Chapter XXXI: Section V: Some Difficulties in Bugge's Theory

We may then, I think, accept as certain, that first come the events narrated in the _Fragment_, then those told in the _Episode_ in _Beowulf_. But we are not out of our troubles yet. There are difficulties in Bugge's view which have still to be faced.

The cause of the struggle, according to Bugge and his adherents, is a treacherous attack made by Finn upon his {261} brother-in-law Hnaef. According to the _Episode_, it is the Eotens who are treacherous; so Eotens must be another name for the Frisians.

The word occurs three times in the genitive, _Eotena_; once in the dative, _Eotenum_: as a common noun it means "giant," "monster": earlier in _Beowulf_ it is applied to Grendel and to the other misbegotten creatures descended from Cain. But how "giant" can be applied to the Frisians, or to either of the contending parties in the Finnsburg fight, remains inexplicable[458]. _Eotena_ must rather be the name of some tribe. But what tribe? The only people of whom we know, possessing a name at all like this, are the people who colonized Kent, whom Bede calls Jutes, but whose name would in Anglian be in the genitive _[=E]otna_, but in the dative _[=E]otum_, or perhaps occasionally _[=E]otnum_, _[=E]otenum_[459]. Now a scribe transliterating a poem from an Anglian dialect into West-Saxon should, of course, have altered these forms into the corresponding West-Saxon forms _[=Y]tena_ and _[=Y]tum_. But nothing would have been more likely than that he would have misunderstood the tribal name as a common noun, and retained the Anglian forms (altering _eotum_ or _eotnum_ into _eotenum_) supposing the word to mean "giants." After all, the common noun _eotenum_, "giants," was quite as like the tribal name _[=E]otum_, which the scribe presumably had before him, as was the correct West-Saxon form of that name, _[=Y]tum_.

It is difficult therefore to avoid the conclusion that the "Eotens" are Jutes: and this is confirmed by three other pieces of evidence, not convincing in themselves, but helpful as subsidiary arguments[460].

{262}

(1) We should gather from _Widsith_ that the Jutes were concerned in the _Finnsburg_ business. For in that poem generally (though not always) tribes connected in story are grouped together; and the Jutes and Frisians are so coupled:

[=Y]tum [weold] Gefwulf
Fin Folcwalding Fr[=e]sna cynne.

(2) There is another passage in _Beowulf_ in which _Eotenas_ is possibly used in the sense of "Jutes."

We have seen above[461] that according to a Scandinavian tradition Lotherus was exiled _in Jutiam_: and Heremod, who has been held to be the counterpart of Lotherus

_mid Eotenum_ weardh
on f[=e]onda geweald fordh forl[=a]cen.

But the identification of Lotherus and Heremod is too hypothetical to carry the weight of much argument.

(3) Finn comes into many Old English pedigrees, which have doubtless borrowed from one another. But the earliest in which we find him, and the only one in which we find his father Folcwald, is that of the Jutish kings of Kent[462]. Here, too, the name Hengest meets us.

The view that the name "Eoten" in the _Finnsburg_ story is a form of the word "Jute" is, then, one which is very difficult to reject. It is one which has in the past been held by many scholars and is, I think, held by all who have recently expressed any opinion on the subject[463]. But this renders very difficult the assumption of Bugge and his followers that the word "Eoten" is synonymous with "Frisian[464]." For Frisians were not Jutes. {263} The tribes were closely related; but the two words were not synonymous. The very lines in _Widsith_, which couple Jutes and Frisians together, as if they were related in story, show that the names were regarded as those of distinct tribes. And this evidence from _Widsith_ is very important, because the compiler of that list of names clearly knew the story of Finn and Hnaef.

But this is not the only difficulty in Bugge's interpretation of the Eotens as Frisians. The outbreak of war, we are told, is due to the treachery of the Eotens. This Bugge and his followers interpret as meaning that Finn must have treacherously attacked Hnaef. Yet the poet speaks of "the warriors of Finn when the sudden danger fell upon them": _th[=a] h[=i][=e] se f[=ae]r begeat_. It is essential to _f[=ae]r_ that it signifies a sudden and unexpected attack[465]: and the unexpected attack must have come, not upon the assailants but upon the assailed.

Yet this difficulty, though it has been emphasized by Moeller[466] and other opponents of Bugge's view, is not insuperable[467], and I hope to show below that there is no real difficulty. But it leads us to a problem not so easily surmounted. If Finn made a treacherous attack upon Hnaef, and slew him, how did it come that Hengest, and Hnaef's other men, made terms with their murderous host?

In the primitive heathen days it had been a rule that the retainer must not survive his vanquished lord[468]. The ferocity of this rule was subsequently softened, and, in point of fact, we _do_ often hear, after some great leader has been slain, of his followers accepting quarter from a chivalrous foe, without being {264} therefore regarded as having acted disgracefully[469]. But, if Finn had invited Hnaef and Hnaef's retainers to be his guests, and had fallen upon them by treachery, the action of the retainers in coming to terms with Finn, in entering his service, and stipulating how much of his pay they shall receive, would be contrary to all standards of conduct as understood in the Heroic Age, and would deprive Hnaef's men of any sympathy the audience might feel for them. But Hnaef's men are not censured: they are in fact treated most sympathetically in the _Episode_, and in the _Fragment_, at an earlier point in the story, they are enthusiastically applauded[470].

It is strange enough in any case that Hnaef's retainers should make terms with the slayer of their lord. But it is not merely strange, it is absolutely unintelligible, if we are to suppose that Finn has not merely slain Hnaef, but has lured him into his power, and then slain him while a guest.

It is to the credit of Bugge that he felt this difficulty: but his attempt to explain it is hardly satisfactory. He fell back upon a parallel between the story of the death of Rolf Kraki and the story of _Finnsburg_. We have already seen that the resemblance is very close between the _Bjarkam['a]l_, which narrates the death of Rolf, and the opening of the _Finnsburg Fragment_. The parallel which Bugge invoked comes from the sequel to the Rolf story[471] which tells how Hiarwarus, the murderer of Rolf Kraki, astonished by the devotion of Rolf's retainers, lamented their death, and said how gladly he would have given quarter to such men, and taken them into his service. Thereupon Wiggo, the one survivor, who had previously vowed to avenge his lord, and had concealed himself with that object, came forward and offered to accept these terms. Accordingly he placed his hand upon the hilt of his new master's drawn sword, as if about to swear fealty to him: but instead of swearing, he ran him through.

"Glorious and ever memorable hero, who valiantly kept his vow," says Saxo[472]. Whether or no we share the exultation of {265} that excellent if somewhat bloodthirsty ecclesiastic, we must admit that Wiggo's methods were sensible and practical. If, singlehanded, he was to keep his vow, and avenge his lord, he could only hope to do it by some such stratagem.

Bugge tries to explain Hengest's action on similar lines: "He does not hesitate to enter the service of Finn in order thereby to carry out his revenge[473]."

But the circumstances are entirely different. Wiggo was left alone, the only survivor of Rolf's household, to face a whole army. But Hengest is no single survivor: he and his fellows have made so good a defence that Finn cannot overcome them by conflict on the _medhel-stede_. Not only so, but, if we accept the interpretation that almost every critic and editor has put upon the passage (ll. 1184-5), Hengest's position is even stronger. Finn has lost almost all his thegns; the usual interpretation puts him at the mercy of Hengest: at best it is a draw[474]. If, then, Hengest wants vengeance upon Finn, why does he not pursue it? Instead of which, according to Bugge, he enters Finn's service in order that he may get an opportunity for revenge.

And note, that Wiggo did not swear the oath of fealty to the murderer of his master Rolf: he merely put himself in the posture to do so, and then, instead, ran the tyrant through forthwith. But Hengest _does_ swear the oath, and _does not_ forthwith slay the tyrant. He spends the winter with him, receives a sword from Hunlafing, after which his name does not occur again. Finn is ultimately slain, but the names which are found in that connection are those of Guthlaf and Oslaf [Ordlaf].

So Bugge's explanation comes to this: Hengest is fighting with success against Finn, but he refrains from vengeance: instead, he treacherously enters his service in order that he may take an opportunity of vengeance, which opportunity, however, it is never made clear to us that he takes.

Had Hengest been a man of that kind, he would not have been a hero of Old English heroic song.

* * * * *

{266}