that the dragon fight was a moral act which [Beowulf s]
honor compels him to undertake.102 Girvans 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 practicalthe elimination of an evilit must still
answer the charge of necessity. Girvans 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, Niless
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 poets 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 dragons 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 oferhygdor 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 goldthe reward for heroic achievementas 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 (16871).
104
Henra Hyht.
102
103

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

279

the poet confirms Beowulf s interest in the heathen gold. We learn,

rather pointedly, that Beowulf received the stolen cup: him to bearme
cwom//maumft mre/urh s meldan hond (the famous cup
had come into his possession by the hand of the informer, 2404b5b).
The poet insists on highlighting this unfathomable wealth when emphasizing Beowulf s curiosity in the hoard. He finishes his recollection with
the pledge to fight for the hoard (ymb hord wigan, 2509b), and his
final boast concludes with the remark, I shall reach the gold through
courage: Ic mid elne sceall//gold gegangan (2535b6a).105 The poet
seems to confirm that winning treasure was indeed Beowulf s aim, when
interjecting that Beowulf traded his life for gold:
dryhtmama dl
hfde ghwre
lnan lifes. (2842b5a)

Biowulfe wear
deae forgolden;
ende gefered

For Beowulf a surfeit of precious treasures was paid for by death; by the
action of each it brought an end to this transitory life.106

Moreover, just before he succumbs, Beowulf asks Wiglaf to convey

lavish treasures from the mound, so that the old king could die the
softer, i.e. more peacefully:
hord sceawian
Wiglaf leofa,
swefe sare wund,
Bio nu on ofoste,
goldht ongite,
swegle searogimmas,
fter maumwelan
lif ond leodscipe,

Nu u lungre geong
under harne stan,
nu se wyrm lige,
since bereafod.
t ic rwelan,
gearo sceawige
t ic y seft mge
min altan
one ic longe heold. (2743b51b)

Dear Wiglaf, now that the dragon lies deadsleeps sorely wounded
and deprived of treasurego quickly and look upon the hoard under
the gray stone. Go in haste so that I may see the wealth of old, the gold

105
Translating OE gegangan here is difficult, for it must be venture or fight for
rather than win.
106
Bammesberger, Three Beowulf Notes 4823. Bammesberger concludes that
MS ghwre should here be read as instr. sing. through the action of each,
rather than emended to ghwer. The emendation (universally adopted) would
be translated each brought an end to his transitory life. Bammesberger suggests that
dryhtmma dl ought to be the subject. The editors of Klaebers Beowulf retain the
emendation.

280

chapter four
possessions, and look more eagerly upon the brilliant cunning jewels, 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.

Beowulf s curiosity about the hoard has earned reproach as materialistic, 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; he has to have the
treasure, too. The personal glory sought by a warrior and manifested
in riches seems here to trump the kings duty to his nation. Beowulf
might have sounded more kingly in boasting that he rid Geatland of
a menace.
Relevant to Beowulf s heroic motivation is the poets obscure remark
that treasure can easily overcome any man:
gold on grunde,
oferhigian,

Sinc eae mg,

gumcynnes gehwone
hyde se e wylle. (2764b6b)

Treasuregold in the earthcan easily overcome any man, hide it who

will.

The hapax oferhigian has been the subject of some dispute, but attestations of the simplex higian betray the sense strive or hasten, and at
least once in the pursuit of lucre: Se e fter m higa t he eadig
sie on isse worulde.107 The root sense solves any complication, since
strive beyond may be translated overcome or overtake, not in
the sense come upon but overpower. The seduction of treasure in
these lines may refer either to the whole context of the dragon fight,
or to Wiglaf s momentary shock at the accumulated wealth.108 Yet the
phrase hyde se e wylle seems to indicate that all men will seek out
riches if they learn of them, no matter how well guarded they may be.
The poet never says that the vast riches of the dragon hoard seduced
Beowulf, but he could imply as much, and the insinuation would suit
Beowulf s potential oferhygd. For this reason, it seems essential to the
poets paradox that Beowulf receive the stolen cup (2404b5b).
Nevertheless, Beowulf s greed cannot be substantiated, here or
elsewhere. A passage once thought to prove it can be found in lines

Sweet 44.9 (translating qui festinat ditari).

Greenfield made this same point in Gifstol 115: descriptive of what Wiglaf
sees when he enters the mound at his dying lords request.
107
108

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

281

3074a5b, Ns he goldhwte/gearwor hfde,//agendes est,/r

gesceawod.109 The subject of considerable reflection in recent articles
by John Tanke, R. D. Fulk, and William Cooke,110 these words come at
the end of a description of a curse laid down on the treasure by its
previous owners, the race of men represented by the Last Survivor.
Partly because this statement was thought to incriminate Beowulf, it
was emended: MS ns he (not at all) was altered to nfne (unless).
Klaeber translated his own emended verses as unless Gods grace (or,
kindness) had before (or, first) more readily (or, thoroughly) favored
those (or, the one) eager for gold.111 William Cooke has re-affirmed
the general tone of this translation: . . . we can adopt and the text that
Ptzig and Klaeber proposed but construe and interpret it differently . . .
unless he had first quite clearly respected the Rulers gold-rich (or
gold-bestowing or gold glittering) bounty . . . unless the one eager for
gold had first quite clearly respected the Rulers favour. 112 For each of
these two options, Cooke begins with the position that Beowulf is not
cursedthat, in fact, the Geats themselves enchant the treasureand
that Beowulf s desire for the riches was honorable, as a loyal servant
of the supreme good God.113 By these terms Beowulf has earned the
dragons hoard.
John Tanke explores a very different solution to these lines. Restoring the manuscript reading ns he and taking the implied subject
to be Beowulf, Tanke translates, he had by no means more readily

109
Based on arguments in the following paragraphs, I have removed the comma
after goldhwte and added those following hfde and est.
110
See now Gwara, Beowulf 307475, from which the following argument
derives.
111
Beowulf 227 note to lines 30745. The discussion in Klaebers Beowulf summarizes
Fulks treatment of the passage (Cruces in Beowulf ). Cooke explores competing
interpretations of lines 307475 in exceptional scholarly detail, but his work must have
been accepted for publication before Fulks and Tankes articles appeared, since he
makes no mention of them (e.g. 223 note 50). Cooke accepts the emendation nfne
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 nshe. The error of
ne for he is plausible. However, Cooke concludes that the scribe misread <f> for
tall <s>, writing sigmoid <s> in his copy. In the vernacular alphabet, <f > has no
ascender, and its lower hast sits on the bounding line. Cooke is thinking of the modern
tall <f> in offering this conjecture.
112
Cooke 218.
113
Ibid. 219. The complex arguments that Cooke adduces here are thoughtfully
considered in detail, but the readings of Tanke and Fulk (which follow) have the virtue
of retaining the manuscript reading ns he.

282

chapter four

foreseen good luck with gold, the Owners favor.114 Tanke proposes
to read agend (Owner) as God and the term goldhwte
(< *goldhwatu) as luck with gold, which he quite reasonably modifies
to good luck with gold.115 Beowulf, in Tankes opinion, expects to
lose this fight: Though he had no idea how he would meet his death
in this encounter (i.e., that he would come up against the cursed gold
and not merely the dragon), he had not expected much good from it,
either.116 Extending Tankes conjectures, Fulk suggested that *goldhwatu
could indicate the curse placed on the gold, since OE galdor spell
is sometimes paired with OE hwatu, and that gearwor could mean
rather.117 He translates, Beowulf by no means had sought out (or
contemplated?) a curse on gold, rather the owners (Gods) favour.118
In this reading Fulk emphasizes the irony attending Beowulf s death,
occasioned by an unknowable curse.
I find this passage to be more circumspect than Tanke or Fulk do,
and my own view modifies three aspects of Tankes reading. First, Tanke
derives a sense foresee for OE gesceawian on the analogy of Beowulf
204b: hl sceawedon (they foresaw good fortune), but OE gesceawian
typically means observe or look. In fact, this verse might as easily
be rendered they observed their fortune. Alan Bliss drew attention to
the collocation gearo sceawige in verses 2747a9a and speculated,
it is not enough for [Beowulf ] to know that the treasure is now his,
he must also see it:119
Bio nu on ofoste,
goldht ongite,
swegle searogimmas . . .

t ic rwelan,
gearo sceawige

Hasten now, that I might see the gold hoard, the ancient treasure, and
look avidly upon the bright crafted jewels.

Bruce Mitchell discounts any meaningful parallel between this passage

and verses appearing some three hundred lines later,120 but the precedent

Tankes translation (362).

The proposal *goldhwatu was first made by Kock, who translated it as a substantive . . . readiness about gold, later liberality (Interpretations and Emendations
IV 1234).
116
Tanke 367.
117
Fulk, Cruces in Beowulf 362.
118
Ibid. 363.
119
Beowulf, Lines 307475 58.
120
Damnation of Beowulf ? 32.
114
115

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

283

in Beowulf does prove that gearo gesceawian can simply mean look
eagerly.121 A second issue in Tankes scheme concerns the referent to
agend. Only with some strain can agendes est in this context mean
Gods favor, since the dragon has been alluded to as the biorges
weard (guardian of the barrow, 3066b) with which Beowulf has
sought strife.122 This reference, indeed, follows the earlier report that
the weard slew Beowulf (3060b1a). For multiple reasonsnone
ultimately convincingTanke considered but rejected the dragon as the
owner referred to. Dragons never grant anyone their favor where
gold is concerned,123 he explained when he presumed God to be a
more fitting owner. In fact, I believe that no specific owner is referred to
here, but that the dragon may be considered a hypothetical one. Finally,
Tanke ingeniously parses goldhwte as a feminine noun *goldhwatu,
not the feminine accusative singular adjective modifying est, as most
other commentators claim.
In a seminal article G. V. Smithers criticized the prevailing assumption
that the adjective goldhwte (modifying est) could mean brave or
cursed.124 He argued instead that the element -hwt meant bestowing, since OE ahwettan, attested in the expression est ahwette from
Andreas 339b, means something like bestow on. 125 His translation

121
R. D. Fulk (Cruces in Beowulf 35963) has proposed that gearwor here means
rather, an unattested sense in Old English. Moreover, he challenges Tankes reading
luck for hwatu. Although hwatu is attested in the sense divination, and may possibly
mean destiny in Old English (as it did in Middle English), Fulk interprets it as spell
in reference to the curse. Translating OE gesceawian as seek out or contemplate,
Fulk translates the verses, Beowulf by no means had sought out (or contemplated?)
a curse on gold, rather the owners (Gods?) favour (363).
122
Stanley, Henra Hyht 199200.
123
Tanke 3634. First, lifes/sigores/swegles/wuldres + agend designate God in five
Old English poems. Second, collocations of godes/metodes + est can often be found, in
the sense Gods favor. Only in Beowulf do we find genitive + est, where est can mean
an inanimate object (his . . . est, 2157ab).
124
Smithers 7980; see Imelmann, Beowulf 303 ff. und 3074 f. 337: goldhwte ist
nach Analogie anderer Adjektiva zu deuten also goldstark oder goldreich; goldgierig
scheidet aus. . . . Hier ist alles klar und glatt, und der Satz liest sich fortschreitend
natrlich: und nicht . . . er vorher ganz des Eigentmers goldreiches Erbe (geschaut).
Kemp Malones impossible punctuation of the last line of this citation (agendes, est,
r, gesceawod) made for a crabbed translation: Beowulf beheld the owners bounty
no better,/he viewed the dragons liberality no sooner (Notes on Beowulf 56). He
explains, when the author tells us that Beowulf did not see the dragons generosity
very well, he means that Beowulf did not see his generosity at all (6).
125
Smithers 79. He elaborates: The existence of an OE noun meaning luck
[hwt, derived from hwteadig, Elene 1195] suggests that the factitive verb had senses
corresponding to all those proper to the adj. or noun . . . and that we may therefore

284

chapter four

gold-bestowing munificence gained wide attention. Tanke, however,

derailed the semantic development and emphasized the fortune of
bestowal in his expression luck. In conjunction with Tankes translation
of goldhwte as good luck with gold, which would vary agendes
est, I would render the term est by generosity rather than favor.
OE est can mean favor, admittedly, but as an abstract circumlocution
for gift in Beowulf and Andreas, the term generosity ultimately eases
the sense.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, an owners generosity.127 In other
words, Beowulf examined the dragons cache more closely than any
other gift he had ever received, an act of studied appraisal. For this
reason Beowulf stares at the treasure (on starie, 2796b), a spectacle that
should cue similar appraisals: men staring at Grendels arm (996b),
Hygelacs imagined staring at (i.e. evaluation of ) Beowulf s treasures
(should Beowulf not survive the fight with Grendels mother, 1485b),
Hrogars staring at Grendels head (1781b). This moment perfectly
expresses the poets own studied ambivalence, even in respect to minute
details like the stolen cup. Because dragons seem to have been always
associated with gold, Beowulf s receipt of the cup after his resolution
to fight the dragon would not necessarily vitiate his potential rapacit y.128 Beowulf could therefore be reproved on Stanleys grounds, that
he showed himself eager to see the gold, and was guilty, therefore, of
avarice,129 but the premise remains contested by Beowulf s need to die
comforted (y seft, 2749b). As I see it, Beowulf s eager attention to
the gold may either satisfy him in the reward for a great accomplishment (heroic greed), or exonerate him as hopeful of bequeathing an
extravagant legacy. Readers will no doubt be querying why the charge

posit for ahwettan the hitherto unacknowledged sense bestow on, perhaps derived from
cause to befall or make fortunate (ibid.).
126
DOE s.v. sense 1b: gracious/liberal gift.
127
I must point out, however, that even if goldhwt were translated as the adjective
gold-bestowing modifying agendes est, my argument would not be significantly
changed: not at all had he looked more closely at the gold-bestowing munificence
of an owner. Adverb r has to be translated before in this context and would not
represent the marker of the pluperfect (Bliss 567).
128
Greenfield exonerates Beowulf for this very reason ( Gifstol 109).
129
Henra Hyht 203; and Bliss, who has a more complex theory, that lines
2747a51b exhibit Beowulf s improper attitude towards treasure, and unmistakably savours of avarice (58), whereas lines 307475 show Beowulf s irreproachable
attitude . . . the gold-bestowing favour of God (59).

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, labeled heroic greed. In fact, the
quest for transcendent deeds rewarded by enduring reputation and vast
wealth explains heroic recklessness or arrogance. In focusing solely on
the dimension of reward, some might call this obsession greed.
The reading I have been discussing restores an important equivocation: Beowulf s interest in the treasure may still be nothing more than
a heros due bounty, in acknowledgment of an enemys defeat. Earning
unparalleled riches validates the dragon fight as the glorious deed
Beowulf imagined it would be: ic wylle,//frod folces weard/fhe
secan,//mru fremman (I, wise guardian of the people, intend to
pursue the feud, perform a glorious deed, 2512b14a). Ernst Leisi
and Michael D. 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.130
Cherniss compares Scylds own funeral ship heaped with treasure to
Beowulf s pyre, heaped with the dragons gold. From Chernisss perspective, critics who treat the dragons treasure as Beowulf s legitimate
reward appreciate that the narrator does not unambiguously discredit
Beowulf s interest in it.131 Any interest in the hoard, however, automatically evokes the oferhygd complex, since glory-seeking warriors earn treasure for mro, whereas kings secure prosperity. Although Beowulf
dies in the duel, killing the dragon is a transcendent accomplishment,
as Cherniss notes. The accomplishment of killing the dragon cannot
be questioned (although Beowulf s death undermines it), nor can the
reward. But the motivation can: heroes like Sigemund earn glory and
treasure in this way. Did King Beowulf need to earn it, too? The term
greed has too often hijacked the debate over Beowulf s motivation in
the dragon fight, yet the poet poses Beowulf s heroism as the chief
complication in the episode.
By Chernisss logic, Beowulf s retainers have not earned the dragons
gold, with the exception of Wiglaf, who (it is argued) at least feels that

Respectively, Gold und Manneswert; Progress of the Hoard 475.

A point explored in Greenfield, Gifstol 1089. Greenfield supposes that
Beowulf s eagerness to gain the hoard and see his winnings is positive (113); see also
the more complex reading of Hill, Cultural World 1345. Hill concludes, not fearing
combat or the dragons great strength, Beowulf responds to his obligations as a king
should but to his task as a warrior (135). I sense that this equivocation represents a
certain unresolved discomfort over Beowulf s fight.
130

131

286

chapter four

he has not earned it.132 Therefore, Beowulf s hope to win the gold
sounds like an Olympians. Yet there may be reason to think that
Beowulf acted in the interests of national security rather than selfinterest. After all, he receives the precious cup only after resolving to
confront the dragon.133 Furthermore, one of his later utterances appears
to moderate the suspicion of rapacity. Wiglaf gathers what treasure he
can carry and brings it to Beowulf, who says:
Ic ara frtwa
Wuldurcyninge
ecum dryhtne,
s e ic moste
r swyltdge
Nu ic on mama hord
frode feorhlege . . . (2794a2800a)

frean ealles anc,

wordum secge,
e ic her on starie,
minum leodum
swylc gestrynan.
mine bebohte

In words I give thanks to the Lord, the king of glory, the eternal Lord,
for all of the treasures which I look upon here, such as I could gain
before my death-day for my people. Now have I bought my fate with a
hoard of treasures.

Does Beowulf sacrifice his life to enrich his people? In support

of Beowulf s action, the narrator contends that the dragon wrongly
hoarded the treasure: se si ne ah//am e unrihte/inne gehydde//
wrtte under wealle (the venture did not avail him who wrongly hid
the treasure within, under a barricade, 3058b60a).134 William Cooke
has lately proposed that Beowulf leaves the treasure to his successor,
Wiglaf, 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.135
While this solution is convincing, two others occur to me. First, Beowulf
132
The disposal of the gold has also exercised Thomas A. Carnicelli, who imagines that one retainer (whom he identifies as the messenger) redeems his cowardice
by proposing to inter the treasure with his fallen king; cf. Greenfield, Gifstol 113:
the rusted and ultimately useless hoard is an analogue for the cowards themselves,
their honour gone to rust. Hill proposes that the treasure constitutes Beowulf s wergild (Narrative Pulse 12), but under these circumstances it would seem that the Geats
should accept it.
133
Greenfield, Gifstol 10910.
134
Many critics have exonerated Beowulf s presumed greed by these verses. They
suggest that because hoarding is vilified and sharing praised, Beowulf is justified in
freeing the treasure for distribution. This view can hardly be credited under the circumstances I propose.
135
Who Cursed Whom? 208.

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

287

could be thinking that the dragons wealth compensates his losses, one
inevitable reason why he was motivated to take revenge.136 This first
reason sounds sacrificial. Second, he might imagine that the riches could
be used to buy off his enemies after his death.137 Such settlements are
known even in Beowulf. One final influential critic, Edward B. Irving,
Jr., has endorsed an impressionistic reading: once the Geats have the
proper feel of all this [the various sensations they have, and actions
they commit, after the dragons death], then they will know where the
treasure must go now and who should be its present possessor.138 For
Irving, the treasure is obviously Beowulf s.
Nevertheless, multiple problems emerge in accepting Beowulf s
presumed self-sacrifice. First, what else would one say in resigned
acknowledgment of a mortal injury? If Beowulf cannot use the treasure himself, the inheritors of it are his people by default. Second, to
earn treasure for ones people magnifies Beowulf s own standing as
ring-giver, in light of a kings ambition to be generous. Is Beowulf
then seeking to enlarge his reputation for liberality? Finally, Wiglaf s
decision to burn and then bury the treasure with Beowulf confounds
Beowulf s generosity for his people. Indeed, the poet remarks that
the treasure now buried with Beowulf was as useless to men as it had
been before: r hit nu gen lifa,//eldum swa unnyt/swa hit ror
ws (where it now yet lies as useless to men as it had been before,
3167b8b).139 Wiglaf probably expected Beowulf to enjoy this treasure

136
Similar to Irvings proposition that the treasure was Beowulf s wergild (Reading
of Beowulf 167; see idem, Rereading Beowulf 129: gold is used as a measure of heroic
effort); Greenfield, Gifstol 11213.
137
Irving, Reading of Beowulf 208. See also Hill, Narrative Pulse 88 (use the treasure
to look after the Geats).
138
Irving, Rereading Beowulf 129.
139
John Niles (Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition 244) explains this contradiction
pragmatically: Since the Geats deposit the dragons gold in the dead kings barrow
in lieu of tribal treasures, from a purely pragmatic standpoint they are spared having
to make a great material sacrifice at their kings funeral. They are no poorer after the
funeral than before. The gold from the hoard lies in the ground as useless to human
beings as it was before (3186), just like the precious objects that accompany any
funeral. The statement seems unlikely in two respects. First, there was no expectation
for Beowulf to receive the wealth of an entire nation at his funeral. I would have said
that the Geats are much poorer after the funeral than before. Second, the narrators
statement that the gold was useless to men actually qualifies Beowulf s success: the
gold lies with Beowulf, useless now and useless when the dragon had it. Why, then,
did Beowulf trade his life for it?

288

chapter four

in the afterlife,140 but the Christian narrator discloses the vanity of his
heathen pietas. Chernisss neat equation that treasure equals merit evaporates when one considers that Beowulf, perceiving himself as a king,
thinks this treasure belongs to his folc, whereas Wiglaf and the Geats,
perceiving Beowulf as a warrior in pursuit of glory, bury it with him.
The moment obviously harks back to Hrogars evocation of oferhygd:
se e unmurnlice
eorles rgestreon,

feh oer to,

madmas dle,
egesan ne gyme. (1755b7b)

Another man will inherit who gives treasures, the former wealth of an
earl, without hesitation; he will not care for national warfare.

Beowulf certainly cared more for these treasures than Wiglaf, a fact
that fosters our preoccupation with Beowulf s morality.
In this context the egesa, which I have elsewhere translated as
national invasion, can characterize the searoni that Beowulf
sought, perhaps unnecessarily, against the dragon. In summarizing
his achievements on his deathbed, Beowulf says that he never sohte
searonias (sought contrived hostilities, 2738a). However, the narrator
records that Beowulf sohte searonias (3067a) in the dragon fight, 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, 1206b), and his death, I sense,
is being compared to Beowulf s.142 While Beowulf never confesses to
a wrong decision, the inconsistency between his own perspective that
he never sought out searonias and the narrators affirmation that he
had done so against the dragon manifests a potential benightedness.
The disarming contradiction recalls my earlier point: either subalterns
misunderstand Beowulf s motivation, or Beowulf unknowingly misrepresents himself.

140
Frank, Memorial Eulogies 23. Or perhaps the deposition represented a booty
sacrifice; see Fabech, Warfare and Ideology. Inhumations were also found alongside
such Migration-era sacrifices (ca. 100500 AD), in which the elaborate and valuable
deposits (weapons, mounts, personal gear, horse trappings) had been deliberately damaged, sometimes burnt; see Fabech, Reassessment 88 and 91.
141
Thomas D. Hill, Confession of Beowulf 173.
142
On the sense of the verb (to ask for it), see Klaeber, A Few Beowulf Notes
15.

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

289

A State of War
While Beowulf s hoard may signify glory gained, his real legacy is to
expose the Geats to invasion, an orleghwile (time of war, 2911a),
a fho . . ./. . . feondscipe,//wlni wera or feud . . . state of hostility, the slaughter-malice of men (2999a3000a).143 There can be no
doubt that the misery predicted by the Geat messenger describes exile.
In company they will pace strange lands as refugees (3019ab). The
woman who sings a giomorgyd at Beowulf s funeral often said that
she sorely feared invasions of hosts, countless slaughters, a warbands
terror, humiliation, and forced slavery:
t hio hyre heregeongas
wlfylla worn,
hyno ond hftnyd. (3152b5a)

Side geneahhe
hearde ondrede,
werudes egesan,

On the basis of references to Geats in Skaldic verse, Roberta Frank

speculates that the Geats were not exterminated as predicted here.144
In an earlier article, she gathered evidence highlighting the anomalous
doom forecast in the heralds prophecy and the maidens lament.145 Old
Norse erfidrpur disclose that a kings death traditionally portends death,
devastation, and enslavement, as Hkonarml (ca. 960):
Deyr f,
deyia frndr,
eyisk land ok l,

Cattle die,
Kinsmen die,
land and realm are emptied.

143
According to Niles (Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition 245), Wiglaf singles out
the Geats cowardice, not their heros death, as the source of their approaching misfortunes. One might be able to draw this conclusion by translating lines 2884a90a
as Niles does (all joy and love in your native land will cease for your people > all
cherished joy of ones homeland will cease for your kinsmen . . . every man will go
bereft of his rightful domains among the tribe > every man of your tribes will be
deprived of his rightful domains), but it seems to me that Wiglaf is precise: kinsmen
of these retainers (re mgburge/monna ghwylc, 2887a-b) will lose their property
rights (londrihtes, 2886b) once their fear becomes known abroad. Wiglaf does not say
that these men brought about national invasion, although misery will befall them. In
fact, the messenger declares that Beowulf s death will invite invasion: Nu ys leodum
wen//orleghwile,/syan underne//Froncum ond Frysum/fyll cyninges//wide
weore (Now the people should expect a time of tribulation after the kings fall
becomes widely known among the Franks and Frisians, 2910b13a).
144
Skaldic Verse 125; see Sisam, Structure of Beowulf 559.
145
Memorial Eulogies. On the identity of the geatisc meowle as a mourner, see
Mustanoja. Orchards proposed parallel with the messengers predicted annihilation in
Judith may suggest the formulaic character of such doom (Pride and Prodigies 8, 12).

290

chapter four
sz Hkon fr
me heiin go
mrg er i um i.

Since Hkon fared

to the heathen gods,
many a people is enslaved.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. Clover into the origins of the OIcel hvt
(incitement) and erfikvi (dirge) does not square with Franks conclusion.147 At least, women in the Icelandic sagas and Eddic poems were
not given to the prediction of their own deaths and enslavement, or
national ruin, as part of ritual lamentation. The tradition appears to
be Skaldic, and masculine. Could it be possible, then, 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, why would the narrator confirm
the messengers expectation that disaster awaits them? The messenger
concludes his long oracle by predicting a feast for eagles and wolves
(the traditional Beasts of Battle), after which the narrator adds:
Swa se secg hwata
lara spella;
wyrda ne worda. (3028a30a)

secggende ws
he ne leag fela

So the man was recounting prophecies, hateful tidings; he did not lie
much in his predictions or statements.148

The Geats could hardly be unaware of their doom, since its origin has
just been rehearsed in the recapitulation of Hygelacs Frisian raid and
the Swedish wars. If not a litotes, however, the expression ne leag
fela could suggest that the messengers prediction was not completely
accurate, that he was mistaken in some details. Is there enough distortion
to exonerate Beowulf, 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. Either possibility could substantiate the impression that Beowulf s dragon fight was not irresponsible.
Beowulf had not exposed his people to excessive risk.
Cited from Frank, Memorial Eulogies 5.
Hildigunnrs Lament.
148
On reading hwata as gen. pl. prophecies (<*hwatu) rather than the wk. masc.
n. eager (<hwt), see Tanke 360.
146
147

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

291

The preceding rehabilitation appeals to critics who resist the alternative, that Beowulf s death left his nation vulnerable to what the
messenger predicts. Yet the possibility that Beowulf was negligent in
fighting the dragon represents a viable alternative reading of this coda,
and the oferhygd complex reveals why the trope of national extermination
is relevant. In pursuit of glory, the tyrant afflicted by oferhygd becomes
a burden to his nation, often because of rash but unnecessary military
campaigns. Heremods Danes, Nebuchadnezzars and Belshazzars
Babylonians, the Israelites in Daniel, Ermanarics Goths in Deor, and
Satans angels all face disaster on a national scale: exile, enslavement,
massacre. These fates are not mere expressions of grief but befall people
bereft of kings. In Beowulf s case, one could not imagine a blacker
sin: to confirm the Geats expected annihilation would be to accuse
Beowulf of oferhygd, in trading a possible destruction (as I argue the
dragon represents) for a certain one. Here I must insist that Beowulf s
oferhygd is neither confirmed nor even likely, but conceivable. 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, and, in fact, preemptively challenged. 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.
Even so, readers will recognize differences between Heremods
campaigns and Beowulf s own. First, a detour: It has been argued that
Beowulf was not responsible for the events leading to the expected
Geatish tribulations, Hygelacs Frisian raid, and the Swedish wars.149
This is patently untrue: Beowulf fought against the Franks and killed
Dghrefn, and he supported Eadgils against Onela. Moreover, the claim
would divorce Beowulf from all responsibility for his people. In these
terms, a boy hitting his baseball into a picture window would say, your
house got in the way of my home-run. There are better reasons for
exonerating Beowulf. Beowulf s conscience implies that he has reflected
on an uncomfortable decision. Because he did not lead an army to the
dragon, for which reason it might be said that he had not jeopardized
his own men, could Beowulf be said to have acted like Heremod, the
army-minded king who killed his own people? Is it reprehensible
for Beowulf to ask his men to avenge him, to engineer their intervention without demanding it? Is ones own death an adequate proof of

149

Niles, Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition 245.

292

chapter four

rashness? This question yields another observation. Beowulf is quite

old, unlikely to live much longer in aid of his people. 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, but the poet
intends it to bear centrally on Beowulf s motivation. Moreover, Beowulf
has no heir, a perplexing complication in the poem. Is it Beowulf s
failing? Because Scyld is honored for fathering Beow, a comfort to his
people (folce to frofre, 14a), and Fremu for bearing Eomer, a help to
warriors (hleum to helpe, 1961a), it seems natural that conceiving
a son was a kings duty. Critics have answered Beowulf s childlessness
by proposing that sons cannot amend political instabilities.150 Just as
Hrogar made his champion Beowulf into a son, Beowulf looked to
the dragon fight to yield an eligible and distinguished heir. The dragon
fight therefore solves the problem of merit-versus-lineage by establishing
a test for rule. Although not as capable as Beowulf, a courageous man
emerges who may yet become a king worth following.
Some critics have disputed that Wiglaf will become the Geat king,
but the expectation is natural: he is a kinsman, and already seems
to be giving orders and disciplining the retinue. Wiglaf s receipt of
Beowulf s collar may be considered a reward for Wiglaf s help, but it
resembles an investiture, too.151 And yet Wiglaf s advent as the Geat
king will engender one of two central conflicts feared in the messengers
speech. Wiglaf carries Eanmunds sword, an inheritance from his father
Weohstan and testimony that Wiglaf s family fought against the Scylfing
refugees Eanmund and Eadgils, sons of Ohthere. Because either Eadgils
or his descendants arguably command the Scylfing throne at Beowulf s
death (fifty years on), Wiglaf might be considered an enemy. Of course,
Beowulf materially helped Eadgils regain rule of the Scylfings in campaigns against Onela, but Eadgilss (or his descendants) forebearance is

150
Tripp, Fathers and Sons; Thomas D. Hill, Scyld Scefing 39: true kingship
is given, not won.
151
Some would deny that Wiglaf becomes king after Beowulf, but I do not know
how it could be doubted. Hill suggests that by bestowing the collar along with his
words, i.e. ceremonially, Beowulf confers war-band leadership (Narrative Pulse 83).
In Beowulf Hama, Hygelac, and Beowulf wear such collars. Hama and Hygelac were
kings, and Beowulf bestows his torque on Hygd, possibly in repudiation of the rank.
Bazelmans sees it differently: When Beowulf passes his torque to Wiglaf and with
it his luck, it signifies the continuation of the blood-line and of the sublunary fame
of his family (161).

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

293

not likely to be transferred to Wiglaf. Yet from the messengers speech

it seems that Beowulf s death itself, and not Wiglaf s legitimacy, would
arouse Swedish ire. We simply have no details which could explain
the Geatish jeopardy. No consolation in Beowulf s dragon fight comes
without this kind of engineered equivocation, an ambivalence suggesting
that Beowulf s choice of fighting the dragon entails a concatenation
of potential hardships, none of which might be firmly attributable to
Beowulf s own decision.
The Unknowable and Unforeseeable Heathen Curse
A further moment of ambiguity essential to the oferhygd complex is the
curse on the dragons hoard. This heathen spell may have some purchase
on Beowulf s heroic greed, if one wishes to spotlight cupidity as one
of Beowulf s failings. I theorize quite a different function for this curse,
however. In 1958 Kenneth Sisam laid out three passages dealing with
the dragons treasure and showed how impossible it was to reconcile
them.152 The tale of the last survivor seems to account for this curse,
although it has been alleged that the famous princes (eodnas mre,
3070a) who laid up the treasure and laid down the curse could not be
the same as the Last Survivor.153 To critics favoring consistency, this
would seem an otiose polemic. We learn that a certain man (gumena
nathwylc, 2233b) deposited the hoard, and, in explanation of the term
gumena (of men), he reveals that death had taken all the other
men who had assembled it (Ealle hie dea fornam, 2236b). Knowing
that his own death was drawing near, a single survivor took the treasure

Beowulf s Fight with the Dragon.

Brodeur, Art of Beowulf 2389. William Cooke claims, problematically, that
Beowulf s own Geats place the curse on the treasure. He suggests that OE onne
(cf. 3051a) as clause-initial should mean then in a prospective sense, not furthermore
(as some translators have interpreted it). Appealing to the poets interlace style, Cooke
sees no difficulty in transitioning from a statement about the treasure to one about its
enchantment by its recipients. Many, I sense, may not be quick to adopt this reading,
partly because of the blatant pagan overtones and partly because the hoard is itself
incinerated. Would there be need to protect a rusted, burnt-out hoard from looters?
Possibly. According to Cooke, the eodnas mre of 3070a are Beowulf s men, his
dugu (211), but quite clearly these illustrious princes do not comprise Beowulf s
dugu, who could hardly be described as princes, and, having lost their reputations,
are in no sense illustrious (mre).
152

153

294

chapter four

to a barrow.154 Famous princes collected the wealth and protected

it with an incantation, but one man alone deposited it in the barrow.
While this explanation would sound artificial to some, it works for my
purposes, since the origin of the curse is immaterial.
The curse invokes the situational background of oferhygd without
condemning Beowulf outright. In fact, 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.155 I do not think that the
terms of the curse entail much obscurity. In the article cited above on
goldhwte, John Tanke plausibly suggests that the dragons tumulus
was probably a hallowed site, an ancient hearg filled with accumulated
oblations: the barrow where Beowulf met his death was no ordinary
tomb, but rather an ancient shrine or cenotaph, and its hoard a sacrificial offering.156 The explicit terms of the curse, Tanke contends,
call for the perpetrator to be synnum scildig (guilty of crimes,
3071b) because of the plundering, hergum geheaerod (confined
in shrines, 3072a) as a literal punishment because he would be firm
in hellish bonds (hellbendum fst, 3072b). The criminal would be
wommum gewitnad or cruelly wracked (3073a) because he would
be trapped, paralyzed, or dead, in or near the barrow:
swa hit o domes dg
eodnas mre
t se secg wre
hergum geheaerod,
wommum gewitnad,

diope benemdon
a t r dydon,
synnum scildig,
hellbendum fst,
se one wong strude. (3069a73b)

So the famous princes who put it there solemnly declared that until
doomsday the man would be guilty in sin, confined in shrines, firm in
hellish bonds, cruelly punished, who would plunder that place.

154
John Tanke draws parallels between the hoard and sacrificial offerings deposited
in sacred barrows depicted in Scandinavian writings (3735). He solves the problem
between a single depositor and multiple procurers by reference to rune stones erected
by multiple generations (374).
155
Recent critics have tried to dispel the curse in avoidance of Beowulf s presumed
damnation, as Doig; Tripp, Lifting the Curse. To my mind, some special pleading
can be found in Niles, Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition 93: The heathen curse
that is set on the treasure is couched in wholly Christian terms. How can hergum
geheaerod be wholly Christian?
156
Tanke 376.

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

295

In Tankes view, the expression hellbendum fst (3072b), formerly

thought to invoke damnation, points to hellish bonds (otherworldly
bonds, inns bonds of paralysis), not bonds of hell in any Christian
sense. Two readings are possible. First, as Tanke proposes, anyone trying
to take the gold would never escape the precincts of the hearg. They
would be magically fettered and die in some unstated way, through
starvation, ravening beasts, or seizure and hanging.157 Although this
strikes me as the obvious reading, all of these locutions could simply
describe death, with hergum geheaerod characterizing ones death
at the tumulus, or else pagan inhumation at a shrine. In either case, the
curse is no mere prohibition, a spell aimed at preventing entry to the
hoard, 158 but a dire bewitchment inflicted on a potential plunderer.
The narrator seems to imply that it operates in Beowulf s case. Alan
Bliss has argued that swa in 3066a correlates with swa in 3069a,
and since diope benemdon means solemnly declared, the passage
as a whole ought to be translated as correlative: when Beowulf went
to meet the guardian of the barrow . . . it happened to him just as the
glorious chieftains who had put the treasure there had solemnly decreed
it, that. . . .159 While the correlative is undoubtedly correct, a problem
lies in its precise meaning.
Although Blisss argument has largely been accepted, an alternative possibility may be just as likely. J. F. Doig has proposed that what

157
Ibid. 373. Tanke provides some illuminating parallels from Scandinavian sources
and from the Vita s. Wilfridi, but perhaps the best one comes from Abbo of Fleurys
Passio s. Eadmundi. In lfrics Old English translation eight thieves come to plunder
Edmunds tomb. They try to enter through crft (mid crfte, Skeat, Lives of Saints,
328.201), but the holy man miraculously bound them, each man as he stood laboring with his tools, such that none of them could commit that criminal act or leave
the place, and they stood so until dawn (se halga wer hi wundorlice geband lcne
swa he stod strutigende mid tole t heora nan ne mihte t mor gefremman ne hi
anon astyrian ac stodon swa o mergen. . . . [328.20710]).
158
Tripp, Lifting the Curse 2, citing Doig 5. Doig translates the verse hergum
geheaerod as kept captive in the shrines of false gods (4). By this supposititious
reading shrines as shrines of false gods, Doig concludes that only a Christian
could take such a hostile attitude to the earlier religion (ibid.). Imagining that Beowulf
is virtually Christian, Doig thinks that there is a hoard guarded by a spell, which
cannot hold out Beowulf or his emissaries because he enjoys the favor of God (5).
Beowulf, he postulates, died from the inevitable dangers of treasure dedicated by
heathen men (ibid.), but not from the effects of a curse.
159
Bliss 478, 434, and 59 (for the translation) resp. Bruce Mitchell accepts Blisss
reading of these lines up to this point (Damnation of Beowulf ?). In Cookes reading,
Swa hit . . . benemdon (3069ab) signal[s] the beginning of a new train of thought
(213) rather than being a correlative with swa in 3066a.

296

chapter four

Beowulf suffers at the barrow simply resembles the consequences

of meddling with heathen offerings that had received a solemn ritual
dedication.160 I disagree with many of Doigs propositions, but his
understanding of what other critics legitimately call a curse suggests
to me a different approach, that Beowulf might simply endure effects
resembling those imagined by the eodnas mre. The Old English
construction swa . . . swa is not only correlative as an adverbial conjunction, but also comparative, expressing a simile like (the men had
solemnly declared). This position reflects the curious phrasing, swa
ws Biowulfe . . . swa . . . benemdon (so it was for Beowulf just like
they had declared). Treating the passage that Bliss analyzes above as
a consequence different from Doigs, it might be possible to compare
the intended effect of an ancient curse to what Beowulf experiences,
and translate: . . . what happened to Beowulf was just like the glorious
chieftains had once solemnly decreed. In other words, the poet suggests
that the curse may not have caused Beowulf s death, but that Beowulf
had died in a way anticipated in its terms. I find this view attractive as
part of the intentional ambiguity surrounding the curse. On the one
hand, it operated just as the princes had planned. On the other hand,
it could be discounted as circumstantial, for the glorious princes
who laid up the hoard could not likely have foreseen a dragon as the
instrument of their chastisement. Nor would any magical paralysis have
influenced Beowulf s determination not to flee a single footstep from
the barrows guardian (Nelle ic beorges weard//oferfleon fotes trem,
2524b5a). In just this way the effects of a curse do not comfortably
explain the complication of Beowulf s broken sword. 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. Beowulf s
death may not result from the curse at all, but from his duel with the
dragon. In other words, God intervenes to lift the curse.
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. Beowulf
may have assessed his chances against the dragon, but he could never
have contemplated such a malevolent spell. The curse therefore tempers
the accusation of oferhygd by ascribing Beowulf s death to a powerful

160

Doig 4, 6.

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

297

enchantment that would, to a Christian audience, betray idolatry. Yet

the poet debates whether God could have lifted this curse. In a final
passage describing it, he remarks that no man could reach (hrinan)
the dragons gold unless the true king of victories allowed his agent
to reveal [openian] the hoard:
. . . t am hringsele
hrinan ne moste
gumena nig,
nefne god sylfa,
sigora socyning
sealde am e he wolde
he is manna gehyld
hord openian,
efne swa hwylcum manna
swa him gemet uhte. (3053a7b)
. . . that no man could reach the ring-hall, unless god himself, true king of
victories (he is the protector of men), allowed him whom he wishedonly
such a man as seemed fit to himto reveal the hoard.

This passage has always been the subject of much controversy, mostly
because of semantic problems associated with OE openian to open.
OE openian literally means open, but its figurative sense is disclose
or even make available. OE hrinan means to reach or touch, and
the expression reach the ring-hall seems in some sense to vary hord
openian. Since Beowulf did not reach the ring-hall and did not
literally reveal the treasure, some critics have denied that he opened
the hoard. By this argument, Wiglaf, the dragon, or the thief have been
proposed as having reached and revealed the treasure-mound.161
The thief is a special case, since the curse apparently did not operate
on him: he used dyrnan crfte (a secret power, 2290a)probably
magical means or plain cunningto gain a single cup. Nor would
the dragon have opened the hoard simply by lying on it, I think. Yet
Wiglaf remains an obvious candidate as the one who both reached
and revealed the hoard, first as a retainer fighting side-by-side with
Beowulf, and second as the man who openly despoiled the barrow.
This solution has the advantage of context, for the poets remarks
about opening the hoard follow on the removal of the treasure that
Beowulf s retainers undertake.
Yet Beowulf, too, may have opened the hoard. The poet records
an explicit stipulation of the curse, that it afflicts anyone who would
161
In ignorance of Blisss argument, outlined above. I doubt that the thief could be
said to open the hoard. The dragon, by contrast, did not plunder the treasure at
all. Although said to hord reafian or rifle the hoard (2773b), Wiglaf carried the
riches off quite safely, unless one thinks that the curse afflicted all the Geats.

298

chapter four

plunder the place (se one wong strude, 3073b). The noun is deliberately elusive: not the hoard but its vicinity.162 The question of intent
seems uncomplicated: Beowulf intends to claim the offerings.163 By
this line of reasoning the curse (if operative) prevents Beowulf from
reaching the barrow, although he arguably reached its precincts
and revealed the hoard by killing the dragon. Since Wiglaf does not
suffer any consequences from plundering the hoard, we could assume
that, if the curse is operative, it falls on Beowulf. Beowulf s death
would therefore imply that the true king of victories allowed Beowulf
to open the hoard, but not to enjoy it. Taking this optimistic view of
Beowulf s fight, many readers will conclude that Beowulf s death was
sacrificial.164 Sensing that death from old age was inevitable, Beowulf
traded his life for a vast treasury meant for his people. Edward B.
Irving, Jr. proposes just this interpretation of the spell, if the Christian
God had not intervened to cancel its operation, we have no reason to
assume it would not have continued to be efficacious.165 He considers
Beowulf s actions the God-assisted defeat of a heathen power, and
alleges that ending the curse would then be a beneficial side-effect of
Beowulf s victory, like the cleansing of the polluted hall and mere in
Denmark.166 If this were true, 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.167
Although I find no justification for Irvings more speculative assumptions (victory?), one has to conclude that, in lifting the curse, God
would allow the hoard to be plundered. That fact seems indisputable.
In some sense, then, the curse is indeed dispelled.
Critics like Irving have always tried to settle ambiguities in the
wording of the curse by tackling the linguistic issues, largely because
the spells consequences for Beowulf seem impenetrable. I would say
they are deliberately impenetrable. For example, one could legitimately
162
Tanke makes the same case for OE wong: The worth of the hoard is transferred,
metonymically, to the barrow as a whole (374).
163
Pace Niles, Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition 220: His primary purpose is to kill
the dragon, not to win the hoard; Klaeber, Beowulf xxii: he undertakes the venture
primarily to save his people; Irving, Rereading Beowulf 127: Surely in no literal sense
does Beowulf move eagerly toward the gold. He is not raiding and looting some enemy
hoard but defending his own honor and his peoples lives.
164
As Irving, Rereading Beowulf 123.
165
Ibid.
166
Ibid.
167
Niles, Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition 222.

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 Blisss 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 Tankes
termsi.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 Gods 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 Tankes
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 Gods favor. Only if Beowulf were unequivocally righteous could we call his death unjustunless we admitted the
ostensible Christian mystery Tanke has foreseen in Gods 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 notthat Beowulf may be wrong in
facing the dragonthe 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 cursethat 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 Tankes reasoning would be that Wiglaf opens it
through Gods indulgence. The position is defensible, although I would
still be inclined to think that Beowulf s death stemmed from Gods

Tanke 3634 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 Christs 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 Gods 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 senseand in fact may make
the most sensebecause 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 Ngling. 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 3054b7b (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 Gods 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 Gods intervention in its consequences. The curse functions to prevent access to the hoard by bringing
about a potential looters 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 Crucifixionan 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 Gods 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 Ngling 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 swordas the
poet confirms in lines 2684b6aand no weapon could therefore
have aided him.170 Weapons inhibit the deployment of Beowulf s full
strength, as he confesses:
Nolde ic sweord beran,
wpen to wyrme,
gif ic wiste hu
wi am aglcean
elles meahte
gylpe wigripan . . . (2518b21a)
I would not want to bear a sworda weapon against the dragonif 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 swords inadequacy may have had nothing to do with Beowulf s
death. Beowulf may have mistakenly swung at the dragons 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
manuvring 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 Ngling, 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 dragons ire or the
shattering of a sword. The matter of Ngling 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 ones 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 strengthand 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
heros honor. A man who kills his enemy could not be called reckless,
since killing ones enemy defines heroic prowess. In my view, the double
deathof Beowulf and the dragonconfirms the poets 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 cowardsthough, 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 dragons
gold in the dead kings barrow in lieu of tribal treasures, from a purely
pragmatic standpoint they are spared having to make a great material
sacrifice at their kings 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 Niless analysis does blame stick to Beowulf for anything,
and one cringes especially to hear the clamorous disapproval of the
retainers failure to act by the heroic ideal.175 Yet I have made the
poets 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 dragons 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 2446.
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 kings vacillating conviction. Beowulf s
long meditation on Herebeald and Hcyn 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 Oswines 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
Oswines 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. Dea bi sella//eorla gehwylcum/onne edwitlif,
2890b1b).
177
Chase, The Heros 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 Oswines
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 Heros Pride 192 note 9). The translations are
Chases, except when I am citing passages that Chase does not quote. Transcriptions are
taken from Chases 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 Heros Pride 192 note 9;
Raine 8).
180
Ibid.; Raine 78.

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

307

you should meet the hazard of war only for my sake, after you made me
your king at a time when I was a poor exile. I prefer to return to exile
with a few of my followers, as I did once, or even by myself. In fact, I
would prefer to die than that so many fine men should be endangered for
my sake. 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.

Oswine decides to face exile and save his army rather than expose them
to irrational risk for his own glory, and his decision owes as much to
Christian mercy as to royal responsibility. It illustrates the anti-heroic,
the typically forgone choice of Anglo-Saxon warriors. Struck by the
darker implications of Beowulf s decision to fight the dragon alone,
Chase recalled Leyerles 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.181
Chase slightly exaggerated the relevance of this important parallel. I
have been arguing that Beowulf did not directly engage his comitatus
in an unwinnable battle. Instead, he enlisted their service in obligation
of (unlikely) revengethe ideal of men dying for their lord. In these
terms Beowulf s claim that the dragon venture was not monnes gemet
recalls Oswines later remarks that his own death was sacrificial:
O fidissimi milites, uestrae quidem probitati congratulor, quantum uos
fortes in bello et strenuissimos persaepe reperi, et nichil est in uobis tarditatis aut ignauiae quod possit aut debeat reprehendi. Sed uos hostis non
persequitur. Ego sum causa discriminis. Expedit ergo ut unus moriatur
pro populo, quam ut populus tantae multitudinis deleatur pro uno.182
O most faithful warriors, indeed I do salute your integrity as much as I so
often found in you, strong and ablest in battle, and there is no malingering or dishonor which you could or should be accused of. But the enemy
does not pursue you. I am the cause of his persecution. Therefore, its
fitting that one man alone die for many, than a nation of such numbers
be exterminated for a single man.

The Christian overtones could not be called subtle. Oswines strategy is

the choice of martyrdom, just as Beowulf s decision to fight the dragon
could be deemed sacrificial. The vita exemplifies how heroism could
be read as a kind of martyrdom, an interpretation so often attended

181
182

Chase, The Heros Pride 190.

Raine 8.

308

chapter four

by Beowulf critics. In these terms the Christ-like parallels of Beowulf s

dragon adventure recall the sacrifice of Christian martyrs.
One component of the Oswine narrative that Chase did not regard
was the ideal of men dying with their lord. Not only are Oswines
retainers said to be ready to die for him (pro suo rege paratus occumbere), but they actually demand the honor in a direct appeal to the
kings heroic conscience:
O rex insignis, regis nomine dignus, nobis indignis, petimus, esto benignus.
Numquid nos ignauos aut degeneres aliquando repperisti, an apparuimus
alicubi in conflictu bellico tardiores? Hostium profecto cuneos securi persepe penetrauimus. Liceat ergo nobis cum hostibus instantis certaminis
inire conflictum, et in ore gladii peruersae aetatis rimari uiscera ferro.
Si fortasse nobis in pugna sinistre cesserit, melius est nobis mori in bello
quam apud uulgus domini desertores in prouerbio cantitari.183
O remarkable king, O king worthy of the name of a king, we beg you to
be kind to us, though we are unworthy. Was there some time when we
proved cowards or disgraces to our families, or did you find us too slow
somewhere in going to battle? In fact, many a time we passed unscathed
through the enemy lines. So we want you to let us fight against the enemy
in this battle that is approaching, and to take the auspices of these evil
times with iron, on the point of the sword. If things should go badly for
us in the fight, it is better that we die in battle than become a byword
for deserters among our people.

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, on the point of the sword invokes the unknown fated
outcome of the battle and exactly parallels the uncertainty confronting Beowulf. Reading the viscera refers to predicting the future in
an animals entrails, and reading the future with iron could only mean
throwing oneself open to destiny, win or lose. As Chase acknowledged,
Oswines choice reflects the decision that Hrogar makes but which
Beowulf does not. In all respects the passage complicates Beowulf s
resolution and validates the fear expressed by his retainers, even though
Oswines men hope to die for their king.
Since Oswines men swear to die for him in the face of certain
defeat, or at least unlikely victory, the narrative seems to invoke the
prominent Germanic ethic of men dying with their lord in terms
similar to Beowulf. Only Maldon has ever been said to invoke the same
183

Chase, The Heros Pride 192 note 12; Raine 8.

the dragon fight and the appraisal of OFERHYGD

309

ideal, and Maldon is the other parallel to the reading of Beowulf I am

proposing. In fact, Maldon is a far superior analogue than the late
medieval Vita s. Oswini. For the most part, I have refrained from drawing parallels between the dragon fight in Beowulf and Maldon, but both
texts share the same narrative typology, as well as the analysis of a
supreme motivational complexity and of competing social obligations.
Differences there are, of course: ofermod, for example, unequivocally
afflicts Byrhtno, while Beowulf s own motivation is disputed. But both
works agree closely in general outline and attitude, as well as in specific
constituents: Byrhtnos advanced age, his faceless, demonic enemy, his
choice of fighting or ransoming, the cowardice of his retainers, the
nested complications of Byrhtnos decision, the insistence on the heros
virtue in the face of potential disgrace. Beowulf and Maldon could be said
to evaluate the contentious relationship between leadership and heroism in exactly the same terms. In making this claim, I do not assume
that the Maldon poet knew Beowulf, only that both relied on what must
have been a representative idiom. Byrhtno and Beowulf were judged
by universal standards of leadership contested in Old English heroic
verse. In the following pages I analyze Maldon just as I did the dragon
fight of Beowulf, as prefiguring the psychological liabilities attached to
power in the failure of excellence.

CHAPTER FIVE

KING BEOWULF AND EALDORMONN BYRHTNO

When writing about The Battle of Maldon, George Clark warned against
analogical error, or comparing Maldon by conscious analogy or
unconscious assimilation with other literary texts.1 Made to support
a heterodox reading of Maldon that contradicted a prevailing interpretation, this extravagant protest alienated the poem from its heroic
corollaries: The Song of Roland, for example, or Niebelungenlied. Few today
would seriously credit the analogical error that Clark sensed in Maldon
criticism, and many would in fact argue for (and have argued for) the
most congruent parallels. Here I propose an analogue in Beowulf s
dragon fight. For most readers the accusation of Beowulf s potential
oferhygd will recall Byrhtnos ofermod in Maldon, even though the words
are etymologically (but not morphologically) distinct. Not only are the
mental categories identical, I will argue, but the mises-en-scne of both
works correspond in analogical detail. Simply put, Maldon replicates the
dragon fight in Beowulf.
While critics past and present have compared Maldon and Beowulf,2
J. R. R. Tolkien alone made a convincing case for a generic affinity.
Unfortunately, his oft-cited study of ofermod which confirms Byrhtnos
rashness, is mostly disregarded in favor of positions that make the
ealdormonn sound less culpable.3 Some of these opposing positions are
implausibly flamboyant. The Christian allegorists like W. F. Bolton or,
most recently, Richard Hillman propose that Byrhtno represents a type
of Christ, either (for Bolton) a reflection of Christ in the wilderness or

Heroic Poem 56.

Sophus Bugge proposed parallels between Beowulf and Maldon in his Studien ber
das Beowulfepos, but these were rebutted by Phillpotts in Danish Affinities. On some
mostly trivial comparisons, see Bessinger 31. My own views concern genre rather
than lexicon.
3
Homecoming. One senses that the common view of Tolkiens idiosyncratic essay
is that espoused by Doane: For all their authority and charm, Tolkiens remarks on
Maldon amount to little more than this [that Byrhtnoth was playing it down, in order to
depict Germanic heroism with the more purity] (42 note 8), where Doane is quoting
Cecily Clark, Byrhtnoth and Roland 292).
1
2

312

chapter five

(for Hillman) Christ on the cross.4 Boltons remarks that [Byrhtno]

was called upon to show his strength by undertaking an exploit of foolish
and irrelevant hazard imparts the tangled logic of the Christological
argument.5 The poets criticism of Byrhtnos ofermod gets reinterpreted
as the human view of self-sacrifice. Furthermore, most studies like
these focus on the hero-as-saint, but none effectively addresses that
Byrhtnos sacrifice imperiled his own men. One immediately sees
in these propositions the corresponding portrayal of Beowulf as savior,
or (in triggering the heathen curse) Beowulf in forfeit of his life to end
the dragons wrath.
Regardless of multiple incongruities, Beowulf s dragon fight and
Byrhtnos defense can be profitably compared, the former exemplifying a conceivable noble failure, the latter a certain one. Considering
what few heroic poems survive from the whole Anglo-Saxon period,
two of them fragmentary (Waldere and Finnsburg), this conclusion
would seem remarkable. It seems more natural to assume that Maldon
exemplifies the heroic code tout pr, as so many have alleged. Edward
B. Irving, Jr. once summarized the attitude of his day: . . . this fragment of medieval journalism . . . has often been placed beside Tacituss
Germania as the classic statement, the pure essence, of the Germanic
heroic ideal.6 The pure essence could signify two conditions: 1. the
unyielding defense of a defenseless position, and implacable courage in
defiance of death; 2. making an appalling, if righteous or dutiful choice,
of two ignoble alternatives. 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, knowing that his death is ordained, or whether
he chooses one course rather than another of two that are hateful to
him, and makes something magnificent of it by a single-minded pursuit
of it.7 In both senses Irvings generous assessment is true. Byrhtno
decides to fight, not disengage, and the retainers to avenge, not flee.
But Phillpotts described heroes acting alone, not lords and retainers
on whose lives the welfare of a nation depended. By these terms, the
pure essence of Germanic heroism that Irving attributes to Maldon

4
Bolton, Wilderness; Hillman, Defeat and Victory. On others who have held
similar views, see the remarks in Bolton 481 and Hillmann 3856.
5
Bolton, Wilderness 483.
6
Heroic Style 458.
7
Phillpotts, Wyrd and Providence 6.

king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtno

313

becomes highly distorted, as Leyerle has pointed out. In fact, Maldon

illustrates the precise circumstances of men dying in vengeance for a
slain lord who doomed them through ofermod. To characterize the poem
as the pure essence of Germanic heroism one would have to ignore
the specific tension motivated by these circumstances, which are not of
the retainers choosing. Nevertheless, two conditions in my account of
Maldon will need defending: dying for ones slain lord, and doomed
through ofermod. In all of Maldon criticism one could not have picked
more divisive pronouncements, although they are contentious for quite
different reasons.
Men Willing to Die for Their Lord: A Context of Recklessness
While dying with ones slain lord is mentioned prominently in Tacituss
Germania,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. In fact, Rosemary Woolf has argued that the ideal
of men dying with their lord demonstrates the uniqueness of Maldon,
and following Bertha Phillpotts,9 concluded that the author had been
influenced by Bjarkaml or a late text similar in outlook, perhaps even
written in Old English.10 She states, 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.11 Woolf s statement camouflages the scarcity of vernacular heroic verse, which has often been
augmented by historical narrative.12 Historian Steven Fanning endorses

8
Fehrle and Hnnerkopf 29 (xiv): iam vero infame in omnem vitam ac probrosum
superstitem principi suo ex acie recessisse; see Woolf, Ideal 64. A useful discussion
of the Germania can be found in Toswell, who affirms Woolf s position and offers at
the same time the view that dying for ones lord is not just a natural urge to aid or
avenge a fallen comrade . . . it is a noble ideal (499). In fact, the martial context of
dying with ones lord is often the desperate moment, and Toswell shows that even
the Romans believed in the same institution.
9
Phillpotts, Danish Affinities.
10
Ideal 7881.
11
Ibid. 81.
12
Among the most convincing illustrations comes from Eddius Stephanuss Vita s.
Wilfridi, which records Bishop Wilfrids defense against a pagan militia in Sussex. Because
Wilfrid was a war-leader, 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, but
that they would either win death with honor, or life with victory (inito consilio et
pacto, ut nullus ab alio in fugam terga verteret, sed aut mortem cum laude aut vitam

314

chapter five

Woolfs view and opines it is difficult actually to find examples of the

behavior of the Tacitean comitatus.13 By Tacitean, Fanning means
the comitatus actually described in the Germania and unromanticized
in the scholarship, for which to have retreated from battle when the
king is dead (trans. superstitem principi suo, lit. a survivor to ones
leader) is offensive and disgraceful for ones entire life.14 Yet Tacitus
does not state that a retainer had to die for his lord, only that it was
a disgrace to survive him in retreat. Surviving the lords death in victory presumably does not bring disgrace. The ethic Tacitus imparts
is not suicide, therefore, but suicidal loyalty that might ultimately win
a battle or earn vengeance for a fallen king. Furthermore, Phillpotts
has already demonstrated that Germanic heroism demands the righteous hateful choice (almost universally vengeance, which is often a
dire sacrifice) even in the face of death. Running away in battle earns
shame for men who have entered the lords service because they chose
defeat. Phillpotts defines the ideal: The quality of a man is not known
until he is sore beset.15 Woolf, Fanning, and others have warped the
context of Tacituss 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. I intend to
dispute Woolfs findings in the spirit of Joseph Harriss 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 . . . habere mererentur, in Colgrave, Bishop Wilfrid 267). This conflict
against a vastly superior force invokes the ethic of men willing to die for their lord
in Tacituss terms: men who refuse to flee and intend to die with honor. Adopting
Woolf s contextual bias, Fanning suggests that these are not retainers determined
not to survive their leader in battle, 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). These sodales may be clerics, but they are also fighters
under Wilfrids direction. The praiseworthy death sought in the engagement cannot
be divorced from the heroic context (as martyrdom), and the real potential for flight
bespeaks the trope of men dying with their lord.
13
Fanning 24.
14
Ibid. 31. Translating Tacituss remarks iam vero infame in omnem vitam ac
probrosum superstitem principi suo ex acie recessisse, 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, 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).
15
Wyrd and Providence 5.

king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtno

315

tional package.16 The larger traditional package is admittedly quite

hard to discern in texts earlier than Maldon, 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.
Woolfs article has come to dominate perceptions of heroic behavior
in Maldon. For example, 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.17 Furthermore,
Roberta Frank reinforces the conclusion that the Maldon code is heterodox in Old English, and she gathers a range of parallels from sagas,
Skaldic verse, and chansons de geste to make the case that Scandinavian,
if not Skaldic, conventions influenced the Maldon poet. In fact, Frank
defends a twelfth-century date for Bjarkaml, 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.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 certainif not for the nagging absence of a comparable ethic in
Old English heroic verse.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,20 and this is my own position. Woolf s
ideal of men dying with their lord in Maldon is hard but not impossible
to establish for earlier native texts.
Woolfs treatment of men dying with their lord distorts the convention, since she actually identifies it as (I paraphrase) men who willingly die with fallen lords to avoid the shame of surviving them. She
then proceeds to challenge the evidence for this very specific position.
First, her notice of the ideal among Roman and Byzantine historianethnographers (Caesar, Sallust, Plutarch, Valerius Maximus, Servius,

Love and Death 967.

OBrien OKeeffe, Heroic Values 122.
18
Anachronism or Nouvelle Vague 106: Maldon . . . peers, not backward through
the mists to Germania, but just around the corner, to an eleventh-century Europe.
Frank does not mention the death of Stremwold at the battle of Watchet (s.a. 988 in
the Chronicle), as reported in the Life of St. Oswald (Lapidge, The Life of St Oswald
52, 55 note 11).
19
On the language, see Anachronism or Nouvelle Vague in the passage cited below;
North, Getting to Know the General 57; Robinson, Maldon Poets Artistry.
20
Anachronism or Nouvelle Vague 956.
16
17

316

chapter five

Ammianus Marcellinus, Agathias) presumes that all of them, excepting

Caesar, could have derived their knowledge of men dying with their
lord from Sallusts description of barbarian Celts in Hispania. For
this reason, and because Tacitus depicted a primitive Utopia, Woolf
proposed it as quite possible that Tacitus borrowed this heroic ideal
from Caesar and Sallust.21 In other words, even the convention we
observe in Maldon might not be authentically Germanic. A second objection Woolf raises against the verisimilitude of the Tacitean ideal issues
from the level of proof she demands for it. The ideal cannot simply
be asserted as mere fanatical loyalty or desperation; a freely chosen
death has to be imputed to the avoidance of a shameful survival. For
example, Caesar recounted how Adiatunnus, Aquitanian war-leader
of the Soldurii, recklessly stormed a Roman siege, and after Adiatunnus died, how his men fought to the death: neque adhuc hominum
memoria repertus est quisquam, qui eo interfecto, cuius se amicitiae
devovisset, mori recusaret. Woolf rejects this vignette as a prototype of
the Tacitean ethic by calling it a less spectacular and more practical
[act] of loyalty: . . . the custom, though admired as brave, was primarily
seen as part of the fanatical and alien conduct of the barbarians and
it is given a sacrificial colouring, the followers refusal to outlive their
lord being in part or in whole an act of self-immolation.22 A specious
claim for self-immolation has supplanted men dying with their lord,
and the willingness to face death (mori recusaret) has bled into the
embrace of death.
Woolf uses the same strategy towards another plausible example of
the ideal from Agathias sixth-century continuation of Procopius Historia
Gothorum. Fulcaris, war-leader of the Germanic Eruli, is characterized
by foolish impetuosity, yet his men willingly () sacrifice
themselves after he has been slain.23 Woolf remarks, 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; alternatively, however, it may show
the application to a particular event of Caesars account of the deaths
of the Soldurii, some of whom were, like their leader, violently killed,

21
22
23

Ideal 64.
Ibid.
Ibid. 656.

king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtno

317

whilst others killed themselves.24 While this sixth-century account

looks exactly like Maldon in outline, Woolf disregards that fighting
bravely and welcoming death amount to the same thing in the face
of desperation. Furthermore, Caesar does not describe suicide among
the Soldurii but heroic and therefore ostensibly sacrificial action. Woolf
demands a contrived standard from the sources, that men die suicidally with their fallen lord by choice and not circumstance, and only to
escape the shame of survival, and not furthermore as the glamorization
of fanatical barbarians.
No text is safe from this skepticism. In expression of the ideal of men
dying with their lord in the Heliand, Woolf remarks, Thomas speaks
of the good name that the apostles will gain if they accompany Christ
to Jerusalem:
thuoloian mid sson thiodne:
that he mid is frhon samad
die mid im thar an duome.
folgon im te thero ferdi:
uuihtes uuirig,
dian mid son drohtine.
guod uuord for gumon.

ac uuita im uuonian mid,

that ist thegnes cust,
fasto gistande,
Duan s alla s,
ni ltan se fera uui thiu
neba uui an them uuerode mid im,
Than lbot s thoh duom after,

Let us stay with him and suffer with our lord. That is the retainers obligation, that he together with his lord stand fast and die with him there in
glory. Let us do as much, follow him on the road. Let us value our lives
as worthy of nothing unless we travel with him and die with our lord.
Then our glory will live afterwards, our reputation among men.

Woolf implies that the motivation for dying with Christ is mere good
name, but suicidal loyalty entails collateral suffering, avoidance of
which brings shame and acceptance of which confers the glory of
reputation. Wiglaf expresses the notion when the retainers fail to join
Beowulf in the dragon fight. In Heliand, however, the motivation for
loyalty lies strictly in shame, possibly because the Crucifixion would
preempt vengeance. One has to realize that Christs apostles are not
a warband in any strict sense.
Woolfs 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. For Woolf the
24

Ibid. 66.

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.25 Elaborating on Woolfs conclusion, Steven Fanning makes
three claims about Cynewulf and Cyneheard: 1. While the first group
of Cynewulfs retainers are reported to have fought to the death, their
alternative was to switch their loyalties to the slayer of their lord, not
the avoidance of the shame attached to surviving ones lord on the field
of battle; 2. Cynewulfs 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; 3. 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.26 In
the first instance (Woolfs exact case), a distinction between dying with
ones lord and serving the killer of ones lord simply cannot be drawn,
even if the passage suggests that Cynewulf s men would be made to
follow Cyneheard.27 Against Fannings second charge, retainers owed
their lives to the king regardless of his actions, foolish or not. The very
fact that Cynewulf was on wifcye made his retainers resolve all the
more ennobling. The surprise, the indefensible quarters, and Cynewulfs
impulsive lunge against Cyneheard reveal Cynewulf s caliber. His men
have much to emulate. Finally, nothing in the literature suggests that
ones men have to be fighting side by side with their lord in order to
avenge him, or to be in a life or death situation. An abiding shame
would doubtless attach itself to Cynewulf s men if they had accepted
Cyneheards payoff. These arguments strike me as desperate attempts
to erase Woolfs ethic of men dying with their lord from the episode,
but the critics are not treating the Chronicle text impartially. In fact, the
retainers behavior in Cynewulf and Cyneheard could be motivated
by the ideal of men dying with their lord.
A problem with Woolfs formulation of the Maldon ideal emerges in
the theory of effective vengeance, drafted in reaction to the Finnsburh
digression in Beowulf and to the alleged implausibility of comitatus social
organization and warfare. Woolf reasons that men without obligations
of family or estates comprised the comitatus. These retainers could

Ibid. 70.
Fanning 22.
27
This claim is only substantiated by the symmetry of the two offers. Cyneheard
knows that killing these men would antagonize their kinsmen, who will inevitably turn
up in support of the dead Cynewulf.
25
26

king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtno

319

realistically sacrifice themselves, but men with family and lands could
notand should not. Their withdrawal from battle would allow
them the chance to avenge their slain prince later. Therefore, dying
with ones lord not only forecloses effective vengeance but also creates
social anarchy and military collapse as ones leaders are pointlessly
slaughtered. This position does not hold for Old English literature, and
may not be realistic. Sometimes men who withdraw from battle are
hunted down and massacred, their nation plundered. Ongeneows
action against the remnants of Hcyns army at Ravenswood makes
the point in Beowulf. Just because men cut and run does not mean
they escape. Furthermore, the possibility that men in the comitatus
have no spouses or lands is contradicted linguistically, for the geogu
(youth) are theoretically the sons of the dugu (the doughty), and
even Beowulfs men own lands and towns. Woolf thinks that these facts
in Beowulf are anachronistic, and that the conclusion of Beowulf does not
describe a comitatus system. Having defined the comitatus, she thinks
that Beowulf, when king, does not have a comitatus because he
draws his men in the dragon fight from the here, whose constituents
own lands.28 In fact, Beowulf conscripts fighters from the entire force
because he identifies those most interested in glory, and some members
of the dragon expedition probably came from his comitatus, identified
in later lines: corre (3121a), heorgeneatas (3179b).29 Instead of saying
that Beowulf has no comitatus because his men own lands, we should
contend that Beowulfs retinue could own lands. For this reason it is
no impediment to assume that the ideal of men dying with their lord
would be socially anachronistic in Maldon.
Woolf s concept of effective vengeance in military expeditions
cannot invalidate the shame imputed to retreat or surrender. As I have
already argued in my reading of the Finnsburh digression, Hengest does
not choose effective vengeance. Finn would have to be a fool not to
foresee the reprisal that Woolf thinks is planned for him. Joining Finn
shames the Danes, not only (or exclusively) because they are following
their lords killer but also because they survived a battle in which he
fell. In all events, their motivation is revenge for Hnf and redemption of the moral taint earned by serving Finn instead of killing him.
Ideal 68. On a theorized system of food-renders, see Evans, Lords of Battle
1236.
29
While OE corer can designate the comitatus, it may simply mean host, too; see
Stanley, Old English Corer, Coror.
28

320

chapter five

Shame indeed! In justification of effective vengeance Woolf also recalls

Beowulfs deeds in requital for Hygelac in Frisia. She claims that no
shame followed Beowulf for leaving Hygelac dead. Killing Dghrefn
and carrying back thirty mailcoats was effective vengeance and not
the suicidal loyalty of men dying with their lord. 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, but his revenge succeeded: he crushed
Dghrefn and killed thirty other men, the figure used in Beowulf for
a great number. I have already argued that Beowulf indirectly asks
his own men to do as much for him when he recounts this story of
vengeance.
These two examples, Finnsburh and Hygelacs Frisian raid, exemplify
the artificiality of Woolfs standard, for Tacitus makes the point that
men need not die with their lord but that it is a perpetual disgrace to
survive ones lord through retreat. The generous terms Hengest negotiates and Beowulf s revenge and plunder represent the conditions
under which one could be said to prevail when ones lord lies dead. Of
course, in Finnsburh, the Danes still find it intolerable to serve Finn,
and their ambush must mean that even Finns bounty does not satisfy
the obligation for vengeance.
Woolf applies the logic of effective vengeance to Maldon, 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.31
Why, then, does Byrhtno drive the horses off ? Not to prevent retreat,
according to Woolf! Woolf seems to think that no shame should realistically dog a man who survived his lord through flight, even when the
retainers in Beowulf face exile and death because of their desertion.
In fact, bravery in the face of perileven certain death, as Woolf
has itis the expected action. The dragon fight in Beowulf makes sense
only in light of this idealmen willing to die in vengeance for their
fallen lord rather than facing shame through retreat.
The motivation underlying the ideal of men dying with their lord
is one that Woolf considers and rejects. Tacitus supplied his own bland

30
31

Ideal 70.
Ibid. 71 note 1.

king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtno

321

interpretation of the ethic, 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.32 Vengeance and the glory of securing it,
however, seem far more likely motivations. In his Historia Langobardorum Paulus Diaconus describes the vengeance of a dwarf for the death
of Godebertuseven though the dwarf knows he will be killed, and
does lose his life.33 Since vengeance stands out as a dwarf s imperative,
Godebertuss retainers would conceivably be more driven. Godebertus,
too, is admired for the loyalty he inspired in his followers. Yet Woolf
conjectures that a retainers vengeance should be directed specifically
at his lords killer, even in battle, but where no single killer is identified,
vengeance is displaced and the ideal putatively unmotivated. How can
it be doubted, however, that retainers would want to take vengeance
for a fallen lord, and that vengeance in battle would mean achieving
some measurable victory, even if success constituted multiple killings in
exchange for ones own life? Beowulf kills Dghrefn and thirty other
men in retaliation for Hygelacs death, and the Danes take vengeance
for Hnf on Finn and his Frisians.
Lines 2078 in Maldon imply that the retainers fight entirely for
revenge: hi woldon a ealle/oer twega,//lif forltan/oe leofne
gewrecan (they all wanted one of two things, to give up their lives
or avenge the dear man, i.e. avenge Byrhtno or die trying). Soon
afterwards Leofsunu speaks of avenging his lord (ac wille . . . //wrecan
on gewinne/minne winedrihten, 247b8b), and Dunnere commands
the men to avenge Byrhtno: bd t beorna gehwylc/Byrhtno
wrce (257ab). Eadweard the Tall is said to have honorably avenged
his treasure-giver on the seamen: ot he his sincgyfan/on am
smannum//wurlice wrec (278a9a). Because no Viking leader has
been identified, it would be impossible for the troops to focus their
assault. Instead, they try to kill as many invaders as possible. Nevertheless, in determining that vengeance should be directed against the lords
killer and not an army, Woolf believes that the poet has blurred the
historically distinct claims of vengeance and dying with ones lord.34
But history has never yielded any distinct claims of motivation for
dying with ones lord. Woolf seems to have substituted her own notion
Woolf, Ideal 75: . . . illum defendere, tueri, sua quoque fortia facta gloriae eius
adsignare praecipuum sacramentum est.
33
Waitz 176: multis eum ictuum vulneribus occiderunt.
34
Ideal 76.
32

322

chapter five

that shame motivates suicide, although shame in failing loyally to

avenge a fallen lord sounds like a plausible, and historical, motivation
of the convention. Instead of concluding that suicidal loyalty could be
enacted in vengeance, Woolf rejects the motivation for the ideal stated
in Maldon.
Woolf is convinced that the Battle of Maldon could not have been
won once the Vikings crossed the Pante, but she fails to consider that
Godrics flight sabotaged the enterprise. In other words, the retainers
might have won had they all shown the right kind of suicidal loyalty.
This is exactly the ethic that Bertha Phillpotts identified in her article
on Wyrd and Providence. Furthermore, it describes exactly what happens in Beowulf, when Wiglaf helps Beowulf fight the dragon. Although
Wiglaf expects to die alongside Beowulf, he survives what he deemed
a hopeless situation. Retainers who are willing to die for their lord
can avenge their lords death through victory or merely by random
killing.
Since retainers earn praise by being loyal to the king, consigning
ones foremost deeds to the kings glory could plausibly entail suicidal
attempts at vengeance. Therefore, to capture the principle that Tacitus
reports, the formulation men dying with their lord ought to be rephrased as men willing to die for their lord in vengeance. Even in
Beowulf, one expects the retainers to fight suicidally against the dragon
(loyalty unto death), although Wiglaf presumes that Beowulf will die.
In fact, Wiglaf anticipates that he himself will die, but the prospect does
not keep him from displaying the loyalty unto death that Tacitus
describes. Sometimes one dies and sometimes not. The contexts of such
battles rate no mention in the critical discussion, yet they strike me
as the most important features of the ideal. In Caesars De bello gallico
Adiatunnus attempts the desperate act of breaking the Roman siege,
and Agathias Historia Gothorum actually records how Fulcaris impetuously raced into battle at the front of his men. In Heliand, Jesus enters
Jerusalem expecting to be executed there. In Maldon Byrhtno commits
ofermod, and Beowulf fights his dragon. Elsewhere in Arnrr orarsons
drpa or panegyric on Haraldr harri, who died at Stamford Bridge,
Roberta Frank observed a close parallel to Byrhtnos ofermod:
The kings carefree uppganga landing (Maldon 87: upganga) is described
in stanza 12; his ofrausn rash magnificence . . . the approximate cause of
his fall and that of so many others, is mentioned in stanza 13; stanza 14
praises the kings courage and swordplay; his death in battle is reported
in the first half of stanza 15, while the second half concludes:

king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtno

323

heldr kuru meir ens milda

mildings, an gri vildi,
of folksnaran fylki
falla lismenn allir.
All the warriors of the generous ruler
chose rather to fall
around the battle-swift king
than to accept peace.
. . . The half stanza is very much in the idiom of Maldon (cf. gri, 35; lidmenn, 99, 164; ceosan, 113; even folc battle, 259), but this time with the
vikings as good losers.35

OIcel ofrausn can be translated over-boldness, presumption,36 and

while not obviously negative, it could be said to resemble OE ofermod.
Arnrrs drpa evokes the situation of a reckless king whose surviving
warband rejects terms that would save them from annihilation. The
ideal of men dying with their lord identifies the desperation of heroic
action in these settings, which do not emphasize battles gone wrong or
the accidental deaths of luckless kings. All of them immortalize reckless
belligerence ennobled by loyal defense. Perhaps because the kings own
deeds were reckless, the retainers impulse is to achieve the highest duty
in risking his own life for vengeance or victory.
Although rationalized as revenge, 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. A retainers pledge
of loyalty reified in gift exchange finds its supreme dignity in such
moments of discipline, even though the war-leader may have recklessly
endangered himself and his men, or even the nation. So my argument
stands with Beowulf, that in the most daring action which could lead
to death, he expects his men to intervene and uphold the ethic of men
willing to die with their lord in attempted vengeance. The dragon
fight in Beowulf cannot be understood without invoking this particular
value. Yet Beowulf and Maldon expose the central conflict of the ideal,
as it was observed in Henry V:
BATES: . . . we know enough if we know we are the Kings subjects. If
his cause be wrong, our obedience to the King wipes the crime of it out
of us.

35
36

Anachronism or Nouvelle Vague? 102.

Cleasby and Vigfusson s.v.

324

chapter five
WILLIAMS: But if the cause be not good, the King himself hath a heavy
reckoning to make . . . Now if these men do not die well it will be a black
matter for the King, that led them to it, who to disobey were against all
proportion of subjection.37

Are the monarchs soldiers responsible for their own souls, or does
that responsibility lie with the monarch? The Shakespearean parallel, I
might add, describes the same conflict between ambition and restraint
explored in Beowulf. In fact, both texts share more than the ideal of
men dying with their lord, as I shall consider in subsequent pages. My
hypothesis portends that Maldon and Beowulf s dragon fight have the
same literary typology, that they express virtually identical perspectives
on the values of heroism and responsible leadership.
Beowulfs Doppelgnger
While Beowulf is a king, Byrhtno is the regional ealdormonn, not a
king per se but a surrogate responsible for administering and defending
a huge territory.38 As much as Byrhtno is King elreds legate, we
should think of him neither as a bureaucrat nor officer, for the poet
depicts him in heroic terms as the war-leader (eorl) of a comitatus.39
Like Beowulf, Byrhtno is quite old by the time of the battle, and the
poet describes him as a har hilderinc (hoary battle-warrior, 169a), a
detail confirmed in at least one Latin source.40 Like Beowulf, Byrhtno
goes to face a spectacular foe at the end of his life. He has led a party
to meet the Vikings, as pernicious an enemy as could be imagined in
a pseudo-historical poem like Maldon. It has been pointed out on multiple occasions that, with the exception of the haughty messenger, the
Vikings resemble a faceless pagan mob,41 although the Viking leaders
(probably Norwegians) can be named from extant documents.42 Not
simply a local threat, this confederation of pirates intended to ravage the

King Henry V, ed. Craik 4.1.1315; 1436.

Hart.
39
On the equivalence of OE eorl, OIcel jarl and OE ealdormonn see McKinnell, On
the Date. Much has been written on this, especially in McKinnell and Cecily Clark,
On Dating The Battle of Maldon.
40
Lapidge, Life of St Oswald 55.
41
Britton 857; Swanton, Literary Caveat 443; Clark, Heroic Poem 58.
42
North, Getting to Know the General 2, but an objection to one identification
has been made in E. V. Gordon 301.
37
38

king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtno

325

entire coast, if the Chronicle is any guide to the poems mise-en-scne. It

reportsnot without confusionthat the Maldon Vikings had already
sacked Folkestone, Sandwich, and Ipswich.43
The Vikings primary aim is extortion, predicated on the English
avoiding violence, but what the invaders cannot get by threat, they will
gain in warfare. Bradley D. Ryner has lately explored the threat of war
that the Vikings convey as an implicit formulation of exchange. He
makes the important point that onne we swa hearde/hilde dlon
(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.44 Ryner states,
The messengers proposition that both sides should hilde dlon contrasts
to his earlier proposition that the English should sendan . . . beagas wi
gebeorge (send . . . gold rings in return for [peace]). In both models, the
English and Vikings join in an agreement. In the first model, they join in
peace. In the second, they join in war. In the former, the English must
give up tribute while the Vikings must give up nothing more than the
prospect of taking more treasure in battle. In the latter, 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.45

In other words, the Viking messenger does not offer to settle the matter of supremacy generously by inviting battle and letting the outcome
be decided. He says that the Vikings will attack if they do not get the
ransom they demand (dispensing battle), and his implication is clear.
By promising to inflict violence as the alternative to ransom, he expects
the English to quail. English defiance is not encouraged.
The messengers blunt intimidation yet has a coy dimension meant
to erode Byrhtnos support. Byrhtnos troops are traditionally divided
into two groups: trustworthy thanes (conceived as a comitatus in
literary terms) and the local levies or fyrd. As frequently observed, the
Viking messenger tries to corrupt these competing loyalties.46 At first
using the second person singular, he says that Byrhtno (you) should
send tribute to the Vikings (30b1a). Thereafter he switches into the
plural: it is better for youthe assembled fyrd and retainersto avoid
43
Keynes 88; confusion in the Chronicle dating is discussed by Bately, The AngloSaxon Chronicle.
44
Exchanging Battle 267.
45
Ibid. 2678.
46
On this exchange see Clark, Heroic Poem 645 and Robinson, God, Death
and Loyalty 116.

326

chapter five

war (31b3b). He remarks, that we need not destroy ourselves (ne

urfe we us spillan, 34a) if you (again the plural) speda to am
(34b) or succeed in this. At this moment, the envoy reverts to the
second-person singular and addresses Byrhtno:
Gyf u at gerdest,
t u ine leoda

e her ricost eart,

lysan wille . . . (36a7b)

If you who are the most powerful [or: richest] here should determine
that you will deliver your people . . .

As defined by this herald, Byrhtnos option to render the tribute is

tied directly to the salvation of his people, his troops, and the entire
nation. Byrhtno has been rhetorically isolated from the fighters for
which he is responsible, and Fred C. Robinson interprets the gambit
as a test of loyalty which the English fulfill.47
The test of loyalty that Robinson conjectures should be situated in
the context of Byrhtnos ofermod as a reflection of Beowulf s alleged
oferhygd. The Vikings public alienation of the leaders goals from those
of his men resembles the suspicions surrounding Beowulfs dragon-fight,
which Beowulfs retinue resists. The lord and his retinue are at odds, in
fact or in theory. In Maldon the English may not be able to defeat the
invader; they seem unprepared. At the opening of the poem, Byrhtno
trims his men, telling them how to stand and hold their ground,
and exhorting them to brandish their shields properly (17a21b). The
verb thte (18b) almost certainly means instructed or advised,
not simply told. From this evidence some critics have deduced that
Byrhtno attends his men and offers last-minute advice. Yet the focus
on instructing the men how they should stand and hold their ground
(19ab) implies their sloppy deportment. This fyrd is no troop of seasoned veterans.48
The retainers seem equally unqualified. When Byrhtno orders
them to drive their mounts away (2a3a), he obviously expects panic.
Furthermore, Offas kinsman has brought a hawk, which he lets fly to
the woods after learning that the earl would not suffer shame (t
se eorl nolde/yrho geolian, 6ab). The gesture shows either resolution or insouciance, since the hawk is not recoverable, but one wonders
why it was brought in the first place and why it had not been released

47
48

Robinson, God, Death and Loyalty 11617.

See Samouce; Hill, Heroic Ethic 292.

king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtno

327

sooner.49 The poets comment that Byrhtno would not suffer yrho
probably means that he does not intend to earn shame by negotiating
or retreating.50 Although they do not show it, Byrhtnos men could
be tempted to think that the ricost man among themtheir ealdormonncould save their lives in a potentially desperate situation. And
why not? Vast Danegeld would be paid just after the Maldon defeat, on
the advice of archbishop Sigeric.51 At this point, then, 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. The audience is
invited to reflect on Byrhtnos decision to engage the Vikings before he
is afflicted by ofermod, and to assess his motivation as potentially selfish
heroic glory versus security of the folc.
Yet my expression security of the folc has multiple complications
for Byrhtnos decision. The demanded ransom may not offer security
at all, or may grant it for a time. The Vikings would possibly take the
silver and disappear to another part of the mainland, or go home and
return to bleed Essex again in a few years, or (perhaps more likely)
stay and fight anyhow. Whether they intend any of these alternatives
is not clear, but they do pose a threat in situ. For Byrhtno or for
another Anglo-Saxon leader the threat of attack still remains, certain
and immediate, possible but near, or probable but distant. Buying
off an attack would simply amount to a postponement, as much as it
safeguards Byrhtnos levy. It would be like allowing the dragon to
continue its flights of terror. One might want to bear the danger when
the repercussions of facing it and losing are just as bad, or worse.
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 judgmentnot, I should add,
as a vindication of the heroic code. Of course, the Vikings do not
invade Essex because a treasure of theirs has been stolen, but the general circumstances of their threat resemble the dragons. If the Geats
allowed the dragon to live, a less capable king than Beowulf would
have to confront its hostility. Beowulf can intervene now, or someone

49
In contrast to the arguments of Clark (Heroic Poem 62) and Blake (Genesis
1278), Valentine reasons that releasing the hawk was an unbidden act of resolution
(Offas The Battle of Maldon 7).
50
For a different interpretation of yrho geolian, see North, Getting to Know
the General 6.
51
Keynes 91.

328

chapter five

else can intervene later. The dtente would be shameful and perilous.
The same may be said of Byrhtno: the old ealdormonn can fight now,
or perhaps another royal legate could try and repulse the Vikings, in
Essex or elsewhere. His dtente with the Vikings would be shameful
and perilous, too.
Byrhtnos Fatal Mistake and its Consequences
The ransom demand is rejected, and the fight is engaged. However,
attacking the Vikings is subject to considerable risks, as much or more
for Byrhtnos men as for him. It seems clear, however, that the Viking
threat cannot be crushed without taking these risks.52 The question
emerges whether Byrhtno sacrificed victory out of reckless pride, the
implication of the famous ofermod crux. The battle turns when Byrhtno
for his ofermode (89b) lets the Vikings control too much land (90ab)
on his side of the causeway. In an important article from 1976, Helmut
Gneuss summarized six proposed interpretations of ofermod: 1. pride;
2. overconfidence; 3a. recklessness; 3b. over-courage; 4. great
courage; 5. magnanimity.53 The first four of these are negative, the
last two positive. Gneuss reasoned that ofermod could be great
mod but not excessive mod, and that the term essentially described
pride. One has no reason to doubt the philology behind Gneusss
conclusion, but an examination of three instances of the noun ofermod
might reveal something more specific about the nature of pride
implicit in the term. In Genesis B Lucifer the engel ofermodes or
angel of pride (272a) imagines that through his own might he can
challenge Gods supremacy. He finds it doubtful that he would ever
be Gods underling (geongra): cw him tweo uhte//t he gode
wolde/geongra weoran (276b7b). While the motivation sounds
much like pride or arrogance, the result is clearly overconfidence or
recklessness in challenging Gods supreme power.54 This sounds much

52
On Byrhtnos defensive strategy, see Samouce. Samouce argues an historical position and concludes that Byrhtno gave up a cheap victory by not attacking at the
time of crossing (134). Samouce considers this eventuality to be a matter of honor.
53
Byrhtnos ofermod Once Again 150.
54
George Clark reached this conclusion as well in Hero of Maldon 2801, but he
modifies this finding to support Byrhtnos humility! Elsewhere he alleges, Lucifers
ofermod, his unqualified self-confidence . . . runs blindly into destruction, and does not

king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtno

329

like a description of the arrogant man in the late Old English poem
Instructions for Christians:55
Ac se e sylfne
for his ofermode,

to swie ahef
he bi earm for Gode. (130)

He who exalts himself too greatly out of ofermod will be wretched before
God.

Here OE ofermod seems to engender vanity. Finally, the gloss cotvrnvs]

ofermod from an eleventh-century manuscript presents a strange case.
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, and this would also explain the use of ofermod in our OE
glossary.56 Yet Isidore explains that the coturnusa special bootwas
worn by tragedians, the figures in classical drama who fall from high
status to low, either through overconfidence or the experience of an
unexpected reversal.57
The semantic evidence of OE ofermod and related vocables suggests to me that Byrhtno acted on account of arrogance, which
promotes over-confidence, the delusional recklessness of Lucifer, the
engel ofermodes in Genesis B, or the blind error of a tragic king. Hence,
while Gneuss claims that there is no proof that ofermod means recklessness,58 having the trait of ofermod yields recklessness as the consequence
of arrogance or false superiority.59 In this respect, OE ofermod clearly
resembles oferhygd as defined in Vainglory, where an inferior man exalts
himself over his betters. It evokes the context of Daniel, too. Blinded
by oferhygd, neither Nebuchadnezzar nor Belshazzar could foresee any
casual punishment for their impiety. I do not intend to be literal in
my view of Byrhtnos ofermod, since it ought to represent a trait
similar to the one Hrogar describes in his sermon, a characteristic

truly parallel Byrhtnoths ofermod. Defeat and death do not catch Byrhtnoth unprepared
and overconfidently counting on victory . . . (Heroic Poem 70).
55
Rosier, Instructions for Christians.
56
Byrhtnos ofermod Once Again 155.
57
Lindsay 19.34.5.
58
Byrhtnos ofermod Once Again 157.
59
By this reasoning, every attestation of ofermod and oferhygd in the Old English
glossed psalters could be translated unrighteous or reckless overconfidence as much as
pride, which strikes me only as the most convenient euphemism in Modern English
for a complex heroic fault; see Schabram, table following 140.

330

chapter five

failing of benighted kings.60 In fact, Byrhtnos success in defending

the causeway (the Vikings are slaughtered in numbers) explains why
he felt confident enough to engage the Vikings hand to hand. His
determination not to suffer yrho could quite possibly represent a
precondition for ofermod. This overconfidence corresponds to pride
in Gneusss analysis, and to oferhygd in Beowulf. Even the Liber Eliensis
(1169 1174) seems to describe Byrhtnos ofermod as recklessness in the
Beowulfian sense of not expecting defeat: in audaciam concitatus . . . spe
victoriae et nimia ductus animositate.61 Byrhtno was led to audacia
by his unfounded expectation of victory and excessive (nimia) zeal.
Byrhtnos expectation of victory seems unfounded because of the
few men he commanded, according to the Ely chronicler: cum paucis
bellatoribus . . . iter ad bellum suscepit.62 One has trouble entertaining
much, if any, approval in this account.
What act did Byrhtno commit out of arrogance? The poet does
not hedge: Byrhtno lets the Vikings have too much land.63 Byrhtno wrongly thought he could defeat the Vikings en masse. A decision
based on ofermod such as this would not entail calculated risk, as some
critics have proposed. Byrhtnoth knows, states George Clark, that
his opportunity to defeat the enemy depends on his willingness to risk
defeat in a pitched battle on his side of the ford.64 On the contrary,
Byrhtnos ofermod implies that, supremely confident of winning, he
would foresee neither his own death nor his armys defeat. Has Byrhtno forgotten how ill-prepared his men seemed when he trimmed
them, or does he think that they will meet the threat in a moment of
desperation? Surprisingly, the position that Byrhtno betrays arrogance and therefore reckless overconfidence has still been subjected to

60
T. A. Shippey has concluded that a clever alternation of indicative and subjunctive
forms seems . . . to destroy the argument that sinful immoderation is to be recognised
in Byrhtnoth in the Viking parley (Boar and Badger 230). The decisiveness that
Shippey attributes to Byrhtnos wit may also be a symptom of over-confidence.
61
Kennedy 64; but see also North, Getting to Know the General 78: Nimia
animositas is probably a translation of ofermod, and yet in the Liber Eliensis it seems to
have no negative sense and conforms with the hyperbole surrounding. That is to say,
later generations may have perceived ofermod in Maldon 89 not as blame, but as a virtue
in keeping with heroic style. The Liber Eliensis is edited by E. Blake.
62
Kennedy 64.
63
In fact, many critics take the view that granting landes to fela means that
Byrhtno mistakenly let the Vikings cross the brycg; see Swanton, Literary Caveat
445.
64
Heroic Poem 68.

king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtno

331

some equivocation. Calling ofermod pride, the editors of one textbook

downplay it as national pride and manly defiance.65 Even Gneuss
thinks it improper that the accusation of ofermod was unavoidable because
Byrhtno did not have enough troops to carry out his (desperate) plan.
He then appeals to an historically-based argument on the numbers of
troops in each force.66 Another reading accepts Byrhtnos ofermod as
damning but makes it a literary trope that Byrhtno foolishly enacts as
a consequence of his aristocratic social milieu.67 Yet another suggests
that Byrhtno wanted to draw the Norsemen away from Northey,
which was probably inhabited and vulnerable.68 George Clark suggests
that the poet [devised] a context forcing ofermod into an honorific
sense,69 similar to the proposition by Katherine OBrien OKeeffe that
the realm of the heroic lies apart from the mundane, and the poem
locates the nobility of the English precisely in their excess.70 Among
the cleverest prevarications is by N. F. Blake, who compares Byrhtno
to St. Edmund, in lfrics version of the saints vita.71 For Blake, ofermod establishes Edmunds defiance: Edmund acts cynelice as Byrhtnoth
does mid ofermode.72 Blakes position evokes the context of self-sacrifice
imagined for Beowulf if God does not lift the heathen curse.
In Maldon ofermod causes Byrhtno to misjudge his own circumstances
in a specific way: he acted heroically rather than strategically, a point
implicitly raised in the preceding quotation by OBrien OKeeffe, that
the realm of the heroic lies apart from the mundane. After inviting
the Vikings over the causeway, Byrhtno utters a final remark: God
Mitchell and Robinson, Guide to Old English 245.
Byrhtnos ofermod Once Again 161: If this [i.e. 550 men], or perhaps a rather
smaller figure, is representative of the strength of the Anglo-Saxon fighting force at
Maldon, then it seems quite possible that Byrhtnos men were in a very difficult, if not
desperate position as soon as the Vikings had been allowed to cross the brycg, and our
poets ofermod becomes understandable, even though the ealdorman may have seriously
hoped to be able to defeat the Vikings and thus to prevent them from further attacks.
Ofermod, I think, is neither rational nor conscious. In light of Gneusss remarks, it is
worth recording OBrien OKeeffes view that there is no indication in the poem that
the English were outnumbered in the battle. Quite the contrary, Byrhtnoths concluding words to the Vikings, god ana wat//hwa re wlstowe/wealdan mote (94b5b:
God alone knows who will control the place of slaughter) suggests a perception that
both sides were even (Heroic Values 119).
67
Thomas D. Hill, Heroic Ethic.
68
Robinson, Maldon Poets Artistry 12930.
69
Hero of Maldon 277.
70
Heroic Values 123.
71
The Battle of Maldon.
72
Ibid. 340.
65
66

332

chapter five

alone knows who will control the battlefield (god ana wat//hwa re
wlstowe/wealdan mote, 94b5b). The expression in Maldon of god
ana wat . . . has been thought a mere formula for acknowledging an
uncertainty.73 Alternatively, Byrhtno pits his Christianity against
Viking heathenism when he appeals to Gods dispensation in battle.
In 1969 Morton W. Bloomfield suggested that Byrhtnos resignation
to Gods will could be seen in terms of medieval ordealspecifically
trial by combatas a tempting of God.74 Bloomfield makes a case
for Byrhtnos arrogant expectation that God would honor his Christianity but concludes that there is an ambiguity of mood.75 It might
be humble or arrogant to let God decide the outcome of a battle,
but in Maldon the creator seems to have sided with the pagans. One
suspects that god ana wat . . . conveys more than the mere wish for
Gods intercession.
Bloomfields theory suffers from a lack of evidence, a failing which
he conscientiously reports,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, but of armies against each other.77 Just like the social
condition of oferhygd explored in the Heremod digression in Beowulf,
Byrhtno is guilty of ofermod because he behaves like a warrior staking
his own life and the survival of his nation on personal glory. The utterance that god alone knows . . . sounds much like Beowulf s swa unc
wyrd geteo//metod manna gehws (just as fate ordains for us two
[Beowulf and the dragon], the Measurer of each man, 2526b7a); or
like the remarks Beowulf makes just before meeting Grendel:
. . . ond sian witig god
on swa hwere hond,
halig Dryhten
mro deme,
swa him gemet ince. (685b7b)

73
Robinson, God, Death and Loyalty 112. Approximately ten parallels to the
expression god ana wat suggest the mystery of fate or the secrecy of knowledge, and
at least four examples of meotud ana wat from Maxims I and Maxims II express this
sentiment gnomically. Maxims I 29 approaches the mood of Byrhtnos exclamation:
Meotud ana wat//hwr se cwealm cyme (The Measurer alone knows where death
will come, 29b30a). Elsewhere Maxims II affirms that only the Lord knows ones
destiny: Is seo forgesceaft//digol and dyrne;/drihten ana wat,//nergende fder
(Destiny is mysterious and secret; the Lord alone knows it, the redeeming father,
61b3a). On this formula, see Cavill, Maxims 536.
74
Trial by Combat 547.
75
Ibid. 558.
76
Ibid. 5589.
77
Ibid. 558.

king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtno

333

. . . and afterwards let wise God, the holy Lord, dispense glory on whichever side that seems fitting to him.

Or like the remarks Beowulf makes just before fighting Grendels mother:
dom gewyrce,

Ic me mid Hruntinge
oe mec dea nime. (1490b1b)

I will either achieve glory with Hrunting, or death will take me.

The Vita S. Oswini records the same perverse defiance of fate and
arrogant expectation of Gods sanction in the utter hopelessness of the
engagement with King Oswiu. When Oswines men demand to take
the auspices of these evil times with iron, on the point of the sword,
they insist on just this kind of futile encounter. Therefore, Byrhtnos
Germanic iudicium dei reflects the attitude of the glory-seeking warrior, for whom single combat reaps glory. The ealdormonns reckless
expectation that God will decide the English fate confirms Byrhtnos
corresponding indifference to his troops vulnerability. It also recalls
the passage discussed above in which Oswines men beg to take the
auspices of these evil times with iron, on the point of the sword.
Oswines comitatus, in other words, justifies the encounter in the face
of desperate odds by an appeal to Gods judgment.
J. R. R. Tolkien argued famously that Byrhtno risked his mens
lives unnecessarily because of pride, and I think this argument deserves
some further reflection.78 Tolkien treats Byrhtnos ofermod (translated
overmastering pride) as a self-conscious chivalric irresponsibility, in
which honour was in itself a motive.79 Calling Byrhtno too foolish to
be heroic, Tolkien later labeled ofermod a defect of character, yet his
comparison of Byrhtnos behavior to Beowulfs should have suggested
how chivalry coincides with heroic (over)confidence. Beowulf himself
was fastidious in fighting Grendel on Grendels own terms: without
arms or armor. Notwithstanding this trivial proviso, my own argument
follows Tolkiens, although Tolkien alleged that Beowulf jeopardized
his own subordinates only by losing his life. In fact, Tolkien found his
best corresponding example of reckless leadership in Hygelac:

78
Homecoming 1318. Other critics have followed at least this part of Tolkiens
claim, e.g. Thomas D. Hill, Heroic Ethic 293: Byrhtnoths gesture is a magnificent
one; and if it were not for the fact that more was at stake than Byrhtnoths own life
and reputation, it would have been an admirable one.
79
Homecoming 15.

334

chapter five
In Beowulf we have only a legend of excess in a chief. The case of Beorhtnoth is still more pointed even as a story; but it is also drawn from real life
by a contemporary author. Here we have Hygelac behaving like young
Beowulf: making a sporting fight on level terms; but at other peoples
expense. In his situation he was not a subordinate, but the authority to
be obeyed on the spot; and he was responsible for all the men under
him, not throw away their lives except with one object, the defense of
the realm from an implacable foe. He says himself that it is his purpose
to defend the realm of thelred, the people, and the land (523). It was
heroic for him and his men to fight, to annihilation if necessary, in the
attempt to destroy or hold off the invaders. It was wholly unfitting that
he should treat a desperate battle with this sole real object as a sporting
match, to the ruin of his purpose and duty.80

Tolkien acknowledged Byrhtnos responsibility to his men and established, I think, a significant purpose of Maldon, to record the decisive
valor of the men who stayed to fight: in their situation heroism was
superb.81 Just as Wiglaf stands with Beowulf in the face of certain
annihilation (as he sees it), Byrhtnos retainers will fall alongside their
lord. A leaders ofermod can beget nobility in his subalterns.
G. C. Brittonone of the few critics heeding Tolkienalso concluded that heroic glory does not suit war-leaders like Byrhtno, who
should be responsible for the troops under their command. He elaborated on Tolkiens comparison of Byrhtno to Beowulf:
Byrhtno has his own duty as a leader towards his men, as well as his
duty as a hero towards his own honour . . . As Professor Tolkien has
shown, a true dilemma faces a leader in a situation such as thissuch a
dilemma as faces Beowulf when the dragon is ravaging his land. Is he to
act according to his heroic nature and tackle the dragon, thus leaving his
people leaderless? Or is he to act as a leader, and subordinate his own
inclinations and opportunity for glory to his duty as a leader?82

Duty as a leader, one imagines, should in part consist of an assessment of an armys capabilities. Yet N. F. Blake excuses Byrhtno as
typically heroic:
We must remember that heroes are not ordinary men. Judged by the
standards of rational human behaviour, their gestures are stupid and they
provoke comments of apparent criticism . . . Rational human behaviour

Ibid.
Ibid. 16.
82
Britton 87. Britton (and Tolkien) propose that Byrhtnos choice is a decision, but
the poet seems to think it was not reflected on.
80
81

king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtno

335

does not provide the appropriate standard to judge by. Heroes are greater
than the rest of mankind and behave in a way that seems outrageous
and excessive to us.83

The attitude in these lines seems to be registered in a critical consensus

that Anglo-Saxon heroes cannot be judged. Criticism of Byrhtnos
ofermod, Blake reasons, betrays despairing admiration,84 and others
have since shared the same view. Like Blake, Roberta Frank concludes
that Byrhtnos ofermod simply expresses a prevalent heroic fault, and she
compares Byrhtnos behavior to that of Hamir, Odysseus, Roland,
Achilles, Igor, and Beowulf:
Sometimes, as in The Battle of Maldon, the poet himself represents shared
collective wisdom, pointing out what is exorbitant, contrary-to-rule, and
dangerous in his heros make-up . . . Byrhtnos conduct is excessive and
blameworthy only if our standard is life and common sense.85

Irrational acts are compatible with heroism generallyat least for warriors prone to the ambition of wreccanbut in a war-leader at a time
of national calamity life and common sense should be paramount.
The missile barrage at the brycg, with strong defenders stationed the
landing, reflects the calculated, common sense defense that Byrhtno
rejects. Men die on account of his rejection. Yet based on the view
of a general heroic fault, Frank ventures that Byrhtnos men, as all
subalterns, [derive] their light and power from their captains.86 In
other words, Byrhtnos heroic fault ennobled his men by enabling
their own heroism. These terms explicitly challenge Tolkiens reflection
that Maldon lionizes the subaltern (whom Frank calls the little man)87
whose obedience opposes their lords wilfulness.
I think it unlikely that Franks position on Maldon reflects the poems
complexity, its inexplicable tension between what OBrien OKeeffe
calls the individual heroic ethic (in pursuit of valour and reputation
whatever the cost) and the requirement for prudent aggression from
an established army.88 Warriors tempt fate to gain glory; they go
up against odds that defy reasoneven if they do ultimately overcome
foes like Grendel. Generals should not contemplate the same handicap,
83
84
85
86
87
88

Genesis 124.
Ibid. 125.
Battle of Maldon and Heroic Literature 204.
Ibid.
Ibid.
OBrien OKeeffe, Heroic Values 122.

336

chapter five

and Byrhtnos supreme gamble relays his irresponsibility. The defeat

at Maldon could not be called glorious, nor could Byrhtno be excused
on account of ofermod. Even so, heroic literature like Maldon looks to
explain the lost engagement or the death of a prominent war-leader
in the enactment of its values. In this function, the situation in Maldon
is much like that of the dragon fight in Beowulf, right down to the
behavior of the retainers. Of course, Beowulf both won and lost his
own fight, and this outcome complicates the question of his oferhygd. As
I have discussed, the Beowulf poet so carefully manages the evidence of
Beowulfs potential oferhygd that one cannot affirm Beowulfs negligence.
Yet Beowulf s death is confirmed once his sword is broken and his
body seared by fire (sceolde ofer willan/wic eardian//elles hwergen,
2589a90a), and the retinue surely sees what the audience should: this
battle is lost, the king as good as dead. Wiglaf therefore acts suicidally
in spite of his own fear, and in acknowledgment of his lords straits.
He expects to die alongside Beowulf:
Ic wat geare,
t nron ealdgewyrht,
t he ana scyle
Geata dugue
gnorn rowian,
gesigan t scce; (2656b9a)
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.

The depiction of Byrhtno differs in that his death confirms his ofermod,
which, along with the defeat of his forces, may yet have been instigated
by Viking treachery.
To my knowledge, the custom of men willing to die for their lords
has never been applied to Beowulf s duel with the dragon, largely
because Beowulf is not literally dead. Nevertheless, an overlooked parallel to Beowulfs predicament may be found in one of Alexander the
Greats adventures, as narrated in the Old English Orosius. Orosiuss
laconic account has been considerably expanded and refocused in
heroic terms. On this occasion Alexander has penetratedrecklessly,
perhapswhat seems to be an abandoned fortification.89 The inhabitants appear and surround him:

89
The dimension of heroic adventurism is implicit in the expression hrdlice one
weall self oferclom (he quickly scaled the wall alone; Bately, Orosius 910).

king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtno

337

Ac a him t folc swiost anrang, a gestop he to anes wealles byge 7

hiene r awerede. 7 swa eall t folc wear mid him anum agled t
hie s wealles nane gieman ne dydon, o Alexandres egnas toemnes
him one weall abrcon 7 r in comon. r wear Alexander urhscoten mid anre flan underneoan oer breost. Nyte we nu hwer sie
swior to wundrianne, e t, hu he ana wi ealle a burgware hiene
awerede, e eft a him fultum com, hu he urh t folc gerang t
he one ilcan ofslog e hiene r urhsceat, e eft ara egna angin a
hie untweogendlice wendon t heora hlaford wre on heora feonda
gewealde, oe cuca oe dead, t hie swaeah noldon s weallgebreces geswican, t hie heora hlaford ne gewrcen, eh e hie hiene
meigne on cneowum sittende metten.90
But when the people completely surrounded him, he gained the corner
of a certain wall and there defended himself. In this way all the people
were preoccupied with him alone so that none of them paid attention
to the wall until Alexanders thanes breached it alongside them and so
entered there. There Alexander had been shot with a single arrow under
his left breast. We do not know which is a greater miracle: how he alone
defended himself against all the inhabitants; or, when help reached him,
how he managed to kill, in that press of people, the very man who had
shot him; or the action of his thanes who fully expected that their lord was
either alive or dead at the mercy of his enemies, but nonetheless did not
intend to fail in their assault on the wall and thereby fail to avenge their
lordalthough they found him exhausted and crouched on his knees.

One instantly recognizes parallels with Byrhtno in Alexanders retaliation against the enemy who wounded him, but because Alexander is not
literally dead, the passage has not been thought to illustrate the custom
of men dying with their lord. Yet this scenario exactly describes the
dragon fight in Beowulf. Cornered in a potentially reckless encounter,
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,
only imperiled in a situation that might ensure his death. Alexanders
thanes resolve to take desperate action in the face of either prospect,
their lords certain or anticipated death, which is suggested by the wound
in his breast. Storming the breach to rescue Alexander, even when

90
Bately, Orosius 73.1427 (emending an rang > anrang). The expression on heora
feonda gewealde parallels the description of Heremods death in Beowulf 903a. As
discussed above (72 note 40), the phrase may simply mean that Heremod died. The
Orosius context perhaps supports a third interpretation. In Alexanders circumstances,
to be in the power of ones enemies means to be imperiled, at their mercy. That
Heremods men betrayed him (for forlacen, 903b) could suggest that they did
not come to his rescue in a crisis he caused by reckless action.

338

chapter five

they cannot verify his condition from their vantage point, is explicitly
characterized as vengeance (gewrcen)the motivation of men
dying with their lord. The Alexander passage requires a definitional
re-alignment of heroic action in support of a lord who is, first, possibly
reckless and, second, not yet deceased but gravely endangered. Just
as Beowulf expects his men to rescue him when they perceive some
unspoken peril, Alexander expects his men to reach him, alive, dying,
or dead. The thanes bring vengeance.
Viking Subtlety and Poetic Misdirection
As in Beowulf, one looks to mitigate Byrhtnos ofermod, nowadays thought
to be a benign heroic peccadillo. The circumstances of Byrhtnos bad
judgment need to be contemplated with detachment from its disastrous
effects, for Byrhtnos culpability seems to endanger his men but not
to destroy the English force. As T. A. Shippey has pointed out, with
exemplary implications for Beowulfs own liability, the [Maldon] poet
regarded Byrhtnoth with exaggerated favour.91 Viking guile, emphasized by the verb lytegian, mitigates Byrhtnos decision to let the Vikings
cross the Pante. Much has been written on the lytegian crux. The Vikings
perceive that they have been trapped on the causeway and are being
slaughtered by missile weapons and by the men Byrhtno has stationed
at the approach. They seem to inveigle Byrhtno:
. . . ongunnon lytegian a
bdon t hi upgangan
ofer one ford faran,

lae gystas,
agan moston,
fean ldan. (86a8b)

Then the hated invaders began to use guile, asked that they might have
a landing, travel over the ford, and lead their infantry.

At this moment Byrhtno grants the Vikings too much land (landes
to fela, 90a), a situation attributed to ofermod. It seems an odd
conjunction of motivation, to imply that Byrhtno was tricked but
that he was also susceptible to ofermod. I do not sense that lytegian
is semantically problematic, however, for the poet felt obliged to invent
some debatable exoneration of Byrhtnos gullibility.92 In 1974 J. E.
Boar and Badger 231.
George Clark treats the ambiguity of the Vikings feint as an exoneration of
Byrhtno in Heroic Poem 534.
91

92

king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtno

339

Cross thoroughly studied the sense of the OE hapax legomenon lytegian

and related vocables, and he concluded that the term nearly always
has a negative sense but nothing like deceive.93 In fact, the rare
verb portends that Byrhtno did not need to acknowledge the Viking
dissimulation: they began to use guile but not to deceive. The
verb leaves hanging the question of whether Byrhtno was deceived
by such guile. Most now agree that the Vikings charged Byrhtno with
cowardice, probably by failing to meet them in open battle.94 Richard
North has lately proposed that lytegian may involve accusations of
effeminacy, perhaps an alleged Christian weakness, and that Byrhtnos
pride is wounded as a result.95 From what we could deduce about such
Viking groups and the straits of the Maldon Vikings, charging Byrhtno
with cowardice would plausibly have created a situation which engendered ofermod and subsequent recklessness. In the poets idiom, the
insult would have embarrassed Byrhtnos dignity, and he has already
decided not to suffer yrho.96 This reading of the Viking ploy would
accuse Byrhtno of ofermod, since he acknowledges and acts on the
dissimulation. Yet it could also be said that ofermod alone did not undo
Byrhtno. Byrhtno would never have succumbed to the Vikings
had they not unfairly targeted his heroic dignity. In other words, the
Vikings attempted to trick Byrhtno, and their cheap stunt, however
freely chosen, is one way of diminishing Byrhtnos culpability for the
English defeat.
The opposing positions on the Viking guile are represented by
J. R. R. Tolkien and N. F. Blake. Tolkien reasoned that Byrhtno
never consciously acknowledged that his actions would jeopardize the
English national defense. He called Byrhtnos motivation a defect
of character . . . not only formed by nature, but moulded also by aristocratic tradition, enshrined in tales and verse of poets now lost save
for echoes.97 In these terms Byrhtno would not have recognized that
his heroic virtue was being exploited but acted more or less unthinkingly.98 The position grants Byrhtno the same moral blindness that
Mainly on Philology 23640.
Elliott, Byrhtnoth and Hildebrand 59. 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.
95
Getting to Know the General 910.
96
Hill, Heroic Ethic 294.
97
Homecoming 15.
98
Cross, Mainly on Philology 243; Elliott, Byrhtnoth and Hildebrand 59.
93

94

340

chapter five

characterizes Beowulfian oferhygd, for the ealdormonn never concedes

that his decision entails disastrous consequences for his troops, and
for the nation as a whole. By contrast, N. F. Blake conjectures that
Byrhtno recognized the Viking deception but consciously chose to
act on heroic principles.99 In an examination of Atlakvia Blake
remarks that Gurns warning to Gunnarr of Atlis treachery actually
necessitates Gunnarrs death. Gunnarr cannot stay away in the face of
a known threat without risking his honor, even though he knows that
death awaits him.100 Blake says,
Treachery is the natural lifestyle of people like this. But the heroes are not
deceived by it. They see through it, yet accept the terms or the proposal
offered. They have to for their honor . . .101

This intriguing premise has parallels in Niebelungenlied, too. Blakes view,

I think, perfectly clarifies the opposing attitude (explained above), in
which Byrhtno falls for the Viking taunts. In choosing honor he also
elected death, for himself if not for his men. It is important to understand, however, that nothing in Maldon actually resolves Byrhtnos
attitude to the Viking ploy. Even if Blakes position explained Byrhtnos
behavior, Gunnarr and the Burgundian princes in Atlakvia come
alone, not with an army. Only in the later Chanson de Roland and Niebelungenlied do Germanic war leaders sacrifice armieseven kingdomsto
their heroic vanities. The self-sacrifice in these texts and in Maldon
resembles oferhygd in Beowulf, where blindness to the responsibility for
ones troops appears to stem from self-regard, feelings of invincibility,
and bellicosity. Despite his honorable intentions, Byrhtno could exhibit
these traits in some culpable degree. In Blakes reading of the lytegian
crux, the heroic overlaps the virtuous as it does in certain readings of
Beowulf s dragon fight, and one cannot be confident of Byrhtnos
innocence, either. And yet I shall show why a position censorious of
Byrhtno also cannot excuse the English defeat!
The Viking guile in Maldon is often mentioned in exasperation as
an indecipherable conundrum, interpretations of which would clarify
Genesis 125.
Ibid.
101
Ibid.; further to this claim see Thomas D. Hill, Foreseen Wolf. Hill alleges, the
wolf is not dangerous if he is foreseen . . . it is only if one is unaware that the wolf is a
threat . . . If [Gunnar and Hogni] were expecting treachery there would be no tragedy.
There might have been a battle, but there would have been no treachery (6767). It
strikes me that Gurns extreme grief belies this reading and confirms Blakes.
99

100

king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtno

341

Byrhtnos behavior. In some respects, the lytegian crux answers to the

curse on the gold in Beowulf, or to Beowulfs broken sword, or to any
of the other nested contingencies that contribute to Beowulf s death
and exonerate him from oferhygd. Byrhtnos death can be attributed
to ofermod, admittedly, but ofermod may have been exploited, or in fact
generated, by the Vikings in defiance of righteousness. Like the ancient
curse, the Vikings cunning erodes confidence in any unreflective
solutions to the poets deliberate textual incongruities, beginning with
ofermod. Fair contends with fear in Byrhtnos mind, but the poet will
not solve his own riddle. In fact, he continues to confound it, just like
the Beowulf poet has done in the dragon episode.
According to North, Byrhtnos Christianity may have caused the
accusations of cowardice that constitute the Viking guile.102 In fact,
Byrhtnos Christianity may be a mitigating factor in his ofermod.
Byrhtnos loss at Maldon presumably reflects Gods will, but his final
prayer may or may not acknowledge guilt.103 After thanking the Ruler
for worldly joys, he expresses the greatest need for the Measurer to
grant him (a) goodthat his soul might travel into the Lords keeping (173a9a). Following this comes the peculiar expression, Ic eom
frymdi to e//t hi helsceaan/hynan ne moton (I am beseeching
you that hell-scathers [devils] are not able to touch it, 179b80b).
Following Morton W. Bloomfield,104 Fred C. Robinson explains this
petition as a specific allusion to the judicium particularea literal, physical
struggle between devils and angels for possession of the soul as it leaves
the body of a dying man.105 Robinson goes on to propose that the
uncertainty of Byrhtnos salvation de-Christianizes the cosmic setting
of Maldon and in so doing helps to create the conditions necessary for a
heroic narrative.106 In other words, negating the prospect of Christian
salvation restores the quality of grim and terribly meaningful heroic

See also Mills 25, citing Elliott, Byrhtnoth and Hildebrand 589.
Cecily Clark, Byrhtnoth and Roland 289: Byrhtnoth . . . never shows concern
for his mens fate, spiritual or temporal, nor even awareness that it is his ofermod that
has been their death. Bernard F. Hupp once claimed Byrhtnos utterance as a
martyrs prayer (Doctrine and Poetry 2378), but J. E. Cross showed how the poems
secularism could be mistakenly construed as martyrdom in Oswald and Byrhtnoth.
Cross discusses Byrhtnos prayer as a variant of the commendatio animae (1046) but
concludes that it is selfish, though human (106).
104
Patristics and Old English Literature 38.
105
God, Death and Loyalty 108.
106
Ibid.
102
103

342

chapter five

sacrifice for heroic ideals.107 One might also ask, however, whether
Byrhtno seeks forgiveness, in acknowledgment of ofermod or some other
fault. The ealdormonn might understand in his present condition why
fiends would have purchase on his soul. Yet George Clarks alternative
explanation for this curious ambiguity satisfies the condition of ofermod
as a moral benightedness like oferhygd: The heros last words indicate
no remorse at his decision to undertake the battle, no sense of guilt at
having permitted the Vikings to cross the Pante.108 While Clark believes
that Byrhtnos prayer implies a free conscience, just the opposite may
be true: Byrhtno may believe he has done nothing wrong. We do not
learn the disposition of Byrhtnos soul, howevera situation parallel
to the ambiguous external judgment of Beowulfs own death, the meaning of the curse, and the indefiniteness of line 3155b, Heofon rece
swealg (Heaven swallowed the smoke). Has Beowulf earned some
kind of divine compassion, or is his soul merely dispersed in the sky,
the primary sense of OE heofon? The imputation of oferhygd to Beowulf
must be unresolved in these spiritual terms, otherwise the exoneration
would justify Beowulfs behavior in the dragon fight.
The Outcome of Battle and the Judgment of History
Byrhtnos death at the hands of the Vikings conjures an important
paradox reflecting Beowulfs own death in the dragon fight: why would
the Christian God betray Byrhtno and give pagan Vikings the victory?
We could assume that Byrhtno is somehow punished for expressing
ofermod, but the lytegian crux precludes certainty. Byrhtno may have
died sacrificially, hoping that desperation would have roused his men to
exceptional heroism that put an end to Viking aggression. He may not
have been wrong in judging his men, as I shall explore momentarily.
Alternatively, the Christian God may have allowed Byrhtno to die as
a punishment for his arrogance or over-confidence, comparable to sins
condemned in millennial sermons. If this stance were true, Byrhtno
may still have been benighted, since the lytegian crux necessitates the

107
Ibid. 107. Relevant to the present discussion is John Edward Damons percipient
comparison of Byrhtno to saintly ealdormen. Damon stresses Byrhtnos status as an
almost-saint and remarks: Byrhtnoth represents an early example of the linkage
between death in battle and sanctity, despite his failure to achieve sainthood (198).
108
Hero of Maldon 265.

king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtno

343

ambiguity of his motivation. As in Beowulf, any condemnation of Byrhtno would impugn his behavior and foreclose ambiguities central to
the audiences judgment. Correspondingly, to have depicted Byhrtnos
salvation would have voided the accusation of ofermod, when the Maldon
poet intended perfect indeterminacy. One should be led to wonder how
Byrhtnos ofermod could be doubted. In fact, while the poet accuses
Byrhtno of ofermod, the extenuating circumstances he invents (the
strategy of self-defense, the Viking deceit, questions of honor and duty,
possible Christian deliverance) could absolve the ealdormonn of damnation. Inseparable from the arguments pro and con of Byrhtnos ofermod
are the actions of his retainers; some flee while others fight. The flight
of retainers upon their lords death seems a key determinant of ofermod
or oferhygd, but as I shall argue, Byrhtnos death does not necessarily
cause the English defeat.109
In Beowulf only Beowulf s nephew Wiglaf comes forward to aid
Beowulf, who is not dead but certainly going to dieor so the onlookers think. The cowardice of the retainersthe best that could be
foundis grounds for the recklessness of Beowulf s mission and affirmation of Wiglafs merit, his love of Beowulf or his desire for glory.
In other words, the retreat of ones best men could indicate how badly
a leader has miscalculated the risk of his mission. Both in Beowulf and
in Maldon, then, a thane would be expected to avenge his lords death
even when that death resulted from his lords disastrous overconfidence.
Sworn oaths compel service, including retribution, and vengeance is
a supreme heroic duty.110 Godric, Godwine, Godwig, and members
of the Anglo-Saxon host at Maldon therefore earned shame for their
cowardice, even though they would have sacrificed themselves in killing perhaps one or two invadersor none at all. lfwine, Byrhtnos
kinsman (224a), reminds the troops of this (anachronistic) heroic obligation, just as Wiglaf, Beowulfs kinsman, was the first retainer to speak

See George Clark, History, Poetry and Truth 812.

Byrhtno dies when a spear pierces his body, but a hyse unweaxen or young
lad named Wulfmr pulls out the spear and, casting it back, kills the man who threw
it (14958). This revenge does not suffice, apparently. When Beowulf fights Dghrefn
in vengeance for Hygelacs death, we are told that Beowulf transported thirty mailcoats
back to Geatland. Not only did Dghrefn need to die but a great number had to as
well. Vengeance needs to be exacted on a number of men equivalent to the status
of the slain.
109
110

344

chapter five

up in support of Beowulf.111 As many have observed, lfwines speech

sounds much like Wiglafs:
Gemunu a mla
onne we on bence
hle on healle,
nu mg cunnian

e we oft t meodo sprcon,

beot ahofon,
ymbe heard gewinn;
hwa cene sy. (212a15b)

Remember the times when we often spoke over mead, when we raised
a boast about hard battle on the bench, heroes in the hall. Now we will
learn who is keen.

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. Some retainers rush out to avenge
Byrhtno through sacrificial loyalty, and the intensity of their courage
magnifies their potential for valorand remembrance.112 In the Germanic heroic tradition, defiance of death amplifies a warriors resolve,
ultimately defining his identity, and Byrhtwolds famous lines attest that
a desperate battle can ennoble men:
Hige sceal e heardra,
mod sceal e mare,

heorte e cenre,
e ure mgen lytla. (312a13b)

Spirit must be the harder, heart the keener, courage the greater, the
more our strength declines.

The obsolete sentiment of these verses reflects Wiglafs observation that

he performed beyond [his] ability (ofer min gemet, 2879a) when
he fought the dragon. While Tolkien noted that [the heorwerods]
heroism was superb . . . their duty was unimpaired by the error of their
master, I would claim that Byrhtnos error actually enhanced
their heroism.
Since the retainers suicidal loyalty is praised in Maldon, one would
think that the disgrace of Oddas sons Godric, Godwine, and Godwig would be condemned. Yet the poet seems coy in expressing their
cowardice. He notes that Byrhtnos body was hacked to pieces
and says bluntly that lfno and Wulfmr (who had been fighting

111
On the problematic identity of lfwine, consult Locherbie-Cameron, Men
Named in the Poem 2412 and lfwines Kinsmen 4867. Earlier LocherbieCameron had proposed highly plausible reasons why the deaths of Byrhtnos kin are
especially significant (Sisters Son).
112
On byldan (embolden), see Irving, Heroic Style 466.

king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtno

345

alongside Byrhtno) were cut down, too (heowan, 181a). These

killings seem like pointless butchery. Immediately afterwards the poet
remarks that men who did not want to be there bowed out of the
battle: Hi bugon a fram beaduwe/e r beon noldon, 185ab.
The expression who did not want to be there verges on trite, but
blandness characterizes most of the narrators observations about the
cowards retreat. Godric, we learn, was first in flight (rest on
fleame, 186b) and abandoned the good man (one godan forlet,
187b). Somewhat later the narrator announces that Godrics brothers Godwine and Godwig did not care for war, departed from the
battle and sought the woods, fled to the fastness and protected their
lives.113 This language does not register the scorn one would expect
for deserters in Germanic heroic verse, possibly because the poet sets
Byrhtnos recklessness against the cowardice of Oddas sons.114 Yes,
some men saved their lives by fleeing to the woods, but their flight
seems only mildly offensivenot despicably shameless. As in Beowulf,
the retainers who bow out of the fight earn the greatest scorn from
the men they serve with (Wiglaf, in Beowulf ), the ones who stayed and
lost their lives. The Maldon poet understands that Godric and his kin
could be partially exonerated under the special circumstances of their
lords ofermod. His subdued reproaches temper the harsher criticism
leveled by characters in the poem.
What cannot be exonerated, however, is Godrics escape on Byrhtnos stolen horse, an action that makes the English forces think that
Byrhtno himself has fled. The remaining retainers condemn Oddas
sons for the consequences of the theft:
Us Godric hf,
earh Oddan bearn,
ealle beswicene.
Wende s formoni man,
a he on meare rad,
on wlancan am wicge,
t wre hit ure hlaford;
foran wear her on felda
folc totwmed,
scyldburh tobrocen. (237b42a)

113
Godwine ond Godwig, gue ne gymdon,
ac wendon fram am wige
and one wudu sohton,
flugon on am fsten
and hyre feore burgon . . . (192a4b)
114
Not to mention Swantons observations that Byrhtno and his man Offa expected
cowardice (Literary Caveat 448); see also George Clark, Heroic Poem 63. On fighting for a reckless lord, see Robinson, Maldon Poets Artistry 129 note 22. George Clark
has made the case that Godric and his brothers may have fled treasonously because
of their Scandinavian background (History, Poetry and Truth 81).

346

chapter five
Godric, the wretched son of Odda, has betrayed us all. When he rode
on that horse, on that proud steed, very many men would have thought
that it was our lord, for which reason the people were divided here on
the field, the shield-wall smashed.

The argument has stood for years that Byrhtnos fall precipitated the
general disaster at Maldon. In one influential paper from 1979 George
Clark wrote, Offa subsequently hammers the point home, declaring that when Byrhtnoth fell many men fled, so many that the flight
betrayed, scattered, and defeated the English army.115 The statement
is too telegraphic. Godric and his two brothers fled, but the others
did not follow until after Godric rode off on Byrhtnos horse. These
consequences, possibly unforeseen by Godric, compromised meaningful vengeance for Byrhtno and caused the general rout. Without the
theft of the horse, one might conclude that Godrics escape might not
have mattered in the engagement. Most importantly for the Maldon
poet, Godrics theft might excuse Byrhtnos ofermod as incidental to
the defeat. The poet can accuse Byrhtno of a vice that befalls kings
in Old English verse, since he appears to excuse that vice as inconsequential to the aftermath of Byrhtnos fall. It could be said, then,
that Godrics shameful deed occasioned the betrayal redeemed by the
suicidal loyalty of Byrhtnos remaining thanes.
If not for the parallels between Beowulf and Maldon that I propose,
John M. Hills ingenious explanation of transcendent loyalty in Maldon
might convincingly explain the retainers suicidal vengeance in the face
of Byrhtnos ofermod. Hill proposes that the retainers in Maldon fight to
the death because loyalty to ones lord has, by the time of the poem,
been broadened and transferred to an abstraction of lordshipan
institutionalized entity: [Byrhtnos retainers] collectively internalize
an injunction whereby the dead [Byrhtno] is allowed to be everything
to them, while they, in an evolving group action, eventually assume a
new ideal, a transcendent group ego, one might say.116 Hill calls this
a politically inspired, Christian transvaluation of retainer loyalty from
a secular to a transcendental plane.117 Obligation is fungible in this

115
Hero of Maldon 258. Ryner proposes that the theft of the horse may be viewed
as a demonstration of [Godrics] venality and ingratitude (274), given that Byrhtno
bestows horses and gear on his men. In this case, seizing an unearned reward reverses
the lord-retainer relationship and implies arrogance.
116
Warrior Ethic 127.
117
Ibid. 112.

king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtno

347

theoretical kind of thaneship: for Hill, the retainer owes obedience and
service to an idealized proxy, for which reason the death of ones lord
engenders the immediate, communal embrace of his fate. For the idea
to be viable, Hill must grant Rosemary Woolf s position (with Roberta
Franks provisos) on the scarce depictions of men dying with their lord
in Old English literature, 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, we find no expressions
of suicidal revenge.118 Nor is Beowulf literally dead at the moment
Wiglaf reaches him, although I cannot imagine that anyone could
mistake the poets words conceding Beowulf s death. Finally, we do
not have (as Hill makes plain) a treatment of retainer-lord loyalty in
Cynewulf and Cyneheard like that in Maldon, in which a war-leader
has committed his troops irresponsibly.119
The differences between Hills argument and my own hark back to
the historical-versus-literary debate that frames Maldon criticism. Hill
professes a contemporary, historically engaged Maldon in which AngloSaxon heroic poetry and its past complexities will come to an end.120
In part, the phrase past complexities subsumes the lord-retainer
relationship. I envisage a poem saturated instead by heroic archaismin
fact, by a literary paradigm staging the death of an aged lord given to
ofermod and the vengeance exacted for him by loyal thanes. A degree
of archaism in Maldon should be unsurprising. Critics like Elizabeth S.
Sklar still assume that the poem is essentially conservative in theme,
if not perhaps in this theme.121 In my view, the dragon fight in Beowulf
comprises the sole parallel to Maldon and explains Byrhtnos ofermod as
well as the behavior of the retainers. If Beowulf can be copied ca. 1000,
one could reason that Anglo-Saxon literary tropes had not vanished and
that they were historical to the Maldon era. By these terms, Maldon
extends the Old English literary environment as an authentic example
of dubious heroism, contested obligation, and righteous loyalty.
The debate over starkly contradictory opinions in Maldon criticism
imitates the effect of reading Maldon as dialectical. Both the Beowulf and
Maldon poets expect their situational complexities to be analyzed, the

Ibid.
The issue for Hill is different in Cynewulf and Cyneheard. He perceives
legitimacy and regicide as extraordinary motives for suicidal loyalty.
120
Warrior Ethic 141.
121
Rhymed Formulas 409.
118

119

348

chapter five

motivations of their characters surveilled. Arguments for and against a

leaders potential defect embrace deliberate, irresolvable contingencies
challenging the reach of the heroic idiom: the extent of a subalterns
duty relative to the war-leaders ambition. W. G. Busse and R. Holtei
remark that heroism in Maldon is not communicated through the
literary type of the heroic superman, but rather through members of
the thegn class.122 As in Beowulf, subalterns in Maldon gain a group
identity and a political will thought to be neglected in earlier heroic
verse. Busse and Holtei have emphasized this dimension of the poem
and in context with Byrhtnos ofermod:
[The text] makes thegns the true heroes of Maldon and thus lets them
fulfil the standards propagated in the text; further, it makes thegns the
judges of behavior complying with the standards, and finally it puts
thegnly conduct into words.123

Busse and Holtei make the point that when the defense of England
fell to a newly emergent class of thanes, expectations of their behavior
could be expressed in literature like Maldon. I hold the more complex
view that Maldon explores the utmost limit of thaneship relative to the
possible recklessness of leadership. In spite of the flawed individuals in
the poem, the social institutions are themselves upheld.
Maldon could be deemed a poem of celebration, especially for the
thanes who died fulfilling a heroic duty. If an audience intended to
celebrate, rather than disparage, Byrhtnos heroism, a margin of
compromise might be found in the earls ostentatious defiance and
adherence to honor. The lytegian crux and Godrics theft might ease
any negative judgments of grandiosity and negligent leadership. But
Maldon interrogates more than it celebrates. It questions what men owe
to an illustrious but failed leader for past generosity, whether glory can
be earned in situations defying reason, and whether loyalty can be
exploited, inadvertently or not. By these terms heroic works like Maldon
and Beowulf show themselves to be undomesticated, their heroes subject
to withering judgments, and their institutions laid bare to a subaltern
gaze. The discomfort readers have felt in Maldon (and endeavored
Historical, Heroic and Political Poem 189.
Ibid. 192. Exactly this dimension of subaltern identity is explored in Ryners work,
although the theoretical position is one of agency: each of the warriors who vows
to avenge Byrhtnoths death is afforded the chance to articulate his own subjectivity
(274). Ryner imagines an exchange of identity between Viking and Englishman as a
negotiation of value for material objects.
122
123

king beowulf and ealdormonn byrhtno

349

to pacify) derives from the mature heroic genre given to exploring

the psychology of leadership and disgrace. Duty may be enough for
transcendence among mortals, but most men hope to live. Maldon and
Beowulfs dragon fight could therefore be said to explore the intersection between ones human capacity and glory as an act of will.

CONCLUSION
Why was Beowulf composed? If the poem could be said to have a theme,
it might be the obligations attending excellence and the temptation
of power, both personal and civic. Beowulf depicts how self-restraint
directed by social responsibility should always balance power, so that
arrogance will not distort ones promise. Power and glory are seductive, always tempting ones willa. This warning against arrogance seems
directed at leaders of all stripes, but especially to warrior-kings who
have the most to gain in hazardous campaigns: land, wealth, glory.
In keeping with the poems emphasis on heroism versus kingship, this
account of social perfectability recalls Schckings opinion that Beowulf
is a Frstenspiegel.1 To an aristocratic audience, the kind inhabiting a
royal compound in the eighth century, the poem delivers a political
message, showing that individuals belong to groups and that an independent actor can compromise the groups well-being. In other words,
responsibility to the warband, tribe, or nation entails responsibility for the
warband, tribe, or nation. The king (and warrior) should not therefore
show presumption when his followers cannot support his leadership
without a crippling disadvantage. The problem abides in the definition
of presumption, which must reflect some kind of self-inquiry as moral
wisdom. The political message of Beowulf implies that the boundary
between appropriate and excessive action must be gauged by the exercise of humility. Ones power has to be exercised in acknowledgment
of ece rd, a term for fatalistic moral virtue, and ones battles waged
against Gods enemies, or in self-defense.
Beowulfian Kingship in the Eighth Century
The issues of Beowulfian kingship that I highlight throughout this book
compliment the poems eighth-century context so well that one can
imagine King Beowulf in Bedes monastic terms as a kind of secular

184.

Wann entstand der Beowulf ? 399; the view was later endorsed in Heusler

352

conclusion

bishop.2 A sacral kingship has been theorized prior to the Migration

era,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, loosely defined.
Relying partly on Tacituss Germania, M. J. Swanton has explored this
horizontal brand of kingship, in which Germanic peoples averse to
reges elect duces instead.4 From Swantons perspective, national leaders
in early Germanic times ruled tribes, not territories,5 and their power
was based less on birthright than on prowess.6 This same framework
held for the earliest Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, which witnessed (in theory)
the instability associated with shared power: exile, murder, coups
dtat, civil war. Quarrying multiple Insular and continental sources,
Swanton holds that at the beginning of the eighth century Christianity
was influencing notions of kingship, which emerged as hierarchized
or vertical by the centurys end. In these terms he implies Roman
organizational influence, demanding, like its theology, authoritarian
direction from above.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 ones power,
formerly considered to be invested in the people and now, spiritually at
least, in God.8

Humility earned Gods special protection by implying the kings

Christian moral behavior, the wages of divine favor. In Swantons
scheme the Beowulf poet transplanted these relatively novel sentiments of
Christian kingship into a sixth-century setting. While Heorot resembles
the Germanic hall, and Hrogars government seems equally ancient,
the multitude of Christian allusions and assorted pieties of rulership
are traceable to the kings eighth-century function as vicarius Dei.
Swanton therefore alleges that Beowulf expresses superbia against the
Wallace-Hadrill 73.
Chaney 7120.
4
Crisis and Development 1619, esp. 18: We have here a form of paradox at the heart
of heroic society: that of leadership without power, that of the king who, while reigning,
did not rule; and 36: The king is not the autocratic maintainer of subjects rights
which derive from himself, but the defender, protector, helm hleo, of a public peace.
5
Ibid. 26.
6
Ibid. 3940.
7
Ibid. 46.
8
Ibid. 42.
2
3

conclusion

353

dragon, a presumption of personal authority. Rather than trusting

God for victory, Beowulf relies on his own warfare, to the detriment
of royal humilitas. The historical context Swanton theorizes for this
reading validates the question of kingly responsibility I have raised in
the dragon fight.
Swantons critique of Beowulf represents the latest of many relating
the poem to eighth-century theories of Anglo-Saxon kingship. Certainly
the most influential effort remains Levin L. Schckings The Ideal of
Kingship in Beowulf, probably because the short work was translated
from German into English, and the translation circulated in the popular
Anthology of Beowulf Criticism. Interestingly, Schcking offered no date
for Beowulf but argued strenuously for its Augustinian view of Beowulf
as a rex iustus or righteous king.9 Assimilating the terminology from
authors he believed to be influenced by Augustinian kingship, specifically
Gregory the Great, Pseudo-Cyprian, Sedulius Scottus, and Hincmar
of Rheims, Schcking emphasized service in repression of superbia or
pride, Christian obedience to Gods will, and the virtues of generosity,
benevolence, sacrifice, popularity, responsibility, sympathy, prudence,
and wisdom as mensura or sobrietastemperance, in other words.
Schckings authorities implicitly date his Beowulf to the Carolingian
period, and while the attributes of a rex iustus look impressively
Beowulfian, they hardly limn a gentle prince of peace of Augustinian coinage.10 Yet in contradistinction to an undefined, and possibly
undefinable, Germanic lordship, Schcking derives the virtues he calls
Augustinian from Ruodlieb, Waltharius (and Waldere), and Chanson de
Roland as much as from Beowulf. His proposition that pagan kingship
in Beowulf reflects Christianity could make sense in Fred C. Robinsons
terms, but one wonders whether Augustinian kingship is valid for the
poem. Furthermore, Schcking reads Beowulf as an affirmation of ideal
kingship, rather than an exploration of it, as I do.
Regardless of the details, however, the ideals of Christian kingship
were in the air in eighth-century England, an appealing coincidence
given the poems probable date. J. M. Wallace-Hadrill confirmed
Schckings view of Beowulfian kingship and placed Beowulf in the
court of Offa.11 Coincidentally, Wallace-Hadrills work may be said to

9
10
11

Ideal of Kingship 39.

Ibid. 43.
Early Germanic Kingship 1203.

354

conclusion

have back-dated Schckings premise a generation earlier, to the Age

of Bede, since Bede arguably derived political concepts of kingship
from Gregory the Greats Cura pastoralis, an Augustinian source. The
Cura pastoralis offers two felicitous dogmas of Beowulfian kingship: the
first was that the moral quality of the ruler was what counted; and
the second was that rule of any kind was a professional occupation,
calling for special aptitudes, training and constant self-examination.12
In my reading of Beowulf these provisions evoke Beowulf s own moral
virtue as justification of his courage, Hrogars effective training, and
the self-examination Beowulf practices in defense against oferhygd.
Bedes historical reges humilesSigebert, Anna, Oswineearn
martyrdom at the hands of pagan enemies (Penda and Oswiu),13 as
Beowulf seems to do in the dragon fight, if one overemphasized the
paganism of the curse and ignored Beowulf s own heathenism. The
parallel is inexact, I realize, but it illustrates the moral humility of
Beowulfs own resolution, the courage by which his deeds are justified
as just short of excessive.
If Beowulf belongs in the eighth century, its cultural milieu practically
birthed monastic kingship, not only in the numbers of monk-kings but
also in the philosophies promulgated about Christian kingship. To
Alcuin, Wallace-Hadrill explains, Edwin was rex pius, largus in omnes,
and patriae pater; sanctissimus Oswald, also patriae tutator, is moribus egregius,
pauperibus largus, iudiciis verax, hostibus horribilis, the benefactor of churches,
and the worker of miracles. Oswiu is invictus bellis, and also pius, omnibus
aequus.14 Such royal virtue derived from sapientia, the explicit wisdom
afforded by Christian teachings, but the translation wisdom may
impersonate the warrior discretion of OE snyttru. Derivative generalities like these could be made to elucidate Beowulf s own rule, and the
judgment of his Geats that:
. . . wyruldcyninga
manna mildest
ond monwrust,
leodum liost. (3180b82a)
. . . among kings of this world he was the mildest of men, the gentlest and
the kindest to his people.

12
13
14

Ibid. 74.
Wallace-Hadrill 856.
Ibid. 87.

conclusion

355

The impulse to attribute to Beowulf the Bedan qualities of a Christian

king obviously derive from this final judgment, both arguably antiheroic in outlook and authoritative in esteem.15
Beowulfs Exceptionality and the Blessings of Power
The foregoing studies demonstrate that benevolent, God-centered kingship in Beowulf may indeed be rooted in eighth-century political theory.
But I prefer to read the poem as a literary work in which interactions
and conflicts transact relative statusan emphasis, in other words, on
the growth of Beowulfs imagined political identity. Beowulf has promise. The poem opens by recalling ideal kingship in the rule of Scyld
and his descendants. The plot soon discovers the problem of national
decline, however, when Hrogars war with Grendel materializes. Like
Scyld, who emerges from nowhere as a blessing to his nation, Beowulf
arrives at Heorot. He is a blessing largely because he restores Danish
power by vanquishing Grendel and Grendels mother. In fatalistic terms
his strength and feats of arms are God-sent, for anyone having such
endowments is blessed, as Hrogar acknowledges:
efne swa hwylc mga
fter gumcynnum,
t hyre ealdmetod
bearngebyrdo. (942b46a)

Hwt, t secgan mg
swa one magan cende
gyf heo gyt lyfa,
este wre

Indeed, any young woman who births such a man among men may say,
if she yet lives, that the ancient Measurer was generous to her in her
child-bearing.

And, quite similarly:

t, la, mg secgan
se e so ond riht
freme on folce,
feor eal gemon,
eald eelweard,
t es eorl wre
geboren betera. (1700a1703a)

Swanton theorizes that OE milde has now [by ca. 766, 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, the quality of mercy or indulgence (Crisis and
Development 634).
15

356

conclusion
He who keeps virtue and righteousness among the people and remembers
everything far back in time, an old guardian of the kingdom, can say that
this nobleman was born better.

Even in the sermon we learn that ones birth is a condition of greatness, a blessing of potential that one can direct towards virtue or vice.
In the world of the poem God the Father is the omniscient judge of
righteousness, watching how Hrogar, Beowulf and others use the gift
of better birth.
Beowulf centers precisely on the fulfilment of a heroic aptitude,
because political leadership rests on the cultivation of personal values
or character. It is supremely important to realize in Beowulf that ideal
heroism has limitations imposed by warrior virtues that have gone
largely unexplored. When critics discuss ostensibly heroic virtues in the
poemwhat is riht (righteous) or so (eternally true)they often
evaluate them according to Christian precepts, especially as explored
in Patristic writings. As I have suggested, however, the inherited heroic
values mix with inherited Christian ones in Beowulf, but the resulting
composite needs to be perceived as heroic and pagan. This distinctive
outlook, which Fred C. Robinson has explicated with intelligence, forms
the standard for ethical judgments made on Beowulf s heroism.
The alleged Christian affinities of Beowulf have been overemphasized,
for the poet has used Christianity to sanitize his heroismto restrict,
in other words, the most distasteful aspects of heroic behavior: violence, arrogance, and ignorance of Providence as the catalyst of Fate.
The pagans in the world of Beowulf look surprisingly Christian, and
appealingly virtuous despite their indecent heathenism. Mindful of
such anachronistic virtues, the poem presents a clear model of ethical betterment. Gods est or generosity implicit in a warriors birth
has to be guided by the right principles for the warrior to achieve his
forgesceaft or promise. OE forgesceaft implies the destiny of ones
potential, as measured ultimately by the attainment of glory. Glory in
the abstract entails all the heroic conventions commonly invoked for a
heroic code, but the prospect of ece rd or eternal counsel, which
governs right action in Beowulf, always orients the pursuit of glory in
acknowledgment of heroic virtue. Right action necessitates restraint,
and the degree of ones heroic temperance is determined by self-judgment. In choosing right action, 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

conclusion

357

self-knowledge to know that restraint in pursuit of riht was a prized

virtue that recognized ece rd or eternal counsel. Precisely for this
reason, so much wisdom poetry in Old English advises men to eschew
arrogance or behaviors that lead to it: drunkenness, lust, greed, and
indifference to ones elders or superiors. These behaviors can lead to
misfortune, or outright disaster. But when a warrior exhibits the right
amount of restraint relative to risk, motivation, and capacity, he could,
when successful in his right action, be said to express ellen courage
and gain glory. These terms make courage sound theoretical, but I do
not intend for this abstraction to supplant the complex materiality of
behavior, even in literature. The Beowulf poet has contemplated the
effects of extreme action, which confounds the implicit sociological and
ethical calculations normally used to measure glory. In this gambit he
challenges heroic expectations associated with prudence and asks how
one judges behaviors of extraordinary magnitude.16
Beowulfs actions are situated on the margin of acceptable behavior
because of his exceptionality. To some onlookers in Beowulf s world,
Beowulfs temperament as a hero approximates that of a wrecca or
exilecertainly not that of an ordinary rank-and-file soldier in a
kings militia. As I have explained in Chapter 1, wreccan comprise distinct social identities in two categories. Traditionally, wreccan have been
viewed as voluntary exiles, as in The Seafarer, or accidental exiles
who have lost their lords in war, as in The Wanderer. The sense exile
is the root meaning of the term, but in most cases it characterizes an
aristocratic or high-born warrior of irascible temperament. Relatively
unexplored is the kind of warrior who voluntarily or involuntarily joins
a foreign warband. Many wreccan populate BeowulfHengest, Heremod,
Sigemund, Eanmund, Eadgils, and in all probability Hunfer and
Ecgeowand they express an ambition associated with other such
archetypes: Lucifer and Cain. To enhance their own prestige, wreccan
and fighters like them consistently display extreme violence, even against
social 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. Since Wulfgar senses that Beowulf has not come out of
However, Fred C. Robinson (Elements of the Marvellous) has made a convincing case that Beowulf is not superhuman like his enemies; he is simply a heroic
man.
16

358

conclusion

wrcsi or exile, Beowulf cannot be said to be a wrecca. I make no

claim of the sort, but I do allege that Beowulf parallels other wreccan
mentioned in the poem and is often compared to them. The comparison
justifies the anxiety felt for Beowulfs motivation.
Beowulf s superhuman prowess, the exceptionality he embodies,
generates the ambivalence centered on his motivation. Beowulf s
motivation comprises the poems subject simply because his ambition
determines whether he has the potential for arrogance that characterizes most wreccan. The poet explores the nature of exceptional heroism,
and the potential for heroic arrogance. Can Beowulf, in other words,
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, which has two senses: pride and dignity. Pride is
excessive. The warrior should learn how to suppress this excess, which
could lead to disaster. Whether Beowulf expresses excess, therefore, or
whether he expresses an appropriate degree of action in all his encounters represents the poets focus. The implicit goal, I have argued, is to
illustrate how Beowulfs potential for arrogance can be mastered in favor
of his potential for responsible kingship. This fundamental ambivalence
evokes the tension in Beowulfian kingship between the kings glory
and his duty as the nations protector. When a man of exceptional
heroic stature becomes a king, his ambition must be must be set aside
in favor of responsibility to his people.
The movement between allegation and justification creates the
poems uncertainty, and this doubt reflects a conscious strategy to
explore the difference between impetuosity and courage. I have called
this strategy contrapuntal. We are invited, as it were, to observe how
powerful and aspiring men like Beowulf could be endangered by their
own supreme promise, and how they might learn to recognize what is
riht or righteous in contemplation of ece rd, the Germanic counsel
of moral probity. Reading Beowulf is a matter of judging whether, or
to what extent, Beowulf achieved his predicted destiny, and evidence
for his success or inadequacy is encoded in the poems episodes. My
focus on the digressions (four of which could be characterized as gidd )
explains one component of the poems contrapuntalism, for the implicit
comparison made between the episodes and events in the poem invite
deliberation. In other words, Beowulfs feats, motivations, and attitudes
are analyzed by reflection on historical (legendary) comparanda. I
am suggesting that the poet invites a critical appraisal of Beowulf s

conclusion

359

virtue when he is compared to Sigemund, Heremod, Hengest, Fremu,

Hygelac, and others. In other instances my analysis of the digressions
enables me to explore the poets focalization, the local context in
which his comparisons function. All of the digressions, I theorize,
respond to incidents immediately occurring or having just occurred in
the speakers level of narration. Beowulf is almost always the subject of
these narrative parallels. This episodic alternation between event and
commentary not only models internal reflection but also heightens the
dramatic irony. The audience possesses intelligence about the monsters,
and sometimes about Beowulfs motivation, that the characters cannot share. The limitation impairs the characters authority in judging
Beowulfs deeds, a benightedness actually extended to the audience in
the dragon fight.
The tacit contrapuntalism of Beowulf takes the form of coordinating
antithetical perspectives on heroism and responsible kingship, in which
charges and countercharges issue in succession. The watchmans speech
and Hunfers flyting exemplify this dispute over Beowulf s motivation. Beowulfs presumptuous appearance on the Danish shore alarms
the watchman. Beowulf has not asked permission to disembark, and
the watchmans own interrogation reflects his unease over Beowulf s
breach of political decorum. The episode begins in doubt and continues
in distrust, but it ends in the apparent affirmation of Beowulf s prudence. In this case, the watchman believes that Beowulf has exhibited
humility; presumably his impertinent advance resulted from nave
earnestness. By contrast, Hunfers accusation of arrogance impugns
Beowulfs judgment, but Beowulfs riposte alleges youthful exuberance
and courage. Who is right? The conventions of the flyting mean
that Beowulf should respond in kind, with equally cutting remarks,
but I have demonstrated that the winner of this contest should not be
thought moderate. On the contrary, the winning debater typically
qualifies as the most aggressive. By these terms, Beowulfs victory could
be said to compromise our expectation of his wisdom. The narrator
suggests that Hunfer has earned the Danes respect. Has he earned
Beowulfs slander, too?
Favorable assessments of Beowulf are accompanied by unfavorable
or suspicious ones. Beowulf offends the Danish hosts when he recites
his heroic rsum and vows to trounce Grendel with his bare hands.
The Danes have tried for years to kill Grendel, but they have settled
for a dtente in which no one gets killed. Beowulf sounds reckless.
He has all the hallmarks of a man willing to endanger others, Danes

360

conclusion

and Geats alike. Yet in keeping with the argument against Beowulf s
potential arrogance, Hrogar asserts a different, politically mature,
way to view Beowulfs statement. Invoking Ecgeows feud with the
Wylfings, Hrogar re-directs Beowulfs grandiosity towards reciprocity. He suggests that Beowulf is simply paying back Hrogar for past
generosity towards Ecgeow. That such a debt could be carried from
a previous generation seems unprecedented, but Hrogar is simply
rescuing Beowulf from condescension. The implicit arrogance emerges
in the Hunfer flyting.
How Beowulf is judged depends significantly on the poems dual
audience, its internal and external perspectives. The Christian AngloSaxon audience knows Grendels lineage, but the characters do not.
We wrongly transfer our consciousness to them. This differential
knowledge, not to mention the narrators occasional insights into
Beowulfs thoughts, engender complex dramatic ironies. For example,
an Anglo-Saxon audience understanding Grendels Old Testament
lineage respects the moral validation for Beowulfs possible recklessness
towards Gods enemy. To the pagan characters in the poem, however,
Grendel is undeniably malicious, but they do not imagine him as Gods
enemy. He is Gods scourge. When Beowulf promises to fight Grendel
with his bare hands and correspondingly neglects to recognize the Danish efforts, his intentions sound arrogant to the Danes. In these terms
Beowulfs motivation in the Grendel fight reflects a key ambivalence as
potentially arrogant or potentially sacrificial. Attached to the Grendel
fight therefore are all the other accounts of the ambivalent motivation
imputed to Beowulf: the coast-wardens speech, Hrogars support for
Beowulfs intervention, the Hunfer episode, Hondsciohs death, the
Sigemund and Heremod digressions. Each of these incidents evaluates
Beowulfs motivation, his possible generosity or his possible recklessness. Plenty of evidence, of course, favors Beowulf s generosity in the
Grendel fight, and just as much supports his humility. Critics like John
D. Niles have made a strong case: the fight with Grendel is the young
Beowulfs first great test, and he meets it with extraordinary vigor.17
One might also conclude, however, that the encounter tests recklessness, and Beowulf s exceptional strength is no virtue in itself, if not

17

Beowulf 178.

conclusion

361

used for the right reasons. God-given strength, as Hrogar observes in

his sermon, may be corrupted by ambition.
The diversity of authority in Beowulf accounts for the poems ambivalence, but even the intradiegetic narrators inconsistently diagnose
Beowulfs motivation. Some even justify their right to judge Beowulf s
behavior. Hrogar is Beowulfs staunch defender, alongside subalterns
like the coast-warden or Wulfgar. Just after the fight with Grendels
mother, Hrogar validates his support for Beowulf in verses 1700a3a,
quote above (p. 355). He remarks that a man like himself who has done
righteous deeds among his people (se e so ond riht//freme on
folce, 1700b1a), and who recalls the distant past (feor eal gemon,
1701b), has the right to judge Beowulfs excellence, that he was born
better (t es eorl wre//geboren betera! 1702b3a). This claim
not only endorses the ambivalence of Beowulf s heroism as eligible for
judgment but also conceives the authority for judgment as arbitrary.
Because Hrogar is thought to have done righteous deeds, he claims
the right to judge Beowulfs deeds. His experience gives him authority,
as The Wanderer contends:
. . . ne mg weoran wis wer,
in woruldrice. (64b5a)18

r he age wintra dl

. . . a man cannot be considered wise before he has had his share of years
in the world.

Hrogars support of Beowulf acknowledges the position of his subordinates as well. After all, his decision allowing Beowulf to fight Grendel
facilitated scheres death. As a king, he must take credit for an old
friends grisly dismemberment in expectation of a future deliverance.
His men have trusted him, but their trust may have been compromised.
In some sense Beowulfs supreme luck against Grendels mother and
Hrogars premature departure from Grendels mere magnify the issue
of responsibilityand barely credit Hrogar with the trust he claims
for himself.
Hrogar trusts Beowulf, but subalterns like Hunfer, the anonymous poet of the Sigemund-Heremod digression, and Healgamen
the Finnsburh scop fear Beowulfs future kingship. As I have argued
throughout this book, negative evaluations of Beowulf s motivation

18

I have adopted Fulks lineation in Pope and Fulk 96.

362

conclusion

occur largely in the poems digressions, and characters in the poem

probably understand their own judgment as speculative. For example,
the Danish shore watchman has to decide whether Beowulf has come
raiding or whether he intends to face Grendel, as stated. The interrogation itself highlights moral judgment, the topic of much wisdom
verse, as a heroic duty. This subaltern perspective reflects comitatus
rivalry, in which individual acts of heroism may endanger oneself
or the group. The warband fighters who lost the most in Hrogars
war with Grendel face losing even more by Beowulf s challenge, not
Hrogar or arguably even Beowulf. Hondscioh and schere, in fact,
were just the sort of casualties the warband feared.
The Subaltern Speaks: The Case of the Riddles
The subaltern perspective has rarely been studied in Old English
heroic verse, mostly because heroic action has not been thought open
to serious equivocation. Even in Maldon, when Byrhtnos behavior
imperils his entire force, his ofermod ironically validates the heroism of
his retainers. Yet the mens 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. Few critics have sought to expose the subalterns political
and military vulnerability, but one prominent exception is Edward B.
Irving, Jr., who penned a short article on Heroic Experience in the
Old English Riddles in 1994. Irving entertained certain Old English
riddles metaphorically, in many cases exemplifying the situation of the
subaltern, as in these lines from the Shield Riddle (Riddle 5 [3]):
Ic eom anhaga
bille gebennad,
ecgum werig.
frecne feohtan.
t me geoc cyme
r ic mid ldum

iserne wund,
beadoweorca sd,
Oft ic wig seo,
Frofre ne wene,
gugewinnes,
eal forwure . . . (1a6b)

I am solitary, wounded by iron, maimed by sword, sated by deeds of

war, weary of blades. I often see battle, fierce conflict. I expect no comfortthat any relief of warfare might come for me before I might perish
entirely among men . . .

Irving identified the shield as a metonym for shield-bearer, a warrior

facing unrelieved pounding, and he compared the shields ordeal to

conclusion

363

the experience of the enlisted man, nameless and forgotten in ditch or

foxhole.19 In Beowulf the forgotten might have been Hondscioh, had
Hrogar not honored him, but the nameless could be any retainer
in the dragon fight except Wiglaf, or the byre in the Heaobard
digression of Beowulf. Hondscioh dies because of Beowulfs oath, and the
Heaobard lad, baited by the eald scwiga, suffers exile for his part
in the old warriors plot. Like a shield, they take a beating in defense
of their companion, who achieves his aims at their expense.
In addition to the Shield Riddle Irving went on to identify the
Anchor and Badger/Fox riddles as descriptive of a subaltern experience. The Badger/Fox Riddle is a less successful comparison,20 but
Irvings reading of the Anchor Riddle seems convincing, sometimes
in ways not even touched on. Irving compared the anchors increasing
tenacity as it becomes more motionless to a stationary shield which
suffers more blows the more it stands still.21 The better comparison
might be to the subalterns in Maldon, who become more resolute the
more desperate the engagement gets. One has to agree with Irving
that the inanimate could serve as an analogue of subaltern experience.
The Storm, Sword, and Bow riddles describe the experience of
violence or defensive warfare, whereas draftee and related riddles
(Spear, Ram, Flail, Ox, Gold, Inkhorn) illustrate reluctant
conscription in which happiness is converted to misery through power
or violence. None of these quite resembles the Shield or Anchor
riddles, which recall Maldon and Dream of the Rood as prototypes of a
subaltern experience, even if in Dream of the Rood that experience is
foreclosed because the rood cannot take action.22 Irving proposed in
ensuing remarks on the Shield Riddle that only the ludic tone of
riddles sanctioned a poets treatment of the subaltern:
The anonymous soldier fights doggedly in his assigned trap until death,
and by doing so provides one limited but persuasive definition of war: it
is the experiencing of meaningless suffering and death. 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. The Beowulf-poet

Heroic Experience 200.

Shippey holds a similar view in Boar and Badger and proposes that the boar
describes one kind of heroic attitude; see below, pp. 36670.
21
Heroic Experience 202.
22
Ibid. 206 (where, however, Dream of the Rood is called a draftee poem); Hill, Warrior Ethic 124.
19
20

364

conclusion
does not give us the story of any sweating and dying peasant among the
troops at the battle of Ravenswood.

Yet I have found that this theme can be treated quite seriously, too.
Irving likewise pointed out that Ajax in the Iliad could represent the
Shield: stolid, dependable, and defensive. Another Homeric Shield
character might be Thersites, who questions the kings prerogatives
when the soldiers are told to cut and run but are simultaneously
whipped back into formation by Odysseus. Even Homer can raise criticisms of selfish power that underlie responsible leadership. Far from
absent in Beowulf, a similar criticism is voiced against kingship, even
potentially against Beowulf, though described as monna mildust/ond
monwrust,//leodum liost (the mildest, gentlest and most compliant of men, 3181a2a).
The multivalent attitudes occasioned by internal and external perspectives constitute only one source of narrative complexity in Beowulf.
Another derives from the treatment of Beowulf as a static character. In
many studies the hero arises fully credentialed as a virtuous figure, and
evidence drawn from contexts throughout the poem is elsewhere used to
challenge apparent contradictions. In my view, the prospect of a static
Beowulf has led quite a few critics to misconstrue aspects of Hunfers
challenge, the anonymous soldiers story of Sigemund and Heremod,
and especially Hrogars sermon. If Beowulf were consistently virtuous,
there would be little reason to fault him as arrogant, to mistrust his
leadership, or to warn him against oferhygd. Walling off our own external
perspective, we should imagine how the Danes at Heorot would have
reacted to Beowulf. At least some of them suspect him of presumption,
or indifference to the lives of the retainers who accompany him.
Beowulfs deeds yet lie in the future, and before and after the Grendel
fight every opportunity is taken to challenge his potential egotism and
bend his behavior towards ece rd. The characters situational blindness
legitimates the criticisms made against Beowulf: the Danes exercise the
same speculative judgment as the coast-warden. They must approach
an unfamiliar figure whose strength elevates him above all men, and
determine whether humility will blunt his ambition. The polemic that
accompanies this judgment shows just how close Beowulf comes to the
limit of acceptable behavior.
The prospect of kingship likewise complicates Beowulfs speeches and
fights. Where Hrogar sees a king, his men see an ambitious soldier.
Although the Danes judge Beowulfs responsibility and prudence, their

conclusion

365

findings will differ depending on their expectations of Beowulf s status.

The difference will mean that conduct acceptable for solitary wreccan
seeking glory against monsters is unconscionable for troop leaders.
These circumstances may explain, for example, the Sigemund-Heremod
digression, in which Beowulf is confirmed as a great warrior but a
disastrous king. Grendels death proves Beowulf s prowess but not his
humility or prudence. The movement I have alleged for Beowulf begins
with two assumptions. One, made by the coast-warden, presumes
Beowulfs humility, at least in his ambition to fight Grendel. The second,
made by Hunfer, presumes Beowulfs boastful arrogance, especially
in the Breca episode and in the Grendel challenge. Beowulf s daring is
then confirmed in the Grendel fight, but his humility is not. Beowulf s
glory will mount, some Danes believe, but it will not be tempered by
any esteem held for others. For this reason Healgamen the scop recites
the poem of Finnsburh, and Hrogar warns Beowulf against oferhygd.
They are reacting to Beowulfs potential, his reaction to an ineffable
destiny or forgesceaft, as much as his power. This edginess dissipates
when Beowulf comes home, but Beowulfs confidence never leaves the
readers mind as a source of jeopardy. I have argued that the Fremu
digression reveals Beowulf s changed demeanor, but his address to
Hygelac and the consignment of Hrogars gifts disclose how effectively
Beowulf manages his ambition. The dragon fight will, however, re-open
the issue of Beowulfs self-mastery in its emphasis on oferhygd.
Many of the ideas I have proposed for the first half of Beowulf can
be confirmed in the dragon fight, which explores the responsibilities
attending kingship. The dragon episode, I suggest, functions somewhat
like a riddle in posing but never resolving the possibility of Beowulf s
arrogance, his potential for heroic excess. Other Old English poems are
also fixated on heroic excess, arguably the failing of Germanic heroes
at large, and, despite a paucity of evidence, the cardinal failing of wreccan, too. I have made the case for Maldon, that Byrhtnos excessive
confidence in allowing the Vikings to cross the Pante corresponds to
Beowulfs own potential oferhygd in the dragon fight. Many critics will
disagree with so bold a statement as this, inasmuch as there are only
five heroic poems in the Old English corpus. I intend to pursue the
question of heroic excess separately, but because identifying this aspect
of heroic behavior makes Beowulfs own confrontation less idiosyncratic,
it seems justifiable to sketch how excessive behavior may be represented
elsewhere but overlooked.

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, T. A.
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).23 Read from my own perspective, however, these
texts confront the prospect of recklessness. Although Shippeys antitheses
seem perfectly feasible, the conservative badger represents the defensible
position, the violent boar an extreme. The texts suggest as much in their
depictions of heroic deaths, consistently self-inflicted through hazardous
action that has the appearance of valiant action. When, for example,
Cynewulf rushes out from his defensive position in the doorway to attack
Cyneheard, he is slain after grievously wounding his enemy:
. . . he on a duru eode, 7 a unheanlice hine werede, o he on one
eling locude, 7 a ut rsde on hine, 7 hine miclum gewundode. 7
hie alle on one Cyning wrun feohtende o t hie hine ofslgenne
hfdon.24
. . . he [Cynewulf ] went to the door and defended himself without disgrace
until he beheld the prince [Cyneheard], at which time he [Cynewulf ]
rushed him [Cyneheard] and wounded him severely. They all then fell
to fighting around the king until they slew him.

Shippey concludes that this scene is fictional, and goes on to state that
those who passed on the story of Cynewulf took a certain delight in
the kings sudden decision that life counted for nothing against the furious hatred he felt for his ambusher . . . some Anglo-Saxons . . . admired
impetuous courage.25 In my view, however, the chronicler invites his
readers to evaluate Cynewulfs potential rashness. He states specifically
that Cynewulf fought unheanlice (unshamefully) in the doorway.
The terminology reflects the situational ambivalence, for affirming
Cynewulfs boldness would contradict the evidence of his death. In
other words, he should not be accused of cowardice for this defensive
strategy but of something else entirely. The same polysemy characterizes
the usage of unforhte in Maldon 79b, which describes the defiance of

23
24
25

Boar and Badger.

Plummer and Earle 48 (emending un heanlice > unheanlice).
Boar and Badger 222.

conclusion

367

lfere and Maccus just before their deaths. Being unafraid differs
from being confident or bold in contexts of inevitable downfall,
and all of Byrhtnos retainers are so classified when they are described
as unearge:
a r wendon for
unearge men

wlance egenas,
efston georne. (205a6b)

Proud thanes issued forth, uncowardly men eagerly hastened.

This usage is widespread. 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. Byrhtnos men
are not brave in any ordinary way but neither are they cowardly.
Implicit in the adjective wlance, their liminal motivation expresses
doubt, either supreme heroic action or reckless defiance.
Cynewulfs death ultimately reflects the ambiguity attending supreme
heroic action. By rushing out naked, he seems to have acted recklessly,
not only in losing his own life but the lives of his retinue who died for
him. At the same time, he came very close to killing his enemy by giving him a great wound (miclum gewundode). To what circumstance
could we credit this exceedingly slim margin of defeat? Simply because
he was on wifcye (seeing a woman) and therefore undressed and
without his bodyguard? Cynewulf and Cyneheard evokes many of
the situational ironies explored in Beowulfs dragon fight.
I proposed in Chapter 5 that the retainers refusal to accept Cyneheards terms constituted dying with ones lord, a sacrifice which
typically accompanies a leaders recklessness. Cynewulf s exploit ultimately reverberates through the Chronicles history, for Wessex, which
had managed in Cuthred (d. 752) to secure autonomy from Mercia,
seems to have lost its quasi-independence after Cynewulf s death (he
reigned 31 years). Offa of Mercia came to power soon afterwards.
Notwithstanding the key issue of legitimacy, this bald episode asks
questions like the Beowulf poets. Was it reckless for Cynewulf to have
ventured to Merton in the first place, or with such a small retinue? If
Cynewulf could wound Cyneheard, could he not also have killed him?
Did Cynewulfs men fail him, then, because they were not present to
defend their king? If Cyneheard is killed, as happens later in the episode,
does Cynewulfs death actually matter? Why does the legitimate king
die, even though his attackers ancestry is tainted by wrongdoing and
his ambush is desperate? Cynewulfs death exemplifies a kings potential

368

conclusion

recklessness and resonates with Beowulfs own downfall. Cynewulf and

Cyneheard, Hrogars sermon, the Bonifatian letter I adduce, and
parallels in Daniel corroborate the prominent literary treatment of
a kings heroic excess in eighth-century England. The behavior was a
matter of serious debate, not mere admiration.
An uncertain recklessness also characterizes Walderes behavior in
the Old English poem Waldere. Shippey explains that Hildegys
speech in Waldere A should probably come after several enemy warriors
have been killed, but before the greatest of them, Hagena, is drawn
reluctantly into the action.26 In this context Hildegy repudiates what
appears to be Walderes excessive heroic action and advocates practical
defense, badger-style:
Nalles ic e, wine min,
y ic e gesawe
urh edwitscype
wig forbugan
lice beorgan,
inne byrnhomon
ac u symle furor
ml ofer mearce,
t u to fyrenlice
t am tstealle,
wigrdenne. (12a22a)

wordum cide,
t am sweordplegan
niges monnes
oe on weal fleon,
eah e lara fela
billum heowun;
feohtan sohtest
y ic e metod ondred,
feohtan sohtest
ores monnes

Not at all do I criticize you with words, that I saw you flee another man
in battle through cowardice or retreat from the (shield-)wall to protect
your life, though many foes had hewn your mailcoat with their swords.
In fact, you ever sought to fight further forward, a prospect beyond
your capacity. For this reason I fear what has been ordained for you,
that you would too audaciously seek to fight another mans strategy in
the vanguard.27

Hildegy asserts that Waldere is no coward: she has never seen him flee,
even when his mailcoat was hacked to bits by many foes. Having made
the case for Walderes courage, Hildegy disclaims any imputation of
cowardice in the advice she gives. She fears that Waldere might act
to fyrenlice (too audaciously) in abandoning his protected defile.

Ibid. 223.
I am indebted to Shippey on a number of counts in this translation; see ibid., pp.
2223. My translation audaciously for OE fyrenlice acknowledges that heroic deeds
should often be regarded as liminal: audacious verging on reckless; see DOE s.v.
firenlice sense 2 (rashly, violently, for this passage only).
26
27

conclusion

369

She suspects that Walderes success in killing a host of enemies (both

in the current mle and in the past battles she alludes to) would tempt
him to a prospect beyond his capacity (ml ofer mearce, 19a), and
she contemplates that Attilas strategy is to tempt Walderes heroic
vanityhis warrior confidence.
Joyce Hill has offered four possible interpretations of OE ml in the
phrase ml ofer mearce,28 but the sense appointed time is most
likely correct. The word mldg in Genesis A 2341b signifies appointed
day, a meaning one could extend in the Waldere A context to occasion or opportunity.29 Because ml ofer mearce varies furor
feohtan sohtest (sought to fight further, 18ab), we could guess
that OE ml somehow describes this circumstance. Now, as Shippey
contends, seeking to fight further implies fighting beyond a physical
boundary, for which reason he also thinks that ofer mearce means
outside the protected cranny where Waldere defends himself. OE mearc
often describes a physical boundary. In fact, Hildegy mentions that
Waldere always seeks to fight further, beyond the shield-wall. While
OE mearc may designate physical emplacement, it has the figurative
sense limit, and since OE ml is as likely to mean occasion as
designated time, the phrase may confront Walderes recklessness. He
consistently sought opportunities beyond normal limits, past his measure, and Hildegy therefore fears what has been measured out (metod,
19b) for him. The expression t am tstealle (21a), which I have
translated in the vanguard, may also imply Walderes partiality for
impulsive action. OE tsteall in similar context is attested in Gulac A,
where it is often rendered station.30 This station may refer to the
place of action, where the kings standard is set or where the fighting
is most desperate.31
The odds in Walderes current situation must be quite different from
those in his former engagements, in spite of his stature. They make
Walderes ordinary reaction reckless, not audacious but too audacious (to fyrenlice). According to Hildegy, yielding to his customary
impulse to be in the tsteall would not be heroic:

Minor Heroic Poems 44.

Ibid.
30
Roberts, Guthlac Poems 135 (note to line 179): him to tstealle/rest arrde//
Cristes rode (At the vanguard he first raised Christs rood, 179a80a).
31
Shook 6; at the cross (i.e. the position of a battle-standard) Gulac the warrior
overcame many perils (r se cempa oferwon//frecnessa fela, 180b81a).
28
29

370

conclusion
t u scealt aninga
lif forleosan
agan mid eldum . . . (8a11a)

. . . nu is se dg cumen
oer twega,
oe langne dom

The day has now come that you must from here on achieve one of two
things, either lose your life or gain long-lasting glory among men.

Walderes boar-conduct would earn no glory in these terms. On the

contrary, it would be excessive, and probably fatal, in exactly the way
I have anticipated for Beowulf. Hildegy foresees Walderes potential
to be too eager for glory because his past successes have made him
over-confident.
In Waldere Hildegy urges heroic moderation, but the evaluation
of Walderes heroic death does not lie solely in the poems diegesis. Such
judgment also functions at the level of audience, suggesting that listeners and readers actually appraised heroic deeds as excessive. A heros
death in particular invites analysis, but Germanic heroic literature often
judges action against ethical motivation. Regarding the Germanic focus
on failure, defeat, disaster, Bertha S. 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, either yielding or resisting,33 and resistance
in this dichotomy would confer fame. I have argued throughout this
book that choice also necessitates evaluation, and that resistance would
not automatically be exalted in Beowulf. In my view, the implicit tension between two evil choices requires that resistance be justified, not
simply acclaimed. Sign in the Volsung legend exemplifies the stress
that I envision in Beowulf. In committing incest, betraying her husband,
killing her own sons, and immolating herself, she chose vengeance
and gains fame of a sort. The story does not end with admiration
foror astonishment atSigns choice, however. It continues with
the audiences justification for her choice: what makes her resistance
admirable, and should human beings be willing to exchange their dignity for revenge? Of course, any concession to virtue in Beowulf invokes
the Christian outlook theorized for the poem, since yielding to ones
fate implies the weakness associated with defeat. Action, I have said,
typically dominates choice in the warriors ideology.

32
33

Philpotts 4.
Ibid. 5.

conclusion

371

Beowulf vexes the admiration for resistance that Phillpotts outlines in

her article on wyrd and providence. Social obligation opposes violence
or, at least, the dpense characterizing do-or-die resistance. On the one
hand, heroic resistance of the sort encountered in the Grendel fight
conflicts with national and warband politics at Heorot. Beowulfs resistance there defies Danish chagrin and the threat of renewed violence.
On the other hand, the dragon fight frustrates violence in consideration
of kingly responsibility, another kind of social obligation. Judgments
made about these actions must reflect complexities and doubts contrived
by the poet. 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. The poet invites this judgment, especially in the
dragon fight, where I have tried to calculate all the contingencies of
Beowulfs choice. My goal in Chapter 4 is to show how unforeseen
outcomes of Beowulfs dragon fight complicate his choice, which is itself
based on limited understanding occasioned by a potentially improper
motivation. The incident dramatizes the problem that resistance to
ones fate equals a famous death, but it does not altogether impugn
the system of belief underlying resistance or capitulation. Beowulf is
never ironic in these terms.
Post-Marxist critics have often summarized the Beowulf poets overall
outlook as challenging a social orthodoxy, most often a heroic code
of some sort. Readings that protest heroism typify much Feminist
criticism of Beowulf. In a recent book on queenship in Old English
literature, Stacy S. 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 ones inner voices rather than against human foes.34 I
have argued, however, that heroism valued the same arts of wisdom
that Klein attributes to the poems female characters and to Hrogar
(because of his age and consequent feminine traits). In Beowulf s
case, the inner voices confirm moderation, the restraint of political
expertise. Interestingly, Klein interprets the dragons treasure as a token
of vacant heroism: the equation of Beowulfs life with a treasure that
is ultimately deemed useless indicts his adherence to a heroic ethos
of vengeance and violence which is shown, in the end, to reduce the

34

Ruling Women 89.

372

conclusion

value of the warriors life to nothing.35 Yet the quotient missing in this
equation is glory or reputation. Like all warriors, Beowulf does not
trade his life for useless treasure but for the enduring honor signified
by material reward. Nevertheless, the Beowulf poet does not explore
whether it is admirable to exchange ones life for glory, but whether
Beowulf responsibly gave up his life, and earned glory, in the dragon
fight. The poet affirms heroism as righteous action but questions the
limits of action for great men like Beowulf, especially when they must
also be responsible for men of lesser capacities. John Leyerles article,
Beowulf the Hero and the King, advocated a similar reading, but
he concluded that heroism doomed Beowulf, who could only express the
soldiers faith in action. Conceiving heroism as a cultural liability, this
subtle opinion re-figured Beowulf into a social commentary rebuking the
conduct of kings and ironizing heroism. While I have affirmed many of
Leyerles arguments in these pages, I have not concluded that the poet
criticizes heroism per se. On the contrary, Beowulf chooses to fight the
dragon, and while heroism might influence him to choose action, only
by understanding his motivation can we determine whether his choice
was righteous. Germanic kings are not doomed because they choose
action, nor are they doomed because they have no choice but action.
They might be afflicted by oferhygd.
The issue of oferhygd, and the related fault of excessive wlenco, constitute
my final point about the judgment of Beowulf s deeds. OE oferhygd is
often rendered by the Christian reflex pride, an offensive and damnable vice for all churchmen. But because Beowulf s life and deeds are
celebrated at the conclusion of the poem, Anglo-Saxonists hesitate to
credit him with pride. I have made the case, however, that Beowulf s
behavior at the end of his life should not impugn the success of his long
reign. He has earned the Geats culminating accolades:
manna mildest
leodum liost

. . . wyruldcyninga
ond monwrust,
ond lofgeornost (3180b82b)

. . . among the kings in this world he was the mildest of men, the gentlest,
the kindest to his people and the most desirous of praise.

The same appreciation holds for Waldere, Cynewulf, and Byrhtno,

all of whom had long and eminent careers. Furthermore, oferhygd alone

35

Ibid. 96.

conclusion

373

would not entail ones personal destruction. As a matter of misjudgment, it is attended by other failings attributable to unforeseeable
consequences like the men in ones charge, the topography, or ones
weapons. Every case of excessive behavior also involves amelioration
of some kind, and the Anglo-Saxons enjoyed discovering how these
extenuating circumstances could relieve blame. In Beowulf s case
the dragons death, the broken sword, and the secret curse mitigate
his potential oferhygd.
In my view, critics have misunderstood two aspects of what I call
the oferhygd complex, and these particulars also resolve why Beowulf
can be honored at the end of the poem. First, a king afflicted by oferhygd does not know that he has succumbed. He follows the perverse,
wondrous commands of an evil spirit in complete ignorance of any
sin, and may, in fact, think of his deeds as righteous. The king, for
whom prosperity and self-defense ought to be enough, has simply lost
his moral faculties and commits deeds contrary to ece rd and in defiance of his forgesceaft (destiny) and dom (reputation). Second, the
social calamity represented by the tyrants ambition evokes pity, one
reason why the language of accusation in Hrogars sermon is so mild.
In other words, the response to the subtle psychic temptation of oferhygd
reveals sympathy for men who succumb to it, not outright condemnation. Hrogar conveys just this kind of indulgent grief in reaction to
Heremods fall: the tyrant forgets and neglects his promise. The
Geats react to Beowulfs own death with a mixture of pity, disappointment, and alarm (for their future), not the outright abuse that might be
expected if Beowulf had yielded to superbia. This ostensible sympathy,
alongside the multiple vindications I outlined above, explains why the
close of Beowulf expresses respect and dignity for Beowulfs accomplishments. Although the audience has registered the ambivalence of this
conditional tribute, Beowulf has been a good king.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Afros, Elena. Linguistic Ambiguities in Some Exeter Book Riddles. NQ 250 (2005):
4317.
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): 110.
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): 293301.
. Flyting in The Battle of Maldon. NM 71 (1970): 197202.
Andersson, Theodore M. Heathen Sacrifice in Beowulf and Rimberts Life of Ansgar.
Medievalia et Humanistica 13 (1985): 6574.
. The Thief in Beowulf. Speculum 59 (1984): 493508.
. Tradition and Design in Beowulf. In Old English Literature in Context. Edited by
John D. Niles, 90106. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1980.
. The Displacement of the Heroic Ideal in the Family Sagas. Speculum 45 (1970):
57593.
Andrew, Malcolm. Grendel in Hell. ES 62 (1981): 40110.
Arngart, Olof. The Durham Proverbs. Speculum 56 (1981): 288300.
Ashdown, Margaret. Notes on Two Passages of Old English Verse. RES 5 (1929):
3247.
Atherton, Mark. The Figure of the Archer in Beowulf and the Anglo-Saxon Psalter.
Neophil 77 (1993): 6537.
Aurner, Nellie Slayton. Hengest: A Study in Early English Hero Legend. University
of Iowa Humanistic Studies 2 (1921): 176.
Ayres, Henry Morgan. The Tragedy of Hengest in Beowulf. JEGP 16 (1917):
28295.
Bck, Hilding. The Synonyms for Child, Boy, Girl in Old English. Lund: C. W. K.
Gleerup, 1934.
Backx, Suzanne. Sur la date et lorigine du De monstris, belluis et serpentibus.
Latomus 3 (1939): 61.
Baird, Joseph L. Unferth the yle. M 39 (1970): 112.
. The Happy Hurt: Beowulf 2,69799. MP 65 (1968): 3289.
. Grendel the Exile. NM 67 (1966): 37581.
Baker, Peter S. Beowulf: Basic Readings. New York: Garland, 1995.
. Beowulf the Orator. Journal of English Linguistics 21 (1988): 323.
Bammesberger, Alfred. The Coastguards Maxim Reconsidered (Beowulf, Lines
287b289). ANQ 18 (2005): 35.
. OE befeallen in Beowulf, line 1126a. NQ 248 (2003): 1568.
. A Textual Note on Beowulf 431432. ES 76 (1995): 297301.
. 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., 23955. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1992.
. The Conclusion of Wealhtheows Speech (Beowulf 1231). NM 91 (1990):
2078.
. Linguistic Notes on Old English Poetic Texts. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1986.

376

bibliography

. Three Beowulf Notes. ES 61 (1980): 4814.

Bandy, Stephen C. Cain, Grendel, and the Giants of Beowulf. PLL 9 (1973):
23549.
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, 3750 (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):
24749.
Bazelmans, Jos. By Weapons Made Worthy: Lords, Retainers, and Their Relationship in Beowulf.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam UP, 1999.
Benedikt Sveinsson. Saga Gsla Srssonar I og II. Reykjavik, Kostnaarmaur Sigurur
Kristjnsson, 1922.
Benson, Larry D. The Pagan Coloring of Beowulf. In Old English Poetry: Fifteen Essays.
Edited by Robert P. Creed, 193213. 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., 3779. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1974.
Bessinger, J. B. Maldon and lfsdrpa: An Historical Caveat. CL 14 (1962): 2335.
Bethurum, Dorothy. The Homilies of Wulfstan (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957).
Biggs, Frederick M. Hondscioh and schere in Beowulf. Neophil 87 (2003): 63552.
. Beowulf s Fight with the Nine Nicors. RES n.s. 53 (2002): 31128.
. Deors Threatened Blame Poem. SP 94 (1997): 297320.
Bjork, Robert E. Digressions and Episodes. In A Beowulf Handbook. Edited by Robert
E. Bjork and John D. Niles, 193212. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1997.
. Speech as Gift in Beowulf. Speculum 69 (1994): 9931022.
. Unferth in the Hermeneutic Circle: A Reappraisal of James L. Rosiers Design
for Treachery: The Unferth Intrigue. PLL 16 (1980): 13341.
. and John D. Niles. A Beowulf Handbook. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1997.
Bjrkman, Erik. Studien ber die Eigennamen im Beowulf. Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1920.
Black, Matthew. The Parables as Allegory. BJRL 42 (195960): 27387.
Blake, E. O. Liber Eliensis. London: Royal Historical Society, 1962.
Blake, N. F. The Genesis of The Battle of Maldon. ASE 7 (1978): 11929.
. The Battle of Maldon. Neophil 49 (1965): 33245.
. The Heremod Digressions in Beowulf. JEGP 61 (1962): 27887.
Bliss, Alan. Beowulf, Lines 307475. In J. R. R. Tolkien, Scholar and Storyteller. Edited
by Mary Salu and Robert T. Farrell, 4163. 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): 54559.
. 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, 3643.
Portland, OR: U of Oregon Books, 1963.
Boenig, Robert. Time Markers and Treachery: The Crux at Beowulf 1130. ELN 24
(1987): 19.
. Very Sharp/Unsharp, Unpeace/Firm Peace: Morphemic Ambiguity in Beowulf.
Neophil 76 (1992): 27582.
Bolton, W. F. Alcuin and Beowulf: An Eighth-Century View. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
UP, 1978.
. Byrhtno in the Wilderness. MLR 64 (1969): 48190.
Bonjour, Adrien. Monsters Crouching and Critics Rampant: Or the Beowulf Dragon
Debated. PMLA 68 (1953): 30412.
. 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): 4166.
Bosse, Roberta Bux and Jennifer Lee Wyatt. Hrothgar and Nebuchadnezzar: Conversion in Old English Verse. PLL 23 (1987): 25771.
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 Poets Use of Them. ASE 11 (1983): 199246.
. The Legends of Ermanaric. Berkeley, CA: U of California P, 1943.
. The Eormanric of the Wds. University of California Publications in English 3
(1937): 22536.
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): 857.
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): 142.
. The Climax of the Finn Episode. University of California Publications in English
3 (1943): 28561.
Brown, Alan K. The Firedrake in Beowulf. Neophil 64 (1980): 43960.
. The Epinal Glossary Edited with Critical Commentary of the Vocabulary.
PhD diss., Stanford University, 1969.
Brown, Carleton. Beowulf 10801106. MLN 34 (1919): 1813.
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, 17192. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell UP, 2000.
Brunner, Heinrich. Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte. Third edition. Berlin: Verlag Von Duncker
& Humblot, 1961.
Bryan, W. F. rgod in Beowulf, and other Old English Compounds of r. MP 28
(1930): 15761.
Bullough, Donald A. What has Ingeld to do with Lindisfarne? ASE 22 (1993):
93125.
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., 819. 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 OBrien
OKeeffe, 18597. New York: Garland, 1994.
Cabaniss, Allen. Beowulf and the Liturgy. In An Anthology of Beowulf Criticism. Edited
by Lewis E. Nicholson, 22332. Notre Dame, IN: U of Notre Dame P, 1963.
Caie, Graham D. The Old English Daniel: A Warning Against Pride. ES 59 (1978):
19.
Calder, Daniel G. Setting and Ethos: The Pattern of Measure and Limit in Beowulf.
SP 69 (1972): 2137.
Camargo, Martin. The Finn Episode and the Tragedy of Revenge in Beowulf. SP
78 (1981): 12034.
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, 1326. 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):

24657.
Cavill, Paul. Maxims in Old English Poetry. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1999.
. Beowulf and Andreas: Two Maxims. Neophil 77 (1993): 47987.
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,
171203. 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 Heros Pride in Old English Hagiography. Reprinted in Beowulf: Basic Readings. Edited by Peter S. Baker, 18193.
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): 21428.
. The Progress of the Hoard in Beowulf. PQ 47 (1968): 47386.
Chickering, Howell. Lyric Time in Beowulf. JEGP 91 (1992): 489509.
. Beowulf: A Dual Language Edition. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977.
Ciklamini, Marlene. The Problem of Starkar. SS 43 (1971): 16988.
Clark, Cecily. Byrhtnoth and Roland: A Contrast. Neophil 51 (1967): 28893.
. On Dating The Battle of Maldon: Certain Evidence Reviewed. Nottingham Medieval
Studies 27 (1983): 122.
Clark, George. The Hero and the Theme. In A Beowulf Handbook. Edited by Robert
E. Bjork and John D. Niles, 27190. 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., 6684. New York: Garland, 1992.
. Beowulf. Boston: Twayne, 1990.
. The Battle of Maldon: A Heroic Poem. Speculum 43 (1968): 5271.
Clarke, D. E. Martin. The Office of Thyle in Beowulf. RES 12 (1936): 616.
Cleasby, Richard, Gudbrand Vigfusson and William A. Craigie. An Icelandic-English
Dictionary. Second edition. Oxford: Clarendon, 1957.
Clemoes, Peter. lfrics 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. Hildigunnrs Lament. In Cold Counsel: Women in Old Norse Literature
and Mythology. Edited by Sarah M. Anderson and Karen Swenson, 1554. New
York: Routledge, 2002.
. The Germanic Context of the Unfer Episode. Speculum 55 (1980): 44468.
. Hrbarslj as Generic Farce. SS 51 (1979): 12445.
Colgrave, Bertram. Felixs 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. Bedes Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Oxford:

Clarendon, 1969.
Collinder, Bjrn. Beowulfskolier. In Elias Wessn, 15 April 1954, 1625. Lund: Carl
Blom, 1954.
Collins, Rowland L. Six Words in the Blickling Homilies. In Philological Essays. Edited
by James L. Rosier, 13741. The Hague: Mouton, 1970.
Cook, Albert Stanburrough. Aldhelm and the Source of Beowulf 2523. MLN 40
(1925): 13742.
. The Possible Begetter of the OE Beowulf and Widsith. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 25 (192122): 281346.
. Translations from the Old English. Hamdon, CT: Archon Books, 1899.
Cooke, William. Who Cursed Whom, and When? The Cursing of the Hoard and
Beowulfs Fate. M 76 (2007): 20724.
Cox, Betty S. Cruces of Beowulf. The Hague: Mouton, 1971.
Cox, R. S. The Old English Dicts of Cato. Anglia 90 (1972): 142.
Craigie, William A. Interpolations and Omissions in Anglo-Saxon Poetic Texts.
Philologica: Journal of Comparative Philology 2 (19234): 519.
Cramp, Rosemary. Beowulf and Archaeology. Medieval Archaeology 1 (1957): 5777.
Crawford, S. J. Beowulfiana. RES 7 (1931): 44850.
. 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): 4452.
Cronan, Dennis. Poetic Words, Conservatism and the Dating of Old English Poetry.
ASE 33 (2004): 2350.
. The Origin of Ancient Strife in Beowulf. North-Western European Language Evolution 312 (1997): 5768.
. Wiglaf s Sword. SN 65 (1993): 12939.
. Lofgeorn: Generosity and Praise. NM 92 (1991): 18794.
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, 26982. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1971.
. Oswald and Byrhtnoth: A Christian Saint and a Hero Who is Christian. ES
46 (1965): 93109.
. On The Wanderer Lines 8084: A Study of a Figure and a Theme. rsbok
Vetenskaps Societeten i Lund (195859): 77110.
. Ubi Sunt Passages in Old EnglishSources and Relationships. rsbok Vetenskaps
Societeten i Lund (1956): 2455.
Culbert, Taylor. The Narrative Functions of Beowulf s Swords. JEGP 59 (1960):
1320.
Damico, Helen. Beowulf s Wealhtheow and the Valkyrie Tradition. Madison, WI: U of
Wisconsin P, 1984.
. Srlattr and the Hama Episode in Beowulf. SS 55 (1983): 22235.
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., 185209. 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,
24250. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 1991.
Del Pezzo, Raffaella. Ags. Winburg, citt del convivio. Romanobarbarica 10 (198889):
10314.
De Vries, J. Die beiden Hengeste. ZfdP 72 (1953): 12543.

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-Jrgen. Literacy and Orality in Beowulf: The Problem of Reference.
In Mndichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im englischen Mittelalter. Edited by Willi Erzgrber and
Sabine Volk, 1525. Tbingen: 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, 7183. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1984.
Discenza, Nicole Guenther. The Kings 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): 3966.
Dockray-Miller, Mary. The Masculine Queen of Beowulf. Women and Language 21
(1998): 318.
Doig, J. F. Beowulf 3069b: Curse or Consequence? ELN 19 (1981): 36.
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.
Dragland, S. L. Monster-Man in Beowulf. Neophil 61 (1977): 60618.
Dronke, Ursula. Beowulf and Ragnark. SBVS 17 (1969): 30225.
Du Bois, Arthur E. The Unity of Beowulf. PMLA 49 (1934): 374405.
Dmmler, 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): 4963.
. 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):
8198.
. Beowulf s Rowing Match. Neophil 63 (1979): 28590.
Ehwald, Rudolf. Aldhelmi Opera. MGH. AA 15. Berlin: Weidmann, 191319.
Eliason, Norman E. Beowulfs Inglorious Youth. SP 76 (1979): 1018.
. Two Old English Scop Poems. PMLA 81 (1966): 18592.
. 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, 12438. New York: New York U P, 1965.
. Beowulf Notes. Anglia 71 (1953): 43855.
Elliott, Ralph W. V. Byrhtnoth and Hildebrand: A Study in Heroic Technique. CL
14 (1962): 5370.
Enright, Michael J. The Warband Context of the Unferth Episode. Speculum 73
(1998): 297337.
. Lady With a Mead Cup: Ritual, Prophecy and Lordship in the European Warband from La
Tne 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): 85112.
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 ScandinaviaA History of Warfare
and Ideology. In Roman Reflections in Scandinavia. Edited by Eva Bjrklund et al.,
1358. Rome: Lerma 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., 8899. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1991.
Fajardo-Acosta, Fidel. Intemperance, Fratricide, and the Elusiveness of Grendel.
ES 73 (1992): 20510.
. 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): 1738.
Farrell, Robert T. Daniel and Azarias. London: Methuen, 1974.
. The Archer and Associated Figures on the Ruthwell CrossA Reconsideration. In Bede and Anglo-Saxon England: Papers in Honour of the 1300th Anniversary of the
Birth of Bede. Edited by Robert T. Farrell, 96117. London: British Archaeological
Reports, 1978.
. A Possible Source for the Old English Daniel. NM 70 (1969): 8490.
Fehrle, Eugen and Richard Hnnerkopf. Publius Cornelius Tacitus: Germania. Heidelberg:
Carl Winter, 1959.
Finnur Jnsson. Den Norsk-Islandske Skjaldedigtning. 2 vols. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and
Bagger, 1967.
Fjalldal, Magns. 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.
Frster, Max. Die altenglischen Beigaben des Lambeth-Psalters. ASNSL 132 (1914):
32835.
. Beitrge zur altenglischen Wortkunde aus ungedruckten volkskundlichen Texten. Englische Studien 39 (1908): 32155.
Frank, Roberta. An Aspirin for Beowulf: Against Aches and PainsEce and Wrc.
ANQ 15 (2002): 5863.
. Germanic Legend in Old English Literature. In The Cambridge Companion to
Old English Literature. Edited by Michael Godden and Michael Lapidge, 88106.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991.
. The Search for the Anglo-Saxon Oral Poet. BJRL 75 (1993): 1136.
. The Battle of Maldon and Heroic Literature. In The Battle of Maldon AD 991.
Edited by Donald Scragg, 196207. 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 5001600: Essays in Honour
of Peter Hayes Sawyer. Edited by Ian Wood and Niels Lund, 95106. 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., 15372. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1986.
. Skaldic Verse and the Date of Beowulf. In The Dating of Beowulf. Edited by
Colin Chase, 12339. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1981.
. Old Norse Memorial Eulogies and the Ending of Beowulf. The Early Middle
Ages, Acta 6 (1979): 119.
Frantzen, Allen J. Writing the Unreadable Beowulf: Writan and Forwritan, the Pen
and the Sword. Exemplaria 3 (1991): 32757.
Friend, Joseph H. The Finn Episode Climax: Another Suggestion. MLN 69 (1954):
3857.
Frisby, Deborah S. Daring and Foolish Renderings: On the Meaning of Dollic in
Beowulf. ANQ 4 (1991): 5963.
Fry, Donald K. Finnsburh: A New Interpretation. The Chaucer Review 9 (1974): 114.
. Finnsburh: Fragment and Episode. London: Methuen, 1974.

382

bibliography

Fulk, R. D. Six Cruces in the Finnsburg Fragment and Episode. M 74 (2005):

191204.
. Six Cruces in Beowulf (Lines 31, 83, 404, 445, 1198, and 30745). In Latin
Learning and English Lore: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Literature for Michael Lapidge. Edited
by Katherine OBrien OKeeffe and Andy Orchard, 34967. 2 vols. Toronto:
U of Toronto P, 2005.
. Afloat in Semantic Space: Old English sund and the Nature of Beowulfs Exploit
with Breca. JEGP 104 (2005): 45774.
. OE weorc: Where does it Hurt? South of the Thames. ANQ 17 (2004): 612.
. The Name of Offas Queen: Beowulf 19312. Anglia 122 (2004): 61439.
. On Argumentation in Old English Philology, with Particular Reference to the
Editing and Dating of Beowulf. ASE 32 (2003): 126.
. 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): 11327.
. Old English icge and incge. ES 59 (1978): 2556.
Galloway, Andrew. Beowulf and the Varieties of Choice. PMLA 105 (1990): 197
208.
. et al. Philology and Anglo-Saxon Poetry. PMLA 106 (1991): 30812.
Gang, T. M. Approaches to Beowulf. RES 3 (1952): 112.
Garde, Judith. Sapientia, ubi sunt, and the Heroic Ideal in Beowulf. SN 66 (1993):
15973.
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, 13946. New York: New York U P, 1965.
Georgianna, Linda. King Hrethels Sorrow and the Limits of Heroic Action in Beowulf.
Speculum 62 (1987): 82950.
Gingher, Robert S. The Unferth Perplex. Thoth 14 (1974): 1928.
Girvan, Ritchie. Finnsburuh. Sir Israel Gollancz Memorial Lecture. Oxford, 1941.
. Review of Beowulfstudien, by J. Hoops. MLR 28 (1933): 2446.
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: Byrhtnos ofermod Once Again. Reprinted
in Old English Shorter Poems: Basic Readings. Edited by Katherine OBrien OKeeffe,
14972 (New York: Garland, 1994).
. Hymnar und Hymnen im englischen Mittelalter. Tbingen: 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, 27198. 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, 7190. Eugene, OR: U of
Oregon Books, 1963.
Gonsor, Paul. Das angelschsiche Prosa-Leben des hl. Guthlac. Heidelberg: Carl Winter,
1909.
Gordon, E. V. The Date of thelreds Treaty with the Vikings: Olaf Tryggvason
and The Battle of Maldon. MLR 32 (1937): 2432.
Gray, John. The Finn Episode in Beowulf: Line 1085(b) ac hig him geingo budon. In
Words and Wordsmiths: A Volume for H. L. Rogers. Edited by Geraldine Barnes et al.,
329. Sydney: Dept. of English, U of Sydney, 1989.
Green, Alexander. The Opening of the Episode of Finn in Beowulf. PMLA 31 (1916):
75997.

bibliography

383

Green, D. H. Language and History in the Early Germanic World. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 1998.
. The Carolingian Lord: Semantic Studies on Four Old High German Words: balder, fr, truhtin,
hrro. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1965.
Green, Martin. Time, Memory, and Elegy in The Wifes Lament. In The Old English
Elegies: New Essays in Criticism and Research. Edited by Martin Green, 13232. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 1983.
Greenfield, Stanley B. Beowulf and the Judgement of the Righteous. In 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, 393407.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985.
. Of Words and Deeds: The Coastguards Maxim Once More. In The Wisdom
of Poetry: Essays in Early English Literature in Honor of Morton W. Bloomfield. Edited by
Larry D. Benson and Siegfried Wenzel, 4551. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute
Publications, 1982.
. The Authenticating Voice in Beowulf. ASE 5 (1976): 5162.
. Three Beowulf Notes: Lines 736b ff., 1331b ff., 13411344. In Medieval Studies
in Honor of Lillian Herlands Hornstein. Edited by Jess B. Bessinger, Jr. and Robert R.
Raymo, 16972. New York: New York U P, 1976.
. Gifstol and Goldhoard in Beowulf. In Old English Studies in Honour of John
C. Pope. Edited by Robert B. Burlin and Edward B. Irving, Jr., 10717. Toronto:
U of Toronto P, 1974.
. The Interpretation of Old English Poems. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1972.
. Geatish History: Poetic Art and Epic Quality in Beowulf. Reprinted in Interpretations of Beowulf: A Critical Anthology. Edited by R. D. Fulk, 12026. Bloomington,
IN: Indiana UP, 1991.
. The Formulaic Expression of the Theme of Exile in Anglo-Saxon Poetry.
Speculum 30 (1955): 2006.
Griffith, M. S. Some Difficulties in Beowulf, Lines 874902: Sigemund Reconsidered.
ASE 24 (1995): 1114.
Guni Jnsson. ireks Saga af Bern. 2 vols. Reykjavik: slendingasagnatgfan, 1962.
Gwara, Scott. Beowulf 307475: Beowulf Appraises His Reward. Neophil 92 (2008):
33338.
. Forht and Fgen in The Wanderer and Related Literary Contexts of Warrior
Wisdom. Mediaeval Studies 69 (2007): 25598.
. Misprision in the Para-Narratives of Iliad 9. Arethusa 40 (2007): 30336.
. Aldhelmi Malmesbiriensis Prosa de Virginitate cum Glosa Latina atque Anglosaxonica. 2
vols. CCSL 143143A. Turnhout: Brepols, 2001.
. Second Language Acquisition and Anglo-Saxon Bilingualism: Negative Transfer
and Avoidance in lfric Batas Latin Colloquia, ca. A.D. 1000. Viator 29 (1998):
124.
. A Record of Anglo-Saxon Pedagogy: Aldhelms Epistola ad Heahfridum and its
Gloss. Journal of Medieval Latin 6 (1996): 83134.
Hall, John R. Clark. A Note on Beowulf 11421145. MLN 25 (1910): 11314.
Halverson, John. Beowulf and the Pitfalls of Piety. University of Toronto Quarterly 35
(1966): 26078.
Hamilton, Marie Padgett. The Religious Principle in Beowulf. In An Anthology of
Beowulf Criticism. Edited by Lewis E. Nicholson, 10535. Notre Dame, IN: U of
Notre Dame P, 1963.
Hanley, Wayne. Grendels Humanity Again. In Geardagum 11 (1990): 613.
Hanning, Robert W. Poetic Emblems in Medieval Narrative Texts. In Vernacular
Poetics in the Middle Ages. Edited by Lois Ebin, 132. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval
Institute Publications, 1984.

384

bibliography

Hansen, Elaine Tuttle. The Solomon Complex: Reading Wisdom in Old English Poetry. Toronto:
U of Toronto P, 1988.
. Hrothgars Sermon in Beowulf as Parental Wisdom. ASE 10 (1982): 5367.
Hardy, Adelaide. The Christian Hero Beowulf and Unfer yle. Neophil 53 (1969):
5569.
Harris, Joseph. Love and Death in the Mnnerbund: An Essay with Special Reference to
the Bjarkaml and The Battle of Maldon. In Heroic Poetry in the Anglo-Saxon Period: Studies
in Honor of Jess B. Bessinger, Jr. Edited by Helen Damico and John Leyerle, 77114.
Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan U, 1993.
. Beowulfs Last Words. Speculum 67 (1992): 132.
. Beowulf in Literary History. Pacific Coast Philology 17 (1982): 1623.
. The Senna: From Description to Literary Theory. Michigan Germanic Studies 5
(1979): 6574.
Hart, Cyril. The Ealdordom of Essex. In An Essex Tribute: Essays Presented to Frederick
G. Emmison as a Tribute to his Life and Work for Essex History and Archives. Edited by
Kenneth Neale, 5784. London: Leopards Head Press, 1987.
Hawkes, C. F. C. The Jutes of Kent. In Dark-Age Britain: Studies Presented to E. D.
Leeds. Edited by Donald. B. Harden and E. Thurlow Leeds, 91111. London:
Methuen, 1956.
Hecht, Hans. Bischofs Wrferth von Worcester bersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen.
Bibliothek der angelschsischen Prosa V. Leipzig: Georg H. Wigand, 1900.
Hedrick, Charles W. Parables as Poetic Fictions: The Creative Voice of Jesus. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.
Hessels, J. H. An Eighth-Century Latin-Anglo-Saxon Glossary. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
1890.
Heusler, Andreas. Die altgermanische Dichtung. Enlarged second edition. Darmstadt:
Hermann Gentner, 1957.
Hickes, G. Linguarum Veterum Septentrionalium Thesaurus Grammatico-Criticus et Archologicus.
2 vols. Oxford: E Theatro Sheldoniano, 1705.
Hieatt, C. B. Modryo and Heremod: Intertwined Threads in the Beowulf-Poets
Web of Words. JEGP 83 (1984): 17382.
Highfield, John. Mod in the Old English Secular Poetry: An Indicator of Aristocratic
Class. BJRL 79 (1997): 7992.
Hill, John M. The Narrative Pulse of Beowulf. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2008.
. The Anglo-Saxon Warrior Ethic. Gainesville: University of Florida P, 2000.
. The Cultural World in Beowulf. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1995.
. Hrothgars Noble Rule: Love and the Great Legislator. In Social Approaches to
Viking Studies. Edited by Ross Samson, 16978. Glasgow: Cruithne Press, 1991.
. Beowulf and the Danish Succession: Gift Giving as an Occasion for Complex
Gesture. Medievalia et Humanistica 11 (1982): 17797.
Hill, Joyce. Old English Minor Heroic Poems. Durham and St. Andrews: Durham and
St. Andrews Medieval Texts, 1983.
Hill, Thomas D. The Unchanging Hero: A Stoic Maxim in The Wanderer and Its
Contexts. SP 101 (2004): 23349.
. The Foreseen Wolf and the Path of Wisdom: Proverbial and Beast Lore in
Atlakvia. Neophil 77 (1993): 6757.
. Wealhtheow as a Foreign Slave: Some Continental Analogues. PQ 69 (1990):
10612.
. Beowulf as Seldguma: Beowulf, Lines 24751. Neophil 74 (1990): 6379.
. The Variegated Obit as an Historiographic Motif in Old English Poetry and
Anglo-Latin Historical Literature. Traditio 44 (1988): 10124.
. Scyld Scefing and the Stirps Regia: Pagan Myth and Christian Kingship in
Beowulf. In Magister Regis: Studies in Honor of Robert Earl Kaske. Edited by Arthur
Groos et al., 3747. New York: Fordham UP, 1986.

bibliography

385

. The Confession of Beowulf and the Structure of Volsunga Saga. In The Vikings.
Edited by Robert T. Farrell, 16579. London: Phillimore, 1982.
. History and the Heroic Ethic in Maldon. Neophil 54 (1970): 2916.
Hillman, Richard. Defeat and Victory in The Battle of Maldon: The Christian
Resonances Reconsidered. English Studies in Canada 11 (1985): 38595.
Hintz, Howard W. The Hama Reference in Beowulf: 11971201. JEGP 33 (1934):
98102.
Holder, Alfred. Saxonis Grammatici Gesta Danorum. Strassburg: Karl J. Trbner, 1886.
Hollowell, Ida Masters. On the Identity of the Wanderer. In The Old English Elegies:
New Essays in Criticism and Research. Edited by Martin Green, 8295. Rutherford, NJ:
Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 1983.
. Unfer the yle in Beowulf. SP 73 (1976): 23965.
Holthausen, Friedrich. Zu altenglischen Denkmlern. Englische Studien 51 (191718):
1808.
Howe, Nicholas. Writing the Map of Anglo-Saxon England: Essays in Cultural Geography. New
Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2008.
. Migration and Mythmaking in Anglo-Saxon England. New Haven: Yale UP, 1989.
Howlett, David R. Form and Genre in Beowulf. SN 46 (1974): 30925.
Howren, Robert. A Note on Beowulf 1689. MLN 71 (1956): 31718.
Hume, Kathryn. The Thematic Design of Grettis Saga. JEGP 73 (1974): 46986.
Hupp, Bernard F. The Hero in the Earthly City: A Reading of Beowulf. Binghamton, NY:
SUNY P, 1984.
. Doctrine and Poetry. Binghamton, NY: State U of New York P, 1959.
. A Reconsideration of the Ingeld Passage in Beowulf. JEGP 38 (1939): 217
25.
Imelmann, Rudolf. Beowulf 303 ff. und 3074 f. Englische Studien 67 (19323):
32539.
. Review of Beowulf, by M. Heyne and L. Schcking. Deutsche Literaturzeitung 17
April 1909, cols. 9951000.
Irving, Edward B., Jr. Heroic Experience in the Old English Riddles. In Old English
Shorter Poems: Basic Readings. Edited by Katherine OBrien OKeeffe, 199212. New
York: Garland, 1994.
. Christian and Pagan Elements. In A Beowulf Handbook. Edited by Robert E.
Bjork and John D. Niles, 17592. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1997.
. Heroic Role-Models: Beowulf and Others. In Heroic Poetry in the Anglo-Saxon
Period. Edited by Helen Damico and John Leyerle, 34772. Kalamazoo, MI: Western
Michigan University P, 1993.
. Rereading Beowulf. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1989.
. The Nature of Christianity in Beowulf. ASE 13 (1984): 721.
. A Reading of Beowulf. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1968.
. The Heroic Style in The Battle of Maldon. SP 58 (1961): 45767.
Jack, George. Beowulf: A Student Edition. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.
Jackson, Elizabeth. From the Seat of the yle? A reading of Maxims I, Lines 13840.
JEGP 99 (2000): 17092.
. Not Simply Lists: An Eddic Perspective on Short-Item Lists in Old English
Poems. Speculum 73 (1998): 33871.
Jackson, Jess H. Oinns Meetings with Sigmundr and Sigurr in the Volsungasaga.
MLN 43 (1928): 3078.
Jackson, W. T. H. The Hero and the King: An Epic Theme. New York: Columbia UP,
1982.
Jensen, S. R. Beowulf and the Swedish Dragon. Sydney: ARRC, 1993.
Jones, Alison. Daniel and Azarias as Evidence for the Oral Formulaic Character of
Anglo-Saxon Poetry. M 35 (1966): 95102.
Jones, Putnam Fennell. Aldhelm and the Comitatus-Ideal. MLN 47 (1932): 378.
. Beowulf 259699. MLN 45 (1930): 3001.

386

bibliography

Jorgensen, Peter A. Beowulf s Swimming Contest with Breca: Old Norse Parallels.
Folklore 89 (1978): 529.
Joseph, Brian D. Using Indo-European Comparative Mythology to Solve Literary
Problems: The Case of Old English Hengest. Papers in Comparative Studies 2 (19823):
17786.
Jost, Karl. Die Institutes of Polity, Civil and Ecclesiastical. Bern: Francke Verlag, 1959.
Kahrl, Stanley B. Feuds in Beowulf: A Tragic Necessity? MP 69 (1972): 18998.
Kasik, Jon C. The Use of the Term Wyrd in Beowulf and the Conversion of the AngloSaxons. Neophil 63 (1979): 12835.
Kaske, Robert E. The Coastwardens Maxim in Beowulf: A Clarification. NQ 229
(1984): 1618.
. Beowulf and the Book of Enoch. Speculum 46 (1971): 42131.
. The Eotenas in Beowulf. In Old English Poetry: Fifteen Essays. Edited by Robert
P. Creed, 285310. Providence, RI: Brown UP, 1967.
. Hygelac and Hygd. In Studies in Old English Literature in Honor of Arthur G.
Brodeur. Edited by Stanley B. Greenfield, 2006. Eugene, OR: U of Oregon Books,
1963.
. Weohstans Sword. MLN 75 (1960): 4658.
. The Sigemund-Heremod and Hama-Hygelac Passages in Beowulf. PMLA 74
(1959): 48994.
. Sapientia et Fortitudo as the Controlling Theme of Beowulf. Reprinted in An
Anthology of Beowulf Criticism. Edited by Lewis E. Nicholson, 269310. Notre Dame,
IN: U of Notre Dame P, 1963.
Keller, Thomas L. The Dragon in Beowulf Revisited. Aevum 55 (1981): 21828.
Kelly, Birte. The Formative Stages of Beowulf Scholarship: Part II. ASE 12 (1983):
23975.
Kennedy, Alan. Byrhtnoths Obits and Twelfth-Century Accounts of the Battle of
Maldon. In The Battle of Maldon AD 991. Edited by Donald Scragg, 5978. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1991.
Keynes, Simon. The Historical Context of the Battle of Maldon. In The Battle of
Maldon AD 991. Edited by Donald Scragg, 81113. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.
Kiernan, Kevin. Beowulf and the Beowulf Manuscript. Revised edition. Ann Arbor: U of
Michigan P, 1996.
Kindrick, Robert L. Germanic Sapientia and the Heroic Ethos of Beowulf. Medievalia
et Humanistica n.s. 10 (1981): 117.
Kindschi, Lowell. The Latin-Old English Glossaries in Plantin-Moretus MS 32 and
British Museum MS Additional 32,246. PhD diss., Stanford University, 1955.
Klaeber, F. Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg. Third edition. Boston: D. C. Heath,
1950.
. Observations on the Finn Episode. JEGP 14 (1915): 5449.
. Die Christlichen Elemente im Beowulf II. Anglia 35 (1911): 24970.
. Studies in the Textual Interpretation of Beowulf. MP 3 (19056): 23565,
44565.
. A Few Beowulf Notes. MLN 16 (1901): 1418.
Klein, Stacy S. Ruling Women: Queenship and Gender in Anglo-Saxon Literature. Notre Dame,
IN: U of Notre Dame P, 2006.
Kberl, Johann. The Indeterminacy of Beowulf. Lanham, MD: University Press of America,
2002.
. The Magic Sword in Beowulf. Neophil 71 (1987): 1208.
Kock, Ernst A. Interpretations and Emendations of Early English Texts. Anglia 45
(1921): 10531.
. Interpretations and Emendations of Early English Texts IV. Anglia 42 (1918):
99124.
Kotzor, Gnter. Das altenglische Martyrologium. Munich: Beck, 1981.

bibliography

387

Kroll, Norma. Beowulf: The Hero as Keeper of Human Polity. MP 84 (1986):

11729.
Kuhn, Sherman M. Beowulf and the Life of Beowulf: A Study in Epic Structure. In
Studies in the Language & Poetics of Anglo-Saxon England. Edited by Sherman M. Kuhn,
10223. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Publishers, 1984.
. Further Thoughts on Brand Healfdenes. JEGP 76 (1977): 2317.
. The Sword of Healfdene. JEGP 42 (1943): 8295.
Lapidge, Michael. An Aspect of Old English Poetic Diction: The Postponing of
Prepositions. In Inside Old English: Essays in Honour of Bruce Mitchell. Edited by John
Walmsley, 15380. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.
. The Archetype of Beowulf. ASE 29 (2000): 541.
. Beowulf and Perception. PBA 111 (2000): 6197.
. The Life of St Oswald. In The Battle of Maldon AD 991. Edited by Donald Scragg,
518. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991.
. Beowulf, Aldhelm, the Liber monstrorum, and Wessex. Studi Medievali third series
23 (1982): 15192.
Larrington, Carolyne. A Store of Common Sense: Gnomic Theme and Style in Old Icelandic and
Old English Wisdom Poetry. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993.
Lawrence, W. W. The Breca Episode in Beowulf. In Anniversary Papers by Colleagues and
Pupils of George Lyman Kittredge. Edited by Professors Robinson, Sheldon and Neilson,
35966. Reprinted New York: Russell and Russell, 1967.
. Beowulf and the Epic Tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1928.
. Beowulf and the Tragedy of Finnsburg. PMLA 30 (1915): 372431.
Lehmann, Winfred P. Old English Postpositions as Residues of OV Order. In
Anglo-Saxonica: Beitrge zur Vor- und Frhgeschichte der englischen Sprache und zur altenglischen
Literatur. Edited by Klaus R. Grinda and Claus-Dieter Wetzel, 5419. Munich:
Wilhelm Fink, 1993.
. On Posited Omissions in the Beowulf. In Studies in Language, Literature and Culture
of the Middle Ages and Later. Edited by E. Bagby Atwood and Archibald A. Hill, 2209.
Austin, TX: U of Texas P, 1969.
Leisi, Ernst. Gold und Manneswert im Beowulf. Anglia 71 (1953): 25973.
Lendinara, Patrizia. Unallusione ai Giganti: Versi Gnomici Exoniensi 192200.
Annali, Sezione Germanica (Naples) 16 (1973): 8598.
Lerer, Seth. Literacy and Power in Anglo-Saxon Literature. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P,
1991.
Leslie, Roy F. The Meaning and Structure of The Seafarer. In The Old English Elegies:
New Essays in Criticism and Research. Edited by Martin Green, 96122. Rutherford,
NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 1983.
Leyerle, John M. The Interlace Structure of Beowulf. Reprinted in Interpretations of
Beowulf: A Critical Anthology. Edited by R. D. Fulk, 14667. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
UP, 1991.
. Beowulf the Hero and the King. M 34 (1965): 89102.
Lindsay, W. M. Isidori Hispalensis Etymologiarum sive Originum Libri XX. Oxford: Clarendon, 1929.
Lionarons, Joyce Tally. The Medieval Dragon: The Nature of the Beast in Germanic Literature.
Enfield Lock: Hisarlik P, 1998.
Liuzza, Roy Michael. On the Dating of Beowulf. In Beowulf: Basic Readings. Edited by
Peter S. Baker, 281302. New York: Garland, 1995.
Locherbie-Cameron, Margaret A. L. The Men Named in the Poem. In The Battle of
Maldon AD 991. Edited by Donald Scragg, 23849. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.
. Byrhtnoth, His Noble Companion and his Sisters Son. M 57 (1988):
15971.
. lfwines Kinsmen and the Battle of Maldon. NQ n.s. 25 (1978): 4867.

388

bibliography

Lnnroth, Lars. Den Dubbla Scenen: Muntlig Diktning Frn Eddan till ABBA. Stockholm:
Prisma, 1977.
. The Noble Heathen: A Theme in the Sagas. SS 41 (1969): 129.
. Hjlmars Death-Song and the Delivery of Eddic Poetry. Speculum 46 (1971):
120.
Lord, Albert B. Interlocking Mythic Patterns in Beowulf. In Old English Literature in
Context. Edited by John D. Niles, 13742. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1980.
Louden, Bruce. A Narrative Technique in Beowulf and Homeric Epic. Oral Tradition
11 (1996): 34662.
Low, Soon-Ai. The Mirthless Content of Skarpheinns Grin. M 65 (1996):
1018.
Lucas, Peter J. 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. Edited by Helen Conrad OBrian et al., 10218.
Dublin: Four Courts P, 1999.
Lumiansky, R. M. The Dramatic Audience in Beowulf. JEGP 51 (1952): 54550.
Mackie, W. S. Notes upon the Text and the Interpretation of Beowulf. MLR 34
(1939): 51524.
Magennis, Hugh. The Beowulf Poet and his Druncne Dryhtguman. NM 86 (1985):
15964.
Magoun, Francis P., Jr. Beowulf B: A Folk-Poem on Beowulfs Death. In Early English and Norse Studies Presented to Hugh Smith in Honour of his Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by
Arthur Brown and Peter Foote, 12740. London: Methuen, 1963.
. Beowulf and King Hygelac in the Netherlands: Lost Anglo-Saxon Verse-Stories
about this Event. ES 35 (1954): 193204.
Malone, Kemp. Beowulf the Headstrong. ASE 1 (1972): 13945.
. Coming Back from the Mere. PMLA 69 (1954): 12929.
. Finns Stronghold. MP 43 (1945): 835.
. Hildeburg and Hengest. ELH 10 (1943): 25784.
. Ecgtheow. MLQ 1 (1940): 3744.
. Time and Place in the Ingeld Episode of Beowulf. JEGP 39 (1940): 7692.
. Ealhhild. Anglia 55 (1931): 26672.
. Ingeld. MP 27 (1930): 25776.
. Notes on Beowulf. Anglia 54 (1930): 17.
. Hunlafing. MLN 43 (1928): 3004.
. The Finn Episode in Beowulf. JEGP 25 (1926): 15772.
Marold, Edith. Das Walhallbild in den Eirksml und den Hkonarml. Medieval Scandinavia 5 (1972): 1933.
McEntire, Sandra. The Monastic Context of Old English Precepts. NM 91 (1990):
2439.
McGalliard, John C. The Poets Comment in Beowulf. SP 75 (1978): 24370.
McKinnell, John. A Farewell to Old English Elegy: The Case of Vainglory. Parergon
9 (1991): 6789.
. On the Date of The Battle of Maldon. M 44 (1975): 12136.
McNamee, Maurice B. Honor and the Epic Hero. New York: Holt, 1960.
. BeowulfAn Allegory of Salvation. JEGP 59 (1960): 190207.
McNelis, James I. The Sword Mightier than the Pen? Hrothgars Hilt, Theory, and
Philology. In Studies in English Language and Literature. Doubt Wisely: Papers in Honour
of E. G. Stanley. Edited by M. J. Toswell and E. M. Tyler, 17585. London: Routledge, 1996.
Markland, Murray F. The Craven Comitatus. College English 22 (1961): 3413.
Mead, Gilbert W. Wiergyld of Beowulf, 2051. MLN 32 (1917): 4356.
Meaney, Audrey L. Scyld Scefing and the Dating of BeowulfAgain. BJRL 71
(1989): 740.

bibliography

389

Mellinkoff, Ruth. Cains Monstrous Progeny in Beowulf: Part I, Noachic Tradition.

ASE 8 (1979): 14362.
Menner, Robert J. The Poetical Dialogues of Solomon and Saturn. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 1941.
Meritt, Herbert Dean. Fact and Lore about Old English Words. Stanford, CA: Stanford
UP, 1954.
. Twenty Hard Old English Words. JEGP 49 (1950): 23141.
Messenius, Johannes. Scondia Illustrata, seu Chronologia de rebus Scondiae. Stockholm: Typis
Olavi Eni, 17005.
Mezger, Fritz. Self-Judgment in OE Documents. MLN 67 (1952): 1069.
Miller, Thomas. The Old English Version of Bedes Ecclesiastical History of the English People.
EETS OS 9596. London: N. Trbner, 1890.
Mills, A. D. Byrhtnos Mistake in Generalship. NM 67 (1966): 1427.
Mitchell, Bruce. OE befeallen in Beowulf, Line 1126a. NM 105 (2004): 1879.
. Literary Lapses: Six Notes on Beowulf and its Critics. RES 43 (1992): 117.
. Beowulf 1020b: brand or bearn. Romanobarbarica 10 (198889): 28392.
. 19471987: Forty Years On. In Bruce Mitchell on Old English. Edited by Bruce
Mitchell, 32544. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988.
. Until the Dragon Comes . . . : Some Thoughts on Beowulf. In Bruce Mitchell on Old
English: Selected Papers. Edited by Bruce Mitchell, 315. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988.
. Beowulf, Lines 307475: The Damnation of Beowulf? Reprinted in Bruce
Mitchell on Old English: Selected Papers. Edited by Bruce Mitchell, 3040. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1988.
. Some Syntactical Problems in The Wanderer. Reprinted in Bruce Mitchell on Old
English: Selected Papers. Edited by Bruce Mitchell, 99117. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988.
. Old English Syntax. Two volumes. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985.
. Two Syntactical Notes on Beowulf. Neophil 52 (1968): 2929.
. and Susan Irvine. Beowulf Repunctuated. Old English Newsletter Subsidia 29.
Kalamazoo, MI: The Medieval Institute, 2000.
. and Fred C. Robinson. A Guide to Old English. Sixth edition. Oxford: Blackwell,
2001.
. Beowulf: An Edition with Relevant Shorter Texts. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
. et al. Short Titles of Old English Texts: Addenda and Corrigenda. ASE 8
(1979): 3313.
. Short Titles of Old English Texts. ASE 4 (1975): 20721.
Moore, Arthur K. Beowulf s Dereliction in the Grendel Episode. MLN 68 (1953):
1659.
Moore, Bruce. The Relevance of the Finnsburh Episode. JEGP 75 (1976): 317
29.
Moorman, Charles. The Essential Paganism of Beowulf. MLQ 28 (1967): 318.
Mora, Mara Jos. The Invention of the Old English Elegy. ES 76 (1995): 12939.
Morey, James H. The Fates of Men in Beowulf. In Source of Wisdom: Old English and
Early Medieval Latin Studies in Honour of Thomas D. Hill. Edited by Charles D. Wright
et al., 2651. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2007.
Morgan, Gerald. The Treachery of Hrothulf. ES 53 (1972): 2339.
Mllenhoff, Karl. Beovulf: Untersuchungen ber das angelschsische Epos und die lteste Geschichte
der germanischen Seevlker. Berlin: Weidmann, 1889.
Mustanoja, Tauno F. The Unnamed Womans Song of Mourning over Beowulf and
the Tradition of Ritual Lamentation. NM 68 (1967): 127.
Myres, J. N. L. The Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes. PBA 56 (1972 for 1970):
14574.
Nagy, Michael S. A Reassessment of Unfers Fratricide in Beowulf. Proceedings of the
Medieval Association of the Midwest 3 (1996): 1530.

390

bibliography

Napier, Arthur S. The Old English Version, with the Latin Original, of the Enlarged Rule of
Chrodegang. EETS OS 150. London: Oxford UP, 1916.
. Old English Glosses, Chiefly Unpublished. Reprinted Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1969.
. Wulfstan: Sammlung der ihm zugeschriebenen Homilien nebst Untersuchungen ber ihre
Echtheit. Berlin: Weidmann, 1883.
Neckel, Gustav and Hans Kuhn. Edda: Die Lieder des Codex Regius nebst verwandten Denkmlern. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1962.
Nelles, William. Beowulfs Sorhfullne Si with Breca. Neophil 83 (1999): 299312.
Newton, Sam. The Origins of Beowulf and the Pre-Viking Kingdom of East Anglia. Cambridge:
D. S. Brewer, 1993.
Niles, John D. Locating Beowulf in Literary History. Exemplaria 5 (1993): 79109.
. Beowulf: The Poem and its Tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1983.
Nolan, Barbara and Morton W. Bloomfield. Botword, Gilpcwidas, and the Gilphlden
Scop of Beowulf. JEGP 79 (1980): 499516.
Norman, Henry W. The Anglo-Saxon Version of the Hexameron of St. Basil. Second edition.
London: John Russell Smith, 1849.
North, Richard. Heathen Gods in Old English Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
1997.
. The Haustlong of jlfr of Hvinir. Middlesex, UK: Hisarlik P, 1996.
. Getting to Know the General in The Battle of Maldon. M 60 (1991): 115.
. Pagan Words and Christian Meanings. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1991.
. Tribal Loyalties in the Finnsburh Fragment and Episode. LSE n.s. 21 (1990):
1343.
OBrien OKeeffe, Katherine. Heroic Values and Christian Ethics. In The Cambridge
Companion to Old English Literature. Edited by Malcolm Godden and Michael Lapidge,
10725. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991.
. Visible Song: Transitional Literacy in Old English Verse. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
1990.
. Beowulf, Lines 702b-836: Transformations and the Limits of the Human. Texas
Studies in Literature and Language 23 (1981): 48494.
ODonoghue, Heather. What has Baldr to do with Lamech? The Lethal Shot of a Blind
Man in Old Norse and Jewish Exegetical Traditions. M 72 (2003): 82107.
OLoughlin, J. L. N. Beowulfits Unity and Purpose. M 21 (1952): 113.
Ogilvy, J. D. A. Unferth: Foil to Beowulf? PMLA 79 (1964): 3705.
Olrik, Axel. Danmarks Heltedigtning: En Oldtidsstudie. Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad, 1903.
. Skjoldungasaga i Arngrim Jonssons Udtog. Copenhagen, 1894.
Opland, Jeff. Beowulf on the Poet. MS 38 (1976): 44267.
Orchard, Andy. A Critical Companion to Beowulf. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2003.
. Pride and Prodigies: Studies in the Monsters of the Beowulf-Manuscript. Cambridge: D. S.
Brewer, 1995.
Osborn, Marijane. Verbal Sea Charts and Beowulfs Approach to Denmark. In
De Gustibus: Essays for Alain Renoir. Edited by John Miles Foley et al., 44155. New
York: Garland, 1992.
. The Great Feud: Scriptural History and Strife in Beowulf. PMLA 93 (1978):
97381.
. Some Uses of Ambiguity in Beowulf. Thoth 10 (1969): 1835.
Owen-Crocker, Gale R. Horror in Beowulf: Mutilation, Decapitation, and Unburied
Dead. In Early Medieval English Texts and Interpretations: Studies Presented to Donald G.
Scragg. Edited by Elaine Treharne and Susan Rosser, 81100. Tempe, AZ: Arizona
Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2002.
. Gracious Hrothulf, Gracious Hrothgar: A Reassessment. ELN 38 (2001):
19.
Palmer, R. Barton. In his End is his Beginning: Beowulf 21772199 and the Question
of Unity. Annuale Mediaevale 17 (1976): 521.

bibliography

391

Parker, R. E. Gyd, Leo, and Sang in Old English Poetry. University of Tennessee Studies
in the Humanities 1 (1956): 5963.
Parks, Ward. Prey Tell: How Heroes Perceive Monsters in Beowulf. JEGP 92 (1993):
116.
. Verbal Dueling in Heroic Narrative: The Homeric and Old English Traditions. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton UP, 1990.
Pearce, T. M. Beowulf s Moment of Decision in Heorot. Tennessee Studies in Literature
11 (1966): 16976.
Pepperdene, Margaret W. Beowulf and the Coast-guard. ES 47 (1966): 40919.
Petschenig, Michael. Iohannis Cassiani Conlationes XXIIII. CSEL 13.2. Vienna: C. Geroldi
Filius, 1886.
Pettitt, Thomas. Beowulf: The Mark of the Beast and the Balance of Frenzy. NM
77 (1976): 52635.
Pheifer, J. D. Old English Glosses in the pinal-Erfurt Glossary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1974.
Phillpotts, B. S. Wyrd and Providence in Anglo-Saxon Thought. Reprinted in Interpretations of Beowulf: A Critical Anthology. Edited by R. D. Fulk, 113. Bloomington,
IN: Indiana UP, 1991.
. The Battle of Maldon: Some Danish Affinities. MLR 24 (1929): 17290.
Pickford, T. E. An Edition of Vainglory. Parergon 10 (1974): 140.
Plummer, Charles and John Earle. Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel. Reprinted Oxford:
Clarendon, 1952.
Pogatscher, Alois. Unausgedrcktes Subjekt im Altenglischen. Anglia 23 (1901):
261301.
Polanyi, Livia. Lexical Coherence Phenomena in Beowulfs Debate with Unferth.
Rackham Literary Studies 8 (1977): 2537.
Pope, John C. Beowulf 505, Gehedde, and the Pretensions of Unferth. In Modes of
Interpretation in Old English Literature: Essays in Honor of Stanley B. Greenfield. Edited by
Phyllis Rugg Brown et al., 17387. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1986.
. and R. D. Fulk. Eight Old English Poems. Third edition rev. by R. D. Fulk. New
York: W. W. Norton, 2001.
Pulsiano, Phillip. Danish Mens Words Are Worse than Murder: Viking Guile and
The Battle of Maldon. JEGP 96 (1997): 1325.
. and Joseph McGowan. Fyrd, Here, and the Dating of Beowulf. Studia Anglica
Posnaniensia 23 (1990): 313.
Quirk, Randolph. Poetic Language and Old English Meter. In Early English and Norse
Studies Presented to Hugh Smith in Honour of his Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Arthur Brown
and Peter Foote, 15071. London: Methuen, 1963.
Raine, James. Miscellanea Biographica. London: J. B. Nichols & Son, 1835.
Ranisch, Wilhelm. Die Gautrekssaga in zwei Fassungen. Berlin: Mayer & Mller, 1900.
Rauer, Christine. Beowulf and the Dragon: Parallels and Analogues. Cambridge: D. S.
Brewer, 2000.
Reichl, Karl. Old English giedd, Middle English yedding as Genre Terms. In Words,
Texts and Manuscripts: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Culture. Edited by Helmut Gneuss, 34970.
Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1992.
Reinhard, Mariann. On the Semantic Relevance of the Alliterative Collocations in Beowulf.
Bern: Francke Verlag, 1976.
Renoir, Alain. The Heroic Oath in Beowulf, the Chanson de Roland, and the Niebelungenlied. In Studies in Old English Literature in Honor of Arthur G. Brodeur. Edited by Stanley
B. Greenfield, 23766. Eugene, OR: U of Oregon Books, 1963.
Rhodes, E. W. Defensors Liber Scintillarum. EETS OS 93. London: N. Trbner, 1889.
Richards, Mary P. A Reexamination of Beowulf ll. 31803182. ELN 10 (1973):
1637.
Riedinger, Anita. The Old English Formula in Context. Speculum 60 (1985):
294317.

392

bibliography

Riley, Samuel M. The Contrast between Beowulf and Hygelac. Journal of Narrative
Technique 10 (1980): 18697.
Roberts, Jane. Old English Un- Very and Unferth. ES 61 (1980): 28992.
. The Guthlac Poems of the Exeter Book. Oxford: Clarendon, 1979.
Robertson, D. W., Jr. The Doctrine of Charity in Mediaeval Literary Gardens: A
Topical Approach Through Symbolism and Allegory. In An Anthology of Beowulf
Criticism. Edited by Lewis E. Nicholson, 16588. Notre Dame, IN: U of Notre
Dame P, 1963.
Robinson, Fred C. The Language of Paganism in Beowulf: A Response to an IllOmened Essay. Multilingua 18 (1999): 17383.
. Sigemunds fhe ond fyrena: Beowulf 879a. In To Explain the Present: Studies in the
Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Edited by Terttu Nevalainen and
Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, 2008. Helsinki: Socit Nophilologique, 1997.
. Textual Notes on Beowulf. In Anglo-Saxonica: Beitrge zur Vor- und Frhgeschichte
der englischen Sprache und zur altenglischen Literatur. Edited by Klaus R. Grinda and
Claus-Dieter Wetzel, 10712. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1993.
. The Tomb of Beowulf. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.
. A Further Word on dollcra in Beowulf 2646. ANQ 6 (1993): 1113.
. Some Aspects of the Maldon Poets Artistry. In The Tomb of Beowulf and Other
Essays on Old English. Edited by Fred C. Robinson, 12237. Oxford: Blackwell,
1993.
. God, Death and Loyalty in The Battle of Maldon. In The Tomb of Beowulf and
Other Essays on Old English. Edited by Fred C. Robinson, 10521. Oxford: Blackwell,
1993.
. Why is Grendels Not Greeting the Gifstol a Wrc Micel? 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., 25762. Cambridge:
D. S. Brewer, 1992.
. Beowulf and the Appositive Style. Knoxville: U of Tennessee P, 1985.
. Understanding an Old English Wisdom Verse: Maxims II, Lines 10ff. In The
Wisdom of Poetry. Edited by Larry D. Benson and Siegfried Wenzel, 111 and 2614.
Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, 1982.
. Elements of the Marvellous in the Characterization of Beowulf: A Reconsideration of the Textual Evidence. Reprinted in The Tomb of Beowulf and Other Essays on
Old English. Edited by Fred C. Robinson, 2035. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.
. Personal Names in Medieval Narrative and the Name of Unferth in Beowulf.
In Essays in Honor of Richebourg Galliard McWilliams. Edited by Howard Creed, 438.
Birmingham, AL: Birmingham-Southern College, 1970.
. The Significance of Names in Old English Literature. Anglia 86 (1968):
1458.
Rollason, D. W. The Mildrith Legend: A Study in Early Medieval Hagiography in England.
Leicester: Leicester UP, 1982.
Rosier, James L. The Unhlitm of Finn and Hengest. RES 17 (1966): 1714.
. Instructions for Christians: A Poem in Old English. Anglia 82 (1964): 422.
. Design for Treachery: The Unferth Intrigue. PMLA 77 (1962): 17.
Russchen, A. FinnsburgA Critical Approach. In Miscellanea Frisica. Edited by
N. R. rhammar, 34956. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984.
Russom, Geoffrey R. At the Center of Beowulf. In Myth in Early Northwest Europe.
Edited by Stephen O. Glosecki, 22540. Tempe, AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval
and Renaissance Studies, 2007.
. A Germanic Concept of Nobility in The Gifts of Men and Beowulf. Speculum 53
(1978): 115.
Ryan, J. S. Othin in England: Evidence from the Poetry for a Cult of Woden in
Anglo-Saxon England. Folklore 74 (1963): 46080.

bibliography

393

Ryner, Bradley D. Exchanging Battle: Subjective and Objective Conflicts in The Battle
of Maldon. ES 87 (2006): 26676.
Sanderlin, George. A Note on Beowulf 1142. MLN 53 (1938): 5013.
Sarrazin, Gregor. Beowulf-Studien. Berlin: Mayer and Mller, 1888.
. Miscellen: I. Rolf Krake und sein Vetter im Beowulfliede. Englische Studien 24
(1898): 1445.
Schabram, Hans. Superbia: Studien zum altenglischen Wortschatz. Munich: Wilhelm Fink,
1965.
Schlauch, Margaret. Wdsth, Vthfrull, and Some Other Analogues. PMLA 46
(1931): 96987.
Schrader, Richard J. The Language on the Giants Sword-Hilt in Beowulf. NM 94
(1993): 1417.
. The Deserted Chamber: An Unnoticed Topos in the Fathers Lament of
Beowulf. Journal of the Rocky Mountain Medieval and Renaissance Association 5 (1984):
15.
Schcking, Levin L. Wann entstand der Beowulf? Glossen, Zweifel und Fragen.
BGDSL 42 (1917): 347410.
. The Ideal of Kingship in Beowulf. In An Anthology of Beowulf Criticism. Edited by
Lewis E. Nicholson, 3549. Notre Dame, IN: U of Notre Dame P, 1964.
Schwetman, John W. Beowulf s Return: The Heros Account of his Adventures
Among the Danes. Medieval Perspectives 13 (1998): 13648.
Scragg, D. G. The Vercelli Homilies and Related Texts. EETS OS 300. London: Oxford
UP, 1992.
Sedgefield, Walter John. Beowulf. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1910.
. King Alfreds Old English Version of Boethius: De Consolatione Philosophiae. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1899.
Shakespeare, William. King Henry V. Edited by T. W. Craik. London: Thomson Learning, 2001.
Shippey, Thomas A. The Wanderer and The Seafarer as Wisdom Poetry. In Companion
to Old English Poetry. Edited by Henk Aertsen and Rolf H. Bremmer, Jr., 14558.
Amsterdam: VU UP, 1994.
. Principles of Conversation in Beowulfian Speech. In Techniques of Description:
Spoken and Written Discourse. Edited by John M. Sinclair et al., 10926. London:
Routledge, 1993.
. Boar and Badger: An Old English Heroic Antithesis? LSE n.s. 16 (1985):
22039.
. Maxims in Old English Narrative: Literary Art or Traditional Wisdom? In
Oral Tradition, Literary Tradition: A Symposium. Edited by Hans Bekker-Nielsen et al.,
2846. Odense: Odense UP, 1977.
. Poems of Wisdom and Learning. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1976.
. Old English Verse. London: Hutchinson, 1972.
Shook, Lawrence K. The Burial Mound in Guthlac A. MP 58 (1960): 110.
Shuman, R. Baird and H. Charles Hutchings II. The un- Prefix: A Means of Germanic
Irony in Beowulf. MP 57 (1960): 21722.
Sievers, Eduard. Sitzung vom 6. Juli 1895 [also known as Beowulf und Saxo].
Berichte ber die Verhandlungen der kniglichen schsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu
Leipzig. Phil.-hist. Classe 47 (1895): 17592.
Silber, Patricia. Rhetoric as Prowess in the Unferth Episode. Texas Studies in Literature
and Language 23 (1981): 47183.
. Unferth: Another Look at the Emendation. Names 28 (1980): 10111.
Sims-Williams, Patrick. The Settlement of England in Bede and the Chronicle. ASE
12 (1983): 141.
Sisam, Kenneth. The Structure of Beowulf. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965.
. Beowulf s Fight with the Dragon. RES n.s. 9 (1958): 12940.

394

bibliography

. Studies in the History of Old English Literature. Oxford: Clarendon, 1953.

Skeat, Walter W. lfrics Lives of Saints. Vol. 1. EETS 76. London: Oxford UP,
1881.
Sklar, Elizabeth S. The Battle of Maldon and the Popular Tradition: Some Rhymed
Formulas. PQ 54 (1975): 40918.
Smetana, Cyril L. lfric and the Early Medieval Homiliary. Traditio 15 (1959):
163204.
Smithers, G. V. Five Notes on Old English Texts. English and Germanic Studies 4
(19512): 6585.
. The Meaning of The Seafarer and The Wanderer: Appendix, M 28 (1959),
99104.
Stanley, Eric G. Beowulf: Lordlessness in Ancient Times is the Theme as Much as the
Glory of Kings, If Not More. NQ n.s. 52 (2005): 26781.
. Courtliness and Courtesy in Beowulf and Elsewhere in English Medieval Literature. In Words and Works: Studies in Medieval English Language and Literature in Honour
of Fred C. Robinson. Edited by Peter S. Baker and Nicholas Howe, 67103. Toronto:
U of Toronto P, 1998.
. Hengestes heap, Beowulf 1091. In Britain 400600: Language and History. Edited
by Alfred Bammesberger and Alfred Wollmann, 5163. Heidelberg: C. Winter,
1990.
. Notes on Old English Poetry. LSE 20 (1989): 31944.
. The Meaning of Old English Corer, Coror. NQ 233 (1988): 2924.
. Geoweora: Once Held in High Esteem. In A Collection of Papers with Emphasis
on Old English Literature. Edited by Eric Gerald Stanley, 31835. Toronto: PIMS,
1987.
. Beowulf. Reprinted in A Collection of Papers with Emphasis on Old English Literature. Edited by Eric G. Stanley, 13969. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval
Studies, 1987.
. Old English Poetic Diction and the Interpretation of The Wanderer, The Seafarer
and The Penitents Prayer. Reprinted in A Collection of Papers with Emphasis on Old
English Literature. Edited by Eric G. Stanley, 23480. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of
Mediaeval Studies, 1987.
. The Narrative Art of Beowulf. Reprinted in A Collection of Papers with Emphasis on
Old English Literature. Edited by Eric G. Stanley, 17091. Toronto: Pontifical Institute
of Mediaeval Studies, 1987.
. Henra Hyht in Beowulf. Reprinted in A Collection of Papers with Emphasis on
Old English Literature. Edited by Eric G. Stanley, 192208. Toronto: Pontifical Institute
of Mediaeval Studies, 1987.
. Two Old English Poetic Phrases Insufficiently Understood for Literary Criticism: ing gehegan and seono gehegan. In Old English Poetry: Essays on Style. Edited by
Daniel G. Calder, 6790. Berkeley, CA: U of California P, 1979.
Steadman, J. M., Jr. The Ingeld Episode in Beowulf: History or Prophecy? MLN 45
(1930): 5225.
Stevenson, William Henry. Assers Life of King Alfred. Oxford: Clarendon, 1904.
Storms, G. The Subjectivity of the Style of Beowulf. In Studies in Old English Literature
in Honor of Arthur G. Brodeur. Edited by Stanley B. Greenfield, 17186. Eugene, OR:
U of Oregon Books, 1963.
. The Significance of Hygelacs Raid. Nottingham Medieval Studies 14 (1970):
326.
Stryker, William Garlington. The Latin-Old English Glossary in MS Cotton Cleoptara
A.III. unpublished PhD diss., Stanford U, 1951.
Stuhmiller, Jacqueline. On the Identity of the Eotenas. NM 100 (1999): 714.
Sutherland, Raymond Carter. The Meaning of Eorlscipe in Beowulf. PMLA 70 (1955):
113342.

bibliography

395

Suzuki, Seiichi. The Quoit Brooch Style and Anglo-Saxon Settlement: A Casting and Recasting of
Cultural Identity Symbols. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2000.
Sveinsson, Einar . Brennu-Njls Saga. Reykjavk: Hi slenzka Fornritaflag, 1954.
Swanton, Michael J. Crisis and Development in Germanic Society 700800: Beowulf and the
Burden of Kingship. Gppingen: Kmmerle Verlag, 1982.
. The Battle of Maldon: A Literary Caveat. JEGP 67 (1968): 44150.
Sweet, Henry. King Alfreds West-Saxon Version of Gregorys Pastoral Care. Two vols. EETS
OS 50. London: N. Trbner, 18712.
Szarmach, Paul E. Vercelli Homily XX. Mediaeval Studies 35 (1973): 126.
Tangl, Michael. Die Briefe des Heiligen Bonifatius und Lullus. MGH Epistolae Selectae I.
Berlin: Weidmann, 1955.
Tanke, John. Beowulf, Gold-Luck, and Gods Will. SP 99 (2002): 35679.
Taylor, Paul Beekman. Beowulf s Family: Lexicography and Commodity. Archiv
143 (1991): 909.
. Searonias: Old Norse Magic and Old English Verse. SP 80 (1983): 10925.
. Beowulf 1130, 1875 and 2006: In Defense of the Manuscript. NM 82 (1981):
3579.
. Themes of Death in Beowulf. In Old English Poetry: Fifteen Essays. Edited by
Robert P. Creed, 24974. Providence, RI: Brown UP, 1967.
Thomas, P. G. Beowulf and Daniel A. MLR 8 (1913): 5379.
Tolkien, J. R. R. Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics. In J. R. R. Tolkien: The
Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays. Edited by Christopher Tolkien, 548. London:
George Allen & Unwin, 1983.
. Finn and Hengest: The Fragment and the Episode. Edited by Alan Bliss. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1983.
. The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelms Son. Essays and Studies n.s. 6
(1953): 118 at pp. 1318.
Toswell, M. J. Tacitus, Old English Heroic Poetry, and Ethnographic Preconceptions.
In Studies in English Language and Literature. Doubt Wisely: Papers in Honour of E. G. Stanley.
Edited by M. J. Toswell and E. M. Tyler, 493507. London: Routledge, 1996.
Trahern, Joseph B., Jr. Caesarius, Chrodegang, and the Old English Vainglory. In
Gesellschaft, Kultur, Literatur: Rezeption und Originalitt im Wachsen einer Europischen Literatur
und Geistigkeit. Edited by Karl Bosl, 16778. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1975.
Tripp, Raymond P., Jr. Fathers and Sons: Dynastic Decay in Beowulf. In Geardagum
16 (1995): 4960.
. Did Beowulf have an Inglorious Youth? SN 61 (1989): 12943.
. Lifting the Curse on Beowulf. ELN 23 (1985): 18.
. More About the Fight with the Dragon. Lanham, MD: U P of America, 1983.
Turville-Petre, J. E. Hengest and Horsa. SBVS 14 (195357): 27390.
Valentine, Virginia. Offas The Battle of Maldon. The Explicator 44 (1986): 57.
Van Hamel, A. Hengest and His Namesake. In Studies in English Philology: A Miscellany
in Honor of Frederick Klaeber. Edited by Kemp Malone and Martin Ruud, 15971.
Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1929.
Van Meter, David C. The Ritualized Presentation of Weapons and the Ideology of
Nobility in Beowulf. JEGP 95 (1996): 17589.
Vickrey, John F. On the Eor-Compounds in the Old English Finn-Stories. SN 65
(1993): 1927.
. The Narrative Structure of Hengests Revenge in Beowulf. ASE 6 (1977):
91103.
. Egesan ne gyme and the Crime of Heremod. MP 71 (1974): 295300.
von Rden, Michael. Wlanc und Derivate im Alt- und Mittelenglischen. Frankfurt: Peter
Lang, 1978.
von Schaubert, Else. Heyne-Schckings Beowulf. Sixteenth edition. Paderborn: F. Schningh,
19469.

396

bibliography

Waitz, G. Pauli Historia Langobardorum. MGH Scriptores rerum germanicarum. Hannover: Bibliopolius Hahnianus, 1878.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. Early Germanic Kingship in England and on the Continent. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1971.
Wardale, Edith. Beowulf : The Nationality of Ecgeow. MLR 24 (1929): 322.
Watanabe, Hideki. Textual Significance of the Sentences in the Form of t ws god
cyning in Old English Poems. In Approaches to Style and Discourse in English. Edited by
Risto Hiltunen and Shinichiro Watanabe, 13564. Osaka: Osaka UP, 2004.
. Final Words on Beowulf 1020b: Brand Healfdenes. NM 101 (2000): 517.
Waugh, Robin. Literacy, Royal Power, and King-Poet Relations in Old English and
Old Norse Compositions. CL 49 (1997): 289315.
. Competitive Narrators in the Homecoming Scene of Beowulf. Journal of Narrative
Technique 25 (1995): 20222.
Wehlau, Ruth. Seeds of Sorrow: Landscapes of Despair in The Wanderer, Beowulfs
Story of Hrethel and Sonnatorrek. Parergon n.s. 15 (1998): 117.
Wende, Fritz. ber die nachgestellten Prpositionen im Angelschsichen. Berlin: Mayer &
Mller, 1915.
Wentersdorf, Karl P. Beowulf s Adventure with Breca. SP 72 (1975): 14066.
Wetzel, Claus-Dieter. Die Datierung des Beowulf: Bemerkungen zur jngsten Forschungentwicklung. Anglia 103 (1985): 371400.
Whitbread, L. G. The Liber Monstrorum and Beowulf. Mediaeval Studies 36 (1974):
43471.
. Four Text-Notes on Deor. MLN 55 (1940), 2047.
Whitelock, Dorothy. The Audience of Beowulf. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1951.
. Anglo-Saxon Poetry and the Historian TRHS 4th ser. 31 (1949): 7594.
. Beowulf 24442471. M 8 (1939): 198204.
Whitesell, J. Edwin. Intentional Ambiguities in Beowulf. Tennessee Studies in Literature
11 (1966): 1459.
Wieland, Gernot. Manna Mildost: Moses and Beowulf. Pacific Coast Philology 23 (1988):
8693.
Willard, Rudolph. Vercelli Homily XI and its Sources. Speculum 24 (1949): 7687.
Williams, David. Cain and Beowulf: A Study in Secular Allegory. Toronto: U of Toronto
P, 1982.
Williams, R. A. The Finn Episode in Beowulf: An Essay in Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1924.
Wilts, Ommo. Die Friesen im BeowulfRezeption und epische Grundlage. Nordfriesisches Jahrbuch 15 (1979): 13144.
Wood, Francis A. Etymologies. MLN 15 (1900): 95101.
Woolf, Rosemary. The Ideal of Men Dying with their Lord in the Germania and in
The Battle of Maldon. ASE 5 (1976): 6381.
. The Wanderer, The Seafarer, and the Genre of Planctus. Anglo-Saxon Poetry: Essays
in Appreciation for John C. McGalliard. Edited by Lewis E. Nicholson et al., 192207.
Notre Dame, IN: U of Notre Dame P, 1975.
Wormald, Patrick. Bede, Beowulf and the Conversion of the Anglo-Saxon Aristocracy. In Bede and Anglo-Saxon England: Papers in Honour of the 1300th Anniversary of the
Birth of Bede. Edited by Robert T. Farrell, 3290. London: British Archaeological
Reports, 1978.
Wright, Charles D. The Blood of Abel and the Branches of Sin: Genesis A, Maxims I,
and Aldhelms Carmen de uirginitate. ASE 25 (1996): 719.
Wright, Neil. The Historia Regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth: I. Bern, Burgerbibliothek,
MS. 568. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1985.
Wright, T. and J. O. Halliwell. Reliquiae Antiquae. Oxford: William Pickering, 18413.
Zoga, Geir T. A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910.
Zupitza, Julius. lfrics Grammatik und Glossar. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung,
1880.

INDEX OF PASSAGES CITED FROM OLD ENGLISH

VERSE TEXTS

Cited by verse line(s): page reference(s).

Andreas
30714: 14 note 53
31720: 197 note 57
516: 189 note 30
61314: 72 note 40
1003: 109 note 163
1136: 195
1381: 78 note 47
14278: 70 note 36
1619: 72 note 40
Battle of Maldon
23: 326
6: 326
1721: 326
18: 326
19: 326
30: 325
313: 326
33: 325
34: 326
367: 326
79: 366
868: 338
8990: 328
90: 338
945: 331 note 66, 332
14958: 343 note 110
169: 324
1739: 341
17980: 341
181: 345
185: 345
1867: 345
1923: 345 note 113
2056: 367
2078: 321
21215: 344
2203: 161
224: 343
23742: 345
2478: 321
24951: 161

257: 321
2789: 321
31213: 344
Beowulf
6: 212
8: 211
14: 66, 292
1516: 66
204: 44
502: 220
58: 196
61: 147 note 31
645: 211
105: 18
11315: 190 note 31
118: 87 note 74
1205: 190
142: 18
144: 18
1689: 80
170: 80, 244
178: 212
1845: 107 note 158
196: 29
204: 282
216: 82
250: 101
251: 232
26782: 1056
2767: 212
278: 130
2805: 106
28791: 100, 102
311: 217 note 102
331: 24
3389: 17, 24, 76
341: 24
348: 15
3667: 15
349: 15
350: 15
37981: 29
3889: 205

398

index of passages cited from old english verse texts

Beowulf, contd.
4201: 95
421: 71
4212: 95
423: 71
42432: 82
429: 73 note 41
434: 95 note 124
457: 112
45961: 17, 75
462: 75
4789: 114 note 175
480: 109
4803: 132
5035: 108
507: 124
508: 24, 41
50812: 114
509: 41
511: 114
512: 41, 125
51315: 125 note 213
517: 126
5203: 114
5234: 126
5267: 95, 98
5301: 109, 110
532: 113 note 174
537: 115
539: 115, 125
5401: 115
5423: 113 note 174
5723: 29, 192, 267
5836: 115
587: 127
588: 77, 106
589: 98
60910: 115
629: 196
67980: 83
680: 41
6857: 332
721: 18
7368: 83
738: 189
770: 18
7838: 212
8015: 83
8078: 72 note 40
826: 85
8689: 61
8701: 61 note 3
876: 65, 68
879: 65

882: 68
8834: 62
885: 65
8889: 69
889: 65
8945: 70
895: 65
898902: 73
902: 164
9024: 72
903: 45
9045: 70
9078: 70, 232
91012: 115
911: 232
915: 210
9426: 178, 355
9469: 178
9513: 45, 132
95860: 189
996: 284
101419: 148
101718: 150
101819: 150
1020: 137 note 3
10557: 86
1064: 137
1065: 13940
10667: 139
1068: 139, 152 note 46
1069: 137
10712: 152
10734: 137 note 4
1076: 137 note 4
10801: 153
10823: 152
1086: 157
10878: 165
108994: 154
1095: 143, 154, 164
1096: 143 note 18
10967: 156
10981101: 156
1099: 157
1102: 152
11023: 153, 162
11046: 156, 175
1106: 232
11078: 154
11257: 158
112733: 167
11289: 167
1129: 168, 177
1130: 167, 168 note 114
11378: 158

index of passages cited from old english verse texts

Beowulf, contd.
11379: 16970
11401: 170
1145: 172
1146: 152
114650: 159
1147: 152
11501: 170
1155: 165
115960: 140
11656: 87 note 75
1166: 91, 124
11678: 127
11802: 149
11845: 147
11847: 149
11857: 150
1198: 143 note 19, 217
11991200: 217
12001: 214
12027: 24 note 74
1206: 24, 52, 71, 288
12078: 217
1220: 172
1231: 148 note 34
12335: 151
1259: 171 note 128
1260: 212
1264: 194
1275: 18
1278: 114 note 177
12824: 29
12926: 258
1304: 184 note 10
1305: 164 note 96
1307: 196
13256: 147
1330: 235
1343: 195
1352: 18
13845: 267
1429: 114 note 177
1456: 87 note 75
1467: 109
14701: 130
1485: 284
1489: 16, 98
14901: 333
1558: 192
1562: 192
1564: 196
16578: 193
16613: 193

168893: 183
1689: 190
1691: 188
16912: 184
16913: 186, 192
16934: 184
16948: 183
1698: 181
17003: 355, 361
1703: 188
1704: 112
17056: 188
1709: 233
170924: 181
171112: 71 note 39, 189, 194,
230
171314: 67, 71 note 39
1715: 194
171617: 194
171819: 194, 196
171920: 67, 1956
17212: 195
17224: 62
17247: 188 note 28
172434: 223
172457: 197, 2089
17303: 197
17358: 198
1739: 214
1740: 193
17412: 199
1744: 210
1747: 203, 219
1748: 210
1749: 199, 211
17502: 211
17557: 288
175860: 257
1759: 213
1760: 203, 218
1764: 192
176973: 199 note 60
17723: 218
17734: 199
1781: 284
180712: 234
182635: 2356
1827: 212, 235
18423: 233
1866: 171
19267: 228
192931: 229
19312: 229
19334: 230, 232

399

400

index of passages cited from old english verse texts

Beowulf, contd.
1938: 232
1939: 232
1940: 230
19501: 232
19513: 232
1961: 233, 292
1972: 73 note 41
2025: 145 note 24
2032: 111, 144 note 21
2034: 144 note 21
2036: 144 note 21
2037: 144
2040: 144
2042: 145, 171 note 128
2047: 112
2053: 145
2054: 144 note 21
2056: 146
2059: 144 note 21
2063: 143
20656: 143, 232
2069: 143 note 18
207680: 234
2080 : 2345
2082: 235
2093: 212
20934: 235
2105: 140
210514: 141
2108: 140
2113: 171 note 125
2119: 114 note 177
21524: 179
21527: 236
2155: 137 note 3
215862: 236
21669: 238
2180: 196
2181: 238
21839: 20
2194: 1745
21969: 238 note 150
22214: 250
2223: 264 note 80, 293
223170: 74, 265
2236: 293
2243: 266
2256: 266
22623: 266
22656: 72 note 40
22678: 266
2273: 251

2278: 212
22812: 250
2288: 251
2290: 297
22945: 251
23056: 251
231415: 249
23223: 251
232931: 255
2331: 256
23356: 254
2337: 73 note 41
233741: 257
2345: 51
234551: 254
2349: 255
235499: 260
237984: 16
2391: 172
23978: 255 note 52
24034: 213
2404: 27980
241923: 258
243567: 25960
244462: 201
24509: 266
24728: 272 note 89
247283: 272 note 89
24756: 272 note 89
2478: 271
24845: 271
24889: 171 note 128
2489: 271
24903: 273
24902509: 271
2509: 279
251112: 255
251114: 52
251214: 285
251415: 257
251821: 302
25245: 296
25267: 332
25278: 255
252935: 268
25325: 268
25356: 279
25545: 251
2581: 196
258990: 336
25989: 274 note 94
25992601: 276
26257: 264
2638: 268

index of passages cited from old english verse texts

Beowulf, contd.
2639: 246
2640: 268
26424: 268
26426: 244
2650: 212
26502: 273
26536: 273
26569: 275, 336
26846: 302
2736: 212
27369: 155
2738: 288
274351: 279
27479: 282
2749: 284
27646: 280
2766: 51
2780: 212
27942800: 286
2796: 284
2833: 24
28425: 279
28489: 274
28501: 274
2863: 273
286970: 273
2873: 268
28789: 276
2879: 344
288490: 289 note 143
28901: 267, 305 note 176
2907: 264
291013: 289 note 143
29227: 272 note 89
29267: 271
2937: 71
29993000: 289
3019: 289
302830: 290
3051: 293 note 153
30537: 297, 301
305860: 286
3059: 171, 250
30601: 283
3066: 283, 295
3067: 51, 288
3069: 155, 295
306973: 294
3070: 293
30713: 294
3072: 295
3073: 298
30745: 281

30778: 50, 2434

3078: 278
3083: 246
3085: 244
3110: 264
3121: 319
3126: 168
31525: 190, 289
31545: 212
3155: 342
31678: 287
3179: 319
31802: 36, 81, 354, 372
31812: 364
3182: 179
Christ A
363: 204
Christ B
485: 194
75665: 204
768: 204
770: 205
779: 197, 204
8336: 212
Christ C
1267: 195
1627: 225
Christ and Satan
11924: 78
186: 78
Daniel
19: 225
224: 225
23: 256
25: 224
2930: 224
32: 224
53: 222
56: 223
96: 222
100: 222
1023: 222
1067: 223
11015: 223
161: 222

401

402

index of passages cited from old english verse texts

Daniel, contd.

Exodus

1857: 225
187: 226, 256
209: 223
240: 170, 258
241: 223
268: 222
297: 222
299: 225 note
449: 222
48891: 270
489: 203 note
494: 222
528: 222
5656: 223
58991: 226
605: 222
609: 225
611: 225
6501: 225
668: 223
677: 203 note
684: 226
686: 226
694: 226
713: 211

note 57

Finnsburg Fragment
123
71, 222

245: 16, 75
32: 165
Fortunes of Men
16: 194
26: 72 note 40
517: 110
801: 92
Genesis A

71

Death of Edward
1621: 74 note 42
Deor
217: 67 note 29
223: 217
245: 71, 217
30: 197 note 58
314: 188 note 28
40: 197 note 58
Edgar (A-S Chronicle poem)
12: 224 note 121
Elene
38693: 78
4312: 219
560: 219
5612: 219
8556: 107

144: 211
21113: 71
52930: 216
5323: 203 note 71

1819: 211
24: 216
30: 216
367: 78
44: 216
47: 211
56: 195
81: 195
8789: 70 note 36
97981: 77
10267: 71
1033: 77
1051: 77
1097: 77
15238: 190
1673: 24, 269, 276
16738: 276
16758: 269
193941: 216
223743: 229 note 129
2240: 229
2341: 369
2565: 190
Genesis B

note 47
note 106
note 106
note 158

272: 328
2767: 328
293: 196
296: 196

index of passages cited from old english verse texts

Gifts of Men
1826: 198
26: 221
41: 176 note 140
Gulac A
32: 256
34: 256
525: 96
569: 96
601: 96
10910: 79
12732: 206
1679: 206
17980: 369 note 30
1801: 369 note 31
186: 206 note 75
208: 24
3869: 270
809: 213
Gulac B
9912: 107 note 158
Instructions for Christians
130: 329
Judgment Day I
14: 211
1617: 211
Juliana
16: 194
22588: 205
351: 78
438: 72 note 40
48390: 111
Kentish Psalm
52: 218 note 105
1524: 213
Maxims I
4: 91
2930: 332 note 73
37: 112

589: 37
601: 205
1445: 112
1467: 112
1723: 74
192200: 190
Maxims II
18: 218 note 105
239: 175 note 136
612: 218 note 105, 332 note 73
Menologium
125: 195
Meters of Boethius
1.2225: 153 note 48
9.3438: 219 note 107
Order of the World
3: 218
13: 202, 256
1821: 202
2730: 270
Paris Psalter
54.23: 196 note 51
58.2: 196 note 51
118.60: 211
138: 20, 196 note 51
142.11: 202 note 70
Precepts
1718: 112
301: 112
34: 109
4551: 99
47: 213
48: 98
546: 32, 200
578: 96 note 126, 219
678: 219
6870: 219
7882: 216
812: 216
867: 32
90: 112
934: 219

403

404

index of passages cited from old english verse texts

Riddle 5 (3)
16: 362
Rune Poem
13: 34
Seafarer
6871: 198
10912: 99
11112: 31, 269
Solomon and Saturn
2259: 193
38890: 201
4401: 202
Vainglory
1: 98
8: 197
1415: 96
1618: 171
1819: 110
1920: 96
2122: 96
223: 97
23: 79, 95, 97
237: 205
245: 97, 205
267: 111
289: 79
2831: 97
31: 79
334: 78
3344: 238
345: 197
35: 197, 210
378: 206
401: 110
41: 110

43: 79, 203

449: 107
48: 79
49: 79
526: 107
55: 79
5766: 79
58: 79
61: 79
Waldere
A 811: 370
A 1222: 368
A 18: 369
A 19: 369
A 21: 369
B 256: 202 note 70
Wanderer
645: 361
6572: 31, 934
68: 199
Widsi
25: 114
27: 138
29: 137 note 4
33: 217 note 100
459: 147 note 32
65: 188
122: 217
124: 143 note 19
1289: 21617
12930: 217
Wifes Lament
1: 62 note 5
5: 74 note 42
10: 74 note 42
38: 74 note 42

INDEX OF OLD ENGLISH WORDS, AFFIXES, AND

COLLOCATIONS DISCUSSED

abreotan 194 note 48

agen dom 65 note 23
ahlnan 107
aldorbana ealdorbana
aldorcearu ealdorcearu
alicgan + on 174
alwalda 6
ana 194, 225
an dom 65 note 23
anes willan 51, 243, 246
fter 159
fonc(a), fanc(a)
lmihtig 6
nlic 2312
tsteall 369
twitan 161
eling 13

111

-bealu 157 note 67, 195

bealuni 213, 257
benemnan 155
beodgeneat 67
betera 188
gebiged 107
blodreow 196
bolgenmod 194, 211, 223
breosthord 196
breotan 194
byre 145, 262 note 71, 2634, 268
ceas, ceast 154 note 54
cempa 13, 14, 145
corer 96, 319 note 29
cwian 141
cyning 14, 38
dalum gedled 96, 99
deacwalu 190
dlen (ME) 96
dol 245
dolgilp 114 note 175
dollic 245
dolsceaa 114 note 175
dom 13
don + on 174

dreamleas 225
drincan (druncen) 109
dryht 35
dryhtbearn 144
dryhten 6, 14
*dugan 98
dugu 35, 42, 319
eafo ond ellen 63
eal unhlitme 1689
ealde riht 256
ealdgesegen 61 note 3
ealdorbana 77
ealdorcearu 70, 85
ealdormonn 55, 324
eaxlgestealla 67
ece drihten 5
ece rd 182, 214, 220, 2245,
256
ecg 172
ecghete 198
edwenden 33
egesa 212, 218, 288
ellen 23, 80
ellendd 65
ende 197
endelean 226
engel 7
eorl 14, 324 note 39
eorlscipe 2689
eoran dreamas 224
Eote 163
eoten 65 note 23, 72 note 40, 152,
1636, 172
eotenisc 163 note 90
eotonweard, eotenweard 163 note 90
est 2834
fah (fag) 27
fge 33
fgen 94 note 120
fhe ond fyrene 645, 81
felas 89
(ge)feran 1889
ferh 196
flett 157

406 index of old english words, affixes, & collocations discussed

flitan 154
flitm 154
flod 192 note 44
folcrden 176
forht 94
forlacan 72 note 40
forsendan 72 note 40
for forlacan 72 note 40
forgesceaft 218 note 105, 332
note 73, 356
forringan 153
frasian 226
freca 14
frecne 189
fremde 188, 225
friouwr 155
frofor 35
fyren 59, 65, 21011
fyrenlice 368
fyrenearf 66, 115
(ge)gangan 279 note 105
gst, gist 27, 158
geare cunne 93
gearwor 282, 283 note 121
geatisc meowle 28990
geogu 319
gidd 38, 612, 79, 13941, 181, 188,
231, 266
gigant 163 note 90, 192
gist, gst 27, 158
gld 149
gladian 145
gligmonn 88
gnea 228
god 6
god ana wat . . . 332
god lmihtig 5
*goldhwatu 2823
gramhydig 211
gretan 80 note 52
guma 14
gumstol 233
gyman 218
hftmece 98
hlend 7
hle 13
hle 13
hen 7
handbana 235
heafodmg 77
hean 20

heaodeor 142
gehedan 108
gehegan 108
heofon 342
heorgeneat 46
higerym 205 note 74
higian 280
hildedeor 141
hleotan 168 note 112
hliet 168 note 112
hnah 132, 228
hold 43, 1012
hraful 212
hremig 145
heer 210
hrinan 297
*hwatu 283, 290 note 148
hyran 116
inne 1701
inwitsorh 197, 201
lacan 72 note 40
landrden 176
langung 225
lemman 70 note 33
leodbealu 195, 230, 232
lifcearu 70 note 33
lifgesceaft 233
lof 13
lofgeorn 1 note 2
lofgeornost 1, 27, 50, 179
lytegian 33842
ml 369
mnan 161
mst (micel) 244 note 20, 245
mearc 369
gemet 99
gemet monnes 269, 276
metod 6
milde 355 note 15
missan (OIcel missa) 259 note 59
mod 23
modsefa 15
modryo 229
mondream 42, 1945, 225, 241
monn 14, 269
monwise 216 note 97
moror 157, 259 note 62
mor(or)bealu 157
gemot 170
(ge)munan 145, 171

index of old english words, affixes, & collocations discussed 407

mubona 234
myndgian 145, 171 note 127

sund 1245
swiferh 908

nefa 65
nefne, nemne 281 note 111
nergend 7
ne to forht ne to fgen 945

tcan 326
to 127
to fgen 200
torngemot 170, 173

oferhigian 280
oferhogian 254
oferhycgan 254
oferhygd 36, 37, 38, 40, 43, 49, 51,
54, 69, 181227
ofermod 54, 32830
oferswian 218
ofyncan 111, 144
on bearm 175
on feonda geweald 72 note 40, 337
note 90
onhohsnian 233
onwendan 276 note 100
openian 2978
ordbana 77

t ws . . . (poetic formula)
(ge)earfian 153
eccan 113
egn 14
eod 162
eodbealu 195
eodenlease 162
eodscipe 216
ing gehegan 82 note 58
rym 205 note 74
urhteon 173
yle 15, 40, 59, 8792

rd 216
rdfst 202, 225
reon 125
ricsian (rixian) 247
riht 202 note 70
rixian ricsian
sawol 210
scadan 156 note 65
gescead (witan) 1025
(ge)sceawian 2823
scond 88
scop 4, 92 note 110
scyld 197
searo- 156 note 64, 214 note 91
searoni 288
selfes dome 65 note 23
sinrden 176
si 14 note 54, 701, 269
gesi 14, 35
snottor 218
snyttru 31, 181, 188, 218
sorhcearu 196
sorhfullne si 114, 124, 189
sorhwylm 45
spelboda 87
spell 61
starian 284
gestealla 35

184

unearh 367
unflitme 154
unfrom 20
ungemedemad 97 note 134, 110,
205
unheanlice 356
unhlitme eal unhlitme
unrd 216
unriht 224
unsnyttru 197
waldend, wealdend 6
warnung 2012
wfre 170, 258, 270
wlfag 168
wlfus 258 note 56
wlfyll 18990, 212
wr 78
wea 71
wealaf 152
wean on wenum 71
weorc, wrc 195 note 49, 244
weormynd 211
wic 2467
wiga 14
wilgesi 44, 82
willa 30, 225, 244
wilsi 82
winburg 96 note 126
wlenco 17, 23, 29, 33, 49, 181, 205
note 74, 271, 358
wlonc 24, 367

408 index of old english words, affixes, & collocations discussed

wong 298 note 162
wordsnottor 88
worda ond worca 102
wordum wrixlan 61 note 4
woroldrden 176
wrc weorc
wrc adreogan 51
wrcmcg 15

wrcsi 17
wrecan 16
wrecca 12, 1518, 212, 25, 32, 38,
65
wrixlan 61 note 4
wyrd 6, 33
yrhu

327, 339

INDEX OF LATIN AND GREEK WORDS AND

COLLOCATIONS DISCUSSED

ainos (Gk.) 39
apatheia (Gk) 199
ate, Ate (Gk.) 57, 20910
beneficium

67

cantor 88
cot(h)urnus 329
daimon (Gk.) 210
discretio 96
discerno 96
exprobro 161 note 80
extermino 194 note 48
gigas

163, 190 note 31, 191

heros (Gk.) 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.) 3940
parasitus 88
prodigus 1 note 2
rhetorica 87
ridiculosus 88
ridiculus 88
scurra 88
subtilis inpostor
superbia 1812

88

thymos (Gk.) 23, 20910

tolerabilior 67 note 26

INDEX OF OLD ICELANDIC TERMS DISCUSSED

deila

n 117
ningverk

96

ula 91
ulr 8991
fimbululr
hvt
jarl

ofrausn
91

290
324

mannjafnar 117
missa 259 note 59
muna 171 note 128

77 note 46

323

senna 117 note 181

skap 92 note 110
skapdeildarmar 97
skau 118 note 187

GENERAL INDEX

NOTE: Old Icelandic words are alphabetized as Old English.

Abbo (of Fleury) Passio s. Eadmundi 295
note 157; Old English version
(lfric) 331
Abel 190
Achilles (Iliad) 22, 3940, 57
Aethicus Ister (Cosmographia) 64 note 18
Agathias (continuation of Procopius,
Historia Gothorum) 316
Ajax (Iliad) 39
Alcuin (of York) 10, 89, 191, 241, 354
Aldhelm (of Malmesbury) 2 note
6, 203; Prosa de uirginitate 74 note
42, 87 note 76, 87 note 77, 88
note 81, 154 note 54, 252 note 42;
Carmen de uirginitate 88; Epistola ad
Heahfridum 88; De metris 89
Alexander the Great 1112, 3367
Altus Prosator 191
ambiguity 1, 2, 1213, 16, 228, 38,
4950, 58, 601, 76, 116, 210, 227,
239, 257, 259, 267, 284, 303; of
Grettir 19, 21
analogy (intradiegetic) 186, 231, 264;
of gidd 3840, 142, 14651, 17880,
237, 2645
Andreas 14 note 53, 70 note 36, 72
note 40, 78 note 47, 109 note 163,
189 note 30, 195, 197 note 57
angels 188, 195, 211; fall of 79, 182,
291
Arnrr orarson 3223
Asser Vita Alfredi Regis 207 note 78
Atlakvia 340
Attila (the Hun, OE tla) 217
augury 90, 169, 223, 226, 272, 308
Augustine (St.) 104, 353
lfric (of Eynsham) 103, 105 note
155, 202 note 70, 295 note 157,
331
schere 29, 85, 1323, 146, 231, 258,
361
elred (k. of England) 324
ilwald (k. of Mercia) 2079
Babel (tower) 24, 225
Baldr and Hr 259

Battle of Maldon 54, 57, 161, 275,

3089, 31149, 3623, 366;
analogues 311; Byrhtno 545,
31112, 324, 328, 331, 3336,
3403, 346, 362, 372; Christian
allegory 31112; Christianity 332,
341; lytegian crux 33842; ofermod
311, 32840, 362; retainers 322,
325, 3436; revenge 321;
theme 347; Vikings 321
Beasts of Battle 290, 295
Bede (the Venerable) 15, 138, 163,
3512, 354
Belshazzar 36, 182, 2267, 291, 329
Beow 44, 292
Beowulf (Christian) allegory 9,
2513, 299, 301; anachronism 5;
analogues 19, 21, 11623, 2512,
259, 3059, 311; audience 2, 4, 6,
10, 42, 46, 68, 1379, 149, 184, 230,
351, 364; schere 29, 85, 1323,
146, 231, 258, 361; boasting 401,
83, 93, 95, 100, 11011, 11415,
124, 126; Breca 35, 41, 80, 95, 98,
11315, 124, 126; Cain 34, 6, 11,
14 note 53, 46, 51, 66, 71, 77, 83,
106, 190, 24950, 357; Christian
language 5, 7, 256; Christianity vs.
paganism 1, 36, 10, 42, 1834,
294 note 155, 300, 332, 354, 356;
coast-warden 61, 1006, 234,
238, 359, 3612; community 6;
contrapuntalism 3589; date 2, 3,
4 note 15, 221, 353; Dghrefn 34,
2723, 291, 320, 343 note 110;
digressions 18, 26, 3742, 49, 57,
62, 77, 133, 13580, 230, 25967,
358; dragon 503, 69, 85, 155, 189,
243, 24755, 264, 27781, 2838,
2935, 3023; dragon fight 24,
26, 48, 53, 182, 239, 260 note
66, 263, 273, 305, 311, 341, 365;
drunkenness 32, 109, 112, 132, 224
note 120; Eanmund and Eadgils
1516, 73 note 41, 75, 143 note 19,
255, 2912; Ecgeow 17, 75, 131,

412

general index

360; Eofor 271, 273; Eomer 292;

exchange 16, 44, 67, 76, 137,
1489, 155, 157, 1789, 214,
2367, 246, 2734, 323; Feminist
criticism 371; Finnsburh
digression 389, 13580, 319, 365;
Freawaru 142, 144; Fremu 3940,
45, 49, 22835, 292; Frisian Raid 8,
24, 50, 52, 71, 218, 255, 260 note
66, 273, 288, 2901, 3334, 357;
Geats 8, 20, 25, 41, 489, 65 note
21, 147, 28990, 274, 293; genre 1,
311; gomela ceorl digression 201,
2607, 272, 305; Grendel 6, 12,
1718, 401, 45, 478, 68, 79, 824,
95, 112, 145, 165, 182, 194, 196,
203, 2412, 2478, 250, 2525, 332,
355, 359, 365; Grendels mother 29,
146, 150, 182, 242, 252, 2545;
Hama 143 note 19, 214, 216, 218,
224; Hcyn 71, 128, 151, 157
note 67, 2645, 271; Healgamen 92
note 110, 13940, 361, 365;
Heaobard digression 1426,
173, 177, 180, 235, 2634, 363;
Heaolaf 17; Hengest 16, 18, 39,
73 note 41, 75, 1356, 1423, 148,
15163, 1667, 1724, 1757, 227,
319; Heorot 17; Herebeald 128,
151; Herebeald-Hcyn digression
25961, 272, 305; Heremod 18,
35, 389, 45, 49, 59, 62, 66, 73, 75,
77, 80, 83, 11415, 164, 181, 188,
192, 194, 196, 210, 217, 222, 2256,
228, 232, 238, 240, 246, 2556, 291;
historical setting 2 note 6, 68;
Hondscioh 41, 49, 834, 132, 231,
234, 363; Hreel 17 note 59, 19,
30, 36, 38, 48, 53, 57, 193, 203, 260,
264; Hrogar 45, 1718, 37, 45,
47, 115, 137, 1789, 193, 221, 227,
237, 247, 292, 355, 360, 371 221,
227; Hrogars sermon 38, 49,
703, 78 note 48, 181221, 227, 239,
255, 257, 32930, 356, 360, 364,
373; Hroulf 132, 264; Hrunting
(sword) 98, 130; Hunfer 1517,
21, 26, 35, 37, 401, 57, 59, 61, 77,
867, 89, 92, 95, 98, 106, 1099,
111, 1278, 130, 133, 234, 361, 364;
Hunfer digression 86100,
107116, 248, 364; Hunlafing
1723, 1756; Hygd 39, 228;
Hygelac 2 note 6, 19, 39, 49, 82

note 59, 236, 255; intradiegesis

2607, 359; irony 6, 18, 62, 98,
11112, 145, 148, 150, 272, 359,
3712; Last Survivor 74, 266,
281, 293; manuscript 2, 347;
meter 1, 3, 69, 114 note 177, 140
note 12, 156 note 65; names 2
note 6; Ngling 300, 302; Offa
I (k. of the Angles) 39, 49;
Offa-Fremu digression 22833;
Ohthere 16 note 58; Onela 1516,
75, 255, 291; Ongeneow 65
note 21, 75, 271; orality 2;
origin 23; polysemy 67, 27;
Ravenswood (battle) 2712; scribal
composition 2 note 5, 3, 5; Scyld
Scefing 21112, 220, 285, 292,
355; Sigemund 18, 29, 34, 39, 59,
73, 75, 80, 86, 189, 210, 252, 285;
Sigemund-Heremod digression 59,
616, 85, 133, 151, 194, 361, 3645;
slave 250, 297; structure 48,
197, 226, 23941; Swedish-Geatish
Wars 65 note 21, 260, 271, 2901;
thematic unity 8, 53, 23941, 351;
thief 250, 297; Wealheow 132,
142, 14750, 172, 17980, 214, 264,
272; Weohstan 292; Wiglaf 5 note
18, 37, 42, 501, 54, 243, 246, 264,
268, 273, 275, 285, 292, 3001, 343,
363; Wulfgar 1517, 76, 81, 181,
205, 361; Wylfings 17, 75, 235
Beowulf age 292; arrogance 10, 23,
29, 35, 3940, 98, 1001, 133, 221,
242, 277, 332; choice 546, 178,
21416, 241, 267, 314, 323, 340,
3702; conscience 2578, 2667,
282, 291; cultural background
10, 25; death 240, 296, 3012;
education 228, 234; exceptionality
18, 23, 25, 34, 57, 767, 81, 188,
213, 3567; heroism 2, 89;
homecoming 2278, 239, 241;
Hrogars heir 132; inglorious
youth 1920, 115, 238; kingship
2, 18, 34, 42, 44, 48, 305; lack of
heir 292; liminality 34, 364;
lordship 16, 35, 42, 44, 46, 69, 85,
225, 239, 324, 326, 3467, 351, 353;
monstrosity 11 note 46, 17, 18;
motivation 12, 10, 1214 note 53,
19, 25, 289, 56, 86, 111, 182, 210,
239, 242, 248, 2557, 270, 278, 285,
292, 302, 305, 332, 35860, 365;

general index
Ngling 300; potential wrecca 18,
21, 25, 35, 589, 66, 734, 76, 83,
133, 178, 2378, 3578; pride 24,
29, 312, 51, 54, 60, 78, 182, 191,
203 note 72, 222, 242, 2778, 328,
333, 3523, 3723; piety 4, 288,
301; recklessness 13, 24, 29, 32,
345, 37, 401, 43, 53, 83, 95,
11314, 126, 133, 193, 244, 246,
254, 257, 278, 2902, 294, 3045;
sacrifice 258, 269, 287, 312, 331;
storyteller 25867; virtue 45,
89, 20, 23, 29, 38, 42, 48, 513,
578, 101, 185, 2578, 301, 305,
354, 356, 360
Beowulf and the Appositive Style (Robinson)
58, 47
bible 107, 1901, 2223, 2512, 252,
299 note 169
Bjarkaml 147 note 30, 313
boasting 401, 83, 93, 95, 100,
11011, 11415, 124, 126
Book of Enoch (apocryphal) 190
note 34
booty sacrifice 288 note 140
Boniface 2079, 368
Bragi (Hkonarml) 63
Breca 35, 41, 80, 95, 98, 11315, 124,
126; kingship 114
Brosinga mene 217
Byrhtno 545, 311, 346, 362, 372;
age 324; ambiguity 334, 343;
conscience 342; generalship 328
note 52, 3356; ofermod 311,
32840, 362; pride 333; rank 311,
324; sacrificial death 312, 331,
3402
Cain 34, 6, 11, 14 note 53, 46, 51,
66, 71, 77, 83, 106, 190, 24950,
357
Cassian Collationes 191
Chanson de Roland Song of Roland
chansons de geste 315
choice 546, 178, 21416, 241, 267,
314, 323, 340, 3702
Christianity 182, 184, 187, 1901, 192
note 41, 202, 212, 3523
Christopher (St.) 11
coast-warden 61, 100, 234, 238, 359,
3612; his maxim 1016
comitatus warband
conscience 210, 2578, 2667, 305,
342

413

Consolatio philosophiae (Old English) 256

contrapuntalism 26, 41, 52, 61
Cosmographia (Aethicus Ister) 64 note 18
creation story 4
Crucifixion 301
curse 22, 55, 214 note 91, 281,
293304, 341, 354
Cursive Minuscule 3
Cynewulf (A-S poet) 204
Cynewulf and Cyneheard (A-S Chronicle)
67 note 29, 162, 318, 347, 3667,
372
Danegeld 327
Danes 68, 124
Daniel 182, 2217, 269, 291, 329, 368;
date 221; structure 226
Dante (Alighieri) 166
Dghrefn 34, 2723, 291, 320, 343
note 110
Deor 45, 71, 291
Deor (poet) 67 note 29, 231
Devil (cf. Lucifer) 3, 789, 165, 182,
204, 208, 211, 222, 251, 253, 291,
301, 329; devils darts 197213,
220, 257, 357
Dicts of Cato 177
digressions 18, 26, 3742, 49, 57, 62,
77, 133, 13580, 230, 25967, 358
divination augury
draconitas 50, 250
dragon 503, 69, 85, 155, 189, 243,
24754, 283, 3023; animal
24950, 3023; barrow 2934; and
Battle of Maldon 311; cup 250, 255,
264, 279, 284; sentient 2501, 253;
treasure 27781, 2858, 29
dragon fight 24, 26, 48, 239, 260 note
66, 263, 273, 305, 365; ambiguity
of 53, 182, 341
drpur 54
Dream of the Rood 363
drunkenness 32, 109, 112, 132, 224
note 120
dugu warband
Eanmund 1516, 73 note 41, 75, 143
note 19, 292; Eanmunds sword
292
Eadgils 1516, 75, 255, 2912
Ecgeow 17, 75, 131, 360
Eddius Stephanus (Vita S. Wilfridi) 295
note 157, 313
Egbert (k. of Kent) 260 note 63

414

general index

Eiriksml (Eyvindr Finnson

Skldaspillir) 634
elegy 93
Eofor 271, 273
Eomer 292
Ermanaric (OE Eormenric, OIcel
Erminrekr) 45, 67 note 29, 71,
214, 21617, 291; Erminrekr
21415
erfidrpur 289
erfikvi 290
Ericus Disertus 117, 200
erlebte Rede 192
evil (Evil) 32, 40, 67, 71, 78, 89, 989,
1024, 106, 190, 24852
excess immoderation
exchange 16, 44, 67, 76, 137, 1489,
155, 157, 1789, 214, 2367, 246,
2734, 323; in Maldon 325, 344
Exeter Book 74
exile 16, 1819, 31
Ffnisml 91
Fagrskinna 63 note 16
fame glory
Fatalism 289, 33, 47, 70, 74, 185,
257
fate 9, 14 note 53, 22, 27, 29, 185,
192, 201, 203, 223, 244, 3001, 322,
333, 347, 356, 365
father(hood) 32
Felix Vita S. Guthlaci 88 note 87
feud 6, 17, 36, 46, 65 note 20, 75,
142, 146, 162, 1846, 191, 213, 242,
250, 260 note 66, 288
Finnsburh digression 389, 13580,
319, 365; summary 139
Finnsburg Fragment 16, 136, 153,
312
Fitela (OIcel Sinfjtli) 59, 69, 70 note
32; Sinfjtli 65, 128
Flood (biblical) 3, 6, 183, 187, 191,
218; non-biblical 192
flyting 26, 40, 601, 92 note 115,
11628
folk-tale 84
folly 14 note 53, 33, 41, 52, 60, 71,
78, 81, 94, 18890, 1934, 197, 199,
209, 218, 224, 2436, 257
Franks 34
fratricide 67, 1278
Freawaru 142, 144
Fremu 3940, 45, 49, 22835, 292

friendship 11112, 128 note 226

Frstenspiegel 238
Gautreks Saga 22, 44, 91 note 106
Geats (tribe, nation) 8, 20, 25, 41,
48, 65 note 21, 274, extermination
of 49, 147, 28990, 293
genealogies 66, 90
generosity 35, 445, 57, 185, 217, 232
note 140, 233, 235, 237, 284, 287
Genesis 12, 185
Genesis A 182
Geoffrey (of Monmouth) Historia regum
Brittaniae 169
Germania (Tacitus) 423, 54, 84 note
67, 273, 31214, 320, 352
Gesta Danorum (Saxo Grammaticus)
Historia Danorum (Saxo Grammaticus)
giants 6, 172, 1745, 184, 188, 194,
203, 218, 2256, 240, 303; (tyrants of
Genesis) 12, 95, 163
gidd 3841, 612, 70, 79, 13944,
14651, 194, 237, 266, 3589
gift-giving exchange
Gildas (Sapiens) De excidio Brittaniae
1689
Gslis Saga 122
Glmr (Grettirs Saga) 12, 47
Glastonbury 217 note 102
glory 19, 23, 25, 34, 36, 43, 54, 58,
70, 73, 757, 86, 133, 144, 181, 235,
268, 278, 280, 2889, 303, 336, 349,
351, 365, 370, 372
glossaries 88, 154 note 54, 176 note
140
glosses 878, 90, 154 note 54, 329
God (god) 48, 86, 90, 107, 133,
1846, 191, 193, 199, 220, 232 note
140, 248, 253, 283, 29899, 301, 304,
328, 3323, 355; Scandinavian 22,
44, 901, 11920, 165, 259, 295
gomela ceorl (digression) 201,
2607, 272, 305
greed (heroic) 67, 70, 2848, 304
Gregory (the Great) Cura pastoralis
354
Grendel 6, 12, 1718, 401, 45, 478,
68, 79, 824, 95, 112, 145, 165, 182,
194, 196, 203, 2412, 2478, 250,
2525, 332, 355, 359, 365; sword 6
Grendels mother 29, 146, 150, 182,
242, 252, 2545
Grettirs Saga 11, 1921, 46

general index
Grettir (smundarson) 1112, 1921,
467, 97, 304 note 173
Gulac 15, 24, 206, 21011
Gurnarqvia II 97
Haflii (Grettirs Saga) 20
Hkonarml 634, 289
Hama (OIcel Heimir) 143 note 19,
214, 216, 218, 224; Heimir 215
Hrbarslj 117, 119
Haustlng (jlfr of Hvnir) 63,
1656
Hvaml 31 note 83, 90, 93, 110 note
165, 112
Hcyn 71, 128, 151, 157 note 67,
2645, 271
Healgamen (name of Hrogars scop)
92 note 110, 13940, 361, 365
Heaobard digression 1426,
173, 177, 180, 235, 2634, 363;
summary 142
Heaolaf 17
Heimskringla 120
Helgaqvia Hirvarzsonar 96
Heliand (Old Saxon) 65 note 21, 317
hell 1067, 208, 225
Hengest 16, 18, 39, 73 note 41,
75, 1356, 1423, 148, 15162,
1667, 1724, 1757, 227, 319;
nationality 158, 163
Heorot 17
Heptateuch (Old English)
Deuteronomy 104 note 153
Hercules 11
Herebeald 128, 151
Herebeald-Hcyn digression 25961,
272, 305
Heremod (OIcel Hermr) 18, 35,
389, 45, 49, 59, 62, 73, 75, 77,
80, 83, 11415, 164, 181, 188, 192,
194, 196, 210, 217, 222, 2256,
228, 232, 238, 240, 246, 2556, 291;
Hermr 63; meaning of name 66
Hero, Germanic (definition of ) 13,
31, 478, 57, 64, 160, 267, 285, 312,
3345, 365
Hildebrandslied 214 note 86
Hildeburh (Finnsburh digression)
136
Historia Brittonum (Nennius) 138, 163,
168
Historia Danorum (Saxo Grammaticus)
667, 77 note 76, 147, 164, 200

415

Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum

(Bede) 15, 138, 163; Old English
translation 104
Historia Gothorum (Agathias, continuation
of Procopius) 316
Historia Langobardorum (Paulus Diaconus)
321
Hnf 75
homilies 24, 79 note 50, 105, 153 note
48, 197, 202 note 70, 203, 215 note
96, 342
Hondscioh 41, 49, 834, 132, 231,
234, 363
Hreel 17 note 59, 19, 38, 260, 264
Hrogar 4, 1718, 37, 47, 193, 237,
355; adoption of Beowulf 137,
1789, 237, 292; age 247; counselor
to Beowulf 30, 36, 48, 53, 57,
193, 203, 221, 227; diplomacy 45,
115, 360; passivity 5, 371;
sermon 38, 49, 703, 78 note 48,
181221, 227, 239, 255, 257, 32930,
356, 360, 364, 373
Hroulf 132, 264
Hrunting (sword) 98, 130
Humblus (Historia Danorum) 67
humility moderation
Hunfer 1517, 21, 26, 35, 37,
401, 57, 59, 89, 95, 98, 234, 361,
364; etymology of name 87;
jealousy 1089, 111, 133;
kin-killing 61, 77, 86, 106, 1278;
morale officer 92, 109, 130
Hunfer digression 86100, 107116,
248, 364
Hunlaf 172 note 129, 1745
Hunlafing 1723, 1756
hvt 290
Hygd 39, 228
Hygelac 2 note 6, 19, 39, 49, 82 note
59, 236, 255; Frisian Raid 8, 24, 50,
52, 71, 218, 255, 260 note 66, 273,
288, 2901, 3334, 357
Hyndlulj 63
Iliad 16, 38 note 89, 3940, 57,
20910, 364
immoderation 13, 16, 324, 367, 45,
53, 57, 59, 69, 71, 78, 95, 114, 122,
200, 210, 239, 243, 255, 270, 278,
359, 365, 36870, 373
implicature 115
Indeterminacy of Beowulf (Kberl) 26, 55

416

general index

intemperance immoderation
Israel 222
iudicium dei 332
iudicium particulare 341
Iugurtha (Orosius) 67 note 29
Jutes

39, 65 note 23, 135, 152, 1626

Kaluzas Law 3
Kent 163
kingship 16, 18, 23, 36, 424, 48,
58, 60, 114, 182, 194, 197, 211,
217, 238, 2401, 246, 268, 292,
3067, 351, 358; Augustinian 353;
historical (eighth-century) 3515;
sacral 352
kinship 74, 76, 85, 106, 132, 276, 292,
343
Lang fegatal 147 note 30
Last Survivor 74, 266, 281, 293
law 256, 259, 2624
leadership lordship
Leyerle, John (Beowulf the Hero and
the King) 240, 242, 372
Liber Eliensis 330
Liber monstrorum 2 note 6, 11, 166
Liber scintillarum 90
Liber Vitae Dunelmensis (of Durham) 2
note 6
liminality 1618, 23, 25, 34, 127, 244
note 19, 364, 3678
Lokasenna 110 note 165, 118
Loki 11819
lordship 16, 35, 42, 44, 46, 69, 85,
225, 239, 324, 326, 3467, 351, 353
Lother(us) (Historia Danorum) 667, 72,
77
loyalty 434, 49, 76, 79, 101, 116,
178, 246, 275, 322, 343, 347
Lucifer 66, 79
magic 295, 304
Magnssona Saga 11920
Maldon Battle of Maldon
martyrdom 308
maxims wisdom literature
Maxims I 90, 92
Maxims II 92
Meleager (Iliad ) 3940
memory 21920, 224, 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, 158, 273, 31324,
336, 338, 362, 367
mercenary (warrior) 14, 60, 76, 148,
159, 162
Migration, Anglo-Saxon 138
Mildry (St.) 260 note 63
mind 30, 170, 196213, 216 note 98
moderation 302, 46, 60, 10910,
188, 198, 220, 227, 3567, 371;
humility 60, 1046, 192, 202 note
70, 206, 213, 257, 351, 353, 360,
365; reticence 20, 934, 98, 200,
219
Modry(o) Fremu
morality 23, 78, 10, 1213, 30, 42,
4550, 52, 556, 60, 66, 77, 81, 86,
90, 99100, 1023, 120, 1223, 125,
131, 155, 181, 192, 209, 220, 352;
discerning morality 103, 120, 123,
183 note 4, 218, 227, 288; in Old
Icelandic sources 90 note 101, 117,
120
murder 71 note 39, 77 note 46, 107,
122, 128, 142, 145, 148, 157, 190,
195, 250, 25960, 263
Ngling (sword) 300, 302
Nebuchadnezzar 36, 182, 2226, 255,
269, 291, 329
Nennius (Historia Brittonum) 138, 163,
168
Nero (emperor) 219 note 107, 250
note 55
Niebelungenlied 311, 340
Niles, John D. (Beowulf: The Poem and its
Tradition) 2413, 249 note 34,
2677, 2778, 289 note 143, 3045,
360
Nimrod (the Hunter) 191
Njls Saga 4 note 15, 1213
Norna-Gests ttr 912
Nowell Codex 11
oath 139, 1548, 160, 162, 166, 174,
180, 274, 276, 313 note 12, 323
Oddrnargrttr 97
Odysseus (Iliad ) 39
Odyssey 14 note 53
oferhygd (complex) 367, 40, 43, 45,
49, 51, 69, 97, 100, 191, 218, 2201,
23940, 246, 2549, 2679, 278, 285,
291, 294, 3035, 364, 3723
ofermod 311, 322, 327, 330

general index
Offa (k. of Mercia) 229, 353, 367
Offa I (k. of the Angles) 39, 49
Offa-Fremu digression 22833
Ohthere 16 note 58
Old English Martyrology 72 note 40, 305
Onela 1516, 75, 255, 291
Ongeneow 65 note 21, 75, 271
Order of the World 225
Orosius (Historia adversus paganos) 67
note 29; Old English version 3367
rvar-Odds Saga 118
Osred (I, k. of Northumbria) 67 note
29
Oswine (k. of Deira) 15
inn Eddic verse 11920; Gautreks
Saga 22, 44; magical bonds 295;
ulr 91; wisdom literature 90
paganism (Germanic) 354
paleography 281 note 111
Panther 252
Passio s. Eadmundi (Abbo of Fleury) 295
note 157
Patroclus (Iliad) 16, 57
Paulus Diaconus (Historia Langobardorum)
321
Peleus (Iliad) 16
Philip (the Presbyter) 191
Phoenix (Iliad) 16, 39
piracy 75, 101
place-names 2 note 6
politics 357, 39, 445, 48, 56, 67, 71,
77, 220, 225, 2334, 237, 239, 292,
346, 3512, 3556, 359, 371
Precarious Peace 142, 146, 148,
150
Precepts 32, 40, 60, 92, 100, 105, 109,
197, 200, 245
pride 24, 29, 312, 51, 54, 60, 78,
182, 191, 203 note 72, 222, 242,
2778, 328, 333, 3523, 3723
prophecy augury
proverbiousness 93, 98, 100, 106
providence 33, 4748
queenship

9, 22834

Ragnarsdrpa 63
Ravenswood (battle) 2712
reciprocity exchange
recklessness immoderation
Reginsml 91
retainer(s) 14, 1617 note 59
reticence moderation

417

revenge 1356, 147, 1501, 158,

1612, 1656, 16972, 1756, 180,
1834, 192, 194, 226, 235, 260
note 66, 2623, 2656, 271, 273,
277, 3202, 338
Riddle 42 (Exeter Book) 186
Riddle 59 (Exeter Book) 186 note 20
Riddles (Old English) 186, 3623
Riming Poem 217 note 102
risk 24, 2830, 357, 41, 48, 50, 94,
181, 246, 289, 303, 328
Rk Stone 166
Ruin 217 note 102
Rule of Chrodegang 104
Rune Poem 196 note 52
runes 6, 7 note 28, 901, 294 note
154; inscription on sword 1824,
186
Ruodlieb 353
Ruthwell Cross 203 note 71
sagas (Icelandic) 4, 1112, 1922, 44,
467, 91 note 106, 11823, 315
saints life (cf. vita) 252
Sallust 31516
Sapientia et Fortitudo 9
Satan Devil
Saxo (Grammaticus) 667, 69, 77
note 46, 147, 164, 200
Scondia Illustrata (Messenius) 164
scop (poet) 59, 134, 137, 150, 1789
Scyld Scefing 21112, 220, 285, 292,
355
Seafarer 60, 74, 220, 357
self-judgment 65, 70
Shakespeare, William (Henry V )
3234
Sigebryht (A-S Chronicle) 67 note 29
Sigefer (Finnsburg Fragment) 75
Sigemund (OIcel Sigmundr) 18, 29,
34, 39, 59, 73, 75, 80, 86, 189, 210,
252, 285; Sigmundr 63
Sigemund-Heremod digression 59,
616, 85, 133, 151, 194, 361, 3645;
in A-S England 64
Sigeric (archbishop of Canterbury) 327
Siggeir 65, 74, 76, 128
Sigurardrpa 63
Sign 65, 128, 370
sin 32, 67, 78, 167, 182, 204, 216,
222, 226, 291, 356, 373
Sinftli Fitela
Skaldic verse 289, 315
Skldskaparml 165

418

general index

Skeggi (Grettirs Saga) 19

Skjoldunga Saga 172 note 129
Snorri (Grettirs Saga) 47
Solomon and Saturn 183 note 6, 201,
203
Song of Roland 311, 340, 353
soul 99, 256
speech 15, 17, 40, 48, 61 note
3, 68, 90, 92, 96, 98100, 102,
110, 11629, 1214, 137, 156,
183 note 4, 187; of the coastwarden 1006; taunting 175; of
the messenger 28990, 2923; in
Maldon 344
spell (magical) 83, 901, 214 note 91
Speratus (b. of Leicester) Unuuona
(Speratus), b. of Leicester
Starkar (Gautreks Saga) 223, 44, 77
note 46, 91 note 106
status 1314
Stoicism 200
subaltern voice 425, 54, 57, 69, 73,
79, 84, 131, 1778, 246, 248, 274,
288, 322, 3245, 327, 348, 3615
superbia pride
Swedish-Geatish Wars 65 note 21,
260, 271, 2901
thief 250, 264
Tolkien, J. R. R. 8, 163, 241, 249
note 34, 311, 3334
tragedy (drama) 329
treasure 16, 70, 137, 155, 2367,
273, 2858, 371; dragons 27780,
2858, 304
truth 122, 126
eodric (Theodoric, OIcel irekr)
256; irekr 215
ireks Saga af Bern 21415, 217 note
100
jlfr (of Hvnir) Haustlng 63,
1656
rr 22, 44, 117, 166
yle (OIcel ulr) role of 59, 87, 100,
130; ulr 8992; teacher 91
Unuuona (Speratus), b. of Leicester
10, 89
Vafrnisml 91
Vainglory 32, 40, 60, 92, 100, 105, 111,
329
Valhalla (OIcel Valhll) 634

vengeance revenge
Vercelli homily 103
Victory 33, 52, 123
Vikings 321, 3245, 348 note 123
violence 15, 17, 24, 30, 59, 65, 67,
76, 86, 117, 151, 156, 170, 1724,
180, 1901, 1945, 223, 233, 251,
356, 371; in Battle of Maldon 325; of
Grettir 21, 47
Vita S. Guthlaci (Felix) 88 note 87
Vita S. Oswini 3058, 333
Vita S. Samsonis 252
Vita S. Wilfridi (Eddius Stephanus) 295
note 157, 313
Vitae duarum Offarum 229
Vikings 54; deception 55, 338
Volsung legend (Vlsunga Saga) 59, 65,
81, 128, 370
Vortigern 39
Waldere (cf. Waltharius) 34, 312, 366,
36870
Waltharius (cf. Waldere) 353
Wanderer 60, 74, 303, 357
warband 2 note 6, 15, 35, 425, 57,
70, 82, 85, 12930, 136, 159, 161,
182, 230, 239, 246, 248, 274, 302,
306, 313, 351; Battle of Maldon 322,
324, 343; Grendel as retainer 80;
Irish parallels 129
warfare 2123
warrior cult 63, 92, 117
Wealheow 132, 142, 14750, 172,
17980, 214, 264, 272
weapons 63, 1434, 1789, 2367,
257, 263, 292, 302
Wendels (Vandals) 15
Weohstan 292
wergild 17, 259, 265, 286 note 132
Widsi 91
Wifes Lament 74
Wiglaf 5 note 18, 37, 42, 501, 54,
243, 246, 264, 268, 273, 275, 285,
292, 3001, 343, 363
wisdom 301, 33, 36, 48, 60, 856,
118, 185, 188, 199, 201, 224, 234,
245, 270, 277, 3023, 335, 354,
3567, 361; parental (cf. Hrogar,
sermon) 197
wisdom literature 59, 92, 95, 105, 112,
201, 220, 270, 356, 361; coast-guards
maxim 1016; maxims 90; Old
Icelandic analogues 8990, 112,
123

general index
wlenco 234, 191, 199, 224, 226, 2723
wrecca 12, 1518, 212, 25, 32, 34, 40,
45, 66, 7381, 136, 169, 178, 230,
335, 3567, 365
Wulfgar 1517, 76, 81, 181, 205, 361

419

Wulfstan (of York) 79 note 50, 153

note 48; Sermo de baptismo 94; De
septiformi spiritu 105; Institutes of
Polity 245
Wylfings 17, 75, 235