E. THE "JUTE-QUESTION" REOPENED
The view that the Geatas of Beowulf are the Jutes (Iuti, Iutae) of Bede (i.e. the tribe which colonized Kent, the Isle of Wight and Hampshire) has been held by many eminent scholars. It was dealt with only briefly above (pp. 8-9) because I thought the theory was now recognized as being no longer tenable. Lately, however, it has been maintained with conviction and ability by two Danish scholars, Schütte and Kier. It therefore becomes necessary once more to reopen the question, now that the only elaborate discussion of it in the English language favours the "Jute-theory," especially as Axel Olrik gave the support of his great name to the view that "the question is still open[[661]]" and that "the last word has not been said concerning the nationality of the Geatas[[662]]."
As in most controversies, a number of rather irrelevant side issues have been introduced[[663]], so that from mere weariness students are sometimes inclined to leave the problem undecided. Yet the interpretation of the opening chapters of Scandinavian history turns upon it.
Supporters of the "Jute-theory" have seldom approached the subject from the point of view of Old English. Bugge[[664]] perhaps did so: but the "Jute-theory" has been held chiefly by students of Scandinavian history, literature or geography, like Fahlbeck[[665]], Steenstrup[[666]], Gering[[667]], Olrik[[668]], Schütte[[669]] and Kier[[670]]. But, now that the laws of Old English sound-change have been
clearly defined, it seldom happens that anyone who approaches the subject primarily as a student of the Anglo-Saxon language holds the view that the Geatas are Jutes.
And this is naturally so: for, from the point of view of language, the question is not disputable. The Gēatas phonologically are the Gautar (the modern Götar of Southern Sweden). It is admitted that the words are identical[[671]]. And, equally, it is admitted that the word Gēatas cannot be identical with the word Iuti, Iutae, used by Bede as the name of the Jutes who colonized Kent[[671]]. Bede's Iuti, Iutae, on the contrary, would correspond to a presumed Old English *Īuti or *Īutan[[672]], current in his time in Northumbria. This in later Northumbrian would become Īote, Īotan (though the form Īute, Īutan might also survive). The dialect forms which we should expect (and which we find in the genitive and dative) corresponding to this would be: Mercian, Ēote, Ēotan; Late West-Saxon, Ȳte, Ȳtan (through an intermediate Early West-Saxon *Īete, *Īetan, which is not recorded).
If, then, the word Gēatas came to supplant the correct form Īote, Īotan (or its Mercian and West-Saxon equivalents Ēote, Ēotan, Ȳte, Ȳtan), this can only have been the result of confusion. Such confusion is, on abstract grounds, conceivable: it is always possible that the name of one tribe may come to be attached to another. "Scot" has ceased to mean "Irishman," and has come to mean "North Briton"; and there is no intrinsic impossibility in the word Gēatas having been transferred by Englishmen, from the half-forgotten Gautar, to the Jutes, and having driven out the correct name of the latter, Īote, Īotan. For example, there might have been an exiled Geatic family among the Jutish invaders, which might have become so prominent as to cause