^{Note 1 in page 513} E.g., R. W. Chambers, Beowulf: An Introduction, 3rd ed. (Cambridge, 1959), pp. 41–48 and esp. 304–311.

^{Note 2 in page 513} “Beowulf Notes,” Anglia, lxxi (1952-53), 440, supporting W. J. Sedgefield's statement that “editors have made unnecessary difficulties about the interpretation of this passage,” in Beowulf, 3rd ed. (Manchester, 1935), p. 107.

^{Note 3 in page 513} Beowulf With the Finnesburg Fragment (London, 1953), p. 188. Johannes Hoops, Kommentar zum Beowulf (Heidelberg, 1932), p. 38, agrees that it is “eine der umstrittensten Stellen im Beowulf.”

^{Note 4 in page 513} Wrenn, pp. 188–189.

^{Note 5 in page 513} Wrenn, pp. 68–69, 188–189; J. R. R. Tolkien, Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics, Sir Israel Gollancz Memorial Lecture, British Academy, 1936 (London, 1958), p. 52. For the consensus that he is Grendel, cf. Elliott Van Kirk Dobbie, ed. Beowulf and Judith, Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records, iv (New York, 1953), 125.

^{Note 6 in page 513} Wrenn, p. 68. Wrenn holds that the lines were originally between ll. 110 and 111, so that he is Cain and the subject a further description of his banishment.

^{Note 7 in page 513} Dobbie, loc. cit.

^{Note 8 in page 513} F. Klaeber, ed. Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg (New York, 1928), p. 133; Sedgefield, p. 107.

^{Note 9 in page 513} Eliason, p. 442.

^{Note 10 in page 513} For discussion, see Eliason, loc. cit.

^{Note 11 in page 514} The Throne of Hrothgar—Beowulf, Ll. 168–169,“ JEGP, xliii (1944), 384–389. He pays tribute (pp. 384–385, n. 6) to Sarrazin's earlier pregnant suggestions but correctly points out the latter's errors both of translation and interpretation. Arthur E. Dubois, ”Gifstol,“ MLN, lxix (1954), 546–549, glosses gifstol with meanings of both throne and altar.

^{Note 12 in page 514} Estrich, pp. 384–385. His conjecture about pagan pillars at the high-seat does not perhaps clarify the problem, since no Anglo-Saxon source suggests their existence or knowledge of them among the English.

^{Note 13 in page 514} The best introductions to Germanic sacral kingship are O. Höfler, “Der Sakralcharacter des Germanischen Königtums,” The Sacral Kingship. Contributions To The Central Theme Of The VIIIth International Congress For The History Of Religions (Rome, April 1955) (Leiden, 1959), pp. 664–701; Jan de Vries, “Das Königtum bei den Germanen,” Saeculum, vii (1956), 289–309; Hans Naumann, “Die Magische Seite des Altgermanischen Königtums und Ihr Fortwirken in Christlicher Zeit,” Wirtschaft und Kultur. Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Alfons Dopsch (Baden bei Wien, 1938), pp. 1–12; Helmut de Boor, “Germanische und Christliche Religiosität,” Milteilungen der Schlesischen Gesellschaft für Volkskunde, xxxiii (1933), 26–51; H. M. Chadwick, The Origin of the English Nation (Cambridge, 1924), pp. 295–303.

^{Note 14 in page 514} On royal luck, see Vilhelm Grönbech, The Culture of the Teutons (London, 1931), i, ch. iv, “Luck,” 127–154; ch. v, “Luck Is the Life of the Clan,” 155–174; iii, 14–17, excursus on “Anglo-Saxon Speo, Luck.”

^{Note 15 in page 514} On lay ownership of churches, see Heinrich Boehmer, “Das Eigenkirchentum in England,” Texte und Forschungen zur Englischen Kulturgeschichte (Halle, 1921), pp. 301–353.

^{Note 16 in page 514} Naumann, pp. 6–7. Cf. Adam of Bremen's account of the great festival every nine years at Uppsala: Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum, iv, c. 27; Migne, Patrologia Latina (Paris, 1853), xlvi, cols. 643–644.

^{Note 17 in page 514} Tacitus, Germania, c. 10; Naumann, p. 7.

^{Note 18 in page 515} Gudbrand Vigfusson and F. York Powell, eds. Corpus Poeticum Boreale (Oxford, 1883), ii, 477. For references to him as the “pontiff of temple worship,” cf. p. 479.

^{Note 19 in page 515} J. de Vries, Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte, Grundriss der Germanischen Philologie, xii: 2 (Berlin and Leipzig, 1937), ii, 32–43, with bibliography. The definition of mana (O.N. máttr, megin), cited on p. 32 of de Vries, is from Francis Pea-body Magoun, Jr., “On Some Survivals of Pagan Belief in Anglo-Saxon England,” Harvard Theological Review, xl (1947), 34, with bibliography of the general concept on p. 34 n. 7.

^{Note 20 in page 515} “Non enim licuerat pontificem sacrorum vel arma ferre, vel praeter in equa equitare;” Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, ii, c. 13. Cf. the Icelandic Landnamabok: a man “had a good sword, and he carried it into the temple, wherefore Ingimund (the chief and priest) took the sword away from him;” Vigfusson and Powell, i, 407.

^{Note 21 in page 515} Chadwick, p. 302.

^{Note 22 in page 515} Germania, c. 40.

^{Note 23 in page 515} The forbidding of weapons or the riding of stallions to the Anglian priesthood may also indicate an original order of priestesses, serving the deity of peace and plenty, forbidden emblems of war and martial life, and related to the priest muliebri ornatu whom Tacitus ascribes to the Nahanarvali; Germania, c. 43.

^{Note 24 in page 515} English Historical Documents c. 500–1042, ed. Dorothy Whitelock, English Historical Documents, i (London, 1955), p. 437.

^{Note 25 in page 515} Chadwick, pp. 302–303.

^{Note 26 in page 515} Ortwin Henssler, Formen des Asylrechts und ihre Verbreitung bei den Germanen (Frankfurt-am-Main, 1954), pp. 71–73.

^{Note 27 in page 515} I am not concerned here with the often discussed extension of the king's peace in its legal-constitutional development. Payments to the king for breaking his peace other than in his residence or when he is present in person are consequently not treated. On other aspects, see, e.g., W. Stubbs, The Constitutional History of England, 5th ed. (Oxford, 1891), i, 198–206; F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1923), i, 44–15.

^{Note 28 in page 515} Aethelberht 2–3; The Laws of the Earliest English Kings, ed. F. L. Attenborough (Cambridge, 1922), p. 5. In the former case, fifty shillings, the amount of the king's mundbyrd and the compensation to be paid for slaying a man in the king's tun (Aethelberht 8, 5), is also to be paid to the king. For double compensation due for breach of the frith of a church or meeting-place, cf. Aethelberht 1; loc. cit.

^{Note 29 in page 515} Ine 6, Alfred 7; Attenborough, pp. 39, 69. The former provides for loss of all property in addition. The lesser penalties for fighting in a monastery (120 shillings), the house of an ealdorman (60 shillings), the house of a taxpayer (120 shillings, but see p. 183, n. 1 to Ine 6 §2), in the open (120 shillings), and in a tavern (30 shillings) are provided in the same law, Ine 6 §1–§5.

^{Note 30 in page 515} Alfred 15; Attenborough, p. 73. Cf. Alfred 38–38 §2 for fighting or drawing a sword at a meeting in the presence of the king's ealdorman; ibid., p. 81. These represent the king's peace. For the status of the ninth century ealdorman, see H. R. Loyn, “The Term ‘Ealdorman’ in the Translations Prepared at the Time of King Alfred,” English Historical Review, lxviii (1953), 513–525.

^{Note 31 in page 516} ii Cnut 59; The Laws of the Kings of England from Edmund to Henry I, ed. A. J. Robertson (Cambridge, 1925), p. 205. Cf. in Welsh law, the first of “the four persons for whom there is no protection, either in court or in church, against the King: one is, a person who shall violate the King's protection, in one of the three principal festivals in the palace; the second is, a person who is delivered with his own consent as a hostage to the King; the third is, a person to whom the King is a supper guest, who ought to supply him with food that night and does not supply him; the fourth is, the King's bondman:” Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents Relating to Great Britain and Ireland, ed. A. W. Haddan and W. Stubbs (Oxford, 1869), i, 237 (Bk. ii, c. 8 §13 of Dimetian Code); cf. Bk. ii, c. 39 of Gwentian Code (loc. cit.).

^{Note 32 in page 516} Homily li; Karl Jost, Wulfstanstudien, Swiss Studies in English, xxiii (Bern, 1950), 105. Murderers, liars, and oath-breakers are placed in the same category.

^{Note 23 in page 516} Mon. Ger. Hist., Epp., iv, 24; Felix Liebermann, ed. Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen (Halle, 1912), ii: 2, 511 (“Hochverrat,” sect. 1c). The German synod of Hohenaltheim in A.D. 916 also excommunicated any who committed the sacrilege of rebelling against the christus Domini, the king: Mon. Ger. Hist., Const., i, 623; E. Eichmann, “Königs- und Bischofsweihe,” Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philol.-Philos. und Hist. Klasse (1928), no. 6, 68.

^{Note 34 in page 516} Heinrich Fichtenau, The Carolingian Empire (Oxford, 1957), p. 56.

^{Note 35 in page 516} “The Throne of Hrothgar—Beowulf, li. 168–169” (above, n. 11), pp. 386–387. The following summary of references to the throne in Beowulf, Wanderer, and the Exeter Gnomes have been collected by him.

^{Note 36 in page 516} Beowulf, 1. 1087.

^{Note 37 in page 516} Beowulf, 1. 2196.

^{Note 38 in page 516} Beowulf, 1. 2389.

^{Note 39 in page 516} “Cnuto autem ciuitatem intrauit, et in solio regni resedit;” Encomium Emmae Reginae, ed. Alistair Campbell, Camden Third Series, lxxii (London, 1949), 22. I cannot agree with the view of the Encomiast's editor (p. lviii) that this is “a mere rhetorical flourish,” especially since Cnut at the time had not been elected. To sit on the throne would itself invest

the claimant with some right, if the throne possessed qualities of a sacred regalium. So, on Cnut's death, Harald, before his election as king, tried in vain to persuade Archbishop Aethelnoth to lead him in sublime regni solium and give him the crown and sceptre; ibid., p. 40. In Norway a new ruler did not succeed his predecessor until he sat on the high-seat; Vigfusson and Powell, i, 404–405.

^{Note 40 in page 517} Beowulf, ll. 2369–70.

^{Note 41 in page 517} Exeter Gnomes, 1. 69; Wanderer, 11. 41–44.

^{Note 42 in page 517} Dubois (above, n. 11), p. 547, who also suggests that Toller's gloss of gifu as connoting God's grace or favor might increase the concept of the throne's altar-like nature.

^{Note 43 in page 517} Christ, ll. 50–51; The Exeter Book, ed. G. P. Krapp and E. V. K. Dobbie, Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records, iii (London, 1936), 4.

^{Note 44 in page 517} Byrhtferth's Manual (A.D. 1011), ed. S. J. Crawford, Early English Text Society, Original Series, No. 177 (London, 1929), p. 4.

^{Note 45 in page 517} Ine 5, Edward and Guthrum 1, Aethelberht 1–5; Attenborough, pp. 39, 103, 5.

^{Note 46 in page 517} Edward and Guthrum 1; Attenborough, p. 103. ii Edmund 2; Robertson, p. 9. The penalty is outlawry and forfeiture of property; ibid., p. 296, n. 3 to this law.

^{Note 47 in page 517} Robertson, pp. 97, 155. The penalty in Cnut's law for violation of protection of church or king is loss of both land and life, “unless the king is willing to pardon him.” iii Aethelred 15 provides that “if a man robs another in daylight, and the latter makes the deed known in three villages, he shall not be entitled to protection of any kind,” an apparent, but uncertain, denial of the right of sanctuary; ibid., pp. 71, 322, n. 3 to law. Other laws concerning ecclesiastical sanctuary alone are Ine 5–5 §1, Alfred 2–2 §1, 5–5 §4, and 42 §2, and ii Edgar 5 §3; Attenborough, pp. 39, 65, 67, 83, and Robertson, p. 23.

^{Note 48 in page 517} It is the term used in Edward and Guthrum 1, vi Aethelred 14, i Cnut 2 §2, and Grith. For Grith, see Liebermann, i, 470, where the editor translates “Sonderfriede aus der Hand des christlichen Königs”; this code has been attributed to Wulfstan; The Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Dorothy Bethurum (Oxford, 1957), p. 45. iii Aethelred 1 refers to the king's peace “þoet he mid his agenre hand sylo”; Robertson, p. 64. Karl Jost, who regards vi Aethelred as a Privatarbeit of Wulfstan and v Aethelred as the laws of the council of Eanham, points out that this reference to the king's hand-peace (and to church-peace) does not occur in the latter; Jost, pp. 108 n. 1, 83–85 (where he compares vi Aethelred 14 with i Cnut 2, Polity, and Wulfstan's Homily l). The term is used in Polity (“It is right … that church-‘grith’ stand everywhere between walls, and a hallowed king's hand-‘grith’ equally inviolate”); Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, ed. Benjamin Thorpe (London, 1840), ii, 339. Cf. Wulfstan's Homily li (“the hand-‘grith’ of the anointed king”); Jost, p. 105. The homilist's reference to the anointed ruler is absent in the laws and is perhaps an ecclesiastization of an older belief.

^{Note 49 in page 517} Henssler (above, n. 26), pp. 100–101.

^{Note 50 in page 518} iv Athelstan 6 §1-2; Attenborough, p. 149 (where noctes is modernized as “days”). In the Anglo-Saxon fragment of this code the bishop is substituted for archbishop as sharing the privilege of nine nights sanctuary and is omitted from those granting it for three nights; this may be due, as Liebermann suggests, to an attempt by the Rochester scribe to enhance that see; ibid., pp. 151, 210 n. 1 for iv Athelstan 6 §2. The Germanic method of counting by nights instead of days is used; cf. Germania, c.11. Variations, of course, occurred, as in the thirty-seven days and nights sanctuary in the territory given to the dead St. Cuthbert; Eng. Hist. Doc. c. 500–1042, p. 261 (from anonymous History of St. Cuthbert).

^{Note 51 in page 518} Liebermann, i, 470.

^{Note 52 in page 518} From Pax, dating A.D. c. 910-c. 1060, in Liebermann, i, 390 (with Latin text of Quadripartitus, 391). See my “Paganism to Christianity in Anglo-Saxon England,” Harvard Theological Review, liii (1960), 216–217.

^{Note 53 in page 518} Karl Weinhold, “Die Mystische Neunzahl bei den Deutschen,” Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Phil.-hist. Klasse (1897), No. 2. A study of this number in relationship to Germanic law is made in my article, “Aethelberht's Code and the King's Number,” American Journal of Legal History, vi (1962), 151–177.

^{Note 54 in page 518} Alfred 2 (allowing the three nights for “any monastery which is entitled to receive the king's food rent, or to any other free community which is endowed”) and 5 (seven nights sanctuary for a church consecrated by a bishop); Attenborough, pp. 65, 67. The royal guardianship of churches is specifically stated.

^{Note 55 in page 518} i Edmund 3; Robertson, p. 7.

^{Note 56 in page 518} ii Edmund 4; Robertson, p. 11.

^{Note 57 in page 518} Whitelock (above, n. 24), p. 332. Its paralleling of pagan sacral kingship and its use to oppose blood-feuds (ibid., p. 58) are not mutually exclusive.

^{Note 58 in page 519} Whitelock, p. 203.

^{Note 59 in page 519} Robertson, p. 296 n. 3 to ii Edmund 4. Liebermann's view that the clause “if he be the king's man” in MS. B of I Edmund 3, although not part of the original law, shows that it was intended primarily to concern nobles of the king's court would not decisively affect the point here. The phrase is, furthermore, not found in the other MSS; ibid., pp. 295–296 n. 3 to law. Frank Zinkeisen, “The Anglo-Saxon Courts of Law,” Political Science Quarterly, x (1895), 134, asserts that when in Edgar's laws recourse to the king was made difficult, it was to maintain the jurisdiction of local courts. This is with reference only to the laws directing that cases are not to be brought to the king unless justice has been refused locally, however, and even this local jurisdiction is not a matter of concern in Edmund's laws denying access to the king's person to criminals.

^{Note 60 in page 519} v Aethelred 29; Robertson, p. 87.

^{Note 61 in page 519} Robertson, p. 103. v Aethelred 29, on the other hand, provides for a death penalty: “It shall be at the risk of (losing) his life or his possessions.”

^{Note 62 in page 519} vi Aethelred 36; loc. cit.

^{Note 63 in page 519} Robertson, p. 117.

^{Note 64 in page 519} Robertson, p. 339 n. 4 to law.

^{Note 65 in page 519} Henssler, p. 125.

^{Note 66 in page 519} ii Cnut 13; Robertson, p. 181. The law says simply that “se oe utlages weorc gewyrce wealde se cyng oaes frioes,” but that only the king is meant (and stated explicitly in one MS), cf. p. 353 n. 2 to law.

^{Note 67 in page 519} Thus it is not surprising that sanctuary was sought at the tomb of King Edward the Confessor even before that sacral king was canonized; Anglo-Saxon Writs, ed. F. E. Harmer (Manchester, 1952), p. 13 n. 2.

^{Note 68 in page 519} Trans. C. W. Wrenn, p. 188.

^{Note 69 in page 519} As does Eliason; see above, p. 513.

^{Note 70 in page 520} Wrenn, p. 189. Similarly, I do not believe the notion that “all the thanes have moved as far as possible from the mead-hall” is sufficient “as a sort of explanation why Grendel cannot approach the ‘gift-seat‘—it is empty;” Robert Howren, “A Note on Beowulf 168–9,” MLN, lxxi (1956), 318. Howren, however, does not deny possible religious connotations to the passage.

^{Note 71 in page 520} This rejects major conclusions of Klaeber, Sedgefield, Eliason, Wrenn, and others and supports, for the most part, those of Hoops, Dobbie, and Estrich. I am obviously in agreement with Estrich's translation (p. 384 and n. 3), except that Wrenn's “precious object” as a substitute for “treasure” embodies perhaps more fully the overtones of a cult-object's description, and “favor,” instead of “love,” reflects the image of royal regard, divine and earthly.

^{Note 72 in page 520} (Above, n. 5), p. 52.

^{Note 73 in page 520} As does Wrenn; see above, n. 6.

^{Note 74 in page 520} Tolkien, p. 52.

^{Note 75 in page 520} This and Eliason's suggestion that the lines “are intended to mark the conclusion of the Grendel discussion” before “attention is shifted to the Danes in line 170” are not mutually exclusive; Eliason, p. 440.

^{Note 76 in page 520} Aelfric's Sermon for the Fourth Sunday after Pentecost; The Homilies of Aelfric, ed. B. Thorpe, Aelfric Society Pubs., i (London, 1844), i, 343–345 (A.-S. text, 344).