Return to Matheliende Home Page
Matheliende is published quarterly by the students and faculty of Anglo-Saxon studies at The University of Georgia.
Matheliende welcomes any and all correspondence and articles pertinent to the Anglo-Saxon period. Such material should be sent to Mr. Alex Bruce or Mr. C. Tidmarsh Major, Department of English, The Univerity of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602. Copyright 1997. All rights reserved.
By Donald P. Beistle
For his bare-handed execution of Grendel, Beowulf is given a boar's-head battle standard, a tall boar-helmet, a byrnie, a famous heirloom sword, eight horses with gold-decorated tack, and King Hrothgar's own fighting-saddle (ll. 1020-45, 2152-54). The he lmet alone of these precious gifts is described in any real detail. Chickering weighs this matter in the commentary to his dual-language edition of Beowulf: "The poet might have gone into equal detail about any of the ... gifts without tiring his audience . Why does he select this gift?" (319). This paper aims to shed some light on the mysterious significance of Beowulf's boar-helmet.
First, it should be noted that Hrothgar's gifts comprise the panoply of an ancient Germanic aristocrat, with the boar's-head standard where one would expect a shield. The battle-standard and the small herd of horses mark the recipient of these gifts as a n earl, if not a prince; and the narrator's preoccupation with the boar-helmet suggests that its metaphorical connotations of kingship outweigh even its obvious prestige-value. In short, the lavishness and specifically aristocratic nature of Hrothgar's gi fts indicate that they are primarily tokens of great nobility, not simply wages for Beowulf's immensely valuable service. Moreover, that the gifts are of greater symbolic than practical value is demonstrated by Beowulf's surrender of them to his own lord, Hygelac, upon his homecoming. For Beowulf, the real worth of Hrothgar's gifts lies not in their practical value as arms, not in their monetary value as treasures, nor even in their immediate value as status symbols. Instead, they are supremely valuable t o him as tangible evidence of his transformation from undistinguished youth to doughty nobleman.
In light of the many formal speeches and the ritual sharing of the ale-cup throughout the gift-giving ceremony, the occasion begs to be read as the formal investiture of Beowulf as an earl. With just two exceptions, he is not so called before his ordeal with Grendel. The first instance occurs when the Danish coast-guard tentatively hails him as an earl (ll. 247-48), and the second when he salts the tale of his swimming match with Breca with the gnomic statement Wyrd oft nereth / unfaegene eorl, thonne h is ellen deah! (ll. 572-73). The former seems a prudent attempt not to insult the leader of a troop of just-landed warriors, while the latter combines a convenient bow to the alliterative demands of gnomic verse with a bit of typical heroic boastfulness. In any case, Beowulf, in his formal introduction to Hrothgar, introduces himself (ll. 407-8) simply as Hygelac's kinsman and thane--manifestly not an earl. But later that evening, the very instant that Beowulf seizes Grendel in his mighty battle-grip, the narrator begins referring to the entire Geatish troop as earls (l.761). Apparently by virtue of this ordeal, Beowulf and his comrades are transformed at once from ordinary warriors of the lowest rank into earls, the elite of the warrior class. A ceremony of formal investiture still seems to have been required to confirm their newly-won status, and the feast and gift-giving episode that follows the refitting of Heorot does just this (ll. 1008-1250).
The highlight of that feast is Hrothgar's gift of the panoply and horses to Beowulf. To modern ears, the narrator's remark "Swa manlice maere theoden, hordweard haeletha heathoraesas geald mearum ond madmum..." (ll. 1046-48a) has a decidedly mercenary ri ng about it, as if the gifts were the simple canceling of a debt. The verb gieldan, however, has certain religious and legal overtones, and suggests not just payment but a simultaneous yielding of material tribute and intangible honor. Thus, the bestowal of the aristocratic gifts on Beowulf seems a sort of pagan sacrament, a confirmation of his elevation to princely status. After attending to Beowulf, Hrothgar also gives "ancient heirlooms" (l. 1053) to each of the Geatish warriorsÑwho now are called earl s. The compound yrfelafe suggests that these gifts took the form of arms, most likely old swords of proven worth. Significantly, the only simple payment of gold at the feast is Hrothgar's payment for Hondscioh, the man killed by Grendel. That the all of t he surviving Geats seem to have been given arms rather than gold suggests that the feast was a ceremony of mass initiation, a smaller scale version of the festival in which Siegfried and four hundred sword-thanes are inducted into knighthood in the second chapter of the Nibelungenlied.
If so, then why are Beowulf's gifts so much grander than those of his companions, and why does the narrator dwell so on the boar-helmet? The answers to these questions appear nearly a thousand lines later, in Beowulf's homecoming. There, we see him surre ndering to Hygelac the bulk of the treasures won in Denmark and receiving, in turn, the best sword in the Geatish armory, seven thousand hides of land, a hall, and a gift-throne (ll. 2190-96). In short, Beowulf's adventures in Denmark earn him installatio n as a landed noble at home. Moreover, the poet remarks that Beowulf, like Hygelac, had "native right" to inherit land in that kingdom (ll. 2197-98), thereby revealing Beowulf to be of the hereditary nobility. So, though the entire Geatish troop earns ind uction into the warrior-nobility through their ordeal in Heorot, only Beowulf is eligible by right of noble birth for the hall and throne his prodigious strength and bravery earn him there. Beowulf is not meant to make actual use of the gifts given him b y Hrothgar but to present the gifts to his own lord as evidence that he has proved himself worthy of his birthright. That the gifts are of no immediate, practical use to him is demonstrated by his having to borrow Unferth's sword for his foray into the mo nsters' lair.
If the battle standard is the first sign, and the eight horses the final measure, of the princely esteem in which Hrothgar holds Beowulf, then the towering boar-helmet is the most telling of the gifts. The boar's-head standard is the emblem of a champio n and leader, and the horses embody princely wealth and authority. The helmet, too, is a princely gift. Its boar-figure crest links it visually and thematically with the battle-standard, and its size and ornamentation reveal it to be a concrete symbol of leadership and prowess as well as an object of deep metaphorical resonance. An elaborate metaphorical association of lord, hall, and helm informs the gift-giving episode, with the words hrof (roof), helm (helmet, protection), beorge (protection), and eodo r (enclosure, protection) appearing in both their ordinary usages and in novel combinations. The metaphor at play turns upon the word helm, which appears to be derived (via the old instrumental case) from the verb hleowan, meaning "to warm, to shelter." T hus, in its broadest sense helm simply means "that which shelters, protection." Applied concretely, helm can mean either "helmet" or "lord." The poet conflates these meanings by offering the actual helmet given to Beowulf as a metaphor for lordship. In ca se the reader misses it, the metaphor is recapitulated explicitly at the end of the gift-giving passage in a kenning for Hrothgar. There, the Danish king is called eodor Ingwina, "protector of the Ingwines" (l. 1044). Chickering points out that the poet's choice of eodor here is unusual "and is used in this sense only twice more in the poem, in the phrase eodor Scyldinga (ll. 428, 663). A much more common word, ealdor 'prince,' would fit the sense and meter equally well" (320). True, but the ruling metaph or in Beowulf is that of the king as the helm of the nation: the good king is the protector of earls and the shepherd of the people.
The helmet was the single most valuable defensive item in the ancient Germanic armory because "[sword-blows] were aimed downwards onto the head, shoulders and arms" of an opponent, with blows to the head being recognized as particularly effective ( Wenha m 137). Seen thus, it is no wonder that head-protecting armor was called simply helm, "protection." Herein lies the deep power of the metaphor of lord as national helm. A true lord protected and glorified his nation just as a battle-helm protected and glo rified a warrior. A nation without a true lord, without so mighty and faithful king as Hrothgar or Beowulf, was doomed as surely as a warrior without a stout helmet. So, the poet's selection of the boar-helmet for ekphrasis reveals the metaphor that infor ms his vision of the good king. Beowulf, thaet waes god cyning!
By Eric Rochester
So far, in examining new critical approaches to Old English literature, I have summarized how a few authors have used semiotics and feminism to gain insights into the poem that would be either unavailable or marginalized by more traditional approaches. This time, I will be looking at Allen J. Frantzen's Desire for Origins, specifically chapter six, "Writing the Unreadable Beowulf," to consider some insights new historicism might provide.
The term "new historicism" is usually applied to a group of criticism on the English Renaissance, especially that of Stephen Greenblatt, who bases his work on anthropology and the writings of the historian Michael Foucault (Hamilton 152). New historicis m, as evidenced by these and other writers, is concerned with the struggle for objectivity implied in studying the past from a modern perspective (Hamilton 166). Their response to this inability to bridge the gulf with the past begins by recognizing that history is not a smooth progress--a plot, as Frantzen calls it--but instead is rife with conflict and contradiction (Frantzen 115). One way of keeping the discontinuity in focus is by assuming a close-up view of history, a local knowledge of it. Only th us can the critic stay true to the past's "own largely piecemeal self-awareness" (Hamilton 153). By keeping at this level of detail, the critic retains the strangeness, or alterity, of history. On the other hand, generalizations presume an impossible fa miliarity with the past.
Instead of false understanding, the critic must search out shared horizons through a dialog with the text. Hans Robert Jauss posits that each text has a horizon linking the text's cultural milieu to that of its readers (Frantzen 123). As the text gains an audience, its horizon grows. New historicism tries to determine a text's original horizon by looking at contemporary material culture, and it examines the way the text's horizons change over time and grow to meet each new audience's expectations. By exploring these expansions, the critic learns both about the text and about how the past influences the way the text is currently viewed.
In Desire for Origins, Frantzen is concerned with changing horizons. Specifically, he looks at how Anglo-Saxon studies have developed in the intervening centuries and the implications of these changes today. He maintains that nineteenth century critici sm created what he calls "the three oppositions of modern Anglo-Saxon studies--those between 'Old English' and 'not Old English,' 'method' and 'meaning,' and 'documents' and 'culture'" (71, 72). Anglo-Saxonists generally emphasize only one of each opposi tion, excluding anything that is not "Old English," that is, written in England between 500 and 1100; focusing on method, primarily philology; and studying documents in a New Critical fashion that severs their connection with culture. He argues that mode rn Anglo-Saxon studies should be enlarged to encompass "not Old English," meaning, and culture by including Anglo-Saxon England's impact on later cultures and those cultures' interpretations of it. By doing this, Anglo-Saxonists gain an understanding of the documents and culture and add a new relevancy to their work.
While talking about Beowulf, Frantzen spends several pages on the emendations that have been made to the text to fill either literal gaps, such as missing lines, or figurative ones, such as those meant to bring the poem up to the standards expected of it . These emendations fulfill a desire of completeness and necessarily involve interpretations, important to our understanding of the text.
Some of the best known gaps are those in the narrative, the digressions, which, among other things, remind us that we only have a fragmentary copy of the poem. Though the unity of it has never been considered strong, Anglo-Saxonists have been reluctant to apply to Beowulf modern perspectives, such as M. M. Bakhtin's "dialogized imagination" or Foucault's disappearance of the author, which "offer complex and divergent models" that more easily accommodate, even demand, authorless or fragmented texts (Fran tzen 181). Instead, a desire for the poem and its origin to be complete has focused attention on the unities in the text instead of the gaps.
These gaps have allowed Beowulf to be written and rewritten, a process including the original text, scribal emendations, editorial corrections, and critical interpretations. These rewritings are traces of the reception of the poem and of the expansion o f its horizons.
Frantzen begins his discussion of these receptions with one in the text: Hrothgar's welcoming Beowulf to Heorot. In the manuscript, line 390, Hrothgar's command to the doorkeeper to bring the visitors before him does not alliterate. Metrically, however , it should, so in 1857, Christian W. M. Grein added two half lines, which Klaeber modified, but retained with a footnote stating their origin, so that his edition reads (with the added half lines italicized):
The poem has been subject to such rewriting throughout its critical history, which, compared to other Old English texts, is recent. No one mentioned the poem until Humphrey Wanley included it in a description of the manuscript in 1705. During the eight eenth and early nineteenth centuries, it attracted much attention, including Grimur Jonsson Thorkelin's transcriptions of it. Their views of the poem, however, were sometimes radically different from those of modern scholars. Sharon Turner, for instance , a nineteenth-century Anglo-Saxonist, believed that Beowulf was a pirate (Frantzen 194).
John Mitchell Kemble was another nineteenth-century Anglo-Saxonist who considerably influenced the reception of the poem. He originally believed, as did most at the time, that Beowulf was an historical text dating from the fifth century. It was carried over to England and survived to us as a poor copy of a more complete poem. This view vastly influences the editorial method of his two editions, released in 1833 and 1837. He asserts that an edition by a well-versed Anglo-Saxon scholar "will in all pro bability be much more like the original than the [manuscript] copy" (qtd. in Frantzen 198). One of the most interesting things about these two editions, however, is that in the four years intervening, Kemble's view of the poem changed completely. His "1 837 preface . . . declared the 1833 preface 'null and void'" (Frantzen 196). Instead of an historical Beowulf, he now believed that the hero and the poem's other characters were mythical divinities and backed this up with tenuous identifications of the c haracters with members of various northern pantheons, complete with a genealogy that eventually led to contemporary kings (Frantzen 196, 97).
Kemble inspired another scholar, Karl MŸllenhoff, to apply to Beowulf the Liedertheorie, the theory that the Iliad and other ancient texts were derived from historical ballads (Frantzen 67), which required that MŸllenhoff reject the Christian content of the poem as later additions. This idea remained popular into this century, and Francis P. Magoun, Jr., toyed with it in the 1950s (Frantzen 197).
Perhaps the most interesting approach to the poem, however, was taken by Nikolai F. S. Grundtvig. Although after MŸllenhoff it became popular to declare parts of the poem as additions and call for their excision, Grundtvig twice made the poem longer. I n 1820, he wrote an ending to the poem, and in 1861, he inserted the entire "Finnsburg Fragment" after line 1160. In spite of his rather extreme additions, however, Grundtvig also made some important contributions to the criticism, including identifying Hygelac with Chochilaicus, mentioned by Gregory of Tours (Frantzen 198).
Frantzen makes clear the relevancy of these attitudes for modern Anglo-Saxon studies by mentioning Birte Kelly's study, "The Formative Stages of Beowulf Textual Scholarship: Part II," in which he notes that half the emendations accepted by editors after 1950 "had already been proposed by C. W. Grein in 1857" (Frantzen 198). The period in which Grein was working was one in which a multitude of errors was introduced into the text because until 1888, everyone worked from transcripts of Beowulf. Frantzen s ummarizes the situation this way: "In other words, over half the emendations of Beowulf accepted in modern scholarship are based on the work of editors who never saw the manuscript" (198).
Throughout all this, however, Frantzen is careful to maintain the importance of philology, but with caution: its emphasis on technical sophistication raises the hope that, carried far enough, it will allow scholars an impossible objectivity (25). As he shows, Anglo-Saxon scholarship is not a picture of progress. Instead, he stresses the conflict and discontinuity still inherent in the criticism, which he sees as Anglo-Saxon studies' greatest asset. Emphasis upon this conflict, both in the texts, the c ulture, and the criticism, allows deeper insights and increased relevancy.
By Angela E. Pfile
When studying Beowulf, dominated as it is by men and their actions, one might not immediately realize that in the poem we can find much concerning the characteristics of women, or more specifically, queens. In addition to Wealhtheow, wife of Hrothgar an d queen of the Danes (and the most fully-drawn queen in the poem), there are four other queens: Hygd, wife of Hygelac and queen of the Geats; Hildeburh, wife of Finn and queen of the Frisians; Modthryth (or Thryth), wife of Offa and queen of the Mercians; and Freawaru, wife of Ingeld and queen of the Heathobards. These five women are clearly allied, through marriage, with men who rule. Certain characteristics such as being bedecked with jewelry, giving gifts generously, being concerned for her husband's (and therefore her) people are shared by at least two of these women, but one trait marks them all: these queens all live surrounded by untrustworthy men.
Before examining this trait in particular, it is worth noting the social, family, or national roots of each queen. Both Hildeburh and Freawaru are clearly the daughters of Danish kings, while Hygd is simply noted as Haerethes dohtor (Beowulf 1929a), and we know little about the origins of Modthryth, save that her father seems to have been a king. Our knowledge of Wealhtheow's background is even more sketchy--he name, which may mean "foreign slave," suggests that her background may not be as noble as th ose of the other four queens. Fred C. Robinson has argued that theod[nes] dohtor (2174a), an epithet which has been associated with Wealhtheow, actually refers to Hygd, and Thomas D. Hill and Christine Fell both point to the Anglo-Saxon slave-woman Bathi ld, who married Clovis II of the Franks and became a power in his court and kingdom, as an example of the possibility of a marriage between a king and a female slave. Thus, Wealhtheow's name may precisely describe her background. This would put Wealhthe ow in a particularly odd position within her society. William A. Chaney states that in a "kin-centered society such as that Of the Anglo-Saxons and other Germanic peoples," where "common descent bound the social group together and provided the basis of u nity," a man (or woman) would have "identified himself by his lineage and by the lord whom he followed" (18). The other four queens can be, at least partially, "identified . . . by lineage," but Wealhtheow can be identified only by her position in Hrothg ar's court.
In a society marked by the lack of trust between families and nations, queens were often marketed as peace-weavers who theoretically provided a bond of trust between rivals. The poet places all the queens of Beowulf in this position, though Hildeburh an d Freawaru most clearly fulfill their role. Both Danish princesses marry kings of tribal enemies to cement peace between the feuding peoples. In neither case does the truce hold, although Hildeburh's menfolk apparently manage to hold to their truce for several years, since her son is of fighting age. In neither case can the women prevent their men from resuming hostilities, even though doing so is one of their responsibilities. Hildeburh, Freawaru, and Modthryth have all explicitly been sent far from home to live among strangers, a difficult position in a society that defined one's self-hood by family blood-ties. The feeling of isolation caused by living among strangers is not unique to queens, of course; as Chrisitne Fell notes,
Much of Old English poetry is concerned with the vulnerability of the individual, whether this is a man who has lost his lord, an exile, a poet out of favor, a woman separated from her husband, or some other unfortunate. Heroic poetry in particular is mu ch concerned with the vulnerability of the woman cast in the role of freothuwebbe, "peace-weaver," where it is hoped that a peace-settlement between two hostile tribes or families may be made firmer by a marriage-bond. The emphasis is on the isolation of such an individual in a society where the protection of her own family has been replaced by the dislike and distrust of those in her new environment. (37)
Freawaru in particular suffers from this "dislike and distrust." Little time seems to pass between her arrival as Ingeld's queen and the stirring up of old hostilities by bitter, old warriors. If, as Jane Chance says, "[t]he good queen was characterize d as a peace-making mother" (111), Freawaru has little chance to fulfill the role. Even the best examples, however--the one ones who represent "[a]n ideal, if one could be said to exist, . . . [that is,] Wealhtheow and Hygd-- . . . do all that they can d o to ensure peace, but fail to do so for reasons outside their control (whether a lack of strong leadership or unmitigated enmity)" (111). Chance continues, "Their role . . . is interdependent on those of a lord and retainer, without whose willingness pe ace making is futile" (111). This can be clearly seen in the Hildeburh story, where an apparently peaceful visit by her brother to her husband's court explodes into a series of battles that cost her, ultimately, the lives of her brother, her son, and her husband. Once the fighting starts, she can do nothing to stop it. Of Hildeburh, Chance comments that "the peace pledge must accept a passive role precisely because the ties she knots bind her--she is the knot, the pledge of peace" (100).
If a sense of living in danger is a characteristic of queenship, then it applies to Wealhtheow also. The scene of her second entrance in the poem (1162ff) opens with a tableau of the group of men she is addressing: Hrothgar is sitting near Unferth and h is nephew Hrothulf. (Beowulf is sitting between Wealhtheow's sons at a nearby table, but the three young men are not a part of the central grouping.) The poet points out that, at this time, Hrothgar and his nephew are still friends, that the inter-famil ial fighting that will occur in the future is not yet in the open. (It is interesting that the adjective trywe and its compound getrywe [both meaning "true, faithful"] each appear once in the poem, both of them in this section. The poet uses the first i n referring to Hrothgar and Hrothulf, aeghwylc othrum trywe [1165a], while Wealhtheow uses the second to describe the state of relationships in Heorot in remarkably similar words: Her is aeghwylc eorl othrum getrywe [1228].) One may wonder if the seeds o f dissension have already been sown, however, especially since Wealhtheow finds it necessary to remind both her husband and his nephew of the good care she and Hrothgar took of Hrothulf in his boyhood. In addition, Unferth is described in this passage in terms of his unfaithfulness to his close kin, and the poet implies that both of these men are mistaken in trusting Unferth. For Wealhtheow's purposes--keeping the Danish kingdom together so that her sons can inherit it--even Hrothgar has proved less tha n ideal. His inability to repel Grendel's attacks (probably because of his age) for 12 years is as dangerous to her as the coming war with his nephew and son-in-law.
Like all queens, though, Wealhtheow can only do her best to keep her menfolk from each other's throats. And, as the poet points out to us, like all queens (so it must seem), she fails. As the poet presents them, queens in the world of Beowulf lived dan gerously, seeking to establish trust where none existed, and often getting caught, helpless, in the middle of others' wars.
The Helm Metaphor in Beowulf
Beowulf: A Dual Language Edition. Ed. and trans. Howell D. Chickering, Jr. New York: Anchor-Doubleday, 1977.
Lachmann, Karl. Der Nibelunge Noth und die Klage. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1960.
Wenham, S. J. "Anatomical Interpretation of Anglo-Saxon Weapon Injuries." Weapons and Warfare in Anglo-Saxon England. Ed. Sonia Chadwick Hawkes. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1989.
New Historicism and Beowulf
Frantzen, Allen J. Desire for Origins: New Language, Old English, and Teaching the Tradition. London: Rutgers UP, 1990.
Hamilton, Paul. Historicism. New York: Routledge, 1996.
Klaeber, Fr. Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg. 3rd ed. Lexington, MA: Heath, 1950.
Living Dangerously: Queens in Beowulf
Chance, Jane. Women as Hero in Old ENglish Literature. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse UP, 1986.
Chaney, William A. The Cult of Kingship in Anglo-Saxon England: The Transition from Paganism to Christianity. Berkeley, CA: U of California P, 1970.
Fell, Christine. Women in Anglo-Saxon England and the Impact of 1066. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 1984.
Hill, Thomas D. "'Wealhtheow' as a Foreign Slave: Some Continental Analogues." Philological Quarterly 69 (1990): 106-112.
Klaeber, Fr.--see above.
Robinson, Fred C. "Is Wealhtheow a Prince's Daughter?" English Studies: A Journal of English Letters and Philology 45 (1964): 36-39.