GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1996-07 > 0836347944


From: Jared Olar <>
Subject: Re: Beowulf (was DFA: possible pre-Arsacid link)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 17:52:24 -0500
In-Reply-To: <4raf11$5l3@news.campus.mci.net>


On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, Stewart Baldwin wrote:

> It is true that scholars once believed that a vague outline of sixth
> century Scandinavian history could be gleaned from the pages of
> Beowulf, but modern scholarship has pretty much shot that idea to
> pieces.

I suppose it depends on which scholars we're talking about. Last I heard
it was still quite viable to posit that "vague outline." And recently an
interesting argument (I don't like certain parts of it) has been made for a
date of composition in the latter part of the 700's, in East Anglia. Plus
there is that nice overlap of archaeological evidence. The alternative--
that the Hrethlings, Scyldings, and Ynglings mentioned in _Beowulf_ and
_Widsith_ never existed--is highly unlikely given what we can know of these
legends.

> To my knowledge, the only verifiably historical characters in Beowulf
> were Eormenric (king of the Goths, mentioned only briefly),
> Hygelac/Chocilaicus, and Hnaef/Hnabi (the maternal grandfather of
> Charlemagne's wife, who was plucked out of the eighth century and
> turned into a sixth century Dane in the poem), and the only verifiably
> historical event in the poem was the battle in which Hygelac/Chocilaicus
> fell.

True enough--although I believe that Hildegard's ancestor "Hnabi, son of
Huoching," was rather named after the Hnaef Hocing ("Hnaef son of Hoc")
mentioned in the poem. Hnaef is a figure of the Frisian stories, and
allusions to the Frisian stories appear in parts of _Widsith_ which almost
surely date to the 600's and earlier 700's.

We shouldn't expect outside confirmation of the existence of Hrothgar,
Hrothulf, Ingeld, or Eadgils--but the alternative is to claim that this
whole complex of Scandinavian legends was generated in England (of all
places) out of air within two or three centuries of the probable time when
the persons were reputed to have lived.

> Let's see, since you didn't like my first example, how about this one:
> It would be analogous to using "Braveheart" as a source to prove that
> king Edward III of England was the son of William Wallace. ;-)

I don't remember exactly what Zuckerman said about the French romances
about William of Gellone (or rather, about a figure named William derived
from the historical William), but I recall a curious trace of Jewishness
in William's actions--abstaining from warfare on days that turn out to be
Jewish holydays and sabbaths--something like that. He didn't put very
much emphasis on genealogical details in the romance--as though they were
"proof." Anyway, I don't think the romances did anything like flatout
make William the son of a Jewish exilarch!

But your point is very valid. In the realm of Arthuriana, there's Norma
Lorre Goodrich (Bane of Arthur lovers!), who uses the Arthurian romances to
reconstruct precise history for sixth century Britain and Scotland (for which
she also relies on ***gag!*** Hector Boece). I trust all of us here are
agreed that such "scholarship" hardly warrants the name.

Jared

This thread: