^{page 373 note 1} Since this investigation was undertaken, Professor Friedrich Klaeber read, at the meeting of the Central Division of the Modern Language Association of America, in December, 1914, a review of the Finnsburg Tale. The present paper was read by title at the corresponding meeting of the Eastern section of the Association. It is much to be hoped that Professor Klaeber's monograph may soon be published.

^{page 373 note 2} It is no part of the design of the present paper to give an exhaustive bibliography of critical comments on the Finnsburg material. The advantages of such completeness are questionable; much of this criticism is valueless today. The history of opinion in regard to any vexed passage may be gained by reading the notes and consulting the bibliography suggested in an edition of Beowulf with full notes, like Schücking's revision of the Heyne-Socin text. It seems useless to reprint this here. References to special comments on disputed passages will be found in the appropriate places in the succeeding pages. The reader will find the following books and articles of especial value in determining the larger outlines of the story, and in deciding questions of ethnography and saga: Simrock, Beowulf, das älteste deutsche Epos, 1859, pp. 187–191; Müllenhoff, Beowulf, Berlin, 1889, pp. 105–107; Nordalbingische Studien, i, 157 ff.; Möller, Das altenglische Volksepos, Kiel, 1883 (proposes a radically different interpretation from that generally favored by earlier scholars, a book of great learning and ingenuity, but unsound in most of its conclusions); Heinzel, Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum, Vol. x, pp. 225 ff. (dissenting review of Möller); Bugge, Paul und Braune, Beiträge, Vol. xii, pp. 20–37 (reviews Möller, rejecting his interpretation, with much new criticism, a most important article); ten Brink, Paul's Grundriss, first ed., Vol. ii, pp. 543 ff. (reprinted in ten Brink's Geschichte der englischen Litteratur, second ed., Strassburg, 1899, pp. 472–478, (an excellent survey; ten Brink did not accept the hypotheses of Möller); Koegel, Geschichte der deutschen Litteratur, Strassburg, 1894, Vol. I, pp. 163–169; Binz, Paul und Braune, Beiträge, Vol. xx, pp. 179 ff. (discusses traces of Germanic saga in place-names in the British Isles); Trautmann, Finn und Hildebrand, in Bonner Beiträge No. 7, 1903, see especially pp. 58–64 (an important work, chiefly concerned with textual criticism, with great freedom in conjectural emendation); Binz, review of Trautmann in Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, Vol. xxxvii, pp. 529 ff.; Boer, Finnsage und Nibelungensage, Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum, Vol. xlvii, pp. 133 ff. (a suggestive comparison of the Finnsburg material with related or similar stories); R. Imelmann, Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, Vol. xxx, p. 999 (17 April, 1909); Brandl, Paul's Grundriss (second edition), 1908, Vol. ii, pp. 983–1024 (an important and highly condensed review with full bibliography). Critical comments in the various standard translations of Beowulf may be consulted to advantage. Dr. R. W. Chambers's edition of Widsith, Cambridge, 1912, gives an admirable introduction to the general background of early legend and ethnography in Germanic poetry. The text of Beowulf used in the present investigation is that of Heyne and Socin, revised by Schücking, tenth edition, Paderborn, 1913.

^{page 375 note 3} See p. 415, note 2 below.

^{page 377 note 4} Hildeburg is the daughter of Hoe (1076); Hnæf is prince of the Hocings (Widsith 29). Hnæf and his men are referred to as Danes 1108 (cf. 1114), (1069 is ambiguous) 1090 (cf. 1158). Hildeburg is nowhere stated to be the wife of Finn, but there can be no doubt of this; she is called ewēn, a term only applied to queens in Beowulf, and Finn is the only cyning save Hnæf (Fragment 2 cannot refer to Hengest, see below). The carrying off of Hildeburg at the end of the story, with the treasures of Finn, suggests that she was his queen; compare the experiences of Ongentheow's consort. See for an outline of events in the story, Trautmann, Finn und Hildebrand, pp. 59 ff. That treachery was at work in causing the fight between the men of Hnæf and of Finn seems clear from the statement that Hildeburg “could not praise the good faith of the Eotenas” 1071, which of course means that she had good cause to blame their treachery (cf. Schuchardt, Die Negation in Beowulf, Berlin, 1910, p. 70).

^{page 377 note 5} See discussion of this word by the present writer in Modern Philology, Vol. iv (1906), p. 350; also by R. W. Chambers, Widsith, pp. 21–28.

^{page 378 note 6} Paul's Grundriss, (second edition), Vol. ii, p. 524.

^{page 379 note 7} For a review of earlier interpretations of the Finnsburg-story, see Boer, Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum, Vol. xlvii, pp. 148 ff. Boer sees the closest analogy in the second part of the Nibelungensaga.

^{page 379 note 8} See below, p. 380, note 11.

^{page 379 note 9} Literally, “by the woman.”

^{page 379 note 10} Leod-hryre may also mean “people-death,” the slaying of warriors, but I prefer the rendering “death of a prince,” as in 2391. Here it would refer to the death of Froda, Ingeld's father. According to Saxo Grammaticus, Bk. vi, Froda was killed by the father of his son's wife. Saxo, however, tells the story in so late and altered a form that we must draw conclusions from him as to the earlier form of the story with great reserve. As Olrik points out (Danmarks Heltedigtning, Vol. ii, p. 38), this does not necessarily refer to the death of Froda, since in the form of the story represented in Beowulf the revenge is of a young Heathobard warrior for his father. The transference of the revenge to Ingeld belongs to a later form of the tale. The “young warrior” (2044) can hardly be Ingeld; the old hero addresses him (2047) as mīn wine, too familiar for a retainer to his king, and the avenger (sē ōÐoer 2061) escapes from Ingeld's court, whereupon the king feels his anger rise and his love for his wife diminish. In Saxo, however, Ingeld is the avenger.

^{page 380 note 11} Olrik, in his very thorough and suggestive discussion of the Ingeld-story (Danmarks Heltedigtning, Vol. ii, pp. 37 ff.), says: “I must utter a warning against the very common but very meaningless assertion that what Beowulf relates in the Danish royal court at this point is not a narrative of what has already happened, but a prophecy of future events.” His view of the situation is that Freawaru had already had these experiences at the court of Ingeld—the slaying of her thane, and the loss of her husband's love—and had “either been cast off or had returned home of her own accord (selv)” (p. 38).

I cannot agree with Olrik. 1) The tenses referring to Hrothgar's plans, hafaÐo þœs geworden (2026), where according to O.‘s view we should expect the pluperfect, and talaÐo (2027), where we should expect the preterit or the perfect, are contrary to this hypothesis. O. does actually translate the second of these phrases, incorrectly, as “har fundet det raadeligt,” which makes the sense better accord with his view. If these sad events at Ingeld's court had already taken place, moreover, Hrothgar's notions about the excellence of his “policy” would probably be somewhat modified! 2) Against O.‘s view are the tenses in Beowulf's narrative, which opens with mœg þœs þonne ofþyncan (2032), a clear reference to future time, and continues throughout in the present tense, frequently equivalent in Anglo-Saxon to the future, of course. Moreover, there is, I think, no other long passage in the poem in which the “historical present” is used in relating past events, as O. assumes to be the case here. 3) It would hardly be natural for Beowulf to say, even in view of Anglo-Saxon fondness for understatement, that he does not consider the good faith of the Heathobards sincere and their friendship firm, if Ingeld had already lost his love for Freawaru and caused her to return to her father's court, if he was already feeling “slaughterous enmity,” and if the oaths of peace had already been broken on both sides (2063).

Moreover, this prophetic glimpse into the future is in entire accord with the peculiarities of Anglo-Saxon epic technic. Cf. Beowulf 83 ff.; 1240 ff.; 3021 ff., and see Hart, Ballad and Epic, Boston, 1907; and Klaeber, Archiv, Vol. cxxvi, pp. 46–47, where many bibliographical references to this stylistic habit are noted. Klaeber calls particular attention to a similar peculiarity in the Æneid. There is at all events no need of viewing with suspicion Beowulf's temporary excursion into vaticination.

^{page 382 note 12} Ed. Ranisch, Berlin, 1891; German translation by Edzardi, Stuttgart, 1881; English translation by Magnússon and Morris (no date).

^{page 383 note 13} Cf. Guþrúnarkviþa II; Atlakviþa; Atlamál. German translations by Gering, Leipzig and Vienna (no date); and by Genzmer, with notes by Heusler, Diederichs, Jena, 1914. There is at present no modern English translation of this portion of the Edda which is easily accessible (1914).

^{page 384 note 14} In other lays, of course, her fortunes are different; ef. Guþrúnarhvot.

^{page 384 note 15} These parallels are cited only with a view to illustrating the type of story with which we here have to deal, and the prominence and significance of the role played by the queen. Into the difficult question of how the Finn-story developed and of its relationship to the great legends of Signy and Gudrun-Kriemhild, I do not care to enter here. Interinfluence among these stories there may have been, but the nature and extent of this are exceedingly difficult to determine. For a discussion of these relationships, the reader is referred to Boer, Finnsage und Nibelungensage, Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum, Vol. xlvii, pp. 125 ff. Conclusive results in these matters are very difficult to attain. I cannot agree with Boer's theories.

^{page 385 note 16} See note 18, page 402 below.

^{page 386 note 17} For the Banished Wife's Lament, see article by the present writer in Modern Philology, Vol. v, pp. 387–405; for Sehofield's suggestion, see his English Literature from the Norman Conquest to Chaucer, p. 202; for the so-called First Riddle, see Publications of the Modern Language Association, Vol. xvii, pp. 247 ff., and Bradley, Athenœum, 1902, p. 758; for the Song of Deor, an article by the writer in Modern Philology, Vol. ix, pp. 23–45; also by Tupper, ibid., pp. 265–267.

^{page 386 note 18} Danmarks Beltedigtning, Vol. i, p. 27; cf. R. W. Chambers, Widsith, pp. 81 ff. Deutschbein, Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum, Vol. liv, p. 224 f., suggests that it may be an abstract name invented by the Anglo-Saxon poet. He compares such names as Widsith and Unferth, and suggests, although realizing that Wealhtheow is very sympathetically portrayed, that it may be “ein scherz- oder spott-name. … ein ehrenname geworden.”

^{page 387 note 19} Loc. cit., p. 83.

^{page 387 note 20} Possibly her step-daughter.

^{page 388 note 21} It has been conjectured that the tale of Hildeburg is an “abduction-story” of the type familiar in the story of Hilde and Hedin. This view has commanded some acceptance, and is occasionally repeated today. It was originated and most fully set forth by Möller (Altenglisches Volksepos, pp. 70 ff.). Möller based his proof upon deriving both the Finn-story and the Hilde-Hedin story from the myth of Frey and Skirnir and the wooing of the giant-maiden Gerd, familiar in the Poetic Edda. He found further confirmation for his theory in a late märchen from the island of Sylt.

It behooves us to be cautious in assigning “mythical” origins to matter as modern in much of its present form as the Hilde-Gudrun story. Even Müllenhoff's derivation of the Hildesage from the “necklace-myth”—a far more convincing interpretation—must be regarded with some scepticism. “Our sources are too late to draw such far-reaching conclusions in regard to the original form of the story” (Jiriczek, Deutsche Heldensage, p. 187, Leipzig, 1906). And it is impossible to assent when Möller attempts to connect the Finn-sage with the Gudrun portion of the Middle High German epic. There is little real similarity save that one of the characters is named Hildeburg. The same is the case with the märchen just referred to; it tells of a king named Finn, but presents little further likeness. The name Finn or Fin is not unknown in popular literature which has nothing to do with the Finn-story in Beowulf, witness the “diabolic personage or warlock” of the ballad “The Fause Knight on the Road” (Child, English and Scottish Popular Ballads, Vol. i, p. 21). Moreover, Möller's arguments depend to a large extent upon his very arbitrary interpretation of the text, which has already been criticized in detail by Heinzel, Bugge, and others, and cannot command acceptance today. Boer (Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum, Vol. xlvii, p. 150) has some good comments on Möller's view that this is an abduction-story of the Hilde-type, pointing out that Möller has no support from the text in reconstructing the events preceding the first clash between the Danes and the Frisians, and continuing: “If the Finn-sage were a variant of the Kudrunsage, one would expect that Hrolf's revenge for Hoc [i. e., as Möller conceived the story] would be crowned with success. … The idea that Hengest is desirous of avenging his lord Hnæf is everywhere prominent; nowhere does the revenge concern Hildeburg. That she is carried away by the victors, moreover, does not prove that she had earlier been abducted by Finn,—what is to be done with a lady who belonged to the [Danish] royal family, and whose husband has been killed? She could not be left behind all alone in the devastated country.” Boer is also quite right in denying (p. 160) the presence of mythical elements in the story. Möller's attempt to bring the tale of Finn into the class of Entführungssagen may, then, be considered sufficiently refuted. There is no need to traverse ground already fully covered by earlier critics. But the notion that Hildeburg was abducted still persists. Sehücking says (Beowulf, ed. of 1913, p. 119) “Hildeburg ist wahrscheinlich eine von Finn im Kriege geraubte Dänin (vgl. 1159, 2930).” But what bearing do these references to the abduction of Ongentheow's queen have on the story of Finn and Hildeburg? It must first be shown that both tales have enough general similarity to warrant our identifying these two episodes as of the same character. There is nothing in the text to support the view that Hildeburg was abducted; the circumstances of her union with Finn are left quite untold. In any case, Hildeburg enjoyed a time of great happiness at Finn's court (1079–80) as his queen (cwēn 1153). In Beowulf cwēn always means “queen” (62 is of course defective), and the context cyning on corÐore ond sēo cwēn numen makes this still plainer. The burden of proof is certainly on the shoulders of those who would make of the Finn-story a tale of abduction. For an elaborate attempt to connect the Finn-saga with the Hilde-saga “mythically,” see Much's review of Panzer, Archiv, Vol. cviii, pp. 406 f.; not a convincing piece of work.

^{page 390 note 22} See below, p. 406, note 21.

^{page 391 note 23} Deutsche Alterthumshunde, Vol. v, p. 316 (Berlin, 1891).

^{page 391 note 24} Beltedigtning, Vol. ii, p. 39; “Müllenhoff's opfattelse … … lader sig næppe opretholde.”

^{page 392 note 1} Or hœleÐo may be plural, referring to his warriors. There are many interpretations of these opening lines. In the present argument in regard to the tribes it makes little difference whether hœleÐo be taken as singular or plural. For the arbitrary alteration of the ms. reading to Healfdenes there is no justification. Bugge rightly rejected it: “ich finde kein beispiel davon, dass ein anführer als der hœleÐo seines königs bezeichnet wird.” The best modern editors print the reading of the ms.; see texts of Wyatt, Sedgefield, Holthausen, Schücking, etc.

^{page 393 note 2} Cf. 828, 383, 392, etc.

^{page 393 note 3} The reason for grouping the Hocingas and the Secgan in this way seems to be that Hnæf the Hoeing is called a Half-Dane, and that among the forces under his command are the Seegan. But even if the Seegan were allied folk, under the command of a leader of the Half-Danes, and included in the general term Dene, they may not themselves have been Half-Danes.

^{page 394 note 4} See Paul's Grundriss, Vol. ii, p. 524, and Vol. i, p. 1158. For a careful review of the chief questions connected with the location of the Jutes, and the forms of the proper name applied to this people, with bibliographical references, see Chambers, Widsith, pp. 237 ff.

^{page 394 note 5} Möller's unfortunate theory that the Eotenas are the men of Hnæf the Dane, which has done much to obscure understanding of this story, is revived in Miss M. G. Clarke's Sidelights on Teutonic History During the Migration Period, Cambridge (Eng.) University Press, 1911, pp. 181 ff. Her arguments are not weighty, and she does not appear to have considered the criticisms of this interpretation made by previous scholars. See especially Heinzel's review of Möller's Altenglisches Volksepos, Kiel, 1883, in Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum, Vol. x, p. 227, Trautmann, Bonner Beiträge, vii, p. 13; also Bugge, ten Brink and Boer (ef. p. 374 above), Sedgefield, Schücking, and Wyatt in their editions, and Gering in his translation of the poem, in which he renders Eotenas “Friesen.” Others might easily be cited.

Miss Clarke says: “In the first case, 1. 1072, the use of the word (i. e. Eotenas) is ambiguous; there is nothing to show to which party it refers. We will let Heinzel reply to this:” ‘fürwahr Hildeburg hatte keinen grund die treue (oder vielmehr “güte”) der Eotenas zu preisen, sie wurde ohne schuld des bruders und des sohnes im kampfe beraubt.‘—Dieser bruder, den sie durch die feindseligkeit der Eotenas verloren hat, soll auch ein Eote sein, und sie selbst eine Eotin! “

She continues: “In the second case, viz., 1. 1088, Eotena seems clearly to refer to Hnæf's men: hie, which is the subject of the clause, which must denote the same persons as the hig in 1. 1085, which is the subject of the principal clause, and which evidently refers to the Frisians.” Miss Clarke forgets the freedom with which the subject often shifts in Anglo-Saxon poetry; let her look at the plural verb gemœnden 1101, a few lines below in this same passage, the subject of which is clearly the Frisians. Does she think the hīe in the next line refers to the same people? (See also Heinzel, loc. cit.)

As to 1141, Miss Clarke says: “Commentators who wish to make Eotena correspond to Fresno, translate gemunde as ‘ remember,‘ i. e. take vengeance on; but it is much more natural to suppose that the feeling described by gemunde was one of sorrow for lost friends, in which case Eotena bearn refers of course to Hengest's own men.” How is it possible to maintain that this is “more natural” after the lines just preceding, in which Hengest's desire for vengeance is expressly emphasized, hē tō gyrn-wrœce swÐoor þōhte þonne tō selāde? Such special pleading as this hardly deserves refutation, but it is perhaps well that the futility of the attempt to support this general theory should be made as plain as possible. For the interpretation of the vexed passage 1140 ff. see below.

^{page 396 note 6} Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, Vol. xxii, p. 388.

^{page 396 note 7} Paul and Braune, Beiträge, Vol. xii, pp. 39 ff.

^{page 396 note 8} As for example by Gering and Gummere.

^{page 396 note 9} It was urged by Bugge that 1720 ff. mean “dass Heremod für sein böses tun und treiben in der hölle strafe leidet.” I can see no necessity for so understanding the later passage, which really begins with line 1711. The “departure from the revelry of men” seems probably to refer to his exile.

^{page 396 note 10} Sievers, “Beowulf und Saxo,” Berichte der kgl. sächs. Gesellschaft der Wiss. zu Leipzig, 1895, pp. 175 ff.; Sarrazin, Anglia, Vol. xix, p. 392.

^{page 397 note 11} See p. 378 above.

^{page 397 note 12} References to Holthausen are to the second edition, Heidelberg and New York, 1908. I have not, however, retained the marking of vowels and diphthongs peculiar to this text. The marks of quotation preceding 1068 are also omitted, the reason for which is explained below.

^{page 397 note 13} Trautmann (Bonner Beiträge, vii, p. 11) proposed the reading eaferan, to be regarded as a corruption of gefēran.

^{page 398 note 14} Anglia, Vol. xxviii, p. 433, where parallels and comment are given. See also Herrig's Archiv, Vol. cviii, p. 370.

^{page 398 note 15} Cosijn, Aant., p. 26, points out that eaferan means ‘ warriors,‘ and compares 1710.

^{page 400 note 16} Almost by implication; but the point is none the less obvious. It is hardly necessary to mention the confusion between Sigemund and Sigurd or Siegfried.

^{page 401 note 17} It has been held that the earlier scenes of the poem do not take place in Friesland (Trautmann, Finn und Hildebrand, p. 60; Boer, Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum, Vol. xlvii, p. 137). Trautmann says: “Hnæf trifft mit seinen friesischen verwanten zusammen nicht im eigentlichen Friesland—in dies ziehn die Friesen und Dänen zusammen erst später (Einlage 1125–27)—, sondern in einem nicht genannten lande, in welchem Finn einen herrschersitz hat (Finnes buruh).” The contrary is asserted by Binz, Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, xxxvii, p. 532, and Klaeber, Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. vi, p. 193. The latter remarks, “After the conclusion of the treaty between the two parties and the completion of the funeral rites, the Frisian warriors—presumably men who had been summoned by Finn in preparation for the encounter with the Danes—return to their respective homes in the country (heaburh is a high-sounding epic term that should not he pressed), whilst Hengest stays with Finn in Finnesburh (where the latter is subsequently slain: œt his selfes ham 1147).” It needs but little reflection to see that Binz and Klaeber are right. It is, furthermore, reasonable to suppose that the place where Hildeburg had experienced the greatest of earthly joys (1080) and where gold was lifted from Finn's hoard (1107) was not an outlying and temporary abode, but Finn's chief city. Hēa-burh does not seem to me too high-sounding an epic term to be in keeping as applied to that city. I do not attach any importance to Binz's argument that the fight must have taken place in Friesland because it is called Frēs-wœl (1070). “Frisian slaughter” might take place wherever Frisians were to be found, at home or abroad. As for 1125 ff., the paratactic construction so characteristic of Anglo-Saxon makes it natural for the poet to say “to look upon Friesland, the homes and high city” rather than “to look upon the homes and the high city of Friesland.” Cf. þet hē fram Sigemunde secgan hyrde ellen-dedum 875 (the emendation Sigemundes is to my mind an error, resting upon forgetfulness of Anglo-Saxon idiom).

^{page 402 note 18} This is altogether the most simple and unforced reading of þer 1079. ms. hē is altered to hēo by all modern editors. There can scarcely be a doubt that this is right; to construe the pronoun as referring to Finn would be very awkward. Moreover, there is an obvious contrast between Hildeburg's witnessing the morÐoor-bealo māga and her previous enjoyment of meste … worolde wynne.

^{page 403 note 19} Cf. 1098, in which the term wēa-lāf is clearly applied to the Danish forces.

^{page 404 note 20} See on this general subject an earlier article by the present writer, “The Haunted Mere in Beowulf,” Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, Vol. xxvii, pp. 223 ff. (1912).

^{page 406 note 21} Compare the similarity of phraseology: Chronicle: ond hie nefre his barton folgian noldon, and Episode 1102 þēah hīe hira bēag-gyfan banan folgedon. We are not to understand, of course, that Hnæf actually fell at the hands of Finn, but that Finn was responsible for the attack resulting in his death. Cf. Heinzel, Anzeiger, Vol. xv, p. 192.

^{page 406 note 22} I take this to mean that Finn rewarded his warriors on the conclusion of the treaty of peace with presents of gold. They might well expect this reward after their hard fighting. By the terms of the treaty (ef. 1089), the Danes would have their share when the presents were distributed. This would also be appropriate to the sealing of a compact of peace. It is to be noted that the lifting of gold from the hoard is mentioned in direct connection with the swearing of the solemn oath. ĄÐ wœs geœfned ond iege gold āhœfen of horde (1107). Klaeber's explanation (Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. viii, p. 256), does not seem to me so convincing,—unless āÐ “oath” be emended to ād “pyre.” Possibly if we knew the meaning of the obscure word iege some light might be thrown on the matter.

^{page 408 note 1} Möller maintained that the “battle-young king” is not Hnæf, but Hengest. He admitted that this would not agree with the Episode, which calls Hengest 1085 þēodnes þegn, and his men þēodenlēase, 1103, but he thought that “diese bezeichnungen im Beowulf können vom zusammensteller der episode sein.” We must admit the possibility of discrepancies between Episode and Fragment, but the chances are against making Hengest a king, since he nowhere gets that appellation in the Episode. Again, is is expressly stated that in the ensuing fight Hnæf's warriors repaid him for sweet mead 39, f. Bugge (Paul and Braune, Beiträge, xii, p. 21) has shown that this cannot, as Möller proposed, be a tribute to the memory of the dead leader, with no reference to the living one. Möller thought that sylf 17 is most naturally taken as referring to the eyning 2, but he admitted that if Hengest had already been mentioned in the (lost) opening of the lay, this argument would have no force. It is quite possible that Hengest is the other watcher, possibly the man who speaks the words … homos byrnaÐo nemfre. There seems to be no reason why sylf should not be applied to a prominent character like Hengest even if he has not been already mentioned. The background of the story and the characters in it were of course familiar to hearers of the Fragment, —these old stories were not new to their audiences in plot. For Möller's discussion, see his Volksepos, p. 65.

One would think that Möller's theories about the interpretation of Episode and Fragment might now be regarded as obsolete. But we continue to find them set forth in books about Beowulf. Indeed, one editor, Sedgefield, goes so far as to give them the place of honor (second edition, p. 258, sub Finn). While this can still happen, there is justification for criticising Möller's position once more. It should be said that while the textual work in Sedgefield's edition is good, his remarks on the history of the material are not authoritative.

^{page 409 note 2} From the edition of Hildebrand, Paderborn 1876, p. 133.

^{page 409 note 3} Ed. Bartsch, Leipzig, 1886, strophe 1837, Aventiure xxx.

^{page 410 note 4} His meaning is not quite clear. Bugge (Beiträge, xii, p. 23) renders fremman (9) “zur ausübung bringen.” If nīÐo is here close to its original meaning of “activity,” or “malicious activity,” the meaning may be: “now arise deeds of woe, which will put into execution the hatred of this people” (“this hatred of the people”). If nīÐo is to be rendered “tribulatio,” “afflictio,” and fremman “facere,” we may translate “which will bring tribulation to this people.” Gering (Übersetzung) renders it thus: “Wehgeschick droht, da mit grimmigem Hass der Gegner uns heimsucht.” Gummere (Oldest English Epic): “foul deeds rise to whelm this people with peril and death.”

^{page 410 note 5} For a discussion of the identity of this Guthlaf, see below, pp. 425–6.

^{page 411 note 6} Paul's Grundriss, (second edition), Vol. ii, p. 985.

^{page 411 note 7} Loc. cit., p. 84.

^{page 412 note 8} Das altenglische Volksepos, Kiel, 1883, p. 54.

^{page 412 note 9} Ibid., p. 70.

^{page 413 note 10} Miss M. E. Clarke, following in part Kögel, assigns a different significance to the Fragment. Her arguments are not of much importance, but they may be briefly reviewed. She says: “It is difficult to see in this story (i. e., the Fragment) either of the two fights alluded to in the Finn episode in Beowulf, as the cireumstancs under which it took place do not seem to apply exactly to either.” (Sidelights on Teutonic History during the Migration Period, Cambridge, 1911, p. 179.) Her reasons for not identifying it with the second fight may be passed over, since we can agree fully with her on that point. But she also refuses to identify it with the first fight because “Beo. 1. 1068, thâ hie se faer begeat [sic!] does not seem to indicate that the first attack was made by the Frisians: nor does it appear from 11. 1071–2 that any treachery practised was on the part of Finn (i. e. if we take Eotena as referring to Hnæf and his followers).” It has already been shown that Eotena cannot refer to Hnæf and his followers, and also that þā hīe sē fœr begeat may well refer, not to the first combat, but to the final struggle of all, in which the Danes took vengeance. Miss Clarke then proposes another solution for the Fragment. “ It might very well be a description of part of the first struggle, and refer to the events immediately following on Hnæf's death, when we might suppose that the strangers took up as strong a position as possible in anticipation of a counter-attack. The heatho-geong cyning, Finn, 1. 2, would then aptly enough denote Hengest,” etc. This is much the same sort of interpretation as Möller's; there is no warrant in the text for any counter-attack.

^{page 414 note 1} I do not at all agree with Klaeber (Anglia, Beiblatt, Vol. xxii, p. 373), who defends the ms. reading þēah-þe hē meahte 1130. This is directly contradicted by the context; the description of the stormy weather of winter and the statement that Hengest left when spring came. It is easy to understand the omission of the ne, which directly follows two words very like it in appearanec,—þe he.

^{page 415 note 2} Hengest has sometimes been held to be the brother of Hnæf. The alliteration of the names favors this theory, but it must be remembered that names beginning with H are very common. The evidence of the poem is against making him Hnæf's brother; he is called only þēodnes þegn (1085), and his men after the death of Hnæf are þēodenlēase (1103).

Mr. H. M. Chadwick (Origins of the English Nation, Cambridge, 1910, p. 52) attempts to identify him with the Hengest of the Saxon Conquest, the associate of Horsa. His reasons are these: Hengest was the follower of Hnæf, “who appears to have been a prince in the service of the Danish king Healfdene.” The date of Healfdene's reign, reckoning from Beowulf, would be “before the middle of the fifth century,” making the two Hengests contemporaries. Bede calls the tribe to which the Hengest of the Conquest belonged Iutae (Iuti), while “the tribe to which the other Hengest belonged is called in Beowulf Eotena (Gen. pl.), Eotenum (Dat. pl.).” The Hengest of the Eistoria Brittonum is said to have been driven into exile, and the scribe who wrote the genealogy of the Eistoria appears to have been familiar with the story of Finn, the son of Folcwalda.—This identification of the two Hengests must be unhesitatingly rejected. Hnæf was not in the service of Healfdene; that notion rests on an emendation of the text which does violence to idiom (Bugge) and is today rejected by the best editors. (See above, p. 392, note 2). The tribe to which Hengest belongs is certainly not the Eotenas—a point which has already been discussed in detail. (See above, pp. 393 ff.). The minor points urged in support of the theory are not worth consideration if the main arguments fail. It should be said that Mr. Chadwick merely states he thinks his theory “more probable than not,” and makes it conditional upon dating the invasion of Kent after 440.

^{page 415 note 3} My colleague Professor H. M. Ayres called my attention to this point.

^{page 416 note 4} For an analysis and interpretation of this lyric, see an article by the present writer, Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. iv, p. 460 (1902).

^{page 417 note 5} 1141 has given some trouble. The best reading seems to be that adopted by Grein, Nader, and Schücking: “worin er (in feindlicher Begegnung) der Kinder der Eoten gedächte (d. h. Rache an ihnen nähme)” as Schücking puts it. Sievers would alter þæt to þēr, and render “wo, wie er wusste, die Helden sich befanden” (Paul and Braune, Beiträge, Vol. xii, p. 193). But emendation, even by an authority like Sievers, is to be rejected in favor of the ms. reading, if the latter can possibly be retained.

^{page 417 note 6} Das produktive ags. rœden … bildet feminine abstracta aus Substantiven und zwar aus persönlichen Substantiven, um das Verhältnis der personen zu einander anzugeben: frēondrœden ’ freundschaft;‘ fēond-, gefēr-, geþoft-, geþēod-, folc-, brōþor-rœden. Daneben erscheinen sonstige aus Substantiven abgeleitete abstracta wie camprœden‘ kampf,’ geewid-, folc-, þing-, hiw-, gēbed-, heorœo-rœden usw. (Kluge, Nominale Stammbildungslehre, Halle, 1889, p. 81.)

^{page 418 note 7} Modern Language Notes, Vol. xxv, p. 113.

^{page 418 note 8} See Bosworth-Toller, sub woruldscipe.

^{page 418 note 9} Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum, Vol. x, p. 226.

^{page 418 note 10} Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, Vol. xxx (1909), p. 998.

^{page 419 note 11} Glossary sub worold-rœden.

^{page 419 note 12} “Darf man Hengest so gewundene Gedankenpfade und dem Dichter so verstiegene Redeweise ernsthaft zutrauen? Hengest hat die Friedenseide mit beschworen, plant aber Friedensbruch; und da soll er sich einbilden, er könne um die Eide herumkommen, ohne sie zu brechen?” (loc. cit.).

^{page 419 note 13} Altenglisches Volksepos, p. 68.

^{page 420 note 14} Ed. Sievers, Halle, 1878, p. 54.

^{page 421 note 15} For references to discussions of this matter, and of the meaning of the passage in the Cotton Gnomes, see Miss B. C. Williams, Gnomic Poetry in Anglo-Saxon, N. Y., 1914.

^{page 421 note 16} I think fundode here means “he hastened” (i. e., actually went) rather than “he was eager to go.” This verb obviously oscillates in meaning between desire and performance, in other instances of its use. The following gist of geardum seems to favor the latter alternative, which is well enough supported by parallels. See Bosworth-Toller's Lexicon.

^{page 422 note 17} Cf. Schücking, Die Grundzüge der Satzverknüpfung im Beowulf, Halle, 1904, p. 84: swylce: Es leitet einen Satz ein, der einen dem vorhergehenden ähnlichen Inhalt hat. Und zwar werden vom selben Subjekt ähnliche Handlungen ausgesagt oder von ähnlichen Subjekten gleichartige Handlungen, oder es wird die Aehnlichkeit einer Situation mit einer andern angedeutet, u. s. w. Die Handlung in beiden Sätzen ist oft gleichzeitig. Der swylee- Satz zeigt sich in der Regel als für den Gang der Handlung wichtig; er dient selten bloss einem erweiternden Zusatz.—This point is also referred to by Clark Hall, loc. cit. The implication seems to be that the sword later on caused the death of Frisians, since this makes a better parallel to 1146 ff.

^{page 423 note 18} Clark Hall, for example, says: “It is a great relief to find that the personage of 1143 is a Dane, as it clears out of the road translations which must have been felt to be unsatisfactory.” See also Chambers, Widsith, p. 201, note; Imelmann, loc. cit.; Huchon, Revue Germanique, Vol. iii, p. 626; Sedgefield (second edition), p. 128; Schücking, p. 119.

^{page 421 note 19} Hunlafing cannot, of course, be the name of the sword, as Chadwick and Miss M. G. Clarke suppose (Chadwick, Origin of the English Nation, p. 52, note; Miss Clarke, Sidelights on Teutonic History, p. 183). The impossibility of this view was pointed out long ago by Möller, p. 68, and more recently by Huchon, loc. cit. Clark Hall called attention to the fact that Hunlafing could not be identical with the Hunleifus of Arngrim, as Chadwick thought. Hunlafing would be the son of Hunlaf, and consequently, if the equation with the list in Arngrim be accepted, the nephew of Guthlaf and Oslaf.

^{page 424 note 20} ms. Humleifus.

^{page 424 note 21} ms. Hinc.

^{page 424 note 22} For the text of the Skjoldungasaga, and discussion, see Axel Olrik, Aarböger for nordish oldkyndighed og historie, Vol. ix (Second Series), 1894, pp. 83 ff.

^{page 425 note 23} See Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, 17 April, 1909: “In diebus illis, imperante Valentiniano imperatore vel principe, 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 Gallia, alii in britannia, ceteri uero in Germania armis et rebus bellicis claruerunt.” Brut; Cott. Vesp. D iv. fol. 139 b.

^{page 425 note 24} Cambridge (Eng.) University Press, 1897.

^{page 426 note 25} Since writing the above I see that Klaeber has expressed himself in Englische Studien, Vol. xxxix, p. 308, to the following effect: “GūÐoere zu Gārulf's vater zu machen (35 nach Trautmann: GūÐoheres [statt Gūuœfes] sunu), liegt kein genügender grund vor. Warum sollten denn nieht zwei personen denselben namen Gūœaf haben? Auch in der Schlacht bei Maldon treten zwei kämpfer namens Godrīc auf.”

^{page 426 note 26} See above, p. 415, note 2.

^{page 426 note 27} These considerations apply also to Bugge's division of Hunlafing into Hun (a warrior) and Lafing (a sword), and his identification of Hun with the worthy mentioned in Widsith 33. Hun was a common name.