[2] Corresponding to O.N. Aðils we should expect O.E. Æðgils, Æðgisl. The form Ēadgils may be due to confusion with the famous Eadgils, king of the Myrgingas, who is mentioned in Widsith. The name comes only once in Beowulf (l. 2392) and may owe its form there to a corruption of the scribe. That the O.E. form is corrupt seems more likely than that the O.N. Aðils, so well known and so frequently recorded, is a corruption of Auðgisl.
[3] It must be remembered that the sound changes of the Germanic dialects have been worked out so minutely that it is nearly always possible to decide quite definitely whether two names do or do not exactly correspond. Only occasionally is dispute possible [e.g. whether Hrothgar is or is not phonetically the exact equivalent of Hroarr].
[4] See below, pp. 8-10.
[5] Chochilaicus, which appears to be the correct form, corresponds to Hygelac (in the primitive form Hugilaikaz) as Chlodovechus to Hludovicus.
[6] The passages in Beowulf referring to this expedition are:
1202 etc.. Frisians (adjoining the Hetware) and Franks mentioned as the foes.
2354 etc. Hetware mentioned.
2501 etc. Hugas (= Franks) and the Frisian king mentioned.
2914 etc. Franks, Frisians, Hugas, Hetware and "the Merovingian" mentioned.
[7] The identification of Chochilaicus with Hygelac is the most important discovery ever made in the study of Beowulf, and the foundation of our belief in the historic character of its episodes. It is sometimes attributed to Grundtvig, sometimes to Outzen. It was first vaguely suggested by Grundtvig (Nyeste Skilderie af Kjøbenhavn, 1815, col. 1030): the importance of the identification was worked out by him fully, two years later (Danne-Virke, II, 285). In the meantime the passage from Gregory had been quoted by Outzen in his review of Thorkelin's Beowulf (Kieler Blätter, iii, 312). Outzen's reference was obviously made independently, but he failed to detect the real bearing of the passage upon Beowulf. Credit for the find accordingly belongs solely to Grundtvig.