The very name Helen, though not the name of Havelok’s wife, was that of his mother, who was killed by the pirates. For the connection between Laȝamon’s Helen and pirates, see Sir F. Madden’s note, vol. iii. p. 428. There is a most curious contradiction in the English lay about Havelok’s religion; in l. 2520 he is a devout Christian, but in l. 2580 Godrich speaks of him as being a cruel pagan. Now it was just about this very time that Paulinus preached in Lindsey, “where the first that believed was a powerful man called _Blecca_, with all his followers” (A.S. Chron. ed. Thorpe, vol. ii. p. 21; A.D. 627). Havelok, according to some, was buried at Stonehenge; but so was Constantine (Laȝamon, iii. 151). A dearth in mentioned in the English lay (l. 824); cf. Laȝamon, iii. 279. And I may here add another coincidence, of an interesting but certainly of a very circuitous nature. A close examination of the Lay of King Horn shews that there is no real connection between the story therein contained and that of Havelok. Yet there is a connection after a sort. Though by different authors, and in different metre, both lays are found in English in the same MS.; both versions belong to the same date; both are from French versions, written by Englishmen from British sources; and now, if we compare King Horn with the very part of Laȝamon now under consideration, there is at once seen to be a most exact resemblance in one point. The story of the ring given by Horn to Rymenhild (K. Horn, ed. Lumby, ll. 1026-1210) is remarkably like that of the ring whereby Brian is recognized by his sister (Laȝamon, iii. 234-238). But it is hardly worth while to pursue the subject further. It may suffice to suppose that the period of the existence of Havelok and Grim may be referred to the times of Æthelberht of Kent and Æthelfrith and Eadwine of Northumbria.[30] It is exceedingly probable that Havelok was never more than a chief or a petty prince, and whether he was a Danish or only a British enemy of the Angles is not of very great importance. If, however, more exact dates be required, they may be found in “The Conquest of Britain by the Saxons,” by Daniel P. Haigh, London, 8vo, 1861, pp. 363-367; where the following dates are suggested. Havelok’s father slain, A.D. 487; his expedition to Denmark, A.D. 507; his reign in England, A.D. 511-531, or a little later. These dates follow a system which is here about 16 years earlier than the dates in the A.S. Chronicle. His results are obtained from totally different considerations. On the whole, let us place Havelok in the _sixth_ century, at _some_ period of his life. [Footnote 29: Hence, by confusion, the placing of Havelok’s father in the time of _Ælfred_.] [Footnote 30: Or, as I should prefer to say, earlier than those times. The two kings spoken of in the Lay may have had names somewhat similar to these, which may have been replaced by the more familiar names here mentioned.]