Michael Drout is discussing the dating of "Beowulf" on his blog. His first post explains the background of current research that has yet to resolve the dating of the poem to everyone's satisfaction.

Ancient Germanic literature always fascinated me for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the fact that the same stories could be found in more than one regional legend or literary tradition. Until the 7th to 8th centuries CE, people in Scandinavia, west Europe, the British Isles, and central Europe all spoke the same or very similar languages.

The northern dialects among the Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, Angles, Saxons, Frisians, and a few other nearby peoples were so closely tied together that you could literally travel from one end of Europe to the other without having to learn another language.

These ancient peoples shared a common folklore and very similar religions (their common gods included Odin, Thor, Freyr, Freya, Tyr, and Loki among others); their kings and earls/jarls lived in large halls; warriors sought out the greatest leaders of their day to gain glory, honor, and wealth; and tribes were constantly warring with their neighbors.

"Beowulf" reflects that ancient world, though scholars debate when exactly it was written. Ancient writers including Geoffrey of Tours (History of the Franks), Procopius (The Secret History), and Jordanes (The Origin and Deeds of the Goths) wrote about events and people mentioned in "Beowulf", most notably Hygelac (Geoffrey's Danish king Chlochilaich) and Hrothulf (Roduulf).

Hrothulf interests me because in most traditions he is said to have betrayed his family and finally was slain by his cousin, Hereward. But the ancient writer Cassiodorus (and Jordanes, whom some scholars feel was strongly influenced by Cassiodorus) speaks of a Roduulf (supposed King of the Heruli) who fled to the court of Theodoric the Great (King of the Ostrogoths from 488 to 526 and King of Italy from 493 until his death).

Odoacer was a half-Sciri, half-Hun chieftain who seized control over Italy at the head of an army of Germanic mercenaries, many of whom were Heruli. The Roduulf-Heruli connection seems odd to me but I'm not a linguist (so if you haven't figure it out by now, this is all just fun and speculation). In any event, some scholars speculate that Roduulf may have fled Scandinavia because of political difficulties, whereas some scholars simply say that the prospect of living in sunny Italy under Theodoric was more appealing to him than lording over a mead-hall in Denmark.

Hrothulf was not a popular fellow, as was usually pitched in the villain's role in many stories. In modern scholarship he is treated as a sort of ethnographic hot potato -- no one really wants to place him with any particular tribe or region, but his presence at Theodoric's court is somehow accepted.

It would be easy to speculate (and perhaps impossible to prove) that Hrothulf/Roduulf lived in the late 5th century, participated in events described in "Beowulf" and other works, seized the Danish throne, was driven from it, and subsequently became a mercenary captain leading a company or large contingent of Heruls and other Germanic warriors, and found himself caught up in late Roman politics. If he survived Theodoric's overthrow of Odoacer, what would he have done next?

A man who betrays his own kin might, in fact, switch sides in a crucial struggle for power on the fringe of the dying Roman sphere. So perhaps Roduulf won himself a reprieve by serving Theodoric loyally, unable to return to the north because of his disgrace, which was immortalized in numerous stories. But his own tenure in Italy may have been accurately recorded only a few generations later.

And what does all that have to do with the dating of "Beowulf"? Well, it's interesting to note that large mead-halls like Heorot were not very common in the 5th and 6th centuries but there is evidence that at least a few existed.

That is, archaeology and history have confirmed a mixture of events and people associated with "Beowulf" sufficiently that a lot of folks have been wondering for many years just how much of "Beowulf" may actually be based on real history. Hygelac's raid against the Frisians/Franks occurred in 515 CE, which is about 22 years after Theodoric overthrew Odoacer. That's a little inconvenient for our supposed identification of Procopius' and Jordanes' Roduulf with Beowulf's kinsman Hrothulf.

Nonetheless, the fact that 6th century writers were interested enough in the same family and events mentioned in "Beowulf" to include references to them in their works implies that that family and those events impressed a lot of people. Furthermore, the commemorative tales like "Beowulf" and "Hrolf's Saga" imply that these stories were worthy of embellishment and professional presentation.

Cultures don't remember idle events. They do tend to remember significant events, but they don't necessarily remember those events correctly. For example, most people would tell you today that Coca-Cola was originally formulated with cocaine, and they would point to numerous Web sites and books that claim it was so. But none of these retroformulating sources of misinformation actually had access to the original formula.

In a landmark legal decision, the United States Government was forced to concede that Coca Cola did not contain cocaine. But the product was always formulated with an extract from coca leaves (and the formula has been altered more than once), the processing of which (introduced in the 1920s) ensures that insufficient traces of natural cocaine are found in the final product.

Nonetheless, most people today are convinced that Coca Cola once contained cocaine. You'll never get them to change their minds. The power of mythology is very strong even in today's highly educated western society where, supposedly, we are taught to question every statement and assumption.

Linguists seek to use the language of "Beowulf" to determine when the poem was originally written. The problem that all researchers concede stands in the way of success for all arguments is that the oldest surviving manuscript was written sometime between the years 950 and 1025 CE. That is nowhere near the time when Beowulf is believed to have lived.

One must ask why anyone would compose a heroic paganistic poem for a hero who supposedly lived 500 years previously in a foreign land -- especially a land that had recently sent invaders and conquerors. Well, there are hypothetical explanations to justify such a composition, but they cannot be proven or disproven to everyone's satisfaction either.

Nonetheless, there are emphatic points in "Beowulf" that seem to call for an early composition date to the poem. The significance of Heorot is one of those points because it is esteemed above the halls of other northern chieftains. By the year 950, wooden halls would have seemed quaint and ridiculously vulnerable. The Saxons of England and their Danish cousins had become masters of stone fortifications.

The ease with which heroes and lords travel across the landscape in Beowulf's world is also strikingly different from the interactions of kings and princes in the 10th century. Or, to put it another way, people would wonder about 30 men putting out to sea to seek adventure in a foreign land. After centuries of raids and invasions, the kings of Denmark and Angle-land were rather suspicious of boat-loads of armed warriors.

The contrast between Beowulf's world and the world of the Beowulf manuscript has sometimes been explained by the supposition that the "Beowulf" poet was looking back to a more ancient, rustic time. But 500 years seems awfully long in a culture that no longer remembered the Caesars and the glories of Rome. Was "Beowulf" truly more memorable than the Roman conquest of Britain?

On the other hand, the English writer Bede (who lived in the late 6th and early 7th centuries himself) doesn't mention "Beowulf". Bede probably had a significant impact on Tolkien's literature. His Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum could read like Tolkien's appendices to The Lord of the Rings. Anyone who has read The History of Middle-earth series should understand the obvious connection between Bede and Tolkien through their works titled "On the Reckoning of Time".

Bede worked with a very large library of books composed in Greek, Latin, Old English, and other languages. His own works were based on extensive research -- probably the best research that people of his time were capable of producing.

Bede's prolific writing influenced western ecclesiastical education and thought for centuries. Monks in central Europe studied Bede carefully. He not only wrote about theology, history, and science, but also about grammar and idiom. Does Bede's literary catalogue of topics sound familiar?

Bede was a man of immense curiosity with a passion for writing so intense he is said to have been writing from his death-bed, working on a translation of The Gospel According to John from Latin to Old English. His linguistic endeavors foreshadowed in many ways Tolkien's own achievements.

So one must ask, if Bede had access to the most important literature of western Europe, why did he not mention "Beowulf", unless it wasn't written down until after his death? It's an interesting question and the implications it raises are supported by the fact that English and Continental Saxon scholars exchanged literature for centuries.

That is, it seems unlikely that a pagan Saxon literature could have co-existed with the Christian Saxon literature in England. Pagan Anglo-Saxons were probably literate to some extent but they did not create any great libraries of literature (at least, history doesn't record the destruction of such libraries).

"Beowulf" is, like "The Iliad", a teaching poem -- it teaches the audience about its heroic heritage. It teaches the audience about virtues and values. It preserves a memory of deeds and times from a distant past.

Many voices ask if a poetic tradition could survive through 500 years before being written down. Perhaps it's more pertinent to ask how long "knowledge" of events can survive in a poetic tradition before it has to be written down. Homer lived about 400 years after the Trojan War. We don't know how many of his heroes and events were modelled on real men and deeds, but his legacy has been partially vindicated by archaeology.

Homer was vindicated just as the legacy of "Beowulf" has been partially vindicated by archaeology and literature. We can compare "Beowulf" to other poems and literature, and we can use archaeology to build a picture of a probable time and place that might have inspired the events of the poem.

But we cannot pin a date on the poetic work's composition. In fact, to compicate matters further, some scholars speak of two "Beowulf" poems -- an earlier pagan version and a later Christianized version. But even this hypothesis has been questioned.

It seems plausible to me that a northern Germanic poetic tradition could have arisen, evolved, and survived among the closely related peoples of Northumbria, East Anglia, Denmark (the former Angeln), and other parts of the Scandinavian world, even through the centuries of the great phonetic shift.

The last expression of that northern tradition could have been a formally composed work about "Beowulf". People could have asked who Chlochilaich and Roduulf were. Ancient minds with knowledge of forbidden Germanic lore could have recalled stories from their childhood.

Or maybe Bede just didn't care for the poem, so he and other like-minded scholars simply ignored it. Perhaps there was a fading alternate literary tradition that took root in Angle-land but never really spread back to the continent because it was not eccesiastical enough. It could be that a humble Christian poet's imagination was inspired sometime in the 800s, perhaps by tales of Viking raids, to rewrite the old story so that it became more acceptable to a contemporary English audience that -- despite raids and wars with Scandinavians -- cherished its ancient connection to the people in Denmark.