Beowulf - Institutionen för arkeologi och antik historia

the entrance room, i.e., in a room where the king would not himself meet the people,
is a matter of posing the right questions, bringing back the answers to the king and
returning to carry out his wishes. In principle Lupus also acts this way when negotiating
with the emissaries from the Saxons and the Danes (behind which we may
suspect kings) and, according to Venantius, Lupus succeeded in balancing his foothold
in himself as an individual and his foothold as a royal official in the royalty. The
aristocrat may thus function as the king’s servant in contacts with the people, but also
like Beowulf as the representative of the people. This entrance talk outside the king’s
hall is, then, the basic platform from which the aristocratic civil servant can exert
influence over the collective, and out there he may agree to talk to a representative or
chose someone to represent the collective if he does not fill the part himself, a true
sign that he considers the people a collective. The first nobleman in the Sabas letter
exemplifies this when as the king’s representative he takes over the assembly,
thereby representing the people as well as his king:
When the leader of the lawlessness heard this he ordered Sabas to step forward.
When he stood there, he (the Leader) asked those who fetched him, whether he
possessed anything of value. When they answered: Nothing except what he is
dressed in, the lawless despised him and said: One of those can neither be of any
use nor hurt. And thereby he had him thrown out. (Flemberg 1992, p. 172).
In the literary sources used here we cannot expect to meet other situations than those
dominated by the king’s unquestioned authority. Such situations may have occurred,
e.g., in the public assembly, but the sources seem to reflect the wish of the king to
seek seclusion as an ideal and the poets seem to respect this wish.
In principle we find two forms of talk in the lower part of the hall. The relatively
limited, but free talk between tablemates and the participation as hearers in the talk
which is meant to incorporate everybody in the hall. The first kind of conversation
must be adjusted to those we talk to and those who may happen to overhear what
we say. Goffman (1981, p. 128) describes this kind of conversation as involving a
large number of ‘footings’ to shift between for those engaged in the conversation.
These shifts are the problem of the free talk and the idea of formalised talk is, among
other things, to control the ‘footings’ and minimize their number.
From Maldon we know that anonymous hall-guests may promise each other to
act in accordance with the high ideals of kings and heroes, since when this battle
begins to get dangerous they remind each other of their former promises.
Ælfwine þá cwæð (hé on ellen spræc):
‘Gemunað þára mæla þe wé oft æt meodo spræcon,
þonne wé on bence béot áhófon,
hæleð on healle, ymbe heard gewinn:
nú mæg cunnian hwá céne sý.
173