Grendel’s Shapeshifting: From Shadow Monster to Human Warrior

Of all the horrifying scenes, which activate what Michael Lapidge has termed the psychology of terror in Beowulf,[1] none are more terrifying than the scene of Grendelโ€™s approach from the night, through the marsh and to the hall. Translations and adaptations of Beowulf approach Grendel in a variety of waysโ€”from emphasizing his monsterization as a eoten โ€œgiantโ€ (761) and รพyrs โ€œtrollโ€ (426) to more humanizing treatments that focus on his status as a wonsaeli wer โ€œunfortunate manโ€ (105).

Monster from the Nowell Codex’s ‘Wonders of the East’, British Library, Cotton Vittelius a.xv, f101v.

This Halloween, in continuing our series on Monsters & Magic, I offer a translation and recitation of the monsterโ€™s haunting journey to Heorot. This scene has been well-treated in the scholarship, and Katherine Oโ€™ Brien Oโ€™Keeffe has noted that once the monster finally enters the hall, there is a potential โ€œhorror of recognitionโ€ by the audience who is then able to identify Grendel as human.[2] 

This blog will focus closely on the Old English poetic language and how Grendel shape-shifts as he draws nearer to Heorot, seemingly coming ever better into focus and transforming to match the space in which he inhabits. I will consider three major sections of his approach, signaled by the thrice repeated verb com โ€œhe cameโ€ (703, 710, 720), and I will reflect on the ways in which Grendel is described in each leg of his journey.

Image of Grendel as a Shadow Monster from Gareth Hind’s graphic novel adaptation of Beowulf (1999)

In the first passage, Grendel com on wanre niht โ€œcame in the dark nightโ€ (702), and he is characterized as sceadugenga โ€œshadow-walkerโ€ (703): either a โ€œgoing shadowโ€ or โ€œone who goes in the shadowsโ€ (both at available options based on the poetic compound). His movement is described as scriรฐan โ€œslitheringโ€ or โ€œglidingโ€ (703), further emphasizing his portrayal as a shadow monster. Later, when Grendel is named a synscaรฐa: either a โ€œrelentlessโ€ or a โ€œsinful ravagerโ€ (707), depending on how one interprets the polysemous Old English syn in the compound,[3] the monster is described as pulling men under shadow, characterizing Grendel as a night terror shrouded in darkness.  Indeed, when Grendel comes from the dark night, he is represented by the narrator as a shadow monster that hunts and haunts after sundown.

Image of Grendel by J. R. Skelton from “Stories of Beowulf” (1908).

In the second passage, when Grendel รฐa com of more under misthleoรพum โ€œthen came from the marsh under misty-slopesโ€ (710), the monster emerges from the swamp and is addressed by his name: Grendel (711). I imagine the silhouette of the monster taking shape in the mistโ€”perhaps a human shapeโ€”corresponding to his characterization as manscaรฐa, which likewise plays on polysemous Old English man in the compound, (either mฤn meaning โ€œcriminalโ€ or man meaning โ€œhumanโ€).[4] The alliteration in line 712 seems to stress the possibility of monstrous manscaรฐa as โ€œravager of humansโ€ or a โ€œhuman-shaped ravagerโ€ since manscaรฐa alliterates with the monsterโ€™s intended prey, manna cynn โ€œthe kin of humansโ€ or โ€œmankindโ€ (712).

The mist rising from the marsh continues to obscure the audienceโ€™s view as Grendel wod under wolcnum โ€œwent under the cloudโ€ (714) maintaining the suspense generated in the scene by suspending knowledge of Grendelโ€™s ontology. Nevertheless, in this second leg of his journey, Grendelโ€™s form seems to come into focus as he shifts from sceadugenga โ€œa shadow-walkerโ€ (703) into manscaรฐa โ€œa mean, man-shaped, ravager of menโ€ (712).

Grendel portrayed as human in Sturla Gunnarsson’s ‘Beowulf & Grendel’ (2005)

In the third passage, Grendel finally arrived at the hall and the audience learns at long last what Grendel is: rinc dreamum bedรฆled โ€œmany bereft of joyโ€ (720-21). During the last leg of his journey, Grendelโ€™s humanity is laid bare leading to the ultimate realization identified by Oโ€™Brien Oโ€™Keeffe, when Beowulf appears to recognize Grendelโ€™s humanity after the monster bursts open the door of the hall.

Throughout the next twenty lines, in addition to Grendel (720), the term rinc โ€œhuman warriorโ€ is repeated: twice in reference to the Geatish troop as a whole (728, 730), once in reference to the sleeping man Grendel cannibalizes when he arrives, who the audience later learns is Hondscio (741), and once in reference to Beowulf himself (747). This repeated use of rinc โ€œhuman warriorโ€ highlights how Grendel is a mirror for the hero and the Geatish warriors, characterized in identical terms.

Grendel killing Hondscio in Sturla Gunnarsson’s ‘Beowulf & Grendel’ (2005)

Similarly, when Grendel approaches from the shadows, Beowulf is described as bolgenmod โ€œswollen-mindedโ€ and angrily awaiting battle (709); however, once the monster arrives at the hall, Grendel becomes gebolgen โ€œswollen (with rage)โ€ as he enters the hall ready to glut himself upon the men sleeping inside (723). This parallel description interweaves the respective emotions and behaviors of both hero and monster in Beowulf.

The interplay between hero and monster continues when Beowulf and Grendel struggle together, both called reรพe renweardas โ€œferocious hall-guardians (770) and heaรฐodeore โ€œbattle-brave onesโ€ (772) during their epic battle that nearly destroys the hall. The fusion of hero and monster together into a shared plural subject and object respectively helps to underscore their mutual affinity: the hall must contend against the fury of both warriors and each is a fearsomeโ€”yet overconfidentโ€”conqueror, who intends to overcome any enemy he encounters.

Grendel from the cover of John Gardner’s novel, ‘Grendel’ (1980).

We know that this is Grendelโ€™s final chance to haunt the hall, and the monster is at least able to feast on one last human, this time a Geat and one of Beowulfโ€™s own warriors (Hondscio). Sadly for Grendel, once Beowulf finally decides to enter the fray, and after a relatively brief struggle, the monster is fatally disarmed and retreats to die at home in the marshes.

Naturally, vengeance follows. Unfortunately for the Danes, and especially Hroรฐgarโ€™s best thane ร†schere, the audience soon learns that Grendel has a mommy, and anyone who messes with her baby boy, will have to answer to her.

Richard Fahey
PhD in English
University of Notre Dame

Further Reading:

Brodeur, Arthur G. The Art of Beowulf. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1959.

Fahey, Richard. โ€œMedieval Trolls: Monsters from Scandinavian Myth and Legend.โ€ Medieval Studies Research Blog. Medieval Institute: University of Notre Dame (March 20, 2020).

โ€”. “Enigmatic Design & Psychomachic Monstrosity in Beowulf.” University of Notre Dame: Dissertation, 2020.

โ€”. โ€œMearcstapan: Monsters Across the Border.โ€ Medieval Studies Research Blog. Medieval Institute: University of Notre Dame (July 20, 2018).

Gwara, Scott. Heroic Identity in the World of Beowulf. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2009.

Johansen, J. G. โ€œGrendel the Brave? Beowulf, Line 834.โ€ English Studies 63 (1982): 193-97.

Joy, Eileen, Mary K. Ramsey, and Bruce D. Gilchrist, editors. The Postmodern Beowulf: A Critical Casebook. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press, 2006.

Kim, Dorothy. “The Question of Race in Beowulf.” JSTOR Daily (September 25, 2019).

Kรถberl, Johann. The Indeterminacy of Beowulf. Lanham, MD: University of America Press, 2002.

Lapidge, Michael. โ€œBeowulf and the Psychology of Terror.โ€ In Heroic Poetry in the Anglo-Saxon Period: Studies in Honor of Jess B. Bessinger, edited by Helen Damico and John Leyerle, Studies in Medieval Culture 32, 373-402. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 1993.

Oโ€™Brien Oโ€™Keeffe, Katherine. โ€œBeowulf, Lines 702b-836: Transformations and the Limits of the Human.โ€ Texas Studies in Literature and Language 23.4 (1981): 484-94.

Orchard, Andy. Pride and Prodigies: Studies in the Monsters of the Beowulf-Manuscript. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 1995.

Sharma, Manish. โ€œMetalepsis and Monstrosity: The Boundaries of Narrative in Beowulf.โ€ Studies in Philology 102 (2005): 247-79.

Ringler, Richard N. โ€œHim Sฤ“o Wฤ“n Gelฤ“ah: The Design for Irony in Grendelโ€™s Last Visit to Heorot.โ€ Speculum 41.1 (1966): 49-67.


[1] Michael Lapidge, โ€œBeowulf and the Psychology of Terror,โ€ 373-402.

[2] Katherine Oโ€™Brien Oโ€™Keeffe, โ€œTransformations and the Limits of the Human,โ€ 492.

[3] Andy Orchard raises the possibility of polysemy in synscaรฐa, see Pride and Prodigies, 38.

[4] Orchard also raises the possibility of polysemy in manscaรฐa, see Pride and Prodigies, 31.

The Inquisitorโ€™s Tale by Adam Gidwitz, A (Medievalistโ€™s) Reader Response

I had not read far into Adam Gidwitzโ€™s 2016 novel The Inquisitorโ€™s Taleย before wondering, โ€œHow does this guy know so much about the Middle Ages?โ€ Upon flipping to the back of the book, I learned that Adam Gidwitz is married to a medieval historian. As a result, he had access to quality resources on the period, in the form of experts in the field and source materials, that made all the difference.

Clearly, heโ€™s read Geoffrey Chaucerโ€™s Canterbury Talesย as the chapter titles mimic those of the canonical text. For instance, Gidwitz presents readers with โ€œThe Nunโ€™s Taleโ€ and โ€œThe Librarianโ€™s Tale,โ€ echoing Chaucerโ€™s โ€œNunโ€™s Priestโ€™s Tale,โ€ or โ€œClerkโ€™s Tale.โ€ Identifying the storytellers in those titles by their occupation, rather than their given name, imbues the story with more than a hint of the personification-style caricatures Chaucer provides of the medieval estates, referring to societyโ€™s organization by profession according to a religious and secular ranking system.[1] However, Gidwitzโ€™s narrators diverge from the model text by telling their tales in multiple parts, whereas Chaucerโ€™s, despite the Prologueโ€™s stated ambitions for multiple tales per speaker, take one turn each. Nevertheless, this book makes for a good comparison text that could work in a class on the Canterbury Tales, or on literature influenced by it.

Aside from chapter and character titles, the bookโ€™s structure resembles that of the Canterbury Talesย in one other significant way: the frame narrative. Chaucer presents readers with a collection of tales united into a single text by a larger narrative in which a group of pilgrims agree to the terms of a storytelling contest. However, instead of a frame narrative that brings together a series of disparate, standalone stories, unified only by that framing, Gidwitz tells one story through the perspectives of many storytellers, each of whom witnesses a different โ€œchapterโ€ of the narrative.[2] Like Chaucerโ€™s narrators, Gidwitzโ€™s speak in a tone and vocabulary suitable to their professional identities. The lead voice of the frame narrative comes from a soon-to-be reformed Inquisitor instead of a fictionalized authorial voice like the one Chaucer creates for himself. According to this Inquisitor, the nun speaks in an accent โ€œas proper as any Iโ€™ve ever heardโ€ (11). The Joungler with the most pronounced verbal idiosyncrasies clearly identifies his status through his speech: โ€œIโ€™m a jongleur. Iโ€™ll set me up in a market on market day, sing songs, juggle a little, whatever it takes to make a penny or two for poor boy like meselfโ€ (104). The wide strata of medieval classes and occupations represented at Gidwitzโ€™ gathering of tale tellers also imitate Chaucerโ€™s use of fictional narrators representing many levels of the medieval estates hierarchy. But, while Chaucerโ€™s text remains incomplete (he died before finishing what would have been a monstrously large masterpiece), Gidwitzโ€™s characters take multiple turns at storytelling in a fully realized novel.[3]

It makes sense for anyone with a background in English to have encountered Chaucer because of his consistent presence in the average undergraduate curriculum. However, the loose structural influence of the CanterburyTalesย on The Inquisitorโ€™s Talesย does not account for the depth of knowledge the book contains about a wide, wide range of all the most popular genres circulating in the Middle Ages (despite Chaucerโ€™s use of pretty much all of them), nor does it account for his understanding of France where the story takes place, rather than England, the site of the Canterbury pilgrimage. Indeed, Gidwitz draws upon vitae(saintsโ€™ lives), miracle stories, chronicles, theological treatises, sermons, and more. The story even becomes a kind of pilgrimage for the protagonists with a holy destination, Mont-Saint-Michel, albeit the journey looks rather unconventional in comparison with many original source texts on pilgrimage, especially considering their ages and mixed religious affiliations.[4] Gidwitz likewise inserts his characters into actual medieval events (i.e.โ€“the burning of Jewish books, or the lost Holy Nail) in historically important places (i.e.โ€“Saint-Denis) among real people, such as Louix IX and his mother, Blanche of Castile.[5] These historical influences, as much as is possible in a fictional text, make the text feel authentic. The palpable presence of the Middle Ages derives from the breadth of primary and secondary sources from which Gidwitz draws, and it leaves the reader (or at least this medievalist) with a sense of authenticity absent in much of the modern medievalism Iโ€™ve encountered of late.[6] (Dare I mention Game of Thronesย here?)

And then, to delight and assault the readerโ€™s senses, thereโ€™s the matter of stinky cheese and a flatulent dragon. Dragons, of course, feature regularly in medieval texts, and saints regularly find themselves in battles with them. Gidwitz drew inspiration here from Saint Marthaโ€™s story in a popular collection of saintsโ€™ lives called The Golden Legendย (350). As a specialist in English literature, it was impossible not to discern other literary echoes, such as the epic poem Beowulf, especially with the Beowulfian meadhall feasts that occur before and after every victory over a monster, including after Beowulfโ€™s much fiercer and deadlier dragon. Or, perhaps more immediately, the feast scenes in Arthurian romances resonate here. The feasting hall often serves as site of serious political negotiations, and Jeanne, William, and Jacob must navigate these tricky conversations even as they are confronted with ร‰poisses cheese that โ€œtastes like being punched in the faceโ€ (137). Given the saintliness of the novelโ€™s three children, a hagiographical source for the episode makes better sense than Beowulf, but recognizing parallels, even unintentional ones, is one of the great joys of reading.ย Moreover, because this book targets a younger audience, the humor injected into the narrative by the glorious cheese and stinky dragon counterbalances the weightier issues, such as the likely death of Jacobโ€™s parents.

As a book historian, the illustrations just might be my favorite part of the book. While the illustrator, Hatem Aly, chose a more modern drawing style, he took care to base this style on common features of medieval manuscript decoration. Historiated initials (large, decorative letters with drawings inside them), vegetal borders, authoritative figures with their right hand in the declamatioย position (raised with index finger pointing upwards), and wacky creatures lurking in the margins all grace the pages as visualizations and interpretations of the story. The artistโ€™s development of a text-image relationship with an interpretative angle amounts to a form of reader response in line with common medieval practice. Gidwitz supports the text-image relationship with a healthy respect for the bookmaking process in a novel that writes manuscripts into the storyโ€™s central conflict: the burning of Jewish books. William the oblateโ€™s comments here are particularly striking, and a great way to introduce younger audiences to book history:

A scribe might copy out a single book for years. An illuminator would then take it and work on it for longer still. Not to mention the tanner who made the parchment, and the bookbinder who stitched the book together, and the librarian who worked to get the book for the library and keep it safe from mold and thieves and clumsy monks with ink pots and dirty hands. And some books have authors, too, like Saint Augustine or Rabbi Yehuda. When you think about it, each book is a lot of lives. Dozens and dozens of them (305).

Based on the storyโ€™s reliance on book history, I could easily envision a writing assignment that asks students to close read an image or two alongside its corresponding text. Because the book caters to younger audiences, such an assignment could work across many grade levels, or even at the undergraduate level when framed appropriately.

Most importantly, at the center of this narrative sits a friendship that stands as a corrective to the religious intolerances so familiar to medievalists accustomed to staring down at hate-filled pages on occasion (not that this experience represents all the periodโ€™s literature). Jeanne, the main protagonist and a Christian peasant, befriends two boys: Jacob, a Jew, and William, an oblate (monk-in-training) with a Saracen mother (the standard, but not the most tolerant medieval term for a Muslim). Although widespread, such intolerances were neither universal, nor evenly applied in medieval texts, but they appear even in our most canonical medieval texts, such as Chaucerโ€™s โ€œPrioressโ€™s Taleโ€ with its severe anti-Semitism.[7] However, Gidwitz counters these earlier medieval narratives with a transformative friendship:

Just a few days ago, William and Jeanne would have begged Jacob to follow Christ, and save his soul from damnation. Now the idea of it seemed ludicrous. If God would save their souls, surely, surely, He would save Jacobโ€™s, too. What difference was there between them, except the language in which he prayed? (262).

Such a sentiment might send some medieval theologians into a rage. But, even the more tolerant thinkers of the age tend to turn to conversion as their rationale, rather than understanding and accepting the coexistence of multiple faiths into their worldview. For example, in The Book of John Mandeville, a wildly popular text throughout nearly all of Europe, the narrator draws several parallels between the Muslim and Christian faiths, seeing Islam as similar enough to prompt greater conversion efforts and, therefore, greater tolerance. However, he does not apply such โ€œgenerousโ€ (extra emphasis on the quotations here) perspectives to the Jews, who he villainizes as friends of the Antichrist.[8] Gidwitz, in his efforts towards tolerance and understanding, veers intentionally and rightly from his source materials even while acknowledging the harsh, often dangerous, climate in which medieval Jews in Europe lived.

So, with all these accurate historical re-creations, does Gidwitzโ€™s novel give us an exact replica of the Middle Ages? Well, no. That would require non-fiction and a time machine, a real life one. Ultimately, itโ€™s a fiction novel for younger audiences. It contains crucial life lessons about cheese. Oh, and friendship, tolerance, and love, but all of that can be pretty well be summed up with cheese.

And one final point, why is it that the frame narrativeโ€™s characters do not realize the main speakerโ€™s occupation? Thatโ€™s easy: Nobody expects the Inquisition, Spanish or otherwise.[9]

Karrie Fuller, PhD
University of Notre Dame

Notes:

[1]To learn about different occupations’ rank in the social hierarchy, see Jill Mannโ€™sย Chaucer and Medieval Estates Satire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973).

[2]Some of Chaucerโ€™s tales circulate independently in manuscripts, especially religious ones, such as the โ€œTale of Melibee.โ€

[3]The use of a frame narrative, it should be noted, was not unique to Chaucer among medieval authors. Boccaccioโ€™s Decameronย represents the form in Italy, a country Chaucer visited multiple times where he encountered the works of Boccaccio, Dante, and other major authors on the continent.

[4]For those new to pilgrimage texts, a good place to begin might be The Pilgrimage of Egeriaย for an early example and William Wey for a much later example. While pilgrimage was a spiritual journey and texts most often reflect the seriousness of the experience, it could also be a form of tourism, and fictionalized versions, such as Chaucerโ€™s, reflect this side of the journey to a greater degree. Dragons, and legends more generally, can fit into a pilgrimage narrative as The Book of Sir John Mandevilleย attests.

[5]Read the โ€œAuthorโ€™s Noteโ€ at the back of the book for more details.

[6]Some of Gidwitzโ€™s sources appear in the back of the book in the โ€œAnnotated Bibliography.โ€ Itโ€™s a good place to start for background reading.

[7]In addition to the Canterbury Talesย itself, there are several commentaries on this topic right here on the Medieval Studies Research Blog. For a modern take on Chaucerโ€™s anti-Semitism see this post on โ€œTeaching the Canterbury Talesin the Alt-Right Eraโ€ by Natalie Weber. Find other relevant posts under the โ€œUndergrad Wednesdaysโ€ category as well.

[8]Access an online version of Mandeville as part of the TEAMS Middle English Texts Series.

[9]If you need to read this footnote to understand the cultural reference here, please immerse yourself in the world of Monty Python immediately. Itโ€™s for your own good, really.

Whose Runes are These? I (Don’t) Think I Know

In the mid-twelfth century, a stoneworker in the far northwest of England at Bridekirk, Cumbria cut a lavishly-decorated baptismal font with reliefs of dragons, mysterious figures, and, curiously, a line of runic writing. By the early modern period, the characters on the Bridekirk font were nothing but strange. Early English historian and chronographer William Camden, who included a sketch of the runic inscription in the 1607 edition of his Britannia, declared himself perplexed: โ€œQuid autem illae velint, et cuius gentis characteribus, ego minime video, statuant eruditi.โ€[1]

The east face of the Bridekirk font, by permission of Lionel Wall.ย 

First published in 1586, Camdenโ€™s massive historico-chronographical Britannia went through six editions in the authorโ€™s lifetime, and Camden continually updated and expanded the text, augmenting it with maps and diagrams, such as the rendition of the Bridekirk runes seen below. The last Britannia edition on which Camden collaborated was a 1610 English translation by Philemon Holland, who translates: โ€œBut what they signifie, or what nations characters they should be, I know not, let the learned determine thereof.” Camdenโ€™s uncertainties cut straight to the heart of the matter: whose runes are these? and what do they mean?

The Bridekirk runes as pictured in the 1607 edition ofย Britannia. Courtesy of Dana Sutton.

In the more than 400 years that have passed since the publication of Camdenโ€™s Britannia and despite the best efforts of the eruditi, no simple answer has been found to either of Camden’s questions, the first of which I’ll consider in today’s post. Whose runes are these?

Danish antiquarian Ole Worm learned of the inscription from the Britannia and included his own version of the runes in a 1634 letter to one Henry Spelman:


Translation:
But if a well-printed text of the monuments inscribed with our characters that exist [in England] is sent to me, they would make up the much-desired appendix to those from our country. As far as the one Camden shows us in his book Britannia, I hardly know whether it can be read: [RUNES] That is, as I interpret it according to the laws of our language: โ€œHarald made [this] mound and set up stones in the memory of [his] mother and Mabrok.โ€ But I claim nothing as certain until someone can supply us with a more accurate description.[2]
Leaving aside Wormโ€™s wildly inaccurate translation, which he based off of the second-hand evidence of Camdenโ€™s printed transcription, Iโ€™d like to note that Worm seems to claim the Bridekirk runes among the monumentorum nostris notis consignatorum (monuments signed with our script): he counts these as Scandinavian runes.

At other times the inscription has been claimed as English. The description of the Bridekirk font in Charles Macfarlaneโ€™s Comprehensive History of England, first published in 1856, praises the โ€œingenuity of design and executionโ€ of the font and notes its โ€œSaxon inscription.โ€[3]ย 

The font as pictured in Macfarlane’s History.ย 

Modern scholars agree with Worm that the incised characters are, in the main, Scandinavian. But the inscription is not wholly so: the text employs a few non-runic, decidedly English characters, including โŠ, ศœ, and a bookhand วท. Moreover, the language is not the Norse one might expect from Scandinavian runes but rather English:

Ricard he me iwrokte โŠ to รพis merรฐ ส’er ** me brokte.[4]
Richard crafted me and brought me (eagerly?) to this splendor.

So if the runic inscription is neither fully Norse nor fully English, whose runes (cuius gentis) are they? While Charles Macfarlane claimed them as โ€œSaxonโ€ and Worm counted them as Scandinavian, the runes are actually neither but rather the product of a mixed society continuing to encode both English and Norse cultural practices on stone. Most literally the runes represent phonological values and a particular message, but for most of the fontโ€™s history the place of these symbols in cultural memory โ€“ whose runes they have become โ€“ has been just as important as what they originally meant. The cultural equivocality of the Bridekirk inscription is emblematic of larger ambiguities involving Anglo-Scandinavian ethnicity and culture as imagined by the post-Hastings medieval English. These ambiguous cultural signs, later re-imagined in the early modern period, raise the question of what it meant to be Anglo-Norse in an Anglo-Norman world.

Rebecca West, PhD Candidate
University of Notre Dame

[1] William Camden, โ€œWilliam Camden, Britannia (1607) with an English Translation by Philemon Holland: A Hypertext Critical Edition,โ€ ed. Dana F. Sutton (The Philological Museum, 2004), Descriptio Angliae et Walliae: Cumberland, 7.

[2] Ole Worm, Olai Wormii et ad eum doctorum virorum epistolรฆ, vol. 1 (Copenhagen, 1751), Letter 431. This translation is my own.

[3] Charles MacFarlane, The Comprehensive History of Englandโ€ฏ:Civil and Military, Religious, Intellectual, and Socialโ€ฏ: From the Earliest Period to the Suppression of the Sepoy Revolt, Rev. ed. (London, 1861), 164.

[4]ย The transliteration above is based on that of Page, who reads โ€œ+Ricarรพ he me iwrocte / and to รพis merรฐ (?) me brocte.โ€ R. I. Page, Runes (University of California Press, 1987), 54.