Chapter V: Section II: The Geatas--Their Kings and Their Wars

Beowulf's people have been identified with many tribes: but there is strong evidence that the Geatas are the Goetar (O.N. _Gautar_), the inhabitants of what is now a portion of Southern Sweden, immediately to the south of the great lakes Wener and Wetter. The names _Geatas_ and _Gautar_ correspond exactly[3], according to the rules of O.E. and O.N. phonetic development, and all we can ascertain of the Geatas and of the Gautar harmonizes well with the identification[4].

We know of one occasion only when the Geatas came into violent contact with the world outside Scandinavia. Putting together the accounts which we receive from Gregory of Tours and from two other (anonymous) writers, we learn that a piratical raid was made upon the country of the Atuarii (the O.E. _Hetware_) who dwelt between the lower Rhine and what is now the Zuyder Zee, by a king whose name is spelt in a variety of ways, all of which readily admit of identification with that of the Hygelac of our poem[5]. From the land of the Atuarii this king carried much spoil to his ships; but, remaining on shore, he was overwhelmed and slain by the army which the {3} Frankish king Theodoric had sent under his son to the rescue of these outlying provinces; the plunderers' fleet was routed and the booty restored to the country. The bones of this gigantic king of the "Getae" [presumably = Geatas] were long preserved, it was said, on an island near the mouth of the Rhine.

Such is the story of the raid, so far as we can reconstruct it from monkish Latin sources. The precise date is not given, but it must have been between A.D. 512 and 520.

Now this disastrous raid of Hygelac is referred to constantly in _Beowulf_: and the mention there of Hetware, Franks and the Merovingian king as the foes confirms an identification which would be satisfactory even without these additional data[6].

Our authorities are:

(1) Gregory of Tours (d. 594):

_His ita gestis, Dani cum rege suo nomine Chlochilaico evectu navale
per mare Gallias appetunt. Egressique ad terras, pagum unum de regno
Theudorici devastant atque captivant, oneratisque navibus tam de
captivis quam de reliquis spoliis, reverti ad patriam cupiunt; sed rex
eorum in litus resedebat donec naves alto mare conpraehenderent, ipse
deinceps secuturus. Quod cum Theudorico nuntiatum fuisset, quod
scilicet regio ejus fuerit ab extraneis devastata, Theudobertum, filium
suum, in illis partibus cum valido exercitu et magno armorum apparatu
direxit. Qui, interfecto rege, hostibus navali proelio superatis
opprimit, omnemque rapinam terrae restituit._

The name of the vanquished king is spelt in a variety of ways:
_Chlochilaichum_, _Chrochilaicho_, _Chlodilaichum_, _Hrodolaicum_.

See _Gregorii episcopi Turonensis Historia Francorum_, p. 110, in
_Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Scriptores rerum merovingicarum, I)_.

(2) The _Liber Historiae Francorum_ (commonly called the _Gesta
Francorum_):

_In illo tempore Dani cum rege suo nomine Chochilaico cum navale hoste
per alto mare Gallias appetent, Theuderico paygo [i.e. pagum] Attoarios
vel alios devastantes atque captivantes plenas naves de captivis alto
mare intrantes rex eorum ad litus maris resedens. Quod cum Theuderico
nuntiatum fuisset, Theudobertum filium suum cum magno exercitu in illis
partibus dirigens. Qui consequens eos, pugnavit cum eis caede magna
atque prostravit, regem eorum interficit, preda tullit, et in terra sua
restituit._

The _Liber Historiae Francorum_ was written in 727, but although so
much later than Gregory, it preserves features which are wanting in the
earlier historian, such as the mention of the Hetware (_Attoarii_).
Note too that the name of the invading king is given in a form which
{4} approximates more closely to _Hygelac_ than that of any of the MSS
of Gregory: variants are _Chrochilaico_, _Chohilaico_, _Chochilago_,
etc.

See _Monumenta Germaniae Historica_ (_Scriptores rerum merovingicarum,
II_, 274).

(3) An anonymous work _On monsters and strange beasts_, appended to two
MSS of Phaedrus.

_Et sunt [monstra] mirae magnitudinis: ut rex Huiglaucus qui imperavit
Getis et a Francis occisus est. Quem equus a duodecimo anno portare non
potuit. Cujus ossa in Reni fluminis insula, ubi in Oceanum prorumpit,
reservata sunt et de longinquo venientibus pro miraculo ostenduntur._

This treatise was first printed (from a MS of the tenth century, in
private possession) by J. Berger de Xivrey (_Traditions
t['e]ratologiques_, Paris, 1836, p. 12). It was again published from a
second MS at Wolfenbuettel by Haupt (see his _Opuscula_ II, 223, 1876).
This MS is in some respects less accurate, reading _Huncglacus_ for
_Huiglaucus_, and _gentes_ for _Getis_. The treatise is assigned by
Berger de Xivrey to the sixth century, on grounds which are hardly
conclusive (p. xxxiv). Haupt would date it not later than the eighth
century (II, 220).

The importance of this reference lies in its describing Hygelac as king
of the Getae, and in its fixing the spot where his bones were preserved
as near the mouth of the Rhine[7].

But if _Beowulf_ is supported in this matter by what is almost contemporary evidence (for Gregory of Tours was born only some twenty years after the raid he narrates) we shall probably be right in arguing that the other stories from the history of the Geatas, their Danish friends, and their Swedish foes, told with what seems to be such historic sincerity in the different digressions of our poem, are equally based on fact. True, we have no evidence outside _Beowulf_ for Hygelac's father, king Hrethel, nor for Hygelac's elder brothers, Herebeald and Haethcyn; and very little for Haethcyn's deadly foe, the Swedish king Ongentheow[8].

And in the last case, at any rate, such evidence might {5} fairly have been expected. For there are extant a very early Norse poem, the _Ynglinga tal_, and a much later prose account, the _Ynglinga saga_, enumerating the kings of Sweden. The _Ynglinga tal_ traces back these kings of Sweden for some thirty reigns. Therefore, though it was not composed till some four centuries after the date to which we must assign Ongentheow, it should deal with events even earlier than the reign of that king: for, unless the rate of mortality among early Swedish kings was abnormally high, thirty reigns should occupy a period of more than 400 years. Nothing is, however, told us in the _Ynglinga tal_ concerning the deeds of any king Angantyr--which is the name we might expect to correspond to Ongentheow[9].

But on the other hand, the son and grandson of Ongentheow, as recorded in _Beowulf_, _do_ meet us both in the _Ynglinga tal_ and in the _Ynglinga saga_.

According to _Beowulf_, Ongentheow had two sons, Onela and Ohthere: Onela became king of Sweden and is spoken of in terms of highest praise[10]. Yet to judge from the account given in _Beowulf_, the Geatas had little reason to love him. He had followed up the defeat of Hygelac by dealing their nation a second deadly blow. For Onela's nephews, Eadgils and Eanmund (the sons of Ohthere), had rebelled against him, and had taken refuge at the court of the Geatas, where Heardred, son of Hygelac, was now reigning, supported by Beowulf. Thither Onela pursued them, and slew the young king Heardred. Eanmund also was slain[11], then or later, but Eadgils escaped.

It is not clear from the poem what part Beowulf is supposed to have taken in this struggle, or why he failed to ward off disaster from his lord and his country. It is not even made clear whether or no he had to make formal submission to the hated Swede: but we are told that when Onela withdrew he succeeded to the vacant throne. In later days he took his revenge upon Onela. "He became a friend to Eadgils in his distress; he supported the son of Ohthere across the broad water with men, with warriors and arms: he wreaked his {6} vengeance in a chill journey fraught with woe: he deprived the king [Onela] of his life."

This story bears in its general outline every impression of true history: the struggle for the throne between the nephew and the uncle, the support given to the unsuccessful candidate by a rival state, these are events which recur frequently in the wild history of the Germanic tribes during the dark ages, following inevitably from the looseness of the law of succession to the throne.

Now the _Ynglinga tal_ contains allusions to these events, and the _Ynglinga saga_ a brief account of them, though dim and distorted[12]. We are told how Athils (=Eadgils) king of Sweden, son of Ottar (=Ohthere), made war upon Ali (=Onela). By the time the _Ynglinga tal_ was written it had been forgotten that Ali was Athils' uncle, and that the war was a civil war. But the issue, as reported in the _Ynglinga tal_ and _Ynglinga saga_, is the same as in _Beowulf_:

"King Athils had great quarrels with the king called Ali of Uppland; he
was from Norway. They had a battle on the ice of Lake Wener; there King
Ali fell, and Athils had the victory. Concerning this battle there is
much said in the _Skjoldunga saga_."

From the _Ynglinga saga_ we learn more concerning King Athils: not always to his credit. He was, as the Swedes had been from of old, a great horse-breeder. Authorities differed as to whether horses or drink were the death of him[13]. According to one account he brought on his end by celebrating, with immoderate drinking, the death of his enemy Rolf (the _Hrothulf_ of _Beowulf_). According to another:

"King Athils was at a sacrifice of the goddesses, and rode his horse
through the hall of the goddesses: the horse tripped under him and fell
and threw the king; and his head smote a stone so that the skull broke
and the brains lay on the stones, and that was his death. He died at
Uppsala, and there was laid in mound, and the Swedes called him a
mighty king."

{7}

There can, then, hardly be a doubt that there actually was such a king as Eadgils: and some of the charred bones which still lie within the gigantic "King's mounds" at Old Uppsala may well be his[14]. And, though they are not quite so well authenticated, there can also be little doubt as to the historic existence of Onela, Ohthere, and even of Ongentheow.

_The Swedish Kings._

The account in the _Ynglinga saga_ of the fight between Onela and
Eadgils is as follows:

_Adhils konungr ['a]tti deilur miklar vidh konung thann, er ['A]li
h['e]t inn upplenzki: hann var ['o]r N['o]regi. Their ['a]ttu orrostu
['a] Vaenis ['i]si; thar fell ['A]li konungr en Adhils hafdhi sigr;
fr['a] thessarri orrostu er langt sagt ['i] Skj[o,]ldunga s[o,]gu._
(_Ynglinga saga_ in _Heimskringla_, ed. J['o]nsson, Kjoebenhavn, 1893,
I, 56.)

The _Skjoldunga saga_ here mentioned is an account of the kings of
Denmark. It is preserved only in a Latin abstract.

_Post haec ortis inter Adilsum illum Sveciae regem et Alonem
Opplandorum regem in Norvegia, inimicitiis, praelium utrinque
indicitur: loco pugnae statuto in stagno Waener, glacie jam obducto. Ad
illud igitur se viribus inferiorem agnoscens Rolphonis privigni sui
opem implorat, hoc proposito praemio, ut ipse Rolpho tres
praeciosissimas res quascunque optaret ex universo regno Sveciae
praemii loco auferret: duodecim autem pugilum ipsius quilibet 3 libras
auri puri, quilibet reliquorum bellatorum tres marcas argenti defecati.
Rolpho domi ipse reses pugilos suos duodecim Adilso in subsidium
mittit, quorum etiam opera is alioqui vincendus, victoriam obtinuit.
Illi sibi et regi propositum praemium exposcunt, negat Adilsus,
Rolphoni absenti ullum deberi praemium, quare et Dani pugiles sibi
oblatum respuebant, cum regem suum eo frustrari intelligerent,
reversique rem, ut gesta est, exponunt._ (See _Skjoldungasaga i Arngrim
Jonssons Udtog, udgiven af Axel Olrik_, Kjoebenhavn, 1894, p. 34
[116].)

There is also a reference to this battle on the ice in the
_K['a]lfsv['i]sa_, a mnemonic list of famous heroes and their horses.
It is noteworthy that in this list mention is made of Vestein, who is
perhaps the Wihstan of our poem, and of Biar, who has been thought
(very doubtfully) to correspond to the O.E. Beaw.

_Dagr reith Dr[o,]sle en Dvalenn M['o]thne..._
_['A]le Hrafne es til ['i]ss ritho,_
_enn annarr austr und Athilse_
_gr['a]r hvarfathe geire undathr._
_Bj[o,]rn reith Blakke en Biarr Kerte,_
_Atle Glaume en Athils Slungne..._
_Lieder der Edda_, ed. Symons and Gering, I, 221-2.

"Ale was on Hrafn when they rode to the ice: but another horse, a grey
one, with Athils on his back, fell eastward, wounded by the spear."
This, as Olrik points out, appears to refer to a version of the story
in which Athils had his fall from his horse, not at a ceremony at
Uppsala, but after the battle with Ali. (_Heltedigtning_, I, 203-4.)

{8}

For various theories as to the early history of the Swedish royal
house, as recorded in _Beowulf_, see Weyhe, _Koenig Ongentheows Fall_,
in _Engl. Stud._, XXXIX, 14-39; Schueck, _Studier i Ynglingatal_
(1905-7); Stjerna, _Vendel och Vendelkr[oa]ka_, in _A.f.n.F._ XXI, 71,
_etc._

_The Geatas._

The identification of Geatas and Goetar has been accepted by the great
majority of scholars, although Kemble wished to locate the Geatas in
Schleswig, Grundtvig in Gotland, and Haigh in England. Leo was the
first to suggest the Jutes: but the "Jute-hypothesis" owes its currency
to the arguments of Fahlbeck (_Beovulfsqvaedet s[oa]som kaella foer
nordisk fornhistoria_ in the _Antiqvarisk Tidskrift foer Sverige_,
VIII, 2, 1). Fahlbeck's very inconclusive reasons were contested at the
time by Sarrazin (23 _etc._) and ten Brink (194 _etc._) and the
arguments against them have lately been marshalled by H. Schueck
(_Folknamnet Geatas i den fornengelska dikten Beowulf_, Upsala, 1907).
It is indeed difficult to understand how Fahlbeck's theory came to
receive the support it has had from several scholars (e.g. Bugge,
_P.B.B._ XII, 1 _etc._; Weyhe, _Engl. Stud._, XXXIX, 38 _etc._;
Gering). For his conclusions do not arise naturally from the O.E. data:
his whole argument is a piece of learned pleading, undertaken to
support his rather revolutionary speculations as to early Swedish
history. These speculations would have been rendered less probable had
the natural interpretation of Geatas as Goetar been accepted. The
Jute-hypothesis has recently been revived, with the greatest skill and
learning, by Gudmund Schuette (_Journal of English and Germanic
Philology_, XI, 574 _etc._). But here again I cannot help suspecting
that the wish is father to the thought, and that the fact that that
eminent scholar is a Dane living in Jutland, has something to do with
his attempt to locate the Geatas there. No amount of learning will
eradicate patriotism.

The following considerations need to be weighed:

(1) _Geatas_ etymologically corresponds exactly with O.N. _Gautar_, the
modern Goetar. The O.E. word corresponding to Jutes (the Iutae of Bede)
should be, not _Geatas_, but in the Anglian dialect _Eote_, _Iote_, in
the West Saxon _Iete_, _Yte_.

Now it is true that in one passage in the O.E. translation of Bede (I,
15) the word "Iutarum" _is_ rendered _Geata_: but in the other (IV, 16)
"Iutorum" is rendered _Eota_, _Ytena_. And this latter rendering is
supported (_a_) by the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (_Iotum_, _Iutna_) and
(_b_) by the fact that the current O.E. word for Jutes was _Yte_,
_Ytan_, which survived till after the Norman conquest. For the name
_Ytena land_ was used for that portion of Hampshire which had been
settled by the Jutes: William Rufus was slain, according to Florence of
Worcester, in _Ytene_ (which Florence explains as _prouincia Jutarum_).

From the purely etymological point of view the Goetar-hypothesis, then,
is unimpeachable: but the Jute-hypothesis is unsatisfactory, since it
is based upon one passage in the O.E. Bede, where _Jutarum_ is
incorrectly rendered _Geata_, whilst it is invalidated by the other
passage in the O.E. Bede, by the _Chronicle_ and by Florence of
Worcester, where _Jutorum_ is correctly translated by _Ytena_, or its
Anglian or Kentish equivalent _Eota_, _Iotna_.

(2) It is obvious that the Geatas of _Beowulf_ were a strong and
independent power--a match for the Swedes. Now we learn from Procopius
that in the sixth century the Goetar were an independent {9} and
numerous nation. But we have no equal evidence for any similar
preponderant Jutish power in the sixth century. The _Iutae_ are indeed
a rather puzzling tribe, and scholars have not even been able to agree
where they dwelt.

The Goetar on the other hand are located among the great nations of
Scandinavia both by Ptolemy (_Geog._ II, 11, 16) in the second century
and by Procopius (_Bell. Gott._ II, 15) in the sixth. When we next get
clear information (through the Christian missionaries) both Goetar and
Swedes have been united under one king. But the Goetar retained their
separate laws, traditions, and voice in the selection of the king, and
they were constantly asserting themselves during the Middle Ages. The
title of the king of Sweden, _rex Sveorum Gothorumque_, commemorates
the old distinction.

From the historical point of view, then, the Goetar comply with what we
are told in _Beowulf_ of the power of the Geatas much better than do
the Jutes.

(3) Advocates of the Jute-hypothesis have claimed much support from the
geographical argument that the Swedes and Geatas fight _ofer s[=ae]_
(e.g. when Beowulf and Eadgils attack Onela, 2394). But the term
_s[=ae]_ is just as appropriate to the great lakes Wener and Wetter,
which separated the Swedes from the Goetar, as it is to the Cattegatt.
And we have the evidence of Scandinavian sources that the battle
between Eadgils and Onela actually _did_ take place on the ice of lake
Wener (see above, p. 6). Moreover the absence of any mention of ships
in the fighting narrated in ll. 2922-2945 would be remarkable if the
contending nations were Jutes and Swedes, but suits Goetar and Swedes
admirably: since they could attack each other by land as well as by
water.

(4) There is reason to think that the old land of the Goetar included a
great deal of what is now the south-west coast of Sweden[15]. Hygelac's
capital was probably not far from the modern Goeteborg. The
descriptions in _Beowulf_ would suit the cliffs of southern Sweden
well, but they are quite inapplicable to the sandy dunes of Jutland.

Little weight can, however, be attached to this last argument, as the
cliffs of the land of the Geatas are in any case probably drawn from
the poet's imagination.

(5) If we accept the identification Beowulf = Bjarki (see below, pp.
60-1) a further argument for the equation of Geatas and Goetar will be
found in the fact that Bjarki travels to Denmark from Gautland just as
Beowulf from the land of the Geatas; Bjarki is the brother of the king
of the Gautar, Beowulf the nephew of the king of the Geatas.

(6) No argument as to the meaning of _Geatas_ can be drawn from the
fact that Gregory calls Chlochilaicus (Hygelac) a Dane. For it is clear
from _Beowulf_ that, whatever else they may have been, the Geatas were
not Danes. Either, then, Gregory must be misinformed, or he must be
using the word _Dane_ vaguely, to cover any kind of Scandinavian
pirate.

(7) Probably what has weighed most heavily (often perhaps not
consciously) in gaining converts to the "Jute-hypothesis" has been the
conviction that "in ancient times each nation celebrated in song its
own heroes alone." Hence one set of scholars, accepting the
identification of the Geatas with the Scandinavian Goetar, have argued
that _Beowulf_ is therefore simply a translation from a Scandinavian
Goetish original. Others, accepting _Beowulf_ as an English poem, have
{10} argued that the Geatas who are celebrated in it must therefore be
one of the tribes that settled in England, and have therefore favoured
the "Jute theory." But the _a priori_ assumption that each Germanic
tribe celebrated in song its own national heroes only is demonstrably
incorrect[16].

But in none of the accounts of the warfare of these Scandinavian kings, whether written in Norse or monkish Latin, is there mention of any name corresponding to that of Beowulf, as king of the Geatas. Whether he is as historic as the other kings with whom in our poem he is brought into contact, we cannot say.

It has been generally held that the Beowulf of our poem is compounded out of two elements: that an historic Beowulf, king of the Geatas, has been combined with a mythological figure Beowa[17], a god of the ancient Angles: that the historical achievements against Frisians and Swedes belong to the king, the mythological adventures with giants and dragons to the god. But there is no conclusive evidence for either of these presumed component parts of our hero. To the god Beowa we shall have to return later: here it is enough to note that the current assumption that there _was_ a king Beowulf of the Geatas lacks confirmation from Scandinavian sources.

And one piece of evidence there is, which tends to show that Beowulf is not an historic king at all, but that his adventures have been violently inserted amid the historic names of the kings of the Geatas. Members of the families in _Beowulf_ which we have reason to think historic bear names which alliterate the one with the other. The inference seems to be that it was customary, when a Scandinavian prince was named in the Sixth Century, to give him a name which had an initial letter similar to that of his father: care was thus taken that metrical difficulties should not prevent the names of father and son being linked together in song[18]. In the case of Beowulf himself, however, this rule breaks down. Beowulf seems an intruder {11} into the house of Hrethel. It may be answered that since he was only the offspring of a daughter of that house, and since that daughter had three brothers, there would have been no prospect of his becoming king, when he was named. But neither does his name fit in with that of the other great house with which he is supposed to be connected. Wiglaf, son of Wihstan of the Waegmundingas, was named according to the familiar rules: but Beowulf, son of Ecgtheow, seems an intruder in that family as well.

This failure to fall in with the alliterative scheme, and the absence of confirmation from external evidence, are, of course, not in themselves enough to prove that the reign of Beowulf over the Geatas is a poetic figment. And indeed our poem _may_ quite possibly be true to historic fact in representing him as the last of the great kings of the Geatas; after whose death his people have nothing but national disaster to expect[19]. It would be strange that this last and most mighty and magnanimous of the kings of the Geatas should have been forgotten in Scandinavian lands: that outside _Beowulf_ nothing should be known of his reign. But when we consider how little, outside _Beowulf_, we know of the Geatic kingdom at all, we cannot pronounce such oblivion impossible.

What tells much more against Beowulf as a historic Geatic king is that there is always apt to be something extravagant and unreal about what the poem tells us of his deeds, contrasting with the sober and historic way in which other kings, like Hrothgar or Hygelac or Eadgils, are referred to. True, we must not disqualify Beowulf forthwith because he slew a dragon[20]. Several unimpeachably historical persons have done this: so sober an authority as the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ assures us that fiery dragons were flying in Northumbria as late as A.D. 793[21].

{12}

But (and this is the serious difficulty) even when Beowulf is depicted in quite historic circumstances, there is still something unsubstantial about his actions. When, in the midst of the strictly historical account of Hygelac's overthrow, we are told that Beowulf swam home bearing thirty suits of armour, this is as fantastic as the account of his swimming home from Grendel's lair with Grendel's head and the magic swordhilt. We may well doubt whether there is any more kernel of historic fact in the one feat than in the other[22]. Again, we are told how Beowulf defended the young prince Heardred, Hygelac's son. Where was he, then, when Heardred was defeated and slain? To protect and if necessary avenge his lord upon the battlefield was the essential duty of the Germanic retainer. Yet Beowulf has no part to play in the episode of the death of Heardred. He is simply ignored till it is over. True, we are told that in later days he _did_ take vengeance, by supporting the claims of Eadgils, the pretender, against Onela, the slayer of Heardred. But here again difficulties meet us: for the Scandinavian authorities, whilst they agree that Eadgils overthrew Onela by the use of foreign auxiliaries, represent these auxiliaries as Danish retainers, dispatched by the Danish king Hrothulf. The chief of these Danish retainers is Bothvar Bjarki, who, as we shall see later, has been thought to stand in some relation to Beowulf. But Bothvar is never regarded as king of the Geatas: and the fact remains that _Beowulf_ is at variance with our other authorities in representing Eadgils as having been placed on the throne by a Geatic rather than by a Danish force. Yet this Geatic expedition against Onela is, with the exception of the dragon episode, the only event which our poem has to narrate concerning Beowulf's long reign of fifty years. And in other respects the reign is shadowy. Beowulf, we are told, came to the throne at a time of utter national distress; he had a long and prosperous reign, and became so powerful that he was able to dethrone the mighty[23] Swedish king Onela, and place in his stead the miserable fugitive[24] Eadgils. Yet, after this half century of success, the {13} kingdom is depicted upon Beowulf's death as being in the same tottering condition in which it stood at the time when he is represented as having come to the throne, after the fall of Heardred.

The destruction one after the other of the descendants of Hrethel sounds historic: at any rate it possesses verisimilitude. But the picture of the childless Beowulf, dying, after a glorious reign, in extreme old age, having apparently made no previous arrangements for the succession, so that Wiglaf, a youth hitherto quite untried in war, steps at once into the place of command on account of his valour in slaying the dragon--this is a picture which lacks all historic probability.

I cannot avoid a suspicion that the fifty years' reign of Beowulf over the Geatas may quite conceivably be a poetic fiction[25]; that the downfall of the Geatic kingdom and its absorption in Sweden were very possibly brought about by the destruction of Hygelac and all his warriors at the mouth of the Rhine.

Such an event would have given the Swedes their opportunity for vengeance: they may have swooped down, destroyed Heardred, and utterly crushed the independent kingdom of the Geatas before the younger generation had time to grow up into fighting men.

To the fabulous achievements of Beowulf, his fight with Grendel, Grendel's dam, and the dragon, it will be necessary to return later. As to his other feats, all we can say is that the common assumption that they rest upon an historic foundation does not seem to be capable of proof. But that they have an historic background is indisputable.

* * * * *