Beowulf - Institutionen för arkeologi och antik historia

the sources used, houses as well as texts, are sufficiently representative to support a
systematic analysis. Nevertheless, given the theme of our study it is hardly likely that
the results will primarily be a reflection of specific cases.
54
Earlier Research
Not much has been written about the meaning of the word good in the sources employed
here. In his study of honour in German literature, Jones (1959) touches frequently upon
the word, but mostly in connection with medieval texts, and nothing has been written at all
on this theme when it comes to Sabas, Lupus or Magnulfus, while to the best of my
knowledge its use in Beowulf has only occasionally been touched on. I think that this lack
can be explained by our failing to understand the prehistoric setting in which the word
developed meaning, and because of this the discussion has hitherto been rather tentative
and characterised both by basic disagreements and by several promising ideas. The best
discussion is probably Scandinavian and concerned with the appearance of the word
good on Viking Age rune-stones. I shall make this discussion my point of departure,
although the usage in these texts is linked to a many-sided transitory phenomenon and a
fashion. Presenting this research and the problems that it has raised, will, however, introduce
some of the foundations for my discussion of the concept.
By and large the epithet seems less interesting than the appellatives, þegn, drengr,
comitatus, maðr etc., connected with it. In dealing with these appellatives two opposite
opinions have governed remarks and discussions. One opinion was put forward
by Jónsson (1926), and later by many others, who argue that good describes
the character of a person whom today we would call brave and righteous. The other
opinion, advocated by Aakjær (1927) or Jacobsen and Moltke (1941–42; 1976),
holds that the epithet good was used on rune-stones to designate a person ‘esteemed’
by birth, and ‘good birth’ is no doubt a medieval metaphor similar to ‘wellborn’
(cf. Jones 1959, p. 60).
Finnur Jónsson makes a very clear statement in his essay in the newspaper
Politiken on May 11th 1926. Following Wimmer (1914) he argues that drengr and
þegn meant a young and an older capable man respectively and therefore good in
front of these words should be considered to qualify the character of such men.
Good qualified their mentality or their characters, indicating that it was noble or
honest, though not by birth. Jónsson stresses the peacefulness of the rune-stone texts
and states that the words drengr and þegn do not designate warriors alone, although
it is quite possible that a brave warrior could also have been a good drengr or þegn.
Svend Aakjær (1927) turns against the views expressed by Wimmer and
Jónsson. He accepts that in the rune-stone texts as well as in The Sagas of the
Icelanders and medieval codes of laws the contexts are not always helpful, if we
want to find out the meaning of the words drengr and þegn, and therefore the quali-