1. Background
The study of Old English (OE) literature effectively began in earnest in Scandinavia over 200 years ago,
1 Bradley points out that the early Scandinavian promoters of OE literature were indebted to some English precursors such as Sharon Turner, John Conybeare, and James Ingram, whose ideas for bringing OE literature to light never came to fruition: “‘The First New-European Literature’,” pp. 45–47. and the contributions to the field in the languages of the North (and Neo-Latin produced in Scandinavia) now in 2023 number around 300 books, articles, and translations. Scandinavians produced, for example, the first edition of
Beowulf in 1815,
2 Thorkelin, De Danorum. the first and perhaps only transmutations of OE poems into church hymns in 1836,
3 Grundtvig, Sang-Værk til den danske Kirke, hymns 124, 158, 243, 244, 245, and 355. See chapter 2, below. the first edition and translation into any language of
The Phoenix in 1840,
4 Grundtvig, Phenix-Fuglen. See chapter 3, below. the first translation into any language of
Judith in 1858,
5 Nilsson, Judith. the first translation into any language of “Bede’s Death Song” in 1864,
6 Kragballe, Anglerfolkets Kirkehistorie, p. xiv. one of the first statements in the world on the Celtic influence on OE literature in 1901,
7 Hansen, “Oldengelsk Litteratur,” p. 6. and the first reference in the world to the connection between the Finnish god Pekko and Beow in
Beowulf in 1910.
8 Olrik, Danmarks Heltedigtning, II, pp. 254–55. See Fulk et al., Klaeber’s Beowulf, p. 111, and Grant, “Beow in Scandinavia,” p. 107, n. 7. However, except for the initial item, the others and most of the remaining Scandinavian contributions are virtually unknown and inaccessible to students of early medieval England, who, even if they have studied Old Norse (ON), generally do not know Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, or Finnish. This book will help remedy the situation. In it, I analyze the background, context, and content of numerous items of scholarship in the Scandinavian languages that deal with OE language and literature. In addition, in two appendices, I offer complete bibliographies of both scholarship on OE literature produced in Scandinavia in the Scandinavian languages, Finnish, and Neo-Latin, and translations of OE literature into those languages. This book is timely as well, appearing as it does when Europe has started taking great interest in its subject matter for all of Europe, not just Scandinavia. The ERC (European Research Council) recently awarded a €1.5 million starting grant over five years (2024–29) to the University of Leiden’s project “Early Medieval English in Nineteenth-Century Europe: The Transnational Reception of Old English in the Age of Romantic Nationalism.”
9 See https://thijsporck.com/emergence/. That project obviously adds currency to this one and perhaps also provides a much larger audience for it.
My purpose in writing this history is three-fold: first, the story has not yet been fully told, but should be.
10 For partial explorations of this field, see especially Bjork, “Thorkelin’s Preface”; “Nineteenth-Century Scandinavia” (revised as chapter 1 in the present book); “Grundtvig’s Edition of The Phoenix” (revised as chapter 3 in the present book); and “On Grundtvig’s Becoming a Scop”; Shippey and Haarder, Beowulf, items 2, 6, 8, 9, 14, 17, 27, 43, 60, 78, 85, 91, 92, and 116; Hall, “England, Denmark, America”; and Niles, The Idea of Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 204–15. See also section I of Appendix A in this book for a complete list of contributions to the field in English. The Scandinavians have had a unique affinity for and connection with the Anglo-Saxons and their literature since before the ninth century, as reflected in the deep-rooted Scandinavian influence on the English language, the likely influence of Viking Age poetry on OE verse, and the composition of Norse literature in early medieval England. The kinship between OE and ON, in fact, was probably mutually recognized at the time. One could deduce so, in any case, from two statements. One is found in the late thirteenth-century ON
Fornmanna sögur that maintains that the Norse tongue “passed through Saxony, Denmark and Sweden, Norway and parts of England. And then these lands were called Gothland and the people, Gothonic.”
11 “Gekk sú tunga um Saxland, Danmörk ok Sviþjóð, Noreg ok um nokkurn hluta Englands. En þá váru þessi lönd kölluð Goðlönd, en folkit Godjóð.” Fornmanna sögur, XI, p. 412. Quoted on the title page of Schütte, Vor folkegruppe Gottjod, vol. 1. The other comes in the mid-twelfth century in the ON
First Grammatical Treatise. Englishmen, the author observes, use a modified Latin alphabet to write OE; “since we are of the same tongue, although there has been much change in one of them or some in both,” he will do the same.
12 “alls vér erum einnar tungu, þó at görzk hafi mjök önnur tveggja eða nökkut báþar.” Haugen, First Grammatical Treatise, pp. 12–13. Changes in English include its indebtedness to the Scandinavians for several lexical, morphological, and syntactic innovations. Hundreds of ON loanwords, including items such as “window,” “crawl,” “law,” “thrust,” “sister,” and place-names ending with ON suffixes (“-by,” “-thwait,” “-toft,” “-dale,” “-ey,” “-scoe/-skew,” and “-wath”) enrich the lexicon; ON morphology such as in the third person plural pronoun “they,” which replaced the native pronoun “hie,” helped disambiguate the personal pronoun paradigm; and the syntax of things such as the reflexive “self” in both languages shows that the contact of the two tongues occasioned similar structural changes in both.
13 For a full discussion, see Miller, External Influences on English, pp. 91–147, and Pons-Sanz, The Lexical Effects of Anglo-Scandinavian Linguistic Contact on Old English. Lexical borrowing went both ways as well. The Old Danish word
gemsten (precious stone) is borrowed from OE (
gimstan),
14 Gammeltoft and Holck, “Gemsten and other Old English Pearls,” p. 133. and the word “Viking” itself seems to be an early loan from OE to ON, for example.
15 See Grønvik, “Ordet norr. Víkingr m.” See also Hødnebø, “Hvem var de første vikinger?” pp. 3–5. Given these linguistic facts, it is not far-fetched to propose, as some have done, that an “Anglo-Scandinavian” dialect was in use in Viking Age England.
16 Frank, The Etiquette of Early Northern Verse, p. xxvii.Regarding literature, the ON
Völundarkviða may have arisen in Yorkshire;
17 McKinnell, “The Context of Völundarkviða.” the ON court poet Gunnlaugr ormstunga may have enjoyed the patronage of King Æthelred II (978–1016);
18 Lawson, Cnut: The Danes in England in the Early Eleventh Century, p. 6. and the English court of King Cnut “was the most vibrant centre in the North for the production and performance of skaldic praise poetry” during Cnut’s twenty-year reign in England (1016–35).
19 Frank, “A Taste for Knottiness,” p. 197. For a fuller discussion, see Bjork, “Scandinavian Relations.” Cnut patronized eight poets. Four more – including Gunnlaugr ormstunga – were supported by other patrons before Cnut, and another three enjoyed patronage from others than Cnut during the eleventh century.
20 Thornbury, Becoming a Poet, pp. 248–49. The Anglo-Scandinavian literary connection, latent until the eighteenth century, gave rise to a considerable body of scholarly work that offers a distinctive view of OE literature, a view that (as Kemp Malone [1889–1971] suggested over eighty years ago) every scholar of early medieval England should apprehend.
21 Malone, “Grundtvig as Beowulf Critic,” p. 130.Second, this history sheds light on the cultural and national geography of OE scholarship and on the current ramifications of that geography. Although it was the work of a Danish scholar rather than an English one that brought the treasure trove of OE literature to light in 1830, few scholars are aware of that fact. In his
Bibliotecha Anglo-Saxonica. Prospectus and Proposals of a subscription for the publication of the most valuable Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts illustrative of the early poetry and literature of our Language, most of which have never yet been printed (London, 1830, 1831), N. F. S. Grundtvig (1783–1872),
22 For a brief biography of the great OE scholar, mythologist, historian, pastor, hymn writer, and politician, see Holm, The Essential Grundtvig, pp. 15–22. however, laid out ambitious plans for making OE literature more widely known. Those plans had their genesis early in the century and were first made public in 1817 in Grundtvig’s article on “The Battle of Brunanburh,” which I deal with below. There Grundtvig laments the paucity of editions of OE texts, stating,
There lie the many noteworthy writings in the Angles’ tongue, lie only, it seems, waiting for the flames that shall release them from their prison and unite them with their brothers and sisters, yes; in prison, in sinful fetters they lie with their fathers’ spirit; not even one of the children of the Angles understands their language, not one, as far as we know, understood it for seven centuries … it has long grieved me so deeply to stare at those locked cabinets, not simply because I know that they hide great treasures and suspect that they hide even more than any of us knows, but especially because it is downright pitiful to see such madness as is rampant among the people who boast of holding the fathers’ spirit in honor while they diminish it …
23 “Hist ligge de mange mærkelige Skrifter paa Anglers Tungemaal, ligge kun, som det synes, for at oppebie Luerne der skal løse dem af Fængselet og forene dem med deres Sødskende, ja; i Fængsel, i syndige Lænker ligge de med Fædrenes Aand, ikke een af Anglernes Børn forstaaer deres Tungemaal, ikke een, saavidt man veed, forstod det giennem syv Aarhundreder … men længe har det græmmet mig saa inderlig, at stirre paa de lukkede Skabe, ei blot fordi jeg veed de skjule store Kostbarheder, og ahner at de skjule meer end nogen af os veed, men især fordi det ret er ynkeligt at see paa slig en Vanvid som den der gaaer i Svang hos, det Folk der praler af at holde Fædres Aand i Ære, mens de tage den af Dage …” “Om Bruneborg-Slaget,” pp. 69–70. Unless otherwise noted, all translations in this book are my own.He also promises a better edition of Beowulf than what was provided in Grímur Jónsson Thorkelin’s first edition of the poem in 1815.
That improved edition is presumably included in his
Prospectus. The ten-volume work Grundtvig proposed would contain two volumes devoted to
Beowulf, a third to Cædmon’s
Genesis, a fourth to miscellaneous poems chiefly from
The Exeter Book, three volumes to Layamon’s
Brut, and three more to the OE homilies. The resultant publication could have formed the basis for all future work on OE literature. The second printing of the
Prospectus in 1831 lists the names of 38 subscribers, including the King of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Joseph Bosworth, and the Advocates Library in Edinburgh, and Grundtvig was incorrectly told that the list had grown by June 1831 to over 70.
24 Rønning, “Grundtvig og den oldengelske literatur,” p. 131. But growing simultaneously with that list was resentment of Grundtvig among certain members of the Society of Antiquaries in London. The reason for that resentment could have been, at least partially, Grundtvig’s seriously misjudging his audience by prefacing his plan with statements such as this:
The slightest reflection will teach us, that, without due attention to Anglo-Saxon literature, we can neither estimate nor understand the importance or the progress of that of the present day … But this seems to have been altogether overlooked [in England], and this ancient treasury has been regarded as a dunghill, where, because the pearls do not lie exposed and obvious to every passing eye, they have been thought not worth seeking … [It is] astonishing that a nation, so acute and enlightened as the English, should have chanced to overlook a source from whence they might have derived both credit and profit to themselves. [If] this Anglo-Saxon literature, far from being the dull and stupid trash which some English writers of no small name have chosen to suppose, should [be worth] … the attention and admiration of cultivated minds, it may be no fantastic hope of mine, perhaps, that England will one day regret the neglect and unkindness she has shown to her high-born and honourable kinsmen, and atone for it by “one stride equal to many mincing steps.”
25 N. F. S. Grundtvig’s Transcriptions of the Exeter Book, pp. 3–4.Among the resentful, for example, was Sir Frederic Madden (1801–73), who became aware of Grundtvig’s plan in August 1829, and wrote in his diary that the plan fulfilled “will be a disgrace to England.”
26 Quoted in Toldberg, “Grundtvig og de engelske Antikvarer,” p. 281. See also Gurteen, who expressed a similar sentiment almost 70 years later in 1896: “We acknowledge, though not without shame, that this second revival of Anglo-Saxon learning is due to the genius of foreigners … [but] the descendants of the Anglo-Saxons have awakened to the fact that the language and literature of their ancestors is worthy of the attention of scholars, and that they will not allow other nations, although kindred, to carry off the palm in this particular.” The Epic of the Fall of Man, p. 20. Grundtvig abruptly learned the result of the rising resentment on 7 June 1831, when he visited his publisher in London and was told that the English themselves had taken over the publication of OE literature and had produced a new prospectus, which would quickly attract 42 subscribers, most of whom were from the 38 subscribers to Grundtvig’s original plan.
27 Rønning, “Grundtvig og den oldengelske literatur,” pp. 131 and 134. Thus Grundtvig was unceremoniously booted out of the mainstream of OE studies, never to return.
28 For full details, see Toldberg, “Grundtvig og de engelske Antikvarer” and Rønning, “Grundtvig og den oldengelske literatur.” John Kemble (1807–57), writing to Jakob Grimm (1785–1863) in January 1842, thirteen years after Grundtvig’s ejection, elaborates on the resentment and revises the history:
With regard to Grundtwig, I dare say he is a man of knowledge, but he is a great rogue. The coolness with which he abuses us for taking
his work out of his hands is exemplary. I beg for your information to tell you that Grundtwig stole the plan & even the name of his undertaking from
Thorpe, who mentioned it in Copenhagen to G[rundtwig] two years before he came to England, and mentioned it to many other people besides. There were actual proposals for a subscription & c., when to our infinite surprise
Grundtwig came to England, put the thing into the hands of a bookseller & published a prospectus. After this piece of treachery, especially as we do not look upon the Dane as so very competent as he himself imagines, Thorpe & I certainly had no scruple whatever in proceeding with our own views, Thorpe publishing Cædmon, I Beowulf & c., as it suited our own convenience to do.
29 Kemble and Grimm, A Correspondence, pp. 220–21.In his preface to his Phenix-Fuglen (The Phoenix Bird) in 1840, and to which Kemble was probably referring in his letter to Grimm above, Grundtvig reports on his third, fateful trip to England in June 1831. He writes that:
people openly regarded and treated me as a Danish Viking who, following the example of my dear forefathers, wished to enrich both myself and Denmark with England’s treasures, and my publisher came close to coming right out and saying that he didn’t dare have anything more to do with me lest he be branded a traitor.
30 “man aabenbar betragtede og behandlede mig som en Dansk Viking, der, after mine kiære Forfædres Exempel, vilde berige baade mig selv og Danmark med Englands Skatte, og Boghandleren var nær ved reent ud at sige, han ikke turde befatte sig mere med mig, for ikke at stemples til en Landsforræder,” Phenix-Fuglen, p. 11. And so, as R. W. Chambers phrased it, “the
editio princeps of the
Exeter Book was to be the work of a more humdrum scholar, Benjamin Thorpe,” rather than the arrogant but extremely gifted rogue, Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig.
31 Chambers, “Modern Study of the Poetry of the Exeter Book,” p. 35. Bradley echoes this sentiment in saying that “nineteenth-century Anglo-Saxon scholarship is unquestionably the poorer for being denied both the textual-critical experience and the interpretative flair, which Grundtvig did not manage to deliver to the world in an edition of the Exeter Book”: N. F. S. Grundtvig’s Transcriptions of the Exeter Book, p. 12. (For more on the conflict between Grundtvig and the British, see chapter 3.)
Third, a history such as this one elucidates how and why the aesthetic appreciation of OE literary texts actually began in Denmark in the early nineteenth century, not in England in the early twentieth. Many modern scholars routinely assume that that appreciation started in 1936 with J. R. R. Tolkien’s famous essay, “Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics.” I show instead that N. F. S. Grundtvig’s broad influence and his emphasis on the centrality of metaphor in productive thought both radically differentiates the great Danish scholar from his German and English rationalist contemporaries and goes far in explaining why Scandinavian scholarship on OE literature is distinctive.