[In the following essay, Albano discusses the primacy of vengeance as a motive in the Volsunga Saga and Beowulf and explores the role of women in the two works' vengeance plots.]

Scholarly debate has raged in recent decades over the Finn episode in Beowulf without reaching a satisfying conclusion;¹ for in some articles the critics attempt to promote the thematic relevancy of the text by imposing a modern interpretation or framework upon an Anglo-Saxon text. This does not work. Although the relevancy of the episode to the whole of Beowulf appears to be unquestionable, readers should not psychoanalyze the characters of both episode and epic from the perspective of modern society. Two of the characters in the Finn episode, Hengest and Hildeburh, have sat on the psychologist's couch recently; and the result has been a sentimentalizing or romanticizing of their roles in the text. In order to avoid this sentimental interpretation of these characters, a reader must consider the harsh and stark environment that forms the background of the Anglo-Saxon epic. By holding up the “Vengeance of Sigmund” episode in the Old Norse Volsunga Saga as a mirror to the Finn episode, a modern reader may more readily perceive the harsh reality and the grim truth that permeate the atmosphere in the world of Hengest and Hildeburh.

Although the tale of Sigmund was written in a later century and at a different location, both it and the tale of Finn deal with Germanic tribes sharing similar cultural attitudes and beliefs; and, if one considers the oral tradition of both tales, the actual dates of their origins may be fairly contemporaneous. Not only do the two works represent like cultures, but they also share several similarities in the treatment of plot and theme. C.L. Wrenn has noted the following striking similarities between the Finn episode and the tale of Ingeld in Beowulf: “both treat of the supreme necessity of vengeance for a slain leader to be taken by a faithful member of his comitatus, of the failure of a marriage to bring permanent peace between members of opposing royal houses in a blood-feud, and of ultimately more grievous tragedies following such a use of princesses as a ‘bond of peace between the nations.’”² Wrenn could just as easily have noted the exact same three similarities between the Finn episode and the Sigmund episode. The parallels between the two queens, Hildeburh of the Finn episode and Signy of the Sigmund tale, in situation and theme suggest that other parallels in terms of attitudes and thoughts may also exist. However, although critics have been quick to establish a relationship among the three female characters (Wealhtheow, Freawaru, and Hildeburh) in Beowulf, the addition of Signy to the circle may, at first, appear to be inappropriate and even somewhat odd; for the actions of Signy are definitely cold, cruel, and calculating. One may even be tempted to label them as evil. On the other hand, most critical interpretations of Hildeburh appear to be in agreement in labeling her as an innocent victim. Signy, however, is not a symbol of evil; nor is Hildeburh a symbol of innocence. Rather, both characters act in a manner that is consistent with and influenced by the time period in which they live. In fact, Helen Damico has already established a precedent in this regard in her argument against the two-dimensional portrait of Wealhtheow as the “sorrowing queen”: her character may very well be “touched with sorrow,” but she is not the “tragic figure” that so many critics make her out to be.³ And, if Hildeburh is a direct parallel to Wealhtheow, then to view Hildeburh as a tragic character would also be similarly incorrect.

The connection between Hildeburh and Signy may actually not be all that distant, for evidence within Beowulf itself suggests the relationship. In the early part of the Anglo-Saxon epic, the poet refers to the character of Sigemund, who may be the same figure as Sigmund in the Old Norse tale.⁴ The Anglo-Saxon poet who composed Beowulf most likely knew the story of Sigmund's vengeance and would not have failed to see the parallels between Hildeburh and Signy.

Modern scholars of Beowulf err in regards to the Finn episode not so much in terms of theme but in terms of character interpretation. Bonjour, for example, is quite accurate in defining the theme of the Finn episode when he describes “how the irresistible force of tribal enmity sooner or later sweeps aside with its imperative all human attempts at a compromise.”⁵ Unfortunately, he continues his analysis with three unsupported assertions about the episode: (1) the episode is “sentimental,” (2) the episode stresses a “human” or “psychological” element, and (3) the episode carries a theme of “precarious peace that even sacred bonds are utterly unable to save.”⁶ That Hildeburh is in a distressful situation is not the argument. The character of Signy in the tale of Sigmund is also distressed, as it is revealed in the end of that story. However, such distress alone is not enough evidence to indicate the necessity for a sentimental or psychological interpretation of the story. Such an evaluation of the Sigmund tale, distress and all, would be ludicrous. The theme of revenge is the focal, if not the only, issue of that story. Yet the fragmentary nature of the Finn episode, where much appears to be left unsaid, has given critics an excuse to attempt to fill in the gaps. Such gaps, though, did not exist in the minds of the Old Norse audience; nor is it likely that they would have existed in the minds of an Anglo-Saxon audience. The modern and overtly Christian assumption that the marriage of Hildeburh and Finn is joined by “sacred bonds” is not applicable to this episode. Nowhere in the Finn episode does the poet describe any kind of love as existing between Finn and Hildeburh. Hildeburh is in a forced marriage. Most likely she would not consider that bond to be any more sacred than does Signy.

The character of Hengest has, perhaps, been more romanticized than Hildeburh.⁷ Hengest is often analyzed as being torn between his loyalty to Hnaef and his agreement of peace to Finn. This psychological dilemma, however, may exist only in the minds of modern scholars. The Old Norse and Anglo-Saxon people considered revenge as a duty above all other duties. Both Hildeburh and Hengest probably already had their minds made up as to what action to take in connection with Finn. The Anglo-Saxons clearly did not view their commitment to revenge with any less zeal than did the Norse.⁸ Once a bond of loyalty was established in either Anglo-Saxon or Old Norse culture, such loyalty would last indefinitely.

If one accepts this preeminent position of the duty of revenge in Anglo-Saxon culture, then it becomes difficult to agree even with Wrenn when he states that “Hengest … clearly seems to have the sympathy of the poet”⁹ or to agree with Bonjour who avers that the duty of revenge for Hnaef is chosen by Hengest over the “allegiance” to Finn.¹⁰ Of the critics who analyze this so-called dilemma, only Fry seems to consider the cultural context of the “ethics of oaths and feuds: … if vengeance has a superior claim over oath-keeping, then vengeance is ethical.”¹¹ In other words, if Hengest sees himself as doing his duty and by doing that duty there is no breach of ethics, then there is no dilemma.

The psychoanalytical chains that fetter the character of Hildeburh are more difficult to remove than those that are on Hengest. Critics have made much ado over the expression friðusibb folca,¹² the pledge of peace between nations, that is attributed to Wealhtheow and, by extension, to Hildeburh. But, as already mentioned, the Anglo-Saxons would break any pledge if the greater commitment to revenge was already in force. Because some of the most noted Anglo-Saxon scholars have viewed Wealhtheow and Hildeburh as two-dimensional symbols of peace, later critics may have been reluctant to examine those characters in a realistic context. Wrenn, for example, describes the marriage of Finn and Hildeburh as a “very long and apparently happy” one and views their situation as “the love of man and woman … being forced to give way to the all-crushing power of the feud and the supreme duty of revenge.”¹³ Unfortunately, Wrenn is adding his sentiments to the text. Not one single line in the Finn episode describes Hildeburh's feelings toward Finn nor the type of relationship that existed between the two. In fact, the only words that do express Hildeburh's feelings occur early in the episode:

… Hildeburh …
beloren leofum …
bearnum and broðrum … þaer heo aer maeste heold
worolde wynne.(14)

(Translation: “Hildeburh … deprived of her loved ones … her son and her brother … which she before considered the greatest joy in the world.)

Hildeburh clearly considers her brother to be much more important in her life than Finn. Not only is she duty-bound to avenge Hnaef out of loyalty to her family, but she is also impelled to such action by the love for her brother. Hildeburh may not take it upon herself to accomplish such vengeance, yet she would hardly oppose Hengest when he seeks that vengeance.

Modern critics have persisted in viewing Hildeburh as a symbol of peace. Camargo, for example, strives at great lengths to portray Hildeburh as “tragic,” “destitute,” and “helpless.”¹⁵ The problem with this unconvincing assessment is not only its lack of textual proof but its emotional tenor. Camargo's sentimental notions become evident when he states that the Beowulf poet “makes us feel the deepest outrage at the constant warring among men by stressing the innocence of its chief victim, the women.”¹⁶ This reader-response criticism simply has no validity in the interpretation of a poem representing a vastly different culture and time. In order to determine whether the Anglo-Saxon audience would have felt this outraged, a reader should look at other literary works that come from approximately the same time period and that incorporate a similar theme and situation.

“The Vengeance of Sigmund” episode in the Volsunga Saga is enlightening not only because it integrates the theme of revenge with the use of a woman marrying a king in order to insure peace but also because it is a complete work and not fragmentary in nature like the Finn episode. The role of Signy, Hildeburh's counterpart, is clear, direct, and obvious. Her motives and her responsibility are beyond question.

One of the remarkable characteristics of the Sigmund tale is the length of narrative time, beginning from the point where the plot to seek vengeance is planned to that moment when that vengeance is eventually carried out. Signy is married to King Siggeir. Her brother, Sigmund, lives in hiding in the woods but awaits his chance to seek revenge against Siggeir and honor the Volsung family name. Signy, beyond all doubt, wants to aid Sigmund in seeking that revenge. Signy has two sons who were fathered by Siggeir. When the oldest reaches his tenth birthday, Signy sends him to Sigmund so that he can be trained to seek vengeance against his own father. Sigmund tests the boy for bravery, but the boy does not pass. Later, Signy sends her second son, who also does not pass the test for bravery. Soon after, Signy gives birth to a third son, named Sinfjotl. Ten years later he is sent to Sigmund. Sinfjotl passes all of Sigmund's tests, and more years pass as Sigmund trains Sinfjotl. Finally, they are ready to go to the castle and seek vengeance. At first, Sigmund and Sinfjotl are captured, but Signy helps them to escape. They enact their vengeance by burning the castle with Siggeir inside. More than a dozen years had passed before they completed their vengeance.

The modern reader might view Signy as cold-blooded, cunning, and, perhaps, evil. She commits several atrocious acts: (1) she tests all three of her sons before sending them to Sigmund by sewing their shirt sleeves to their skins and then yanking the shirts off to see if the boys can endure the pain (only Sinfjotl does not scream); (2) when the first two sons fail Sigmund's tests, she allows Sigmund to kill them; (3) since her first two sons are weak because they have Siggeir's blood in them, she uses sorcery to disguise herself, sleeps with her own brother, and gives birth to Sinfjotl out of that incestuous act; (4) when Sinfjotl and Sigmund come to the castle, she allows them to kill her young fourth and fifth sons so that they will not reveal the plot of vengeance to Siggeir, and (5) she helps Sigmund and Sinfjotl to escape so that they can kill her own husband. All five of these actions indicate that no limits can be established when it comes to the duty of accomplishing revenge. Revenge is imperative, and personal feelings are set aside in order to accomplish that vengeance.

This parallel is infinitely different from the view of Hildeburh as an innocent victim who takes no part in vengeance. Yet, although Hildeburh is not as active a figure as Signy, nothing in the Finn episode prevents the interpretation of Hildeburh as a figure who personally supports the vengeance of Hengest. In fact, the interpretation of one particular sentence may actually indicate that Hildeburh was directly involved in the plot against Finn:

Ne huru Hildeburh herian þorfte Eotena treowe.¹⁷

(Translation: “Especially Hildeburh has no reason to praise the loyalty of the Jutes.”)

This line may be ironically implying that Finn cannot trust Hildeburh any more than he can trust the Jutes. Stanley Greenfield, among others, supports this litotical interpretation and suggests that the “theme of treachery runs throughout” the Finn episode.¹⁸ Like Signy's actions, Hildeburh's treachery is not to be viewed as a negative characteristic but as a necessity, if not as a moral imperative, in Anglo-Saxon culture. Such treachery would be an expected and reasonable action to take. More than likely, the Anglo-Saxon audience would have considered Hildeburh extraordinary or unrealistic if she had not participated in that vengeance. This idea of women seeking revenge is evident elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon literature.¹⁹ Revenge was part of the lives and culture of the Anglo-Saxon people, both male and female.

The duty to revenge does not necessarily imply that such a duty would eradicate the emotions of those seeking vengeance. Like Hildeburh, Signy is emotionally affected by the events in her life despite the ruthlessness of her actions. At the end of the Sigmund episode, Signy tells her brother about her commitment to vengeance:

Nu skaltu vita, hvart ek hefi munat Siggeiri konungi drap Volsungs konings.²⁰

(Translation: “Now you know whether I reminded King Siggeir about the killing of the King of the Volsungs.”)

Signy is merely putting into words what her actions have been saying all throughout the entire tale: vengeance is the prime duty of all individuals, and no amount of time or change in circumstances can prevent that duty. Yet Signy pays a price for that vengeance:

Hefi ek þar til unnit hluti, at Siggeir konungr skyldi bana fa; hefi ek ok sva mikit unnit at fram kœmisk hefndin, at mer er með engum kosti lift.²¹

(Translation: “Everything that I did was done so that King Siggeir would suffer death; I have also done much to accomplish this vengeance, so that for no price can I live any longer.”)

Signy ends her life by throwing herself into the fire to die with Siggeir. Her last lines and final actions are of extreme significance not only for the Sigmund tale but for the Finn episode as well. Everything that Signy did was for the sake of her vengeance. Thus, even the women of the Old Norse culture, as well as their Anglo-Saxon counterparts, were willing to put all else aside, including human emotions, to accomplish their vengeance. Signy's last action may indicate that not only does she regret the loss of her sons but that she also regrets the death of her husband. The duty to vengeance, however, surpasses such emotions.

The uncompromising duty to revenge is an integral and vital aspect of the Anglo-Saxon culture. In order to evaluate the Finn episode, modern critics must consider the cultural context of the time period. When a critic like Camargo states that “only in the demonic world can women avenge their slain kin,”²² he obviously is overlooking the Old Norse Signy and the Anglo-Saxon concept of revenge. Instead, he has narrowly focused only on the character of Grendel's mother in the text of Beowulf. Yet, even Grendel's mother, when she seeks vengeance against Beowulf, is not expressing a demonic abnormality. Rather, she is expressing that vital and integral aspect of Anglo-Saxon culture. In this respect Grendel's mother is not unlike Signy nor Hildeburh nor Wealhtheow.

As appealing as the view of Hildeburh as a symbol of peace may be, the interpretation is sentimental and lacks validity. Signy, Hildeburh, Wealhtheow, and Freawaru are characters who represent the women of rugged and uncivilized times. They are not romanticized concepts of some allegorical virtue. By seeing the Finn episode as a reflection of the Sigmund tale, a reader may more accurately understand the culture of the Anglo-Saxons. With this new focus the episode of Finn expands in meaning; and what did not need to be said in the Finn episode, because the Anglo-Saxon audience already understood it, is now revealed to the modern reader: neither Hildeburh nor Signy are happy with the circumstances of their lives, but their commitment to vengeance outweighs any and all such personal concerns.

Notes

1. Donald K. Fry, ed, Finnsburh: Fragment and Episode (London: Methuen, 1974) 5-29. Fry has already provided a scholarly summary and assessment of criticism on the Finn episode. To date, critics have heavily debated two areas: (1) the controversy over the Finn episode, together with the episodes of Sigemund, of Ingeld, and of Offa, as being either an unnecessary digression or an integral part of the epic machinery; and (2) the nature of the relationship between the Finn episode and the Finn fragment, including the arrangement of events, the interpretation of key lines, and the discussion as to whether the fragment is a separate lay or part of a larger epic that is now lost.

2. C. L. Wrenn, Beowulf: With the Finnesburg Fragment (New York: St. Martin's, 1973) 71.

3. Helen Damico, Beowulf's Wealhtheow and the Valkyrie Tradition (Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1984) 20-21.

4. Wrenn 70.

5. Adrien Bonjour, “The Digressions in Beowulf: The Finn and Heathobards Episodes,” Old English Literature, ed. Martin Stevens and Jerome Mandel (Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1968) 321.

6. Bonjour 321-22.

7. The Finn episode begins with a fight between the Danes and the Frisians. In the fight Hnaef, the Danish prince, is killed. He is succeeded in command by Hengest, who makes peace with Finn, the king of the Frisians. Finn has already been married for a number of years to Hildeburh, who is Hnaef's sister. In the fight Hildeburh's son, in addition to her brother Hnaef, is killed. Once peace is established, Hengest agrees to stay at Finnsburh for the winter. The episode ends when, after the winter is over, a band of Danish warriors come to Finnsburh, aid Hengest in killing Finn, and take Hengest and Hildeburh home to Denmark. Hildeburh, who is certainly in a precarious situation, is often analyzed as the impartial figure caught between two warring factions. Yet, she actually may not be all that impartial.

8. In the entry for the year 755 A.D. of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, trans. G. N. Garmonsway (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1953) the thanes of King Cynewulf state that their loyalty to their king and the necessity to avenge his death predominate over any other bonds of kinship or loyalty.

9. Wrenn 72.

10. Bonjour 322-23.

11. Fry 22-23.

12. Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg, ed. Fr. Klaeber (New York: D. C. Heath, 1941) 75, ln. 2017.

13. Wrenn 71-72.

14. Fry 38, lns. 1071-80.

15. Martin Camargo, “The Finn Episode and the Tragedy of Revenge in Beowulf,” Studies in Philology 78.5 (1981): 126.

16. Camargo 127.

17. Fry 38, lns. 1071-72.

18. Stanley B. Greenfield, A Critical History of Old English Literature (New York: New York UP, 1965) 144.

19. See “The Amazons,” Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Reader, ed. Henry Sweet (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) 24. The episode of the Amazons in The Translation of Orosius emphasizes that the Amazons began as a race when a group of women gathered to avenge their husbands who were slain in battle. Despite the facts that this work is a tale translated from the Latin and that the author negatively judges the women, the concept of revenge and the role of women in connection to that concept cannot be dismissed.

20. See “The Vengeance of Sigmund,” An Introduction to Old Norse, ed. A.R. Taylor (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973) 25.

21. “The Vengeance of Sigmund,” 25.

22. Camargo 128.