blood and deeds, drout, michael d. c.. studies in philology, spring2007, vol. 104 issue 2, p199-226

8/3/2019 Blood and Deeds, Drout, Michael D. C.. Studies in Philology, Spring2007, Vol. 104 Issue 2, p199-226

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/blood-and-deeds-drout-michael-d-c-studies-in-philology-spring2007-vol 1/30

Blood and Deeds:The Inheritance Systems

in Beowulf

by Michael D. C. Drout

BEOWULF begins with successful inheritances. Arriving in Den-mark from across the sea, Scyld Scefing builds up the Danish king-dom and bequeaths it to his son and ‘‘eafera’’ (12a) (heir), Beowulf

Scyldinga.1 This Beowulf works to build up his father’s kingdom, andwhen Scyld dies the power and wealth of his people are so great that theScyldings are able to provide their old king with a glorious ship funeralthat ends his reign and inaugurates that of his son:

Ða wæs on burgum Beowulf Scyldingaleof leodcyning longe þragefolcum gefræge fæder ellor hwearf aldor of earde oþ þæt him eft onwocheah Healfdene heold þenden lifdegamol ond guðreouw glæde Scyldingas.Ðæm feower bearn forðgerimein world wocun weoroda ræswa[n]

1 All quotations from Beowulf are taken from Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg, ed. Fr.Klaeber, 3rd ed. with 1st and 2nd supplements (Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, 1951) andare cited by line numbers in parentheses. I have not reproduced Klaeber’s macrons or hispunctuation; translations are my own. At this point in the poem (lines 18a and 53b), themanuscript reads unequivocally ‘‘beowulf,’’ but many editors emend to ‘‘Beow’’ to makethe poem fit the West Saxon genealogies (where Beow is the son of Scyld) on the groundsthat the scribe knew he was copying a poem about one Beowulf and so took ‘‘Beow’’ inhis exemplar as an abbreviation. For a more detailed discussion, see James Earl, Think-ing about Beowulf (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), 23–26. Although I have noparticular objection to the emendation, adopting ‘‘Beow’’ could be seen, for my particu-lar argument, as a form of disguised special pleading, so I have therefore retained themanuscript reading.



200 Blood and Deeds

Heorogar ond Hroðgar ond Halga tilhyrde ic þæt [. . . . . . wæs On]elan cwen.

(53–62)

[Then was in the castle, Beowulf of the Scyldings, the beloved king of thepeople, ruling a long time, known to the folk—his father turnedelsewhere, the lord from the land—until to him afterwards was borngreat Healfdane. He ruled the glad Scyldings as long as he lived, old and battle-fierce. To him four children were born in succession into theworld: Heorogar and Hrothgar and Halga the Good; I have heard thatthe fourth child was Onela’s queen.]

In this passage, kingly power and identity pass smoothly from Scyld

to Beowulf Scyldinga to Healfdane. Although we are not specificallytold that Beowulf and Healfdane are both the only sons of their re-spective fathers, we have no reason to assume otherwise—there areno additional brothers in Beowulf or in the various possible Scandi-navian analogues.2 At each step of the genealogical progression, thefather reproduces himself only once, in the person of his son and worthysuccessor. But then Healfdane has four children: Heorogar, Hrothgar,Halga, and a daughter whose name has been lost.3 The straightforwardprogression from father to son is complicated. Heorogar, Healfdane’s

oldest son, rules briefly but dies (466b–68), leaving Hrothgar, the sec-ond brother, to be king (64–67b).Hrothgar’s assumption of the throne in the place of his brother illus-

trates a problem with the processes of inheritance and succession that tothis point in the poem has been obscured by the easy passage of powerfrom one father to one son. Beowulf Scyldinga and Healfdane are theoptimal inheritors of their respective fathers because each is his father’sonly heir. But Heorogar should have succeeded Healfdane not only be-cause he was the elder son but also because he would have been a su-

perior king—or so says Hrothgar: ‘‘se wæs betera ðonne ic’’ (469b) (hewas a better man than I).4 Hrothgar, the eventual inheritor, states that

2 See R. W. Chambers, Beowulf: An Introduction to the Study of the Poem with a Discussionof the Stories of Offa and Finn, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), xvii.

3 There is no break in or damage to the manuscript at this point, but the metrical andgrammatical inconsistency suggests a lacunain thetext.The name of the missing daughteris usually reconstructed as Yrse (Beowulf , ed. Klaeber, 128).

4 It is possible that this statement is a modesty topos, and de mortuis nil nisi bonum maywell have applied in Anglo-Saxon England. However, the lack of modesty topoi anywhereelse in the corpus of Old English heroic poetry strongly suggests that Hrothgar is being



Michael D. C. Drout 201

he is not the optimal ruler, although he is hardly a bad king until Gren-del’s depredations show him to have become weak in his old age: ‘‘þætwæs an cyning / æghwæs orleahtre, oþ þæt hine yldo benam / mægeneswynnum’’ (1885–87) (that was a singularly good king, blameless in all,until his age took from him the joys of power).

But although Hrothgar has proven to be a worthy inheritor of his line,his own sons do not get the chance to inherit from him. At the timeof Grendel’s death, Hrothgar is an old king, but his sons Hrethric andHrothmund are still seated among the ‘‘giogoð’’ (1189–90b) (youths),where Beowulf, presumably because he is a visitor, is placed at the feast.It seems that neither son will be strong or old enough to assume themantle of kingship when Hrothgar dies. Wealhtheow the queen sug-gests just this possibility when she proposes that Hrothulf, Hrothgar’snephew, will protect the young boys if Hrothgar dies before Hrethric(presumably the older of the two sons) is able to become king (1180–87).Hrothgar’s sons, while heirs of the king’s body, are not fit to assume thethrone—apparently the warrior troop recognized that they cannot dothose things that are necessary for kings to do. Blood is not enough.

Beowulf, on the other hand, while not a blood heir of Hrothgar, isequal to the demands of leadership, or so the old king believes. In an-other controversial scene, Hrothgar appears to ‘‘adopt’’ Beowulf as his

son. After Beowulf has killed Grendel, Hrothgar addresses the hero: ‘‘nuic, Beowulf, þec, / secg betsta, me to sunu wylle / freogan on ferhþe;heald forð tela / niwe sibbe’’ (946b–49a) (now I wish you, Beowulf, the best of warriors, to be as a son to me, to love in spirit; to hold forthproperly this new kinship). Although critics have been divided as towhether or not Hrothgar’s gesture is a true adoption into the lineageor merely a spiritual and social embrace, Wealhtheow, at least, seems torecognize Hrothgar’s action as possessing dynastic implications. Afterthe scop has sung the tale of Finn and Hengest, Wealhtheow offers a cup

to Hrothgar and says,

Me man sægde, þæt þu ðe for sunu woldehereri[n]c habban. Heorot is gefælsod, beahsele beorhta; bruc þenden þu motemanigra medo, ond þinum magum læf

sincere when he states his belief that his brother would have been a better king; Hrothgarcould have, after all, said something to the effect of ‘‘þæt wære god cyning’’ (‘‘that wouldhave been a good king’’) in the subjunctive mood and left it at that.



202 Blood and Deeds

folc ond rice, þonne ðu forð scyle,metodsceaft seon.

(1175–80a)

[Men tell me that you wish to have this battle-warrior for a son. Heorotis cleansed, the bright ring-hall. Enjoy, while you are able to bepermitted, its many rewards, and leave to your kin the people and thekingdom when you shall go forth to the decree of fate.]

Wealhtheow sees the adoption of Beowulf as an action that could dam-age her sons’ chances of succession, and she does not believe that Hroth-gar’s offer of synthetic kinship is at all appropriate. She therefore, ac-cording to John Hill’s analysis, attempts to remind Hrothgar that he has

duties to his kin and that the victory feast is not the time or place for thedetermination of a successor (101–2).5 In place of Hrothgar’s adoptionof the unrelated Beowulf, she offers a man of closer kinship, Hrothulf,Hrothgar’s nephew, as protector for the sons.6

The potential conflict over succession to the Danish throne afterHrothgar’s death makes apparent dynamics of inheritance that areotherwise obscured by the smooth passage of power and identity fromScyld to Beowulf Scyldinga to Healfdane. The difficulties with the suc-cession of Hrethric or Hrothmund and the solutions proposed in the

poem show that what seems to be a seamless process of inheritance infact operates along two tracks. Inheritance by blood is a familiar idea;under this system, power and identity passes along the line of geneticdescent, from father to son. Inheritance by deeds is a more nebulousconcept but is epitomized by Hrothgar’s attempt to nominate Beowulf as successor: the hero’s deeds, rather than his lineage, allow him to beidentified as a potential heir.

In ideal situations, the two systems are complementary and isomor-phic, so the two separate processes appear to be one. Beowulf Scyldinga

is not only his father’s only son but also a worthy warrior and king who‘‘earns’’ his title through his conquests and his contributions to the wel-fare of the Danish folk; Healfdane is likewise legitimate in both cate-gories. Hrothgar, too, is a king by deeds as well as by blood, althoughit is possible that his replacement of his brother (the eldest son) in thekingship is meant to explain his failure to prepare the ground for the

5 Hill, The Cultural World in Beowulf (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995), 101–2.6 See below for a more detailed analysis of Wealhtheow’s objection to the ‘‘adoption’’

of Beowulf. At this point in the argument, it is sufficient to point out that the queen herself recognizes Hrothgar’s words as having dynastic implications.




successful continuation of the Danish dynasty. That is, Hrothgar, whilelegitimately king in every sense, is not the best possible king by blood(or, as we learn after Grendel’s attacks, by deeds). The apparent failureof Hrothgar’s sons to succeed him illustrates that not all successions areideal. Not all heirs are optimal in both systems.

In fact, less-than-ideal successions are more the norm than the excep-tion in Beowulf . Most inheritors are legitimated to different degrees ineach category, some more by blood, some more by deeds, and the cul-tural politics of blood are not always the cultural politics of deeds. Bothsystems are necessary for inheritance, and both reinforce each other inthe ideal cases of Beowulf Scyldinga and Healfdane, but in many othercases inheritance by blood competes with inheritance by deeds.

Like any competing social process, each form of inheritance differ-entially rewards individuals. Different people, therefore, have differentstakes in the two systems. Some may benefit more from a greater em-phasis on blood; others might gain more under a more deeds-focusedsystem. Although every individual would likely seek a different bal-ance of blood- and deeds-based inheritance in order to maximize hisor her own circumstances, there are also some general tendencies thatcan be attributed to members of different social groups. Inheritance by blood is the province of the kin group; inheritance by deeds is most

prominent in the warrior band (individual membership in these insti-tutions, does, of course, overlap). Blood inheritance happens throughthe direct agency of women via biological reproduction. Inheritance bydeeds is constructed (in Beowulf ) as a solely masculine activity. Thus,the inheritance system in Beowulf is broadly gender-asymmetric, withimplications for the relationships of women with their husbands, sons,and nephews, and for gender politics in general.

By analyzing the two inheritance systems, we may make new sense of some of the more enigmatic moments in Beowulf . Comparing the opera-

tions of inheritance in Beowulf to the processes of inheritance in thewider Anglo-Saxon culture and examining who has a greater stake inwhich systems in what contexts can provide a better understanding of both the cultural world in Beowulf and the culture that valued the poemenough to copy it (at the very least) and thus preserve it.7

7 This argument can thus be applied to almost any of the reasonable datings of thepoem.



204 Blood and Deeds

B L O O D A N D K I N S H I P

In the simplest form of inheritance by blood, children receive the names

and possessions of their parents. Social offices, rights, or titles are stillpassed on to children selected simply by means of birth. But blood in-heritance in the Anglo-Saxon age was different from familiar processesof blood inheritance in contemporary cultures.8 These differences arecaused by the employment of different sets of rules for determining blood relations. The well-known problems of the date and provenanceof Beowulf and the fact that the poem is a literary work and not a his-torical document prevent us from assuming that the kinship system inBeowulf is identical to that in Anglo-Saxon England, but it seems reason-

able to infer broad parallels between Beowulf and Anglo-Saxon culture,particularly because nothing in the poem contradicts those kinship ter-minology and inheritance relations that are historically documented.

The kinship system in historical Anglo-Saxon England was ‘‘non-unilineal’’; individuals could trace their lineage through both parentsand their descendants. Thus, any given individual had a slightly differ-ent set of kinship relations. Because Old English lacks specific terms thatwould distinguish between cousins of various degrees, Lorraine Lan-caster has concluded that ‘‘these kin and the distinctions between them

[were] not regularly of major significance.’’9

Direct lineal relations, how-ever, were significant; lineal ascendants could be traced back to the sixta fæder (sixth forefather, i.e., great-great-great-great-great-grandfather).Collateral kin were also recognized. An individual’s father’s brotherwas fædera; the mother’s brother was eam. Brother’s sons are referred toas suhterga and geswiria, while a sister’s son is, logically, a swustorsunu.Nefa and genefa are more general terms having the modern equivalenceof ‘‘nephew,’’ while nift and nefena can be translated as ‘‘niece.’’ As theabove terminology shows, major distinctions are made between ‘‘kin of

the same genealogical position but different sex.’’10

8 See Michael Sheehan, The Will in Medieval England (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1963) and Michael D. C. Drout, ‘‘Anglo-Saxon Wills and the Inheritanceof Tradition in the English Benedictine Reform,’’ Revista de la Sociedad Española de Lengua

y Literatura Inglesa Medieval (SELIM) 10 (2000): 1–53. See also Stephen Glosecki, ‘‘Beowulf and the Wills: Traces of Totemism?’’ Philological Quarterly 79 (2000): 15–73.

9 Lancaster, ‘‘Kinship in Anglo-Saxon Society—I,’’ British Journal of Sociology 9 (1958):232–37. The presence of this kinship terminology in Old English further indicates theunderlying gender asymmetry of the inheritance system, and it supports my contentionthat blood inheritance alone is not sufficient to explain the depictions of inheritance inBeowulf or in the wider culture.

10 Ibid., 237.




As Lancaster notes, the Kentish laws of Hlothhere and Eadric imply‘‘that the child should regularly receive property from his father.’’ 11

Other Anglo-Saxon laws, including those of Alfred, limit inheritanceto a given kin-range, mægburge, but do not give preference to certainheirs. The laws of Cnut also suggest that a man who had fulfilled hisobligations during his lifetime could leave his estate to ‘‘whomever hepleased after his death.’’ In general, then, and throughout the Anglo-Saxon period, it appears that ‘‘wife, children and close kin were ex-pected to be the chief heirs of a man’s property, but that considerablefreedom in disposal existed.’’12

The inheritance of political power and social position was likewise arather flexible process, although there were obviously some constraints.The various royal genealogies seem to show a number of unbrokenpaths of descent, but these genealogies and pedigrees were used to le-gitimate the power of rulers and bind together disparate kin-groups.Genealogies, David Dumville argues, are constructed ‘‘retrospectively.’’Rather than reflecting biological fact, they indicate political circum-stances and necessities at the time of their production.13 Thus, the manchosen to rule an Anglo-Saxon kingdom ‘‘from c. 850 to c. 975 appearsto have been the most credible candidate for power and responsibilityamong the eligible members of the royal house.’’ 14

Although the actual practice of kingly succession may have beensomewhat more messy than a simple father-to-son passage of power,the Anglo-Saxon ideal seems to be that of straightforward patrilinealinheritance from a father to one son (the process depicted in the inheri-tances of Beowulf Scyldinga from Scyld and Healfdane from Beowulf Scyldinga). The genealogical passages in Bede and William of Malmes- bury identify ancestors as ‘‘filius’’ (son of) or ‘‘cuius pater’’ (who is thefather of).15 In documents written in Old English (for example, the ver-sion of The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in London, British Library MS Cot-

ton Tiberius B.iv) a surname is constructed by adding the suffix -ing to

11 Lancaster, ‘‘Kinship in Anglo-Saxon Society—II,’’ British Journal of Sociology 9 (1958):360.

12 Ibid., 361.13 Dumville, ‘‘Kingship, Genealogies and Regnal Lists,’’ in Early Medieval Kingship, ed.

P. H. Sawyer and Ian N. Wood (Leeds: School of History, University of Leeds, 1977), 73–104.

14 Dumville, ‘‘The Ætheling: A Study in Anglo-Saxon Constitutional History,’’ Anglo-Saxon England 8 (1979): 2.

15 Bede, Ecclesiastical History, 1.15; and see Kenneth Sisam, ‘‘Anglo-Saxon Royal Gene-alogies,’’ Proceedings of the British Academy 39 (1953): 288–89.



206 Blood and Deeds

a father’s name. Thus, we see Beaw Scealding as the father of TætwaBeawing who is the father of Geat Tætwæing.16 Craig R. Davis arguesthat ‘‘succession was governed by a system of aetheling competition inwhich any son or grandson of the king could become a candidate forthe throne.’’17

Succession in Beowulf operates no more predictably than it did in his-torical Anglo-Saxon society. Fathers do not always pass title and powerto their sons. Yet the ideal of patrilineal genealogy is present in theculture created within the poem and, scholars have argued, in a cul-ture that valued Beowulf .18 The West-Saxon royal genealogy (in variousforms) includes the names of Beow, Heremod, Scyld, and Scyf, sug-gesting a link between the heroic, literary culture of Beowulf and theconcrete political reality of the West Saxon kingdom.19 That linear,father-to-only-son succession is also an implied ideal for the literarydepictions of the warrior band can be inferred from the Danish coast-guard’s interrogation of Beowulf and his retainers: ‘‘Nu ic eower sceal /frumcyn witan’’ (251b–52a) (now I must know your kin-lineage), thecoastguard asks. Frumcyn is a hapax legomenon, a compound of frum(primal, original, first) and cyn (kin). The poet’s use of the word as partof his questioning of the disembarking Geats shows that a significantpart of a warrior’s identity was bound up with his ancestry. But even

in this case, simple blood inheritance was not enough. The coastguardcan tell with his eyes that the Geats are doughty warriors, well armed,and that Beowulf is the greatest of them (237–51). The sentry at Heorotguesses that the Geats are not coming to Hrothgar’s hall due to misfor-tune or exile but on account of pride (338–39). Outward manifestationsof a warrior’s prowess, his identity as constructed by his deeds, are ap-

16 Chambers, Beowulf: An Introduction, 202–3.17 Davis, ‘‘Cultural Assimilation in the Anglo-Saxon Royal Genealogies,’’ Anglo-Saxon

England 21 (1992): 32. The appearance of linearity and continuity was a political fictionuseful to the West Saxon dynasty in the ninth and tenth centuries; see Alexander Cal-lander Murray, ‘‘Beowulf , the Danish Invasions, and Royal Genealogy,’’ in The Dating of Beowulf , ed. Colin Chase (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981), 103–5. In the earlyAnglo-Saxon period, male members of a royal family up to the seventh generation from aking could inherit a throne (David P. Kirby, The Makingof Early England [London: B.T. Bats-ford, 1967], 165). Dumville, however, believes that although descent from the founder of adynasty was a necessity for kingship, in general, ‘‘at any period the throne was potentiallyavailable for whoever could seize it by force’’ (‘‘The Ætheling,’’ 17–18). The membershipof such a usurper in the descent group of a dynastic founder is more likely to be a resultof the structure of a warrior class drawn from a restricted elite than it is evidence for aconcern with the niceties of kin relationship and legal succession.

18 Sisam, ‘‘Anglo-Saxon Royal Genealogies,’’ 322–23.19 Chambers, Beowulf: An Introduction, 200–3.




parent to those individuals, like the sentry and the coastguard, fluentin the language of honor. Although it is not necessarily a realistic docu-mentation of the life of any given historical period, the cultural worldin Beowulf does not exist purely at the level of myth, and processes of inheritance in this world have much in common with the messy, com-plicated actions of real-life kings and princes.

But the rule of blood constrains political and cultural flexibility. In-heritance by blood retards social change by preserving a given socialorder that has been at least somewhat adaptive for a culture. Blood in-heritance is linked, in Anglo-Saxon culture, with the rule of law andof custom. Certain identities can only be reproduced in individuals of certain bloodlines. Continuing social relationships depend upon these

agreements and contracts remaining in force across the generations.But in the cultural world of Beowulf , there is no way to write unbreak-able agreements except in the language of blood. By instantiating agree-ments in marriages, men can make permanent, in the bodies of theirchildren, their contracts with other men.The body of a living child can-not be divided into the two halves of his parents, and thus as long asthe child lives, so does the agreement between men, tribes, or nations,and any ‘‘peace-weaving’’ will be successful. But, as we see in the Finns-

burg episode, when the child dies, the web is broken and the peace fails.

No amount of ceremonial politic by Hygd can rewrite the contract thathad been written in blood. Blood inheritance preserves peace, but it isalways at risk of failure and extinction.

D E E D S A N D H O N O R

Inheritance by deeds is less familiar than inheritance by blood. Thereis no explicit, definitive pattern for inheritance by deeds, no culturallyauthorized practice of the transmission of identities in this manner. Al-

though inheritance by blood is organized around a set of kinship rela-tions, inheritance by deeds has the ability to cut across familial, ethnic,racial, gender, and national boundaries. Its ability to bring together indi-viduals of differing genetic backgrounds makes it more complicatedand flexible than rigid lineal, blood inheritance. In its simplest form, in-heritance by deeds is the transfer of goods, power, or identity acrossgenerational boundaries in which the transfer is based not on the ge-netic relationship of two individuals but upon the performance of cer-tain culturally valued behaviors. Any situation in which a person may

choose his or her successor in some office represents an inheritance by



208 Blood and Deeds

deeds. Behaviors performed by an individual cause him or her to beselected to receive a social station. Culture is maintained and repro-duced by the continued repetition of deeds-based inheritances. Suchsocial reproduction is in fact quite similar to the ways actual warriorcultures reproduced themselves. In Germanic cultures, groups whosemajor function was aggression nearly always excluded women, oftenrequired celibacy of some (generally younger) members, and at timesinterpreted initiation into the group as a form of birth without femaleagency.20 The Männerbund in idealized form reproduces itself entirely by deeds. But reproduction by deeds also explains the internal violencethat so often characterizes the Männerbund in Germanic cultures, whatCarol Clover calls the ‘‘frantic machismo of Norse males.’’21 Without thestabilizing influence of blood-based inheritance, the struggle for the in-heritance of power (connected, quite obviously, to the favor of the king)can become a free-for-all of violent masculine competition.22

In Beowulf , inheritance by deeds alone is most obvious in the ‘‘adop-tion’’ scene. Beowulf is clearly not a lineal descendant of Hrothgar. Heis not even among the potential Danish successors, the aethelings whoconstituted the upper echelon of Hrothgar’s Männerbund. But Hrothgarnevertheless offers to make Beowulf his son on account of the hero’sdeeds. Although Hrothgar praises without naming the woman who

gave the hero birth, he does not link her or her son to any extant lin-eage. The namelessness of Beowulf’s mother is no accident: she is notnamed because the poet is dramatizing the unusual nature of the actthat is about to take place. Kin relations and lineages are deliberatelyexcluded from the scene of Hrothgar’s adoption in order to accentuatehow truly rare Hrothgar’s action is. Beowulf is praised for accomplish-ing a deed (‘‘dæd gefremede’’ [940]). His reward is to be brought intothe system of inheritance.

Hrothgar’s adoption of Beowulf is a special case of what John Hill

calls ‘‘the economy of honour.’’23 The vertical relationships between lord

20 Joseph Harris, ‘‘Love and Death in the Männerbund: An Essay With Special Referenceto the Bjarkamál and The Battle of Maldon,’’ in Heroic Poetry in the Anglo-Saxon Period: Studiesin Honor of Jess B. Bessinger, Jr., ed. Helen Damico and John Leyerle (Kalamazoo: MedievalInstitute Publications, 1993), 89–92.

21 Clover, ‘‘Regardless of Sex: Men, Women and Power in Early Northern Europe,’’Speculum 68 (1993): 380.

22 At times, that competition could be channeled into less violent forms, such as Beo-wulf’s flyting with Unferth (506–606). But scenes such as the aged retainer’s encouragingthe young Heathobard warrior to break the imposed peace (2041–56) show the violent

and destructive side of an over-reliance upon deeds.23 Hill writes, ‘‘The Lord gives rings, weapons and armour in anticipation of promised




and retainer are isomorphic to those between the person who bequeathsan inheritance and the person who receives it. In both cases, the powerto make the determination of which deeds are acceptable and which arenot appears to lie completely within the hands of the higher-rankingindividual. But the relationships are in fact more balanced or reciprocal because they are created and constrained by social custom.24 The pub-lic nature of gift giving and reward for service constrains the freedomof the higher-ranking individual to reward his followers or dispose of his bequest. This constraint arises because such actions take place in asocial and political arena in which individuals must take into accountthe opinions and reactions of others.25

The boundary between inheritance by deeds and other transactionsof the gift-giving economy is somewhat indistinct. The key distinctionis between a traditum that is transferred across such boundaries onlyonce and the one that has a history of inheritances, a lineage. A simpleway to distinguish an inheritance by deeds from a mere gift is that in theformer the traditum is part of a tradition; it has been passed across gen-erational boundaries this way before.Thus, Hrothgar’s action to rewardBeowulf’s followers with treasure is probably not a true inheritanceeven though the poet calls each gift an ‘‘yrfelaf’’ (1053) (heirloom).26 It isimprobable that Hrothgar received every one of these treasures as part

of an inheritance from Healfdane. More likely he acquired much of thewealth in tribute or raiding or perhaps as gifts from his retainers. Thegifts he passes to Beowulf’s men do not come with a history.

On the other hand, the gifts Hrothgar gives to Beowulf himself doseem to be objects inherited by deeds. Hrothgar gives Beowulf a battle-standard, a helm, a corslet, a sword, eight horses, and a saddle (1020–43). It is possible that all the items (with the exception of the horses)are what Hill calls ‘‘dynastic treasures.’’27 The corslet, Beowulf tellsHygelac, belonged to king Heorogar (Hrothgar’s older brother): ‘‘no

services; he then rewards or repays service by gifts, through which he again, while hon-ouring his retainers, places them in temporary debt and affirms the heroic contract be-tween himself and them. More than a bond, that affirmation underlines an entire systemof reciprocal relationships between equals and unequals, with some relationships beingmore stable than others’’ (Cultural World, 89).

24 Edward Irving notes that ‘‘[g]ift giving is—must be—entirely public. Gifts must notonly change hands but must be seen to change hands’’ (Rereading Beowulf [Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989], 131).

25 Hill’s adoption of Bronislaw Malinowski’s label ‘‘economy’’ is thus particularly apt.26 A word, by the way, not commonly used in the corpus of wills even when items such

as swords are bequeathed.27 Hill, Cultural World, 99.



210 Blood and Deeds

ðy ær suna sinum, syllan wolde / hwatum Heorowearde, þeah he himhold wære / breostgewædu’’ (2160–62a) (but he did not want to giveit, the breast-armor, to his older son, valiant Heoroward, although hewas loyal to him). When Hrothgar gives Beowulf the saddle, the poetnotes that it had been the preferred battle-seat of the king of the Daneshimself (1039–42).

In the initial gift-giving scene and in its recapitulation in Beowulf’sreport to Hygelac, the poet calls more attention to Hrothgar’s partici-pation in a lineage than he does elsewhere in the poem. Twelve timesin Beowulf Hrothgar is identified as the son, child, or kin of Healf-dane.28 These references are scattered fairly evenly through the scenesin which Hrothgar is prominent. There are, however, two notable clus-ters of references to Hrothgar as the son of Healfdane. In the first gift-giving scene, the poet calls Hrothgar ‘‘Healfdenes sunu’’ (1009, 1040)(Healfdane’s son) twice and ‘‘bearn Healfdenes’’ (1020) (Healfdane’schild)29 once, all within thirty-one lines.30 Likewise, when Beowulf re-ports to Hygelac, he identifies the gifts as coming from ‘‘maga Healf-denes’’ (2143) (Healfdane’s kin) and ‘‘sunu Healfdenes’’ (2147) (the sonof Healfdane). Nowhere else in the poem is Hrothgar appositively iden-tified so frequently within so few lines; all other occurrences are a mini-mum of forty-seven lines apart and in general are separated by sev-

eral hundred lines. These clusters of references emphasize forcefullyHrothgar’s blood-line authority and thus serve to throw into relief theremarkable gesture of passing dynastic objects and attempting to passdynastic power to a hero related only by deeds.

The gift of ‘‘dynastic treasures,’’ that is, objects possessed of their ownhistories and lineages, invokes the lineage of the giver. By passing heir-looms to Beowulf, Hrothgar has created an unusual situation of inheri-tance, a situation of which Beowulf does not take advantage. Instead,after reciting the lineage of the gift and the giver, Beowulf passes Hroth-

gar’s gifts to Hygelac (2148–51). By giving Hrothgar’s dynastic gifts toHygelac, Beowulf voids Hrothgar’s potential inclusion of Beowulf inthe Danish succession. Beowulf ‘‘transfers the place of honor thereby

28 Lines 189, 268, 344, 645, 1009, 1020, 1040, 1474, 1652, 1699, 2143, and 2147.29 At this point, the manuscript reads ‘‘brand’’ (weapon or fire), but ‘‘weapon of Healf-

dane’’ is an awkward reading, and Grundtvig’s emendation seems to be universally ac-cepted (Klaeber, ed., Beowulf , 38n).

30 Irving has noted that in this section of the poem formulas that invoke the lineageof Hrothgar and his troop are ‘‘rather noticeably bunched,’’ but he attributes this clump-ing of formulaic references to the poet’s putting ‘‘particular stress on dynastic pride andorder, and on the national community as a close-knit family’’ (Rereading Beowulf , 130–31).




conferred to Hygelac,’’ refusing any ties beyond those of friendship.31

By emphasizing the lineage of the gifts given by Hrothgar, Beowulf em-phasizes the extraordinary nature of Hrothgar’s offer; his refusal of theoffer emphasizes his extraordinary devotion to Hygelac. Beowulf’s re-action to both the dynastic gifts and the offer of a place in the Danishsuccession suggests that an inheritance established purely by deeds isnot, in the cultural world of Beowulf , a desired state of affairs.32

Beowulf’s extraordinary resistance to the temptation to succeed outof the order established by birth is dramatized again when, after Hyge-lac’s disastrous raid into Frisia, the newly widowed queen, Hygd, sug-gests that Beowulf might take over the kingdom from his uncle (2396–72).33 But Beowulf does not take the throne; instead, he acts as a protec-tor to Heardred ‘‘hwæðre he hine on folce, freondlarum heold / estummid are oð ðæt he yldra wearð, / Weder-Geatum weold’’ (2377–79a)(however, he supported him with his friendly counsel among the folkwith favor and with honor until he became older to rule the Weder-Geats). Hygd’s action is surprising, particularly when compared toWealhtheow’s objections to Hrothgar’s attempted adoption. No lesssurprising is Beowulf’s refusal to supplant Heardred.34 Only after theyoung son of Hygelac is killed by Ongentheow’s son Onela—only when

31 Hill notes that in this scene Beowulf acts to reassure Hygelac that his allegiance re-mains Geatish (Cultural World, 99–100).

32 However, perhaps a warrior less loyal than Beowulf might have accepted Hrothgar’streasures for himself.

33 The passage runs as follows:

þær him Hygd gebead hord ond rice, beagas ond bregostol; bearne ne truwode,þæt he wið ælfcum eþelstolashealdan cuðe, ða wæs Hygelac dead.

(2369–72)

[There to him Hygd offered treasure and kingdom, rings and the princely seat. She did not trust

that her child could hold the native seat against foreign armies now that Hygelac was dead.]34 Long ago, F. B. Gummere suggested that Hygd may be in fact proposing marriage to

Beowulf, but Beowulf does not take her up on this offer because he ‘‘belongs to the neworder; he holds to the sentiments of nephew-right, but rejects its privileges’’; Gummereshowed that ‘‘nephew-right’’ is found throughout Germanic and Scandinavian historyand myth (‘‘The Sister’s Son’’ in An English Miscellany Presented to Dr. Furnivall, ed. W. P.Ker, A. S. Napier, and W. W. Skeat [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1901], 138). But if Beowulf rejects the right of the nephew to marry his uncle’s wife (and I suspect that it was less alegal right than a commonly taken route to power), then so does the poet, who does nothint that such a practice is part of the cultural world of Beowulf . Just as Hygd seems tomake no overt suggestion that she will be queen with Beowulf when he takes the throne,so too does Wealhtheow avoid mentioning herself as marrying Hrothulf if Hrothgar dies

before his sons’ majority.



212 Blood and Deeds

the last living man with a superior blood-based claim to the kinglyinheritance is dead—does Beowulf take the office of king.35 Blood in-heritance is one of the fundamental—although unstated—rules thatBeowulf insists upon enforcing. In both situations in which he has anopportunity to become king, Beowulf demonstrates that inheritance bydeeds is not, as far as he is concerned, enough to allow for a successionout of the traditional blood-line order of kinship passing from fatherto son. However, the poet does cause Beowulf to be rewarded for hisforbearance. In return for passing Hrothgar’s treasure to Hygelac, Beo-wulf is rewarded with land and an heirloom sword.36 In return for hissupport of Heardred, he becomes the greatest king of the Geats, his ruleuntroubled by succession struggles because his inheritance is justified both by blood and by deeds.

Membership in the Anglo-Saxon warrior culture was determined by birth; rank within the group, however, could be changed by deeds.37 Acowardly eorl would presumably rank low in the lord’s favor; a herowould be esteemed. The conflicting demands of the warrior comitatusfor stability and the maintenance of a birth-based ranking system on theone hand and semi-egalitarian rewards for prowess on the other cre-ate a tension between inheritance by blood and inheritance by deeds.For ideal figures like Healfdane or Beowulf Scyldinga, sole sons of their

fathers and also legitimate by deeds, these two forms of inheritanceare so completely blended as to appear to be part of one process. But

35 Hill sees Beowulf’s choice to champion Hygelac’s son as an example of the hero’sinsisting on the ‘‘continuing, uncompromised integrity’’ of his relationship with Hygelac(Cultural World, 106).

36 This scene is depicted as follows:

Het ða eorla hleo in gefetian,heaðorof cyning Hreðles lafegolde gegyrede; næs mid Geatum ða

sincmaðþum selra on sweordes had;þæt he Biowulfes bearm alegde,ond him gesealde seofan þusendo,

bold ond bregostol. Him wæs bam samodon ðam leodscipe lond gecynde,earl eðelriht, oðrum swiðorside rice þam ðære selra wæs.

(2190–99)

[The commander of earls, the famed battle-king, then ordered that a gold-adorned heirloom of Hrethel be brought in. There was not then a better treasure in the form of a sword among theGeatas that he laid on Beowulf’s bosom. And he gave to him seven thousands (of land), a halland a princely seat. To them both belonged together in that polity inherited land and ancestral

rights, though more to the one who was better.]37 Davis, ‘‘Cultural Assimilation,’’ 32.




most individuals are not ideal, and the relative proportions of bloodand deeds in their hybrid inheritances shape the culture they strive toreproduce.

H Y B R I D I N H E R I TA N C E

The most important example of hybrid inheritance in the poem is thepassage of objects, power, and identity from uncle to nephew.38 Theuncle-nephew bond is visibly and obviously influenced by both blood(genetic connections) and deeds (individual personal relationships). Al-though the father knew that his son qualified for inheritance in terms of blood, he could not be certain that the son would achieve his inheritancethrough deeds. By working to shape both his nephew and his son (bymeans of his deeds in the social world), the uncle increases his chancesthat the successor to his position will be connected to him by blood aswell as by deeds.The prime example of this sort of teaching and trainingrelationship in which the uncle cares for the nephew as if he were a sonis that of Hygelac and Beowulf. Beowulf is related to Hygelac throughBeowulf’s mother, the unnamed woman who is, like Hygelac, a child of Hrethel. Beowulf apparently had a close, loving relationship with hismaternal grandfather:

Ic wæs syfanwintre, þa mec sinca baldor,freawine folca æt minum fæder genam;heold mec ond hæfde Hreðel cyning,geaf me sinc ond symbel, sibbe gemunde;næs ic him to life laðra owihte, beorn in burgum, þonne his bearna hwylc,Herebeald ond Hæðcyn oððe Hygelac min.

(2328–2434)

[I was seven winters old, when to me the lord of treasure, the friend-ruler of the folk, took me from my father; king Hrethel held me and keptme, gave me treasure and feasting, remembered our kinship. I was not atall less dear to him than any other warrior in the city, than each of hischildren, Herebald and Hathcyn or my Hygelac.]

According to Jack Goody, the same cultural formations that producea strong uncle-nephew bond also tend to create strong ties between a

38 Uncle and nephew ‘‘form an ideal pair in the eyes of the poet’’ (Rolf H. Bremmer Jr.,

‘‘The Importance of Kinship: Uncle and Nephew in Beowulf ,’’ Amsterdamer Beitrage zur Alteren Germanistik 15 [1980]: 28–29).



214 Blood and Deeds

grandson and his maternal grandfather.39 There are number of reasonsfor a grandfather to be particularly concerned with the well-being of hisgrandson (albeit not to the exclusion of his concern for the well-beingof his sons).We have no evidence that Hygelac and his brothers had anychildren when Beowulf was seven years old and taken into the houseof Hrethel for fostering. Although Hrethel had successfully reproducedhimself by blood in his male children, they had not yet carried his iden-tity across the next generational boundary.40 But Hrethel’s unknowndaughter had propagated the old king’s blood into a second generation,and the young grandson could ensure the continuation of Hrethel’s lin-eage into the future even if mischance took the lives of his sons. Hretheltherefore provided cultural capital both to his sons and to his grand-son, Beowulf. This capital (the armor that aids Beowulf in making hisway in the warrior culture) is understood as belonging to Beowulf asa representative of the lineage of Hrethel: Beowulf instructs Hrothgarto return to Hygelac the ‘‘beaduscruda betst’’ (453a) (the best of battle-shirts), which is a ‘‘laf’’ (454b) (heirloom) of Hrethel, if Beowulf is killedin his battle against Grendel. Although Hrethel passed the corslet acrosstwo generational boundaries, Beowulf does not appear to have the sameoption to violate the established order of inheritance. He does not pre-sume to leave the armor to his cousin Heardred, but arranges to pass it

back up the generational ladder to Hygelac, restoring the heirloom tothe control of the descendant of Hrethel most closely related to the oldking by blood. This gesture of Beowulf’s suggests that although a kinglike Hrethel has the power to temporarily overturn the rule of inheri-tance by blood, he cannot eliminate the power of the system, establishedas it is in cultural expectations.

In fact, the power of a required blood inheritance component is such

39 Goody, ‘‘The Mother’s Brother and the Sister’s Son in West Africa,’’ Journal of the

Anthropological Society 89 (1959): 66–67. For an application to Anglo-Saxon kinship struc-tures (though the idea is developed in less detail) see Goody, The Development of the Familyand Marriage in Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 267–70. Jan Brem-mer points out that the mother’s father ‘‘is just as much an outsider in the paternalfamily as the [mother’s brother],’’ and he therefore should be expected to develop some of the same affectionate relationships (‘‘Avunculate and Fosterage,’’ Journal of Indo-EuropeanStudies 4 [1976]: 72).

40 In so hedging his bets on reproduction, Hrethel ran the risk of alienating his ownson as well as potentially turning him against Beowulf. Sons may reasonably be resentfulif they discover their fathers are supporting for self-interested reasons other, syntheticsons who might one day compete with them for scarce resources. Beowulf’s unpromisingyouth (described in lines 2183–88) is surely a surprise after the favor shown to the young

boy by Hrethel and may be a result of such resentment of the young Beowulf by Hygelacor his brothers.




that the system is reasserted at nearly every opportunity. As notedabove, Beowulf gives Hrothgar’s gifts of dynastic heirlooms to Hygelac,thus demonstrating his continued allegiance to the Geatish house, andHygelac in turn rewards Beowulf for this gesture (2190–99). By givingBeowulf the sword that is an heirloom of Hrethel, Hygelac effectivelyequals Hrothgar’s attempted gift of dynastic heirlooms. He emphasizesBeowulf’s position as one of the descendants of the old king Hrethel,and he makes Beowulf a powerful prince of the realm. Hygelac doesnot, however, alienate land from the Geatish dynasty, nor does he setBeowulf up as an independent king. Hygelac is still the overall ruler of the land, and the words ‘‘eðelriht’’ (2198a) (ancestral rights) and ‘‘londgecynde’’ (2197b) (inherited land) both suggest that the land remainswithin the system of blood inheritance, even though it is passed fromthe son of Hrethel to the nephew. The rights of blood have passed toBeowulf because the hero is worthy in terms of both blood and deeds,his superiority in the second category making up for any lack in thefirst. Furthermore, as we learn later in the poem, the land holdings of the Geats are eventually reunited in the person of Beowulf, who rulesafter both Hygelac and Hygelac’s son Heardred are dead.

The gifts Hygelac gives Beowulf, the hero’s treatment of those gifts,and his actions in regard to Heardred are foreshadowed by Beowulf’s

plan to restore Hrethel’s corslet to Hygelac if he loses his life in the battle against Grendel. All of these actions support Hill’s contentionthat throughout the poem the hero is a ‘‘juristic warrior’’ who worksto reassert the primacy of law and custom.41 Beowulf’s extraordinaryaccomplishments might allow him to supersede the system of blood in-heritance: both his potential for deeds in the mind of Hrethel and thequality of his deeds in the evaluation of Hrothgar allow him to poten-tially receive inheritances sooner than they are due to him according tothe laws of blood. We might expect that early inheritance is a perqui-

site of surpassing strength and bravery, and in some epic traditions thehero would seize his birthright early. However, in Beowulf the hero inevery case refuses to contest the customs of blood and instead supportsthe juristic framework of a coupled inheritance justified by both bloodand deeds.

But all kings die, and the mantle of leadership will pass to a succes-sor. Beowulf has no sons who can inherit the kingdom of the Geats and,as far as the poet tells us, there are no other æthelings of the royal housewho would be legitimate in both blood and deeds:

41 Hill, Cultural World, 36–37.



216 Blood and Deeds

Nu ic suna minum syllan woldeguðgewædu, þær me gifeðe swaænig yrfeweard æfter wurde

lice gelenge.(2729–32a)

[Now I would have wished to give my battle-dress to my son, if it had been granted that any inheritor, related by body, had come after me.]

Beowulf wishes he had had an heir of his body (i.e., a blood heir) towhom he could bequeath his personal heirlooms. Instead, Beowulf gives his battle-dress to Wiglaf after the young hero assists him inthe dragon fight. With his dying words, Beowulf instructs Wiglaf to

command the Geats to build a high barrow upon an ocean bluff andthen gives him collar and helm (2809–12). Beowulf then emphasizes ahitherto unmentioned tie of blood between him and Wiglaf: ‘‘Þu eartendelaf uses cynnes / Wægmundinga’’ (2813–14a) (you are the last rem-nant of our kin, the Wægmundings).

Unfortunately, the specific kinship between the hero and his retaineris not obvious, and thus there is substantial critical disagreement aboutthe exact relationship of Beowulf and Wiglaf.42 Working from the rea-sonable assumption that Beowulf can only be related to Wiglaf through

Ecgtheow because it is apparent from the text that Beowulf’s mother, thedaughter of Hrethel, is a Geat, Friedrich Wild suggests that Ecgtheowand Weohstan are brothers, making Wiglaf Beowulf’s first cousin.43 Butinterpreting Ecgtheow and Weohstan as brothers adds new difficulties.Wiglaf (or his father—the sentence is syntactically ambiguous) is ‘‘leodScylfinga’’ (2603b) (man or prince of the Scylfings), that is, a Swede.44

If Weohstan was a Swede, then his brother Ecgtheow was also. In thisscenario, Beowulf would be half Swedish—an extremely unlikely situa-tion.45 Beowulf tells Hygelac ‘‘ic lyt hafo / heafodmaga, nefne Hygelac,

42 Klaeber believed there to be two branches of the Wægmundings, one Geatish, oneSwedish, with Beowulf and his father Ecgtheow part of the former, and with Wiglaf andhis father Weohstan part of the latter (Beowulf , xliv).

43 Wild, ‘‘Beowulf und die Wægmundinge,’’ Moderne Sprachen Schriftenreihe 6 (1961): 17.44 Klaeber, ed., Beowulf , 493.45 If Ecgtheow were a Wægmunding, Norman E. Eliason writes, ‘‘Beowulf would be

half-Swedish—an unthinkable or even ridiculous state of affairs in a poem depicting himas the hero of the Geats and the Geats and Swedes as implacable enemies’’; Eliason thenargues that because the Wægmunding connection ‘‘was not through Beowulf’s father andcould not have been through his mother, it must be sought through some other relative.These considerations lead us to expect that the connection was through Beowulf’s sister,

who we must accordingly suppose became the wife of Weohstan, the Wægmunding, and




ðec’’ (2150b–51) (I have no close kin except you, Hygelac), seeming torule out the existence of a sister or a nephew.46 If Beowulf and Wig-laf are not uncle and nephew, but they are both Wægmundings, whatexactly is their relationship? Of all seven possible reconstructions of theWægmunding family tree, only Wild’s final example best explains theparticulars of the situation: ‘‘Lehnt man die Annahme einer Schwesteroder Gatting Beowulfs ab, so bleibt immerhin die Möglichkeit, mit einerSchwester Ecgþeows zu rechnen und die Geschwister als Kinder Ael-fheres zu betrachten’’ (If we give up the supposition of a sister or spouseof Beowulf, there is still the possibility of counting a sister of Ecgtheowand of considering the brothers and sisters to be the children of Ælfhere)(see figure 1).47

Ælfhere is mentioned as a kinsman of Wiglaf and Weohstan in line2604a. We know nothing else about him. If Wild’s genealogical table iscorrect, Wiglaf would be Beowulf’s first cousin once removed. Accord-ing to Lancaster, individuals with this blood relationship were not con-sidered part of an individual’s immediate kin group.48 These remote kindid not generally inherit either title or position. It was possible for there

the mother of Weohstan’s son Wiglaf. Wiglaf is therefore Beowulf’s nephew’’ (‘‘Beowulf,Wiglaf and the Wægmundings,’’ Anglo-Saxon England 7 [1978]: 101).

46

Eliason writes, ‘‘though seeming to deny the existence of a sister or nephew, [the pas-sage] actually does not, for at that time Wiglaf would presumably not yet have been born,and the term used, heafodmagas, signifying ‘royal relatives,’ I believe, rather than ‘closerelatives,’ would properly exclude Beowulf’s sister, who was not royal by birth or by mar-riage. Besides, it is doubtful that in such family reckonings a woman would have figuredat all’’ (‘‘Beowulf,Wiglaf,’’ 101 n.1). Although there is significant special pleading requiredfor this argument, a very similar reading was put forward independently by Rolf Brem-mer, who shows that when nephews or sisters’ sons are mentioned in Bede’s Ecclesiastical

History, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and The Battle of Maldon, the text is silent as to the nameof their mothers. He thus argues that in this regard and in this way the uncle-nephew bondis dramatized: ‘‘Beowulf employs everyday notions, but also transfers them to a higherlevel.’’ According to Bremmer, the special relationship between the mother’s brother and

his nephew ‘‘functions in the poem as a mirror to the bond between the father’s brother. . . and the brother’s son . . . the one is always positive, the other is troubled’’ (‘‘The Im-portance of Kinship,’’ 23–28, 36). Hrothulf’s relationship to Hrothgar’s sons is that of thefather’s brother. Both Bremmer and Eliason suggest that the uncle-nephew bond of Sige-mund and Fitela is analogous to that of Beowulf and Wiglaf (Bremmer, ‘‘The Importanceof Kinship,’’ 28–29; Eliason, ‘‘Beowulf, Wiglaf,’’ 96–97), but it is unclear how much of theNorse story of Sigemund was known by the Anglo-Saxon poet. In the Old Norse legend,Sinfjotli (Fitela) is, because of Sigemund’s incestuous relationship with his sister Signy,

both son and nephew to Sigemund (Klaeber, ed., Beowulf , 158–61). Such a blood relation-ship, if known to the Beowulf poet, thoroughly complicates the suggested parallel betweenthe two pairs of warriors.

47 Wild, ‘‘Beowulf und die Wægmundinge,’’ 20.48

Lancaster, ‘‘Kinship I,’’ 236–38.



218 Blood and Deeds

Ælere

Hrethel’s daughter + Ecgtheow Daughter + Wægmund

Beowulf Weohstan

Wiglaf

Figure 1. Beowulf’s kinship with Wiglaf .49

to be relationships of friendship between distant cousins, but these rela-tionships were based on proximity and affinity, not blood.50 Wiglaf doesnot possess the requisite bloodline to inherit Beowulf’s throne. Whenit comes to kingly inheritance, as far as Beowulf himself is concerned,deeds are not enough. Through deeds, a nephew can become like a son.Through deeds, a first cousin once removed can become like a nephew.But the transitive property does not apply to succession politics in thecultural world of Beowulf . A first cousin once removed, no matter howvalorous, cannot overcome his weakness in blood through superior per-

formance in deeds. He cannot advance as far as the position of son tosuccessfully inherit. When Wiglaf is the only surviving family mem- ber, Hrethel’s dynasty and the Geatish kingdom ends. Deeds are notenough.

G E N D E R A N D I N H E R I TA N C E

Hybrid inheritance by both blood and deeds is essential in the culturalworld of Beowulf , but the relative proportions of blood or deeds nec-

essary to inherit is contested within Beowulf’ s culture; different institu-tions and different social positions benefit from different ratios of bloodand deeds. Although every individual can be seen as having some par-ticular blend of blood and deeds from which he or she might most effec-tively benefit, we can also note that various groups within the culturewill have broadly similar desiderata as to the most beneficial propor-tion of blood to deeds. The most important of these major divisions of inheritance interests in Beowulf is between men and women. A char-

49 Adapted from Wild, ‘‘Beowulf und die Wægmundinge,’’ 20.50 Lancaster, ‘‘Kinship II,’’ 362–63.




acter’s gender as constructed within the poem’s system of gender ide-ology determines to a great extent the types of inheritances he or shemay influence or participate in. As is most clearly demonstrated byWealhtheow’s reactions to Hrothgar’s attempted adoption of Beowulf,(which has been called ‘‘astonishing’’ and ‘‘unsettling’’),51 women in Beo-wulf have a much greater stake in inheritance by blood than they do ininheritance by deeds. After the queen counsels Hrothgar to leave thekingdom to his kinsmen, she proposes a protector for the kingdom if Hrothgar has the misfortune of dying before his oldest son can take thethrone:

Ic minne can

glædne Hroþulf, þæt he þa geogoðe wilearum healdan, gyf þu ær þonne he,wine Scildinga, worold oflætest;wene ic þæt he mid gode gyldan willeuncran eafteran, gif he þæt eal gemon,hwæt wit to willan ond to worðmyndumumborwesendum ær arna gefremedon.Hweaf þa bi bence, þære hyre byre wæron,Hreðric ond Hroðmund, ond hæleþa bearn,giogoð ætgædere; þær se goda sæt,

Beowulf Geata be þæm gebroðrum twæm.(1180b–91)

[‘‘I know that my kind Hrothulf will rule in kindness the younger troop,if you, friend of the Scyldings, relinquish the world before him. I expectthat he wishes to pay with goodness our heirs, if he remembers all thehonors that we two gave him for his desires and glory when he was achild.’’ Then she turned back to the bench where their sons were,Hrethric and Hrothmund, and the children of the warriors, the youth alltogether. There the brave one, Beowulf of the Geats, sat by the two

brothers.]

Wealhtheow’s apparent desire to put forth Hrothulf as an alternateheir or protector has provoked much controversy. Most historical crit-ics of Beowulf have linked Hrothulf with the Scandinavian figure Ro-luo described by Saxo Grammaticus. Chambers sums up the argumentthus: ‘‘Hrethric is . . . almost certainly an actual historic prince who wasthrust from the throne by Hrothulf,’’ who was the nephew, rather than

51 Helen Damico, Beowulf’s Wealhtheow and the Valkyrie Tradition (Madison: Universityof Wisconsin Press, 1984), 127.



220 Blood and Deeds

the son, of Hrothgar.52 Klaeber suggests that lines 1018, 1164, 1178, and1228 all point to treachery by Hrothulf, and that it is ‘‘very likely’’ thatHrothulf usurped the throne.53 If this is the case, Hrothulf, unlike Beo-wulf, jumped his place in the line of succession and took the throne afterthe death of his uncle. Thus, with the benefit of literary and historicalhindsight (which, presumably, the poet possessed) Wealhtheow’s insis-tence upon him as protector for her sons seems at the least ill fated, if not foolish.54 Sisam, however, has pointed out the difficulties in this in-terpretation, coming to the conclusion that too much has been read intothe possible conflict between Hrothgar and Hrothulf and that the line inquestion means ‘‘the good pair of kinsmen were still together (when Beo-wulf visited Heorot).’’55 This analysis suggests that Wealhtheow’s insis-tence upon Hrothulf as a proper heir for Hrothgar is neither ‘‘ironical’’nor ‘‘pathetic.’’56

It is still surprising, however. But it can be better explained by recog-nizing the position of women within the blood and deeds inheritancesystem57 and arguing that Wealhtheow’s gender interests in the system

52 Chambers, Beowulf: An Introduction, 26–27.53 Klaeber, ed., Beowulf , xxxii.54 The failure of Hrethric or Hrothmund to inherit is a complex argument based on

much inference.The relevant lines are 1163–65: ‘‘þær þa godan twegen / sæton suhterfæ-deran; þa gyt wæs hiera sib atgædere / æghwylc oðrum trywe’’ (there those two goodones sat, uncle and nephew; then yet was their friendship together, each to the other true).Much hangs on the interpretation of ‘‘gyt’’: does it just mean ‘‘then,’’ or is there an im-plication that at some later time there was not ‘‘sib’’ between Hrothgar and Hrothulf?Saxo Grammaticus’s statement (taken from the lost Bjarkamál ) that Roluo (Hrothulf) slewRøricus (Hrethric) seems to lend credence to the theory that Hrothulf will usurp Hreth-ric’s throne; see Chambers, Beowulf: An Introduction, 25–27. But whether or not the poetand the audience knew these stories and had them in mind is a very difficult question.That the poet suggests that Heorot will one day be destroyed by fire (81–85) has beentaken to substantiate this line of argument, but the evidence is still ambiguous.

55 Sisam writes, ‘‘Everything hangs on the meaning of þa gyt wæs hiera sib ætgædere. Itcan be explained as an allusion to a final breach between Hrothgar and Hrothulf.Yet noth-ing is known of such a quarrel: that it was about succession is a guess, not to be found inmedieval sources. And there is a possible alternative. Suppose that, as the Widsith refer-ence suggests, the names of Hrothgar and Hrothulf called to mind a long harmonious co-operation, strong enough to break Ingeld’s attack on Heorot, rather than its dissolution.Then the clause could mean ‘the good pair of kinsmen were still together (when Beowulf visited Heorot).’ This supposition may seem relatively uninteresting; but it has the advan-tage of dispensing with a story built up in modern time on very slight foundations’’ (TheStructure of Beowulf [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965], 80–82).

56 Kemp Malone, ‘‘Hrethric,’’ PMLA 42 (1927): 269–71.57 Damico argues that it would be ‘‘understandable’’ for Wealhtheow to support her

sons Hrethric and Hrothmund by preventing Beowulf from becoming a legitimate heir(Beowulf’s Wealhtheow, 126). But Wealhtheow promotes her nephew, Hrothulf, to whomshe is related only by marriage. Other critics have read Wealhtheow as sponsoring




of inheritance by blood overshadow any desire to protect the rights of her nephew by marriage. It is hardly problematic to guess that Wealh-theow’s first loyalty was probably to her sons. They are, as best we cantell, by far her closest kin in Heorot, and the mother-son bond does notseem to have been absent from Anglo-Saxon culture.58 Wealhtheow, wemay safely speculate, would support Hrethric and Hrothmund for thethrone if there were any chance of them succeeding to it and surviving,if they were legitimate in terms of deeds.59 But if the two boys are tooyoung to succeed when Hrothgar dies, Wealhtheow, since she appar-ently could not take the throne herself, like Hygd, would have to sup-port someone to take Hrothgar’s place. Her apparent choice of Hrothulf over Beowulf suggests that the system of inheritance by blood is moreimportant to her than a system of inheritance by deeds.

At the time of Wealhtheow’s speech, Beowulf has proven himself bydeeds. He has defeated Grendel, a feat previously beyond the powersof all of the Danes, including Hrothulf. However, while Wealhtheow ispleased to welcome Beowulf to Heorot, she clearly does not want himto become an heir to Hrothgar, demonstrating her ‘‘loyalty to Hrothulf

Hrothulf as protector until either Hrethric or Hrothmund is old enough to assume thethrone; in her speech, she is warning Hrothulf to respect the future rights of his cousins(see George Clark, Beowulf [Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1990], 87). But, Damico notes,‘‘there is no substantive or formal indication in the speech to suggest that the queen re-gards the youngsters as future rulers or kings’’ (Beowulf’s Wealhtheow, 126–27). Indeed,within the world of the poem there is no suggestion that a king may relinquish the throneif a relative with a superior bloodline claim reaches majority. Beowulf himself refuses totake the throne of the Geats while Heardred is alive (2367–78). Damico argues that ‘‘ratherthan being an appeal, [Wealhtheow’s] speechis closer to a proclamation of proper action.’’By supporting Hrothulf, the queen casts herself in the role not only of aunt, but ‘‘aunt-mother,’’ seeking to protect ‘‘her nephew-son’s legal claim to the throne’’ from any chal-lenge that might be justified by Hrothgar’s adoption of Beowulf (Beowulf’s Wealhtheow,129–31). It is important when reading this section of the poem not to allow kinship toovershadow all other possible reasons for a character’s actions. Wealhtheow may havepreferred Hrothulf’s succession for any number of reasons not directly related to his rela-tionship to Hrothgar. If in fact the Anglo-Saxon audience would have recognized Hrothulf as possessing many of the same characteristics as the Scandinavian hero Rolf Kraki, thenthey might have seen Wealhtheow’s preference as entirely reasonable and based (albeitanachronistically) upon the great deeds Hrothulf would later accomplish.

58 This fact is evidenced most obviously by Hildeburh: when she consigned her sonsto the funeral pyre, ‘‘ides gnornode, geomrode giddum’’ (the woman mourned, lamentedwith song) (1117b–18a).

59 Hill argues that Wealhtheow ‘‘vigorously remind[s] Hrothgar of his duties’’ to thetwo boys and suggests that her actions work to bind the men in the warband together ‘‘inhorizontal reciprocity’’ (Cultural World, 101–3). Mary Dockray-Miller argues that Wealh-theow does not in fact want her own sons to succeed to the throne because they would belikely to be killed if either assumed the kingship ( Motherhood and Mothering in Anglo-SaxonEngland [New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000], 106–14).



222 Blood and Deeds

that supersedes the queen’s profound indebtedness to Beowulf.’’60 ButBeowulf has only earned Wealhtheow’s loyalty by deeds; Hrothulf islinked by blood, albeit indirectly. Although Hrothulf is not directly a blood relation of Wealhtheow, he is a blood relation (first cousin) to hersons.61 Wealhtheow is thus supporting the law of inheritance by blood.Although this inheritance is indeed blended (in that nephews and otherkin, otherwise worthy by deeds, can inherit), Hrothgar’s attemptedadoption of Beowulf has gone beyond the system’s limits. Wealhtheowinsists de minimis on a hybrid inheritance of blood and deeds.

Wealhtheow works to reestablish these limits because a system of inheritance with a substantial blood component is the only system inwhich a female character is individually significant in the cultural worldof Beowulf . She attempts to preserve the system by supporting Hrothulf not in a short-sighted attempt to hold on to her own political power inthe Danish nation (she does not, after all, say that she expects Hrothulf to be kind to her, only to her sons) but as a defense of the cultural struc-tures within which and by which her identity is constituted and herautonomy preserved. Wealhtheow is able to influence the behavior of men in Heorot. For example, she gives the great necklace to Beowulf and attempts to change Hrothgar’s mind through public statements.62

She can exercise this power because she possesses a certain social posi-

tion—a result of her function as a mother and spouse—in the systemof inheritance by blood. Although Wealhtheow’s very name (which can be translated as ‘‘foreign captive’’)63 suggests exchange or seizure, un-like Hildeburh or Freawaru she does not appear to weld together twodisparate families.64 Her peace-weaving is directed at violence in gen-

60 Damico, Beowulf’s Wealhtheow, 127.61 As both Damico and Hill have noted, Wealhtheow is, like Beowulf, a strong sup-

porter of law and custom. According to Damico, Wealhtheow’s actions ‘‘have clearly indi-cated her full awareness of and adherence to the concepts of royal honor and generosity’’(Beowulf’s Wealhtheow, 127). Or, as Hill puts it, Wealhtheow’s speech and actions work topreserve the social bonds of the comitatus through her ‘‘strong-minded’’ support of the

bonds of kinship (Cultural World, 101–3).62 In discussing the Finnsburg episode, Irving states that ‘‘men can at least draw up

treaties, they can act in some way, however foolishly, but women can only see and suffer.’’He thus reads ‘‘a defeat of Wealhtheow’s impassioned expectations’’ as inevitable (Reread-ing Beowulf , 140–41). But, as Damico and Hill both note, Wealhtheow’s political skills arenot limited to the merely ceremonial or incantatory powers discussed by Irving (Beowulf’sWealhtheow; Cultural World).

63 Klaeber notes that wealh can mean either ‘‘Celtic’’ (i.e., ‘‘Welsh’’) or ‘‘foreign,’’ andþeow may mean ‘‘captive’’ or ‘‘carried off in war’’ (Beowulf , 440).

64 Luce Irigaray claims that women receive their value in a society or culture only inso-far as they are exchanged among men. This exchange of women creates both culture and




eral rather than violence between any two warring family groups, andit is accomplished through her use of language rather than the physi-cal exchange of her body.65 But this social identity is predicated uponWealhtheow’s pairing with Hrothgar and her participation in the king’sdynasty. She is called ‘‘cwen Hroðgares’’ (613a) (Hrothgar’s queen), and‘‘ides Sycldinga’’ (1168b) (lady of the Scyldings). When she speaks of herdesire to have Hrothulf protect her sons she uses dual case pronouns,‘‘uncran’’ (1185a) (of our two) and ‘‘wit’’ (1186a) (we two), binding herself and Hrothgar together as one and, more importantly, emphasizing thatHrethric and Hrothmund are the product of them both. Wealhtheowhas produced heirs of Hrothgar’s body, and without her there would beno inheritance by blood. The conditions for successful peace-weavingrequire the creation of heirs, as is seen both fromWealhtheow’s success-ful performance of this role and the failures of Hildeburh and Hroth-gar’s daughter Freawaru: before the queen can speak the language of weaving, she must produce sons for the king.

The queen’s interest, therefore, lies in the maintenance of the sys-tem from which she derives her personal value, power, and identity. Asystem of inheritance purely by deeds threatens Wealhtheow’s identitynot only because it eliminates the necessity for her specific and per-sonal contribution to the Danish dynasty, but also because the bonds

that would be created between Beowulf and Hrothgar are not mediatedthrough a woman. Similarly, a system of inheritance solely by deedswould reduce the power of the queen in the royal court. Women’s re-productive capabilities would remain necessary for the warrior bandeven if the system of blood inheritance were not hybridized with inheri-tance by deeds. But in such a system no specific woman would be neces-sary.66 If a king may merely choose his successor from among a pool of

identity through such rules as the incest taboo and its inculcation in the consciousnessof the individual (This Sex Which Is Not One, trans. Catherine Porter with Carolyn Burke[Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985], 170–76).

65 Gillian Overing, Language, Sign and Gender in Beowulf (Carbondale: Southern Illi-nois University Press, 1990), 88–90. It is of course possible that the exchange of her bodymay have solved other crises of violence that are not a part of the poem, a point Over-ing makes when she notes that Wealhtheow ‘‘embodies’’ her function as peace-weaver.Wealhtheow’s identity in Beowulf arises from her actions to bind together individual menin a homosocial bond. By passing the cup from one warrior to another she links them toHrothgar through herself (97).

66 This would be the system described by Gayle Rubin in ‘‘The Traffic in Women: Noteson the Political Economy of Sex,’’ in Toward an Anthropology of Women, ed. Rayna R. Reiter(New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975), 157–210. Note that Rubin’s system does not infact exist in the poem but is a possible telos of Hrothgar’s actions that Wealhtheow, appar-



224 Blood and Deeds

heroes validated only by their deeds, he need not concern himself withthe blood origin of each man. Blood lineage becomes unimportant, andas fares blood lineage, so fare women in the cultural world of Beowulf .

In her efforts to prevent the inclusion of Beowulf in the line of suc-cession, Wealhtheow is in fact aligned with the hero himself. Using herpolitical and social skills, she tries to convince Hrothgar to rescind hisoffer of synthetic kinship. Beowulf also must use considerable politicaldexterity in order to avoid offending Hrothgar while simultaneouslyrefusing the offer of adoption and thus maintaining his loyalty to hisown blood-kin, Hygelac and the Geats.67 Hill’s analysis of Beowulf asthe juristic warrior, the ethically conscious figure who is always justand whose actions are always rightful, explains why Beowulf supportsthe already-existing inheritance system that requires both deeds and blood.68 James Earl identifies Beowulf as an ‘‘ego-ideal,’’ a representa-tion of what the audience of the poem found to be lawful, valorous,and excellent, but unattainable.69 The system of inheritance that Beo-wulf supports is therefore valued by the culture that produced Beowulf ,and Wealhtheow’s support for this system suggests that she is fulfillingher role in the culture in the same ideal fashion as Beowulf. For all par-ticipants in the warrior band, hybridized inheritance is the way thingsought to be. The identities of both men and women are jeopardized if

the rules of inheritance are changed.When Hrothgar grasps at the strawof inheritance through deeds only, he obviates the necessity to producestrong sons and calls into question the two-level so important to the cul-ture. The strong reactions of both Wealhtheow and Beowulf to Hroth-gar’s attempt to escape the constraints of hybrid inheritances illustratesthat these constraints are in some way essential to the society imagined by the Beowulf poet.The constraints of heroic civilization are integral toheroic identity.

T H E T R A G E D Y O F T H E I N H E R I T A N C E S Y S T E M

But herein lies a central paradox of the cultural world of Beowulf and acontradiction from which much of the tragedy of the poem arises. In-heritance with too strong an emphasis on blood cannot provide long-

ently, fears.Women, in the feared system that does not actually exist, would be Irigarayan‘‘commodities’’ (Irigaray, This Sex, 192–97).

67 Hill, Cultural World, 100.68 Ibid., 63.69 Earl, Thinking about Beowulf , 181–82.




term security. A single sterile father, or one who through sheer chancedoes not produce sons (and whose sisters, if they exist, do not pro-duce nephews), or one who reproduces too late in life, or whose son iskilled, can bring a line to an end. Blood-based inheritance (even if theinheritance is not entirely blood-based) creates a noble, heroic society by controlling within-group violence. But the requirement that inheri-tance have some blood component leads inexorably to extinction.70 It isonly a matter of time—although perhaps significant quantities of timewhen the blood requirement is relatively weak—before the thread is broken.71

The great limitation of heroic civilization is that heroes and their lin-eages, children, great halls, and treasures will all pass from the earth.Toreconstruct inheritance solely in the form of deeds, as Hrothgar’s andBeowulf’s failed attempts show, is impossible in the cultural world of Beowulf . The necessity of inheritance by both blood and deeds is an in-extricable part of the absolute juristic character of the hero who servesas the ego-ideal throughout the poem. Inheritance in Beowulf cannot beeither/or; it must be both/and. However, in insisting upon both/and,the culture of the poem ensures its own eventual destruction.72 Even before the dragon works Beowulf’s death and the end of his people, thepoet has depicted the ultimate failure of inheritance:

Ealle hie deað fornamærran mælum, ond se an ða gen

70 Assuming some (however small) finite chance of a blood lineage coming to an end atsome generational boundary, it is literally only a matter of time until a biological lineageis broken. Mathematically, the proof may be expressed thus:

P(t0) = 1 = e=t0p p =1t lim

t ® ¥

P(t) = 1,

where P is equal to the probability of the event occurring, t is equal to a unit time, andtau is equal to 1 divided by the probability per unit time. As time increases to infinity, theprobability of the event occurring (the lineage ending) increases to 1 in an exponentialmanner. I am grateful to Andrew C. E. Reid for his assistance on this point.

71 But while ‘‘patrilineal genealogy cannot guarantee the continuity of kingly life . . .it is the only institution available’’ (Clare A. Lees, ‘‘Men and Beowulf,’’ in Medieval Mas-culinities: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages, ed. Clare A. Lees [Minneapolis: MinnesotaUniversity Press, 1994], 141–42).

72 Overing argues that the ultimate expression of the masculine ethos of Beowulf can beencapsulated in the statement ‘‘I will do this or I will die’’ (Language, Sign and Gender, 70).Such a statement is a both/and rather than either/or construction: either the hero will ac-complish the task and live, or he will fail and die. Beowulf’s victory over the dragon, then,may be a transcendence of this oppositional structure, or it may be its ultimate fulfillment,since Beowulf’s success and death leads to the failure of his people.



226 Blood and Deeds

leoda duguðe, se ðær lengest hwearf,weard winegeomor, wende ðæs ylcan,þæt he lytel fæc longgestreona

brucan moste.(2236b–41a)

[Death took them all at previous times, and now the one who remainedfrom the warrior-troop of the people, who longest remained, the guardmourning for friends, expected the same thing—that he might enjoy onlyfor a little time the ancient riches.]

The last survivor of the ancient race, who consigns the treasures of his people to the barrow where the dragon will find them, laments forthe failure of noble, aristocratic institutions to reproduce themselves.The sword and cup will not be lifted; the helmet and corslet will rustaway unpolished; the harp will be silent; the hawk will not fly throughthe hall; the horse will not ride through the settlement (2252b–65a).Thisis all a synecdoche for the tragedy at the heart of Beowulf . The poet’sview is tragic not because Beowulf could have done anything differ-ently to have saved his people (if not the dragon, then old age or someother foe would have ended his reign). And the tragedy is not only thathe died without an heir. Rather, the tragedy of the cultural world of Beowulf is that it inevitably will end through the failure of inheritance.No system can be eternal. Blood-only replication leads to extinction.Deeds-only replication leads to uncontrollable violence. Hybrid inheri-tance is better, but in the end it fails also. There is no escape from thesocial system, because the system defines individual identity. And yetthe constitution of the system leads inexorably to its own destruction.The silent barrow evinces the failure of life and lineage that haunts thepoem, the poet, and the culture.73

Wheaton College, Norton, MA

73 I would like to thank Allen J. Frantzen for all of his help with this article. A version of this essay was presented at the 1999 Modern Language Association meeting. Thanks alsoto Helen Damico, Kathryn Powell,Teresa MacNamara, the students in my senior seminarin 1999, and my colleagues in Wheaton’s English department.



Copyright of Studies in Philology is the property of University of North Carolina Press and its content may not

be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

blood and deeds, drout, michael d. c.. studies in philology, spring2007, vol. 104 issue 2, p199-226

Documents