New Text

Klaeber’s Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg, Fourth Edition

Edited by R.D. Fulk, Robert E. Bjork, and John D. Niles

Frederick Klaeber’s Beowulf has long been the standard edition for study
by students and advanced scholars alike. Its wide-ranging coverage of
scholarship, its comprehensive philological aids, and its exceptionally
thorough notes and glossary have ensured its continued use in spite of the
fact that the book has remained largely unaltered since 1936. The fourth
edition has been prepared with the aim of updating the scholarship while
preserving the aspects of Klaeber’s work that have made it useful to
students of literature, linguists, historians, folklorists, manuscript special-
ists, archaeologists, and theorists of culture.
A revised Introduction and Commentary incorporate the vast store of
scholarship on Beowulf that has appeared since 1936. It brings readers up
to date on areas of scholarship that have been controversial since the last
edition, including the construction of the unique manuscript and views on
the poem’s date and unity of composition. The lightly revised text incor-
porates the best textual criticism of the intervening years, and the
expanded Commentary furnishes detailed bibliographic guidance to dis-
cussion of textual cruces, as well as to modern and contemporary critical
concerns. Aids to pronunciation have been added to the text, and advances
in the study of the poem’s language are addressed throughout. Readers
will nd that the book remains recognizably Klaeber’s work, but with
altered and added features designed to render it as useful today as it has
ever been.

(Toronto Old English Series)

R.D. FULK is Class of 1964 Chancellor’s Professor of English at Indiana

University.

ROBERT E. BJORK is a professor in the Department of English and director

of the Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Arizona
State University.

JOHN D. NILES is Frederic G. Cassidy Professor of Humanities in the

Department of English at the University of Wisconsin – Madison.
 Frederick Klaeber (1863–1954)
at the age of eighty.
Photo courtesy of Profs. Martin Lehnert† & Helen Damico.
 KLAEBER’S
BEOWULF
AND THE FIGHT AT FINNSBURG

EDITED, WITH INTRODUCTION, COMMENTARY

APPENDICES, GLOSSARY, AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

BY
R.D. Fulk
Robert E. Bjork
John D. Niles

WITH A FOREWORD BY
Helen Damico

FOURTH EDITION

BASED ON THE THIRD EDITION

WITH FIRST AND SECOND SUPPLEMENTS
OF
Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg, EDITED BY Fr. Klaeber

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS

Toronto Buffalo London
© University of Toronto Press Incorporated 2008
Toronto Buffalo London
www.utppublishing.com
Printed in Canada

ISBN 978-0-8020-9843-6 (cloth)

ISBN 978-0-8020-9567-1 (paper)

Printed on acid-free paper

Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg edited by Friedrich Klaeber. Copyright ©

1950 by Houghton Mifin Company. Reproduced by special arrangement with
Houghton Mifin Company. All rights reserved.

_____________________________________________________________

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication

Beowulf. English
Klaeber’s Beowulf and The ght at Finnsburg / edited by R.D. Fulk,
Robert E. Bjork, John D. Niles ; with a foreword by Helen Damico – 4th ed.

(Toronto Old English series)

Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-8020-9843-6 (bound). – ISBN 978-0-8020-9567-1 (pbk.)

I. Fulk, R.D. (Robert Dennis) II. Bjork, Robert E., 1949– III. Klaeber, Fr.
(Friedrich), 1863–1954 IV. Niles, John D. V. Title. VI. Series.

PR1583.K53 2008 829'.3 C2007-906927-4

_____________________________________________________________

University of Toronto Press acknowledges the nancial assistance to its pub-

lishing program of the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts
Council.

University of Toronto Press gratefully acknowledges the nancial assistance of

the Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto, in the publication of
this book.

University of Toronto Press acknowledges the nancial support for its

publishing activities of the Government of Canada through the Book
Publishing Industry Development Program (BPIDP).
 CONTENTS

FRONTISPIECE: FREDERICK KLAEBER ii

FOREWORD BY HELEN DAMICO vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS x
FIGURES AND MAPS xi
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS xviii

BEOWULF

INTRODUCTION xxiii

I. Summary of the Poem xxiii

II. Manuscript xxv
III. The World of Monsters and Myth xxxvi
IV The World of Humans li
V. Christian and Heroic Values lxvii
VI. Structure and Unity lxxix
VII. Method of Narration xcii
VIII. Mood, Tone, and Style cix
IX. Some Trends in Literary Criticism cxxii
X. Language and Poetic Form cxxix
XI. Date, Origins, Influences, Genre clxii
XII. The Present Edition clxxxviii

TEXT, WITH APPARATUS OF VARIANTS 1

COMMENTARY 110

THE FIGHT AT FINNSBURG

INTRODUCTION 273
PLATE OF HICKES’S EDITION 281
TEXT, WITH APPARATUS OF VARIANTS 283
COMMENTARY 286

APPENDICES
A. PARALLELS (ANALOGUES AND ILLUSTRATIVE PASSAGES) 291
B. INDEX OF REFERENCES TO EARLY GERMANIC CULTURE 316
C. TEXTUAL CRITICISM 321
D. THE TEXTS OF Waldere AND THE OLD HIGH GERMAN Hildebrandslied 337

GLOSSARY
GLOSSARY OF Beowulf AND The Fight at Finnsburg 343
PROPER NAMES 464

WORKS CITED 475

This page intentionally left blank
 FOREWORD

‘It doesn’t look like much,’ Klaeber said, giving voice to the disappointment he saw
rising up in the reporter’s face as he leafed through the book. The young man had ex-
pected something more monumental than the five-by-seven-and-a-half-inch text with
its dull, steel-blue cover; at least something in leather.1 Yet over the next eighty years,
this drab-looking text, Klaeber’s Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg, would become
the authoritative work governing Beowulfian scholarship. Congratulatory letters poured
into the University of Minnesota’s English Department from universities in Germany,
Sweden, and England, as well as the United States. At its release, Ferdinand Holt-
hausen from Kiel University remarked that it superseded all earlier editions, with its
systematic bibliography, voluminous glossary, and appendices of relevant Scandi-
navian and other Old English materials. From Yale, Albert S. Cook wrote Klaeber that
his Beowulf would honor ‘any of the illustrious names in Germanic scholarship. The
mere industry and breadth of knowledge you display are something to marvel at, not to
speak of the ingenuity, the judgment, and the good taste.’ Echoing Holthausen, R.W.
Chambers, the Quain Professor at University College, London, commented on the work
as ‘a most creditable opus transcending in merit all previous editions by modern
editors.’2
Yet by the time that this book was released in July 1922, Klaeber had already begun
work on revisions. In contrast to the first edition, whose preparation had taken fifteen
years, the second and third editions appeared in rapid succession in 1928 and 1936,
showing the same editorial care, precision, and thoroughness that had characterized the
first. The production and publication process, however, had become more complex.
After a thirty-eight-year tenure at the University of Minnesota, Klaeber had retired to
Berlin in 1931, and the majority of the work on the third edition was accomplished in
Germany. Writing from his home in Berlin-Zehlendorf West to Kemp Malone, Klaeber
apologetically reported that not as many changes of importance as he would have liked
had gone into the 1936 edition; too many alterations might have radically altered the
book’s appearance and have possibly deterred the publisher, D.C. Heath, from going
forward with the project.3 The extent of revisions apparently had been a topic of in-
terest to both men, for, in an earlier letter, Klaeber had lamented that Malone’s sugges-
tion for an overhaul of the entire book had not sat well with Heath and that a middle
course had been agreed upon.4 Yet, he assured Malone, the revisions that had been
made had brought the scholarship up to date to October 1933 (the date Klaeber had
mailed the final copy to Heath). He had expanded the front matter from 162 to 187
pages and the main portion from 412 to 444 pages. Heath had not only accepted the
revisions and gone forward with the project, but completely reset the text. The 1936
third edition was reissued in 1950 with supplements and a new cover.5
The value of the 1950 edition rested on its supplements. From 1933 forward, Klaeber
had been at work on the first supplement, which appeared in article form and in a new

1
Interview by Gerald Regan, Minneapolis Daily, 29 April 1926.
2
Minnesota Daily, 9 December 1922.
3
Klaeber to Kemp Malone, 1 May 1936. Klaeber’s letters to Malone, from which excerpts are
given here, are housed in the Robert W. Woodruff Library, Emory University. Others of Klaeber’s
personal letters are in the University of Minnesota Archives.
4
Klaeber to Kemp Malone, 5 July 1934.
5
In a letter to Heinrich Ch. Matthes (one of the many reviewers of the third edition), Klaeber
remarked that the 1950 third edition with first and second supplements was in large part a version
of the 1936 edition; the opinions he had expressed concerning the text had not substantially changed.
viii FOREWORD
printing by Heath,1 in the difficult political climate of 1941. The second supplement,
too, initially published in article form in 1944,2 came at the height of the hostilities
between Germany and the United States. With understated propriety, Klaeber an-
nounced in a footnote to his 1944 article that, upon completion of that research, his
house in Berlin-Zehlendorf West had been destroyed by an American bomb.3 After the
bombing, Klaeber and his wife fled Berlin, setting up residence in his wife’s modest
house in Bad Kösen, a small town in eastern Germany on the way to Naumberg, in
what was to become the Russian zone. Here Klaeber continued work on the second
supplement despite the destruction of his library.
From the time of his retirement to Germany in 1931, Klaeber’s American colleagues
had provided him with scholarly materials for ready reference, an exchange of corres-
pondence that terminated with the start of the Second World War. At the first oppor-
tunity after the reopening of the international mail service in 1945, Klaeber reached out
to his American colleagues through the United States Civil Administration Division in
Berlin.4 At no time did Klaeber have so much need of the support of his colleagues as
he did in the dark days of the late 1940s in Russian-occupied Bad Kösen. From 1945
on, Klaeber depended on the grace and generosity of colleagues from the West —
Kemp Malone and Joseph W. Beach, being only two of some fifteen — to send
materials on Beowulfian and Old English scholarly activity that had taken place during
the early forties. The scholarly work in Old English in Germany, what there was of it,
he lamented, was in the hands of elderly men like himself.5 With systematized regu-
larity, books, pamphlets, and periodicals streamed in from Malone at Johns Hopkins
and from Beach and other colleagues at the University of Minnesota.6 His own books
and journals burned, his irreplaceable notes and references in ashes, partially paralyzed
and in poverty, Klaeber completed his second supplement to the 1950 edition while
bedridden in the second floor of Berbigstrasse 3, hoping that perhaps his work ‘would
outlive him.’
In a ninetieth-birthday tribute to Klaeber, Martin Lehnert described the 1950 third
edition as the ‘Beowulf-Bible of International Studies.’ It exemplified the precision and
high standards of Germanic scholarship and was a tribute to the exacting instruction
that had characterized the educational system of Germany during the period of
Klaeber’s education. The work, unsurpassed in its knowledge and judgment, formed
and would continue to form the foundation for Beowulfian research and scholarship.7
Beowulfian scholarship produced in the more than half a century since the publication
of the 1950 edition is a fulfillment of Lehnert’s prediction. Many library shelves could
be furnished with responses to and developments of the three main issues of Beo-
wulfian scholarship Klaeber felt he had ‘settled’ (his word) — single over multiple

1
‘A Few Recent Additions to Beowulf Bibliography and Notes,’ Beibl. 52 (1941) 135–7;
Beowulf and The Fight at Finnsburg, third edition with supplement (Boston, 1941).
2
‘Some Further Additions on Beowulf Bibliography and Notes,’ Beibl. 54/55 (1944) 274–80.
3
For a discussion on the probable dates of the bombing, see my article ‘“My Professor of Anglo-
Saxon was Frederick Klaeber”: Minnesota and Beyond,’ in The Preservation and Transmission of
AS Culture, ed. P. Szarmach and J. Rosenthal (Kalamazoo, 1997) 73–98, esp. 90, 98 n.¯36.
4
Roger H. Wells, Civil Administration Division, Office of Military Government for Germany,
to Joseph W. Beach, Chair of the Department of English, 3 July 1946: ‘She [a certain Fräulein
Stollfuss] reports that the Klaebers are in bad shape — in fact, starving. I doubt if they will be able
to live through another winter without help.’ University of Minnesota Archives.
5
Klaeber to Kemp Malone, 8 June 1946.
6
See my article ‘Klaeber’s Last Years: Letters from Bad Koesen,’ OEN 22.2 (1989) 41–5. For
some eight years, Klaeber’s Minnesota colleagues also sent food and clothing to the Klaebers and,
in fact, were responsible for their survival.
7
‘Friedrich Klaeber zum 90. Geburtstag am 1. Oktober 1953,’ Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Ameri-
kanistik 2 (1953) 122–8 (at 124). In this piece, Professor Lehnert quotes from an address by Profes-
sor Dr. Wilhelm Horn, who had been Klaeber’s friend and colleague in Berlin and Lehnert’s teacher.
 FOREWORD ix
authorship, Christian over pagan authorship, and the author’s familiarity with the
Aeneid — to say nothing of the critical responses to his views on the poem’s dating, his
metrical and linguistic observations, his views on female sovereignty, and the significa-
tions in his glossary.
Yet the proliferation of Beowulfian scholarship and the variety and contemporaneity
of its issues over the last half-century are also signs of the need for a revised edition of
the magisterial third edition, which, as the years advance, will otherwise no longer be
able to justify that adjective. Even today, that edition can no longer claim to offer
comprehensive coverage of all aspects of the poem, nor does it include mention of
recent and innovative critical studies, inquiries which Klaeber, given his ‘open-
mindedness’ (Lehnert’s term), his industry, and his taste for ‘innovation,’ would have
wished to address.1 The present new edition of Beowulf — titled Klaeber’s Beowulf, in
acknowledgment of that scholar’s remarkable achievement and legacy — carries for-
ward Klaeber’s commitment initially expressed in 1922 and repeated in every revision
since then: to help students interpret the text by providing them with ample resources
for in-depth study. The current editors likewise join Klaeber in hoping that students
will feel encouraged to form their own judgment ‘as occasion arises.’2

HELEN DAMICO¯

1
A year before his death, thanking Martin Lehnert for his gift of a journal, Klaeber wrote: ‘I am
not as yet so ancient as to want to cut myself off from all innovations.’ Postcard, 3 December 1953,
courtesy of the late Professor Dr. Martin Lehnert.
2
Beowulf and The Fight at Finnsburg (Boston, 1922) cxxii.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is a pleasure to acknowledge the generous assistance of a great many people and

institutions in the preparation of this book. We owe a heavy debt of gratitude to the
staff at numerous libraries, especially at our home institutions, as well as at the libraries
of New York and Princeton Universities, the British Library, the New York Public
Library, and the Newberry Library. Advice regarding photographs, as well as generous
personal assistance in obtaining them, was provided by Ole Crumlin-Pedersen and the
staff of the Roskilde Ship Museum, by Nicolai Garhøj Larsen (formerly of Lejre
Museum), and by Helen Damico. The ways in which we have bene¢ted from con-
sulting the many ¢ne editions of the poem that have appeared since Klaeber’s day will
be apparent at every turn. Particular scholars lent assistance in more ways than can
conveniently be indicated, including (among others too numerous to name) Björn
Ambrosiani, Kent Andersson, Frederick Biggs, George Clark, Andrea Clarke, Justin
Clegg, André Crépin, Helen Damico, Alfred David, David Dumville, Kari Ellen Gade,
Heide Estes, Mary George, Kurt Goblirsch, Scott Gwara, Thomas Hart, Robert
Hasenfratz, Richard M. Hogg†, David Hoover, Stefan Jurasinski, Calvin B. Kendall,
Eugene Kintgen, Emily Paulson, Paula Rabinowitz, Geoffrey R. Russom, Mary K.
Savelli, Peter Stokes, Albert Wertheim†, and ¢ve anonymous commentators who
reviewed parts of the typescript for the University of Toronto Press. Chelsea Avirett,
Karen Bollermann, Heather Hoyt, Brian O’Camb, and Stephanie Volf lent invaluable
bibliographic assistance. The School of Historical Studies, Institute for Advanced
Study, Princeton, was home to REB for the 2004–5 academic year, and the National
Endowment for the Humanities made research leave possible for him again in 2006–7,
when he completed a good deal of his work on this book. To the IAS, the NEH, and
Arizona State University, he is grateful for those two years in which to work, and
particularly thanks his wife, Mary, and daughter, Francesca, for their unruÑed support.
JDN gratefully acknowledges the research support he has received from his home
Department and from the Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin–Madison
through income provided by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. RDF owes a
debt of gratitude to the OÌce of the President and the College of Arts and Sciences
Humanities Institute for generous underwriting of research, as well as to the Depart-
ment of English at New York University for support. The editors at Houghton MiÑin
are to be thanked for their understanding of the nature of this project and their con-
sequent willingness to assign rights to Klaeber’s work to the University of Toronto
Press. Most especially we wish to express our gratitude to those at the University of
Toronto Press who have provided generous and patient support and advice, including
Barbara Porter, John St James, Ani Deyirmenjian, and, above all, Suzanne Rancourt
and the series editor, Andy Orchard.
In acknowledgment of Frederick Klaeber’s distinguished contributions to Old Eng-
lish scholarship, part of the proceeds from the sale of this book will go to the Klaeber
Fund in support of graduate student fellowships in the Department of English at the
University of Minnesota, and to the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists to help
fund graduate student travel awards to its conferences.
Fig. 1. — London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A.xv.
Fol. 160r (reduced); Beowulf lines 1352–77,
illustrating the hand of Scribe A.
By permission of the British Library.
Fig. 2. — London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A.xv.
Fol. 184r (reduced); Beowulf lines 2428–50,
illustrating the hand of Scribe B.
By permission of the British Library.
 Fig. 3. — The Ladby ship (9th to early 10th century, reconstructed).
Found in a grave mound near Ladby, island of Funen, Denmark.
Model by Vibeke Bischof, photo by Werner Karrasch.
© Viking Ship Museum, Denmark.

Fig. 4. — Viking Age hall at Gammel Lejre, island of Zealand, Denmark

(late 9th to 10th century).
Computer drawing © Nicolai Garhøj Larsen and EyeCadcher Media.
Fig. 5. — Helmet from Grave 12 at Vendel, Uppland, Sweden
(7th century).
Photo © Historiska Museet, Stockholm.
Fig. 6. — Bronze dies from Torslunda, Öland, Sweden (ca. 7th century).
Photo © Historiska Museet, Stockholm.

Fig. 7. — Helmet from Benty Grange, Derbyshire, U.K. (7th century).

Photo © Sheffield Museums and Galleries Trust, U.K.
Fig. 8. — Gold collar from Färjestaden, Öland, Sweden (5th–6th century).
Drawing from O. Montelius, The Civilisation of Sweden in Heathen Times,
tr. F.H. Woods, 128. London and New York, 1888.

Fig. 9. — Øm jættestue, island of Zealand, Denmark.

(Inset: interior view.)
Photos © John D. Niles.
Key to Map 1.

1. Thorsbjerg
2. Nydam
3. Kragehul
4. Vimose
5. Trelleborg
6. Ladby
7. Lejre
8. Skuldelev
9. Torslunda
10. Tuna
11. Uppsala
12. Valsgärde
13. Vendel
14. Oseberg
15. Gokstad
16. Snartemo

Key to Map 2.

1. Yeavering
2. York
3. Benty Grange
4. Snape
5. Sutton Hoo
6. Taplow
7. Cowdery’s Down

Maps. — The North Sea Cultural Zone. — 1. Scandinavia. — 2. Britain

Chief archaeological sites mentioned in the Introduction and Commentary.
Maps by Elizabeth Fine Simcock.
 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
OE poems other than Beo and Finn are cited from Krapp & Dobbie 1931–53, using the abbrevia-
tions of the DOE (see ASE 4 [1975] 207–21), which are also used for prose texts. The Poetic Edda is
cited from the 5th ed. of G. Neckel, rev. H. Kuhn (Heidelberg, 1983), though the spelling has been
normalized. Snorra Edda (Prologue, Gylfaginning, Skáldskaparmál, Háttatal) is cited from the ed.
of A. Faulkes, in 3 parts (Oxford & London, 1982–98). See also p. 283 (Finn abbreviations).
A. or Angl. Anglia.
Aant. P. Cosijn, Aanteekeningen op den
Beowulf (Leiden, 1892) [page refs.,
where required, are to the tr.: R.
Bremmer et al., Notes on Beowulf
(Leeds, 1991)].
ABzäG Amsterdamer Beiträge zur
älteren Germanistik.
ae. altenglisch(e, -en, etc.).
AF Anglistische Forschungen.
AfdA Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum.
Afnf. Arkiv för nordisk ¢lologi.
ags. angelsächsisch(e, -en, etc.).
Angl. Anglian.
AnMed. Annuale Mediaevale.
AION-SG Annali Istituto Universitario
Orientale di Napoli. Sezione german-
ica. (Filologia germanica, unless other-
wise specified.)
Alxr. M. Alexander, ed., Beowulf (Lon-
don, 1995).
Appx.A (etc.) Appendix A (etc.) herein.
APS Acta Philologica Scandinavica.
Archiv Archiv für das Studium der
neueren Sprachen und Literaturen.
ArchL Archivum Linguisticum.
Arn. T. Arnold, ed., Beowulf (London,
1876).
AS Anglo-Saxon.
ASE Anglo-Saxon England.
ASSAH Anglo-Saxon Studies in Ar-
chaeology & History.
Bamm. A. Bammesberger.
BBzA Bonner Beiträge zur Anglistik.
Beibl. Beiblatt zur Anglia.
BGdSL Beiträge zur Geschichte der
deutschen Sprache und Literatur. (T =
Tübingen, vs. Halle.)
Binz G. Binz, ‘Zeugnisse zur german-
ischen Sage in England,’ BGdSL 20
(1895) 141–223.
Björkm.Eig. E. Björkman, Studien über
die Eigennamen im Beowulf, SEP 58
(Halle, 1920).
Bliss A. Bliss, The Metre of Beowulf,
rev. ed. (Oxford, 1967).
B-Mitford R. Bruce-Mitford, The
Sutton Hoo Ship-Burial, 3 vols.
(London, 1975–83).
Bout. K. Bouterwek, ‘Zur Kritik des
Beowulfliedes,’ ZfdA 11 (1859) 59–113.
BT J. Bosworth and T. Toller, An AS
Dictionary (Oxford, 1898); BTS =
Supplement thereto by Toller (1921);
BTSA = Addendum by A. Campbell
(1972).
Bu. S. Bugge, ‘Studien über das Beo-
wulfepos,’ BGdSL 12 (1887) 1–112,
360–75; Bu.Tid. = Bugge, ‘Spredte
iagttagelser vedkommende de old-
engelska digte om Beówulf og
Waldere,’ Tidskrift for Philologi og
Paedagogik 8 (1868–9) 40–78, 287–
307; Bu.Zs. = Bugge, ‘Zum Beowulf,’
ZfdPh. 4 (1873) 192–224.
Cha. R. Chambers, ed., Beowulf (Cam-
bridge, 1914; rev. ed. of Wyatt’s Beo-
wulf¯); Cha.Intr. = Chambers, Beowulf:
An Introduction to the Study of the
Poem (Cambridge, 1921; 3rd ed. rev.
C. Wrenn, 1959); Cha.Wid. = Cham-
bers, ed., Widsith (Cambridge, 1912).
Chck. H. Chickering, ed. & tr., Beo-
wulf (Garden City, 1977; rev. ed.
2006).
CL Comparative Literature.
Cl.Hall. J. Clark Hall, A Concise AS
Dictionary, 4th ed. rev. H. Meritt
(Cambridge, 1960); Cl.Hall tr. = his
prose translation (London, 1901; 2nd
ed. rev. C. Wrenn, 1950).
Cl.-Vig. R. Cleasby and G. Vigfusson,
An Icelandic-English Dictionary (rev.
W. Craigie, Oxford, 1957).
Cony. John Josias Conybeare, Illustra-
tions of AS Poetry, ed. William Daniel
Conybeare (London, 1826), pp. 137–
55; Coll. = J.J. Conybeare’s collation
 ABBREVIATIONS
of the MS with Thorkelín’s ed. (re-
produced in Ki.).
Cos. viii. P. Cosijn, ‘Zum Beowulf,’
BGdSL 8 (1882) 568–74.
cpd(s). compound(s) (and derivatives
formed with affixes).
Crp. A. Crépin, ed., Beowulf (Göp-
pingen, 1991); Crp.c = corrigenda
(Bulletin des Anglicistes Médiévistes
43 [Summer 1993] 745–9).
Dan. Danish.
Dav. N. Davis, Introduction to the 2nd
ed. of Z.
Dob. E. Dobbie’s edd. of Beo and Finn
in Krapp & Dobbie 1931–53.
DOE Dictionary of Old English, ed. A.
Cameron et al. (Toronto, 1986–; cur-
rently A–G).
E. L. Ettmülller, ed., Carmen de Beo-
vulfi, etc. (Zurich, 1875) [2896 lines];
E.Sc. = his Engla and Seaxna Scopas
and Bōceras (Quedlinburg, 1850) [ed.
of ll.¯210–498, 607–61, 710–836, 991–
1650, 2516–2820, 3110–82]; E.tr. = his
German translation (Zurich, 1840).
Edd. See the note on the text, p.¯2.
EGS English and Germanic Studies.
ELL English Language and Linguistics.
ELN English Language Notes.
ES English Studies.
E&S Essays & Studies.
EStn. Englische Studien.
EWS Early West Saxon.
FLH Folia Linguistica Historica.
Fu.1 R. Fulk, ‘Some Contested Read-
ings in the Beowulf MS,’ RES 56
(2005) 192–223; Fu.2 = ‘Six Cruces in
Beowulf¯,’ in Latin Learning and Eng-
lish Lore, ed. K. O’Brien O’Keeffe &
A. Orchard (Toronto, 2005), 349–67.
Germ. Germania, Vierteljahrsschrift
für deutsche Alterthumskunde (1856–
92).
GL General Linguistics.
Gr. C. Grein’s editions (Gr.1 = in his
Bibliothek der ags. Poesie, I [Göt-
tingen, 1857], 255–341; Gr.2 = Beovulf
[Kassel, 1867]); Gr.Spr. = Sprach-
schatz der ags. Dichter, 1861–4 (rev. J.
Köhler, Heidelberg, 1912).
Grienb. T. von Grienberger. Unless
otherwise specified, the ref. is to his
review of He.-Soc.7, ZföG 56 (1905)
744–61.
xix
Grimm D.M. J. Grimm, Deutsche
Mythologie. Refs. are to the 4th ed. (3
vols., Berlin, 1875–8) [w. page nos. in
Stallybrass’s translation added in
brackets].
GRM Germanisch-Romanische
Monatsschrift.
Gru. N. Grundtvig, ed., Beowulfes
Beorh (Copenhagen, 1861); Gru.tr. =
his tr., Bjowulfs Drape, 1st ed.
(Copenhagen, 1820).
He. M. Heyne, ed., Beowulf (Pader-
born, 1863, 18682, 18733, 18794);
He.1–18 = He. + Soc. + Schü. + v.Sch.
H.E. Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica
gentis Anglorum (ed. & tr. B. Colgrave
& R. Mynors, Oxford, 1969).
Hel. Heliand. Cited from the 10th ed.
of O. Behaghel, rev. B. Taeger
(Tübingen, 1996).
Hildebr. Hildebrandslied. See Appx.D.
HOEM R. Fulk, A History of OE Meter
(Philadelphia, 1992).
Hogg R. Hogg, A Grammar of OE, I:
Phonology (Oxford, 1992).
Hold. A. Holder, ed., Beowulf
(Freiburg im Br., 1884, 18992).
Holt. F. Holthausen. Unless otherwise
specified, the ref. is to his ed., Beowulf
(Heidelberg, Part i [text] 1905, 19082,
19123, 19143, 19215, 19296, 19387, 19488
[refs. are primarily to the 8th ed.]; Part
ii [notes, glossary] 1906, 19092, 19133,
19194, 19295); Holt.Zs. = his ‘Beiträge
zur Erklärung des altenglischen Epos,’
ZfdPh. 37 (1905) 113–25; Holt.Et. = his
Altenglisches etymologisches Wörter-
buch, rev. C. Matthes (Heidelberg, 1963).
Holtzm. A. Holtzmann, ‘Zu Beowulf,’
Germ. 8 (1863) 489–97.
Hoops J. Hoops, Kommentar zum Beo-
wulf (Heidelberg, 1932); Hoops St. =
his Beowulfstudien, AF 74 (Heidelberg,
1932).
HS Historische Sprachforschung.
Hutch. B. Hutcheson, OE Poetic Metre
(Cambridge, 1995).
IF Indogermanische Forschungen.
IJGLSA Interdisciplinary Journal of
Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic
Analysis.
Illus.B Beowulf: An Illustrated Edition,
tr. S. Heaney, illustrations ed. J. Niles
(New York, 2007).
xx ABBREVIATIONS
Intr. Introduction to this ed.
Ísl.osb. Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon,
Íslensk orðsifjabók (Reykjavík, 1989).
Ja. G. Jack, ed., Beowulf, rev. rpt. (Ox-
ford, 1995).
JEGP Journal of English and
Germanic Philology.
JEL Journal of English Linguistics.
Jesp.Misc. A Grammatical Miscellany
Offered to Otto Jespersen (Copen-
hagen, 1930).
JGP Journal of Germanic Philology
(= JEGP, vols. 1–4).
Kal. M. Kaluza, Der ae. Vers, II: Die
Metrik des Beowulfliedes (Berlin,
1894).
Ke. J. Kemble, ed., The AS Poems of
Beowulf, etc. (London, 1833 [Vol. i
only, 100 copies]; rev. ed. in 2 vols.,
1835–7).
Ki. K. Kiernan, ed., Electronic Beo-
wulf, 2 disks (London, 1999).
Kl. Klaeber (in ref. to the 3rd ed. of the
present work, unless otherwise
specified); Kl.1(–2) = the 1st [1922] (and
2nd [1928]) edd. of the present work
(the 2nd is not quite an exact reprint of
the 1st [see Varr.: 2215b], with the
addition of a supplement [abbr.: Kl.2
Su.]); Kl.3 = the 3rd ed. [1936] (only);
Kl.3 Su. = 1st [1941] or 2nd [1950]
supplement to the 3rd ed.
Kl.Misc. Studies in English Philology:
A Miscellany in Honor of Frederick
Klaeber, ed. K. Malone & M. Ruud
(Minneapolis, 1929).
KLNM Kulturhistorisk leksikon for
nordisk middelalder fra vikingetid til
reformationstid, ed. J. Brøndsted
(Copenhagen, 1956–78).
Klu. F. Kluge; Klu. ix = his ‘Zum
Beowulf,’ BGdSL 9 (1884) 187–92.
Kock E. Kock, ‘Interpretations and
Emendations of Early Eng. Texts, III,’
Angl. 27 (1904) 218–37; Kock2 = Part
IV of same, Angl. 42 (1918) 99–124; so
Kock3 = Parts VI & VII, Angl. 44 (1920)
98–104, 246–8; Kock4 = Part VIII,
Angl. 45 (1921) 105–22; Kock5 = Parts
IX & X, Angl. 46 (1922) 63–96 (esp.
75–96), 173–90.
Kölbing E. Kölbing, ‘Zur Beóvulf-
handschrift,’ Archiv 56 (1876)
91–118.
Kudrun Cited from the ed. of K.
Bartsch, rev. K. Stackmann (Tübingen,
2000).
Lang. (§) Introduction to this ed.,
cxxix–clxii: Language and Poetic Form
(with § no.).
Le. The partial ed. of M. Lehnert
(4th ed., Berlin, 1967; rev. E. Standop,
20055).
Lit.bl. Literaturblatt für germanische
and romanische Philologie.
LSE Leeds Studies in English, new
series (1967–) unless marked ‘o.s.’
Luick K. Luick, Historische Gram-
matik der englischen Sprache (1914–
40; rpt. Oxford, 1964).
LWS Late West Saxon.
Mad. F. Madden’s collation of
Thorkelín’s edition with the MS
(reproduced in Ki.).
MÆ Medium Ævum.
Mag. F. Magoun, ed., Béowulf & Jud-
ith (Cambridge, MA, 1959; rev. J.
Bessinger, 19662).
Mal. K. Malone. Unless otherwise
specified, the ref. is to his facsimile,
The Nowell Codex (Copenhagen,
1963).
MED Middle English Dictionary, ed.
H. Kurath et al. (Ann Arbor, 1952–99).
Merc. Mercian.
MGS Michigan Germanic Studies.
MLN Modern Language Notes.
MLQ Modern Language Quarterly.
MLR Modern Language Review.
Mö. H. Möller, Das altenglische Volks-
epos, I (Kiel, 1883). [Vol. II: recon-
struction of the supposed original text
in 344 quatrains.]
MP Modern Philology.
MR B. Mitchell & F. Robinson, eds.,
Beowulf (Oxford, 1998).
MS Mediaeval Studies.
MSS Münchener Studien zur Sprach-
wissenschaft.
Müll. K. Müllenhoff. Unless otherwise
specified, the ref. is to his Beovulf,
Q&F 62 (Berlin, 1889).
n. or (n.) a note in the Commentary;
thus (n.), placed after 2195, means: see
note on l.¯2195.
Neophil. Neophilologus.
Ni. G. Nickel et al., eds., Beowulf, 3
vols. (Heidelberg, 1976–82).
 ABBREVIATIONS
Nibel. Das Nibelungenlied. Cited from
the 22nd ed. of K. Bartsch, rev. H. de
Boor (Mannheim, 1988).
NM Neuphilologische Mitteilungen.
Notat.Norr. E. Kock, Notationes
Norrœnæ (Lunds Universitets
Årsskrift, in vols. 19–34), 1923–41.
NOWELE North-Western European
Language Evolution.
N&Q Notes & Queries, new series
(1954–), unless otherwise specified.
OED Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd
ed. (1989).
OEG A. Campbell, OE Grammar (Ox-
ford, 1959).
OES B. Mitchell, OE Syntax, 2 vols.
(Oxford, 1985).
OT Oral Tradition.
Pal. Palaestra: Untersuchungen und
Texte aus der deutschen and englischen
Philologie (Berlin, Göttingen).
PCP Pacific Coast Philology.
P.Grdr. Grundriss der germanischen
Philologie, ed. H. Paul (Strassburg,
1890–3; 2nd ed. 1900–9).
PLL Papers on Lang. and Literature.
Pope J. Pope, The Rhythm of Beowulf
(New Haven, 1942; 19662).
pp. (in grammatical contexts:) past or
passive participle.
PQ Philological Quarterly.
pres.ptc. present or active participle.
Q&F Quellen und Forschungen.
ref. referring, or reference (to).
rem. remark (in Lang. in this ed.).
RES Review of English Studies, new
series (1950–), unless otherwise
specified.
Rie. M. Rieger. Rie.L. = Alt- und
angelsächsisches Lesebuch (Giessen,
1861); Rie.V. = ‘Die alt- und angel-
sächsische Verskunst,’ ZfdPh. 7 (1876)
1–64; Rie.Zs. = ‘Zum Beowulf,’ ZfdPh.
3 (1871) 381–416.
R.-L. Reallexikon der germanischen
Altertumskunde, 1st ed. by J. Hoops, 4
vols. (Strassburg, 1911–19); 2nd ed. by
H. Beck et al., 35 vols. (Berlin, 1968–
2007).
Rob. F. Robinson, ‘Beowulf in the
Twentieth Century,’ PBA 94 (1996)
45–62.
SAP Studia Anglica Posnaniensia.
Sarr. G. Sarrazin. Unless otherwise
xxi
specified, the ref. is to his Beowulf-
Studien (Berlin, 1888) (= Sarr.St.).
Saxo Saxo Grammaticus: Gesta Dan-
orum, Danmarkshistorien, I, ed. K.
Friis-Jensen (Copenhagen, 2005), cited
by book, chapter, and sub-chapter.
[Refs. to the Eng. tr. are to H. David-
son, ed., and P. Fischer, tr., Saxo
Grammaticus: The History of the
Danes, I: Translation (Cambridge,
1979), cited by page.]
SB K. Brunner, Ae. Grammatik nach
der ags. Grammatik von Eduard
Sievers, 3rd ed. (Tübingen, 1965).
Schönf. M. Schönfeld, Wörterbuch der
altgermanischen Personen- und
Völkernamen. (Heidelberg, 1911).
Schü. L. Schücking. Unless otherwise
specified, the ref. is to his revision of
He. (19088, 19109, 191310, 191811,
191812, 192913, 193114; refs. are
primarily to the 14th ed.); Schü.Bd. =
his Untersuchungen zur
Bedeutungslehre der ags.
Dichtersprache (Heidelberg, 1915);
Schü.Sa. = his Grundzüge der
Satzverknüpfung im Beowulf, I, SEP 15
(Halle, 1904).
Sed. W. Sedgefield. Unless otherwise
specified, the ref. is to his ed., Beowulf
(Manchester, 1910; 19132; 19353; refs.
are primarily to the 3rd ed.).
SEL Studies in English Literature
(Tokyo).
SEP Studien zur englischen Philologie.
si. similarly.
Siev. E. Sievers; Siev.A.M. = his Alt-
germanische Metrik (Halle, 1893);
Siev.R. = ‘Zur Rhythmik des german-
ischen Alliterationsverses,’ BGdSL 10
(1885) 209–314, 451–545.
sj. subjunctive.
Sm. Appendix I to A. Smith, ‘Photog-
raphy of MSS,’ London Med. Stud. 1
(1937–9) 179–207, at 202–5; rpt. in Z.,
2nd ed., pp. vii–x.
SN Studia Neophilologica.
Soc. A. Socin’s revision of He. (18885,
18986, 19037).
SP Studies in Philology.
SS Scandinavian Studies.
Su. See Kl.
Suz. S. Suzuki, The Metrical Or-
ganization of Beowulf (Berlin, 1996).
xxii ABBREVIATIONS
Swed. Swedish.
Swn. M. Swanton, ed., Beowulf
(Manchester, 1978, 19972).
t.Br. B. ten Brink, Beowulf:
Untersuchungen (Berlin, 1889).
Thk. Grim. Johnson Thorkelin [Grímur
Jónsson Thorkelín], ed., De Danorum
rebus gestis secul. III & IV. poëma
danicum dialecto anglosaxonica
(Copenhagen, 1815; the editio
princeps).
Tho. B. Thorpe, ed., The AS Poems of
Beowulf, etc. (Oxford, 1855).
Tol. J. Tolkien. The ref. is usually to
his Finn & Hengest, ed. A. Bliss
(London, 1982).
TPS Transactions of the Philological
Society.
Tr. M. Trautmann. Unless otherwise
specified, the ref. is to his ed., Das
Beowulflied [=BBzA 16] (Bonn, 1904);
Tr.1 = his Berichtigungen, Vermut-
ungen und Erklärungen zum Beowulf,
in BBzA 2 (1899) 121–92; Tr.F. = his
Finn und Hildebrand, BBzA 7 (Bonn,
1903); Tr.Kyn. = his Kynewulf, der
Bischof und Dichter [=BBzA 1] (Bonn,
1898).
Trp. R. Tripp, More about the Fight
with the Dragon (New York, 1983).
TSL Tennessee Studies in Literature.
TSLL Texas Studies in Literature and
Language.
UTQ University of Toronto Quarterly.
Varr. Apparatus of Variants (arranged
below the text of the poem in this ed.).
v.Sch. E. von Schaubert’s revision of
He., 3 vols. ([text:] 194015, 194616
[unrev.], 1958–917 [unrev.], 196318;
[commentary & glossary:] 194015,
194916 [unrev.], 196117; refs. are
primarily to the latest ed.).
Wn. C. Wrenn, ed., Beowulf (London,
1953; 19582); Wn.-B. = W. Bolton’s
revision of the same (3rd ed., London,
1973). The plain notation ‘Wn.’
includes Wn.-B.
Wph. T. Westphalen, Beowulf 3150–
55: Textkritik und Editionsgeschichte,
2 vols. (Munich, 1967).
Wülck. R. Wülcker’s revision of Gr.1
(Kassel, 1883).
Wy. A. Wyatt, ed., Beowulf (Cam-
bridge, 1894; 18982).
Z. J. Zupitza’s facsimile of Beowulf,
EETS o.s. 77 (London, 1882), in the rev.
ed. of N. Davis, Beowulf Reproduced
in Facsimile from the Unique Manu-
script British Museum MS. Cotton
Vitellius A.xv, EETS o.s. 245 (London,
1959).
ZfdA Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum.
ZfdPh. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philo-
logie.
ZföG Zeitschrift für die österreich-
ischen Gymnasien.
ZvS Zeitschrift für vergleichende
Sprachforschung.
 INTRODUCTION

I. SUMMARY OF THE POEM

PART I. BĒOWULF’S YOUTHFUL EXPLOITS IN DENMARK

1. The Fight with Grendel

Bēowulfe wear𯯯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
gūðhrēð ġyfeþe. (818¯f.)¯¯

1–188. Introductory. The building of Heorot by Hrōðgār; the ravages of Grendel.

The poem begins with the story of Scyld, the mythical founder of the Scylding dynasty,
whose glorious reign and magni¢cent sea-burial are vividly described (53–85). His line
of descendants is carried down to King Hrōðgār, who builds the great hall Heorot for
feasting and dispensing gifts (86–188). Before long, Grendel, a powerful being who
inhabits the moor and is angered by the daily sounds of conviviality in the hall, comes
to destroy the happiness of the Danes. He surprises them in their sleep one night, kills
thirty of them, then repeats his murderous attack the following night. For twelve years
he continues his ravages. No one can sleep in the hall safely. Hrōðgār grieves, his
counselors cannot ¢nd a solution to the problem, and his warriors cannot stop the
attacks.
189–661. Bēowulf’s voyage, reception in Denmark, and entertainment in the royal
hall. When Bēowulf, the nephew of Hyġelāc, king of the Ġēatas, hears of Grendel’s
actions, he decides to come to Hrōðgār’s aid. He is well suited for that task because he
has the strength of thirty men in his hand-grip. With fourteen chosen warriors, he sails
to the land of the Danes. On their arrival, the shore watch challenges them; but when
the leader makes known that they come in peace, he readily shows them the way to
Heorot. Bēowulf announces his name to the king’s herald, Wulfgār, who in turn tells
his lord. Hrōðgār orders that they be welcomed; Wulfgār bears the message; the Ġēatas
enter the royal hall. Bēowulf greets Hrōðgār and offers to cleanse Heorot. The king
replies graciously and invites the Ġēatas to the feast (499–661). Incidents at the ban-
quet. A dispute started by the Danish court spokesman, Ūnferð, gives Bēowulf an op-
portunity to narrate the true story of his aquatic adventure with Breca and to predict his
victory in the approaching contest with Grendel. In response to the courteous greeting
of queen Wealhþēo, he voices his determination to conquer or die.
662–709. The watch for Grendel. At nightfall, the Danes retire elsewhere to sleep;
Bēowulf, with his men, stays and takes charge of the hall. All the Ġēatas fall asleep
except Bēowulf, who watches and waits.
710–836. The ¢ght. Grendel sets out from the moor, rapidly approaches the hall,
Ïings open the door, and instantly seizes and devours one of the Ġēatas (later identi¢ed
as Hondsciōh). When he seizes Bēowulf, however, he ¢nds himself in a powerful grip.
The wrestling between the two is long and ¢erce; the hall resounds and seems on the
verge of collapse. Grendel howls in excruciating pain when Bēowulf, by sheer strength,
rips off his arm. Grendel manages to escape to the moor and his dwelling place, mor-
tally wounded.
837–924. Rejoicing of the retainers. In the morning, many of the warriors follow the
tracks of Grendel and see the blood-stained water into which he had plunged. As they
return, a court poet sings about Siġemund and Heremōd.
xxiv INTRODUCTION
925–90. The king’s blessing. In the hall, the arm and claw of Grendel are hung up as
a trophy, and Hrōðgār looks upon them, then gives a speech praising Bēowful’s deed,
to which Bēowulf appropriately replies.
991–1250. Royal entertainment. A feast is prepared, and rich gifts are bestowed on
Bēowulf and his warband. The court poet tells the Finnsburg tale, a story of treachery
and bloodshed; Wealhþēo, taking part in the entertainment, presents Bēowulf with
more gifts and asks his kindness toward her sons. After the banquet, Hrōðgār and the
Ġēatas leave the hall, which, after many years, is once more placed under the guard of
the Danish warriors.

2. The Fight with Grendel’s Mother

Ofslōh ðā æt þ®re sæċċe . . . hūses hyrdas. (1665¯f.)

1251–1320. Attack by Grendel’s mother. That night Grendel’s mother makes her way
into the hall to avenge her son; she carries off Æschere, a favorite thegn of Hrōðgār,
and, taking Grendel’s arm with her, escapes to the fenland. In the morning, the king
sends for Bēowulf.
1321–98. Conversation between Hrōðgār and Bēowulf. Hrōðgār laments the loss of
Æschere, describes graphically where the avenging mother resides, and asks Bēowulf
for help once more. Bēowulf immediately complies.
1399–1491. The expedition to Grendel’s mere. With a troop of Danes and Ġēatas, the
king and Bēowulf proceed to the waters inhabited by Grendel and his mother. Bēowulf
arms himself and says a few parting words to Hrōðgār.
1492–1590. The ¢ght. He plunges into the water, at length reaches the bottom, and is
carried by Grendel’s mother into her cavern. There they struggle desperately, and she
nearly vanquishes him, when he ¢nds an ancient sword forged by giants. With it, he
kills her and decapitates Grendel.
1591–1650. The aftermath of the ¢ght and the triumphant return to Heorot. Mean-
while, because of the bloody water, many on shore think Bēowulf has been killed, and
the Danes return to their hall. Bēowulf’s followers wait for him until he surfaces, carry-
ing with him Grendel’s head and the golden hilt of the sword, whose blade has melted
in the poisonous blood. They carry their trophies back to Heorot.
1651–1784. Speeches by Bēowulf and Hrōðgār. Bēowulf recounts his extraordinary
experience and assures the king that the threat posed by Grendel and his mother has
ended. Hrōðgār replies with a long moralizing speech that develops the themes of
pride, mutability, and mortality.
1785–1887. The parting. After the feast, Bēowulf retires for the night. The next
morning, friendly farewell speeches are exchanged, and the Ġēatas head for the shore.

3. Bēowulf’s Homecoming and Report to Hyġelāc

Hū lomp ēow on lāde, lēofa Bīowulf . . . ? (1987)

1888–1962. Homeward voyage. The fourteen warriors embark and in due time reach
the land of the Ġēatas. The mention of queen Hyġd causes the poet to interject the leg-
end of a haughty and cruel princess — whose name, unfortunately, is uncertain (Þr©ðo?
Mōdþr©ð? Fremu?).
1963–2151. Bēowulf’s narrative. Having arrived at Hyġelāc’s court, Bēowulf relates
his adventures and weaves in an account of events that are bound to happen in connec-
tion with the engagement of Hrōðgār’s daughter Frēawaru to the Heaðo-Beard Inġeld.
2152–99. Bēowulf and Hyġelāc. He shares the gifts he has brought from Denmark
with Hyġelāc and Hyġd and receives liberal gifts in return. He makes his home in
Ġēatland, greatly honored and loved by the king, his uncle.
 MANUSCRIPT xxv

PART II. BĒOWULF’S DEATH IN ĠĒATLAND

(The Fight with the Dragon)
Sceolde līþend daga¯,¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
æþeling ®rgōd ende ġebīdan,¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
worulde līfes, ond se wyrm somod. (2341¯ff.)
2200–2323. The robbing of the hoard and the ravages of the dragon. After the death
of Hyġelāc and of his son Heardrēd, Bēowulf has ruled over the Ġēatas for ¢fty years.
Then a dragon’s rich hoard (the early history of which is partly told) is robbed of a
single precious cup, and the enraged creature in revenge lays the country waste by his
¢re.
2324–2537. Preparation for the ¢ght. The veteran warrior-king, still young in spirit,
resolves to meet the enemy single-handed. He has a strong iron shield made for this
purpose and, accompanied by eleven men, sets out for the dragon’s lair (2417–2537).
Filled with forebodings of his end, in a long speech he reviews the days of his youth,
especially the events at the Geatish court and the feud with the Swedes, and he says
goodbye to his comrades.
2538–2711. The ¢ght. He calls the dragon out of the barrow and attacks him with his
sword, but he ¢nds himself overwhelmed by deadly Ïames. His terri¢ed companions
Ïee to the wood, all except his young kinsman Wīġlāf, who, mindful of the obligations
of loyalty and gratitude, hurries to his kinsman’s aid. Together they ¢ght, Wīġlāf deal-
ing the beast a decisive blow in the lower parts, and Bēowulf cutting it in two. But the
king himself has received a fatal wound.
2711–2820. Bēowulf’s death. Wīġlāf attends his dying lord and at his bidding brings
part of the precious hoard out of the barrow. Bēowulf gives thanks for having won the
treasure for his people; he orders that a mound be built for him on the headland; after
bequeathing his battle-gear to his faithful kinsman, he dies.
2821–3o3o. The spread of the news. Wīġlāf, ¢lled with sorrow and anger, rebukes
the cowardly companions and sends a messenger to announce the king’s death. The
messenger predicts the disaster that will follow this catastrophe, recalling at length past
wars with Franks and Swedes.
3031–3136. Preliminaries of the closing scene. The Geatish warriors return to the
scene of the ¢ght, and the terms of an ancient curse laid on the gold are recounted.
Then, at Wīġlāf’s command, they carry out the remaining treasure, push the dragon
into the sea, and bear the king’s body to the headland.
3137–82. The funeral of Bēowulf. A funeral pyre is built. The hero is placed on it
and consigned to the Ïames as a nameless woman utters a lamentation over the im-
pending doom of the Ġēatas. Over the king’s remains, his people then build a royal
mound in which they hide the dearly bought dragon’s hoard. Twelve noble warriors
ride around the barrow, lamenting their lord and praising his deeds and kingly virtues.

II. MANUSCRIPT
The poem now called Beowulf is uniquely preserved on fols. 129r–198v of London,
British Library, Cotton Vitellius A.xv. The Cotton Vitellius manuscript comprises two
seemingly unrelated codices that were bound together early in the 17th century. The
¢rst of these is the Southwick Codex (fols. 1–90v), of the mid-12th century, which is
known to have belonged to the priory of Southwick, Hants, in the late 13th century. It
contains the free translation of Augustine’s Soliloquia attributed to King Alfred (Solil),
a rendering of the Gospel of Nicodemus (Nic[A]), the prose dialogue of Solomon and
Saturn (Sol I), and a very brief fragment of a homily on St. Quintin (LS 33). The second
xxvi INTRODUCTION
component is the Nowell Codex,1 named after the antiquary Laurence Nowell, who
wrote his name and the date 1563 on the ¢rst leaf.2 Its provenance is unknown. In it,
Beowulf is preceded by three texts in prose: the OE homily on Saint Christopher (LS 4
[Christoph], fols. 91[93]–95[97]),3 of which the beginning is wanting, The Marvels (or
Wonders) of the East (Marv, fols. 95[97]v–103v), and Alexander’s Letter to Aristotle
(Alex, fols. 104–128v). The ¢nal item, after Beowulf, is the poem Judith (Jud, fols. 199–
206v), which lacks its beginning.
The manuscript presumably came into private hands upon the dissolution of the
monasteries during the reign of Henry VIII. It was acquired, perhaps from William
Lambarde (to whom Nowell gave his manuscript collection in 1567), by the antiquary
Sir Robert Bruce Cotton (1571–1631), whose collection of parchments was eventually
to form the core of the manuscript collection of the British Museum.4 Along with the
other Anglo-Saxon books in the collection, the manuscript was catalogued by Hum-
phrey Wanley (1705: 218–19), who misidenti¢ed the poem as a most noble description
of the wars of one Scylding king Beowulf against Swedish foes, and he transcribed
ll.¯1–19 and 53–73. In 1731 the Cottonian collection was housed temporarily at Ash-
burnham House in Little Deans Yard, Westminster, when a disastrous ¢re broke out
that destroyed or damaged approximately one quarter of the books. The back of the
press containing the manuscript5 was set ablaze, with the consequence that before the
book could be saved (by being tossed from a window), the top and outside edge of
each leaf was badly scorched. The book was still in this charred state when the
Icelandic historian and archivist to the Danish king, Grímur Jónsson Thorkelín, who
was collecting documents pertaining to Danish history and was led to Beowulf by
Wanley’s description, in 1787 commissioned a transcript to be made. The amanuensis
who copied the poem6 plainly knew no Old English, with the fortunate consequence
that although he confused many letters, his transcript is an accurate record of what he
thought he saw in the manuscript rather than what he thought the manuscript should
say. Thorkelín, who knew enough Old English to understand the text very imperfectly,
and was perhaps distrustful of the work of someone entirely ignorant of the language,
subsequently copied the text himself from the manuscript. The two transcripts are now
generally referred to as Thorkelín A and B, respectively.7 It appears that the charred
edges of the leaves were crumbling even as the ¢rst transcriber worked, since many of
his readings from the edges go unrecorded in Thorkelín B and are no longer visible.

1
It is also sometimes referred to as the ‘Beowulf MS,’ though this term is used by some scholars
to designate, alternately, Vitellius A.xv in its entirety or only the leaves on which Beowulf is
recorded.
2
To be distinguished from Nowell’s namesake who was dean of Litch¢eld, and with whom he
has often been confused. See Flower PBA 21 (1936) 47–73, Lucas RES 41 (1990) 463 n.¯3, and
Berkhout in Medieval Scholarship, II, ed. H. Damico (New York, 1998) 3–17.
3
The use of double folio numbers here, as recommended by Kiernan 1981: 84, indicates dis-
ordering of leaves at the time the old foliation was made (on which see infra, p.¯xxvii). The second
number is the one written in ink on the leaf.
4
On the route of the MS’s passage into Cotton’s hands, see S. Smith ANQ 13.1 (2000) 3–7. On
Cotton’s life and achievements, see E. Edwards Lives of the Founders of the British Museum
(London, 1870) 48–125; C.J. Wright 1997; and T. Hall in Pre-Nineteenth-Century British Book
Collectors and Bibliographers, ed. W. Baker & K. Womack (Detroit, 1999) 57–69. Information
pertaining to the fate of Anglo-Saxon MSS at the time of the breakup of the monastic libraries is
provided by C.E. Wright Transact. of the Cambridge Bibl. Soc. 3 (1951) 208–37.
5
The collection was kept in a dozen presses, each surmounted by the bust of a Roman emperor.
The shelf mark ‘Vitellius A.xv’ thus signi¢es that the MS resided under the bust of Vitellius, being
the ¢fteenth book on the ¢rst shelf.
6
His identity is not known for certain. Kiernan (1986: 21–5) argues plausibly that it was James
Matthews, a member of the museum staff.
7
Now Ny Kongelig Samling 513 and 512, resp., in the Royal Library in Copenhagen; facsimiles
in Malone 1951 and Ki.
 MANUSCRIPT xxvii
Thorkelín, it should be added, made many later additions and alterations to his own
transcript, sometimes, it seems, on the basis of A, and sometimes by guesswork.1 Thor-
kelín A is thus generally more reliable than B, which must be used with caution in
restoring the text. It has been estimated that nearly 2000 letters lost as the result of ¢re
damage can be restored on the witness of the two transcripts (Kiernan 1986: 144).
Some other early witnesses provide a small amount of evidence.2 A halt was put to
further loss of text from the crumbling edges when the manuscript was rebound in
1845. At that time the folds were slit, with loss of the threads and gatherings, and each
folio was mounted separately in a thick paper frame to which it was ¢xed by trans-
parent tape. Each folio shows through a hole carefully trimmed to match the contours
of the leaf. These arrangements are plainly visible in the facsimiles.3 The present
mounting of the leaves has served admirably to prevent further deterioration, though it
inevitably hides some characters from view.
Beowulf is in the hands of two scribes. The ¢rst (A), who also wrote out the three
preceding prose pieces in the Nowell Codex, copied as far as the word scyran at the
end of the third line on fol. 172v, where he broke off in the middle of both a verse
(1939b) and a sentence. Beginning with the word moste, the second scribe (B) copied
the remainder of the poem, as well as the following Judith. The bookhand of Scribe A
is now generally referred to as English Vernacular minuscule, a variety of Insular min-
uscule inÏuenced by Caroline minuscule that is not de¢nitely known to have been in
use before the year 1001; Scribe B’s work is in (Anglo-Saxon, or English) Square
minuscule, of which there are no reliable examples to be found after 1010. The likeliest
date for the construction of the manuscript thus falls in the ¢rst decade of the eleventh
century, though a dating a few years earlier or later is not impossible.4
Beowulf may originally have been the ¢nal item in the Nowell Codex, as the verso of
the ¢nal leaf is worn to an extent that would be inexplicable if this had been an interior
folio, and the ¢nal leaves of the poem (which ends on the verso of the last leaf of a
gathering, with some crowding of letters to make it ¢t) exhibit a pattern of worm-holes
that is not found in the leaves of Judith.5 Possibly Judith was originally the ¢rst item in
the codex, as suggested by the loss of material at its beginning (but cf. Gerritsen 1989:
25–7). Yet Jud already followed Beowulf when Cotton Vitellius A.xv was ¢rst foliated,
some time after the ¢re of 1731, with numbers written in ink, usually near the upper
right-hand corner, on the recto of each leaf.6 This ‘old foliation,’ with its errors
corrected, is observed in the present edition, as in earlier editions of this book, as it is
the one in most common use in Beowulf studies both old and new. A few scholars,
however, follow the oÌcial foliation introduced by the British Museum in 1884 and
written in pencil in or near the upper right-hand corner of the recto of the paper

1
See Kiernan 1986; Gerritsen The Library, 6th ser., 13 (1991) 1–22, id. ASE 28 (1999) 23–42.
2
These include Wanley, Cony. (and Coll.), Mad., Ke., Gru. (collation of 1829), and Th. (colla-
tion of 1830).
3
Z. provides a facsimile of Beo alone; Mal. of the Nowell Codex; Ki. of Vitellius A.xv in its
entirety, with related materials.
4
Dumville Archiv 225 (1988) 49–63, and Mediaeval English Studies Newsletter 39 (1998) 21–7,
on whose studies these paleographical conclusions are based, would allow a date as early as the
990s but no later than 1016. Kiernan 1981 would date the MS to the reign of Canute (i.e., to 1016 or
later) on the ground that no scribe would have copied a poem in praise of Danes during the
troubled reign of Æthelred II. On Kiernan’s views about the relationship of the MS to the com-
position of the poem, see pp.¯xci, clxiii infra.
5
See N. Ker 1957: 282; Lucas RES 41 (1990) 463–78; Gerritsen 1989: 25–7; GriÌth 1997: 2–4.
Gerritsen concludes from the abrupt end of one hole at the ¢rst leaf of the last Beo gathering that
the MS was disjoint for some time before Nowell acquired it.
6
Jud was already the ¢nal item ca. 1635, when Cotton’s librarian Richard James wrote the table
of contents that is now the ¢rst parchment folio of the Southwick Codex, and presumably in 1563,
when Nowell wrote his name on the ¢rst folio of the Nowell Codex.
xxviii INTRODUCTION
mounting that now frames each folio.1 At the time of the old foliation, two loose leaves
of Beowulf were positioned incorrectly: fol. 131 should have followed fol. 146, and fol.
197 should have followed fol. 188. These leaves were moved to their correct positions
before the manuscript was given its present binding, in 1845, and in the apparatus of
variants below they are referred to as fol. 131(146 bis) and fol. 197(188 bis), respec-
tively. As a consequence, the new foliation differs by a count of two, three, or four, at
various places, from the system used here; hence, the poem may be said by some
authorities to occupy fols. 132–201 of its codex, not fols. 129–98.2
Most observers agree that Beowulf begins on the seventh leaf of the ¢fth gathering
of the Nowell Codex and continues to the end of the thirteenth gathering.3 The cor-
relation between text and gatherings is thus as follows: 57–8 (fols. 129–30, ll.¯1–91b
[reccan]), 61–8 (fols. 132–9, ll.¯92a [cwæð] to 444b [he]), 71–8 (fols. 140–131[146 bis],
ll.¯444b [oft] to 782b [sweg]), 81–8 (fols. 147–54, ll.¯782b [up] to 1139a [swiðor]), 91–8
(fols. 155–62, ll.¯1139a [þohte] to 1491a [gewyrce]), 101–8 (fols. 163–70, ll.¯1491b [oþðe]
to 1874a [in]), 111–8 (fols. 171–8, ll.¯1874a [frodum] to 2207a [syððan]), 121–10 (fols. 179–
88, ll.¯2207a [beowulfe] to 2655a [gefyllan]), 131–10 (fols. 197[188 bis] to 198, ll.¯2655b
[feorh] to 3182b). Gatherings 5–11 are then of eight folios each, while 12 and 13 are of
ten each. The ¢nal two gatherings are also different in that they are ruled for 21 lines
instead of 20, like the other gatherings (excluding the tenth, which is ruled for 22); ad-
ditionally, the concluding letters geornost are written below the ¢nal line on the last
leaf of the poem. Yet there is the peculiarity that in the eleventh quire, shortly after
Scribe B begins his work, on four successive pages (174v–6r) he disregards the rulings
and ¢ts 21 lines of text into space ruled for 20 by raising each successive line he copies
a bit farther from the ruling. He thus seems to have been required to ¢t a precise
amount of text into this gathering, and so it is widely assumed that he had already
copied gatherings 12 and 13 when he relieved scribe A on fol. 172v. Both scribes
increase appreciably toward the end of their work the amount of text they ¢t into a
gathering. Thus, A enlarges the number of rulings in his last complete gathering from
20 to 22, while B, who copies on average 377 verse pairs per quire of eight leaves,
increases this to 427 in the ¢nal gathering of Beowulf. Such manipulation of the space
available indicates careful calculation of the space required to ¢t in a set amount of
text, which must therefore have been copied from a manuscript exemplar (Orchard
2003: 20–1), as is indicated also by certain types of scribal error (see infra).
Two leaves of Beowulf are in particularly deplorable condition. As is suggested by
the worm-holes in the ¢nal gathering, the last folio of the poem appears at one time to
have served as an outside cover, with the result that it became tattered, and its verso

1
The oÌcial foliation includes three parchment leaves added at the beginning, one of which, a
folio from a fourteenth-century Latin psalter ¢guring in the description of the MS in Wanley 1705:
218, was removed in 1913, when the fragments of Royal MS. 13 D.i*, used as a source of Ïyleaves
and other binding material by Cotton’s binder, were reassembled. For an account of the problems
that attend use of the foliation of 1884, see Kiernan 1981: 71–3. Another foliation, made in the
1870s, written in pencil in the lower right-hand corner of the recto of each paper frame, also
includes the three added parchment leaves, as well as two paper leaves which formerly stood after
fols. 56 and 90 in the old foliation. This intermediate foliation is the one employed by Förster
(1919), for reasons rightly discounted by Hoops EStn. 63.1 (1928) 1–11. Yet another foliation, made
between 1845 and 1870, and identical to the old foliation in regard to the leaves of Beo, is
described by Mal. 13.
2
For a table of correspondences between the old and the oÌcial foliations of Beowulf, see
Orchard 2003: 268–73; or, more succinctly, Dav. xvi¯f.; or, of the entire Nowell Codex, Malone
1963: 14.
3
In the view of Kiernan (1981: 133–9), Beowulf begins a quire. But the spacing of the ¢nal two
lines of the ¢rst two folios matches that of the preceding rather than the following leaves: see
Boyle in Chase 1981: 23; Clement 1984. That the composition of the gatherings is in dispute is a
result of the mounting of each leaf in a paper frame.
 MANUSCRIPT xxix
grew worn and soiled. Most scholars now agree with Zupitza (144): ‘Almost all that is
legible in this page freshened up in a late hand.’1 There is less agreement about the
cause of the particularly miserable condition of fol. 179, the ¢rst of the twelfth gather-
ing, and whether it has in fact been retouched.2 As these issues bear upon how the text
is to be edited, it is necessary for the editors to choose among the alternative proposals.
In this edition it is assumed that the letters that are plainly legible on fol. 198v and on
both sides of 179 have been retraced, often inaccurately, by someone with an imperfect
understanding of Old English. Text that is clearly visible on these pages is thus not to
be regarded as fully reliable.3 A remarkable feature of fol. 179, discovered by Kiernan
(1981: 229–32), is that it appears to contain a substantial dittograph, seemingly the en-
tire ¢rst line of fol. 179v, corresponding roughly to verses 2227b–8a. As a consequence
of eliminating the dittograph from the text, in the present edition the number of lines in
the poem is reduced by one, though for the sake of congruity in lineation with other
editions and with studies of the poem, lines 2230–3182 have not been renumbered; the
poem now simply lacks a line 2229.
The differences between the two scribes’ hands can be seen in ¢gs. 1 and 2, as can
the fact that, like all Old English poetry in manuscript, the poem is written in the same
manner as prose, with nothing to indicate verse divisions except the occasional point.
There are on average slightly fewer than 23 poetic lines (i.e. pairs of verses) to the
page, though the proportion increases toward the end, where the second scribe econ-
omized on space. Attention may be called to some paleographic details.4 Two striking
features of Scribe B’s older script are his Ïat-topped a and the frequent use of the high
e that hangs over a following letter of minim height (n, m, r, t, o, a). In the work of
both scribes, two forms of y, both punctuated, are in use, as seen, e.g., in l.¯7 of fol. 184r
— the second one being much rarer than the ¢rst, and seldom found in A. The three
forms of s used by B appear, e.g., on fol. 184r, l.¯11, i.e. the tall s (extending above
minim height), the low, insular s (extending below the line), and the round, uncial s. In
A, the second of these varieties is lacking, and the third is used sparingly — mostly in
initial position, and (almost regularly) as a capital. A few times a high s is ligated to a
following t, e.g. in l.¯168: moste, l.¯646: wiste, l.¯661: gedigest (?), l.¯672: hyrsted, l.¯673:
cyst, l.¯1096: hengeste, l.¯1211: breost. The difference in the shape of g seen in the A and
B specimens applies to the entire manuscript.
The letter k appears ¢ve times in kyning, ll.¯619, 665, 2144, 2335, 3171. The runic
character .²., for ēþel, is found three times, ll.¯520, 913, 1702.5
Regarding the distribution of þ and ð, B is averse to the use of þ in non-initial
position, using a medial þ in about a dozen instances, and a ¢nal þ just once (l.¯2293),

1
Gerritsen 1989: 30–1 (preceded by Berkhout: see ANQ 15.2 [2002] 56–7) suggests plausibly
that the retoucher of this folio and/or 179 was Nowell, while Wph. 93 and Kiernan (1981: 152)
suppose that it was Scribe B himself.
2
Kiernan (1981) argues that the leaf is a palimpsest, washed clean to enable Scribe B to com-
pose a better transitional passage linking two discrete poems; Boyle (in Chase 1981: 31) and Biggs
(in Source of Wisdom, ed. C. Wright et al. [Toronto, 2007] 52–9) suppose the leaf may have been
exposed to rain, though this does not explain the condition of the verso. Sed.3 insists that there has
been no retouching of letters (though his notes on ll.¯2209, 2215, 2225, and 2239 refer to a later
hand); cf. Fu.1 209–10. The legibility of the leaf is further hampered by the application of a
chemical reagent to portions of the text (when and by whom have not been determined) in an
apparent attempt to recover faded letters: see Dav. vii, Wn. 12, Ki.
3
Earlier conjectures regarding the restoration of the text on fol. 198v were made by Bu.
110¯f., as well as by E.Sc., Gr.1–2, Bu.Zs. 223¯f., and E., in addition to the sources listed in the
Varr.
4
On AS paleography and codicology, see, e.g., N. Ker 1957: xxiii–lxiii, Roberts 2005, S.
Thompson AS Royal Diplomas (Cambridge, 2006), and M. Brown 2007.
5
Thus, WaldA 31, Or 4 5.90.20. Other runes used as abbreviations in the OE corpus are listed
by Fleming NM 105 (2004) 179 nn.¯14–15.
xxx INTRODUCTION
whereas initially both þ and ð are found. Scribe A makes more liberal use of þ initially
and medially, avoiding it, however, generally at the end of words. (Two instances of
¢nal þ may be seen in the last line but one of fol. 160r.) As a capital the more orna-
mental Ð is written. Only in ll.¯642 and 1896 does there appear a somewhat larger þ that
may have been intended as a capital letter. A genuine large þ appears at the start of ¢tt
XLII. On other differences in the scribes’ orthographic habits, see Lang. §¯28.
Small capital letters are found in a number of instances after points,1 and large ones
appear regularly at the opening of ¢tts. Twenty-one times the ¢rst letter only of the ¢tt
is capitalized, sixteen times2 the ¢rst two letters (eight times: ÐA), once each the ¢rst
syllable of Hun-ferð (VIII) and Beo-wulf (XXIV),3 twice the full name Beowulf (XXI,
XXII), once (XXVII) cwom, and the entire ¢rst manuscript line of the poem is written in
large capitals. Ornamentation of letters is rare, slight, and without color, e.g. the large
capital h on fol. 141r.
The commonest abbreviations in the manuscript are (1) ℓ = ond, uniformly used with
the exception of ll.¯1148, 2040; also in ℓ sware 354, 1493, 1840, 2860, ℓ swarode 258, ℓ
hwearf 548, ℓ sacan 786, 1682, ℓ sendeþ 600 (n.), ℓ langne 2115 (see Gloss: and-).4 (2)
³ = þæt, exceedingly frequent, the full spellings þæt, ðæt forming a very small
minority. (3) þōn (i.e., a tittle above the line, coming between o and n) = þonne,
frequent in both parts of the manuscript (ðōn also in A).5 (4) The sign for m, consisting
of a titulus drawn over the preceding vowel. It is exceedingly common in the ending
-um, but it is frequent also in þā, ðā, hī, i.e. þām, ðām, him (at least, in B). Other
instances: frā 581, 2366, 2565, frō 2556, hā 374, 717, 2992, gū (cystum) 1486, 1723,
2469, 2543, 2765, maðþū 1023, 2055, 2193, 2405, 2750, 2757, 3016, gegnū 1404, beaų
896 (the only example of m abbreviated after a consonant); further (in B): sū 2279,
2301, 2401, 3123¯f., sū ne 3061, rū 2461, hī rū 2690, fultū 2662, frū gare 2856, ģlūpe
2637, grī 2860, 3012, 3085, brī 2930, for nā 2772, streā 2545, cwō 2073, dō 2890, wō
mū 3073, -sōne 3122, ©b(e) 3169, 3172. Although the titulus is commonly used for n
elsewhere, it is never so used in this manuscript. But it has been suggested that in an
earlier copy it was used also to abbreviate n.6 This would explain the surprisingly fre-
quent accidental omission of n (thus in ll.¯60, 255, 418, 591, 1176, 1510, 1883, 2307,
2545, 2996, 3155) and also, in part, the confusion of -um and -an (see Appx.C §¯8), as
well as the patently erroneous spelling hrusam 2279 (owing to a misinterpretation of
the construction).
In B, which is more partial to abbreviations than A,7 the following additional con-
tractions occur, and they are particularly common on the ¢nal, very crowded leaf: ģ =
ge, as pre¢x: 2570, 2637, 2726, 3146, 3165, 3166, 3174, 3179, besides in herģ 3175,
freoģ 3176 (also very frequent in Jud after l.¯224); ş = men(n) in 3162, 3165 (cf. ģ nuş
= genumene 3165); æfť = æfter, 2060, 2176, 2531, 2753; oĎ = ofer, 3132, 3145; dryħ =
dryhten, 3175.
Numerals in the narrative are nearly always spelt out; only in ll.¯147, 1867, 2401;
207; 379, 2361 are the Roman numerals .XII., .XV., .XXX. respectively substituted.

1
It is debatable whether there is (or was) a point before the capital O in l.¯1518 (On-) or before
the capital H in l.¯1550 (Hæfde).
2
I.e., if the opening of ¢tt XXXVI is included; however, the g of Wiglaf, though of the ordinary
shape, is enlarged.
3
The large capital of u appears regularly in the shape of V; the small capital in l.¯3101 (Uton) is
somewhat different.
4
See Ogura in Text & Lang., ed. S. Noguchi & T. Kubouchi (Tokyo, 2001) 1–8.
5
The form ðonne (with initial ð) never occurs in B.
6
See Schröer Angl. 13 (1891) 344¯n., Sievers Angl. 14 (1892) 142–3 (strongly dissenting), Cha.
p.¯xix, Hoops 16.
7
Malone (1963: 26) ¢nds that in B there are, on average, 13 abbreviations to the page, but 9 or
10 to the page in A (a higher incidence than in the preceding prose texts). The titulus is especially
more frequent in B.
 MANUSCRIPT xxxi
Acute accents, deriving from the so-called apex of Latin inscriptions, are compara-
tively few. Each comprises a heavy superscript point or tag from which a lighter tail
extends leftward toward a vowel below. They are not always plain in the facsimiles,
and even those scholars who have examined the manuscript are not agreed about their
exact number, as the tail may have faded, or the tag may be indistinct, so that it is
diÌcult to be certain whether what is visible is an accent or a stray mark. But the
following 126 instances, which are recognized by both Zupitza and Chambers, may be
regarded as practically certain (though Sed. recognizes just 107 of these). In Latin in-
scriptions, the apex is a marker of vowel length, while in Old English manuscripts the
acute accent is not infrequently found on short vowels.1 Remarkably, then, in the
poems (but not the prose) of the Nowell Codex it is found only on long vowels.2 It
appears mostly on monosyllables, monosyllabic constituents of compounds, and mono-
syllabic verb forms with pre¢xes. Twice the verb pre¢x ā- is acuted (ábeag 775, áris
1390), once the suÌx -l√ċ (sarlíc 2109), and twice the stem of an inÏected monosyllabic
adjective (hárne 2553, fáne 2655). The instances are these:
ád 3138, ád fære 3010; án 100, 2210 (see Varr.), 2280, ángenga 449; ár 336; bád
301, 1313, 2568, 2736, gebád 264, 2258, 3116, ge bád 1720, onbád 2302; bán fag 780,
bán cofan 1445, bán hus 3147; bát 211; fáh 1038, fáne 2655; gá 1394, gán 386; gád
660; gár /3 1962, 2641, hroðgár 2155; gársecg 537; hád 1297; hál 300; hám 1407; hár
1307, hárne 2553, un hár 357; hát 386; lác 1863; wig láf 2631, 3076; mán sceaða 2514;
nát 681; here pád 2258; rád 1883, gerád 2898; sár 975, 2468; scán 1965; stán 2553; ge
swác 2584; on swáf 2559; hilde swát 2558; ge wác 2577; wát 1331; gewát 123, 210, ge
wát 1274; ábeag 775, áris 1390.
ǽr 1187, 1388, 1587; fǽs 2230 (see Varr.); rǽd 1201; sǽ(-) 507, 544, 564, 579, 690,
895, 1149, 1223, 1882, 1896, 1924.
wælréc 2661 (see Varr.), wudu réc 3144.
/ hwíl 2002; líc 2080, sarlíc 2109; líf 2743, 2751; scír hame 1895; síd 2086; wíc 821,
wíc stede 2607, deaþ wíc 1275; wíd Ïogan 2346; wín 1233; wís hycgende 2716.
cóm 2103, 2944, becóm 2992; dóm 1491, 1528, 2147, 2820, 2858, cyne dóm 2376;
dón 1116, gedón 2090; on fón 911; fór 2308; gód 1562, 1870, ær(-)gód 2342, 2586; mód
1167; mót 442, 603; róf 2084, ellen róf 3063; stód 2679, 2769, astód 759; brego stól
2196; onwóc 2287; wóp 128.
brúc 1177; brún ecg 1546; fús 1966, 3025, 3119; rún / 1325; út fus 33.
fýr 2701, fýr draca 2689.
In addition, several acutes discerned by Zupitza are considered probable by Cham-
bers, though not by Sedge¢eld: these are on ár fæst 1168, bát 742, gán 1163, gár wigan
2674, hrán 2270, geswác 2681, wát 1863, inwit hróf 3123, and the second accent in bán
hús 3147. Zupitza alone ¢nds accents on wín 1162, dóm 2666, 2964, gód 2263, wóc
1960; Chambers alone on ǽr 1371.
In several instances, Thorkelín A records accents seen also by Z., and presumably on
the basis of the latter regarded as probable by Cha.: these are on bán fatu 1116, gár
cwealm 2043, sǽ- 1652, 1850, blód 1121. Of these, only sǽ- 1850 is now missing from
the manuscript (see Ki.). In some other instances, Thorkelín A is the only observer to
note accents: these are on hám 1147, ǽr 3164, fǽr gripe 1516, sǽm 1685, tó / 1626.

1
See Keller Prage Deutsche Studien 8 (1908) 97–120.
2
The one probable exception in Beowulf is sarlíc 2109. But many regard the unstressed vowel
as long: see Appx.C §¯26. Even if the vowel was short, however, it is hardly surprising that it
should have been acuted, since it is likely that it had been lengthened analogically by the time the
present MS was made: see HOEM §¯269. As for the prose texts, according to Rypins 1924, in Alex
there are acutes on short vowels in míd 31.8, 36.11, gewrít 24.19, úngemetlicu 13.13, úpheah 36.4,
and in LS 4 (Christoph) in óngean 153.
3
I.e., gar stands at the end of the line and is thus separated from the second constituent of the
compound.
xxxii INTRODUCTION
Additionally, Thorkelín A writes a tittle for an acute on dōn 2166 and a point on gŤd
2543.
As in other manuscripts, full compounds are, as a general rule, written as two words;
thus þeod cyninga 2, meodo setla 5, fea sceaft 7, weorð myndum 8; quasi-compounds
(dithematic personal names, words with stressed pre¢xes or certain derivational
suÌxes) are also very often divided, e.g. ymb sittendra 9, heoro gar 61, soð lice 141.
But also other words are freely divided, e.g. ge frunon 2, of teah 5, ge scæp hwile 26,
on woc 56; þæt te 151, wol de 200, wur don 228, fæt tum 716, alum pen 733, gefreme de
811, teoh hode 951; hea þo lafe 460, heoru grim me 1847. Conversely, separate words
are run together, usually an unstressed word with a following word, as shown, e.g., in
¢g. 2 by tolife, togebidanne, ongalgan, hissunu, tohroðre, nemæg; or swaða 189,
þawæs 223, ærhe 264, þaselestan 416, awyrd 455, meto 553, forÏeat 1908–9, arasða
2538, þenuða 426, þeheme 2490, etc.1 That these practices may result in ambiguity is
illustrated by nege leafnes word 245, mægen hreð manna 445, wist fylle wenne wæs
734, medo / stig ge mæt 924, onge byrd 1074, eallang twidig 1708, wigge weorþad
1783,2 wind gereste 2456, mere wio ingasmilts 2921.
Punctuation is used more sparingly than is common in poetry.3 A point is supplied,
on average, once in nearly ¢ve verse pairs (much oftener than in Jud¯),4 but the fre-
quency varies widely, the points being rarest toward the end of the work of scribe A
and commonest in the ¢rst 600 verse lines of B’s work. The point is usually placed at
the end of a verse pair, occasionally at the end of an on-verse, and a few times, sur-
prisingly, within a verse (61a, 273a, 279a, 423a, 553b, 1039a, 1159a, 1585b, 1974a, 2542a,
2673b, 2832b, 2897a).5 These points sometimes mark syntactic divisions, though fewer
than half carry greater force than a modern comma, and in the majority of instances of
major syntactic juncture there is no punctuation (as after 7b, 11a, 14a, 16a, etc.).
Donoghue (in Walmsley 2006: 38–58) offers signi¢cant evidence that the pointing
serves primarily a metrical function, more consistently in the work of the ¢rst scribe
than of the second, points being especially frequent before clauses with light openings
(i.e., verses of Sievers’s type A3). Twice a colon appears to be in use, after hafelan
1372a and after gemunde 2488b; the former marks a juncture of no extraordinary
narrative signi¢cance, while the latter seems misplaced altogether, and perhaps in both
instances the upper point is unintended. After reccan 91b, ¢nishing the page, a comma
follows two raised points; here the punctuation probably relates to the structure of the
codex (this being the end of a gathering) rather than to the structure of the narrative. In
B only, the end of a ¢tt is marked by a colon followed by a point with an upward-
curving tail (Ų); once the same sign is found after the ¢tt number (XL).
Corrections are frequent in the manuscript, most or all in the original hands.6 Only
those of the greatest signi¢cance have been remarked in the Variants (or in Lang. §¯20).
They include several examples of corrected dittography (e.g., erasure of the second a in
¢ndaan 1378b and of an extra manigra in 2091a), haplography (e.g., ic inserted after ac
2522a), miscopying of similarly formed letters (e.g., correction of blædan to hladan
2126b), and metathesis (once: wlocn corrected to wolcn 331b). Scribe B has made

1
See W. Keller 1929; Rademacher 1921; Chambers et al. 1933: 64–5.
2
Possibly wig ge is to be read. ‘It is very often diÌcult, if not impossible, to decide whether the
scribe intended one or more words’ (Z., vii). Cf. Rie.Zs. 405.
3
See Luick Beibl. 23 (1912) 226–35; Förster 1919: 83–4; Dob. xxx¯f.; Orchard 2003: 40–2.
4
O’Brien O’Keeffe (1990: 175) counts 624 points in the text of the poem, of which 45 do not
end a verse pair.
5
Orchard (2003: 41 n.¯120) adds several verse-internal examples not noted in the transcript of
Zupitza, who presumably regarded them as stray marks: 320a, 338a, 367b, 807b, 1146b, 2252a,
2377a, 2494b, 2655b, 2698b, 2902a. Note also 279a, where the point is supplied in Thorkelín A.
6
Wph. (99–108) identi¢es 51 corrections to the work of Scribe A and 37 to that of B; Gerritsen
(1989: 21) says that the scribes have made some 230 corrections in the Nowell Codex. See also
Kiernan 1981: 193–211, 272–8; Orchard 2003: 44–8.
 MANUSCRIPT xxxiii
several changes to A’s work, and thus he seems to have been supervising, as one might
expect on the basis of the seniority suggested by his older script.1 Most commonly
these changes are spelling normalizations, obscuring what are likely to have been
nonstandard forms in the scribes’ exemplar. Since B appears not to have made these
changes by reference to the exemplar,2 they have not been admitted to the text except
when they correct actual errors. Regardless of B’s corrections, it should be said, it is a
matter of scholarly dispute which of the scribes is the more careful copyist.3
As for uncorrected errors,4 they include the same types as corrected ones, i.e. ditto-
graphy (e.g. hrærg trafum 175, stanðeð 1362, wundel mæl 1531), haplography (e.g. in
390, 707, 2202), miscopying of similarly formed letters (e.g. næfre 250, wudu 581,
hetlic 780), and metathesis (e.g. hæleþum 332, fealh 1200, wereda 2186). But not
infrequently, in addition, similarly spelt words are substituted (e.g. earfoð 902, earme
1117, mad mum 1198) or words of similar meaning (e.g. hand gripe 965, hild plegan
1073), or misanalysis of the syntax leads to substitution of a different inÏectional end-
ing (e.g. ge mænum 1857, nacan 1903, þæs 1956) or omission of a word (e.g. in 139,
1329, 2006). The miscopying of similar letter forms (especially in, e.g., fela ða 2305,
urder 2755, for speof 2814) and words (e.g. fyrena 2250, mægenes 2628, 2698) shows
that the scribes copied their text from a manuscript exemplar, which may have been
archaic (see Appx.C §¯8).
As regards other marks in the manuscript, these include a few odd strokes (see Varr.:
2721b) and a modern gloss (6a); see also 3150b.
Like all the longer Old English poems, Beowulf is divided into sectional divisions
that were in all likelihood denoted by the term ¢tt ‘¢tt,’ pl. *¢tta.5 The scribes mark out
these sections by one or more devices, placing end punctuation (Ų) at the close of a
section,6 leaving space for one line vacant between sections,7 capitalizing one or more
letters (sometimes prominently) to begin a new section, and/or inserting Roman numer-
als. The scribes treat the ¢tt numbers differently, A centering each between points on
the otherwise vacant line between sections, B placing each, with a terminal point, in the
blank space at the end of a line (since he begins the following ¢tt on a new line) when
there is room for it.8 Accordingly, rather than choosing arbitrarily between the scribes’

1
Scribe B has made alterations to the words scyppen 106a (altering it to scyppend), beorhtre
158a, dol scaðan 479a (altering it to dol sceaðan), on 537a, wealh þeo 612b (altering it to wealh
þeow), ængum 793b (altering it to ænigum), on 1302a (altering it to in), gang 1391b, fehð 1755b,
dogor 1797b (altering it to dogore), hreþe 1914a (altering it to hraþe).
2
The evidence of Kiernan (1981: 277) on this score is not conclusive (see Orchard 2003: 47),
but it is supported by the cosmetic and normalizing nature of most of B’s changes to A.
3
Ten Brink 239 and Kiernan 1981: 193 see the second scribe as more vigilant; Rypins 1924:
xiv¯f. and Gerritsen 1989: 16 disagree. See p. clvii infra.
4
See, e.g., Fulk 1997, Orchard 2003: 49–56; also Appx.C §¯8, with the refs. there.
5
This is to be deduced from the Latin preface to the Heliand, which states that the author ‘omne
opus per vitteas distinxit, quas nos lectiones vel sententias possumus appellare’ (‘divided the
whole work into ¢tts, which we can call “readings” or “passages”’). Cf. the OE Erfurt III and
Düsseldorf Glossaries, where una lectio is glossed ¢it (prob. an error for ¢tt): see Bischoff et al.
1988: gloss A140, Erfurt fol. 35, Düsseldorf fol. 2. See R.-L.1 1.444, Förster 1919: 84–9. The word
may have meant only ‘song, poem’ in OE, though the sense ‘canto’ is well attested beginning with
Chaucer: see the DOE s.v. ¢tt1, MED s.v. ¢t (n. [1]), OED s.v. ¢t, fytte, Orel 2003: 101–2.
6
Scribe B does so six times.
7
Scribe A does so almost consistently and scribe B once. Twice, though, A writes the last few
letters of a ¢tt at the end of the line devoted to the ¢tt number (after the nos. VIIII and X) and once
at the beginning of the line (before the no. XV).
8
Space for the number was wanting at the end of ¢tt XXVIIII (l.¯2038), where the number was as
a consequence simply omitted, at the end of ¢tt XXXIII (l.¯2390), where B wrote the number on a
separate line, and at the end of ¢tt XXXVII (l.¯2751), where he left space for the number at the end of
the following line. There is suÌcient space for the numeral at the end of ¢tt XXXVIII (l.¯2820), but
none was written. Although the numeral is lacking at the end of ¢tts XXVIIII and XXXVIII, the
xxxiv INTRODUCTION
methods of marking divisions, the editors have maintained Klaeber’s practice of plac-
ing the ¢tt numbers in the left-hand margin of the printed text.1 The initial section
(ll.¯1–52) may be unnumbered because it was intended as a kind of preface, or it may
be that scribe A numbered the ¢rst 23 ¢tts retrospectively (in which event this would
be ¢tt I) and B his ¢tts prospectively.2 Leaving aside this ¢rst section, then, there are 42
¢tts, numbered mistakenly as if there were 43. Leaving out of account ¢tt XXXV, which
is exceptionally long, the divisions vary from 112 lines (in ¢tt XLI) to 43 lines (in ¢tt
VII), the usual length of a ¢tt being between 60 and 90 lines.
There is one discontinuity in the numeration of the ¢tts, with some notable conse-
quences. After marking the numbers in correct sequence through ¢tt XXIII (at fol. 164r),
scribe A gives the number of the next ¢tt as XXV rather than the expected XXIIII.3 The
sequence of numbers from XXV onward is then unbroken in the remainder of his work,
up to the numeral XXVIII, each number seemingly greater by one than it ought to be.
Scribe B continues A’s altered sequence, writing XXVIIII instead of XXVIII at the next
sectional division. He conforms to this numeration to the end of the poem, though not
all the necessary numerals are actually written (see p.¯xxxiii n.¯8). Someone other than
scribe A or scribe B subsequently noticed that XXV rather than XXIIII had been written
on fol. 166r, and in an attempt at repair, he altered the numbers XXV through XXVIIII to
XXIIII through XXVIII. The following number, which would have been XXX if it had
actually been written by B, had been omitted for want of space, and this seems to be
the reason that the reviser of the sequence made no further changes. This left the
sequence no more logical than before, for there were now two numerals missing be-
tween (what were now) XXVIII and XXXI, though capitalization indicates just one sec-
tional division between the two. To rectify this situation, Klaeber adopted the exped-
ient of accepting the reviser’s altered sequence XXIIII through XXVIII and supplying the
numeral ‘[XXVIIII–XXX]’ for the missing number of the following ¢tt that begins at
l.¯2039 (fol. 174v).4 That solution has the effect, however, of moving the anomaly in the
numbering from fol. 166r to fol. 174v, without explaining it.5 The present edition re-
stores the numerals supplied by the original scribes, before they were altered, and thus
there is no ¢tt XXIIII.

sectional division is plainly indicated by the following initial capital, and in these instances the
editors have supplied the numeral in brackets.
1
The practice of editors in regard to the display of the numbers has varied notably. Sed. and
Dob., for example, omit them from the text, while some editors (e.g. Wy., Crp., Ja., MR) have
tended to enhance their prominence, centering all of them as scribe A does. Schü.14 and Holt.8
place them all much the way scribe B does, while the treatment of Cha., Wn.(-B.), v.Sch., and Ni.
resembles that of Kl.
2
So argues Conner ANQ 24.4 (1985), 33–8; similarly Owen-Crocker 2000: 138–45. Indeed, B’s
practice of writing the ¢tt number on the same line as the end of the preceding ¢tt may have been
interpreted by A as retrospective numeration. That these initial lines are not a prologue but an
integral part of the poem was already the view of Grundtvig in his review of Thk., in Nyeste
Skilderie af Kjøbenhavn 60 (1815) col. 952, and he tacitly acknowledged the retrospective numera-
tion in the poem by assigning the number one to the opening ¢tt in both his 1820 translation and
his 1861 edition.
3
It is disputed whether the omission of the numeral XXIIII is in itself an error: see Boyle in
Chase 1981: 30 and Kiernan 1981: 264–70.
4
Klaeber supposed the numeral XXX had been omitted before l.¯2093; Wülcker thought a new
¢tt was intended to begin at 2067.
5
MR and Orchard 2003: 95 would resolve this diÌculty by dividing Klaeber’s ¢tt XXVIII in two
at the start of the last line on fol. 173v (l.¯1999). But the capital B that begins the line is much
smaller than the capitals that scribe B otherwise writes at the start of a ¢tt, and the resulting ¢tt
XXVIII would be exceptionally brief at 36 lines of verse. Admittedly, the use of small capitals in the
MS at the start of names is rare, but Dob. (xxvii) explains this instance and those of Wealhðeo 1215
and Hroðgar 1840 (neither of which begins a ¢tt) as due to the fact that these names all begin new
sentences.
 MANUSCRIPT xxxv
Because scribe A skips the number XXIIII in his sequence, it is generally, though not
universally, believed that the ¢tt numbers were not marked in the immediate exemplar
but were supplied by these scribes.1 A more diÌcult question concerns when and by
whom the poem was ¢rst divided into sections. Some are inclined to credit the poet
with having determined the ¢tts,2 and certain characteristics of the divisions are con-
sonant with this view. A ¢tt often concludes with a maxim (e.g. G®þ ā wyrd swā hīo
scel 455b), a general reÏection (e.g., Wēl bið þ®m þe mōt / æfter dēaðdæġe drihten
sēċean, etc, 186b–88), or a summarizing statement (e.g. wæs sēo þēod tilu 1250b).
Sometimes the end of a ¢tt coincides with the last lines of a digressive or explanatory
passage (e.g. the account of Grendel’s descent from Cain, 114, and the Offa interlude,
1962). More than a few times, a division is drawn at a moment of high drama, as at the
end of ¢tt XI, when Grendel’s howl of pain ¢lls Heorot, and at the end of ¢tt XXXVI,
when the dragon’s jaws enclose the hero’s neck and Wīġlāf has not yet struck in his
defense. At other times the pause is suggestive of dramatic irony, as at the end of ¢tt
XXIII, when Hrōðgār and his retinue gaze on Grendel’s severed head (which the Ġēatas
have brought into the hall upon their triumphant return from the mere). Here the Danes
can well be imagined to be confronting the awkwardness of their having given the hero
up for dead. Nothing need be said of the apt dignity of the ¢tt division that falls directly
after we are told that the hero’s soul has departed sēċean sōðfæstra dōm (2820). The
way ¢tts begin is often stylized, as well. Very often they start with a line introducing a
formal speech (as with ¢tts IIII, VI, VII, VIII, etc.) sometimes with a resumptive
paragraph (as at the beginning of ¢tt III; cf. VIIII, XXXI, XLIII); at other times with the
announcement of an action, especially one that involves the motion of individuals or
groups of men (as with ¢tts II, X, XI, etc.). Conspicuous for their introduction of a new
named character, or giving a new character a name, are ¢tts VIII and XXXVI.
Such stylized expressions as begin and end ¢tts, however, are also employed at other
places, and so their evidence is hardly conclusive. Thus, while much of the sectioning
does seem artful, certain other of the poem’s divisions may justly be called arbitrary
and inappropriate. The person(s) responsible for the divisions felt at liberty to mark a
pause at places where we would not, as well as to proceed without interruption where
we would think a pause indispensable. The lack of a division where the narrative sud-
denly advances 50 years (l.¯2200) is notable. Even more remarkable is the treatment of
ll.¯2039–40, which belong syntactically and conceptually with the preceding lines
rather than the following, regardless of whether oð ðæt may be a coordinating conjunc-
tion, as some have supposed.3 Fitts XXXI–XXXIIII also begin at less than ideal narrative
junctures, while superior divisions could have been made within a few lines of the
actual ones, and because these awkward transitions all fall within the work of scribe B,
it has been argued that the ¢tt divisions are the work of the two scribes of the Nowell
Codex.4 The question cannot be resolved conclusively, and so it has seemed best to
adopt a middle course and, while indicating in the text where the divisions fall, make
for them no claim of authorial status or narrative indispensability.
Like other Old English poems, Beowulf is untitled in the manuscript. But since the
days when Sharon Turner, J.J. Conybeare, and N.F.S. Grundtvig ¢rst designated it ‘the
poem of Beowulf,’5 it has been regularly, and appropriately, named after its hero.

1
See, e.g., MR, 7; cf. Boyle in Chase 1981: 30.
2
See, e.g., Robinson 2005; also the refs. in ASE 35 (2006) 95–6 n.¯14. See as well Timmer MLR
47 (1952) 319–22, Horowitz NM (1984) 295–304, Huppé 1984: 61–96, Owen-Crocker 2000: 136–
57, and Orchard 2003: 93–7.
3
See 1740 (n.). Oð ðæt is also used at the start of a ¢tt there and at GenA 1248.
4
See ASE 35 (2006) 91–109, where these instances are discussed, and where it is argued that ¢tt
divisions in some other poems also cannot be authorial.
5
Turner in the 2nd (1807) edition of his History of the Anglo-Saxons speaks of ‘the Anglo-
Saxon poem on Beowulf’ (2.294). Conybeare’s chapter on the poem in his 1826 book is titled
xxxvi INTRODUCTION
III. THE WORLD OF MONSTERS AND MYTH1

Hæfde þā ġef®lsod sē þe ®r feorran cōm,

snotor ond sw©ðferhð sele Hrōðgāres. (825¯f.)¯¯¯¯¯
. ¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ . ¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯ . ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ . oð ðone ānne dæġ,¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
þe hē wið þām wyrme ġewegan sceolde. (2399¯f.)

The plot of Beowulf consists of three fabulous folktale-like episodes (the ¢rst two
forming a closely connected pair)2 into which are interspersed a number of apparently
historical elements used to embellish and enhance the main action (see section IV of
this Introduction). Both the fabulous and the historical elements have been accorded in-
tense scrutiny as scholars have tried to place them in the context of old Germanic cul-
ture through the study, for example, of sources and analogues, while also seeking to
determine what role they play in the poem itself.

BĒOWULF’S FIGHT WITH GRENDEL AND HIS MOTHER

A. Sources and Analogues3

Beowulf’s encounters with Grendel and his mother have called to mind both whole
folktale plots and independent folkloric motifs recorded in various languages, partic-
ularly in Celtic- and Germanic-speaking areas.4 Parallels from Irish sources have been

‘Anglo-Saxon Poem Concerning the Exploits of Beowulf the Dane’ (sic; Cony. 30)but the short
title on page headings is ‘Beowulf.’ While Grundtvig titled his 1820 translation of the poem
Bjowulfs Drape (i.e. ‘Heroic, laudatory poem of Beowulf’), the title he gave his 1861 edition,
Beowulfes Beorh (‘Beowulf’s Barrow’), taken from l.¯2807 of the poem, alludes to the Horatian
conceit that a poem is a monument more durable than a tomb.
1
See particularly Panzer 1910 (see Shippey & Haarder 1998: 65–6, 517–24), Boer Afnf. 19
(1902) 19–88, Boer 1912; besides, Müllenhoff, Sarr.St., H. Schück Studier i Beowulfsagan
(Uppsala, 1909), Symons in P.Grdr.1 iia 21–2 and ibid.2 iii 644–51, Brandl ibid.2 iia 980–1024,
Chadwick 1912, Heusler R.-L.1 1.245–8, Berendhsohn 1913; Cha.Intr.; Lawrence 1928; H.
Schneider 1962. See also Renoir 1988: 107–32, Stitt 1992, Orchard 1995, T.M. Andersson 1997, A.
Lee 1998, Rauer 2000.
2
Various remarkable elements that today would be called supernatural are found outside the
main action as well, such as Siġemund’s dragon ¢ght (see note on 875–900), Scyld’s mysterious
arrival (see note on 4–52), the notion of eotenas, entas, etc. (883, 2717, 2774, 112, etc., cf. Klaeber
1911–12: [25–7]). Special mention should be made of the motif of invulnerability (in encountering
ordinary weapons, 804¯f., 1522¯ff.). See Beard Papers in Ling. & Lang. Learning 8 (1981) 13–31
(but see also Rogers N&Q 31 [1984] 289–92). The Breca episode seems neither mythological nor
historical (see note on 499¯ff.).
3
Additional special references: Gering Angl. 3 (1880) 74–87, Laistner 1889, Bugge 55¯ff.,
360¯ff., Sarrazin EStn. 35 (1905) 19–27 and 42 (1910) 1–37, Lawrence PMLA 24 (1909) 220–73 and
27 (1912) 208–45, Lehmann Dania 8 (1901) 179–94, Mogk Neue Jahrbücher für das klassiche
Altertum etc. 43 (1919) 103–17, von Sydow Namn och Bygd 2 (1914) 160–4 and Studier i Nordisk
Filologi 14.3 (1923), Dehmer 1928, E. Anderson Mediaevalia 8 (1982) 1–8, Sayers in Proceedings
of the Harvard Celtic Colloquium: 16 & 17, ed. K. Chadbourne et al. (Cambridge, MA, 2003),
256–68. See also Garmonsway & Simpson 1968: 301–32.
4
Cf. W. Grimm in Irische Elfenmärchen (Leipzig, 1826), F. Mone Untersuchungen zur Ge-
schichte der teutschen Heldensage (Quedlinburg, 1836) 281¯ff., Simrock 1859: 177–83, Laistner
1889: §¯39, Cha.Intr. 62¯ff., 365¯ff. — Puhvel NM 81 (1980) 395–9 remarks a Scottish parallel, and
versions in several other cultures have also been pointed out; e.g., Japanese comparanda are re-
marked by Powell in An English Miscellany Presented to Dr. Furnivall, ed. W. Ker et al. (Oxford,
1901), 395–6, and Oshitari in Philologia Anglia, ed. K. Oshitari et al. (Tokyo, 1988) 259–69; cf.
Ogura in Baker & Howe 1998: 59–66. Indic parallels have been mentioned by Krappe GRM 15
(1927) 54–8, G. Clark PQ 43 (1964) 125–30. Kittredge 1903: 222–45 refers to a Native American
tale and a Japanese tale in addition to Celtic variants. A Mexican parallel is cited by Colgrave Jnl.
 THE WORLD OF MONSTERS AND MYTH xxxvii
cited with some frequency.1 Some of these feature a motif, familiar in Ireland especial-
ly among folktales of the Finn cycle, that has been known as ‘The Hand and the Child’
ever since Kittredge (1903: 223–32) discussed it with reference to eight published folk-
tales from Ireland and the Hebrides, with additional remarks about its occurrence in
medieval sources that include the ¢rst branch of the Welsh Mabinogi, where it is asso-
ciated with the hero Teyrnon Twrf Liant.2 In narratives featuring a motif of this kind, a
monstrous arm reaches into a house to carry off human beings, especially children, but
is ¢nally seized and wrenched off by the hero. In one West Irish folktale that is spun
out in quite an elaborate manner (ibid. 163–5), the protagonist is the marvelous hero
Niall, who, shape-changed into a wolf, bites off a predatory giant’s hand. Because of
the shape-changing element, this version might seem an unpromising parallel, except
that it also features a sword of light that can pertain to none but the hero as well as a
frightful hag (the giant’s mother) who dwells on an island, and it is at the hag’s ‘dark
and gloomy’ court that the maimed giant is killed. Another example of a tale of this
type is the modern Icelandic folktale ‘Velvakandi og bræður hans’ (Appx.A §¯20.2),
which is doubtless derived from Irish (or Scottish Gaelic) tradition.3 This tale features
the motif of the severed arm followed by pursuit to a cavern, diÌcult of access, where
both the monstrous troll who had lost his arm and a grieving giantess are killed.4 While
the simple theme of a hall defended against a demon could easily arise independently
in different cultures (as is noted by Kittredge 1903: 230), well-formed narratives in
which the motif of a giant’s arm, torn off in the course of a nocturnal struggle in a
haunted house, is conjoined with an ensuing pursuit to a remote and forbidding place,
provide the closest folkloric parallels to the action of the ¢rst part of Beowulf.5
From Germanic-speaking areas, similarly, numerous parallels to Bēowulf’s ¢rst two
¢ghts have been adduced. (Indeed, as we have seen, a strict division between Germanic
and Celtic parallels is pointless to maintain). A systematic study of this aspect of the
poem was undertaken by Panzer (1910), who recognized in the Beowulf story a version
(raised to a heroic level) of a widespread folktale type he called the ‘Bear’s Son Tale’
(Bärensohn; Jean l’Ours). Most of Panzer’s examples are now classi¢ed under Aarne-
Thompson tale-type 301, while others, those that feature an ursine hero and a
somewhat different plot, are grouped under type 650A, ‘Strong John.’6 Some 600

of Am. Folklore 64 (1951) 409–13 and Barakat Western Folklore 26 (1967) 1–11. Polynesian: Whit-
bread MLN 57 (1942) 281–2. Kirghiz: Reichl in Fragen der mongolischen Heldendichtung, IV, ed.
W. Heissig (Wiesbaden, 1987) 321–50.
1
E.g. by Laistner 1889: §¯39, Cook Archiv 103 (1899) 154–6, von Sydow 1914, Dehmer 1928,
Carney 1955: 77–128, Reiman ES 42 (1961) 231–2, Puhvel 1979: 86–138, Nagy in Connections
between OE and Med. Celtic Lit. (Berkeley, 1985) 31–44, and Scowcroft 1999. See also T.M.
Andersson 1997: 134–8; cf. J. de Vries Heldenlied en Heldensage (Utrecht, 1959) 60.
2
Motif number G369.5 in T. Cross Motif-Index of Early Irish Literature (Bloomington, 1953).
3
See Kittredge 1903: 228 n., Dehmer 1928: 212.
4
Cf. the story of Harthgrepa in Saxo i 6,2–6, where the motif of the severed arm appears
without any such sequel. The tale of Velvakandi, it should be noted, conjoins the motif of ‘The
Hand and the Child’ with the motif of a band of confederates, each of whom has developed to
perfection a unique ability (Good-Waker, Good-Holder, Good-Striker, Good-Tracker, Good-
Climber). This latter motif, number F601 in S. Thompson’s Motif-Index of Folk Literature, 6 vols.
(Bloomington, 1955–8), has no necessary connection with ‘The Hand and the Child.’
5
Thus Scowcroft 1999: 25, following Dehmer 1928, who (working independently of Kittredge)
summarizes 11 Irish parallels plus Icelandic variants. Additional discussion: Cha.Intr. 478–84,
Reichl in Die Iren und Europa im früheren Mittelalter, ed. H. Löwe (Stuttgart, 1982) 139–54.
6
A. Aarne and S. Thompson The Types of the Folktale (Helsinki, 1973), here abbreviated A-T.
Panzer’s name for the tale is derived from the hero, who in some versions is the son of a bear (or a
werbear). In the A-T index, type 301 goes under a name, ‘The Three Stolen Princesses,’ which has
no signi¢cance in relation to Beowulf, a poem in which the motif of stolen children or princesses
has no role. The A-T index has now been superseded by H.-J. Uther The Types of International
Folktales (Helsinki, 2004), with updated bibliography, yet the system of classi¢cation remains
xxxviii INTRODUCTION
examples of type 301 have been recorded, and of these, 120 are Scandinavian. Stitt
(1992: 25–7) provides the following outline of the salient features of Episodes II, III,
and IV of the Scandinavian group. It should be noted that the tale usually begins, in
Episode I, with an act of villainy whereby one or more princesses are abducted from a
hall. The hero, who in some versions is unusually strong (in which case he may be the
son of a male bear and a human mother, or show some other sign of animal heritage or
unusual strength), is accompanied by companions. Not all elements here labeled A, B,
C, etc., need appear in a given variant, but if they do occur, they do so in this order.

II. The First Fight. In a desolate area the travellers (A) take shelter in (1) a house or (2) the
abductor’s cave. (B) By turns, one stays home to cook while the others go out hunting for food.
(C) A creature steals the food and maltreats the cook. (D) When it is the hero’s turn, he (1) beats
the creature or (2) catches its beard in a log. (E) The creature (1) gives information about the
princesses or (2) tears away from its beard and runs off, leaving a bloody trail to be followed.
III. The Second Fight. (A) The hero (1) makes a descent into the earth or (2) makes his
descent within the abode of the creature of section II. (B) The hero ¢nds or is shown (1) a large
sword (2) that he can wield only after a strengthening drink. (C) The hero kills the abductor (1)
when he returns or (2) while he is asleep, or (3) the hero spares the villain. (D) The abductor is
the creature of section II.
IV. Abandonment. (A) The hero is abandoned treacherously after the princesses are raised, or
(B) the hero is abandoned because of the length of time he was gone.

The tale may end in one or another way, but normally the hero marries the youngest
princess, while the traitorous companions are punished. The similarities between this
outline and the narrative of Beowulf are only partial: there are, conspicuously, no
princesses to be rescued in the Old English poem, while episode IV, if it can be said to
be present, is only vestigially evident in the scene in which the Danes leave their
stations at the mere in the false belief that the hero is dead (ll.¯1591–1602). Still, one can
see that Beowulf’s initial battles, ¢rst against Grendel (cf. episode II supra) and then
against Grendel’s mother (cf. episode III), could have had their genesis in folktales of
this type.1
Furthermore, a genetic relation of some kind seems to exist between Beowulf and
particular Scandinavian stories, including the one attached to Grettir the Strong.2 This
narrative is a salient example of what Jorgensen (Arv 31 [1975] 35–43) calls the ‘two
troll variant’ of type 301.
Grettis saga3 (dating from about 1300) is concerned with a headstrong, adventurous
outlaw, whose life is modeled on that of a historical personage (Grettir Ásmundarson)
who lived in Iceland in the early decades of the 11th century. The saga includes obvi-
ously fabulous elements derived, as Panzer 1910 showed, from folktales of the ‘Bear’s
Son’ type.4 Chapters 64–6 relate two successive exploits of the Icelandic hero —
sterkastr á landinu sinna jafnaldra — which in several respects form the nearest
parallel to the ¢ght with Grendel and Grendel’s mother.
At Yule, so the story goes, the young wife Steinv∂r at Sandhaugar (at Sandhaugum, í
Bárðardal) attends church in the next valley and leaves her husband at home. That
night, the men hear a loud crashing noise in the house, and in the morning they ¢nd that

essentially the same. Scowcroft 1999: 25–6 observes that Panzer’s ‘type A’ group of variants
incorporates the ‘Hand and Child’ motif.
1
On the structure of the poem, see infra, pp.¯lxxix¯ff.
2
For a thorough survey of scholarship on this issue, see Liberman 1986; cf. Fjalldal 1998.
3
Ed. Guðni Jónsson (Reykjavík, 1936).
4
Thus Grettir (and likewise Ormr Stórólfsson) as a boy shows himself lazy and of a violent
disposition and displays uncommon bodily strength. — It may be mentioned that Grettir gains
fame by killing a mighty bear that no one else could overcome (ch. 21 [cf. Wachsler ES 66 (1985)
381–90]; also Biarco slays a big bear, Saxo ii 6,11 [Appx.A §¯10]). The bear’s cave is described as
located in a sea cliff under an overhanging rock with a narrow path leading up to it.
 THE WORLD OF MONSTERS AND MYTH xxxix
the husband has disappeared, no one knows where. The next year the same thing
happens to a manservant. Grettir the Strong hears the tale, and at Yule-eve he goes to
the haunted place and asks permission to stay there, calling himself Gestr to conceal his
identity (since he has been outlawed). The wife wants to go to church again, but she
thinks it impossible to cross the river, which is thawing, Ïooded, and ¢lled with
drifting ice. But Grettir goes with Steinv∂r and her little daughter and carries them both
with one arm through the raging river, while with the other he pushes back a great
ice-Ïoe.1 He then returns to Sandhaugar and lies down for the night but does not
undress.
Toward midnight, Grettir hears a loud noise outside, and then a huge she-troll enters
the sitting-room carrying a trough2 in one hand and a massive knife in the other. She
peers around, sees where ‘Gestr’ is lying, and runs at him; he springs to his feet to meet
her, and they wrestle ferociously for a long time in the room. She is stronger, but he
craftily avoids her, and they break everything in their path, even the room partition.
She pulls him out through the door and stalks down to the river as far as the gorge.
They grapple all night. He thinks he has never dealt with a menace of such strength;
she clasps him so tightly to her that he can devote neither arm to anything other than
grasping her waist; and when they reach the river gorge, he swings the troll-woman
around. In the process, he gets his right arm free; he snatches the short-sword he had
strapped on, and he cuts off her right arm. He thus frees himself, but she casts herself
down into the gorge and into the waterfall.
After Yule, Grettir goes with Steinn the priest (who doubted his tale and would not
believe that the two men who had vanished had gone into the waterfall) to the scene of
his victory. When they come to the waterfall, they see a cave up under the cliff; there is
such an abrupt crag that there is no way up it, and it is nearly ten fathoms down to the
water. They have a rope with them, and Grettir asks the priest to tend the rope, the
other end of which he lowers into the water. He then jumps off the cliff into the
waterfall. Grettir dives down under the waterfall, and that is hard to manage, because
there is a powerful whirlpool there, and he has to dive all the way to the bottom before
coming up again behind the fall. There is a rock in the entrance, and he gets in by
climbing it. There is a large cavern behind the fall, and from the cliff the river falls in
front of it. He enters the cavern then, and in it there is a large ¢re of burning logs, with
a fearsome giant (j∂tunn) seated at it. When Grettir moves toward him, he leaps up and
seizes a certain pike and slashes it in the direction of the intruder (one could both slash
and thrust with it; it had a haft of wood; a weapon made that way was called a hepti-sax
[‘hafted short-sword’]). Grettir gives a counter-blow with his short-sword (sax) and
cuts the shaft in two. The giant then makes as if to stretch out his arm behind him, back
to a sword that hangs there in the cavern. At that, Grettir slashes open almost all his rib
cage and belly, so that the guts spill out of him and down into the river and are carried
off downstream. The priest sitting by the rope sees certain tatters driven down with the
current, all bloody, and panics. He thinks Grettir is surely dead and runs home. —
Meanwhile, Grettir goes farther into the cave, lights a torch, and explores the place.
The story does not tell what valuables he found there, but it is supposed there were
some. He also ¢nds the bones of two men and takes them along in a bag. Then he heads
out of the cave, makes his way to the rope and shakes it, expecting that the priest will
be there; when he realizes he is not, he has to haul himself up the rope by hand to the
top of the cliff. Then he goes back to Eyjardalsá and brings to the church porch the bag
with the bones in it, and along with it a rune stick on which are inscribed verses he has

1
It is exceedingly doubtful whether this feat — a preliminary demonstration of strength; cf. the
Bear’s Son parallels, Panzer 1910: 34–9 — should be regarded as an analogue to the Breca episode
(Brandl P.Grdr.2 iia 994). Grettir’s superiority as an endurance swimmer is mentioned in ch. 58.
2
For holding her food — the human victim. (Grendel brought with him a glōf for the same
purpose, 2085¯ff.)
xl INTRODUCTION
composed. (The last verses: ‘I caused the hard-bladed heptisax to be hewn from its
shaft; the bright battle-Ïame [i.e. short-sword] parted the breast and ribs of the dark
strider.’)
(Ch. 67.) Grettir is thought to have done great deeds for the cleansing of the land
(mikla landhreinsun).
Like Grettir, Ormr the Strong is known to have been a real person, but in Orms þáttr
Stórólfssonar,1 remarkable deeds of a fabulous character are ascribed to him.
Orm’s sworn brother, Ásbj∂rn, we are told, sails to the Norwegian island Sauðey,
where a man-eating giant Brúsi and his mother (in the shape of an enormous cat) dwell
in a cave.2 (He is slain by Brúsi after a severe struggle.3 Twenty of his men are torn to
pieces and devoured by the terrible ¢re-breathing cat.) When Ormr at his home in
Iceland hears news of his friend’s death, he determines to avenge him and sails to
Brúsi’s island. He enters the cave and ¢ghts ¢rst with the mother — the cat, who
attacks him with her piercing claws (cf. Beo 1501¯ff.). He reels back, but when he calls
on God and St. Peter for help (cf. Beo 1553¯ff.), he gets the better of the monster and
breaks her back. Then he struggles with Brúsi and overpowers him. After cutting with
his sword (sax) the ‘blood-eagle’ into the dead giant’s back, he leaves the cave with
two chests of gold and silver.
The same story (ballad type E 128, Brúsajøkils kvæði)¯4 has been traced in the mod-
ern versions of two Faroese and two Swedish ballads.5
Of less signi¢cance, but worth mentioning, as a parallel to the Grendel ¢ght, is the
Glámr episode of Grettis saga (chs. 32–5), which tells how Glámr, a shepherd, who
had been killed by an evil spirit and who afterward as a draugr (revenant) haunted and
made uninhabitable the house and farm of his employer, was slain by Grettir in a ¢erce
battle.
Grettir, when told of the hauntings, rides to the place and waits in the house at night
for Glámr. When a third of the night has passed, he hears a loud noise outside, then
something climbs onto the roof (and rides it) before descending and opening the door.
Grettir lies quiet; Glámr goes up to him and tries to pull him out of the house. They
struggle enormously, seats and benches breaking before them. Glámr wants to get out.
Grettir resists with all his might and ¢nally succeeds in making his opponent reel back
and fall open-armed out of the house. Drawing his short-sword (sax), he cuts off
Glámr’s head and disposes of him (but before he can do so, he beholds with terror in
the moonlight Glámr’s horrible face and hears his dying curse, which is to be of disas-
trous consequences for him).
A notable parallel to the second adventure has been detected (by Lawrence Kl.Misc.
172–81) in an episode of Samsons saga fagra (ca. 1300).6 (A brief summary by Law-
rence 1928: 190: ‘A she-troll dwelling under a water-fall has begotten a son, a super-
natural being who haunts the forests. She is killed, like Grendel’s dam, in a struggle
under the waters. Afterwards the hero dives under the fall, and comes to a cave in

1
Ed. A. Faulkes Two Icelandic Stories (London, [1963]). Ormr and Grettir are mentioned to-
gether in Grettis saga ch. 58 as two of the strongest men ever known in Iceland.
2
The cave is near the sea; in the Faroese versions it is reached by means of a small boat. See
Bugge 361¯ff.
3
Bugge thought this Ásbj∂rn ultimately identical with Æschere, Beo 1323¯ff.
4
B. Jonsson, S. Solheim, & E. Danielson The Types of the Scand. Med. Ballad (Stockholm,
1978) 253–4.
5
Faroese: ballad 25 in Corpus Carminum Færoensium. Føroya Kvæði, ed. Sv. Grundtvig & J.
Bloch (Copenhagen, 1941–72), 6 vols. Swedish: ballad 213 in Sveriges medeltida ballader, ed. B.
Jonsson (Stockholm, 1983–2001), 5 vols. An interesting detail of the Faroese ballads, viz., the ex-
clamation in praise (blessing) of the hero’s mother after the slaying of the giant, has been con-
nected (by Bugge) with Beo 942¯ff., but the coincidence need not be considered of importance.
6
Ed. J. Wilson (Copenhagen, 1953). The relevant portion is edited and translated in Cha.Intr.
502–3, 456–7.
 THE WORLD OF MONSTERS AND MYTH xli
which he ¢nds precious objects. Gallyn the miller, seeing blood in the stream, immedi-
ately concludes, like the watchers in the tales of Beowulf and Grettir, that the hero has
been killed.’) The characteristic ‘waterfall cave’ scenery is likewise found in Gullþóris
saga and the folktale of Gullbrá and Skeggi.1
The points of contact between the foregoing extracts and Beowulf are unmistakable.2
The Sandhaugar episode in particular gives a strikingly similar description of the mon-
ster’s cave under a waterfall and also seems to show a verbal agreement in the use of
(the nonce word) heptisax, recalling the (equally unique) hæftmēċe, Beo 1457.3 Some
noteworthy innovations in the Beowulf account — apart from the general transforma-
tion of the story — are the following. The mother of the slain Grendel leaves her cave,
appears in the hall, and avenges her son in heroic manner — an evident ampli¢cation
(including a partial repetition) of the narrative. Again, the monster Grendel, though
mortally wounded by Bēowulf and found dead in the cave, is as it were slain again
(1576¯ff.) and de¢nitely disposed of by beheading. In the original form of the story, it
appears, the male troll had been merely wounded; when the hero had made his way to
the dwelling place of the monsters, he put the wounded enemy to death (and afterward
killed the mother).4
Different and in a certain respect closer is the relation of Beowulf to the late Hrólfs
saga kraka (see Appx.A §¯12).5 B∂ðvarr’s contest with a peculiar, fanciful beast (ch.
23) does not have nearly so much in common with the Grendel ¢ght as Grettir’s
adventure in the cave has with Bēowulf’s second encounter. But only in Hrólfs saga do
we ¢nd a story at all comparable to the Grendel part placed in a historical setting
comparable to that in the Old English poem and attributed to a ¢gure comparable to
(some have said ultimately identical with) Bēowulf himself.6 B∂ðvarr’s relationship to

1
The relevant portions of each are edited and translated in Cha.Intr. 494–502. They are also
translated by Garmonsway & Simpson (1968: 322–7, 328–31), who offer two other analogues as
well, Þorsteinns þáttr uxafóts, chs. 10–11 (320–2) and Þorsteinns saga Víkingssonar, ch. 23 (327–
8). Jorgensen Arv 31 (1975) 35–43 and Afnf. 94 (1979) 82–90 considerably expands the range of
analogues of the tale-type in question.
2
Orchard (1995: 140–68) offers a detailed discussion of the shared narrative details in the ON
and OE texts. But see also Fjalldall 1998, who sees little of weight in this parallel. Cf. Osborn in
Myth in Early Northwest Europe, ed. S. Glosecki (Tempe, 2007) 197–224, aÌrming the structural
parallel while emphasizing the fantastic character of the Beo poet’s description of the landscape.
3
The former is used by the giant, the latter by Bēowulf; a seax is used also by Grendel’s mother
(1545), as a sax is several times by Grettir. (Also, the kenning gunnlogi reminds one of beado-
lēoma, Beo 1523.) Liberman (1986: 380) argues that both the ON and OE words refer back to a
shared Germanic ritual that involves a magic sword, and it is this shared ritual that connects the
two texts, not direct inÏuence.
4
Cf. Lindkvist 1958: 102–3.
5
But see Benson 1970: 15–9 and T.M. Andersson 1997: 131–2.
6
Additional special references: ten Brink 185¯ff., Olrik 1903–10: [1.66–260], Lawrence PMLA
24 (1909) 220–73, O. Olson The Relation of the Hrólfs Saga Kraka and the Bjarkarímur to Beo-
wulf (Chicago, 1916); von Sydow Studier i nordisk ¢lologi 14.3 (1923); Cha.Intr. 54¯ff. (ibid. 398,
522: ref. to Gísli Brynjúlfsson); Work PQ 9 (1930) 399–402; Berendsohn in Niederdeutsche
Studien: Festschrift für Conrad Borchling (Hamburg, 1932) 328–37; J. Byock, tr. The Saga of King
Hrolf Kraki (London, 1998) xxv–xxviii. — The value of Hrólfs saga for purposes of comparison
and the identity of B∂ðvarr and Bēowulf (insisted upon above all by Sarrazin) have been urged by
a number of scholars. It has been claimed that a comparison of Saxo (ii 6,11, Appx.A §¯10; cf.
supra, p.¯xxxviii n. 4: Grettis saga, ch. 21), Hrólfs saga, and Bjarkarímur (Appx.A §§¯12, 13) with
one another and with Beowulf sheds light on certain elements of confusion in the saga. The wings
of the monster are thus considered to be a modern embellishment of the story. Besides, the real and
the sham ¢ght might seem to have arisen from a series of two real encounters, in the second of
which the (previously wounded) troll was killed (in accordance with the supposedly older form of
the Grendel part: see Panzer 1910: 371¯f.). Furthermore, it has been supposed that in the original
story the ¢ghter’s own sword actually failed him (cf. Appx.A §¯12 with Beo 1523¯ff.), but a won-
derful, gold-hilted sword brought him victory (cf. Appx.A §¯12 with Beo 1557¯ff.). Sarrazin
xlii INTRODUCTION
Hrólfr is not unlike that of Bēowulf to Hrōðgār — both deliver the king from the rav-
ages of a terrible monster, both are his honored champion and friend, B∂ðvarr the son-
in-law, Bēowulf the ‘adopted son’ (946¯ff., 1175¯f.). There are additional parallels that
should not be ignored. B∂ðvarr goes from Gautland, where the reigning king is his
brother, to the Danish court at Hleiðra; Bēowulf goes from the land of the Ġēatas, who
are ruled by his uncle Hyġelāc, to the court of the Danish king at Heorot, which like
Hleiðra (Lat. Lethra) is the seat of the Scylding (ON Skj∂ldungr) kings. B∂ðvarr makes
his entrance at the court in a brusque, self-con¢dent manner and quarrels with the
king’s men at the feast; Bēowulf introduces himself with a great deal of self-reliance
tempered by decorum (407¯ff.), and at the banquet he has a dispute with an oÌcial of
the king (499¯ff.); his scornful retort of ll.¯590¯ff. is also matched by B∂ðvarr’s slighting
remarks, 68.17¯ff. (Appx.A §¯12).
In addition, certain features in the Norse tradition of B∂ðvarr have been cited as con-
¢rming the essential likeness of the two heroes.1 The ursine nature of B∂ðvarr (if, in
fact, it may safely be regarded as his own inheritance),2 which is implied by his strange
behavior in the great Bjarkamál battle (Saxo ii 7,4–28, Hrólfs saga kraka, chs. 32¯f.),
has been compared to what some have perceived as Bēowulf’s bearlike wrestling
propensities, dwelt upon in his contest with Grendel and with the Frankish warrior
Dæġhrefn (2501¯ff.; cf. the opposing analysis of Fulk Anglo-Saxon 1 [2007] 116). In
addition, the fact that B∂ðvarr Bjarki (with other warriors of Hrólfr) aids Aðils in his
war (Skáldskaparmál, Skj∂ldunga saga, Bjarkarímur, Appx.A §§¯8, 11.6, 13.3) is par-
alleled, in a measure, by Bēowulf’s befriending the Swedish prince Ēadġils, who cor-
responds to Aðils onomastically even if in no other particular (2392¯ff.). One way of
accounting for these parallels between the late Icelandic saga and the much earlier
English poem is to suppose that elements of the two stories were struck off a common
stock, though it has also been proposed that the similarities are due to late inÏuence on
Hrólfs saga (see n.¯2).
Additional Scandinavian parallels to Beowulf have been adduced.4 The perplexing
question of the precise relation between the Old English heroic poem and the various

suggested that the two ‘war-friends’ (Beo 1810), the unsuccessful Hrunting and the victorious
Gyldenhilt (Gullinhalti), were developed by a process of personi¢cation into the dual ¢gure of
H∂ttr-Hjalti (coward-champion): see EStn. 35 (1903) 19¯ff. Olson (in agreement with Olrik, and
with Benson 1970: 15–9) tried to prove that Bjarkarímur have no independent value in this con-
nection, that the earliest type of Bjarki’s ¢ght is the one found in Saxo, and that the form of the
monster overcome in Hrólfs saga is derived from the Siward saga. See Cha.Intr. 58–61.
1
See Chadwick 1912: 120–2; Clarke 1911: 49–57.
2
On the use of this bear motif (which is not unknown in folktales; cf. the ‘Bear’s Son’ tales) in
the Gesta Herwardi, in Saxo (x 15,2–4), and in the story of Siward, see Lawrence PMLA 24 (1909)
234¯ff.; Olrik 1903–10: [1.370–5] and Afnf. 19 (1903) 199¯ff.; M. Deutschbein Studien zur Sagen-
geschichte Englands (Cöthen, 1906) 249¯ff.; and especially Olson, who, with Olrik, traces B∂ð-
varr’s bear-ancestry to the Siward legend (see two notes above). See also Henry Occasional Pa-
pers in Ling. & Lang. Learning 8 (1981) 53–61, Glosecki Jnl. of Ritual Studies 2 (1988) 31–49. —
Did Bēowulf inherit his wrestling strength from his father (cf. handbona 460)? Incidentally, it may
be noted that he became the forerunner of wrestling heroes celebrated in English literature (as in
The Tale of Gamelyn, Lorna Doone, etc.).
3
The fame of Bjarki is attested also by the Codex Runicus and the Annales Ryenses (Appx.A
§§¯11.4, 11.5). That he came to be known in northern England is shown by the occurrence of the
name Boduwar Berki in the Liber Vitae Dunelmensis (in a 12th-century entry); cf. also A. Bugge
ZfdA 51 (1909–10) 35.
4
Another analogue (from Flóres saga konungs ok sona hans) has been cited by Schlauch MLN
45 (1930) 20–1. Additional Scandinavian analogues have been discussed by N. Chadwick 1959:
181–93; R. Harris Scripta Islandica 24 (1973) 25–53; G. Clark Proceedings of the 1st Intl. Saga
Conf., ed. P. Foote et al. (London, 1973) 66–87; Opland SS 45 (1973) 54–8; Hume SP 77 (1980) 1–
25; McConchie ES 63 (1982) 481–6; Wachsler ibid. 66 (1985) 381–90; Damico SS 58 (1986) 407–
28; Jorgensen in Sagnaskemmtun, ed. R. Simek et al. (Vienna, 1986) 201–8; Glosecki 1989.
 THE WORLD OF MONSTERS AND MYTH xliii
(late) Scandinavian stories brieÏy considered here has given rise to intense discussion
and no ¢rm conclusions. On the whole, however, it does not seem improbable to attrib-
ute to more than chance the undeniable parallels between the Old English poem and the
Old Norse–Icelandic accounts found in Hrólfs saga kraka and in the Norse ‘two-troll’
tradition as exempli¢ed in Grettis saga in particular. There existed, we may assume, a
tale of the freeing of the Skj∂ldung court from a strange monster through the prowess
of a mighty warrior. There also existed a tale, inÏuenced by a widespread folkloric
pattern, that took the form of a ¢ght with two monsters and was associated with
threatening surroundings (e.g. a cave in a wasteland). Various versions of these tales
circulated orally in the North. In the course of time they were attached to various
persons, several of them historical and several not: B∂ðvarr, Grettir, Ormr, Bēowulf,
etc. These tales perhaps merged at a comparatively early date, though that fusion is
actually traceable in the Anglo-Saxon work only. The polished poem Beowulf results
from this formative process. InÏuences from Celtic narrative sources, particularly as
regards the motif of a giant’s severed arm (see p.¯xxxvii supra), as well as from local
topographically based folklore (as with the Grendel toponyms, Appx.A §¯5), were
easily absorbed once a narrative (or a cluster of narratives) with these basic features
was in circulation in Britain.

B. Interpretation1

The elusive, liminal ¢gures of Grendel (sceadu-genġa) and his ¢erce, avenging mother
(ides āgl®ċwīf¯) have occasioned symbolic interpretations ever since scholars ¢rst
turned their attention to Beowulf. Adumbrating a critical trend that would not take hold
in the English-speaking world until after J.R.R. Tolkien’s tremendously inÏuential lec-
ture to the British Academy in 1936, N.F.S. Grundtvig in 1817 set forth a relatively
integrative and self-consistent view of the symbolic nature of the poem and interpreted
Grendel as the evil spirit in time.2 Subsequently, in 1875, one of his students, Ludvig
Schrøder, developed a far more comprehensive interpretation. Building on Grundtvig’s
analysis, he construed Grendel as a symbol of sloth or lethargy, interpreting the mon-
ster as representing the decline of society — in this case, very speci¢cally, Danish soci-
ety.3 But it was Tolkien’s lecture of 1936 that effectively changed the way the poem

1
Additional special references: Hicketier 1914, Bonjour ES 30 (1949) 113–24, Pepperdene 1955,
Chapman College English 17 (1956) 334–7, Kaske 1958, Brodeur 1959: 88–101, Irving 1968: 83–
128, Green¢eld 1974, Whitbread MS 36 (1974) 434–71, Green JEGP 74 (1975) 502–18, Foley
American Imago 34 (1977) 133–53, Oetgen 1978: 134–52, Osborn 1978, Green¢eld in King &
Stevens 1979: 1.1–14, Lord in Niles 1980: 137–42, D. Williams 1982, Niles 1983: 3–23, Haudry
Études Indo-Europ¯éennes 9 (1984) 1–56, Kaske LSE 16 (1985) 142–51, Purdy Chaucer Rev. 21
(1986) 257–73, Florey Essays in Arts and Sciences 17 (1988) 83–95, J.M. Hill Assays 5 (1989) 3–
36, Irving 1989, Hasenfratz LSE 21 (1990) 45–69, Robinson 1992, Newton 1993: 142–5, Earl 1994:
49–78, Lerer ELH 61 (1994) 721–51, Ono Poetica 41 (1994) 11–17, Robinson 1994, Bremmer 1996,
Davis 1996: 89–112, Day JEGP 98 (1999) 313–24, Neville 2001, Stanley 2001, Bremmer Neophil.
86 (2002) 467–9, J.M. Hill in Naked before God, ed. B. Withers & J. Wilcox (Morgantown, 2003)
116–37.
2
Danne-Virke 2 (1817) 279. See Haarder 1975: 75.
3
On the importance of Schrøder’s work, see Bjork in Anglo-Saxonism and the Construction of
Social Identity, ed. A. Frantzen & J. Niles (Gainesville, 1997) 123–5. More localized and speci¢c
symbolic readings, of course, began with the ¢rst edition of the poem. In his glossary, Thorkelín
equated Grendel with Loki or the devil (see Shippey & Haarder 1998: 15–16; cf. Emerson MLR 16
[1921] 113–19, Thundyil Christian Scholars Rev. 3 [1973] 150–69, Malmberg NM 78 [1977] 241–3,
Cassidy in Ling. & Lit. Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill, ed. M. Jazayery et al. [The Hague,
1979] 4.209–15). One of the ¢rst reviewers of Thorkelín’s edition in 1815 regarded Grendel and his
mother as prehistoric humans or Neanderthals (Müller in Shippey & Haarder 1998: 106; cf. Brooke
[1898] ibid. 487–8, Carlson Jnl. of American Folklore 80 [1967] 357–64. Similarly, see Mooney
Fate 33 [1980] 72 and Duncan McNeese Rev. [1994] 91–9 on Grendel as Bigfoot). Other note-
xliv INTRODUCTION
and the monsters in it have been interpreted. Responding generally to historicist criti-
cisms of the poem, and speci¢cally to W.P. Ker’s lament that the poem puts unimpor-
tant things (that is, trivial and implausible contests with monsters) at the center and
important things (that is, historical matters of intense interest to scholars intent on
recovering the earliest material and social culture of the Germanic peoples) on the
outer edges, Tolkien offered an attempt at an aesthetic analysis of Beowulf on its own
terms (that is, deriving its motivating principles from observable patterns in the poem
itself rather than from classical models), showing that it is a symbolic work of great
complexity. A deliberately ordered and moving poem on the nature of the heroic life in
the midst of a hostile universe, it cannot be evaluated by realistic criteria.1 After Tol-
kien, who considered Grendel to be primarily a physical ogre inimical to humanity in
all its manifestations,2 most interpretations of Grendel have taken into consideration the
overall structure and dominant theme or themes of the poem, and many have been
sensitive to the polysemous nature of the text. Most frequently, scholarship has ex-
plored Grendel’s close relation to humans, interpreting him as representing the dark
side of humanity3 or the anti-thegn,4 a dualistic creature5 who is intimately tied to the
society he attacks and who becomes more human as he approaches human habitations
and more monstrous as he retreats toward his own.6 Grendel’s mother has been
similarly viewed, with emphasis placed on her being an inverted feminine ideal,7
perhaps even more closely tied than her son to humanity because of the (in human
terms) understandable motivation for her actions.8

worthy early interpretations of Grendel include J. Grimm’s view from 1824 of Grendel as a water
spirit (Shippey & Haarder 1998: 172); Laistner’s from 1879 of Grendel as malaria (Shippey &
Haarder 1998: 393; cf. Fog Danske Studier 14 [1917] 134–40, Davidson 1964: 18); and Herben’s of
Grendel as an enraged priesthood in the service of Nerthus (Archiv 173 [1938] 24–30; cf. Bohrer in
Literary and Hist. Perspectives of the Middle Ages, ed. P. Cummins et al. [Morgantown, 1982]
133–47, Nicholson Studi medievali 3rd ser., 27 [1986] 637–9, Earl 1994: 100–136, Herschend 1998:
124–5). See also Kiessling MP 65.3 (1968) 191–201 (Grendel and the tradition of the incubus),
Crépin in Genèse de la conscience moderne, ed. R. Ellrodt (Paris, 1983) 51–60 (Grendel as bestial
appetite, Grendel’s mother as sexual appetite), Thundy Greyfriar 24 (1983) 5–34 (Grendel as the
Roman legions, Grendel’s mother as Rome itself), and Fajardo-Acosta ES 73 (1992) 205–10
(Grendel as drunkenness). See further infra, pp.¯xlviii¯f.
1
For a detailed analysis of Tolkien’s lecture and its history and context, see M. Drout, ed.,
Beowulf & the Critics (Tempe, 2002); see also infra, pp.¯cxxiii¯f.
2
Tolkien 1936: 278–80 (Appendix [a]).
3
See Baird NM 67 (1966) 375–81, Dow Connecticut Rev. 4 (1970) 42–8, Dragland Neophil. 61
(1977) 606–18, Andrew ES 62 (1981) 401–10, A. Lee 1998: 177–8. On Grendel’s descent from
Cain and relation to giants, see further Kaske Speculum 46 (1971) 421–31, Bandy PLL 9 (1973)
235–49, Melinkoff ASE 9 (1979) 143–62, Feldman Literary Onomastic Stud. 8 (1981) 71–87, Kroll
MP 84.2 (1986) 117–29. Hübener EStn. 62 (1927–8) 293–327 argued that the Grendel ¢ght was
fought out in Bēowulf’s soul.
4
See Malone Eng. Stud. Today 2nd ser. (1961) 81–91, Joyce Hill LSE 8 (1975) 5–19, Locherbie-
Cameron Poetica 10 (1978) 1–11, De Roo Eng. Stud. in Canada 5 (1979) 249–61, Atkinson Pubs.
of the Missouri Phil. Assoc. 9 (1984) 58–66, Heinemann in Perspectives on Lang. in Performance,
ed. W. Hüllen et al. (Tübingen, 1987) 677–94, J. Cohen Of Giants (Minneapolis, 1999) 25–8. On
Grendel as a queer threat to the dominant homosocial order, see Zeikowitz College Eng. 65 (2002)
71–2. Cf. Simms Sir Gawain and the Knight of the Green Chapel (Lanham, 2002) 58–64.
5
See Johnson 2001: 62–3. On Grendel’s multiple dualisms, see Cardew in The Shadow-
Walkers, ed. T. Shippey (Tempe, 2005) 189–205.
6
See O’Brien O’Keeffe TSLL 23 (1981) 484–94. Cf. A. Mittman Maps & Monsters in Med.
England (New York, 2006) 134–5.
7
R. Schrader God’s Handiwork (Westport, 1983) 39–42, Chance 1986: 95–108, Haruta Poetica
23 (1986) 1–15, Temple ELN 23 (1986) 10–15.
8
See Liggins NM 74 (1973) 193–213, J. Smith English 26 (1977) 3–23, and see infra, pp.¯lxxx¯f.,
on the place of Grendel’s mother in the poem’s structure. On Grendel’s mother and Celtic myth,
see Puhvel Folklore 80 (1969) 81–8.
 THE WORLD OF MONSTERS AND MYTH xlv
BĒOWULF’S FIGHT WITH THE DRAGON

A. Sources and Analogues1

Dragons and dragon ¢ghts are everywhere to be found in the cultures of the world,2 and
a host of analogues for the third major episode of the poem — Rauer (2000: 174–98),
for example, lists some sixty-¢ve texts — has attracted considerable scholarly
attention. Despite this intense effort, however, a speci¢c source for the Beowulf poet’s
dragon ¢ght has not been found. What the search has yielded instead is a deeper
understanding of the relationship of the dragon story in Beowulf to a family of such
tales, highlighting certain atypical features of the Beowulf narrative and bringing into
focus its composite nature. The analogues to the story to which attention has most often
been drawn are Scandinavian, but some classical and, especially, hagiographical paral-
lels are worthy of study as well.
In 1820, Grundtvig ¢rst drew attention to the resemblance between Bēowulf’s ¢ght
with the dragon and Þórr’s ¢ght with Miðgarðsormr (the world serpent) at Ragnar∂k
when he called Beowulf ‘en Thors-Drape’ (a heroic poem about Thor, Gru.tr., p.¯L).
Subsequently, Panzer (1910: 294–313) examined thirty-eight narratives of the so-called
Þórr type, most of which are localized in Germany, a few in Denmark. Of these, the
one most similar to the Beowulf episode is the story of Frotho’s dragon ¢ght3 in Saxo’s
history (ii 1,3, Appx.A §¯10).4 It appears quite credible that some story like this was
known to the Beowulf poet because of notable agreement in a number of features — in
the description of the dragon (cf. Beo 2561, 2569¯ff., 2827, 2582¯f.; 2304, 2524, 2580);
the report of a countryman (cf. 2214¯ff., 2280¯ff., 2324¯ff., 2404¯ff.); the use of a spe-
cially prepared shield (cf. 2337¯ff., 2522¯ff.); the hero’s desire to engage in the contest
without help from others (cf. 2345¯ff., 2529¯ff.); the manner of the ¢ght itself (cf., e.g.,
the details: 2699, 2705). Some have conjectured5 that the text of Beowulf reveals cer-
tain instances of an imperfect adaptation of a Danish original, viz., the reference to
ēalond 2334 (see note), answering to Saxo’s island, and the puzzling line (þone ðe ®r
ġehēold¯.¯.¯.) æfter hæleða hryre, hwate Scildingas 3005 (MS; see note), which has been
supposed to show that the dragon ¢ght was originally attributed to the Danish king
Bēow6 of ll.¯18¯ff., 53¯ff., the predecessor of Healfdene, just as it was attached (Saxo ii
1,3) to Haldanus’s predecessor Frotho. The latter assumption has been endorsed by
Berendsohn, who — improving upon the formula ‘combination of the Þórr and Fáfnir
(or Sigurðr) type’ (Panzer) — suggests that two dragon-slayer tales have been fused in
Beowulf, the hero of the ¢rst being originally Bēow = Frotho, while the second was
concerned with an old king who ¢ghts a ¢ery dragon in order to save his people. This
suggestion must remain speculative.
In some respects the other dragon ¢ght told in Beowulf, that of Siġemund (884¯ff.),
exhibits a closer aÌnity to Saxo’s Frotho story. Both ¢ghts are of the ‘Sigurðr’ type,

1
Additional special references: Sievers 1895, Olrik 1903–10: [1.471–6], Sarrazin EStn. 23
(1897) 221–67 and 42 (1910) 1–37, Bugge & Olrik Dania 1 (1891) 233–45, Bugge 45¯ff., Berend-
sohn 1913: 1–14; Lawrence PMLA 33 (1918) 547–83; Cha.Intr. 92¯ff.; H. Schneider 1962. See also
Trp., Evans Jnl. of Folklore Research 22 (1985) 85–112, Nagy in Connections between OE and
Med. Celtic Lit. (Berkeley, 1985) 31–44, J. Lionarons The Med. Dragon (En¢eld Lock, 1998) 23–
48, Amodio 2004: 114–17.
2
See, for example, G. Smith The Evolution of the Dragon (Manchester, 1919), C. Watkins How
to Kill a Dragon (Oxford, 1995). For a discussion of the Indic and Iranian tales most similar to the
North Germanic medieval dragon-slayer texts, see Stitt 1992: 29–41.
3
Sievers 1895. (Cf. Müllenhoff ZfdA 7 [1849] 439; Sarr.St. 88.) A similar, briefer version is the
dragon ¢ght of Fridleuus, Saxo vi 4,10. See Keller MÆ 55 (1981) 218–28.
4
Olrik, l.c., vigorously denies the connection.
5
See Sievers 1895; Boer Afnf. 19 (1902) 69¯n.; Boer 1912: 112.
6
Or Bēowa (see infra, pp.¯xlviii¯ff.), as Sievers 1895 also took for granted.
xlvi INTRODUCTION
being the exploits of conquering heroes. Siġemund, like Frotho, is alone in the ¢ght
(888¯f.). He loads a boat with the dragon’s treasures, just as Frotho is bidden to do by
his informant (Appx.A §¯10, ii 1). (The scene of Bēowulf’s ¢ght is near the sea, but a
wagon takes the place of the boat, 3134.)1
Several minor parallels between Bēowulf’s and Siġemund’s dragon ¢ght should not
be overlooked. Cf. under hārne stān2 (. . . āna ġenēðde . . .) 887; 2553, 2744, 2213,
2540. — (draca) morðre swealt 892, 2782. — wyrm hāt ġemealt 897 (see note), cf.
3040¯f.: wæs se lēġdraca . . . glēdum besw®led. (Similarly the victorious sword which
avails against Grendel’s mother and is used to decapitate Grendel, as well, is melted by
the monsters’ hot blood, 1605¯ff., 1666¯ff.)3 — selfes dōme; s®bāt ġehlēod 895; him on
bearm hladon .¯.¯. sylfes dōme 2775¯f. — (hordes hyrde 887, cf. beorges hyrde 2304).4
Two classical parallels to the dragon ¢ght in Beowulf have been cited, the story of
Cadmus’s slaying of a dragon in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (iii 28–103)5 and that of Hip-
pomedon’s and Capaneus’s killing a sacred dragon in Statius’s Thebaid (v 505–78).6
Among the numerous hagiographical parallels cited, one featuring the dragon-slaying
exploits of St. Samson of Dol is of particular interest,7 as is another featuring the arch-
angel Michael.8 A ninth-century Breton version of the story of St. Samson’s defeat of a
dragon, in particular (Appx.A §¯19), includes motifs that are not present in prior ver-
sions of that saint’s life but that have parallels in Beowulf, ‘namely the dragon’s habitat
(a mountain), the moralizing exchange prior to the ¢ght, the companions’ attempt to
dissuade the saint from ¢ghting, the reference to the saint’s in¢rmity and the implied
old age, the summoning of the dragon and the dragon’s prompt reaction and the com-
panions who await the outcome of the ¢ght on the mountain’ (Rauer 2000: 113). While
stopping short of claiming a connection between these works, Rauer plausibly ¢nds
‘inÏuence from the hagiographical tradition on the Old English poem . . . far more
likely than the reverse’ (ibid., 114).

B. Interpretation9

Besides being linked to or identi¢ed with Miðgarðsormr in Nordic myth,10 the dragon
in Beowulf has been interpreted to represent the Ancient Serpent or Leviathan11 in the

1
Sigurðr has his horse carry the treasures (Fáfnismál, Skáldsk. ch. 40, V∂lsunga saga ch. 19).
2
See 1415 (n.). In the Nibelungenlied, the hoard is carried ûz einem holen berge, 89.
3
The light in the cave (2769¯f.) recalls the second adventure (1570¯ff.).
4
See further Klaeber 1926: 238–44.
5
Wild 1962: 27–37. See Rauer 2000: 45–6, 144–7.
6
Schrader CL 24 (1972) 237–59. See Rauer 2000: 46–7, 148–51.
7
Carney 1955: 122–4; Rauer 2000: 89–116. St. Samson was a native of South Wales who, after
various preferments there and in Ireland, lived in Brittany for the last years of his life and was
buried at Dol ca. 565.
8
Rauer 2000: 116–24.
9
Additional special references: Klaeber 1911–12: [64–8], Lawrence PMLA 33 (1918) 547–83,
Bonjour PMLA 68 (1953) 304–12, Sisam 1958, Brodeur 1959: 101–6, Wild 1962, Goldsmith 1970:
124–45, G. Jones Kings, Beasts & Heroes (London, 1972) 3–26, J. Gardner 1975, Brown Neophil.
64 (1980) 439–60, Sorrell Parergon n.s. 12 (1994) 57–87, B. GriÌths Meet the Dragon (Lough-
borough, 1996), Stilton Bull. of the John Rylands Univ. Libr. 79 (1997) 67–77, Amodio 2004: 66–
77, Evans in The Shadow-Walkers, ed. T. Shippey (Tempe, 2005) 207–69.
10
See J. Grimm (1836), Müllenhoff (1849), Simrock (1859) in Shippey & Haarder 1998: 206,
289, 313–14, and Dronke Saga-Book 17 (1969) 302–25. Cf. Haudry Études Indo-Européennes 9
(1984) 1–56, Earl 1994: 29–48. See also J. Fontenrose Python: A Study of Delphic Myth and Its
Origins (Berkeley, 1959) 524–34 on the aÌnities of Beowulf to a dragon-slayer myth, widespread
in the ancient Mediterranean, of the Apollo-Typhon type.
11
Goldsmith 1970: 142–3, 234–6, 261–3; Brown Neophil. 64 (1980) 439–60; A. Lee 1998: 200–
4. Cf. Taylor TSL 11 (1966) 119–30 on the poet’s use of both Latinate and Norse traditions in his
conception of Heorot.
 THE WORLD OF MONSTERS AND MYTH xlvii
Judeo-Christian tradition or a more general incarnation of evil,1 negation,2 or chaos3 in
the universe as a whole. In terms of human history, it has also been viewed as symbol-
izing the destruction of society,4 internal discord among the Ġēatas,5 an anti-king,6 a
royal line dying out,7 or simply the natural guardian of treasure.8 All of these interpre-
tations, however, are problematic when taken alone. Because of the almost endlessly
evocative nature of the dragon, the poem’s third episode is probably best regarded as
simultaneously calling to mind a number of narrative ideas about cataclysm and death
and courage in the face of overwhelming odds.

THE BALDR MYTH

The accidental killing of Herebeald by Hæðcyn (2435¯ff.) has often been compared
with the unintentional slaying of Baldr by the blind H∂ðr, who, according to Snorra
Edda, is directed by Loki in shooting the mistletoe (Gylfaginning, ch. 48; Appx.A §¯8).
Klaeber found it diÌcult to believe that the story told in Beowulf has any mythological
basis and thought it a report of an ordinary incident that could easily happen in those
Scandinavian communities and probably happened more than once. It thus became a
motif¯9 associated at an early date with names suggesting a warlike occupation, like
Here-beald, Hæð-cyn (=¯Baldr, H∂ðr). Other scholars concurred. Neckel thought that
an actual occurrence at Hrēðel’s court forms the basis of this episode, which, however,
was represented in such a manner as to convey a subtle allusion to the fate of Baldr.10
Similarly, Nerman (1925: 90–2) argued that a real event gave rise to the myth, which
explains the etymological connection between the names in the two stories. An oppos-
ing view, however, has found many advocates:11 namely, that this is an instance in
which pagan myth has been historicized in the narrative of Beowulf and yet still can be

1
H. Wright 1957, Schichler Proc. of the PMR Conf. 11 (1986) 159–75. Cf. T. Hill Angl. 84
(1966) 160 (on malitia), Crépin in Genèse de la conscience moderne, ed. R. Ellrodt (Paris, 1983)
51–60 (on avarice).
2
Calder SP 69 (1972) 36.
3
Babb Arlington Qtrly. 2 (1970) 15–28, Oetgen 1978: 134–52. See also Huppé in Approaches to
Nature in the Middle Ages, ed. G. Economou (Binghamton, 1982) 17 and Huppé 1984: 53–6 (on
the dragon as representing the hostility of nature); Malone Eng. Stud. Today 2nd ser. (1961) 81–91
(on destructive forces in the environment).
4
Helterman ELH 35 (1968) 20.
5
DuBois PMLA 49 (1934) 374–405 and 72 (1957) 819–22.
6
Atkinson Pubs. of the Missouri Phil. Assn. 11 (1986) 1–10.
7
Biggs ASE 32 (2003) 75.
8
Gang 1952: 6 (but see Bonjour PMLA 68 [1953] 304–12).
9
A slight similarity in the situation may be found in the story of Herthegn and his three sons,
Herburt, Herthegn, and Tristram (Sintram), Þiðreks saga, chs. 231¯f. (Simrock 1859: 191; Müll. 17).
10
Die Überlieferungen vom Gotte Balder dargestellt und vergleichend untersucht (Dortmund,
1920) 141¯ff.
11
Thus by Gísli Brynjúlfsson in 1852 (tr. in Shippey & Haarder 1998: 294); Gru. xliii & 175; V.
Rydberg Undersökningar i germanisk mythologi, I (Stockholm, 1886) 665 (who also called atten-
tion to Saxo’s account [iii 2,1¯ff., tr. 69¯ff.] of Hotherus’s skill in archery [cf. North 1997: 201]);
Sarr.St. 44; S. Bugge Studien über die Entstehung der nordischen Götter- und Heldensagen
(Munich, 1881) 262; Detter BGdSL 18 (1894) 82¯ff., ibid. 19 (1895) 495–516; Much Archiv 108
(1902) 413¯f.; Frank 1981: 132; North 1997: 198–202, id. 2007: 199–202; Orchard 2003: 116–19.
See also Liberman alvíssmál 11 (2004) 17–54 and Gade in The Fantastic in ON/Icel. Lit., ed. J.
McKinnell et al. (Durham, 2006) 1.268–77, who argues convincingly that Snorri did not under-
stand H∂ðr to be Baldr’s half-brother. Gísli Brynjúlfsson and Detter ¢nd a direct parallel to the
Herebeald-Hæðcyn version in the story of Alrekr and Eiríkr (Ynglinga saga, chs. 20–3), who are
succeeded on the Swedish throne, though not immediately, by Hugleikr (cf. Orchard 2003: 118).
Malone (1923: 156–78, PMLA 40 [1925] 783¯f., 799) maintains that the story is identical to that of
Angantýr II and Heiðrekr in Herverar saga. See, further, note on 2435¯ff., and Georgianna 1987.
See also D. Williams 1982: 82–4.
xlviii INTRODUCTION
recognized there in a displaced, vestigial form. Adherents of this view (e.g., Orchard
2003: 118–19) not infrequently observe that present in Beowulf are not only onomastic
echoes of the myth, but also two other points of resemblance: (1) the theme of extreme
grief and lamentation (essential to the story of Baldr’s death, and strongly dramatized
also with regard to Hrēðel) and (2) the factor that the untoward killing is accomplished
by means of an arrow shot by the victim’s close relation (his brother, in the Beowul¢an
instance, and a fellow member of the family of gods in the case of Baldr). In response
to the objection that Snorri’s myths, as the product of late literary artistry, are unlikely
to have been known in Anglo-Saxon England, O’Donoghue has argued that the details
that cause Snorri’s narrative to differ from the Beowul¢an version of events, and that
therefore count against this connection, are in fact non-native accretions that have been
appended to an older myth; she also supposes that Scandinavian settlers in Britain
could have brought with them a knowledge of the myth.1 Viewing this parallel more
skeptically, Turville-Petre (1964: 121) has argued that the resemblance between the
Old English and Old Icelandic stories is too super¢cial to lead us to conclude that there
is any relationship between them. Such a conclusion may be too categorical, but it
highlights one of the persistent problems in trying to locate mythic (or historical)
sources or analogues for the material in the poem.

BĒOW AND BĒOWULF: MYTHOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION2

The mention of Bēow the Dane (MS Bēowulf) greatly perplexed early students of the
poem. In the prologue, Scyld Scē¢ng, followed by his son Bēow, is given the place of
honor in the genealogy of the Danish kings. Practically the same names, viz. Scēaf
(Scēf), Scyld (Scyldwa, Sceldwea), Bēaw (Bēo, Beowi[n]us, etc.) occur among the
ancestors of Wōden in a number of Anglo-Saxon and, similarly, Old Norse genealogies
(Appx.A §§¯1–2, 11.1). That those names in the Scandinavian pedigrees are derived
from Anglo-Saxon sources is clearly proved by their form and by the explanatory
translations that have been added.3 Again, a local appellation Bēowan hamm4 is men-
tioned in the neighborhood of a Grendles mere in a Wiltshire charter issued by King
Æðelstān in the year 931 (see Appx.A §¯5). From these facts, aided by etymological
interpretations of the name Bēow/Bēaw(a) (Bēowulf¯), it was inferred that the hero of
the poem was originally the same as Bēaw (Bēowa), a divine being who, supposedly,
was worshiped by the Anglo-Saxons and was transformed into the mortal hero of the
poem by association with a historical person of the name of Bēowulf, the nephew of
king Hyġelāc. Originated by Kemble and very generally accepted for generations
(though varied in minor details, and nowhere promoted today), this hypothesis seemed
to furnish the key to a true understanding of the poem.5 It was enunciated by Müllen-
hoff, as a kind of dogma, as follows.
Bēow (whose name is derived from the Indo-European root *bh¯ū [cf. Old English
būan] ‘grow,’ ‘dwell,’ ‘cultivate land’), in conjunction with Scēaf (‘sheaf,’ denoting
husbandry) and Scyld (‘shield,’ i.e., protection against enemies), typi¢es the introduc-
tion of agriculture and civilization, the state of peaceful dwelling on cultivated ground.
He is virtually identical with Ing6 and thus also with Frēa (ON Freyr), the patron deity

1
O’Donoghue MÆ 72 (2003) 82–99.
2
Special references: Shippey & Haarder 1998: 28–44. See also Binz, Lawrence PMLA 24
(1909) 220–73, Cha.Intr. 87–8, 291–304, McHugh 1987.
3
For refs., see, e.g., Faulkes in Sjötiu ritgerðir, I, ed. Einar Pétursson & Jónas Kristjánsson
(Reykjavík, 1977) 177.
4
First pointed out by J. Kemble (The Saxons in England [London, 1849] 1.416) and turned to
full account by Müllenhoff ZfdA 12 (1865) 282–4 (tr. Shippey & Haarder 1998: 341–2).
5
See Shippey & Haarder 1998: 32–3, 43.
6
Cf. infra, p.¯lviii.
 THE WORLD OF MONSTERS AND MYTH xlix
of fruitfulness and riches. The exploits of Bēow should be viewed in a similar mytho-
logical light. Grendel is a personi¢cation of the (North) Sea, and so is Grendel’s moth-
er; and Bēowulf’s ¢ght against these demons symbolizes the successful checking of the
inundations of the sea in the spring season. The contest with the dragon is its autumnal
counterpart. In the death of the aged hero, which means the onset of winter, an old
seasons-myth is seen to lie behind the prevailing culture-myth conception.1 Owing to
the similarity of names, the ancient Anglo-Saxon myth of Bēowa was transferred to
Bēowulf the Ġēat.
A number of other more or less ingenious mythological explanations have been put
forward as well.2 Bēowulf has been made out to be a superhuman being of the order of
Þórr or Baldr, or a lunar deity,3 a personi¢cation of wind, storm, or lightning, a patron
of bee-keepers,4 while his opponent Grendel has ¢gured as the incarnation of the ter-
rors of undyked marshes,5 malaria or fog,6 or of the long winter nights, a storm being, a
likeness of the Old Norse Loki or Ægir, even of the Lernaean hydra.7 The dragon and
Bēowulf’s dragon ¢ght have likewise been subjected to various allegorizing inter-
pretations.8
Grimm originally understood the name Bēo-wulf (of which Bēow was supposed to
be a shortening) as ‘bee-wolf’ (enemy of the bees), meaning ‘woodpecker,’9 which
bird he conjectured to have been held sacred like the Picus of the Romans. Others have
accepted this etymology of ‘bee-wolf,’ taking the word, however, in the sense ‘bear’10
(the ravager of trees, the hive plunderer), although now it has been demonstrated that,
despite earlier philological misgivings, association of the ¢rst element of Bēowulf’s
name with Bēow(a) is etymologically no less likely than with bēo ‘bee.’ (See the Glos-
sary of Personal Names.) Out of the mass of relevant scholarship, a few points emerge
as fairly probable. Neither the Grendel nor the dragon ¢ght is to be shifted back from
Bēowulf the Geatish hero to Bēow the Dane or the Bēaw of the Anglo-Saxon royal
genealogies. The evidence of the famous Wiltshire charter is far from suÌcient in itself
to justify attributing the Grendel ¢ght to Bēowa, especially since the latter name (in the
phrase bēowan hammes) could be explained as a hypocorism (shortened form, pet
form) of Bēowulf.
That Bēaw/Bēow originally was, after all, some kind of a divine being has been
shown to be probable by the investigations of folklorists,11 who have called attention to

1
Even the swimming adventure with Breca has been explained mythologically: see n. on 409¯ff.
2
See, e.g., R. Wülker Grundriss zur Geschichte der angelsächsischen Litteratur (Leipzig, 1885)
258¯ff.; Panzer 1910: 250–91; Helterman ELH 35 (1968) 1–20; Page & Cassidy Orbis Litterarum 24
(1969) 101–11; Puhvel Folklore 80 (1969) 81–8; Babb Arlington Qtrly. 2 (1970) 15–28; Dow Conn.
Rev. 4 (1970) 42–8; A. Lee Guest-Hall of Eden (New Haven, 1972) 175–223; Foley Am. Imago 34
(1977) 133–53; Damon and Nagler in Niles 1980: 107–16 and 143–56, resp.; Zyngier Ilha do
Desterro 3 (1982) 77–88; H. Wolff A Study in the Narrative Structure of 3 Epic Poems (New York,
1987) 39–55. Mythological interpretations are discounted by Lawrence PMLA 24 (1909) 220–73.
3
By reason of his dragon ¢ght: see E. Siecke Drachenkämpfe, Untersuchungen zur indoger-
manischen Sagenkunde (Leipzig, 1907).
4
Hence, more generally, a representative of civilization (Müllenhoff ZfdA 12 [1865] 282–4, tr.
in Shippey & Haarder 1998: 342).
5
Kögel ZfdA 37 (1893) 274–6, tr. in Shippey & Haarder 1998: 478.
6
See Laistner 1879: 88–90, tr. in Shippey & Haarder 1998: 394.
7
Hagen MLN 19 (1904) 71.
8
See Meigs Xavier Univ. Stud. 3 (1964) 89–102; Arent in ON Lit. & Mythology, ed. E. Polomé
(Austin, 1969) 130–99; Dronke Saga-Book of the Viking Soc. 17 (1969) 302–25.
9
Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen (1836) 652–3. Skeat (The Academy 24 [1877] 163) accepted
this analysis but thought that the woodpecker typi¢es the hero because it ¢ghts to the death. The
two relevant passages are tr. by Shippey & Haarder 1998: 207–8 & 387–8.
10
Presumably a taboo name. See Glosecki 1989: 202–5.
11
See Olrik 1903–10: 2.250¯ff. Cf. Cha.Intr. 84¯ff., 296¯ff. For further refs. and an Eddic ana-
logue, see Fulk RES 40 (1989) 313–22.
l INTRODUCTION
the corresponding ¢gure of the Finnish Pekko, a god of grain, whom the Finns had
taken over from Germanic tradition. In course of time, the grain ¢gure Bēow (cf. bēow
‘barley’), like the analogous personi¢cations of ‘sheaf’ and ‘shield,’1 was regarded as
an epic personage, an early progenitor of royal races. But outside of the introductory
genealogy, this shadowy divinity has no place in the poem. Nothing but his name is
mentioned (ll.¯18, 53), and that perhaps was introduced as a result of a copyist’s confu-
sion. That the MS form Bēowulf of ll.¯18, 53 is a scribal substitution for Bēow or Bēaw
is now rarely disputed.2
On the other hand, Bēowulf the Ġēat has nothing to do with pagan divinities (unless
he bears a theophoric name: see J. Harris Arv 55 [1999] 7–23). The poem’s leading
¢gure is not unlikely of Scandinavian origin, despite the absence of a person of his
name in the extant Scandinavian parallels. His name, if rightly interpreted as ‘bear,’3
agrees (though of course not etymologically) with that of Bjarki, a Scandinavian hero
whose name, to begin with, was apparently meant as a diminutive of a word for ‘bear.’4
Or if his name is a theophoric compound, it may perhaps be compared to that of
Byggvir in Lokasenna. His deeds are plainly of the folktale order adjusted to the level
of Germanic heroic life, and his chief adversary in the ¢rst part of the poem derives
from the same source. But probably English traditions have entered into the poet’s
conception of Bēowulf, just as English traditions of a water spirit have surely entered
into the conception of the monster Grendel, whose name seems to have been added on
English soil. Inquiry into the primitive mythological signi¢cation of those preternatural
adventures is a daunting undertaking, resting as it must on conjecture and unprovable
reconstructions.
Does Bēowulf, the hero — like Grettir of the later Icelandic saga — belong in part to
history, or, in other words, has a Ġēat famed for strength and prowess attracted to him-
self wonderful tales of superhuman feats?5 What the poem tells about him, apart from
his marvelous deeds, does not have the appearance of history or of historical legend.6
He is out of place in the line of Geatish kings, who bear names alliterating on H; and,
still more strangely, his own B does not harmonize with the name of his father Ecgþēo
and that of his family, the W®ġmundingas.7 He is a solitary ¢gure in life, and he dies
leaving no children. Neither as Hyġelāc’s retainer nor as king of the Ġēatas does he
play any real part in the important events of the time.8 He accompanies Hyġelāc,
indeed, on his continental expedition, but what is told of him in that connection is of a
purely episodic nature, conventional, or fabulously exaggerated. There is hardly a trait
ascribed to him that is not more or less typical9 or in some way associated with his
more extraordinary qualities or his de¢nite role as a protecting and defending ¢gure of
strength, one in which the Anglo-Saxon poet rejoiced. Some substratum of historical
truth in the extensive recital of his doings may well be admitted as a possibility, but

1
See note on 4–52.
2
See Bruce 2002: 28. A disyllabic form Bēowa would disrupt the meter.
3 Cf. supra, pp.¯xlii, xlix.
4
His ¢rst name, B∂ðvarr, is owing to a misunderstanding of an appellative b∂ðvar (gen. sg. of
b∂ð ‘¢ght’). Cf. Saxo ii 7,19: ‘[ense,] a quo belligeri cepi cognomen.’ No importance need be
attached to the fact that the grandfather of B∂ðvarr Bjarki is called Bjór in Bjarkarímur.
5
Grein (1862: 267, 278) ventured the guess that the deliverance of Denmark and Ġēatland from
the attacks of pirates by a historical Bēowulf caused the Grendel and dragon combats to be attrib-
uted to him. Clarke (1911: 55) believed Bēowulf to have been a historical character corresponding
to B∂ðvarr Bjarki who performed a feat at the Danish court that gained him fame.
6
The events of his life are brieÏy reviewed on p.¯lxiv.
7
See infra, p.¯liii and n. 5.
8
It is true, the assistance given to Ēadġils is alluded to in ll.¯2393¯ff., but even that did not
amount to active participation.
9
Thus, the motif of the sluggish youth is, somehwat awkwardly, attached to him (2183¯ff.) as
was done in the case of Grettir and of Ormr (see supra, p. xxxviii n. 4).
 THE WORLD OF HUMANS li
that need not have been more than the merest framework.1 The elaboration of Bēo-
wulf’s character and actions plainly shows the hand of the author who made him the
central ¢gure of a great heroic poem.

IV. THE WORLD OF HUMANS2

[Iċ wæs] mid Swēom ond mid Ġēatum ond mid Sūþ-Denum. (Wid 58)

The single event in Beowulf that has been widely regarded as historical fact is the
attack on the Frisians (apparently in Frankish territory: see ll.¯2910–15) that cost Hyġe-
lāc of the Ġēatas his life (ll.¯1207¯ff., 2497¯ff.). The basis for this near-consensus is the
identi¢cation of Hyġelāc with the ¢gure Chlochilaichus, maintained by Gregory of
Tours (d.¯594, who calls him a Dane) in his Libri historiarum X to have been killed in a
disastrous Frankish raid that Gregory does not date but that must have taken place
during the period A.D. 516–31 (Appx.A §¯15 & p.¯312 n.¯1). The poem therefore could
not have been composed before that time, and the historical events described in it all
have to be dated to the 6th century or earlier. N.F.S. Grundtvig happened on this, ‘the
most important discovery ever made in the study of Beowulf¯’ (Cha.Intr. 4 n.¯1), in 1815
and thereby established a broad dating for the events in the poem.3 An elaborate
chronology of events has been devised since then: Kier 1915: 192, for example, ¢xes
the date of Bēowulf’s ¢ght with Grendel at A.D. 495 (Grundtvig calculates it to be 515,
as does Klaeber) and the beginning of his reign at 521 (Klaeber and Robinson [1984:
108] date this event to 533).4 The critical impulse to lend the poem the ¢xity of
recorded history is great, though at the present moment perhaps even greater is the
critical habit of questioning and subverting that very impulse and the objectivity to
which it aspires. Even the identi¢cation itself of Hyġelāc with Chlochilaicus has been
questioned recently;5 at the very least, the assignment of speci¢c dates to the events of
the poem promotes an understanding of the nature of heroic legend that is unrealistic,
an understanding of the kind satirized so effectively by Tolkien when he allegorized the
critically dissected poem as a toppled tower.6
Despite that misunderstanding, the poem does present an air of reality and truth that
derives from its frequent mention of quasi-historical events, individuals, and peoples.
The Finn story is an example of the ¢rst,7 the allusion to Offa8 and the brief reference

1
For Klaeber’s review of the decidedly remote possibility of tracing a corresponding Scandi-
navian legendary prototype, see Angl. 46 (1922) 193–201.
2
Comprehensive treatments: Müllenhoff, Grein 1862, Uhlenbeck Tijdshrift voor Nederlandsche
Taal- en Letterkunde 20 (1901) 169–96, Clarke 1911; cf. Heusler Archiv 124 (1910) 9–14, Cha.Wid.;
Cha.Intr., Lawrence 1928; H. Schneider 1962. See also Lukman Skjoldunge und Skil¢nge (Copen-
hagen, 1943); Robinson 1984; Anderson 1999. Analogues: Garmonsway & Simpson 1968.
3
Nyeste Skilderie af Kjøbenhavn col. 1030, and fully developed in Danne-Virke 2 (1817) 285–6,
tr. in Shippey & Haarder 1998: 150–1.
4
Similarly, Klaeber, deriving his view of events from a 1910 article by Heusler (1969: 2.555–
60), attaches de¢nite dates to the lives and reigns of individual Danes, Ġēatas, and Swedes in his
genealogical tables ‘for the sake of clearness,’ though he acknowledges that the ¢gures are based
only on probabilty (xxxi). See also G. Clark 1990: xv–xvi.
5
See A. Christensen Historisk tidsskrift (Copenhagen) 105 (2005) 73, 76–7; cf. Thompson ELN
38.4 (2001) 9–16.
6
Tolkien 1936: 248–9. See, further, Tennenhouse Bucknell Review 19.3 (1971) 137–46, Niles in
Bjork & Niles 1997: 213–32. While the poem does not offer reliable historical fact, it does yield a
great deal of information about early Germanic culture. See Appx.B and Grønbech 1909–12; J.M.
Hill 1995, 2000, id. in Bjork & Niles 1997: 255–69; Hills 1997; Herschend 1998, 2001.
7
See the Introduction to The Fight at Finnsburg.
8
See note on 1931–62.
lii INTRODUCTION
to Eormenrīċ1 are examples of the second,2 and the presence of the Danes, Ġēatas, and
Swedes is an example of the third. Of peoples outside Scandinavia,3 the poem men-
tions the Franks, Hetware, Frisians,4 the Baltic group of the Gifðas,5 Wyl¢ngas, Heaðo-
Beardan6 and, perhaps, the Vandals.7 There is no reference in the poem to the Anglo-
Saxons, though some of them regarded Offa (ll.¯1944–62) as an ancestor, and possibly
some saw themselves as connected with Wealhþēo’s people, the Helmingas.8

THE DANES9

(Dene, Ingwine, Scyldingas; see Glossary of Proper Names.)

A genealogy of the royal line and a summary of the events of Danish history extracted
from the poem are presented below.

Scyld

Bēow

Healfdene

Heorogār Hrōðgār = Wealhþēo Hālga daughter m. [On]ela

Hrēðrīċ Hrōðmund ¯Frēawaru Hrōðulf

m. Inġeld

Healfdene (57¯ff.), following the mythical founder Scyld and Scyld’s son Bēow, is
the ¢rst one in the line of Danish kings belonging to semi-historical tradition. As the
Beowulf poet relates the story, he was succeeded by his eldest son Heorogār, whose
reign was apparently short. After Heorogār’s early death, the crown fell not to his son
Heoroweard (who was perhaps considered too young or was held in disrespect)10 but to

1
See note on 1197–1201. On Eormenrīċ, see Davidson & Fisher 1979–80: 2.137–40, nn.¯104–26.
2
A historical basis for the Siġemund legend cannot be aÌrmed (see note on 875–900), nor can
Wēland (l.¯455) be considered in this class.
3
In addition to Danes, ‘Half-Danes,’ Ġēatas, and Swedes, the poem contains references to the
Jutes (cf. Intr. to The Fight at Finnsburg, also infra, pp.¯lxiv¯f.), the (Heaþo-)R®mas and Finna
land (see note on 499¯ff.).
4
See infra, p. lx.
5
See note on 2494.
6
See Gloss. of Proper Names; infra, p. lvi.
7
This is very doubtful. See Gloss. of Proper Names: Wendlas.
8
Newton 1993: 125. Of interest as well in the Anglo-Saxon connection is the tendency of many
scholars to identify the Henġest of the Finnsburh Episode with the Henġest who, according to Bede
and other sources, was one of the initial Germanic invaders of Britain (see note to 1083).
9
Passages in Beowulf serving as sources: 57¯ff.; 467, 2158 (Heorogār); 2161 (Heoroweard);
612¯ff., 1162¯ff. (Wealhþēo); 1017, 1180¯ff. (2166¯ff.) (Hrōðulf); 1219¯f., 1226¯f., 1836¯ff. (Hrēðrīċ,
Hrōðmund); 2020¯ff., 81¯ff. (Frēawaru, Inġeld). — Of especial value for the study of this Danish
legendary history are the investigations of Grundtvig 1808, Schrøder 1875, Müllenhoff, Olrik
1903–10, Mal. 1923, Hermann 1922, H. Schneider 1962, Bjarni Guðnason Um Skjöldungasögu
(Reykjavík, 1963), K. Friis-Jensen & C. Lund Skjoldungernes saga (Copenhagen, 1984), Davidson
& Fisher 1979–80, and Bruce 2002; see also individual articles in KLNM, and see Landolt R.-L.2
29.7–13. For the Heaðo-Beard feud, see also Bugge 1899: 157–73, Olrik 1903–10, and Müllenhoff
1887–1900: 5.315–22. On Saxo, see Skovgaard-Petersen Mediaeval Scandinavia 2 (1969) 54–77.
10
In ll.¯2155¯ff. we hear of a valuable corslet that Heorogār did not care to bestow on his son.
 THE WORLD OF HUMANS liii
his brother Hrōðgār, the central ¢gure of Danish tradition in Beowulf (though his coun-
terpart in Danish sources, Roarus [or Ro], is of no special stature).
Hrōðgār’s reign is magni¢cent. After he had gained brilliant success in war (64¯ff.),1
he established his far-famed royal seat at Heorot (68¯ff.) and ruled for a remarkably
long time (1769¯ff.) in peace, honored by his people (863), a truly noble king. His
queen Wealhþēo is of the race of the Helmingas (620); his nephew, Hrōðulf, is the son
of Hālga, as established by the parallel Scandinavian traditions. Left fatherless at an
early age,2 Hrōðulf was brought up kindly and honorably by Hrōðgār and Wealhþēo
(1184¯ff.). When grown, he rose to a position of more than ordinary inÏuence. Hrōðulf
and Hrōðgār occupy seats of honor side by side in Heorot (1163¯f.), as be¢ts near rela-
tives of royal rank, who are called suhterġefæderan (1164; suhtorfædran, Wid 46). In
fact, it seems almost as if Hrōðulf were conceived as a sort of joint-regent in Denmark.3
We may even easily imagine the two Scyldingas ruling in concert over the Danes,
Hrōðgār the old and wise, a peacemaker (470¯ff., 1859¯ff., 2026¯ff.), and Hrōðulf the
young and daring, a great warrior, a man of energy and ambition. Many (including
Klaeber) have felt that the poet intimates that at a later time the harmonious union was
broken, and Hrōðulf treacherously usurped the throne. Not all agree with this assess-
ment (see note on 1017–19).
Regarding the chronology of Hrōðgār’s life, the poet may seem inconsistent, depict-
ing him as a very old man who looks back on a reign of some sixty years (1769¯ff.,
147),4 and also as the father of mere youngsters. Evidently neither the de¢nite span of
years referred to nor the intimation of the helpless king’s state of decrepitude can be
taken literally. This lack of biographical verisimilitude, which may not be an isolated
occurrence (cf. the hero’s own advanced age at the end of the poem), further discour-
ages any attempt to ¢x a chronology of events in the poem.
Of these eight male names of the Danish dynasty, which are united by alliteration in
conformity to the regular principles of name-giving in the period preceding the Viking
Age — the majority of them, moreover, containing one element recurring in one or
more of the other names5 — all except Heorogār and Hrōðmund are well known in the
analogous Scandinavian tradition.6 The names do not always correspond precisely in
form,7 but this is to be expected in different branches of tradition separated by cen-
turies and based on long-continued oral transmission.

1
The de¢nite reference to the wars, 1828, possibly points to the Heaðo-Beardan (see infra,
pp.¯lv¯ff.) or to the Ġēatas (see infra, p. lxiii).
2
At the age of eight according to Skj∂ldunga saga, cap. 12 (Appx.A §¯11.6).
3
Similarly, uncle and nephew (in this case, the sister’s son), namely Hyġelāc and Bēowulf, live
together in the land of the Ġēatas: him wæs bām samod / on ðām lēodscipe lond ġecynde, / eard
ēðelriht, ōðrum swīðor/ sīde rīċe þām ð®r sēlra wæs (2196¯ff.).
4
And who may be expected to have to ¢ght the Heaðo-Beardan in years to come (2026¯ff.; cf.
Wid 45¯ff.).
5
See Olrik 1903–10: [1.43–9], H. Woolf The Old Germanic Principles of Name-Giving (Balti-
more, 1939), Bø KLNM 12.206–10. The most frequent of the name elements, hrōð (hrēð), reÏects
the glory and splendor of the royal line. Also the genealogies of the Ġēatas and the Swedes (like-
wise the Danish Hōcingas [1069, 1071, 1076] and the W®ġmundingas) are marked by alliteration.
Similarly, in the West Saxon line of kings — beginning with Ecgberht — vocalic alliteration is
traceable for two and a half centuries. On (historical) exceptions to the rule of alliteration in name-
giving among early Germanic peoples, see Gering tr., 2nd. ed. (1913) vi (n.). Cf. Flom MLN 32
(1917) 7–17; also Holthausen Beibl 42 (1931) 201.
6
See Appx.A §§¯7–12.
7
Notable are the variations between different versions of OE Ēanmund : ON (Lat.) Hømothus
(see infra, p.¯lxi); Gārmund : W®rmund (see note on 1931–62); Ōslāf : Ordlāf (see Intr. to The
Fight at Finnsburg); and within Beowulf itself, Heorogār : Heregār (61, 2158; 467); Hrēðel :
Hr®dla. Cf. Heusler 1969 (1910): 2.546–54. The ¢rst constituent of the name Ēadġils does not
correspond precisely to that of ON Aðils, but the witness of Middle Norwegian Auðels beside
Auþgísl, which are precise parallels, suggests either analogical inÏuence on Aðils or such an
liv INTRODUCTION
Heorogār, the eldest son of Healfdene, it is reasonable to believe, merely dropped
out of the later versions of the Skj∂ldung saga, while Hrōðmund, showing distinct
English aÌliations, seems peculiar to the AS account. The name of Hrōðgār’s queen,
Wealhþēo, has been taken by some to indicate that she was of foreign descent, though
grave doubts have been raised.1 Some maintain, on the basis of Widsith 29 (Helm
[wēold] Wul¢ngum), that she is a Wyl¢ng; the name of Wealhþēo’s family, Helmingas,
possibly points to East Anglia.2
Heoroweard is the ON Hj∂rvarðr (Hiarwart, Hiarwarthus, Hervardus, etc.), whose
fatal attack on his brother-in-law (not cousin) Hrólfr kraki (Rolvo, Rolf Krake or
Crake) introduces the battle at Lejre fortress celebrated by Saxo in Bjarkamál.3 The
person of Hrēðrīċ is curiously hidden in a few glancing references to Hrœrekr (called
hnøggvanbaugi ‘miserly of rings’) and in the action of Bjarkamál in a cursory but in-
structive allusion to King Rolvo’s slaying of a Røricus (Bjarkamál, Saxo ii 7,13, tr. 59–
60: [rex] qui natum Bøki Røricum strauit auari, etc.).4 Healfdene (ON Hálfdan[r],
ODan. Haldan) ¢gured also in the ON accounts as the father of Hrōðgār (Hróarr) and
Hālga (Helgi), though his position became in time much confused. Even his desig-
nation as hēah and gamol (57¯f.) is duplicated in Scandinavian sources (Skáldskapar-
mál, ch. 6: Hálfdan gamli; Hyndluljóþ 14: Hálfdan fyrri hæstr Skj∂ldunga).5 In expla-
nation of his peculiar name, Skj∂ldunga saga (Appx.A §¯11.6, ch. 9) relates that his
mother was the daughter of the Swedish king Jorundus.6 Hrólfs saga kraka has it that
he lost his life through the malice of his brother Fróði.7
Two sons of Hálfdan(r), Hróarr (Roe) and Helgi (Helgo), are regularly known in the
North, besides in a few versions a daughter Signý who married a jarl named Sævill,8 —
a ¢gure thereby corresponding to the Beowulf poet’s Onela, the Swedish king (see note
on 62¯f.). That her proper name was Yrsa was ¢rst argued by (Chadwick and) Clarke
(1911: 76).9 In contrast with what we ¢nd in Beowulf, Helgi left a much stronger

unexampled phonological development as is not infrequently encountered in personal names. See

Noreen 1923: §¯229. It is not true, however, that Hrōðgār answers only to ON Hróðgeirr, as ON
Hróarr and Danish Roe may be derived from the same etymon with reduced stress on the second
constituent: see Noreen 1923: §¯54.3(b).
1
The constituents of her name mean, literally, ‘Celtic’ (or ‘foreign’) and ‘slave’: see Gloss. of
Proper Names, w. refs. The non-Danish, i.e., English lineage of Hróarr’s wife in Hrólfs saga (ch. 5,
Appx.A §¯12) and in Arngrímur Jónsson’s Skj∂ldunga saga (cap. 11, Appx.A §¯11.6) has also been
connected with that supposition; cf. O. Olson The Relation of the Hrólfs Saga Kraka and the
Bjarkarímur to Beowulf (Chicago, 1916) 80, 97. That the names Ecgþēo and Ongenþēo (and
others) are not generally thought to reÏect in this manner on their bearers should prompt caution in
regard to such literal interpretation of the queen’s name. The second element of the name, at least,
most probably should not be interpreted literally: cf. 620, 2174 (n.), and see C. Clark 1992: 463
and esp. Jurasinski Neophil. 91 (2007) 701–15.
2
See, e.g., Sarrazin EStn. 23 (1897) 221–41; Farrell 1972: 19; Newton 1993: 122–8; note on
2174. See also Deutschhein AfdA 36 (1917) 225; Malone Kl.Misc. 156¯f.
3
Appx.A §¯10, ii 7,4 to 8,1. Saxo’s Latin poem is a very elaborate expansion of the theme, to
judge by the few extant fragments of the vernacular poem (Bjarkamál in fornu), which are
collected by Finnur Jónsson in Den norsk-islandske skjaldedigtning (Copenhagen, 1912–15) AI
180–1, BI 170–1. See also Å. Ohlmarks Den glömda Eddan (Stockholm, 1955) 232–5.
4
As ¢rst seen by Gru. 204. See Malone PMLA 42 (1927) 268–313, Davidson & Fisher 1979–80:
2.48 n.¯64, 2.58 n.¯52. See Appx.A §¯11.1.
5
See Appx.A §§¯7.1, 10 (ii 5,1–2), 11, 12. Cf. Kl. Angl. 29 (1906) 378. — Kier 1915: 104–15
identi¢es Healfdene with Alewīh in Wid 35 (see note on 1931–62).
6
On the name, see Schröder Angl. 58 (1934) 345–50.
7
According to the Danish account, Haldanus killed his brother (cf. Appx.A § 11.3).
8
Skj∂ldunga saga, cap. 10 (Appx.A §¯11.6), Hrólfs saga, ch. 1 (Appx.A §¯12).
9
On Yrsa’s relations with Helgi (and Áli) and Aðils, see Kalinke in C. Clover & J. Lindow,
edd., Old Norse-Icelandic Literature (Ithaca, 1985) 330 and Evans in Pulsiano 1993: 304. Chad-
wick and Clarke suggest that an (unknowingly) incestuous marriage between father and daughter
(see Grottas∂ngr 22, Appx.A §¯7.2, Hrólfs saga kraka, chs. 7, 9) may have been substituted in
 THE WORLD OF HUMANS lv
impression in Scandinavian legend than the quiet, inactive Hróarr; he even appears,
under the guise of Helgi Hundingsbani, as the sole representative of the Skj∂ldungar in
the Eddic poems bearing his name.1
Still greater is the shifting in the relative importance of Hrōðgār (Hróarr) and his
nephew Hrōðulf (Hrólfr [kraki], Rolvo). All the glory of Hrōðgār seems to be trans-
ferred to Hrólfr, who became the most renowned and popular of the ancient Danish
legendary kings, the most nearly perfect of rulers, the center of a splendid court rival-
ing that of the Gothic Theodoric and the Celtic Arthur.2 This development was perhaps
¢rst suggested by the signi¢cant contrast between the old, peace-loving Hrōðgār and
his young, forceful, promising nephew; it was further aided by a change in the story of
Helgi, who was made to survive his brother, whereby Hrólfr was dissociated from the
traditions concerning his uncle.3
Another phase of Danish history is opened up in the allusions to the relation between
the Scyldings and the chiefs of the Heaðo-Beardan (2024–69), which are all the more
welcome as they present one of the most truly typical motifs of the old Germanic hero-
ic life, the conduct of revenge. To settle a long-standing bloody feud, Hrōðgār gave his
daughter Frēawaru in marriage to Inġeld, the son of the Heaðo-Beard king Frōda, who
had at some time previously been slain by the victorious Danes. But an old, grim war-
rior (eald æscwiga 2042), cha¢ng under the trying situation, which is humiliating to his
sense of honor, goads a young companion into doing his duty, until hostility breaks out
again. The outcome of the new war between the two peoples is related in Widsith 45–9:

Hrōþwulf and Hrōðgār hēoldon lenġest

sibbe ætsomne suhtorfædran,
siþþan h© forwr®con Wīċinga cynn
ond Inġeldes ord forbīġdan,
forhēowan æt Heorote Heaðo-Beardna þrym.

In other words, the Heaðo-Beardan invade the land of the Danes and attack the royal
stronghold, but they are utterly defeated. On this occasion, as is generally inferred from
ll.82¯ff., the famous hall Heorot was destroyed by ¢re.4
Departing from the representation of matters in Beowulf, Scandinavian sources re-
gard the Inġeld feud as arising from enmity between two brothers of the Skj∂ldung
family or — as in the case of Saxo — represent the main party as Danes, while their
enemies, the Sverting family, are Saxons.5 Otherwise, Saxo’s account is substantially a
faithful counterpart of the Beowulf episode; in particular, the ¢ne, taunting speech of
the old warrior, which sums up the ethical signi¢cance of the tragic conÏict, is plainly
echoed in the rather prolix Latin verses, which are put into the mouth of the famous
hero Starkaðr (‘the Old’), the representative of the ancient, simple, and honorable war-
like life and of stern, unbending viking virtue.

Norse tradition for that between brother and sister. See note on l.¯62. — In Hrólfs saga and
(probably) the late Skj∂ldunga saga, Signý is the eldest of Halfdan’s children, whereas in Beowulf
Healfdene’s daughter is apparently younger than her brothers.
1
Cf. Klingenberg in Pulsiano 1993: 280–1.
2
See Appx.A §¯8 (Skáldsk. ch. 41), §¯10 (ii 6,1), §¯11.6 (cap. 12), §¯12 (ch. 16).
3
Heusler ZfdA 48 (1905) 73¯f. — That Hrólfr was remembered in England at a comparatively
late date we see from the reference in a late Brut version to the gesta rodulphi et hunlapi, Unwini et
Widie, horsi et hengisti, Waltef et hame (Imelmann 1909: 999).
4
On whether Heorot was destroyed by ¢re, see 82–5¯n. On this Inġeld, see Landolt R.-L.2
15.418–20. That his memory was kept alive in songs appears from a passage in Alcuin’s letter,
dated 797, to a certain bishop Speratus, in which he disparages the practice of listening to heroic
songs instead of the words of the Fathers at the dinner table: Quid Hinieldus cum Christo? ‘What
has Inġeld to do with Christ?’ (See Bullough ASE 22 [1993] 93–125; Appx.A §¯4.)
5
See note on 2024–69. In the later Skj∂ldunga saga, chs. 9, 10, Svertingus ¢gures as a Swedish
baron (Appx.A §¯11.6, cap. 9).
lvi INTRODUCTION
A faint recollection of the Heaðo-Beard feud lingers in the tradition of Hothbrodus,
king of Sweden (in Saxo and other Danish sources, Appx.A §¯10, ii 5, §¯11.4–5) and of
H∂ðbroddr, the enemy of Helgi in the Eddic lays mentioned above. The name H∂ð-
broddr, as ¢rst pointed out by Sarrazin,1 is likely an individualized form of the collec-
tive name Heaðo-Beardan, though the etymological correspondence is imperfect.2
In accordance with the spirit of Germanic heroic legend, the personal element is
strongly emphasized in the various accounts of this feud, so that its events are viewed
in the light of a family feud of chiefs or petty kings. It is not impossible, all the same,
that real historical events should underlie the legends. But who are the Heaðo-Beardan?
We do not know, but geographically they are associated with the southern coast of the
Baltic (the home of the H∂ðbroddr of the Eddic Helgi lays). They have been identi¢ed
with (1) the Longobardi (ChronE 596, i.e. Lombards), whose name is reasonably to be
equated with that of the Heaðo-Beardan, and some divisions of whom may have been
left behind on the Baltic shore when the main body of the population migrated south,3
and with (2) the Herulians,4 who, according to Jordanes,5 were driven from their dwel-
lings (on the Danish islands, perhaps) by the powerful Danes and whose defeat has
been supposed (by Müllenhoff) to have ushered in the consolidation of the Danish
state. The problematic Myrġingas6 of Widsith have been connected with the Beardan.7
As regards the references to the conÏict between the Danes and Beardan in ll.¯82–5, E.
Wessén (De nordiska folkstammarna i Beowulf [Stockholm, 1927]) tries to show that
they are connected with the defeat of the Herulians by the Danes as mentioned by Jor-
danes, cap. 3. He argues, however, that the Herulians really correspond to the Scyldingas
of the poem, whereas the Danes are disguised as Beardan. The latter shifting is
accounted for by the crushing defeat of (a division of) the Herulians under their king
Rodulfus by the Lombards in Hungary about A.D. 500 (Procopius, Bell. Goth. ii 14).
Hrólfr’s (Hrōðulf’s) fall (in Scandinavian tradition) he thus considers a signi¢cant coun-
terpart of that historic fact. The Danish conquest of the land of the Herulians, we are to
assume, resulted in an early amalgamation of the two peoples, as can be inferred from
the name — originally a surname — Healfdene, denoting the ancestor king in Beowulf.
Thus it happened that the traditions of the Scyldingas came to be regarded as Danish.8
Summing up, we may give the following speculative account of the main events
underlying the allusions in the poem. Frōda, king of the Beardan, slays Healfdene;
(Heorogar,) Hrōðgār, and Hālga wage a war of revenge;9 Frōda falls in battle. After

1
Sarr.St. 42. See also Bugge 1899: 160; Sarrazin EStn. 23 (1897) 233¯ff.; Boer BGdSL 22 (1897)
377¯f. In like manner, the name of Starkaðr has been explained (Bugge 1899: 166–7) as ‘the strong
Heaðo-Bearda.’ Other explanations have been offered as well (see Turville-Petre 1964: 211). In the
second Helgi lay he is called H∂ðbroddr’s brother and a king.
2
Detter attempted to establish a mythological basis (a Freyr myth) for this episode (BGdSL 18
[1894] 90–6).
3
Attention has been called to the ‘Bardengau,’ the district of modern Lüneberg (where the
place-name Bardowieck persists). See N. Christie The Lombards (Oxford, 1995) 6.
4
But see note on 6.
5
De origine actibusque Getarum, cap. iii.
6
Cf. Cha.Wid. 159¯ff.; Much ZfdA 62 (1925) 122¯ff.
7
Möller 26¯ff.; Sarr. ESt. 23 (1897) 234¯ff., Angl. 19 (1896) 388. Neuhaus (Nordisk tidsskrift for
¢lologi, 4th ser., 6 [1917] 78–80) assigns the Heaðo-Beardan to No. Schleswig. Cf. Cha.Intr. 533.
8
For a refutation of this theory, see Cha.Intr. 434¯ff. To the argument of Hoffmann in Nordwest-
germanisch, ed. E. Marold & C. Zimmermann (Berlin, 1995) 83–90 that the Skj∂ldungar never
existed as portrayed in Beowulf, cf. Insley R.-L.2 14.93. That Healf-Dene as an ethnic, or dynastic,
name, occurring once in Beo (l.¯1069), can be traced in Scandinavian sources also is argued by
Malone Afnf. 42 (1926) 234–40. A new rendering of the much-discussed passage, Grottas∂ngr 22
(Appx.A §¯7.2) is proposed; regarding the form Halfdana, cf. also Kock Afnf. 37 (1921) 134–5. The
old dynastic name Healf-Dene, it is held, was supplanted by the name Scyldingas when a mythical
ancestor, Scyld, was introduced.
9
There is no mention of this in Beowulf. See Malone, Kl.Misc. 140¯ff.
 THE WORLD OF HUMANS lvii
about twenty years, when Frōda’s son Inġeld has grown up, Hrōðgār, wanting to fore-
stall a fresh outbreak of the smoldering feud, marries his daughter Frēawaru to the
young Heaðo-Beard king. Before long, however, the Ïame of revenge is kindled, the
Beardan invade the Danish dominions and, apparently, manage to burn Heorot, though
they are completely routed. The foreign enemy having been overcome, new trouble
awaits the Danes at home. Upon Hrōðgār’s death, his nephew Hrōðulf seizes control of
the kingdom, pushing aside his cousin Hrēðrīċ, the heir presumptive. (No mention is
made of the subsequent fate of Hrōðulf, though Heoroweard, who had yet an older
claim to the throne, may have attacked him, just as Hj∂rvarðr attacks Hrólfr in Scandi-
navian traditions.)
The existence of a royal line preceding the Scyldingas is to be inferred from the
allusions to Heremōd (see 901–15, 1709–22).1 Müllenhoff looked upon Heremōd as a
mere allegorical personi¢cation setting forth the dangers of here-mōd ‘warlike disposi-
tion.’2 But later studies have shown him to be a de¢nite ¢gure in Danish historical-
legendary tradition.3 Thus, Saxo tells of Olo, who was a wonderfully strong and gifted
youth, but who later showed himself a cruel and unrighteous king, so that twelve gen-
erals (‘duces’), moved by the distress of their country, plotted against his life and in-
duced Starcatherus to kill the king while he was alone at the bath (viii 6,3). This Olo, as
well as the ¢gure Olavus, on whom the three goddesses of fate bestowed ‘a handsome
form and abundant good-will in the eyes of men,’ ‘copious generosity,’ but also ‘the
vice of miserliness’ (Saxo vi 4,12), is identical to the Danish king Áli inn frœkni,4 who
after a long, vigorous reign was killed by Starkaðr (Ynglinga saga, ch. 25; Skj∂ldunga
saga, ch. 9). In view of the fact, however, that according to Nornagests þáttr (ca. 1300)
and Egils saga einhenda ok Ásmundar berserkjabana (14th century) it is King Ármóðr
who was slain by Starkaðr while bathing, there is good reason to believe (with Bugge
1899) that the name Heremōd applied to this saga ¢gure in Beowulf goes back to true
old Danish legend, the variation in the names Heremōd (ON Hermóðr) and Ármóðr
being insigni¢cant.
That the AS poet recognized Heremōd as a Danish king is seen from ēþel Scyldinga
913 and Ār-Scyldingum 1710 (Scyldingas being used in the wider sense ‘Danes,’
without regard to the Scyld dynasty). Moreover, both in AS and Norse genealogies
(Appx.A §§ 1.1–2, 8, 11.1, cf. 1.4), Heremōd ¢gures as the father, i.e. predecessor of
Scyld(wa) (Skj∂ldr), just as Saxo (i 2,3) represents Scyoldus as Lotherus’s son and
follower on the Danish throne (see 901–15¯n.). More precisely, he belonged to an earlier
line of kings,5 and it was after his fall that the Danes endured distress (aldorlēase 15)
until the God-sent Scyld inaugurated a new dynasty.

1
Chief references: Müll. 50¯f.; Bu. 37–45; Sievers 1895. Further: ten Brink P.Grdr.1 iia 536,
Koegel 1894: 167–8, Binz 168, Sarrazin Angl. 19 (1897) 392–7, E. Otto Typische Motive in dem
weltlichen Epos der Angelsachsen (Berlin, 1901) 30¯f., Chadwick 1907: 149–50, Heusler R.-L.1
2.574–6, Herrmann 1922: 65–67, Mal. 1923: 160¯ff., 74¯f., & PMLA 40 (1925) 804¯ff., & Angl. 69
(1950) 295–300 (cf. Angl. 70 [1952] 339–44), Hoops 113¯ff., Schneider P.Grdr. 10.2.145¯ff., Bon-
jour 1950: 46–53, Matthes Angl. 71 (1953) 180–90, Kaske PMLA 74 (1959) 489–94, Blake JEGP
61 (1962) 278–87, Bandy PLL 9 (1973) 235–49, Vickrey MP 71.3 (1974) 295–300, O’Brien
O’Keeffe TSLL 23 (1981) 491–2, Köberl Neophil. 71 (1987) 120–8, Honegger R.-L.2 14.414–16. For
a list of earlier studies, see Joseph ZfdPh. 22 (1890) 386.
2
Similarly ten Brink, Robinson 1970b.
3
A slight similarity is found in the case of the Danish king Haraldr hildit∂nn, who became ob
senectam seueritatemque ciuibus . . . onustus and devised means for an honorable death (Saxo vii
12,2). A Virgilian parallel is the cruel tyrant Mezentius, who was driven out of the land by the fessi
cives (Aeneid viii 481¯ff.).
4
Cf. Hyndl. 14 (Appx.A §¯7.1).
5
Was Ecgwela (1710) supposed to be the founder of this line? Sarrazin (Angl. 19 [1897] 396)
conjectured that Heremōd was the leader of the Heruli who were expelled by the Danes. Möller
(100¯ff.) thought him identical to Finn. Koegel and Binz regarded him as an Anglian hero.
lviii INTRODUCTION
The seat of Danish power, the hall Heorot, corresponds to the ON Hleiðr1 (Hleiðar-
garðr, Lat. Lethra) of Scandinavian fame. Although reduced to insigni¢cance by the
year 1000 and now a tiny village, Lejre (just southwest of Roskilde on the island of
Zealand) has long been associated with legends of the Skj∂ldung kings.2 Its archae-
ology now points to its having been, for about 450 years (ca. A.D. 550–1000), a major
center of political power in Zealand and, very likely, for people living in neighboring
regions. It has been (doubtfully) regarded as the site of an ancient sanctuary devoted to
the cult of Nerthus (Tacitus, Germania, cap. 40, Appx.A §¯14), a misapprehension that
once led to unbridled speculation about sacri¢ces conducted there.3 The historical Lejre
was dismantled, for reasons that can only be guessed but that may have had to do with
efforts on the part of King Haraldr blát∂nn to establish a new Christian capital of a
united Danish kingdom at Roskilde. But the ancient settlement lived on in memory as
the idealized center of power of the Skj∂ldung kings.
Sarrazin claimed that the scenery of the ¢rst part of Beowulf could be clearly
recognized even in present-day Lejre and its surroundings to the north, while others
(including Kl.3 xxxvii) have failed to see more than a very general topographical re-
semblance.4 Archaeological investigations of the Lejre site in 1986–8 and 2004–5,
however, with their discovery of at least three massive halls in close proximity to a
landscape to the west that has long been inhospitable to human settlement, has re-
opened that question on a somewhat new basis (Niles 2007a: 178–82, 214–22), giving
rise to the hypothesis that, in the course of the legend’s development, a story about hall
hauntings (in whatever form that story might originally have taken) was associated
with the seat of Scylding power from earliest times, rather than that the core story of a
¢ght against monsters was given a Danish setting in England (see p.¯clxxxii infra).
Neither of these hypotheses excludes the other: at some point a story about the
misfortunes of the Skjoldungs, originating at or near the court at Lejre, could have
fused with a folktale-like narrative already extant in the British Isles so as to yield a
prototype of Beowulf involving fabulous elements set in a historical world (see supra
pp.¯xxxvi¯ff.).
It should be noted that the name Ingwine, twice applied to the Danes (1044, 1319),
bears weighty testimony to the ancient worship of Ing.5 The designations Scedeland 19,
Scedenīġ 1686 (used of the Danish dominion in general) reÏect the fact that Skåne
(Scania, the southernmost district of present-day Sweden), throughout the early peri-
od,6 formed part of the Danish realm.1

1
Note the regular alliteration in the names of the place and of the royal family (Hrōðgār, etc.);
Hrēðel, etc.: Hrēosnabeorh 2477; Ongenþēo, etc.: Uppsalir; perhaps Wīġlāf: Wendel.
2
See p.¯clxxx, Appx.A §§¯7.2, 9, 10 (ii 5,5–6), 8.2, 8.3, 8.6, 12. For medieval sources for the
legendary history of Lejre, see Niles 2007a: 297–387; on Lejre from 1643 to 2005, ibid. 391–467.
3
Niles 2007a: 272–5. According to Sarrazin EStn 42 (1910), 1–4 (tr. in Niles 2007a: 444–7), the
original meaning of Hleiðr is ‘tent-like building,’ ‘temple’ (cf. Go hleiþra), and he sees an allit-
erative parallel to that name in the OE phrase æt hærgtrafum (Beo 175), referring to the Danes’
sacri¢ces to idols. On the name Hleiðr (Hleiðra/Lethra/Lejre), see more recently Thorsten Anders-
son R.-L.2 18.248–9. The historian Thietmar of Merseburg, writing between 1013 and 1018, reports
that the Danes formerly offered human and animal sacri¢ces at their capital, Lederun (R. Holtz-
mann, ed., Die Chronik des Bischofs Thietmar von Merseburg [Berlin, 1935], 23–4, text and tr. in
Niles 2007a: 298–9).
4
The question is taken up by Osborn in J. Overing and M. Osborn Landscape of Desire (Min-
neapolis, 1994) 18–22, on the basis of her visit to the site, following in Sarrazin’s footsteps.
5
Cf. MRune 67–70. (See Turville-Petre 1964: 170–3, Halsall 1981: 146–8, North 1997: 44–8.)
Ingwine has the appearance of having been changed, by folk etymology, from (the equivalent of)
*Ingvaeones (the worshipers of Ing), the name by which Tacitus designates the Germanic North
Sea ethnic groups (Appx.A §¯14, cap. 2). If so, it may be supposed that from Jutland and Zealand,
the cult of Ing spread to the other Danish islands, to Skåne, and then to Sweden and perhaps AS
England. (Cf. the name Ynglingar, infra, p.¯lxi n.¯4.)
6
It was not united politically with Sweden until 1658.
 THE WORLD OF HUMANS lix
THE ĠĒATAS AND THE SWEDES2

(See Glossary of Proper Names: Ġēatas, Wederas, Hrēðlingas; Swēon, Scyl¢ngas.)

The Geatish Royal Line

Hrēðel

Herebeald Hæðcyn Hyġelāc daughter m. Ecgþēo

daughter (from 1st marriage?) Heardrēd (from 2nd marriage)

The Swedish Royal Line

Ongenþēo

Ōhthere3 Onela [m. Healfdene’s daughter]

Ēanmund Ēadġils

While the poet’s account of Geatish and Swedish history is presented in anything but
sequential fashion, the following summary can be inferred. Hrēðel, like his contem-
porary Healfdene, has three sons and one daughter. The eldest son, Herebeald, is acci-
dentally killed by Hæðcyn, who, when shooting an arrow, misses his aim and strikes
his brother instead (2435¯ff.). The grief caused by this tragic fate eats away the king’s
life. Upon his death and the succession of Hæðcyn, war breaks out between the Ġēatas
and Swedes (2472¯ff., 2922¯ff.). It is started by the Swedes, who attack their southern
neighbors and, after inÏicting severe damage, return home. An expedition of revenge
into the land of the Swedes undertaken by Hæðcyn and Hyġelāc, though at ¢rst
successful (even Ongenþēo’s queen is taken prisoner), seems destined to utter failure;
the ‘old, terrible’ king of the Swedes falls upon Hæðcyn’s army, rescues the queen,
kills the Geatish king and forces his troops to seek refuge in the woods (Hrefnes Holt
2935), threatening them all night long with death in the morning by the sword. But at
dawn, the valorous Hyġelāc appears with his division and inspires such terror that the
Swedes Ïee, pursued by the Ġēatas. Ongenþēo in a brave ¢ght against two brothers,
Eofor and Wulf, loses his life. Hyġelāc, now king of the Ġēatas, after his homecoming
richly repays the brothers and gives his only daughter as wife to Eofor.

1
In Wulfstan’s account of his voyage (Or 1, 1.16.21¯ff.), the form Scōnēġ, plainly borrowed
rather than inherited, is used: Weonoðland him wæs on stēorbord ℓ on bæcbord him wæs Langa-
land ℓ L®land ℓ Falster ℓ Scōnēġ, ℓ þās land eall h©rað tō Denemearcan. Cf. Scani, Appx.A §¯1.3.
See also Glossary of Proper Names; Lang. §¯27.
2
Ll.¯1202–14, 2201–9, 2354–96, (2425–89:) 2425–43, 2462–80, 2501–8, 2611–19, 2910–98; also
1830¯ff., 1923¯ff., 2169¯ff., 2190¯ff. — For discussion, see esp. Bugge 1899; Nerman 1925; Farrell
1972; M. Stenberger Den forntida Sverige, 3rd ed. (Lund, 1979; 1st ed. tr. Binns 1962); Gahrn
1986; Krag 1991; Andersson R.-L.2 12.278–83; Sawyer ibid. 30.165–70; and refs. infra, pp.¯lxiv¯ff.
3
There is no direct indication as to which of the two, Ōhthere or Onela, was the elder brother.
Malone PQ 8 (1929) 406–7 argues for Ōhthere.
lx INTRODUCTION
This victory at Ravenswood ensures for the Ġēatas an apparent degree of peace with
their old enemies the Swedes, who appear (or so the text would seem to imply) to dread
the power of the warlike Hyġelāc. (The Geatish king’s position is notably strengthened
by the support of his loyal nephew, Bēowulf, who, after his triumphant return from
Denmark, where he had overcome the Grendel kin, is portrayed in terms that charac-
terize him as less a subordinate than an associate of Hyġelāc: see 2190¯n.) Not content
with his success in the North, Hyġelāc even undertakes a ravaging expedition, cryp-
tically alluded to in ll.¯1202–14, 2354–72, 2501–8a, south into (West) Frisian lands.
There (Frēslondum on 2357) he and his followers are killed. The poem dwells on the
heroic deeds of Bēowulf in the unequal encounter between the allied forces (ofer-
mæġen 2917) of the continental nations and Hyġelāc’s warband or army.
The wars that loom ominously over the Ġēatas will be waged against the Franks
(1210) or Hūgas (2914, 2502), the Hetware (2363, 2916), and (with all probability) the
Frisians (2357, 2503). Of the four names mentioned, Hūgas may be only an epic appel-
lation of the Franks; and the Hetware, with an equally obscure name, seem to have be-
longed to the Frankish sphere of inÏuence.1 The two main peoples involved are thus
the Franks and the Frisians (see 2912).2 At the same time, the rising power of the
Franks is reÏected in the allusion to the threatening unfriendliness of the Merovingian
dynasty (2921). It is possible, however, that the poet did not consistently differentiate
among the three or four terms (see especially 2502¯f.). His use of the name Dæġhrefn, it
may be added, suggests that this incident may have a historical basis (see note on
2501¯ff.).
The young Heardrēd now succeeds his father Hyġelāc. Bēowulf (who by a marvel-
ous swimming feat [see note to 2361¯f.] has escaped from the enemies) generously de-
clines Hyġd’s offer of the throne, but he acts as Heardrēd’s guardian during the
prince’s youth (2367¯ff.). When the latter has come into his rights, another series of
warlike disputes with the Swedes arises. After the fall of Ongenþēo in the battle of
Ravenswood, his son Ōhthere seems to have become king, but upon Ōhthere’s death,
Onela seizes the throne, compelling his nephews Ēanmund and Ēadġils to Ïee the
country. They ¢nd refuge at the court of Heardrēd. Soon after, Onela enters the land of
the Ġēatas with an army. Heardrēd as well as Ēanmund is slain, whereupon the Swed-
ish king returns, allowing Bēowulf to take over rule of the Ġēatas unmolested (2379¯ff.,
2611¯ff., 2202¯ff.). A few years later, Ēadġils,3 aided by a Geatish force,4 reopens the
war (2391¯ff.), and this attack results in his uncle Onela’s death and Ēadġils’s accession
to the throne.
Trouble from their northern foes, however, is likely to come upon the Ġēatas again,
in spite of their temporary alliance with a branch of the Scyl¢ng dynasty; indeed it
seems as if the annihilation of their kingdom is virtually foreshadowed in the mes-
senger’s speech announcing the death of Bēowulf (2999¯ff., 3018¯ff.). Whether that
annihilation occurred in history, and at what date, are matters of conjecture,5 although it
is not to be doubted that the people of Götaland were eventually absorbed into the
Swedish realm.
On the life of Bēowulf the Ġēat, see infra, p.¯lxiv.

1
The argument that the Hūgas are identical to the Chauci of Caesar and Pliny is dubitable: see
Cha.Wid. 68 n.¯2, Wenskus R.-L.2 4.394–8. But it is nearly universally agreed that the Hetware are
the Chat(t)uarii of Tacitus and others; see R.-L.2 4.392–3. Yet Goffart (in Chase 1981: 83–100)
argues that the name Hetware has its origins in the later 8th century and Hūgas in the earlier 9th.
2
The prominence given to the Frisians and their seemingly unhistorical alliance with the Franks
is attributed by Sarrazin 1913: 90–1 to the Frisian source of this story.
3
Had Ēadġils made his escape (when Onela attacked the Ġēatas) and afterwards returned to the
land of the Ġēatas, planning revenge and rehabilitation?
4
No mention is made of Bēowulf’s having taken part personally in this war; cf. note on 2395¯f.
5
See note on 3018¯ff.
 THE WORLD OF HUMANS lxi
Of the Geatish royal line, with the probable exception of Hyġelāc (ON Hugleikr),1
the Northern tradition is silent. Hyġelāc appears to have been well known in English
tradition, seeing that prominent attention is drawn to him (under the Latinized name
Higlacus, with variant spellings) in the Liber monstrorum, a work, extant in ¢ve MSS,
that is generally thought to be an Anglo-Latin production of the period ca. 650 to ca.
750 (Orchard 1995: 86–115, 254–311; Appx.A §¯17). A faint reminiscence of Hyġelāc
seems to crop up in Saxo’s brief notice (iv 7,1, tr. 110) of the Danish king Huglethus,
who defeated the Swede Hømothus (= OE Ēanmund) in a naval battle, but there is no
de¢nite connection. An even slighter parallel is Huglecus, king of Ireland (Saxo vi 5,11,
tr. 172–3), who corresponds to Hugleikr, king of Sweden, who was killed together with
his two sons in an attack by the Danish king Haki (Ynglinga saga, ch. 22).2 A
Hughælec/Huglæt appears in the 13th-century Annales Ryenses (reference: Appx.A
§¯11.5), and Huglekær (or similar spellings) appears in some 13th-century Danish regnal
lists.3
Turning to the Swedish affairs, we ¢nd the royal Scyl¢ngas¯4 well remembered in the
North — Óttarr (Ōhthere) and his son Aðils (Ēadġils)5 standing out prominently — but
their family relationships are somewhat different from what we see in Beowulf. Neither
is Eymundr (Ēanmund) ever mentioned in conjunction with Aðils, nor is Óttarr con-
sidered the brother of Áli (Onela), who in fact has been transformed into a Norwegian
king. Besides, Ongenþēo’s name has practically disappeared from the drama of ex-
citing events in which he had taken a leading part.6
Also the two series of wars between the Swedes and Ġēatas reappear in Scandi-
navian allusions and are considered to refer to actual conÏicts between the Svear
(Swedes), whose realm is believed to have included the present-day provinces of
Uppland, Södermanland, Västmanland, and Närke, and the Götar, whose domain is
taken to have included Västergötland, Östergötland, Dalsland and, perhaps, Bohuslän,
Öland, and Gotland. The Svear gradually prevailed over the Götar, and modern-day
Sverige (Sweden) takes its name from them.7
The conÏict between Ongenþēo and the Ġēatas that is recounted in Beowulf has un-
dergone a change in the scene and the names of the actors, but the substance of the
narrative and certain details of the great central scene can be readily identi¢ed in the
story of the fall of King Óttarr Vendilkráka in Ynglingatal and Ynglinga saga, ch. 27
(see Appx.A §¯9). The Swedish king, too, was slain by two men; indeed, the names

1
On Hyġelāc, see Susanek R.-L.2 15.298–300. Some of the other names also are found in
Scandinavian sources, but in entirely different surroundings. Thus Hrēðel (*Hrōðil-) = ON *Hrollr,
Lat. Rollerus (‘Regneri pugilis ¢lius’), Saxo v; Heardrēd = ON (West) Harðráðr; Svertingr is
mentioned as a Saxon and as a Swede (see supra, p.¯lv). Herebeald is traceable only as a common
noun herbaldr ‘warrior.’ The peculiar, abstract name Hyġd is entirely unknown outside of Beowulf.
2
Cf. Herrmann 1922: 310–11, 433–5; also Malone APS 9.1 (1934) 76–84.
3
Ed. M. Cl. Gertz Scriptores Minores Historiæ Danicæ Medii Ævi, I (Copenhagen, 1917–18)
161, 168, 175, 187.
4
In ON (West) sources called Ynglingar.
5
On the etymological correspondence, see supra, p.¯liii n.¯7.
6
Kier (1915: 129–38) identi¢es Ongenþēo with Angelþēow of the Mercian genealogy (Appx.A
§¯2) and Ongen in the Historia Brittonum. The great ¢ght at Ravenswood he locates at Hedeby (at
or near the present site of Schleswig). He further points out that Ravnholt is a very common place-
name in Denmark. Cf. G. Johansson Beowulfsagans Hrones-Næsse (Göteborg, 1947) 239, noting
that remn = hræfn in OE and arguing with admirable conviction that Remmestorp just north of the
Göta canal on the way from Västergötland to Svealand is the site of the battle.
7
Farrell 1972: 260–71. On the function of the Swedish wars in the poem, see Bonjour 1950: 28–
43, Green¢eld Neophil. 47 (1963) 211–17, D. Williams 1982 (esp. 71–3), Howe 1989: 163–72, North
in Saxo Grammaticus, tra storiogra¢a e letteratura, ed. C. Santini (1992) 175–88. O’Loughlin
(Medieval Archaeology 8 [1964] 1–19) argues that a group of Wyl¢ngas and then Ġēatas (after the
¢nal defeat of the Geatish kingdom) settled in East Anglia and brought legends and stories about
the Swedish wars with them.
lxii INTRODUCTION
V∂ttr and Fasti1 are evidently more authentic than the rather typical appellations Wulf
and Eofor of the OE poem. That the ON account is aberrant in associating the incident
with Ōhthere (Óttarr) rather than with Ongenþēo may be inferred from the testimony of
Ari Þorgilsson,2 who in the concluding genealogy of Íslendingabók (A.D. 1122–32)
calls Óttarr’s father by the name Egill Vendilkráka. The name Egill (in place of
Angantýr = Ongenþēo)3 is possibly, Bugge suggested, due to corruption, a pet form
*Angila being changed to *AgilaR and Egill.4 The scene of the battle, according to
Beowulf, is in Ongenþēo’s own land, i.e. Sweden, but in Ynglingatal (Ynglinga saga) it
is shifted to Vendel in Jutland. As the king fell in his own land, however, the Vendel in
question must be the place called Vendel in Swedish Uppland, where Óttarr’s pur-
ported burial mound (Ottarshögen) towers above the landscape. (The numerous boat
graves discovered in 1881 in Vendel, a tiny church village about 30 km north of
Uppsala, contained such exceptional cultural artifacts from families related to the
dynasty of the Ynglingar that the name Vendel was given to the whole period of his-
tory in the North Sea culture zone, including Finland, ca. A.D. 550 to 800.)5
On other possible recollections of this part of the Swedish-Geatish tradition, see
2922–98¯n.
The second series of encounters between the Ġēatas and Swedes resolves itself in
Scandinavian tradition into a contest between Aðils — a great saga hero — and Áli,
who, apparently through confusion of the Swedish Uppland with ‘uplands’ in Norway,
was made into a Norwegian king. The battle in which Áli is said to have fallen is
located on the ice of Lake Väner.6 A hint of Aðils’s foreign (Geatish) support (2391¯ff.)
is found in the statement that Hrólfr kraki sent his twelve champions (B∂ðvarr bjarki
among them) to assist him. Thus the Danes have stepped into the place originally
occupied by the Ġēatas. The memory of Ēadġils’s brother, Ēanmund, is all but lost. He
may be recognized, however, in the Eymundr of Hyndluljóþ 15 (Appx.A §¯7.1) with
whom Hálfdan (the representative of the Danes) allies himself,7 and in the above-
mentioned Hømothus of Saxo.
The dominating element in this second phase of the war, the dynastic struggle within
the royal Swedish line, is perhaps to be explained (with Belden 1913) by the supposi-
tion of a foreign or pro-Danish party led by Onela (the son-in-law of Healfdene [l.¯62],
who, on this view, was of Dano-Swedish extraction) and a native party led by Ēadġils
and Ēanmund (who presumably followed their father’s policy).8 In this connection, it

1
They are brothers in the Historia Norvegiae as in Beowulf, whereas Ynglingatal and Ynglinga
saga are silent on this point. — It may be noted that among the twelve champions of Hrólfr kraki
we ¢nd V∂ttr mentioned, Skáldskaparmál, ch. 41 (Appx.A §¯8), and Hrólfs saga kraka, ch. 32
(Appx.A §¯12).
2
Followed by the Historia Norvegiae (Bugge 1899: 15¯n.).
3
The names Angantýr and Óttarr are coupled in Hyndl. 9 (Appx.A §¯7.1). Ongenþēo is
mentioned in Wid 31: Swēom [wēold] Ongenþēow; see Chambers’s note.
4
Belden 1913 (like Grundtvig; see Bugge 1899: 15) would equate Ongenþēo with Aun (or Áni),
son of J∂rundr and father of Egill (Ynglinga saga, ch. 25). On the relation between Egill and
Ongenþēo, see H. Schück Studier i Ynglingatal (Uppsala, 1907) 119¯ff.; Björk.Eig. 91¯ff.; Malone
1923: 117–49; Nerman 1925: 100–1; Cha Intr. 411 n. 7.
5
See J. Lamm & H.-Å. Nordström, edd., Vendel Period Studies (Stockholm, 1983), J. Jesch,
ed., The Scandinavians from the Vendel Period to the 10th Century (Woodbridge, 2002).
6
See Skáldskaparmál, chs. 41, 55, Ynglinga saga, ch. 29, Ynglingatal, Arngrímur Jónsson’s
Skj∂ldunga saga, ch. 12 (Appx.A §§¯8, 9, 11.6).
7
Áli, mentioned by the side of Hálfdan (Hyndl. 14), was considered Áli inn frœkni (i.e. the
Bold), the Dane, but probably was at the outset no one but the Swedish Onela. See also Belden
1913, Krag 1991: 228. — Ēanmund has also been equated with Aun of Ynglinga saga (see Mal.
1923: 67–76). A further allusion has been traced by Malone in an obscure passage of the (9th-
century) Swedish Rök inscription (MLN 29 [1924] 223–6). Cf. Krag 1991: 24.
8
No explanation is found (in the available sources) of the surprising fact that Heardrēd and
Bēowulf side with the native and against the supposed Danish faction.
 THE WORLD OF HUMANS lxiii
has been suggested by Belden that the Wendlas mentioned in l.¯348 (Wulfgār, Wendla
lēod) sided with the Danish faction. Accepting this view and assuming further (as was
¢rst conjectured by Stjerna)1 that, like Wulfgār, the W®ġmundingas, i.e. Wēohstān and
his son Wīġlāf,2 belong to the Wendel family, i.e. a noble family of Vendel in Uppland,
Sweden, we are able to understand not only that Wulfgār held an honored position at
the Danish court, but also (what seems singular indeed) that Wēohstān,3 the father of
Bēowulf’s most loyal kinsman Wīġlāf, fought in the service of Onela, against the
latter’s nephews and the Ġēatas who sheltered them.4 After Ēadġils had been estab-
lished on the throne, Wēohstān, who had slain Ēanmund (2612¯ff.), was compelled to
leave the country and settled in the land of the Ġēatas. That Wīġlāf¯5 even in Bēowulf’s
last battle is still called lēod Scyl¢nga (2603)6 is thus readily understood in the light of
his father’s antecedents. But what the relation is between the Geatish branch of the
W®ġmundingas (to which Bēowulf and his father Ecgþēo belong) and the Swedish
branch (the only one which carries through the family alliteration) remains doubtful.
The rich homestead of the W®ġmundingas (2607) must clearly be sought in the land of
the Ġēatas.7
The essentially hostile relations that, we have seen, must have persisted between the
Danes and Swedes have been traced in detail by Clarke 1911: 82–144, 156, and Belden
1913. The Ġēatas, the hereditary enemies of the Swedes, are naturally on friendly terms
with the Danes. It is true, we are told (in rather vague language, 1857¯f.) that in former
times strife existed between the peoples of the Ġēatas and Danes.8 After Bēowulf’s
deliverance of Heorot, peace and good will, it is projected, will be loyally maintained
between the the two sides (1829¯ff., 1859¯ff.).9 (Possibly even before that event, gifts
had been exchanged in friendship [378¯f.].) The excellent personal relations between

1
Who called attention to the w-alliteration. That this is merely a conjecture is not denied.
(Wulfgār may have come from Vendel in Jutland.)
2
Belden 1913 conjectures also Wulf Wonrēding, who ¢ghts against Ongenþēo (2965¯ff.), to be
of the Wendel family.
3
He is apparently the same as the figure named Vésteinn who is mentioned in conjunction with
the Norwegian Áli riding to the battle (against Aðils on the ice of Lake Väner), Kálfsvísa 3 (Skáld-
skaparmál, ch. 58, where the name of the source is mistakenly given as Alvinnsmál): see Appx.A
§¯8 ad ¢n.
4
Another version of these events has been proposed by Deutschbein (in Festschrift für L. Mors-
bach [Halle, 1913] 291–7). Setting aside as entirely unhistorical the role assigned to Bēowulf and
regarding the W®ġmundingas as the direct successors to the line of Hrēðel on the Geatish throne,
he believes that Onela after the fall of Heardrēd appointed Wēohstan king of the Ġēatas, while
Ēadġils Ïed to the Danes and afterward, gaining support from Hrōðulf (as told by Snorri and
Arngrímur Jónsson), returned to Sweden and defeated Onela.
5
Wīġlāf has been doubtfully identi¢ed with Saxo’s Wiggo (ii 51–2, 61, tr. 55, 63–4), the V∂ggr
of Hrólfs saga kraka (chs. 28, 34; Arngrímur Jónsson’s Skj∂ldunga saga, chs. 121¯f., cf. Skáld-
skaparmál, ch. 41), the devoted retainer of Hrólfr and the avenger of his death (Bugge 1899: 50–1;
cf. Sarrazin EStn. 42 [1910] 28¯ff., Berendsohn 1913: 8–9). Eliason (ASE 7 [1978] 95–105) and
Bremmer (ABzäG 15 [1980] 36) argue that he is Bēowulf’s nephew by an unnamed sister. On
possible connections between Wīġlāf and the king of Mercia of that name, see infra, p.¯clxxii.
6
This appellation does not necessarily mean that he is related to the royal line of Ongenþēo.
7
See on these questions Scherer 1893: 475–6; Müllenhoff AfdA 3 (1877) 177–82; F. Wild Beo-
wulf und die Waegmundinge, Moderne Sprachen, Schriftenreihe 6 (Vienna, 1961); Byers MP 66.1
(1968) 45–7; Eliason ASE 7 (1978) 95–105; Taylor Archiv 228 (1991) 90–8; Lehmann ELN 31.3
(1994) 1–5; Drout 2007: 216–18. Ecgþēo has been declared a Swede (Wardale MLR 24 [1929] 322)
and the Ġēatas, W®ġmundingas (Bryan MP 34.2 [1936] 113–18).
8
Can this be a reference to the period when Skåne and much of the southwest coast of present-
day Sweden were still centers of Danish power?
9
Deutschbein (in Festschrift für L. Morsbach [Halle, 1913] 291–7) would interpret the allusions
of ll.¯1832¯ff., 1855¯ff. as evidence that Heoroweard (Hj∂rvarðr) made his attack on Hrōðulf (Hrólfr)
at Lejre with the assistance of the Ġēatas, i.e. of Wīġlāf. For further discussion, see Berendsohn
1913: 9¯ff.
lxiv INTRODUCTION
Bēowulf’s family and Hrōðgār date from the time when Ecgþēo,1 the hero’s father, was
befriended at the Danish court (459¯ff.). They culminate in Bēowulf’s quasi-adoption
(946¯ff., 1175¯f.).2
Some, including Klaeber, have maintained that the historical basis of the allusions to
the Swedish kings is reinforced by the discoveries relating to the huge Uppsala and
Vendel grave-mounds. The Uppsala mounds — long ago thought to be the burial
places of the Nordic trinity of gods, Óðinn, Þórr, and Freyr — Snorri Sturluson
(Heimskringla, ch. 29) asserted were occupied by the 6th-century Swedish kings Aun,
Egill (Ongenþēo), and Aðils (Ēadġils). Late 19th- and early 20th-century archaeolog-
ical work seemed to con¢rm that assertion, which in turn was used to help ¢x both the
historicity and chronology of events in Beowulf. As we now know, there is insuÌcient
corroborative evidence to substantiate those ascriptions: the relationship among the OE
and ON texts and archaeological information is far too tenuous to support more than
speculation.3 Those interred in the mounds at Uppsala and Vendel, though clearly of
royal rank and power, at present remain anonymous personages in the distant, leg-
endary past.
————

Bēowulf himself, the son of Ecgþēo and grandson of Hrēðel, is most probably without
historical basis.4 As depicted in the quasi-historical events of the poem, however, his
life ¢ts into the overall scheme as follows. At age seven he was brought to the court of
his grandfather Hrēðel and nurtured there with loving care (2428–34). He was, how-
ever, considered slack and of little promise (2183b–8b). Later, he distinguishes himself
in ¢ghting giants and sea-monsters, 418¯ff., the latter in the course of a swimming
adventure with Breca, 506¯ff. He takes no part in the engagements with the Swedes that
culminate in the battle at Ravenswood, but he visits the Danes and delivers them from
the plague of Grendel and his mother. As a loyal thegn, he accompanies his uncle
Hyġelāc in an expedition against the Franks, kills Dæġhrefn with his bare hands (thus
avenging Hyġelāc’s death, it seems), and escapes home by swimming (2356¯ff.,
2501¯ff.). Refusing Hyġd’s offer of the throne, he acts as Heardrēd’s guardian while he
grows up (2369¯ff.). After Heardrēd’s death in battle against the Swedes, Bēowulf
becomes king and soon supports Ēadġils in his war on Onela (2389¯ff.). After a long
reign, he falls in combat against a ¢re-dragon.5

The Homeland of the ĠĒATAS

This has been the subject of a prolonged controversy addressing manifold aspects of
the question, whether linguistic, geographical, historical, or literary. The name Ġēatas
is an exclusively English one that is not found outside a handful of sources; these are
Beowulf, Widsith (58), and (in disputed passages) twice in the late 9th-century OE
version of Bede’s history (translating Bede’s Iuti or Iutae from H.E. i, cap. 15).

1
The same name, i.e. Eggþér, occurs in V∂luspá 42.
2
On the strange allusion of l.¯3005 (MS scildingas), see the note on that passage.
3
On the complexity of the relationship among the texts and the archaeology, see the still-valid
assessment of Farrell (1972: 283–6). Cf. the history of Vendel period archaeology offered by
Alkemade in Images of the Past, ed. N. Roymans & F. Theuws (Amsterdam, 1991) 267–97.
4
Some have argued otherwise. Byers MP 66 (1968) 45–7, for example, suggests an unnamed
sister for Ongenþēo who married into the W®ġmundingas and bore Ecgþēo, Bēowulf’s father. On
Bēowulf as Ælfhere (ON Álfarr), mentioned in l.¯2604 of the poem, see B. Collinder’s tr. (Stock-
holm, 1955) x, Woolf (EStn. 72 [1937] 7–9), Gannholm (1992: 18), and Gräslund (1993: 198–9).
5
The sum of ¢fty years allotted to Bēowulf’s reign (2209) — which would leave him perhaps a
nonagenarian at the time of the ¢nal battle — is probably meant only as a sort of poetic formula
comparable to that applied to Hrōðgār in ll.¯1769¯ff. (and see the note on 3049¯f.), though the
longevity of Old Testament kings is perhaps to be called to mind.
 THE WORLD OF HUMANS lxv
Doubtless the reference to Higlacus, qui imperavit Getis in the Liber monstrorum (ca.
700; Appx.A §¯17) points to this same English name for the people, as the similarity of
the names in regard to a people ruled by the same king can hardly be an accident.1 As
the matter now stands, six possibilities for the homeland of the Beowulf poet’s Ġēatas
have been proposed. In the approximate reverse order of scholarly acceptance of the
proposals, they are (1) northern England;2 (2) Angeln, including Schleswig;3 (3) the
island of Öland off the southeast coast of Sweden;4 (4) Gotland, north of Öland; (5) the
peninsula of Jutland in Denmark; and (6) Väster- and Östergötland, south of the great
Swedish lakes. The question of geographical homeland aside, the only historically
identi¢able peoples who have been thought to be equivalent to the Ġēatas are the Jutes
in the northern part of the Jutish peninsula and the ON Gautar (OSwed. Gøtar). The
argument has also been raised that the Ġēatas of Beowulf are essentially no more than a
creation of the mythopoeic imagination. According to this view, which was ¢rst argued
by Leake 1967 and has more recently been taken up by others,5 the Ġēatas are a non-
historical people based on medieval lore concerning the Getae — a legendary people
whose own identity is impossible to pin down, since it is inextricably confused with
that of the Goths (seeing that Jordanes and other historians refer to the Goths by the
name Getae).
Phonetically OE Ġēatas¯6 answers precisely to ON Gautar, OSwed. Gøtar, Swed.
Götar. On the other hand, the OE name of the (West Germanic) Jutes7 is Angl. Ēote,
Īote (Īotan), LWS ªte, ªtan,8 as used in Wid 26: ªtum; Bede 4, 18.308.11: Ēota (Var.:
ªtena) lond; ChronA, E 449: Īotum, Īutna (H.E.: Iutarum) cyn,9 while OE Ġēatas, with
its long diphthong, does not correspond to Lat. Getae, with its short root vowel. In
linguistic respects, then, the identi¢cation of the Ġēatas with the Gautar cannot be a
matter of doubt.10

1
Possibly e in the name stands for the reÏex of Gmc. *au, the spelling of which was quite
variable in texts as early as this (see SB §¯75 Anm.¯1). But more likely the classicizing author
equated the native term for these people with a name familiar from Latin literature, on the basis of
guesswork — the very same impulse that led Jordanes and others to identify the Goths as Getae.
2
D. Haigh The AS Sagas (London, 1861) 3.
3
Ke. i2 xvii.
4
Stjerna 1912: 88–95.
5
The possible connection with the Getae has been further explored by Niles 1993 and S. Harris
2003: 84–6. To the views of Leake, however, compare the severe critique of Smithers Durham
Univ. Jnl. n.s. 32 [1971] 87–103, as well as the criticisms offered by two of the book’s reviewers,
Malone Speculum 43 (1968) 736–9 and Wrenn RES 20 (1969) 204–7, who point out linguistic
obstacles standing in the way of an identi¢cation of the Ġēatas with the Getae. Chickering 291–2
suggests that the poet blended historical and mythographical conceptions. The Getae were said to
have originated in ancient Thrace, but that bit of lore does not help to locate a homeland for the
Ġēatas.
6
The solitary exception to the Beowulf practice, Ġēatena 443, is of no etymological conse-
quence: see Lang. §¯16.2 rem. Etymologically, the word has been thought to relate to the Swed.
verb gjuta (NHG gießen), ‘to pour’ (here supposedly in ref. to semen), therefore meaning ‘men’
(see Gloss. of Proper Names); linguists are divided, however, about whether it might be further
related to a possible river name *Gaut (referring to the Göta älv in Västergötland) or Gut- (in Got-
landic place names). See Thorsten Andersson 1996.
7
It is a plausible assumption that the WGmc. name ‘Jutes’ was transferred to the Scandinavian
(North Germanic) settlers of Jutland, who became amalgamated with those members of the earlier
population who had remained in their old home.
8
See Intr. to The Fight at Finnsburg.
9
The forms Ġēat, Ġēatum found in one place only (Bede 1, 12.52.2, 7, where one would expect
a closer OE equivalent to Bede’s Iutae), have been explained in different ways; see Leake 1967:
98–133, Niles 2007b: 39–49.
10
On the Gautar theory, see further Gahrn 1986: 97–101. On the linguistic basis of the connec-
tion to Goths, see Thorsten Andersson in Nordwestgermanisch, ed. E. Marold & C. Zimmermann
(Berlin, 1995) 1–2.
lxvi INTRODUCTION
Testimony of a geographical and historical character has been brought forward to
support the claims for Jutland, Gotland, and Götland, but it is somewhat impaired by
the fact that the early history of these regions is enveloped in obscurity. The poem
makes clear, however, that the Ġēatas are a seafaring people, and this favors their
residence in Jutland or Gotland or the coast of mainland Götaland instead of (or not
only) in the inland areas of what is now Sweden.1 Hyġelāc’s hall is situated only a short
march inland from the sea (1924, 1963¯ff.), though this is perhaps no more than a con-
ventional motif corresponding to Iron Age settlement patterns (for which see Fabech
ASSAH 10 [1999] 43) or prompted by considerations of narrative simplicity. The
dragon is pushed over the sea-cliff (3131¯ff.), and the Ġēatas erect the grave monument
of their beloved king on the ‘whale’s headland’ (2802¯ff., 3136). The contact between
the Swedes and Ġēatas takes place ofer heafo ‘over the open sea’ 2477 (though the
expression ofer s® 2380, 2394 could refer to either the open sea or an inland lake: see
2394¯n.). These details led Leo (1839) to suggest that the Ġēatas are actually the Jutes
of Jutland, an idea that became known as ‘the Jute hypothesis.’2 Weibull, in 1974,
claimed that they are actually Danes.3 The ¢rst idea held great currency until at least
1925, when archaeological discoveries seemed to have put it to rest,4 and the second
never took hold in the scholarly community, seeing that the Danes and the Ġēatas of
Beowulf are obviously distinct peoples. Similarly, these same geographical details,
coupled with the Ġēatas’ being called Weder-Ġēatas (‘Weather-, Storm-,’ 1492, 1612,
2379, 2551) and their home Weder-mearc (298) and Gotland’s being known historic-
ally as a sea power, led Grundtvig (lvi, tr. lvii¯f.) to argue that Bēowulf and his people
came from Gotland. Recent archaeological work has revived Grundtvig’s view, in
support of making the southern tip of Gotland the hypothesized launching point for
Bēowulf’s journey to Denmark and Stevns Klint (south of present-day Copenhagen)
the landing point.5
Yet possibly the realm of the Ġēatas was thought to encompass a large enough area
of mainland Sweden (including also Öland and/or Gotland?) to make reference to their
searfaring reasonable even if they were concentrated in Västergötland. In addition, as
noted above, the water route by which the Swedes and Ġēatas reached each other
(assuming a historical foundation for the poet’s account of those hostilities) may very
well have been by way of the great lakes Väner and Vätter.6 Even passage by the Baltic
Sea and Lake Mälar might have been less inconvenient than travel by land.
In the end, we cannot be sure that the AS poet had a clear knowledge of Northern
geography (cf. Niles 2007b: 119–40). It seems suÌciently likely that he would have
supposed all branches of the Scandinavians to be seafaring peoples. The topographical
references in the poem are so imprecise, by modern standards, that they cannot be used
to localize the action of the poem’s two main episodes except in ‘the land of the Danes’
and ‘the land of the Ġēatas,’ respectively. Some references to speci¢c topographical

1
S®-Ġēatas 1850, 1986, s®men 2954, brimwīsan 2930.
2
For a review of the hypothesis and its history, see Cha.Intr. 8–10, 333–45, 401–9, 418–19,
Leake 1967: 4–6, and Gahrn 1986: 101–2.
3
Die Geaten des Beowulfepos und die dänischen Trelleburgen (Göteborg, 1974) 1–26. On the
Danes theory, see Gahrn 1986: 96–7.
4
Cha.Intr. 415–18. These objections no longer hold, since they depend on the ascription of the
great barrows at Vendel and Uppsala to speci¢c Swedish kings; see the discussion on p.¯lxiv.
5
Rausing Fornvännen 80 (1985) 163–78. See also Gannholm 1992: 25–8 and Gräslund 1993:
196–200. Still more recent archaeological discoveries, however, tend to undermine the Danish part
of Rausing’s argument by con¢rming the association of Heorot with Lejre (rather than with Stevns
Klint) that has been inferred on the basis of legendary parallels.
6
And, to some extent, by way of neighboring rivers. If necessary, boats could be carried from
one body of water to another. Cf. Ōhthere’s Voyage (Or 1, 1.15.36¯f.): ℓ berað þā Cwēnas hyra
scypu ofer land on ðā meras ℓ þanon hergiað on ðā Norðmen. See also J. Sahlgren Eddica et
Scaldica (Lund, 1927–8) 185 on possible transport of a boat overland in Sighvatr’s Austrfararvísur.
 CHRISTIAN AND HEROIC VALUES lxvii
features (e.g. woods, hills, headlands, the sea) may come from poetic invention based
on notions of English scenery. Even the place-names Hrones Næs 2805, Earna Næs
3031, Hrefna Wudu 2925, and Hrefnes Holt 2935 (see 2941, 3024¯ff.) may be more
fanciful than real.1 Thus, because the Ġēatas in Beowulf most likely also reÏect a
conÏation of the imagined and the actual,2 we cannot state de¢nitely what historical
population, if any, that name denotes. The weight of probability, however, favors a
connection with the Gautar.3

V. CHRISTIAN AND HEROIC VALUES4

Few aspects of Beowulf have attracted greater attention in the critical literature, as well
as more animated dispute, than the question of its religious content. Persistent attempts
in the early criticism to ascertain those parts of the text that pertain to a supposed
original pagan poem are now generally discredited.5 The poem’s religious references
were catalogued by Klaeber in 1911–12, with thorough attention to their parallels
elsewhere in Old English, as well as their frequent sources and parallels in Latin
devotional literature. Much of the subsequent scholarly commentary builds on the solid
base of Klaeber’s demonstration of the organic nature of the poem’s Christian ele-
ments. Since the publication of persuasive studies by Tolkien (1936), Hamilton (1946),
Whitelock (1951), and Brodeur (1959: 182–219), building upon (or reinforced by) the
work of other scholars whose views are of considerable weight (e.g. Brandl P.Grdr.2 iia
1003; Schücking 1929a; Cha.Intr. 121–8; Kaske 1958; Donahue 1949–51, 1965), few
specialists in Beowulf studies now dispute the essentially Christian character of either
the poem or the milieu in which it arose.
Still, no consensus has emerged regarding how crucial to the poet’s design his
Christian perspective is, how well integrated into the overall narrative each Christian
phrase or passage is, how well developed the poet’s concept of religion is compared
with that of well-educated clerics of the Anglo-Saxon period, or how fully repre-
sentative his perspective is of his culture in general. Some ¢nd the poem simply and
thoroughly Christian, though set in the pagan past. Cavill (2004), for example, argues
in Klaeberian manner that Beowulf echoes and uses, within limits, the normal discourse

1
But see p.¯lxi n.¯6 supra. See also, e.g., Svionum [C. Fast] Beowulf, germanernas äldsta epos
(Stockholm, 1929), Langenfelt EStn. 66 (1932) 236–44, Lundqvist Vikarvet (1964–7) 24.
2
See Niles 2007b: 65–7.
3
Klaeber observes that Västergötland is commonly believed to correspond to Hyġelāc’s realm,
and his royal town has been conjecturally located at Kungsbacka or at Kungälf (south and north of
Göteborg respectively). See also Farrell 1972, esp. 262.
4
For overviews of the topic from two very different perspectives, see Irving (1984 and 1997)
and, more selectively, T. Hill 1994. M. Parker Beowulf and Christianity (New York 1987) 77–114
surveys trends in the criticism from 1897 to 1984.
5
Stanley 1975a reviews this earlier criticism with many illustrative examples; see also the
remarks on ‘Unity of Composition’ at pp.¯lxxxviii¯ff. infra. The notion, once entertained widely,
that the text as we have it is based on a much earlier poem dating from before the conversion,
spurred efforts to weed out the Christian elements as extraneous. Thus, Thorkelín in his editio
princeps of the poem regarded the scenes at Hrōðgār’s court as composed by a Danish eyewitness
to the events described; this early poem, he believed, was subsequently translated into OE with
clerical additions (see Bjork 1996). Ettmüller, in his German translation (E.tr.), as in his 1875
edition (E.), while rejecting the idea of the poem’s early Danish origins, developed a precise theory
of Christian interpolations (thus also Möller and ten Brink), while Müllenhoff combined the
philological passion of this approach with some original thinking about the mythological content
of the primitive narrative elements. When Blackburn (1897) took stock of the poem’s Christian
locutions, he was thus writing for an audience predisposed to read them as inessential; hence his
title ‘The Christian Coloring in the Beowulf¯,’ subsequently adapted by Klaeber in the introduction
to his edition.
lxviii INTRODUCTION
of Christianity, including both Old and New Testament sources.1 Others ¢nd in the
poem precise evidence of Christian patristic thought and allegory (see pp.¯lxxvi¯–lxxviii
infra). Still others see the poet’s commitment to Christianity as ‘not very clear,’2
though very few would now go so far as to refer to ‘the small number of Christian ele-
ments’ and to the presence in the poem of a camouÏaged paganism that is disguised so
as to avoid being suppressed in an ‘intolerant Christian society.’3
Scholars’ different opinions on such matters naturally tend to relate to their concep-
tion of the poem’s composition as early or late, and in a secular or an ecclesiastical
milieu. The present trend (following Wormald 1978) is to draw that latter, social dis-
tinction in less stark terms than was formerly done. Correspondingly, one way to
resolve controversies regarding the religious content of Beowulf is to entertain the
possibility that a poem like this,4 with its account of a pagan past viewed from a
present Christian perspective, may have performed a mediating role whereby the cul-
ture of the hall was articulated in terms acceptable to the culture of the cloister, and
vice versa.5
PAGAN PAST AND CHRISTIAN PRESENT6

Although the narrative action of Beowulf is set in the pagan past of the Germanic
peoples (in particular, southern Scandinavia of the Germanic Iron Age), expressions
pertaining to Christian belief abound.7 These are voiced not only by the narrator, who
looks back upon this earlier society from the vantage point of a more enlightened era,
but also by the pagan characters themselves. This aspect of the poem’s narrative art
may well seem anachronistic to modern readers accustomed to the conventions of the
historical novel, in which an effort is often made to depict a past culture as it is really

1
Orchard 2003: 130–68, similarly, ¢nds the poem’s language consistent with that of various
other Christian works of this period and points out parallels between them.
2
M. Puhvel Cause and Effect in Beowulf (Lanham, 2005) 92. Among those taking a skeptical
view of the breadth or depth of Christian inÏuence in the poem are Chadwick 1912, Whallon MP
60 (1962) 81–94, id. PMLA 80 (1965) 19–23, Sisam 1965, Halverson 1969, Cherniss 1972, John
1974, Kindrick Medievalia et Humanistica 10 (1981) 1–17 (on Germanic sapientia), T. Pàroli La
morte di Beowulf (Rome, 1982), Kroll MP 84.2 (1986) 117–29, and Earl 1994: 49–78.
3
K. Schneider 1986: 189–92, 199. Cf. Moorman MLQ 28 (1967) 3–18, Farina Univ. of So.
Florida Lang. Qtrly. 20 (1981) 21–6, Feldman NM 88 (1987) 159–74 (on the use of Christian
vocabulary in a pre-Christian sense), and North 1997: 172–203.
4
Or like Waldere (Appx.D), with its Christian references in both fragments (A: 23b; B: 27–9).
5
Arguments along this line, with individual inÏections, are advanced by Donahue in The Epic
in Medieval Society, ed. H. Scholler (Tübingen, 1977) 382–90, Wormald 1978, Frank 1982a, Rob-
inson 1985 and 1991, and Niles 1993. Such approaches need not be tied chronologically either to
some scholars’ postulated early date for Beowulf or others’ postulated later one. A relatively
tolerant attitude among at least some members of the clergy toward the unbaptized heathen is,
however, presupposed: see Donahue 1949–51, 1965 and Cronan 2007; cf. Benson 1967 with
speci¢c regard to AS missionary activity on the Continent.
6
Cf. K. McCone Pagan Past and Christian Present in Early Irish Literature (Maynooth, 1990).
7
In cataloguing these expressions, Klaeber 1911–12 divides them into twelve thematic sections
covering the Creation; God; giving thanks or praise to God; sin; the devil; Cain, the giants, and the
Ïood; the last judgment; hell; heaven; the righteous; Christian expressions having to do with life,
death, and the separation of body and soul; and individual expressions derived from the Bible. He
notes that the Christian elements are not distributed evenly throughout the narrative, but rather are
associated with the main plot more than with the subsidiary episodes and with the speeches of
Hrōðgār and Bēowulf more than with the speeches of the other characters. The chief exceptions to
the ¢rst of these generalizations are the Christian turn given the treatment of Heremōd (902b–4a,
1716–18a) and two allusions in the Scyld passage to God’s favor or presence (12–17, 26). Irving
(1984, 1997: 185–6) points out another asymmetry: Part I of the poem is much more dense with
Christian allusions than is Part II, owing chieÏy to the prominent role played by the ¢endish
Grendel kindred in Part I.
 CHRISTIAN AND HEROIC VALUES lxix
supposed to have been.1 Given the lack of precise knowledge among the people of
Anglo-Saxon England concerning this remote period of the past, the Beowulf poet,
unlike a modern novelist, was not in a position to shape his narrative very far in the
direction of historical verisimilitude, nor did he necessarily have an interest in doing so.
What he does show is a strong interest in depicting a version of the pagan past that,
with its high deeds and sententious speeches, has its own narrative consistency and
could have had ethical value for the members of his Christian community. His practice
in this regard is typical of medieval cultural productions in general, in a manner not
wholly unlike what is seen in, for example, the Wake¢eld Secunda pastorum, in which
shepherds of pre-Christian times swear by Christ and his saints, and in manuscript
illustrations of persons of the ancient and classical world who are portrayed in the
medieval garb of northern Europeans.
Expectations of historical verisimilitude are ful¢lled in Beowulf to the extent that
none of the characters ever speaks overtly of Christ, the Virgin Mary, the apostles, the
saints, or any aspect of New Testament theology. The religious language attributed to
these characters is consistent with the portrayal of persons who, in some instances at
least, might be regarded as ‘noble pagans.’2 Such persons resemble the patriarchs of
Old Testament history in that they may be virtuous in their conduct, or heroic in their
deeds, or philosophical in their thinking, without ever having had the bene¢t of instruc-
tion in Christian doctrine.3 Certainly, the poet portrays the main characters of the story,
Bēowulf and Hrōðgār, as persons who are aware of the existence of a deity who is the
creator, sustainer, and judge of human beings, just as these characters may show aware-
ness of the possibility of temptation in this world and punishment for sin. They have
not, however, been taught of the redemption of humankind through Christ. There can
thus be no certainty regarding their prospects for salvation. To the contrary, according
to orthodox Christian doctrine (which the poet did not necessarily share on this vexed
point),4 they cannot be saved, for there is no salvation except through Christ. Leaving

1
Robinson 1985 (echoed in 1991: 150–2), opposed by Irving 1997: 187–8, excuses the poet of
this anachronism with a carefully nuanced argument to the effect that the poet distinguishes be-
tween those religious references that are expressed by the narrator, who is Christian, and those by
the characters in the poem, who, as pagans, cannot be thinking of God but rather of ‘a god, any
god’ when speaking of divinity. The question whether there are any clear stylistic distinctions in
the religious language used by the narrator and by the characters in the poem should no doubt be
weighed in this connection. Hrōðgār’s ‘sermon’ (ll.¯1700–84), for example, has been found amen-
able to analysis in terms of Pauline imagery of spiritual warfare and other motifs of Christian hom-
iletic literature (see the multiple notes on lines 17oo–84, w. refs.), even though such motifs are
developed with ‘prudent restraint’ (Klaeber 1911–12: [50]) so as to harmonize with the heroic
frame of reference.
2
Tolkien, for example, speaks of the poem as dealing with ‘the noble pagan of old days’ (1936:
269) and with a past that is ‘pagan but noble and fraught with a deep signi¢cance’ (270). See more
fully Horgan 1970: 9–11, and cf. Lönnroth SS 41 (1969) 1–29.
3
See Russom in press; also Cain Renascence 49 (1997) 227–40. Tolkien (1936: 270) likens
Hrōðgār to the ‘shepherd patriarchs and kings of Israel’; Wieland 1988 ¢nds parallels in the repre-
sentations of Bēowulf and the Moses of OE biblical paraphrases. Cf. Orchard’s discussion of
David and Goliath, Samson, and other Old Testament ¢gures (2003: 142–7).
4
The question of the possible redemption of ‘noble pagans’ recurs with enough persistence in
the ecclesiastical literature of the Middle Ages to suggest that some Christians (particularly in Ire-
land) who did not regard themselves as heretics found the orthodox position a source of discom-
fort. For discussion of the bearing of this point on Beo (as raised importantly by Tolkien 1936:
266), see Donahue 1949–51, supplemented by id. 1965; Britton NM 72 (1971) 246–50; T. Hill
Traditio 44 (1988) 101–24; ibid. 1994: 70–6, with reference to both Irish and Old Norse parallels;
P. Cavill AS Christianity (London 1999) 109–25; and Cronan 2007. The problem of de¢ning the
poet’s attitude toward the pagan past is analogous in some ways to that of explaining why Bede
and others allow Anglo-Saxon royalty to be descended from pagan gods, particularly Wōden: see
Myth: A New Symposium, ed. G. Schrempp & W. Hansen (Bloomington, 2002), 225–39 (w. refs).
lxx INTRODUCTION
that theological point aside, not all the characters who ¢gure in the poem are noble. To
a greater or lesser degree, they are subject to arrogance, envy, greed, malice, coward-
ice, and other sins and Ïaws, including bad judgment. In this regard too, they resemble
the actors in Old Testament history and, indeed, fallen human beings of any time and
place.
Paganism as a religion, of course, is roundly condemned, as are enemies of human
society and those who violate God’s law.1 Near the start of the poem, the narrator
expressly aÌrms that those Danes who offer sacri¢ce to pagan idols, like all those who
worship false gods, are in acute danger of damnation.2 Grendel issues forth from a
hellish domicile as the very embodiment of evil, and when his corpse lays aside his
h®þene sāwle, hell receives it (851–2). Similarly, Ūnferð, though scarcely diabolical, is
guilty of envy and (as the hero declares, 588b–9) has every reason to expect damnation
for the crime of fratricide.
On the other hand, Bēowulf himself acts in a spirit of magnanimity at all times. His
greatest efforts as a young man are devoted to subduing creatures hateful to God. Much
later, looking back over his life, he takes satisfaction in never having sought out
quarrels, committed acts of forbidden violence, or sworn false oaths, so that the ruler of
humankind need not punish him when his life departs from the Ïesh (2736b–43a).
Although he shows no sign of contrition in this scene (as is consistent with his lack of
proper religious instruction), nothing he says is inconsistent with Christian ethical stan-
dards. At the hero’s funeral obsequies, his men praise him in terms that, with their
emphasis on his gentle virtues, recall the Christian savior (3180–2).3 It is therefore not
surprising when, at the moment of his death, his soul is said to depart sēċean sōðfæstra
dōm (2820). While this phrase may embody some deliberate ambiguity (who are the
sōðfæste, exactly, and what precisely is this dōm?),4 such a statement implies great
spiritual merit. In any poem of this period of an overtly religious character, the phrase
would mean that a righteous person was saved.5 A life lived in accord with high ideals
that, for the most part, are consistent with Christian teachings therefore is not thought
of, in this poem, as beyond the reach of pagans.

THE GREAT FEUD

The passage in which the Danes offer sacri¢ce to idols is not the ¢rst in the poem to
mention heathen practices. The beginning of the poem is so crowded with religious

1
Although the term ‘paganism’ ought to connote this narrower sense of a system of pre-
Christian religious belief and practice, all too often in the literature it has been made to include any
cultural phenomenon that is not expressly Christian in nature, such as the maintenance of feuds and
the observance of certain superstitions, even though such features are by no means alien to
Christian societies. The false dialectic thereby constructed has fueled much fruitless debate about
Christian and pagan elements. See Irving 1997: 177–80, and see infra, pp.¯lxxii¯ff.
2
Lines 175–88. It is a matter of scholarly debate whether the poet here means to say that the
Danes of this time were pagans or whether he is referring to some number of Danes who turned
apostate in a time of crisis. See the note on these lines. In the following discussion, the former
position is assumed to be correct, with the understanding that the Danes’ sacri¢ce to idols is an act
of desperation on their part and that Hrōðgār’s role in this act is left unspeci¢ed.
3
See note on 3180¯f. The paired adjectives milde ond monþw®re are used elsewhere of Christ
upon his entry into Jerusalem (in Blickling hom. vi [HomS 21.81]), while the third adjective
occurring in this passage, līðe (in the superlative), reinforces one’s sense of the respect the king has
gained among his people for his serene clemency — a quality that, given the selective nature of the
narrative, readers must accept chieÏy on faith. The quasi-religious mood of this concluding pas-
sage may call to mind the Christian call to communion; see 3173–6a (n.¯).
4
Opposing views regarding the signi¢cance of this phrase are offered, e.g., by Stanley 1963,
who does not believe the hero can be saved, and Green¢eld 1985, who interprets the lines as
suggesting the hero’s salvation. See 2820b (n.), w. refs.
5
See Cavill 2004: 24, and the note on 2820.
 CHRISTIAN AND HEROIC VALUES lxxi
references, in fact, as to suggest that the Beowulf poet wished to waste no time in es-
tablishing the spiritual terms within which his story was to be understood.1 A brief
review of these passages will go far toward revealing how this narrative set in pagan
times serves as a vehicle for Christian teachings.
Prominent reference to God’s sending Scyld Scē¢ng a son and heir, Bēow, as an act
of favor in a time of need (12–17) con¢rms that the fates of the pagan people of this
time were in the hands of the one true Lord whether or not they were aware of it. This
reference to God’s merciful nature is followed by a solemn passage by which the
paganism of the people of this time is emphatically con¢rmed (the launch of Scyld
Scē¢ng’s funeral ship, 26–52). The Danes of this ancient period, it should be noted, are
not condemned for enacting a ceremony as conspicuously pagan as this. To the con-
trary, the poet invites us to witness with approval their respect, verging on reverence,
for their dead king. Their loving regard for him may be taken as an expression of their
potentially virtuous character, despite their pagan practices and their ignorance of the
true nature of death and the afterlife.
In the next stage of the action, the virtuous potential of the Danes is con¢rmed when
Scyld’s great-grandson Hrōðgār builds the hall Heorot as a decorous site where his
power and generosity can be displayed (71–3). When the Danish court singer conse-
crates the hall with his song of Creation (with its reminiscences, for the Beowulf poet’s
Christian audience, of the Book of Genesis: see note on 90–8), the Danes are thereby
decisively characterized as a people worthy of God’s protection. It is precisely because
they live so contentedly in their new hall, however, that they are hated by God’s
enemies. At once, allusion is made to a certain creature of evil (¯fēond on helle 101b;
wiht unh®lo 121b) who seethes with bitter resentment and is bent on destroying their
happiness.
At this point Grendel’s genealogy is introduced for the ¢rst of two times (106–14; cf.
1260–8) as a counterpart to the genealogy of the Scylding kings that was given some
¢fty lines earlier (53–63). It injects a crucial element of dramatic irony into the nar-
rative. Hrōðgār’s Danes do not know they are being watched; moreover, they never
learn more than a few details about the nature of their demonic adversary. The mem-
bers of the poet’s audience, on the other hand, not only are told of Grendel’s existence
in his watery haunts, but they also learn his name and ancestry. He is one of those
misbegotten creatures (eotenas ond ylfe ond orcn¼s, / swylċe ġīgantas 112–13a — the
earth teems with them) who sprang from the seed of Cain after his exile for the killing
of Abel, the primal act of internecine violence on earth. The terms of what has been
called a ‘Great Feud’ are thereby established, whereby the action of the ¢rst part of the
poem is presented as if it were a continuation of the cosmic war of God against his
monstrous and diabolical adversaries (Osborn 1978). The pagan Germanic peoples of
Iron Age Scandinavia are thus brought into direct relation to biblical history, and the
most crucial set of oppositions in the poem is introduced: the struggle between divine
and satanic powers for control of middanġeard.
Within no more than the ¢rst two ¢tts of the poem (1–114), therefore, readers of
Beowulf are made familiar with almost all they need to know concerning the poem’s
religious framework. The hero is now introduced as an actor on this stage. While he
and his men thank God for their safe sea-journey to Denmark in verses that immedi-
ately establish their piety (227b–8), there is no indication either here or elsewhere in the
poem that Bēowulf thinks of himself as God’s instrument. Here, too, a degree of dra-
matic irony can be observed. By ¢ghting to the death a hellish adversary of God, he is
taking on a vigorous role in the Great Feud of which the Christian audience of the
poem has been made aware, and yet he himself remains unaware of that fact.

1
Benson 1967 aptly refers to these overt references to heathendom as part of the poem’s ‘pagan
coloring,’ thus inverting the term ‘Christian coloring’ that previously had been used in a pejorative
manner to refer to the poem’s religious content (see n.¯1 on p.¯lxx supra).
lxxii INTRODUCTION
In this manner, as in many others, the members of the poet’s audience are encour-
aged to draw inferences from the story that the characters themselves are not in a posi-
tion to draw. In the succeeding ¢ght against Grendel’s mother, Bēowulf himself cannot
immediately know that God is intervening so as to save his life, though we in the audi-
ence are told (1553–6).1 At the end of the poem, the dead king’s thegns can have no
way of knowing, when they praise him at the time of his pagan cremation, that his soul
has long since departed to seek out a better state (2820).2 Their obsequies, however
digni¢ed and moving they may be, are thus somewhat emptier than the men themselves
are in a position to know. Bēowulf lives and dies by a heroic code that is in many ways
admirable, and thus he is rightly esteemed by his peers and, indeed, by the poem’s
readers or listeners as well; and yet we in the audience know that code to have been
superseded, in some essential regards, by the teachings of a newer creed. One feature
of the narrative art of Beowulf that distinguishes this poem from the great mass of other
literary works of the Anglo-Saxon period is that this creed is never mentioned directly.3
Its assumed presence may (and should) condition the audience’s responses to all
aspects of the narrative, and yet the poet’s historical ¢ction maintains its own integrity.
One is thus invited to sympathize with the pagan characters, and even to identify deep-
ly with their traumas and triumphs, while at the same time viewing them with a neces-
sary religious detachment.

THE INTERWEAVING OF HEROIC AND CHRISTIAN IDEALS

The poem abounds in supernatural elements of pre-Christian associations.4 Heathen
practices are mentioned at various points, though not as often as might be expected in a
poem set in pre-Christian times. The scenes of Scyld’s commitment to the sea in a ship
funeral and the Danes’ sacri¢ce to idols have been mentioned. Before Bēowulf sails to
Denmark, his people consult omens (and ¢nd them propitious, 204b), an action dis-
couraged by Christian law and precept (Robinson 1985: 10, 86 n.¯24) though probably
persisting long after the conversion. The burning of the dead — a pagan practice that
was frowned upon by the Church — is prominently mentioned three times: in the song
about Finn and Henġest (1107–24), after the death of Hrōðgār’s companion and coun-
selor Æschere (2124–7a), and at the end of the poem, upon the death of the hero (3137–
55). The ¢rst of these passages includes much graphic detail, including references to
melting heads and reopened wounds gushing blood.5 The cremation of Bēowulf him-
self, on the other hand, is described in such digni¢ed terms as to serve as a ¢tting ex-
pression of a people’s grief, while also encouraging the audience to engage in philo-
sophical reÏection upon the value of a life well lived amidst the transience of earthly
things.6
Informed readers of Beowulf will be aware that, while heroic attitudes were charac-
teristic of the pagan era, they also long outlasted the conversion of the northern peoples
of Europe to Christianity. Many allusions that at ¢rst glance might be taken to refer to a
pagan way of life, or to what Phillpotts (1928) refers to as pagan philosophy, can be
seen more accurately, upon reÏection, to have no religious signi¢cance. One example
is the frequent allusions to wyrd, which, when thinking of the pagan Germanic heritage,
commentators have sometimes described as a grim and adverse power that had to be

1
In retrospect he recognizes divine intervention, however; cf. 1658.
2
As pagans, still, Bēowulf’s people may have believed he had earned a place with the gods in
some equivalent of Valh∂ll. The poet leaves us free to imagine their religious beliefs or attitudes.
3
In this regard the poem resembles Boethius’s De consolatione Philosophiae, another work in
which overtly Christian references are withheld.
4
See pp.¯xxxvi¯ff. supra, under ‘The World of Monsters.’
5
That the latter detail is employed for effect rather than verisimilitude is suggested by its
physiological improbability: see Owen-Crocker 2000: 54–5.
6
See Gonzalo Abascal & Bravo García SELIM 5 [1995] 46–62.
 CHRISTIAN AND HEROIC VALUES lxxiii
stoically withstood.1 Whatever its earlier meaning, in Beowulf this word usually has the
fairly neutral sense ‘what comes to pass,’ regardless of one’s efforts to control the out-
come (see 2420 n. and Gloss.: wyrd). A virtue that weighs heavily in the heroic scales
is to face this prospect without Ïinching. Another example of an attitude, grounded in
the pagan era but persisting long afterwards, is the requirement of blood vengeance for
fallen comrades, a moral imperative that must be heeded, according to the social codes
of this time.2 While vengeance was part of the peace-keeping mechanism of pre-Chris-
tian societies, Whitelock has made the point that ‘killing for the sake of vengeance was
not felt to be incompatible with Christian ethics at any period in Anglo-Saxon times’
(1951: 13). Another aspect of Beowulf that might be thought to pertain to a pagan cul-
tural environment is the public display of precious gifts, seen as signs of the recipient’s
worth as well as of the donor’s power and generosity (particularly at the feasting in
Heorot).3 Even though a common theme in Christian homiletic literature is the condem-
nation of wealth and its pursuit as a snare and a delusion (a point emphasized, e.g., by
Goldsmith 1970 in relation to the hero’s supposed avarice), a fascination with treasure
permeates Old English literature as part of an accepted aesthetic convention (Tyler
2006, esp. 9–37). Persistently mentioned in Beowulf, as well, is the value of worldly
glory. Though often associated with paganism (e.g. by Phillpotts 1928), the ideal of
winning fame through memorable deeds on earth recurs in virtually all the early lit-
eratures of the world and has not always been found repugnant to persons of Christian
faith.4 Examples like these are easily multiplied. The duty of thegns to repay with
deeds, even to the point of death, the gifts and arms that they have received from their
social superiors is brought out with particular urgency near the end of the poem, when
the aged Bēowulf is in dire need of help (2633–60; cf. 2864–72). A related attitude that
is properly more heroic than pagan is the desire to avoid at all costs the shame that
accrues to acts of cowardice, betrayal, or treachery, seen as threats to the peace and
order of society (cf. Magennis ES 76 [1995] 1–19., id. 1996: 75–81). As Wīġlāf pro-
claims in the aftermath of the dragon ¢ght, speaking to the shame-faced Ġēatas who
emerge timidly from the woods where they have taken refuge, Dēað bið sēlla / eorla
ġehwylcum þonne edwītlīf! (2890b–1). None of these attitudes is speci¢cally pagan, and
all of them persist in Western societies today in various permutations. The same is true

1
See the discussion of wyrd (pp.¯lxxii¯f. infra). Timmer Neophil. 26 (1940–1) 22–33, 213–28, for
example, speaks of wyrd and the pursuit of fame as transmuted Germanic ideas, while Tietjen
JEGP 74 (1975) 159–71 ¢nds that wyrd functions in the poem as a blind and whimsical force that
coexists with the Christian deity.
2
Often quoted in this regard is the hero’s aÌrmation of the social duty of vengeance in lines
1384–5; cf. 1669b–70, 1278b, 1546b–7a. Viewing Beo from an ethnographic and jural perspective,
J.M. Hill has described the ethical dimension of the feud in Beo and in early and tribal societies
(1995: 25–37), as has W. Miller in the Old Icelandic context (Bloodtaking and Peacemaking
[Chicago, 1990]). Scholars have also approached the feud in Beo as, at best, a tragic necessity (e.g.
Kahrl 1972) or, at worst, a recipe for social disaster (e.g. Berger and Leicester 1974, Camargo SP
78 [1981] 120–34). Recent scholarship suggests that vengeance may not have been as uniform an
imperative as was once generally supposed: see 1142b¯n.
3
Leisi Angl. 71 (1953) 259–73 has made an important contribution to the understanding of the
signi¢cance, in Beo, of the social economy of honor as represented in material things, as have G.
Clark ELH 32 (1965) 409–41, Cherniss 1972: 79–101, and J.M. Hill 1995: 85–107. Scholarship
along these lines builds upon the work of Grønbech 1909–12 and Schücking 1933, among others.
4
Lines 1387b–9; cf. 884b–5, 954b–5a, and 2804–8. The term dōm (used in Beo to mean ‘judg-
ment, decree, authority’; see Gloss.) can also carry the meanings ‘majesty,’ ‘power,’ merging with
‘favourable judgement (esp. after death), glory, fame, victory’ (DOE s.v. dōm, senses 10 and 11).
The term lof ‘praise, glory,’ which in its compounded and superlative form lofġeornost has been a
topic of dispute (see 3182 n.), regularly occurs with a positive connotation in OE literature. Indeed,
in such a poem as The Seafarer, which systematically appropriates heroic vocabulary to serve
Christian purposes, lof is taken far in the direction of the theological sense ‘eternal salvation’ (see
Sea 78a).
lxxiv INTRODUCTION
of other sentiments that pertain with equal force to either pagan or Christian societies,
including the poet’s emphases on loyalty to kindred, generosity as regards the distribu-
tion of wealth, and the crucial social duty of standing behind one’s spoken word. In a
heroic context, this latter principle often takes the form of a person’s living up to the
solemn pledge that he will act in a manner worthy of praise.1
A noteworthy feature of Beowulf is that it makes no mention of the more lurid
aspects of Germanic paganism, such as human sacri¢ce to Wōden or other Northern
gods, when reference is made to heathen practices (Robinson 1985: 11). The represen-
tation of pagan society as something only intermittently reprehensible suggests a sense
of continuity between the people depicted in the poem and those of the poet’s day. An
instructive contrast to the Beowulf poet’s manner in this regard is Ibn FaŹlān’s account
of the cremation funeral of a leading chieftain of the Rūs, Swedish merchants who had
settled in the region of the Volga (see Smyser 1965; Garmonsway & Simpson 1968:
341–5). This narrative includes a detailed account of the repugnant practices that
¢gured in the ceremony he observed, including ritualized intercourse and the ritual
killing of human beings, dogs, and horses. If the Beowulf poet was aware of similar
customs, he chose to direct his audience’s attention elsewhere, conceivably as part of
an effort ‘to build a place in his people’s collective memory for their lost ancestors.’2
Also absent from Beowulf (as has been mentioned) is any reference to angels, saints,
relics, Christ, the cross, divine worship, church observances, or particular points of
dogma. Still, the general impression we are left with is scarcely that of pagan
ignorance. We almost seem to move in ordinary Christian surroundings. Often referred
to as familiar topics are God’s governance of the world and of every human being, the
evil of sin, the doings of the devil, the last judgment, and heaven and hell. Though
mostly short, these allusions show by their remarkable frequency how thoroughly the
whole of life on earth was felt to be dominated by Christian ideals. The author is
familiar with traditional Christian terminology and evinces some knowledge (whether
direct or indirect) of the Bible (especially Psalms), the liturgy, and miscellaneous
ecclesiastical literature including, it seems, some features of saints’ lives, mirabilia, ser-
mons, and apocrypha.3 Among speci¢c themes derived from the Old Testament (and
occurring in Genesis A also) may be noted the story of Cain, the giants, and the deluge
(107–10, 1261b–5a, 1689b–93). The song of Creation (92–8) may belong in that same
category, though its content need not be regarded as speci¢cally Judeo-Christian.
Furthermore, the representation of old heathen elements in a manner consistent with
Christian thought may be readily observed. The pagan cremation ceremony ¢nds a
counterpart in allusions to the burial of the dead, which (though practiced in pagan
times) was the only funerary custom approved by the Church (2457b–8a; cf. 445b–6a,
3107–9). Although the pronouncement of anathemas per se is not a speci¢cally reli-
gious practice, whether pagan or Christian, the ancient curse placed on the dragon’s

1
See 80–1a and 2510–15, and cf. 435–40a, 535–8, 636b–8, 675–87, etc. The key term for this
pledge is bēot ‘heroic oath,’ a word that is mistranslated if taken to mean ‘boast’ (see Gloss.). A
semantically related term is ġilp or ġylp (again see Gloss.), a word that (either as a simplex or in
the compound forms ġilpcwide, ġylpspr®ċ, and ġylpword) can be used in a negative sense to
denote idle or foolish boasting, but that can also carry a neutral or positive connotation, like bēot
(cf. Renoir 1963).
2
Robinson 1985: 13. See also id. The Grove 8 (2001) 255–76.
3
See in particular the notes on 90–8, 183b, 942¯ff., 1700–84, 1743¯ff., 1759¯f., 3173–6a, and
3180¯f. Orchard 1995: 109–15 et passim discusses mirabilia; in 2003: 149–51 he reviews hagio-
graphical analogues. The account of the Grendel creatures’ descent from Cain, in particular, may
be based in part on apocryphal and rabbinical traditions; speci¢c debts to the apocryphal Book of
Enoch have been discerned by Kaske Speculum 46 (1971) 421–31, with additional discussion by
Mellinkoff ASE 8 (1979) 143–62 and 9 (1981) 183–97. The apocryphal Visio S. Pauli underlies
both the description of Grendel’s mere in Beowulf and the end of Blickling homily xvi, whatever
the relationship is between those two latter texts (see Appx.A §¯6 and p.¯clxxviii infra).
 CHRISTIAN AND HEROIC VALUES lxxv
fateful treasure is clothed in Christian formulas (3069–75)1 and is declared to be void
before the higher will of God (3054b–7). The pre-Christian concept of wyrd, too, is
subsumed into the notion of divine providence, as it is in Alfredian prose literature
(Ogilvy in King & Stevens 1979: 59–66). G®ð ā wyrd swā hīo scel, declares Bēowulf
in expectation of the ¢ght with Grendel (455), but again, putting the same idea into
different words, in that same speech he avows, ð®r ġel©fan sceal / dryhtnes dōme sē þe
hine dēað nimeð (440b–1). Wyrd (as is mentioned above) is thus not felt to be an
ominous personal presence, despite comments to that effect that have been voiced in
the critical literature (sometimes with capitalization of that noun to emphasize the per-
soni¢cation thought to be involved).2 Indeed, the functions of fate and God are often
quite parallel. When the narrator makes the gnomic assertion wyrd oft nereð / unf®ġne
eorl (572b–3a), he is not aÌrming the power of pagan fate as a force separate from the
Christian God. Rather he is voicing, in the sententious manner that was characteristic of
his age, the truism that ‘a person will live if he is not ordained to die,’ ‘if his number is
not up.’ Wyrd can thus denote death, so that the clause nefne him wītiġ God wyrd
forstōde / ond ðæs mannes mōd (1056–7a) need mean nothing more than ‘if the wise
Lord had not prevented his death — and the man’s courage, too.’
Predominantly religious in nature are the general tone of the poem and its ethical
viewpoint. As a sign of devotion, the readiness to express gratitude to God on practic-
ally any occasion (227b–8, 625–8a, 928–9a, 1397–8, 1626–8, 1778b–81, 1997b–8, 2794–
8) is apparent through much of the poem. The virtues of moderation, unsel¢shness, and
consideration for others — virtues restricted to no particular religion, but associated
with Christian precepts — are both practiced and appreciated. Particularly striking is
the moral re¢nement of the two principal characters, Bēowulf and Hrōðgār. Unsoli-
cited, the hero offers the Danes help at a time of dire need. Even though insulted by
Ūnferð, Bēowulf holds no grudge against the Danish þyle; to the contrary, when he
return’s Ūnferð’s sword, which had proved useless, he offers him a personal compli-
ment and ¢nds no fault with the weapon (1807–12). Later, when Queen Hyġd offers
Bēowulf the Geatish throne after the death of King Hyġelāc, he refuses that honor,
preferring to act as guardian for his cousin, the young heir Heardrēd (2369–74a). When,
still later, the dragon attacks his homeland, he accepts personal responsibility for that
disastrous event (2329–32). Never is he shown berating the thief who, he eventually
learns (2403–5), incited the dragon’s wrath. At death’s door, he takes pleasure in
having won the dragon’s treasure for his people, not for himself (2794–8). As for
Hrōðgār, more than anyone in the poem, he utters precepts that one might expect to
hear issuing from a pulpit rather than from the mouth of an unlearned pagan (1700–84).
Characterized as an old man from the time he ¢rst appears upon the scene (in a por-
trayal that might remind one of the aged Charlemagne of the Chanson de Roland), he
speaks throughout as a pious, kindly, and gracious embodiment of paternal wisdom.
His ¢rst impulse upon hearing of Bēowulf’s triumph over Grendel is to thank God, not
the hero, for this wonderful event (928–31). The tears he sheds at the time when the
young hero departs from Denmark to return to his native land (1870–80a) resemble
those of a parent who fears he may not see a loved one again.3

1
The curse begins with reference to Doomsday and continues with mention of the hellish pun-
ishment in store for those who violate its provisions. Its phrasing, which has been called ‘wholly
Christian’ in cast (Klaeber 1911–12: [32]), owes much to the language of religious anathema
(Orchard 2003: 154), even while functioning within a prehistoric context.
2
For illustrations of this critical tendency, see Shippey & Haarder 1998: 276–7 (Kemble), 384
(J.R. Green), 397–8 (Toller). Cf., by contrast, verse 1205b (hyne wyrd fornam) with 452b (ġif meċ
hild nime), 1123b (þ®r gūð fornam), 557b (heaþor®s fornam), and 441 (hine dēað nimeð). The
personi¢cation of wyrd, or any of these nearly interchangeable nouns, is here very faint at best.
3
Granted, none of the aforementioned qualities (including particularly Hrōðgār’s tears) is
Christian to the demonstrable exclusion of native values that were honored before the advent of
Christianity. Concerning those values we know little, since most of the evidence for them is
lxxvi INTRODUCTION
ALLEGORICAL AND EXEGETICAL APPROACHES

The Christian elements of Beowulf are dyed so deeply in the poem’s fabric, then, that
they cannot well be explained as the work of a reviser or interpolator, as was once
thought. Whether they extend as far as self-conscious religious allegory is another
question, one that has been debated energetically and with great thoroughness.1 The
dominant strain in the recent higher criticism of the poem has been to accept its
essential Christianity, and perhaps its larger symbolic value as a tale of good locked in
a deadly struggle against powers of evil, while resisting arcane exegetical interpreta-
tions of either the narrative as a whole or its individual parts. Still, allegoresis cannot
be ruled out, given its frequent role in the Christian literature of the Middle Ages.
Seeing the hero as spiritually Ïawed from a patristic perspective,2 Goldsmith offers a
series of readings of the poem as a moral exemplum on the dangers of pride and
cupidity (1960, 1962, Neophil. 48 [1964] 60–72, id. 1970). Bandy, correspondingly,
sees Heorot as a type of Augustine’s earthly city, founded by Cain and thus tainted
with the very evils that the hero, himself tainted, would seem to be struggling against
(PLL 9 [1973] 235–49; GRM 26 [1976] 14–25). D. Williams 1982, viewing the poem as
secular allegory, argues that the allusions to Cain provide a unifying motif for the
poem, which depicts all human history as plagued by the spirit of fratricide. Adopting a
very different allegorical approach, one that is based on a view of the hero as a Christ-
like ¢gure, Cabaniss JEGP 54 (1955) 195–201 and McNamee 1960 ¢nd, respectively,
echoes of the Easter liturgy and elements of an allegory of salvation in the hero’s
second great ¢ght and in the plot as a whole.3
If such interpretations as the ones just mentioned cannot be said to have won general
acceptance,4 the outright skepticism with which they have sometimes been greeted has
stemmed in no small part from an unwillingness to see the hero, whatever his failings,
as the seriously Ïawed, hubristic character that one such approach would make him out

compromised by being mediated through churchmen who had little reason to depict heathendom in
a sympathetic light. What is noteworthy is that a Christian author has depicted unbaptized heathens
in such a frequently favorable way, thus in effect answering in his own fashion Alcuin’s rhetorical
question Quid Hinieldus cum Christo? (Appx.A § 4).
1
For a nuanced review of this question, see Lee in Bjork & Niles 1997: 233–54, w. refs.
InÏuenced by the neomythological criticism associated with Northrop Frye, Lee himself (Eng.
Stud. in Canada 19 [1993] 201–8; id. 1998) views the poet’s debt to Christianity in terms of
broadly based cultural archetypes rather than self-conscious allegories.
2
In retrospect, Christian allegorical readings of Beowulf (as opposed to allegorical readings
grounded in 19th-century theories of nature mythology) can be traced back to a tendency, identi¢-
able since the 1930s, to see the hero as a morally Ïawed character rather than the model of coura-
geous leadership that he had customarily been taken to represent in the earlier criticism. Dubois
PMLA 49 (1934) 374–405 makes a moral distinction between the young hero and the aged king
and characterizes the latter as subject to pride and avarice. Tolkien (1953: 14–15, 17) strongly
indicts what he ¢nds to be Bēowulf’s misguided heroic ethos whereby, in particular, the old king
needlessly endangered his people through his rash decision to ¢ght the dragon alone. Much of the
weight of this argument rests on Wīġlāf’s words (spoken with the wisdom of hindsight) regretting
his lord’s decision to rouse the dragon to ¢ght (3077–84a). Others who inÏuentially have seen the
hero as both Ïawed and necessarily damned (without regard to possible allegoresis) are Stanley
1963 and Benson 1970. Some have seen both the hero and heroic society itself, in different mea-
sures, as fatally Ïawed, e.g. Leyerle 1965, Berger & Leicester 1974, D.Williams 1982, Reynolds
Christianity and Literature 27.4 (1978) 27–42, and Fajardo-Acosta 1989.
3
Cabaniss’s point is developed in additional detail by Black and Bethune Scintilla 1 (1984) 5–
23. McNamee also presents his thesis in Honor and the Epic Hero (New York, 1960) 86–117. Cf.
Takayanagi Stud. in Eng. Lit. (Japan) 37 (1961) 149–63 and, on Beo and the liturgy of baptism,
Nicholson Classica et Mediaevalia 25 (1964) 166–97.
4
See, e.g., speci¢c responses by A. Bonjour in Twelve Beowulf Papers (Neuchâtel, 1962) 173–
89, Mitchell Neophil. 47 (1963) 126–38, Halverson UTQ 35 (1966) 260–78, Niles 1983: 83–91,
Pigg Neophil. 74 (1990) 601–7.
 CHRISTIAN AND HEROIC VALUES lxxvii
to be.1 On the other hand, few scholars construe the hero as a ¢gura of Christ, given
that certain features in his portrayal are not readily reconciled with Christian ethics;
these include his quickness to boast of his own achievements (e.g. at 408b–9a), his
revenge ethic (1384b–5), his killing of the warrior Dæġhrefn with his own hands (2501–
8a), his keen interest in winning the dragon’s gold and not just protecting his kingdom
(2535b–7, 2794–8), and his lack of contrition at death (2732b–43a). An orthodox orien-
tation of an Augustinian nature toward the dangers of earthly pride and the need for
heavenly redemption is, however, as easy to discern in this poem as in the explicitly
religious works of this period. While resisting allegorical interpretations of the poem,
Huppé 1984, for example, still ¢nds that it offers a radical critique of the heroic code
from an Augustinian perspective.2
To be distinguished from allegorical approaches to the narrative as a whole are
studies of particular scenes or motifs that, though usually taken in a non-allusive sense,
are arguably illumined in their symbolic dimension by reference to patristic or scrip-
tural sources. Many of these are identi¢ed in the Commentary. Studies along these lines
include M. Bloom¢eld 1949–51, on Ūnferð as a symbol of Discordia; id. CL 14 (1962)
36–41, on ealde riht 2330a as speci¢cally signifying pre-Mosaic natural law; Helder
NM 78 (1977) 317–25, on the Christological symbolism of the plundered hoard; Allen
NM 78 (1977) 239–40, on the similar symbolism of the parting of Grendel’s shoulder
joint; Bolton 1978, on many possible scriptural allusions; and Helder English Studies in
Canada 13 (1987) 243–55 on Heorot and the typology of Ecclesia.3 While an admitted
degree of plausibility is to be associated with all these parallels, not all of them compel
equal support or have an equally strong bearing on the literary understanding of the
narrative.
One reason for some scholars’ reluctance to endorse the presence of complex Chris-
tian allegory or arcane Christological symbolism in Beowulf may be that the narrative
is already steeped in a kind of double meaning, in that the chief adversaries stand for
more than their Ïesh-and-blood value. Even if the roots of the story antedate Christian-
ity (or are simply non-religious), the English author has exalted the ¢ghts with the three
monsters into conÏicts between the powers of good and evil. The role of Grendel, in
particular, may once have been ¢lled by an ordinary Scandinavian troll or draugr
(revenant); the pagan Danes and Ġēatas may think of him as no more than a kind of
man-monster; but we in the audience are privileged to recognize him as a descendant of
Cain and an embodiment of satanic evil. Many of his appellations are unquestionably
epithets of Satan: among these are fēond mancynnes (164b; cf. mancynnes fēond 1276a),
Godes andsaca (786b, 1682b), fēond on helle (101b), and helle hæfta (788a).4 Grendel
belongs to the wicked progeny of Cain, the ¢rst murderer; his actions are represented in
a manner suggestive of the conduct of the evil one; and he dwells with his demon
mother in a place that calls up visions of hell.
Also allied with devils is Grendel’s mother. Although she has a motive in attacking
the king’s hall (whereas her son had none), the two of them are of a kind in that they
are both accursed creatures, descended from Cain, who dwell in a watery wasteland.

1
See p.lxxvi. InÏuentially aÌrming the poem’s heroic ethos are Irving (1968, 1984, 1989), G.
Clark (1990; id. in Bjork & Niles 1997: 271–90), and J.M. Hill MLQ 40 (1979) 3–16, id. 1995.
2
Cf. Dahlberg 1988. Other inÏuential Augustinian approaches, some of them tending toward
allegoresis and not all of them consistent with one another, include Schücking 1929a (on Bēowulf
as a type of the rex justus, a gentle king of peace), Hamilton 1946, Kaske 1958 (on sapientia et
fortitudo as the poem’s controlling theme), and Robertson 1951 (on Grendel’s mere as the
scriptural garden of the unjust). See also note 1 at p.¯lxxvi supra.
3
Rollinson ASE 2 (1973) 271–84 provides a review of exegetical approaches.
4
See Tolkien 1936: 278–80 for discussion of Grendel’s epithets (whether diabolical or other-
wise), and Klaeber 1911–12: [18–22] for Beowul¢an vocabulary pertaining to the devil. Parallels
between Grendel and the fenland demons of Felix of Croyland’s Vita S. Guthlaci have been
pointed out (Whitelock 1951: 80–1).
lxxviii INTRODUCTION
The epithets by which she is called evoke her damned and bestial nature (e.g. grund-
wyrġenne 1518b, brimwylf 1506a, 1599a).
The dragon, too, though its attack is motivated by the theft of a cup from his hoard,
is an expression of more than ordinary malevolence. In hagiographical tradition the
dragon was frequently identi¢ed with the devil, the chief scriptural basis of this associ-
ation being the Book of Revelation.1 While most readers have responded to the Beo-
wulf dragon as ¢rst and foremost a terrifying creature of the natural world, Tolkien
(1936: 259), remarking that it ‘approaches draconitas rather than draco,’ emphasizes
its symbolic value, associating it with the vices of malice and greed. Religious associa-
tions of this kind, even if questioned in the modern critical literature,2 could well have
been made by members of the original audience who were acquainted with exegetical
modes of interpretation and with the conventional role of dragons as adversaries of
saints.3 Given Bēowulf’s prior combats against creatures of outright evil, his ¢ght
against the dragon, too, though never polarized to such an extent,4 is readily viewed in
spiritual terms as a con¢rmation of the theme of the triumph of good over evil that is
the substance of the earlier part of the poem.5 In this concluding episode, of course, the
joy that would have attended such a victory if the king had survived is muted by great
sorrow, accentuated by the Ġēatas’ fears of their own dissolution.

THE PAGAN HERO AS SPIRITUAL WARRIOR

As for the central ¢gure, Bēowulf himself, the hero and king, those readers who, im-
pressed by his martial appearance at the beginning of the action, expect to ¢nd him an
aggressive warrior bearing a resemblance to Achilles or Sigfrit will be disposed at
times to think him somewhat tame, sentimental, and fond of talking. Indeed, the ¢nal
estimate of his character by his faithful thegns is chieÏy praise of his gentleness and
clemency (3180–2). All the same, Bēowulf is ¢rmly characterized as a man of courage
and indomitable will. His ¢rst deed in the poem, to make ready a boat so as to sail to
Denmark (198b–201), marks him out as a person of action. After Grendel’s mother has
made her sudden, unanticipated attack, that impression is con¢rmed by his emphat-
ically supportive response to Hrōðgār’s grief: Bēowulf calls at once for counteraction
(1384–96) and is willing to undertake it himself. Many years later, after the ¢redrake
has attacked his homeland and he determines to ¢ght it to the death, some of his
countrymen were evidently offering timid counsel (3079–83). His response to the
dragon’s threat, as to all others that he faces, is in accord with his characterization as a
man whose dominant impulse is to act, not to be daunted by the risks of action.6 In this

1
Goldsmith 1970: 43–4, 129–35, w. refs. See Rev. 12: 9 with its reference to ‘the great dragon
. . . that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan’; cf. Rev. 20: 2.
2
E.g. by Gang 1952; Sisam 1958, 1965: 25; Stanley 1966: 107–8. In defense of Tolkien, see
Bonjour PMLA 68 (1953) 1–12.
3
See Rauer 2000. In the medieval bestiary tradition, as is pointed out by Schichler, Proc. of the
PMR Conference 11 [1986] 159–75, the dragon is presented as symbolizing Satan.
4
Inimical as the dragon may be (note the phrase atol inwitg®st 2670a), it is never called by the
epithets that identify Grendel as literally diabolical, as is pointed out by Emerson PMLA 21 (1906)
882.
5
Contrast Siġemund’s dragon-slaying (884b–97), which has only heroic connotations.
6
While Bēowulf is shown to be subject to dark thoughts in this scene swā him ġeþ©we ne wæs
(2332b), and while his long retrospective speech before the dragon ¢ght has been read as an
implicit debate with himself regarding what course to take (see the note on 2425–2537), never is
he explicitly shown debating the wisdom of mounting a counterattack against this unprecedented
threat (see in particular 2345–51a). Acting with prudence, he takes time to prepare a great iron
shield as protection against the dragon’s ¢ery breath (2337–41a). Aware that, even armed thus, he
may die in the ¢ght (2535b–7), he embraces each of his men (for the last time, we are told, 2516–
17) before deploying them where he wants them to be (2529–32a) and setting out for the barrow
 STRUCTURE AND UNITY lxxix
regard, whatever one makes of his powers of judgment, he has the zeal of a saint and a
saint’s resolution, even while lacking any consciousness of the religious signi¢cance of
what he does.
That the hero who overcomes this trio of monsters is a decidedly unusual ¢gure of
very uncertain historical associations has been pointed out many times. Indeed, a plau-
sible argument has been made that the poet chose an unknown hero for his tale precise-
ly so as to have the freedom to offer not a celebration of the old heroic ideal, but rather
‘a serious and complex meditation upon the meaning and uses’ of that ideal (Benson
1970: 33). Striking is the degree to which Bēowulf’s character differs from that of the
‘strong John’ hero who is cast in a structurally similar role in folkloric versions of the
same plot (see pp.¯xxxvii¯ff. supra). Headstrong as Bēowulf is at times, ignorant as he
may be of the true nature of the universe and his place in it, the poet has cast him as a
magnanimous hero, a ‘defending, protecting, redeeming being’ (Kemble ed.2 ii, x), an
unsel¢sh person who is willing to give up his life not just for the welfare of his people
but to defend others needing help, as well. We might even feel inclined to recognize
features of the Christian Savior in the destroyer of hellish ¢ends, the warrior brave and
gentle, the king who dies for his people (cf. Donahue 1965). Though delicately kept in
the background, such an inÏection of the story lends the tale a rewarding religious
dimension. It also helps to explain a great puzzle. One cannot well understand why the
poet contented himself with a plot of fabulous adventures set in pagan times, and why a
text of this kind, which is of no particular utility, was preserved in an ecclesiastical
setting, unless the narrative was meant to derive a superior dignity by suggesting the
most exalted hero-life known to Christians.1

VI. STRUCTURE AND UNITY2

GENERAL STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLES3

The structure of the poem has been inÏuentially described by Tolkien as ‘essentially a
balance, an opposition of ends and beginnings. In its simplest terms it is a contrasted
description of two moments in a great life, rising and setting; an elaboration of the
ancient and intensely moving contrast between youth and age, ¢rst achievement and

alone. Thus, although he is characterized as moodier and more reÏective in old age than in youth,
his resolve never falters.
1
Although based on Klaeber’s discerning powers of judgment, this view (like others expressed
in these pages) are not likely to be shared by all readers of the poem. Understandably, given the
controversies that have attended aspects of the work’s thematic design, one tendency in the
criticism of the past half-century has been to accept the possibility that members of the poet’s
original audiences may have responded to the narrative in different ways, some of them irrecon-
cilable, in a manner analogous to the poem’s reception today. See Niles in Bjork & Niles 1997: 1–
12; cf. Mitchell 1988a: 41–54, Joy in Joy & Ramsey 2006: xxiv. Some readers or listeners may
thus have been more willing than others to discern religious signi¢cance in a work of this char-
acter.
2
For an enlightening historical conspectus of critical views, see Shippey 1997; see also Orchard
2003: 57–97 and Chck. 19–23. Aside from those mentioned in the following notes, some of the
weightier earlier studies are these: Cony. 32–81, Grundtvig Brage og Idun 4 (1841) 481–538,
Köhler ZfdPh. 2 (1870) 305–21, Schrøder 1875; H. Dederich Historische und geographische
Studien zum ags. BeowulÏiede (Cologne, 1877), Hornburg 1877, Möller, R. Wülker Grundriss zur
Geschichte der ags. Lit. (Leipzig, 1885), ten Brink, Berendsohn 1935.
3
In addition to the critical approaches cited infra, among the earlier views of particular moment
are those of R. Heinzel Über den Stil der altgerm. Poesie, Q&F 10 (Strassburg, 1875) & AfdA 10
(1884) 215–39, Tolman PMLA 3 (1887) 17–47, ten Brink P.Grdr.1 iia 522–32, B. Haeuschkel Die
Technik der Erzählung im BeowulÏiede (Breslau diss., 1904), J. Routh Two Stud. in the Ballad
Theory of the Beowulf (Johns Hopkins diss., 1905), Hart 1907, W. Ker 1908, Smithson 1910.
lxxx INTRODUCTION
¢nal death.’1 This overall balance and opposition thus recapitulates the principle of
contrastive juxtaposition that is evident at several different levels of structural analysis.
Especially at the narrative level is to be found an iterated opposition of beginnings and
endings, as with the arrival and departure of Scyld Scē¢ng (4–52), the making and
unmaking of Heorot (67–85), the origin and (by anticipation) destruction of the
Grendel clan (99–114), and so forth (see pp.¯xcii¯ff. infra). As so frequently is the case
in regard to the poem’s contrasts (such as that between Siġemund and Heremōd 874–
915, and between Hyġd and Fremu 1925–62), the connection between these two mo-
ments in the hero’s life is understated, being paratactic rather than hypotactic: the
hero’s deeds in Denmark do not require or presuppose a continuation;2 the ¢ght with
the dragon does not depend for its interpretation on the events in Denmark, the two late
references to the hero’s youthful exploits being cursory and inessential (2351¯ff., 2521;
cf. 3005¯n.). It is thus the person of the hero that holds the two parts together, and the
change of character encountered in him (and the turn toward a more somber narrative
mood) after the passage of so many years (2327–32) serves to reinforce the impression
of the poem’s structure as contrastive.
The work may also be conceived (as it generally was among early commentators) as
a series of three great feats in the form of encounters with monsters. This conception of
the structure has often been preferred in connection with the comparative analysis and
classi¢cation of plot elements, and hence those who favor this approach have empha-
sized the relative independence of the hero’s battles with the two descendants of Cain.3
Those who adopt an allegorical or exegetical approach, or who take the poem’s theme
to be a critique of the heroic code, also not infrequently conceptualize the poem as
structured by its series of three battles with monsters.4 Tripartite division is also parti-
cularly harmonious with some approaches from the standpoint of gender studies, since
gender may well appear central to the concerns of the work if the ¢ght with Grendel’s
mother is viewed as the poem’s literal center.5 It is true that the narrative in respect to
certain particulars discourages this view, refusing independence and agency to Gren-
del’s mother.6 Yet the struggle with her is indeed marked off in various ways as sep-
arate and weighty, and granting it such a degree of independence allows us to perceive
a general pattern of increasing peril and complexity in the hero’s encounters with
monsters. Thus, the interest of the second contest is enhanced by its elaborate, uncanny
scenery, the variety and de¢niteness of its incidents (in comparison to those of the ¢ght
with Grendel), and the dramatic quality of the battle. The hero is fully armed, using
weapons in addition to his mundgripe, and yet he is so hard pressed that only a kind of

1
Tolkien 1936: 271. A somewhat similar balance is perceived by Engelhardt PMLA 70 (1955)
825–52 and Locherbie-Cameron Poetica 10 (1978) 1–11; also Irving 1968: 192–246.
2
Only a hint of Beowulf’s future kingship is offered after the second victory, 1850¯ff.; a fainter
echo of this note is heard after the ¢rst triumph, 861.
3
See, e.g., chap. 1 of J. Nist The Structure & Texture of Beowulf (São Paulo, 1959), Sisam 1965,
Babb Arlington Qtrly. 2 (1970) 15–28, Puhvel 1979, Abraham 1993. Smithers (1961) argues, on the
basis of Icelandic parallels, that the tripartite structure is not the poet’s invention but is an inherited
structural feature; similarly Rogers 1955.
4
See McNamee 1960, Leyerle 1965, Gardner PLL 6 (1970), 227–62, Abraham 1993. Some
exceptions: Goldsmith 1960, C. Moorman Kings & Captains (Lexington, 1971) 65¯f., Tennenhouse
Bucknell Rev. 19.3 (1971) 137–46, Jorgensen in Sagnaskemmtun, ed. R. Simek et al. (Vienna, 1986)
201–8.
5
See Vaught Allegorica 5 (1980) 125–37, Chance 1986: 95–108, Acker PMLA 121 (2006) 102–
16.
6
The poet, when he ¢rst introduces her, immediately changes the topic to her son and then
anticlimactically underlines the inferior strength of women, along with this particular creature’s
timid haste (1258–95); the scribe (or perhaps the poet) seems continually to have forgotten her
gender (see note to 1260¯f.); and of course she is never given a name of her own but remains,
grammatically and otherwise, possessed by her offspring.
 STRUCTURE AND UNITY lxxxi
miracle saves him. There is, moreover, an element of justice in representing the combat
with the mother as more formidable and dire. Grendel, who has ravaged the hall merely
out of his boundless enmity toward the human society from which he and his kind are
cast out, has earned the justice meted out to him. His mother, to the contrary, acts out
of a more immediate need for vengeance, a motive that the hero himself applauds in
other contexts (1384¯f.; 423, 1668¯ff.). She is, besides, sought out in her own home;
hence, manifestly more sympathy is due her. The third contest, then, evinces further
dramatic development, as the element of uncertainty that pervades the second has rip-
ened to a sense of impending doom. The dragon (whose depredations likewise have an
immediate, if insuÌcient, cause) is entirely too much for his assailant. The venerable
king’s situation can elicit only feelings of trepidation. He adopts a special measure for
protection (2337¯ff.) and is forti¢ed by the support of a youthful comrade, but the ¢nal
victory is won only at the cost of the hero’s life. The account of this ¢ght, which, like
that against Grendel’s mother, falls into three divisions, is lent special interest by the
introduction of the companions, the glori¢cation of one man’s loyalty, and the added
element of speech-making. The three ¢ghts with monsters are, it should be added,
structured similarly, namely in setting forth the origins of strife, the preliminaries to
combat, the ¢ght itself, and the community’s response in its aftermath.1
Alternative analyses of the poem’s structure have been offered, not all of which
necessarily conÏict with an understanding of its design as bipartite or tripartite, and
many of which share Tolkien’s premise that the structure is based on theme rather than
plot.2 Some have argued that the narrative presents not an elegiac contrast of two
moments in a life but a pattern of continual decline or entropy,3 or temporal cyclical-
ity,4 or a ‘circumscribed ¢eld in which the themes are drawn by a centre of attraction
— in this case, the character of the good warrior.’5 Likewise the argument has been
offered that the narrative is ordered by its sea voyages,6 or more broadly by journeys,7
or by the allusions to Cain,8 or that the funerals in the poem serve to elicit particular
responses to the work’s themes and are the poem’s chief structural device.9 It has been
maintained that the ¢gure Hyġelāc lends important structural unity to the poem, be-
cause it is Bēowulf’s relation to him as both young thegn and old successor that ties the
poem’s two parts together.10 The moral excursus known as Hrōðgār’s sermon (1700–
84) has been viewed as the thematic and literal center around which the poem is built.11

1
As regards individual motifs, the function of the speeches (e.g. those uttered before the battles)
may be compared. Parallels in minor details between the ¢rst and the second incident could be
mentioned: cf. 129¯ff., 473¯ff., and 1321¯ff.; 452¯f. and 1482¯f.; 625¯f. and 1397¯f.; 636¯ff. and 1490¯f.;
likewise between the ¢rst and the second main part: cf. 1769 and 2209; 86¯f. and 2302.¯f.; 1994¯ff.
and 3079¯ff.; and see supra, pp.¯xlv¯f.
2
Some scholars of the present day naturally question the very impulse to discover a single, uni-
fying theme in the poem. Doubts on this score were raised already by Moore MP 65.2 (1968) 191–
201, Oshitari Poetica 1 (1974) 106–13.
3
See Rogers 1955, Stevens MLQ 39 (1978) 219–38. In a similar vein, Leyerle supposes that the
structure is dictated by a theme of failure designed to reveal ‘the fatal contradiction at the core of
heroic society’ (1965: 89; see, however, Niles 1983: 235–47); cf. J.M. Hill 1995.
4
Haudry Études Indo-Européennes 9 (1984) 1–56; along similar lines, Horowitz NM 85 (1984)
295–304, McHugh 1987, Lee 1998: 205–31.
5
Blom¢eld 1938: 396.
6
Ramsey NM 72 (1971) 51–9.
7
Herschend 2001: 13–19.
8
See D. Williams 1982: 40–70.
9
See Owen-Crocker 2000. In addition to the funerals of Scyld and Bēowulf, and of the slain at
Finnsburg, she regards the lament of the Last Survivor as representing a funeral.
10
See Brodeur PMLA 68 (1953) 1183–95, id. 1959: 71–87, Fast AnMed. 12 (1971) 90–9. In a
similar vein, McDavid (in Atwood & Hill 1969: 230–4) sees parallels between Bēowulf and
Hrōðulf as central to the structure.
11
See Earle 1892 lxxxvii¯f., Goldsmith 1962: 78–80.
lxxxii INTRODUCTION
Themes such as redemption and judgment, or wisdom and fortitude, or joy, or feuding,
or revenge and reward, or the ideals of the comitatus, or rites of separation and con-
gregation, have been said to unify the poem.1 The striking variety of the poem’s com-
ponents has been explained as a scrupulous synthesis of available genres to create a
literary compendium that, like the Canterbury Tales and some other great works, both
bodies forth and stands above its literary period.2 Invoking the number of lines in the
poem or some portion of it, or the number and arrangement of the ¢tts, some scholars
have predicated of the structure a subtle arithmetic scheme.3 The suggestion has been
offered, as well, that the macrostructure exempli¢es an ingenious variety of ring com-
position, whereby paired structural elements successively enclose similarly paired ele-
ments, in an envelope-like pattern. Hence, the poem’s paired introduction and ¢nale
enclose the hero’s contests with Grendel and the dragon, which enclose two celebra-
tions, which enclose the battle with Grendel’s mother.4 There is less critical attention to
the structure of the poem now than there was in the heyday of formalist criticism,5 and,
indeed, some more recent voices portray the quest to identify the poem’s structure as a
critical solipsism, an attempt to impose a modern impulse toward structural closure on
a composition that should be allowed its peculiar irresolution and inner diversity.6
Such disagreements and indeterminacies notwithstanding, most recent scholarship
has viewed the poem’s macrostructure ¢rst and foremost as bi- or tripartite.7 Yet if the
poem is conceived as comprising three parts, the section commonly known as ‘Bēo-
wulf’s Homecoming’ (1888–2199), concerning the hero’s return to the court of Hyġelāc
and his reception there, cannot be ¢tted well to the scheme, standing as it does outside
the compass of the three battles and recapitulating the ¢rst two. This consideration has
doubtless played a signi¢cant role in prompting arguments that the Homecoming is
extraneous, perhaps a conclusion crafted before the poet decided to narrate the ¢ght
with the dragon,8 or else a later composition designed to cement together two originally
separate poems (see pp.¯xc¯f. infra). The problem is not as acute under Tolkien’s ana-
lysis of the structure, since the passage may be regarded as a terminal device, summar-
izing and allowing the ¢rst part of the poem to culminate in the warm glow of triumph
and harmony among the Ġēatas, in order to heighten contrast with what follows.9
Hence, because he saw its structure as contrastive rather than iterative, it is natural that

1
See, respectively, Fisher PMLA 73 (1958), 171–83, Kaske 1958 (also PMLA 74 [1959] 489–
94), Durant TSL 7 (1962) 61–9 (see earlier H. Wright 1957), Kahrl 1972 (see also Thormann Lit. &
Psych. 43 [1997] 65–76), Liggins NM 74 (1973) 193–213, Frey Recovering Lit. 14 (1986) 51–70
(cf. Chickering JEGP 91 [1992] 489–509), Vial in Points de vue sur Beowulf, ed. C. Stévanovitch
(Nancy, 1999) 79–98.
2
See J. Harris PCP 17 (1982) 16–23, id. 2000.
3
See, e.g., Carrigan 1967, Bolton 1978: 75–6, 177–8, Hart SN 53 (1981) 3–35, Huppé 1984: 61–
102, Gardner in Grinda & Wetzel 1993: 209–23, Howlett 1997: 504–40; cf. Kisor ‘Numerical
Composition, Howlett, and Beowulf¯’ ASE 36 (in press), with refs. re this and ring composition.
4
See Niles 1983: 157–62.
5
An exception: Lapidge accounts for the non-linear narrative structure as ‘a reÏex of the poet’s
concern with the mental processes of perception and understanding’ (2001: 63). Cf. Herman &
Childs Style 37 (2003) 177–203.
6
See, e.g., Frantzen 1990: 168–200, Overing 1990: 33–67, Earl 1994: 161–88.
7
Or both: Hume SP 72 (1975) 1–27; R. Hanning The Individual in 12th-Cent. Romance (New
Haven, 1977) 174–5. Creed, in De Gustibus, ed. J. Foley (New York, 1992) 85–109, perceives a
¢ve-part structure.
8
Brandl P.Grdr.2 iia, pp.¯1003–4.
9
Cf. Palmer AnMed. 17 (1976) 5–21, arguing that the scene of gift-bestowal in 2177–99 unites
the halves of the poem by foreshadowing the hero’s future kingship. See further Du Bois PMLA 49
(1934) 374–405 on thematic connections between the halves, and Rosier ES 54 (1973) 1–6 on
parallels between the ends of the ¢rst and second parts. Irving 1982 offers a rationale for the
seemingly unnecessary passage in which the hero recounts his adventures in Denmark (1651–2199)
as a response to Hyġelāc’s skepticism about the hero and about this particular journey.
 STRUCTURE AND UNITY lxxxiii
Tolkien should have objected ¢rst and foremost to the assessment that the poem is
Ïawed precisely because it is dominated (both structurally and otherwise) by monsters,
at the expense of the more interesting legendary and historical material that it forces to
the perimeters of the narrative, in the form of digressions and episodes.
Equally in evidence are structural effects of a more local nature. Particularly prom-
inent is a continual pattern of dramatic reversals serving as a vehicle for the theme of
edwenden. Thus, for example, the mood of perturbation produced by the attack of
Grendel’s mother is countered by the hero’s high spirits and vow of revenge; this mood
is in turn countered by his peril in her underwater abode, which is countered by his
ultimate victory, countered by the scene above the mere, where the Ġēatas mourn the
supposed loss of their leader, countered by his triumphant return, and so forth.1 Such
reversals might be considered one more manifestation of the appositive style (see
p.¯cxviii). InÏuential comparison has been drawn between the digressive manner of nar-
ration and the interlace designs everywhere in evidence in Anglo-Saxon metalwork,
sculpture, and manuscript ornament.2 Especially in the latter part of the poem, when
the strands of the account of the Swedish wars are woven through the narrative,
analogy may be drawn to the way elongated forms such as animals’ limbs and serpents
are intertwined in Anglo-Saxon artwork; but interlace has also been perceived in regard
to thematic concerns, grammatical apposition, narrative point of view, and the structure
of the poem’s action itself.3 Type-scene analysis has produced an inventory of scenes
typical both of Beowulf and of the few surviving Germanic poems regarded as exem-
plifying the genre of the lay,4 as well as an inventory of the elements typical of such
scenes.5 Similarly, the poem has been examined in detail in accordance with the mor-
phological scheme abstracted from folktales by Vladimir Propp, con¢rming that the
plot of the two Danish episodes conforms to a structure that is a commonplace of
folktales (and that is realized with some particularity in the ‘Bear’s Son’ type of tale;
see supra, pp.¯xxxvii¯ff.).6 Finally, the effects of ring composition have been detected
not just in the poem’s macrostructure (see supra) but also in its component parts.7

1
See T.¯M. Andersson 1980, esp. p.¯172 n.¯19, with the further refs. there; also P. Brown in
Manuscript, Narrative, Lexicon, ed. R. Boenig & K. Davis (Lewisburg, 2000) 171–92; and T.
Clark A Case for Irony in Beowulf (Bern, 2003).
2
See Leyerle 1965, 1967; A.P. Campbell NM 70 (1969) 425–35, Kahrl 1972, Burlin in Burlin &
Irving 1974: 81–9, Shippey 1978: 28–9, Nicholson SN 52 (1980) 237–49, Glosecki Mankind Qtrly.
27 (1986) 207–14; cf. Hart PLL 6 (1970) 263–90, Bloom¢eld in Magister Regis, ed. A. Groos
(New York, 1986) 49–59, Stevick in OE & New, ed. J. Hall et al. (New York, 1992) 3–14.
3
See Irving 1989: 80–132.
4
See Buchloh 1966, T.¯M. Andersson 1980, Harris Speculum 67 (1992) 1–32 (cf. Hieatt in
Damico & Leyerle 1993: 403–24); similarly Desmond OT 7 (1992) 258–83.
5
The literature is extensive. Of particular relevance are Bonjour 1957, Crowne NM 61 (1960)
362–72, Diamond 1961, Clark JEGP 64 (1965) 645–59, Fry Neophil. 52 (1968) 48–54, Gardner
MP 71.2 (1973) 111–27, J. Harris MGS 5 (1979) 65–74, E. Anderson ES 61 (1980) 293–301, Clover
1980, Foley in Niles 1980: 117–36, Lord id. 137–42, Kavros Neophil. 65 (1981) 120–8, several
essays in Foley 1981 (esp. Renoir 416–39), Hieatt JEGP 84 (1985) 485–97, Higley NM 87 (1986)
342–53, Richardson Neophil. 71 (1987) 114–19, Renoir 1988 and NM 90 (1989) 111–16, Foley
1990: 329–58, Thormann in De Gustibus (ed. J. Foley [New York, 1992] 542–50), GriÌth ASE 22
(1993) 179–99, J. Harris 1994, Honegger ES 79 (1998) 289–98.
6
See Shippey N&Q 16 (1969) 2–11, Barnes Speculum 45 (1970), 416–34 (cf. Rosenberg Jnl. of
the Folklore Inst. 11 [1975] 199–209, and id. in Historical Studies and Lit. Criticism, ed. J.
McGann [Madison, 1985] 76–89), Gould Folklore 96 (1985) 98–103, D’Aronco Revista di Cultura
Classica e Medioevale 28 (1986) 139–59, Clunies Ross LSE 20 (1989) 7–27.
7
See the notes on ll.¯1–52, 12–19, 115–25; see also Bartlett 1935, Hieatt 1975, Tonsfeldt
Neophil. 61 (1977) 443–52, Shaw Chaucer Review 13 (1978) 86–92, Niles 1983: 152–62, Parks NM
89 (1988) 237–51, Cherniss OT 4 (1989) 316–29, Schrader JEGP 90 (1991) 491–504, J. Harris
2000, Owen-Crocker 2000, Elder N&Q 49 (2002) 315¯f., Orchard 2003: 78–85, Tyler 2006: 138–
43; cf. Dane NM 94 (1993) 61–7.
lxxxiv INTRODUCTION
DIGRESSIONS AND EPISODES1

About 450 verses in the Danish part and almost 250 thereafter are concerned with
episodic matter, as the following list demonstrates:
The origin of the Scylding line and Scyld’s funeral (1–52). The fate of Heorot (82b–
5). The song of Creation (90b–8). Cain’s punishment, and his offspring (107b–14,
1261b–66a). Youthful adventures of Bēowulf (419–24a). Settling of Ecgþēo’s feud
(459–72). The Ūnferð intermezzo [Breca episode] (499–589). Stories of Siġemund and
Heremōd (874b–915). The Finnsburg tale (1063–1159a). Allusions to Eormenrīċ and
Hāma (1197–1201). The fall of Hyġelāc (1202–14a). The destruction of the ġīgantas
(1689b–93). Heremōd’s tragic career (1709b–22a). Hrōðgār’s ‘sermon’ (1724b–57).
Story of the wife of Offa (1931b–62). The feud between Danes and Heaðo-Beardan
(2032–66). Bēowulf’s inglorious youth (2183b–9).
Elegy of the lone survivor of a noble race (2247–66). Geatish history: Hyġelāc’s
death in Friesland, Bēowulf’s return by swimming, and his guardianship of Heardrēd;
the second series of Swedish wars (2354b–96). Geatish history: King Hrēðel, the end of
Herebeald [the Lament of the Father, 2444–62a], the earlier war with the Swedes, Bēo-
wulf’s slaying of Dæġhrefn in Friesland (2428–2508a). Wēohstān’s slaying of Ēan-
mund in the later Swedish-Geatish war (2611–25a). Geatish history: Hyġelāc’s fall; the
battle at Ravenswood in the earlier Swedish war (2910b–98).
In extent, the episodic topics range from cursory allusions of a few lines (82b–5,
1197–1201) to complete and complicated narratives (the adventure with Breca, the
Finnsburg legend, the feud with the Heaðo-Beardan, the battle at Ravenswood). The
method of their introduction is also various. The Breca story, for example, comes in
naturally in a dispute occurring at the evening’s entertainment.2 The legends of Siġe-
mund and of Finnsburg are recited by the scop. The glory of Scyld’s life and departure
forms a ¢tting prelude to the history of the Scyldings, who, next to the hero, are the
¢gures of chief interest in the parts of the narrative set in Denmark. In several in-
stances, the introduction is effected by means of comparison or contrast (of a negative
sort: 1197, 1709, 1931, 2354, [2922]; cf. 901). Occasionally the episodic character is
explicitly remarked: 2069b–70a iċ sceal forð sprecan / ġēn ymbe Grendel; 1722b–4a Ðū
þē l®r be þon . . . , iċ þis ġid be þē / āwræc.
Already among the earliest commentaries on the poem are to be found expressions
of dissatisfaction with its digressive nature, a Ïaw initially ascribed to the poet’s clum-
siness3 but soon accounted for as the result of its compositional history. Kemble¯4 was
the ¢rst to propose that the digressions represent different layers in that history, and
Ettmüller, in his translation, that the digressions comprise material extracted and as-
sembled from shorter lays; thus was initiated the dissecting approach known as
Liedertheorie.5 Only the rise of formalist criticism eventually put an end to expressions

1
See esp. Bjork in Bjork & Niles 1997: 193–212. Although a few scholars distinguish digres-
sions from episodes, the two terms are regarded here as synonymous. Cf. Smithson 1910: 371,
379¯ff., Bonjour 1950: xi¯f.
2
Inasmuch as Bēowulf tells of his earlier life in the course of a festive entertainment, this
episode may be compared to Aeneas’s narrative at Dido’s court (Aeneid ii–iii) and its prototype,
Odysseus’s recital of his adventures before Alcinöus (Odyssey ix–xii).
3
So Gru.Tr. l–lii (tr. Shippey & Haarder 1998: 160–1), and earlier Gruntvig in Danne-Virke 2
(1817) 207–89 (tr. in part ibid. 143–52). Such views persisted, even occasionally after Tolkien’s
1936 critique of them, and the notorious chapter headed ‘Lack of Steady Advance’ of Klaeber
himself was still to be found in Kl.3.
4
Über die Stammtafel der Westsachsen (Munich, 1836).
5
The chief practitioner of the dissecting school was K. Müllenhoff (esp. ZfdA 14 [1869] 193–
244). On the rise and decline of the theory, see Cha.Intr. 112–17, Shippey 1997: 154–8. Much of
the relevant material is translated in Shippey & Haarder 1998.
 STRUCTURE AND UNITY lxxxv
of regret over the poem’s digressive style.1 It is now the critical consensus that the
episodes and digressions are integral to an aesthetic mode unlike that admired in the
classical and neoclassical traditions.
Some of these divagations are utilitarian in nature, supplying useful information,
particularly about the chief characters. Thus, for example, it would surely be less
satisfying if we did not know Grendel’s background; the brief account of Cain’s feud
with God explains why his descendant ravages as he does, continuing the feud. By
Hrōðgār’s account of the settlement of Ecgþēo’s feud, the old king is portrayed as wise,
showing his wide knowledge of Northern affairs, as well as generous, and a bond is
formed between him and the hero by the implied debt of gratitude.2 The Ūnferð
intermezzo serves to characterize the hero as both ¢rm and level-headed in the face of
provocation, and it is dramatically more effective for Bēowulf to be allowed to demon-
strate these qualities himself than for the poet simply to tell us these things about him.
Because of the evidentiary nature of its moral content, Hrōðgār’s lengthy admonition
(1700–84) compels trust in his judgment that Bēowulf is sure to become a king and
therefore merits instruction in kingship.3 The hero himself shows his diplomatic apti-
tude for that role in the digression in which he predicts the renewal of the Danish feud
with the Heaðo-Beardan.4
Many digressions conform to a less obvious aesthetic of ironic contrast¯5 that is often
intimately linked to what would appear to be the chief topic of Hrōðgār’s admonition:
human deportment in the face of edwenden.6 The connection is perhaps most obvious
in regard to the Danish scop’s stories of Siġemund and Heremōd, since the latter,
whose fortunes change dramatically, is offered as a negative point of comparison both
here and in Hrōðgār’s long address. The story of Offa’s queen, who is another chang-
ing character, is introduced too abruptly to seem fully motivated, but it may be said in
its defense that, just as heaven is harder to imagine than hell, the virtuous qualities of
Hyġd may be more effectively conveyed by negative comparison than by direct ex-
position. The poet similarly expresses the hero’s virtues as king by meiosis (2179b–80,
2736b–43a). The song of Creation, an appropriate entertainment at the completion of
Heorot’s construction, serves to heighten the contrast between the contentment of the
sheltered human community of Danes and the seething rage of Grendel, who is con-
nected to the Book of Genesis in a starkly contrasting way. The Finnsburg tale is a
brilliant choice of entertainment, a seething stew of Danish fortitude, humiliation,
duplicity, and bitter triumph that is one with the perceived import of the speeches that
follow the scop’s performance.7 It has been argued persuasively that the story of
Hrēðel’s limitless sorrow over the death of Herebeald comes to the hero’s mind as a
reÏection of his ruminations about the consequences of inaction as he contemplates
facing the dragon, and that the father’s imagined lament for his hanged son that follows

1
See particularly Bonjour 1950; also Green¢eld Neophil. 47 (1963) 211–17, Goldsmith 1970:
245–69, D. Williams 1982: 40–70, Evans Style 20 (1986) 126–41; cf. Kinney SP 82 (1985) 295–
314.
2
Biggs (PQ 80 [2001] 95–112) argues that the passage is intended to compare the Danes and the
Ġēatas, especially in regard to models of royal succession.
3
Although moralizing is not generally to modern taste, poems like The Wanderer, Precepts, and
Vainglory demonstrate that, for the Anglo-Saxons, the catechetical mode was essential evidence of
acquired wisdom. This address thus amounts to the plainest evidence for the poet’s continual
characterization of the king as wise. For other interpretations of Hrōðgār’s address, see the note on
1700–84.
4
See esp. Brodeur 1959: 157–81.
5
Such an analysis was ¢rst proposed by Lawrence 1928 and developed most extensively by
Bonjour 1950.
6
On the identi¢cation of the chief concern of this speech, see the note on 1700–84.
7
This popular interpretation originates with Lawrence 1928: 126–7; cf. the note on ll.¯1017–19.
See also J.M. Hill PQ 78 (2000) 99.
lxxxvi INTRODUCTION
immediately reinforces that same connection by exemplifying the fate of one resigned
to inaction.1
If wisdom is preparation for the inevitability of change of fortune, it is no irrele-
vance that the burning of Heorot is mentioned at the moment of the hall’s completion
(81b–5), or that the loss of a great treasure, as the result of a far more poignant loss for
Bēowulf with the death of Hyġelāc, is alluded to just as the ornament is presented to
the hero by the Danish queen (1202–14). The sense of loss generated by such devices is
of a piece with the elegiac end to which the poem’s bipartite contrastive macrostructure
is directed. A sense of loss also suffuses the poet’s historicizing devices, which contin-
ually remind us how long ago this all took place, in an age of heroes that has vanished
irrevocably. Elegy and antiquity are paired most conspicuously in the lament of the
Last Survivor, set in the remote past. Yet no passage is more effective at conveying
that sense of an ancient and lost world than the opening of the poem. If the story of
Scyld’s arrival and departure seems to start far from the topic at hand, surely it is
intended to do so. This preliminary excursus sets the scene squarely in the heroic age
while invoking the past glory of the Scylding dynasty and inviting us to compare its
founder to Bēowulf, whose similarly unpromising beginning, rise to glory, and griev-
ous passing are recounted likewise in a narrative of two balanced moments in a life.2
The poet’s elegiac aims are also served by the digressions on the Ġēatas’ wars with the
Swedes and the Franks. True as it may be that these events would be easier to under-
stand if they were narrated chronologically and all at once, presented as a series of
digressions they are far more effective at conveying the sense of doom that pervades
the last part of the poem, ¢nding acute expression in the fears of destruction felt by the
hero’s people after his death.
The digressions and episodes are thus deployed in the service of particular effects,
often of an affective sort, reÏecting on the main line of the narrative in apt ways. This
does not per se confute the once-popular view that they are derived from so many
independent lays; but in fact few of them have the narrative form to be expected of
such older short songs. The old Heaðo-Beard’s goading speech (2047–56) might have
been extracted from such a source, and the lament of the Last Survivor is reminiscent
of passages in certain of the so-called elegies in Old English, such as The Wanderer
and The Ruin. But even the recital of the battle of Ravenswood (2924¯ff.) and of the
Breca episode (530¯ff.) are broader overviews of events than is to be found in such an
apparent lay as the Finnsburg Fragment. Most of the remainder are more plainly mere
summaries of events told in general terms. Arguably, songs or poems on many of these
topics were in the repertoire of Anglo-Saxon scopas or were otherwise in circulation,
since the distinctly allusive character of a number of the episodes shows that the poet
assumed familiarity on the part of his audience with more details than he provides. But
if he has drawn on such sources in framing the digressions, almost every one of them
demands the conclusion that he has reworked the material thoroughly and in original
ways (cf. Benson 1970).

SPEECHES3

Upward of 1300 lines are devoted to speeches.4 The greater part of these contain
digressions, episodes, descriptions, and reÏections, and thus they tend to retard the

1
See de Looze TSLL 26 (1984) 145–56, and see note on 2425–2537.
2
Cf. P. Gradon Form & Style in Early Eng. Lit. (London, 1971) 127–39.
3
See, in particular, Heusler ZfdA 46 (1902) 189–284, Schwarzkopff Pal. 74 (Göttingen, 1909),
Shaw Chaucer Rev. 13 (1978) 86–92, Baker 1988, Bjork 1994, Osborn PQ 78 (1999) 49–76 (on the
performance of stories in speeches, particularly by women).
4
The proportion of (direct) speech to narrative in the Iliad is 7339¯:¯8635, in the Odyssey, 8240¯:
3879, in the Aeneid, 4632.5 : 5263.5.
 STRUCTURE AND UNITY lxxxvii
narrative, lending it a stately pace. Yet even those that may be said to advance the
action are not dramatic in quality, but they are characterized by eloquence and ceremo-
nial dignity. The shortest speech comprises four lines (the shore watch’s words of
Godspeed, 316–19), the longest extends to 160 (Bēowulf’s report to Hyġelāc, 2000–
2151, 2155–62); almost as long is the messenger’s discourse (128 ll.: 2900–3027); next
follow the Finn recital (96 ll.: 1063–1159a), Hrōðgār’s lecture (85 ll.: 1700–84),
Bēowulf’s reminiscences (84 ll.: 2426–2509), and his answer to Ūnferð’s version of the
Breca story (77 ll.: 530–606).1
The formal character of the speeches is accentuated by the manner of their
introduction.2 Most frequently, the verb maðelode ‘made a speech’3 is employed,
usually in set expressions occurring with the formulaic regularity well known from
Homeric epic, such as the following:

Bēowulf maþelode, bearn Ecgþeowes.

Hrōðgār maþelode, helm Scyldinga.
Wīġlāf maðelode, Wēohstānes sunu.

(See the Glossary of Proper Names for lists of instances.) Sometimes the formula is
combined with descriptive, characterizing, explanatory matter introduced between the
announcement and the actual beginning of the speech, e.g. Bēowulf maðelode — on
him byrne scān, / searonet seowed smiþes orþancum 405¯f.4 Other terms of introduction
like meþelwordum fræġn 236, andswarode . . . wordhord onlēac 258¯f., l©t swīgode . . .
sæġde ofer ealle 2897¯ff. (cf. 1215) likewise indicate the formality of the occasion.5 Yet
despite such arti¢ciality, the speeches often evince a lifelike adherence to the conversa-
tional principles that speech act theory has identi¢ed in dialogic discourse.6
The prominent and rather independent position of the speeches is signalized by the
feature that, in contrast to the usual practice of enjambment, nearly all the speeches
begin and end with the full line. (The exceptions are 287b, 342b, 350b, 2511b, 2518b,
3114b; 389a [?] [1159a].)
About one tenth of the lines devoted to speech are in the form of indirect discourse,
which is properly preferred for less important functions (in general narrative) and in
the case of utterances by a collection of people (175, 202, 227, 857, 987, 1595, 1626,
3172, 3180). The use of (ġe)cwæð as immediate verb of introduction, following a
preparatory statement of a more general character, should be mentioned, e.g. swā
begnornodon Ġēata lēode / hlāfordes (hry)re . . . , cw®don þæt . . . 3178¯ff. (so 92,
1810, 2158, 2939; 857, 874).
From the opening of the action proper to the ¢ght with Grendel (189–709), the
speeches serve to advance the action, and they represent genuine dialogue, in two
instances including a reply to a reply (287b–300, 350b–5; cf. 1384–96, partly in indirect
discourse). As the poem proceeds, the speeches increase in length and deliberation.
The natural form of dialogue7 is in the last part entirely superseded by addresses

1
There are in Beowulf some 40 instances of direct discourse, averaging roughly 30 lines (i.e., if
the Finnsburg Episode is included).
2
See Mertens-Fonck 1978; A. Lord Epic Singers & Oral Traditions (Ithaca, 1991) 147–69.
3
Never used with an object. See Glossary.
4
Similarly 286¯f., 348¯ff., 499¯ff., 925¯ff., 1687¯ff., 2510¯f., 2631¯f., 2724¯ff. Cf. Wid 1¯ff., WaldB
11¯ff., GenB 347¯ff.; Hel. 139¯ff., 914¯f., 3136b¯ff., 3993¯ff.
5
Of the simpler expressions, fēa worda cwæð (2246, 2662; cf. Hildebr. 9), ond þæt word
ācwæð (654; cf. 2046) may be noted as formulas (ZfdA 46 [1902] 267; Archiv 126 [1911] 357 n.¯3).
6
See Gómez Lara Revista canaria de estudios ingleses 17 (1988) 269–80, Shippey 1993. See
also Jucker & Taavitsainen Jnl. of Hist. Pragmatics 1 (2000) 67–95. From the perspective of
discourse analysis: Fernández Martínez The Grove 8 (2001) 69–79.
7
Cf. 1492¯ff.: Æfter þ®m wordum Weder-Ġēata lēod / efste mid elne, nalas andsware / bīdan
wolde.
lxxxviii INTRODUCTION
without answer.1 In the course of the poem, speech thus ‘loses a crucial aspect of its
social function, its stabilizing power; it becomes more and more dislocated from the
reality of the world surrounding the particular speaker; and it displays a gradual dis-
integration and unpredictability of rhetorical structure.’2
The portion of the poem devoted to Grendel also shows the greatest variety as
regards the occasions for speech-making and the number of speakers participating
(Bēowulf, the shore watch, Wulfgār, Hrōðgār, Ūnferð, Healgamen [Hrōðgār’s scop],
Wealhþēo). In the portion devoted to Grendel’s mother, the use of discourse is practic-
ally limited to an interchange of addresses between Bēowulf and Hrōðgār.
In a class by itself stands the Last Survivor’s moving soliloquy (2247–66).
Speeches often serve as an instrument by which a person’s character, or some back-
ground element, or some new turn in the action is revealed. Long speeches are intro-
duced even at moments when an oration would seem untimely (as when Wīġlāf deter-
mines to advance to the aid of his king, 2631–68). Sometimes speech itself is a kind of
social action, as when Bēowulf utters a formal pledge of his intentions before each of
his three ¢ghts (433–41, 1392–6, 2510–37), or when Hrōðgār declares that, henceforth,
Bēowulf will be like a son to him (946b–9a). Words can also be weapons, as when the
hero mounts a crushing verbal counterattack upon Ūnferð after the Dane has attempted
to besmirch his reputation.3 Often sententious statements are put into the mouths of the
characters, who thus articulate with some feeling the heroic code by which they live;
noteworthy examples are at 1383–9, when Bēowulf stresses the need for bold action
rather than grief, and at 2891b–2, when Wīġlāf tongue-lashes his cowardly companions.
In spite of a certain sameness of treatment, the poet introduces a degree of variation
in adapting the speeches to their particular occasions. There is a notable contrast be-
tween Bēowulf’s straightforward, determined vow of bravery (632–8) and Hrōðgār’s
moralizing oration (1700–84), as there is between the hero’s mild and conciliatory
reply to the shore watch (260–85) and his ¢ery retort to Ūnferð’s provocation (530–
606). Illustrations of varying moods and kinds of utterance are Bēowulf’s salutation to
Hrōðgār (407–55), the Last Survivor’s speech (2247–66), and Wīġlāf’s scathing denun-
ciation of the deserters (2864–91). A masterpiece is the queen’s exhibition of diplo-
matic language by means of veiled allusion (1169¯ff.). Beowulf’s dying speeches are
¢nely appropriate to the occasion (2729¯ff., 2794¯ff., 2813¯ff.).
That some of the speeches follow conventional lines of heroic tradition seems likely.
Such may be true especially of the type of the ġylpcwide before a combat (675¯ff.,
1392¯ff., 2510¯ff.), the comitatus speech or exhortation of the retainers (2633¯ff.; cf.
Bjarkamál [Appx.A §¯10: Saxo ii 7,4 to 8,1.], Mald 212¯ff., 246¯ff., Finn 37¯ff.), the
inquiry after a stranger’s name and home (237¯ff.; cf. Finn 22¯f., Hildebr. 8¯ff., also Hel.
554¯ff.). The absence of battle challenge and de¢ance (see Finn 24¯ff.) is an apparent
effect of the deployment of monsters as the hero’s chief adversaries.4
UNITY OF COMPOSITION
The Liedertheorie (see p.¯lxxxiv supra)5 grew out of an awareness not just of the
digressive nature of the narrative but of the way the digressions embody the sort of

1
The length of several of these is somewhat disguised by their division into two or three
portions separated by a few lines of narrative or comment (2426–2537, 2633–68, 2794–2816,
3077–3119; so in the preceding division: 2000–2162).
2
Bjork 1994: 998. The affective end of the changing nature of the discourse, it has been sug-
gested, is elegiac: see Dahlberg 1985.
3
See the note on 499–661 for discussion of this scene in terms of verbal combat (or ‘Ïyting’).
4
See Phillpotts 1928.
5
Further refs.: Müll.; A. Köhler ZfdPh. 2 (1870) 305–20; Hornburg 1877 (opposes Müll.);
Möller; F. Schneider Der Kampf mit Grendels Mutter (Berlin Progr., 1887); J. Routh Two Studies
on the Ballad Theory of the Beowulf (Johns Hopkins diss., 1905); Boer 1912; Berendsohn 1935.
 STRUCTURE AND UNITY lxxxix
heroic legend that was thought to have been preserved in lays of a historical nature,
whereas the central action is ceded to fabulous contests with monsters. The gradual
weakening of the hold that the dissecting view maintained on study of the poem was in
part effected by a growing awareness that, in form, the digressions very little resemble
those poems that, for many scholars, exemplify the genre of the lay.1 The theory
therefore increasingly depended upon the detection of narrative inconsistencies held to
prove the composite origins of the poem. Nearly all such supposed inconsistencies,
however, need not be regarded as such. For example, it has been supposed that the
narrator contradicts himself as to whether it was Grendel or his mother who was
beheaded by the hero (to 1590 compare 2138), but in fact it seems that both were so
treated (see 1563–9). Likewise, it is not a genuine inconsistency that neither Frēawaru
nor Hondsciōh is named before the hero’s recitation of his Danish adventures to the
Geatish court (2022, 2076), nor that mention is not made of Grendel’s glōf before that
occasion (2085). It need not be regarded as a self-contradiction even that Bēowulf says
he was urged by the leaders of his people to seek out Hrōðgār (415¯ff.; also 202¯ff.), and
yet Hyġelāc later says that he had urged the young man to let the Danes solve their own
problems (1992¯ff.). Such genuine incongruities as are to be found2 are now generally
explained as the work of a single scop who subordinated consistency to narrative
effect, since he was a poet rather than a historian in the modern sense.3
Another source of doubt for proponents of Liedertheorie about the poem’s unity of
composition was the apparent contradiction between the poem’s setting in pre-conver-
sion Scandinavia and the expression, not just by the narrator, but by certain of the
characters in the poem, of sentiments that seem expressly Christian in nature. Many
were inclined to believe that the poem was originally a pagan composition, into which
certain Christian elements were interpolated by one or more meddling monkish copy-
ists.4 A notorious critical dissection of the poem identi¢ed 68 passages thus inserted,
containing allusions to scripture, disapproval of heathen ways, or reference to Christian
doctrine.5 But the impulse to excise the poem’s Christian elements is now generally
perceived as a product of 19th-century efforts, associated with the Romantic move-
ment, to identify an originary Germanic culture, untainted by Mediterranean inÏuence,
of suÌcient purity to de¢ne the Germanic character.6 Although there remains no small
degree of disagreement in regard to the question how the poem’s imaginative legendary
setting and its religious outlook are to be reconciled effectively,7 it is now scholarly
consensus that Christian beliefs and practices play an integral role in the construction
of the poem. Although the story of Bēowulf and his monsters may have originated in a

1
So W. Hart 1907: 311–12; W. Ker 1908: 76–122. On doubts about the existence of such a
genre, see Niles 2007b: 199–202.
2
The likeliest remaining disparities pertain to the history of the dragon’s hoard; but see the
notes on 2231¯ff., 3049¯ff., and see Waugh Jnl. of Narrative Technique 25 (1995) 202–22. Some
insigni¢cant variations occur in 2011–13 (?), 2147b. A shifting of emphasis (and omission of detail)
is observed in 2138¯f. Added details, some of which seem to have been purposely reserved for this
occasion, are found in 2107¯ff. (?) 2131¯f., 2157¯ff.
3
See Grein 1862; F. Rönning Beovulfs-kvadet: En literær-historisk undersøgelse (Copenhagen,
1883); P. Fahlbeck Antikvarisk tidskrift för Sverige 8.2 (1884) 1–88; Jellinek & Kraus ZfdA 35
(1891) 265–81; Lawrence PMLA 27 (1912) 208–45; Sisam 1965: 46–50; Niles 1983: 163–76;
Sorrell OT 7 (1992) 28–65. On the consistency of the narrative details, see Kuhn in Atwood & Hill
1969: 243–64, Huisman LSE 20 (1989) 217–48, Lerer 1991: 183–94, id. ELH 61 (1994) 721–51,
Schwetman Med. Perspectives 13 (1998) 136–48, Puhvel Cause & Effect in Beowulf (2005) 70–6.
4
Such a view was promulgated as early as 1815 by Thorkelín in his edition (Bjork 1996: 297,
306–7). Examples illustrating this general approach to OE poetry are assembled by Stanley 1975,
with commentary. For further references, see Irving 1997.
5
Blackburn 1897. Cf. Rogers 1955, Lindqvist 1958.
6
This attitude was inherent already in Jacob Grimm’s Deutsche Grammatik of 1819–37, and it
pervades many subsequent works. See Frantzen 1990: 68–70 et passim.
7
See pp.¯lxviii¯ff. supra.
xc INTRODUCTION
culture that antedated the introduction of Christianity (and perhaps by a considerable
period of time), the poem as we have it must have been composed with its Christian
elements conceived as integral parts.1 Although two passages, the narrator’s condem-
nation of the Danes’ pagan sacri¢ce (175–88) and Hrōðgār’s long, sententious address
to the hero (1700–84; or at least the more homiletic-sounding parts of it) continue to
strike some as later intrusions,2 the larger question of poetic unity is no longer felt to
depend on considerations of religious outlook. Neither did early attempts to demon-
strate multiple authorship on the basis of inconsistencies of language, diction, or meter
prove decisive.3
Although Liedertheorie’s premise of four to eleven components of diverse origin
employed in the construction of the poem has been almost entirely abandoned now for
more than a century, some degree of debate persists in regard to the undeniably abrupt
leap across more than ¢fty years at l.¯2200, and whether this surprisingly stark
transition does not mark the juncture of two originally separate compositions. Such an
analysis was proposed by Schücking (1905a), who argued with great subtlety that a
signi¢cant compositional section comprising ll.¯1888–2199 (‘Bēowulf’s Homecoming’)
was composed at a later time to link two poems of entirely separate composition. It is
undeniable, the best way to support a hypothesis of such a kind is to delineate ways in
which the Homecoming differs in style, form, or syntax from the remainder of the
poem. However, Schücking’s evidence is, it should be said, insuÌcient to convince,
both because the absence of certain features in a passage so relatively brief may be due
to happenstance, and because some of his evidence is self-defeating.4 And there are

1
The proof of this was made most effectively by Klaeber 1911–12.
2
Thus Whitelock 1951: 77–78, following Tolkien 1936: 287–9. More recently T. Hill (1994:
68–9) has perceived the ¢rst of these passages as the result of scribal corruption, while Lapidge
(ASE 29 [2000] 39) has argued that parts of the second passage (lines 1758–68) represent a 10th-
century interpolation into an 8th-century archetype. Yet each passage may be said to serve a
thematic purpose within the text as it stands. The ¢rst, by emphasizing the grave dangers inherent
in idolatry, solidi¢es the religious frame of reference within which every part of the action is to be
understood. To the extent that the Danes practice idolatry, they are implicated in their own
aÑiction and are, indeed, in part the cause of it. As for Hrōðgār’s lecture, it too con¢rms the
author’s Christian perspective. Who else but the Beowulf poet might be expected to introduce a
memento mori at the moment of the young hero’s greatest triumph? In its twin emphases on the
dangers of vainglory (cf. the OE poem known as Vainglory) and the inevitable advent of sickness,
old age, and death, Hrōðgār’s address reinforces the poem’s moral earnestness and prepares the
way for the dragon episode that will soon follow, with its portrait of a headstrong king who
precipitates his own death, even if in a magnanimous cause. While some readers may ¢nd it
anachronistic that Hrōðgār seems to know of the devil’s wiles as intimately as if he had read St.
Paul’s epistles or St. Gregory the Great’s exegesis of the Book of Job, this anachronism is best
taken as part of the poet’s design rather than the product of textual meddling. See the note on
ll.¯1700–84.
3
Thus, Müllenhoff’s dissecting views were on such a basis thought to be both vindicated
(Schönbach AfdA 3 [1877] 36–46; also, with some reservations, A. Banning Die epischen Formeln
im Beowulf [Marburg diss., 1886]) and refuted (K. Schemann Die Synonyme im Beowulfsliede
[Münster diss., 1882]). On the strength of a similar investigation, some con¢rmation of ten Brink’s
theory of the poem’s accretive history was alleged (G. Sonnefeld Stilistisches und Wortschatz im
Beowulf [Strassburg diss., 1892]). Certain features were claimed to indicate composition of various
parts of the poem at various dates. These include a few seemingly unusual instances of demon-
strative usage (ll.¯92, 2255, 2264, 3024: Lichtenheld ZfdA 16 [1873] 342, Barnouw 1902: 48), some
exceptional verse forms (Schubert 1870: 7, 52; Kal.50, 69), and the appearance of a parenthetical
exclamation in the on-verse (ll.¯ 2778a, 3056a, 3115a: Krapp MLN 20 [1905] 33–7). In Klaeber’s
opinion, such evidence is too insecure and fragmentary to be decisive, especially in view of the
general homogeneity of the poem in respect to matters of form as well as substance and at-
mosphere.
4
See Cha.Intr. 117–20. In addition, interesting examples of phrasal agreement between the two
parts are in evidence: ll.¯100¯f., 2210¯f., 2399; 561, 3174; 1327, 2544; 1700, 2864; 61, 2434.
 STRUCTURE AND UNITY xci
not, after all, any very striking features of the linking passage that are not found else-
where in the poem. A return to hypothesizing a composite origin was attempted by
Magoun,1 who regarded ll.¯2009b–2176, recapitulating 1–2009a, as the work of an
‘anthologizing scribe,’ and 2200–3182 as an independent composition. Most of his
arguments (especially about discrepancies between 1–2009a and 2009b–2176) have
been refuted, leaving the remainder enfeebled.2 The theory of composite origins gained
a measure of support from certain features of the Cotton Vitellius manuscript as ana-
lyzed by Kiernan (1981), who attributes the remarkable space-conserving measures
adopted by the two scribes in the eleventh gathering (fols. 171–8, ll.¯1874–2207a), as
well as the notably deplorable condition of fol. 179 (ll.¯2207a–2252a; see pp.¯xxviii¯f.
supra), to efforts on the part of the second copyist to compose a link between separate
poems of the eleventh century.3
Although Schücking’s evidence for the separate composition of ll.¯1888–2199 has
been generally discounted, certainly his approach represents the most objective way to
address the question whether the poem is to be regarded as compositionally uni¢ed. It
is notable, then, that a measure of evidence to the opposite effect has been adduced in
recent years, attesting that certain formal or linguistic peculiarities of the work are dis-
tributed evenly, or nearly so, throughout Beowulf. The features studied include aspects
of syntax, meter, and semantics.4 The most striking of these is undoubtedly the high
incidence of verses of Sievers’ type A2l with resolution in conformity to Kaluza’s law,
a remarkable peculiarity not de¢nitely to be found in any other poem (see p.¯clx). It is,
moreover, well attested in all three of the divisions identi¢ed by Schücking, including
six examples in the brief Bēowulf’s Homecoming.5 (On literary arguments for the unity
of ¢tt XXXI, with the passage of the ¢fty years in its midst, see Huppé 1984: 82–6,
Biggs Speculum 80 [2005] 709–41.) The degree to which such evidence has accumu-
lated seems to justify the conclusion that, until similarly de¢nite evidence of a counter-
vailing sort is produced, scholarship is justi¢ed in regarding Bēowulf as a uni¢ed
composition in regard to its overall structure.6

1
See Arv 14 (1958) 95–101; Magoun 1963; Kiernan 1981: 254–6; also Gang 1952.
2
See Creed TSL 11 (1966) 131–43, Witke NM 67 (1966) 113–17, Bonjour in Creed 1967: 179–
92, and esp. Brodeur 1970. Magoun’s least subjective piece of evidence regards the postpositive
use of þone (Lang. §¯26.4), but its witness is not quite unambiguous: although it is true that the
construction is not found in other poems, it is not con¢ned to Part II of Beowulf, since it is found
also at 2007b, in the section that Magoun argues was composed by his anthologizer. A. Campbell
1971: 286 argues that the poet learned the type from a lay about Ongenþēo’s death.
3
On the scribes’ efforts to save space, see p.xxviii supra. The hypothesis demands radical re-
vision of scholarly understanding of the language of the poem, which has generally been inter-
preted to indicate early composition and Anglian origins, and on this and other grounds Kiernan’s
hypothesis has been generally opposed, though it has also received a degree of support. In addition
to the reviews listed by Hasenfratz (1993: 93), see esp. Boyle in Chase 1981: 23–32, Amos Review
4 (1982) 335–45, Clement 1984, Dumville Archiv 225 (1988) 49–63 & Mediaeval Eng. Stud.
Newsletter 39 (1998) 21–7, Gerritsen 1989 & ES 69 (1988) & ibid. 79 (1998) 82–6, H.-J. Diller in
Medieval Studies Conference Aachen 1983, ed. W.-D. Bald & H. Weinstock (Frankfurt, 1984) 71–
83, Rose Envoi 6 (1997) 135–45, Lapidge, http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/lapidge.html.
4
On syntactic features, see Bately 1985 and Sundquist Jnl. of Gmc. Ling. 14 (2002) 243–69;
also T. Shippey ‘OE Poetry: The Prospects for Literary History’ in Segundo Congreso Inter-
nacional de la Sociedad Española de Lengua y Literatura Inglesa Medieval, ed. A. León Sendra et
al. (Oviedo, 1993) 164–79; on metrical features, Grinda Angl. 102 (1984) 309–10; also Fulk ASE 32
(2003) 23; for a semantic feature, Fulk ES 88 (2007) 623–31. In addition, Robinson (1985: 56–7;
see also Cronan ES 84 [2003] 397–425) demonstrates that some words, particularly fyren, synn,
and bealu (see Gloss.), have their older meanings throughout Beo, while in, for example, the works
of Cynewulf they have newer meanings.
5
Ll.¯1906b, 1940a, 2046a, 2077a, 2108a, 2120a. See Bliss 1967: §¯35.
6
Thus Donoghue SELIM 1 (1991) 29–44.
xcii INTRODUCTION
VII. METHOD OF NARRATION
A WORLD OF POWERFUL CONTRASTS1

Readers of Beowulf soon grow accustomed to a social world in which everything seems
better, brighter, or bigger than life. Heorot is not just a great hall; it is huge (68–70). As
the forem®rost . . . reċeda under roderum (309–10), it shines with an almost preter-
natural light (311).2 Hrōðgār, its maker, is the best of worldly kings in this part of the
earth (1684b–6). His retainers enjoy symbla cyst (1232b), while the narrator declares
that he has never heard of Danes gathering about their king in a larger, more decorous
retinue (1011–12).3 Ūnferð’s sword, useless though it may prove to be, is still described
as billa sēlest (1144a), just as Bēowulf speaks with pride of his chain mail (which too
shines brightly, 405b) as hræġla sēlest (454a). The special gift that Wealhþēo presents
to Bēowulf after his victory over Grendel, correspondingly, is healsbēaga m®st
(1195b). As for the hero himself, he is not just physically imposing; he is mæġenes
strenġest (196b). After Bēowulf’s victory over Grendel, a group of Danes declares that
there is no better warrior anywhere (856b–61a). In the eyes of his dear kinsman Wīġlāf,
who does his best to comfort him as he dies, he is the most worthy warrior on earth
(3099). His retainers eulogize him as manna mildust ond mon(ðw)®rust, / lēodum līðost
ond lofġeornost (3181–2). The Ïames that consume his corpse make up, ¢ttingly, the
largest of funeral pyres (3143b).
In like manner, the hateful creatures that dwell on the outskirts of human society are
not just dangerous. They are abominable and hellish (Grendel and his mother) or of
almost unimaginable destructive power (the ¢redrake). Grendel is not content with kill-
ing and eating an occasional human being. He empties the great hall of its inhabitants
— he alone, in implacable hatred against them all (144–6a). Similarly, the dragon, ordi-
narily indifferent to humankind, becomes an agent of mass destruction once its fury is
aroused. It is not content with devastating the Geatish countryside and burning down
the king’s manor hall; it wants to leave nothing alive (2314b–15).
The world of Beowulf is thus a place of stark and potentially terrifying extremes.
The great hall Heorot — the bright center of the Danes’ social world — is counter-
poised by the dark, watery nether regions where the Grendel creatures make their
home.4 Examples of goodness and integrity in the human sphere are held up for un-
grudging admiration; examples of malice, greed, cowardice, betrayal of kindred, and
other failings are singled out for decided opprobrium. Little could be further from the
narrative mode of modern naturalistic ¢ction, with its specimens of ordinary humanity
inhabiting complex moral zones. And yet the impression of real life in Beowulf remains

1
See, in particular, H. Wright 1957, Mandel Chaucer Rev. 6 (1971) 1–13, Huppé 1984: 24–45,
and cf. Halverson 1969 and Oetgen 1978. On contrast, see also M. Bridges Generic Contrast in OE
Hagiographical Poetry (Copenhagen, 1984).
2
See notes on ll.¯67¯ff., 308.
3
A subtle disparagement of the Danes may be intended in this scene, as well. For people of this
nation to be decorous is thought to be worth mentioning, as if it were an unusual thing. Later a
point is made of the Danes’ reputation for treachery (1017b–19); we have already heard of their
idolatry (175–83a). Despite their gracious demeanor, the warriors at the Danish court have a
propensity to drink rather than act (1648b), sometimes to excess (531a), though drinking per se need
not be attributed a negative value in this society: see 1231a (n).
4
The hall and its thematic role in the poem have been discussed to excellent effect by Hume
ASE 3 (1974) 63–74, Shippey 1978: 21–4, and Irving 1989: 133–67, among others. Huppé 1984:
46–64 discusses the contrast between the hall Heorot and Grendel’s mere as an example of
narrative polarity. Taylor (TSL 11 [1966] 119–30) addresses the hall’s mythic overtones with ref-
erence to ON beliefs, as does A. Lee 1998: 152–7 with reference to a more general mythology to
which Christianity is not unrelated. Earl 1994: 100–36 analyzes the role of the men’s hall in the
development of the Anglo-Saxon psyche.
 METHOD OF NARRATION xciii
unerringly authentic. Material things — weapons, jewels, ships, and the like — are
evoked in such vivid terms as to have an almost tactile heft. The deeds that these
characters enact have a uniform credibility, regardless of whether it is a matter of
armed warriors marching to a hall and stacking their spears against the wall (320–31a)
or of the hero ¢ghting for his life against a she-wolf of the deep (1537–49). The
impossible and the convincing converge in this work more indissolubly than in any
other poem that survives from this era.
At times, the narrative of Beowulf is so focused on moral contrasts that it takes an
anti-naturalistic turn. An example is the evening of the visitors’ ¢rst day in Denmark,
when the Geatish warriors who have been entertained in Heorot settle down to await
the onslaught of Grendel. At this juncture, surely the most dangerous and suspenseful
moment of their lives, what they do is to lie down and fall asleep — all of them but the
vigilant Bēowulf (703b–5a). It is hard to account for the unnatural somnolence of this
whole band of men without reference to what has been called the Law of Contrast as a
principle shaping the narrative. One manifestation of this principle, which has been
found operative in much of the archaic and folk literature of Europe, is that a hero is
contrasted to his helpless companions, who often serve as no more than a foil by com-
parison to which his heroism shines all the more brightly. Other instances of the use of
contrast include the characterization of the good queen Hyġd through contrast with a
violent, willful counterpart (1926¯ff.), and the characterization of the hero himself by
means of contrast with the avaricious Heremōd (1709b–22a; cf. 913b–15).1
The lack of naturalism in the plot of Beowulf is properly regarded not as a defect but
as a preferred method of narration.2 When the poet wishes, he depicts emotions, senti-
ments, and social interactions in a manner that seems remarkably true to life.

SUSPENSE SUBORDINATED TO DRAMATIC IRONY3

Although a poem of action, Beowulf is devoted to much besides heroic deeds. The
work’s appeal is not wholly dependent on its plot, which is curiously undeveloped in
some regards. At times one suspects that the poet and his audience cared just as much
about the social world of Beowulf, with its gifts, speeches, protocols, ceremonies, and
legendary associations, as about the ¢ghts with monsters.4

1
Other instances of contrasting situations and events: 128, 183–8, 1078–80a, 1470b–2. The Law
of Contrast (das Gesetz der Gegensatz) was articulated by the Danish folklorist Axel Olrik ZfdA 51
(1909) 1–12, as one of a number of epic laws (epische Gesetze) thought to govern folk narrative (tr.
in International Folkloristics, ed. A. Dundes [Lanham, 1999] 83–97).
2
See Evans Style 20 (1986) 126–41 on the non-Aristotelian nature of medieval aesthetics. Niles
1983: 163–76 refers to the poem’s ‘barbaric style,’ using that term in a non-pejorative sense to
refer to its relatively abstract, inorganic mode of narration, one that bears comparison with the
early Germanic visual arts. Cf. the term ‘interlace’ that has been borrowed from art criticism (e.g.
by Leyerle 1967) to characterize the poem’s thematic design (see p.¯lxxxiii supra).
3
On anticipation, see particularly Brodeur 1959: 220–46, Bonjour RES o.s. 16 (1940) 290–9; cf.
Moorman College Eng. 15 (1954) 379–83, Berlin Proc. of the PMR Conference 11 (1986) 19–26.
On the ironic reversal of expectations, see particularly Ringler Speculum 41 (1966) 49–67; Irving
1968: 22–3; Shippey 1972: 38–9. Dramatic irony in its many guises is a topic of frequent interest in
the critical literature, particularly among specialists of a New Critical orientation, some of whom
(following Tolkien in this regard) see irony as profoundly embedded in the overall design of Beo
viewed as an anti-heroic poem (see infra, p.¯cxxviii). Examples of dramatic irony mentioned else-
where in this Introduction include the Danes’ and Bēowulf’s participation in a Great Feud of which
they are largely unaware (pp.¯lxx¯ff.) and, locally, the Ġēatas’ premature grief when they think their
young prince is dead (p.¯lxxxiii).
4
Thus, for example, the extended scene of Bēowulf’s reception by the Danes has been studied
with attention to ‘governmental procedures, policies, and institutions’ (Brennan JEGP 84 [1985]
3); cf. Pepperdene 1955: 188–92, Irving 1968: 51–60. See Appx.B.
xciv INTRODUCTION
Moreover, the outcome of the ¢rst and third battles is a foregone conclusion.1 Min-
imal value is placed on suspense. Even before Grendel comes striding toward Heorot
on the night when he and the hero are to meet, we are told that God had appointed a
man to guard the hall swā guman ġefrungon (666b), as if the outlines of the story were
already known (as, of course, they may well have been). Later in that same scene, the
poet assures us in advance that the Lord granted victory to the Ġēatas that night (696b–
9; cf. 718–19). The outcome of the struggle is therefore never in doubt. Similarly,
before Bēowulf ventures out to challenge the dragon, we are told that both combatants
will die in the ¢ght (2341b–4; cf. 2423b–4). The aged king speaks to his companions
hindeman sīðe before setting out (2517a), and we are told that he was destined to give
up his life swā sceal ®ġhwylċ mon (2591a). The poet seems to want to reassure his
audience that a preordained outcome will indeed come to pass, so that attention can
then be riveted on the drama of how the action unfolds.
This is not to say that there is no role in the narrative for tension or the reversal of
expectations. To the contrary, the protracted scene of Grendel’s approach to Heorot
(702b–27) is developed in accord with a design for terror that is calculated, through its
special effects of diction, syntax, and point of view, to have a thrilling effect.2 In the
second contest, tension is developed ¢rst through evocative descriptions of the land-
scape of Grendel’s mere, but also through the narrative turn by which the hero is seized
and dragged down into a place of a mysterious nature. Great tension, similarly, attends
the dragon ¢ght at the moment when the dragon’s jaws enclose the hero’s neck and his
life’s blood is spilling out (2691b–3). As for the reversal of expectations, it is mani-
fested with particular vigor when the hero’s monstrous antagonists have hopes that are
unfounded. Grendel laughs obscenely to himself, glorying in his reign of terror, when
he enters Heorot on the night that is to prove fateful to him (730b–4a). When the dragon
retreats to its barrow expecting to rest undisturbed after it has devastated the land of the
Ġēatas (2323b), the poet makes clear that him sēo wēn ġelēah (2323b). The people de-
picted in the poem, too, including the hero, are subject to the reversal or thwarting of
expectations. The men and women at Heorot go to sleep peacefully the night after
Grendel’s defeat, for example, unaware that an avenger is about to burst upon the
scene. The next day, when Bēowulf innocently bids Hrōðgār good morning, his good
cheer therefore may seem humorously incongruous (1316–23a). In a subtler example of
false expectations, the aged Bēowulf dies after thanking God for having been able to
save his people from destruction and for having won a great hoard for them (2794–8).
He does not seem to recognize that the Ġēatas will soon face war and the threat of dis-
solution, while the gold will remain in the earth eldum swā unn©t swā hit ®ror wæs
(3168). Since the hero never lives to see his hopes dashed, a measure of dramatic irony
is associated with the satisfaction he takes while reviewing his achievements in life
(2732b–40).
What takes the form of dramatic irony in these scenes also permeates the poem as a
religiously grounded principle (see p.¯lxxi supra). God sometimes grants favor to the
destitute or needy, as is stated early on with reference to the Danes of ancient times
(13b–17) and as is con¢rmed through the hero’s triumphs in Denmark. On the other

1
By contrast, the outcome of the battle at the bottom of the mere is never disclosed before its
climax, nor is even the existence of Grendel’s mother hinted at until she enters into the action.
Surprise is therefore a genuine feature of this episode (Bonjour ES 30 [1949] 35–6), even if it is
blunted by one’s awareness that for the hero to die in the depths of the pool, with his exact fate
unknown to the others, would make for a maladroit ending to the tale. If the story of Beo were
already known to members of the audience, of course, then there could be no real suspense either
here or elsewhere.
2
See, in particular, the discussions by Brodeur 1959: 88–106 and Renoir 1962; cf. O’Brien
O’Keeffe TSLL 23 (1981) 484–94. The psychology of terror in the poem is addressed by Lapidge
1993 and Owen-Crocker 2002, while Thormann (Lit. & Psychology 43 [1997] 65–76) discusses the
enjoyment of violence in the poem as a topic of psychoanalytic interest.
 METHOD OF NARRATION xcv
hand, as Hrōðgār makes clear to the hero in his great admonitory address (1724b–78a),
pessimism in regard to earthly things is never misplaced, for good fortune has an innate
tendency to turn to ill. Glory can therefore be a curse in disguise, for it can lead to
spiritual torpor, the stirrings of pride and greed, and a false belief that one’s power,
wealth, or health will last forever (1741b–68). Although Bēowulf never falls prey to the
temptations against which he is thus warned (characterized as the devil’s promptings,
1745–7), he too is subject to the pattern of reversal that is a structural feature of the
narrative (see supra p.¯lxxxiii). In time, just like the aged Hrōðgār, the aged Bēowulf
will come to see the stability of his kingdom shattered. After the dragon’s attack, the
hero is immersed in dark thoughts swā him ġeþ©we ne wæs (2332b), for he suspects that
he himself has offended God (2329–31a). This suspicion is unfounded, as the audience
is at this point aware, having been informed that the reason for the dragon’s wrath is
the theft of a cup from the hoard (2214b–20). Dramatic irony thus pervades the action
of Beowulf, working closely with reversals of fortune as a key thematic element.
If disregard of suspense heightens irony in the larger structure of the narrative, the
poet’s tendency to reveal outcomes in advance can, conversely, heighten the dramatic
effect of certain rhetorical patterns. Sometimes the result of a certain action is stated
¢rst, and the action itself is mentioned afterward or is entirely passed over, e.g. Þā wæs
frōd cyning .¯.¯. on hrēon mōde, / syðþan hē aldorþeġn unly¢ġende .¯.¯. wisse (1306¯ff.).
In this way a ¢ne abruptness is attained: hrā wīde sprong, / syþðan hē æfter dēaðe
drepe þrōwade (1588¯f.).1 Thus, it also happens that a fact of the ¢rst importance is
strangely subordinated (as in 1556).2 The effect of delaying the words hafelan mētton
to the end of the period in 1417b–21 reproduces rhetorically the shock of discovering
Æschere’s head.3 A similar effect is achieved in some other places (see note on
1584¯ff.).

NON-LINEAR NARRATION4

The complex, stop-and-go manner in which Beowulf is related — what Klaeber

famously called its ‘lack of steady advance’ — is consistent with the broad aims of this
work. Rather than presenting an account of events in a straightforward, linear sequence,
the poet uses certain key moments in a great life as the occasion for a meditation upon
the human condition (see Lapidge 2001). Any one scene may therefore be prolonged so
that its psychological or moral dimensions are developed, while such a long period of
time as the king’s ¢fty-year reign is passed over in a single sentence (2207–13a, with
some supplementary information about it offered later). While digressive elements
¢gure so prominently in Part II as to have led to some critical discussion of the poem’s
antinarrativity,5 the narrative can be forceful and undistracted when the poet chooses to
make it so. It would be hard to ¢nd in early medieval literature a more gripping,
sustained narrative than what ensues from the moment when Bēowulf advances to
challenge the dragon (2538) until his soul departs this life (2820).
Set themes are sometimes introduced such as are often found in traditional epic
poetry (Lord 1960: 68–98); thus, we ¢nd such familiar topoi as the sea-voyage (210–
24a, 1903b–19), the hero’s arming before a ¢ght (1441b–64), gift-giving in the hall

1
Other cases of abrupt transition are enumerated by Schü.Sa. 139¯ff.
2
Subordinate clauses introduced by syððan (see Bately 1985) or oð þæt (56, 100, 2210, 2280,
644; see 1740¯n.) are used a number of times in place of a coordinate, independent statement.
3
See Irving 1968: 79; Orchard 2003: 82–3.
4
See in particular Bonjour 1950, Brodeur 1959, Ringbom 1968, Stanley in Medieval Narrative,
ed. H. Bekker-Nielsen et al. (Odense, 1980), 58–81, Irving 1989: 80–132. Parks (Narodna
umjetnost 26 [1989] 25–35) discusses the poet’s involuted mode of narration with reference to the
‘interperformativity’ that is characteristic of oral tradition.
5
A term used by Georgianna 1987: 834.
xcvi INTRODUCTION
(1020–55; cf. 1192–6, 1166–9), and the beasts of battle (3024b–7). A number of such
scenes have been identi¢ed, often in an attempt to ascertain how fully the poet relied
on techniques of composition characteristic of simpler narrative genres or of the art of
singers of tales.1 In general, however, what is striking about these scenes is not their
formulaic quality but their freshness. Scarcely a word or phrase is repeated from one
sea-voyage to the next, for example. As for the theme of the beasts of battle, this
conventional topos is introduced only at the end of the poem in a manner that is highly
original, as a prophetic evocation of future carnage seen from the point of view of
carrion birds.2
The poet’s handling of time, in particular, tends to retard the narrative and com-
plicate its texture.3 The main point of the references to heroes from Germanic antiquity
(Siġemund, Offa, et al.) is to call to mind famous ¢gures whose deeds provide a coun-
terpart to the main story. While serving a moral purpose and catering to antiquarian
taste, these allusions also raise the stature of the poem’s main characters by linking
them to great precursors. Extending back into the deep past are allusions to the an-
cestry of Grendel and his mother, the origins of the giant sword found in Grendel’s lair,
and the origins of the dragon’s treasure. The biblical past and the Germanic past are
thus fused in Beowulf, as they are in the pseudo-genealogy of the West Saxon kings
(see Appx.A §¯1), in which Noah is named in the same line of descent as Scyld. Like-
wise, references to the near past that shortly precedes the main action of the poem are
introduced so frequently as to give that period the semblance of actual history. In Part I
of the poem, for example, we hear of a fortunate visit that Bēowulf’s exiled father
Ecgþēo once paid to Hrōðgār’s court, thus incurring a social debt that, it is perhaps
implied, the son is prepared to repay (459–72). Glancing (and unexplained) reference
is made to former Danish/Geatish hostilities (1857b–8; cf. 378–9a). In Part II, constant
and somewhat fragmented reference is made to the wars between rival ethnic groups
that have led to the hero’s accession to the throne. The genealogy of the sword that
Wīġlāf wields against the dragon comes in for special mention (2610b–25a). Since the
young Geatish warrior came into possession of this sword as a result of his father’s
having killed the brother of Ēadġils, who later became king of Sweden, the information
that comes to light at this juncture casts a dark shadow over the Geatish succession
(assuming that Wīġlāf will succeed Bēowulf as king; see 2623¯n.). Friendships and
feuds thus bind one generation to the next, and part of the poet’s purpose is to call
attention to these complexities. The manner in which present relations extend into the
future, too, is never far from the poet’s mind, as when allusions are made to trouble
brewing between Danes and Heaðo-Beardan despite Hrōðgār’s efforts to contain that
feud (82b–5, 2020¯ff.), or when ominous attention is drawn to Hrōðulf’s ¢delity vis-à-
vis other members of the Danish court (1014b–19, 1180b–7). The future troubles of the
Ġēatas, evoked in savage particularity at the end of the ‘Messenger’s Prophecy’
(3007b–27), put Bēowulf’s funeral obsequies under a dark cloud.
In a comparable manner, the poet takes the keenest interest in the inner signi¢cance
and the underlying motives of events. He is ever ready to analyze the thoughts and

1
A few examples: Crown NM 61 (1960) 362–72, Diamond 1961: 461–8, Creed CL 14 (1962)
44–52, G. Clark JEGP 64 (1965) 645–59, E. Anderson ES 61 (1980) 293–301, Desmond OT 7
(1992) 258–83, Feeny in De Gustibus, ed. J. Foley (New York, 1992) 185–200, L. Tyler ibid. 551–
85. T.M. Andersson 1980 identi¢es in Beowulf ten type-scenes that he believes to have been
adapted from counterparts in Germanic lays.
2
Bonjour 1957. See note on ll.¯3024–7.
3
On the handling of time, see Green¢eld Neophil. 47 (1963) 211–17, Ringbom 1968: 25–37,
Green JEGP 74 (1975) 502–18, Bauschatz 1982, Niles 1983: 179–96, Dahlberg 1985, and Chicker-
ing JEGP 91 (1992) 489–509. See also the note on 917¯f. On prophecies within the poem, see A.
Harris Neophil. 74 (1990) 591–600; on alternations between past and present time, Kinney SP 82
(1985) 295–314; on the past as authorizing the present (in the sense that myth does), see J.M. Hill
1995: 38–62.
 METHOD OF NARRATION xcvii
feelings of Bēowulf and Hrōðgār, the Danes and the Ġēatas, Grendel and his kind, and
even the sea-monsters (549, 562, 1431a) and the birds of prey (3023b–7). Their inten-
tions, resolutions, expectations, hopes, fears, longings, rejoicings, and mental suffer-
ings engage his constant attention. An elaborate psychological analysis runs through
the central part of Hrōðgār’s great moral discourse (1724b–52). Delicacy as well as
strength of emotion are ¢nely depicted (see 862–3, 1602b–5a, 1870–80a, 1915–16,
3031–2), and numerous touches illustrate an appreciation of kind-heartedness (e.g. 46,
203b, 469b, 521a, 1262b, 2434b, 3093a). The strongest emotions presented, however, are
terror and horror, such as the ateliċ eġesa (784a) that petri¢es the Danes when
Grendel’s howls resound within Heorot.
As that last-mentioned scene suggests, drawn into prominence at times are the psy-
chological effects of the action on a dramatic audience within the poem.1 Readers or
listeners are invited to witness the emotional responses of characters within the poem
without, however, necessarily sharing in those feelings, given our superior knowledge
of events. During the nighttime battle in Heorot, for example, the Danes have no clear
idea what is happening, nor what the outcome of the ¢ght will be. The reader or
listener is in no such doubt. During the ¢ght in the depths of Grendel’s pool, Bēowulf’s
men gaze heartsick upon the blood-stained waters, concluding in error (in yet another
instance of dramatic irony) that it is the gore of their dead prince that is welling up
there (1602b–5a). We are invited to view their distress with sympathy, even if also from
the vantage point of a superior understanding. From the beginning of the poem, when
we are told of the men who witness Scyld’s ship funeral, to the end, when we are told
of the thegns who eulogize the dead Bēowulf, we are invited to see the action from the
perspective of one or another of these dramatic audiences within the poem. At the same
time, our perspective never coincides with theirs, and many of the poem’s nuances
stem from this difference.
In these ways and others, a relatively simple story is made complex through the use
of contrasts and comparisons, the multiplying of narrative strands, the use of naturally
introduced reminiscences and prophetic passages, and the exploitation of different
narrative perspectives. Not only are events described; they are also witnessed from
various narratological viewpoints, and their past and future implications are dwelt upon
with notable care. An instructive example is the scene in which Queen Wealhþēo gen-
erously presents Bēowulf with a set of gifts that includes a supremely valuable neck-
lace or torque. The narrator declares that he has never heard of a ¢ner treasure since
Hāma bore off the necklace of the Brōsingas while Ïeeing the enmity of Eormenrīċ, the
famous king of the Goths (ll.¯1197–1201). In addition to introducing this reference to the
legendary past (one that has mythic associations: see the Commentary on these lines),
the poet goes on to tell of the future history of this gift. Hyġelāc will wear the neck-
ornament on his last expedition, when he is destined to lose his life as a result of a
foolhardy raid in the Rhineland (1202–14a). Typically, the greatest of earthly treasures
(1195b–6) will fall into the hands of an unnamed foreign warrior. In a manner similar to
what we see when veiled allusion is made to future warfare that will perilously engulf
Heorot (82b–5), we are reminded of the ultimate vanity of things that are valued by
people in the poem. The scene of Wealhþēo’s gift-giving may at ¢rst seem one of
simple thanks and celebration, and yet its signi¢cance is deepened through references
to past enmities and future warfare and death — a death that, in the poet’s charac-
teristic manner of reversal, will eventually lead to the grace of Bēowulf’s accession to
the throne.

1
See Lumiansky JEGP 51 (1952) 545–50. Subsequent discussions of this narrative element
have emphasized the cinematographic quality by which point of view is developed (Renoir 1962)
as well as the techniques of focalization that create an ideal audience identifying with the values of
the class of warrior-thegns (Richardson Neophil. 81 [1997] 289–98). Ringbom 1968: 38–45 dis-
cusses the effect of shifts of point of view within the narrative.
xcviii INTRODUCTION
NARRATIVE VOICE1

Viewed from a literary perspective, the narrator who nimbly mediates all these events
to an imagined audience is one of the poet’s most signi¢cant creations. More precisely,
the reader of Beowulf soon grows accustomed to what has aptly (and memorably) been
called an ‘authenticating voice’ (Green¢eld ASE 5 [1976] 51–62). Speaking through
this voice, the poet is never reluctant to direct his imagined audience’s attention to the
moral or philosophical import of the tale. Taking on a role analogous to that of a Greek
chorus, the authenticating voice takes pleasure in adding interpretive comments or con-
clusions, or, it may be, expressions of approval or censure, so as to frame the main
action of the poem within a larger intellectual sphere that encompasses history, relig-
ion, and ethics.
One function of the narrator’s voice is a distancing one. As we are told in the poem’s
¢rst lines, what is to be told is a tale of deeds enacted in ġeārdagum (1b). Now and
again as the story progresses, the past era depicted in the poem is distinguished from
the ‘present’ era of the narrator’s and the audience’s own day. When the hero is intro-
duced, for example, he is identi¢ed as the strongest of men on þ®m dæġe þisses līfes
(197; cf. 790). When the Danes offer sacri¢ce to idols, the poet forcefully distinguishes
the false hope of pagans (h®þenra hyht 179a) from the more enlightened spirituality of
his own day.
In addition, the narrator’s authenticating voice aÌrms that there are continuities
between that past era and the present day. Senescence (1886–7), the regular succession
of the seasons (1132b–6a), and the inevitability of death (2590–1) offer occasion for
such universalizing comments. Dragons are described as features of the existing world,
feared by earth-dwellers (2272–5). The creatures of hell, too, are still with us (162b–3).
Most important, God ruled over that ancient world swā hē nū ġīt dēð (1058b), re-
gardless of whether or not the people living in those times were aware of his existence
(cf. 2858–9). The narrator bestows praise and blame in a manner that suggests that the
more enlightened values that motivated the characters in that day are still operative, or
ought to be operative, in this.2 Attention is freely called to a moral for its own sake, and
thus courage, loyalty, generosity, and wisdom are held up as qualities worthy of
emulation (e.g. at 20–5 and 2166–9a). The narrator expresses his approval of people
and their deeds in brief, quasi-exclamatory clauses like þæt wæs gōd cyning (11b; cf.
2390b) and ne bið swylċ earges sīð (2541b).3 By this means both Christian and heroic
values are reinforced; in particular, the punishment of hell is commented upon by way
of warning and as a contrast to the joys of heaven (183b–8). As in such a poem as
Maxims II, the unembarrassed statement of the obvious is a sign that familiarity, in this
poet’s circle, did not necessarily breed contempt. On the other hand, gnomic statements
that may strike a modern reader as relatively banal may be worked into the narrative in
a manner that is more complex than meets the eye.4 The Beowulf poet’s abstracting,

1
See, in particular, Ringbom 1968: 45–54, Green¢eld ASE 5 (1976) 51–62, McGalliard SP 75
(1978) 243–70, Niles 1983: 197–204, K. Harris ELN 37 (1999) 1–15.
2
Clemoes (in Calder 1979: 149–50) speaks of this aspect of the poem’s art in terms of
‘traditional corporate wisdom.’ J.M. Hill has repeatedly argued for a reading of Beowulf that rests
on the principle of ethical continuity between then and now; see MLQ 40 (1979) 3–16; 1995: 38–
62; id. in Bjork & Niles (1997) 263–8; id. 2000: 19–73.
3
Cf. 1250b, 1812b, 1885b–7, 1691b–2a, 1940b¯ff., 2585b.
4
As is discussed by Burlin in Nicholson & Frese 1975; cf. Shippey 1977, Thayer ELN 41.2
(2003) 1–18. The gnomic passages of Beowulf have been catalogued by Malone (see note on
572¯f.); more recent discussion is provided by Karkov and Farrell NM 91 (1990) 295–310, Deskis
1996, and Cavill 1999 passim. OE wisdom poetry in general is surveyed by Williams 1914; cf. M.
Bloom¢eld in Essays & Explorations (Cambridge, MA, 1970) 59–80, T. Shippey Poems of
Wisdom and Learning in OE (Cambridge, 1976) 1–47, E. Hansen The Solomon Complex (Toronto,
1988).
 METHOD OF NARRATION xcix
generalizing tendency also takes the form of recapitulating or explanatory remarks that
serve as brief pauses in the forward progress of the action. Examples are wæs se
īrenþrēat / w®pnum ġewurþad (330b–1a), cūþe hē duguðe þēaw (359b), and sume on
w®le crungon (with meiotic irony, 1113b); cf. 137¯ff., 223b–4a, 814b–15a, 1075b, 1124b,
1246b–50.
What chieÏy distinguishes the narrator as an authoritative speaker is the sweeping,
though not unlimited, character of his knowledge. This extends not only to the main
action, but also to countless peripheral events, some of which pertain to the remote and
(one would think) unknowable past. He knows of the origins of the dragon’s hoard
(2233–70a), for example, even down to the speci¢c words uttered by the last human
being to have had possession of it. He is privileged to know the fate of Bēowulf’s soul
(2819–20), and he calls attention to instances of God’s intervention in human affairs
(13b–17, 696b–7, 1553b–6). The narrator’s use of one or another variation on the for-
mula iċ ġefræġn (as at 74a, 1011a, 1027a, 2484a, 2694a, 2752a, 2773a) con¢rms his
authority as someone in possession of knowledge deriving from oral tradition.1 Yet
while the narrator has knowledge that extends far beyond that of any actual person who
can be imagined, he is not omniscient. To the contrary, he makes a point of calling
attention to the limits of human knowledge. Neither he nor anyone else knows the fate
of Scyld’s funeral ship (51b–2). No one knows where the mysterious creatures of hell
go as they move about (162b–3). The narrator knows what is inscribed on the hilt of the
giant-wrought sword (1694–8a, in a passage that is admittedly diÌcult to construe; see
Commentary), but he does not report what exactly is spelt out there. Still he knows
(and hence we in the audience know) more about the sword-hilt than does Hrōðgār,
who gazes upon it without, evidently, any clear knowledge of its ancient origins. In
general, while serving as our chief guide to the work, the narrator’s authenticating
voice still falls short of ¢nal authority and should not be thought to foreclose alter-
native interpretive possibilities.

DESCRIPTIONS OF SETTINGS AND THINGS2

Bēowul¢an society is aristocratic3 and marked by courtly demeanor. In addition,

violence lurks beneath its surface tranquillity.4 The men have reason to be armed and
vigilant; peace is precarious; treachery may be close to hand. Pride, drunkenness,
greed, and envy are not unknown. A brooding sense of wounded honor may sooner or
later erupt in revenge. Still, the image of lords and their households living harmoni-
ously in the hall remains an emblem of the good life on earth, to the extent that it can
be achieved.

1
Cf. mīne ġefr®ġe 776b, 837b, 1955b, 2685b, 2837b; (ne) hyrde iċ 38a, 62a, 1197, 1842b, 2163a,
2172a. The phrase wē . . . ġefrūnon with which the poem begins implies that the audience, too, is
familiar with the basic substance of the poem, though the fact that this plural phrase occurs only
here suggests that much of the ensuing narrative may not, after all, fall into the category of tradi-
tional lore. Parks (Narodna umjetnost 26 [1989] 25–35) discusses the poet’s ‘I heard’ formulas; cf.
Rumble AnMed. 5 (1964) 13–20.
2
See particularly Lawrence 1928: 161–243 and Brodeur 1959: 107–31, and cf. Magennis’s
discussion of ‘the mythic landscape of Beowulf: sea, stronghold and wilderness’ (1996: 121–43).
3
Outside of court circles (including retainers and attendants) we ¢nd mention of a fugitive slave
only (2223¯f.), though the reading þēo(w) at that point has been disputed (see Commentary). But
slaves, too, could pertain to an aristocratic milieu.
4
Stanley (1998a: 91–6) ¢nds in the poem both courtliness and courtesy, on the one hand, and a
tendency toward drunkenness and disloyalty, on the other. Magennis discusses the dual per-
spectives that animate the poem whereby celebrations of heroic society coexist with a notable
distrust of its violent tendencies (1996: 60–81). Sharp insights into Beowul¢an court society, with
its economy of honor, are offered by J.M. Hill Medievalia et Humanistica 11 (1982) 177–97; id.
1995: 85–107.
c INTRODUCTION
The poem is an invaluable fund of information relating to Germanic antiquities.
Here and there are to be heard echoes of Tacitus’s Germania (Appx.A §¯15): partic-
ularly worth noting are Tacitus’s references to ancient song, quod unum apud illos
memoriae et annalium genus est (cap. 2); to the shame attendant upon a warrior’s Ïight
from battle or abandonment of his chieftain (capp. 6, 14); to generals who lead by
example rather than exhortation (cap. 7); to the value set on a large comitatus (cap. 13)
and on the close relationship of a man and his sister’s son (cap. 20);1 to the use of
wealth to settle feuds (cap. 21); to cremation and mound-building (cap. 27); and to the
talismanic power of boar images (cap. 45). While the authenticity of the Beowulf poet’s
descriptions of material objects is often diÌcult to judge, numerous details have in
various ways been con¢rmed by archaeological ¢nds in Scandinavia or elsewhere in
the North Sea cultural zone, as is noted at speci¢c points in the Commentary. The
‘Index of References to Early Germanic Culture’ (Appx.B) is intended to facilitate
study of this perennially fascinating aspect of the poem.2
A characteristic feature of the Beowulf poet’s art is his delight in material things.
While the ultimate moral value accruing to wealth in this poem is a topic of critical
discussion,3 the abiding human interest in bright jewels and buried treasure is satis¢ed
at many turns. Ships are beautiful, especially when in motion. Weapons are described
lovingly and in detail, nowhere more fully than when the hero arms himself with shirt
of mail, helmet, and sword in preparation for his descent into Grendel’s mere (1441b–
64). The emphasis placed on armaments in this scene, in a manner almost Homeric, is

1
This aÌnity, abundantly illustrated in early Germanic literatures and predicated on the cer-
tainty of consanguinity that the relationship affords, has close parallels in various cultures, most
famously that of the Trobriand Islanders studied by B. Malinowski in his celebrated (and unfor-
tunately titled) book The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia (London, 1929).
Many aspects of Tacitus’s account have been questioned in recent years, primarily because the
Germania is not a dispassionate ethnography but a rebuke to Tacitus’s fellow Romans, whom he
hoped to reform by comparing, implicitly, what he perceived to be their decadence with the
uprightness of peoples whom they regarded as savages. But the work does not conceal some of the
less admirable traits of the Germanic peoples, and while the author’s political aims may have
introduced some distortions, and his information may not have been accurate as regards all the
Germanic realms, it can hardly be maintained that it is an utter ¢ction. The dismissal of the witness
of Tacitus has been sometimes plainly more unbalanced than Tacitus’s own account, as for
example in regard to the rejection altogether of the existence of such an entity as the comitatus
(Fanning Haskins Soc. Jnl. 9 [1997] 17–38).
2
Among the more noteworthy older works with a bearing on this topic are J. Kemble Horae
Ferales (London, 1863) and The Saxons in England, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (1876); Müllenhoff 1887–
1900; O. Montelius The Civilisation of Sweden in Ancient Times (London, 1888); F. Gummere
Germanic Origins (New York, 1892); S. Müller Nordische Altertumskunde nach Funden und
Denkmälern, 2 vols. (Strassburg, 1897); Seebohm 1902; Grønbech 1909–12; Chadwick 1912;
Stjerna 1912; A. Olrik Viking Civilization (New York, 1930); and Heusler 1943. These should be
consulted in conjunction with the many relevant entries in R.-L.2, as well as individual notes in the
Commentary. Noteworthy among studies relating to Beo and archaeology undertaken during the
past ¢fty years are Cramp 1957, Wrenn in Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie in memoriam
Ferdinand Mossé (Paris, 1959) 495–507, Webster 1988, Hills 1997, and Herschend 1998, 2001.
The translations by J. Clark Hall (London, 1901), W. Huyshe (London, 1907), and M. Osborn
(Berkeley, 1984) are accompanied by numerous images of Germanic antiquities, as is a new
illustrated edition of Heaney’s translation (IllusB.) including Niles’s ‘Afterword: Visualizing
Beowulf’ (213–55).
3
Green¢eld speaks of a ‘contrariety of functions’ served by treasure in the poem (1974: 331).
McGalliard (SP 75 [1978] 251–60) ¢nds no deprecation of wealth or ornaments in Part I of the
poem and concludes (contra Silber AnMed. 18 [1977] 5–19) that even in Part II, the poet nowhere
expresses disapproval of wealth or its legitimate use. See further G. Clark ELH 32 (1965) 409–41,
Cherniss PQ 47 (1968) 473–86, and Shippey 1978: 18–24. Tyler 2006: 9–38 emphasizes both the
ubiquity and the self-sustaining conventionality of the references to treasure in Beo and other OE
verse.
 METHOD OF NARRATION ci
an index of the danger of the ¢ght that will ensue. Horses and their accouterments are
items of high status that contribute little to the action but are put on prominent display
when Hrōðgār offers gifts to the hero (1035–9). Other precious possessions mentioned
in this same scene are a banner, chain mail, a helmet, and a sword of special em-
blematic value, for Hrōðgār had it from his father. Such things are of more than
practical worth; they stand for the value of their owner.1 Paradoxically perhaps, the
value of an item is greatest when it is given away, for then the status of both donor and
recipient is put on display. The emphasis that the poet places on the Danish royal
couple’s generosity to Bēowulf, or Bēowulf’s generosity to his king, is fully explicable
when seen in this light. Some precious gifts are heirlooms that knit generation to
generation, family to family, kingdom to kingdom. Heirlooms embody the hope that
the glory of former generations will be extended into the future, whether these things
are handed down through the normal process of inheritance or are presented as gifts, as
when the dying Bēowulf ceremoniously bestows his helmet, his shirt of mail, and a
precious neck-ornament on the young Wīġlāf, whose eligibility for the throne is
thereby greatly enhanced. While the treasure hoard that the aged Bēowulf takes com-
fort in having won for his people has been seen by some readers as emblematic of
transient worldly pelf, and hence as tainted with pride and greed,2 and while such a
perspective is consistent with orthodox Christian doctrine and, in addition, with the
generally gloomy mood of Part II, the evidence for the expression of such a view in the
poem is debatable.3 What can be said with assurance is that the poet stimulates his
audience’s appreciation of the role played by material things in the heroic economy
that centers on the hall.
Although the poet usually spends little time on scenic descriptions, one exception is
his account of the environs where Grendel and his mother make their home.4 The
celebrated speech in which Hrōðgār describes these eerie haunts conveys their horri¢c
nature. With its wolf-slopes and windy bluffs, its wild fenland approach, its fyrġen-
strēam (see 1359–61¯n.), its icy overhanging trees, and its ¢re burning nightly on the
water, Grendel’s mere is described in such a forbidding manner as would surely deter
any ordinary person from approaching it (1357b–66a; cf. 1379b). Much is therefore
revealed about Bēowulf’s character when he shows no hesitation in volunteering to go
there. His subsequent journey con¢rms the awful nature of that place as the men ¢nd
their way over unknown, single-¢le tracks, past rocky cliffs with their serpent-infested
dens, until they reach the pool with its bloody, roiling waters (1408–17a). Here they
¢nd Æschere’s severed head. This last detail might be thought merely grotesque if one
were not aware that this is no naturalistic landscape, but rather a ghastly one that calls
up Christian ideas of hell.5 The contribution of this passage to the poem’s design for
terror is admirable.

1
Schücking 1933; Leisi Anglia 71 (1953) 259–73.
2
See especially Goldsmith 1970: 94–96; cf. Rogers 1963, Quirk 1963: 165–70.
3
See infra, pp.¯lxxvi¯ff. The condemnatory tone that some readers have discerned in the narra-
tor’s voice at 2764b–6 may in part depend on an understanding of the verb oferhīgian that is open
to doubt: see 2766a¯n.
4
The debate among Lawrence (PMLA 27 [1912] 208–45, JEGP 38 [1939] 477–80), Hulbert (in
Kl.Misc. 189–95), Mackie (JEGP 37 [1938] 455–61), and others as to the type of physical locale
described, whether it involves a waterfall, a land-locked arm of the sea, or other elements, is of
long standing: see the notes on 845b, 1357¯ff., 1428¯f. Various attempts have been made to under-
stand the poet’s description of Grendel’s mere in a naturalistic sense, but its constituent elements
(highland, woods, fen, seacoast) are not easily reconciled.
5
A passage from Blickling homily xvi has often been cited in this connection (Appx.A §¯6; note
to 1357¯ff.). From the perspective of comparative folklore and mythology, what the hero is ap-
proaching in this scene is an otherworldly locale akin to those described by H. Patch The Other
World According to Descriptions in Medieval Literature [Cambridge, MA, 1950]), but presented
as a kind of locus horribilis, i.e., ‘the opposite of Paradise, a blighted landscape, a place of horror,
cii INTRODUCTION
Likewise the dragon’s barrow, the main setting of Part II, is described in more than
routine detail.1 A path yldum uncūð (2214a) leads into the mound’s interior (cf. the
uncūð ġelād that leads to Grendel’s mere). A single physical detail is suggestive of how
horri¢c a task the hero faces, for a stream that Ïows from the lower part of the barrow
appears literally to be Ïaming from the heat of the dragon’s breath (2546b–9 [see
notes]; cf. the ¢re on the surface of Grendel’s mere). Typically, one is never told the
barrow’s shape. One must infer what type of structure it is from the fact that its en-
trance is framed by a stone archway (2545a, 2718b), while within it are walls (2759a)
and a roof (2755b, 3123b). When the dead king’s retainers approach it, they ¢nd that its
treasures have been lying there a very long time (3049b–50). Eight men can enter it
(3123a), an indication of its capacious size. While the conception of the dragon’s
barrow is clearly indebted to megalithic chambered tombs, found fairly commonly in
Europe, that would have been of unknown origin in the poet’s day but are now known
to date from the Neolithic era (Lawrence PMLA 33 [1918] 547–83; ibid. 1928: 209–11;
see ¢g. 9), it remains a mysterious, tabooed site (as such sídbruigi do in medieval Irish
saga). As unmistakably physical in its makeup as is the dragon itself, it also is sug-
gestive of an uncanny threat. The danger inherent in such a site is magni¢ed by what
we are told about a curse having been laid on the treasure (3051–7, 3069–75), regard-
less of whether or not the curse is viewed as causing the hero’s death.
When elements of nature are introduced into the poem, they usually serve either as a
background for human action or as counterpoints to human sentiment. The seas that are
ice-bound during the winter that Henġest and his Half-Danes are forced to spend in
Friesland (1127b–36) are real Northern waters, and yet they also present a material
counterpart to the cold emotions and frozen action of these anxious months. Winter
here is very nearly personi¢ed, as if it were an actor in this human drama: winter ©ðe
belēac / īsġebinde (1132b–3a).2 When spring arrives, violence breaks out again, resolv-
ing in its own way what had been an intolerable truce. Similarly, as soon as a storm
separates Bēowulf and Breca as these two ful¢ll their vow to swim at sea (543¯ff.), the
hero is plunged into a tumultuous ¢ght with serpents of the deep. No sooner is the ¢ght
concluded than dawn breaks, and the seas subside (569b–72a). In like manner, the sun
(woruldcandel 1965b) is shining when Bēowulf strides home in triumph to his uncle
Hyġelāc’s hall. Passages like these establish a connection between nature and human
feelings. Nature in itself, however, is of little interest. Although it was once a critical
commonplace to perceive a Romantic sensibility in Anglo-Saxon attitudes toward na-
ture (the wilderness being regarded as a source of bene¢cent inÏuences),3 joy in Beo-
wulf resides in society. To leave human companionship behind is to enter a realm of
potential danger and fear.4
The impression of authenticity conveyed by certain details of the action of Beowulf
tends to disguise the poem’s temporal and geographical inexactitude. As is to be
expected in a work that is only quasi-historical, the poet never indicates when the
events he recounts are supposed to have taken place, if reckoned on a clerical time-line.

vast solitude, and impassability, abounding in savage beasts and demons’ (J. Howe in Inventing
Medieval Landscapes, ed. J. Howe & M. Wolfe [Gainesville, 2002] 210).
1
See Thornbury Quaestio 1 (2000) 82–92, Michelet 2006: 79–82.
2
Such personi¢cation, though often fairly colorless, does play a role in Beo (Isaacs in Creed
1967: 215–48); cf. the ship that is ūtfūs (33a), the sword that was to perform bold work (1464), the
coat of mail traveling by the side of heroes (2260b–2a), or the raven that, fūs ofer f®gum, will have
much to say to the eagle regarding his grim repast (3024b–6a). See also note on 2039¯f.
3
See, e.g., Brooke 1892: 356–7; E. Dale, Natl. Life & Character in the Mirror of Early Eng. Lit.
(Cambridge, 1907) 12–13; M.-M. Dubois, La littérature anglaise du moyen âge (Paris, 1962) 58–9.
4
See the pertinent remarks by Robinson 1985: 70–2; cf. Huppé in Approaches to Nature in the
Middle Ages, ed. G. Economou (Binghamton, 1982) 4–46. On the representation of nature in OE
verse more generally, see esp. Neville 1999, with pertinent remarks on Beowulf at pp.¯129–38 et
passim.
 METHOD OF NARRATION ciii
There would be no way to ascribe a close date to any event mentioned in the poem had
not Gregory of Tours written of Hyġelāc’s disastrous attack and consequent death in
the Rhineland, implying for these events a date during the period A.D. 516–531 (see
supra, p.¯li; Appx.A §¯15 & p.¯312 n.¯1). The geography that the poet calls to mind is
similarly imprecise. At the start, we know we are in the land of the Danes, but where
among that people’s territories are we to think of the action as situated? The hall that
the poet calls Heorot can be located, notionally, on a map of modern Denmark only on
the basis of the testimony of authors who state that the seat of Skj∂ldung power was at
Lejre, Zealand (Appx.A §§ 7.2, 8, 10, 11.2, 11.3, 11.6, 12). As for the other ethnic
groups named in the poem, there are very few means to map their location. Basing their
conclusions on a variety of archaeological and historical sources, modern scholars
locate the Swedes of this period in the region of Gamla Uppsala, not far northwest of
modern Stockholm, but the poet is not so speci¢c — unsurprisingly, as it is quite pos-
sible that he had no very good understanding of Scandinavian geography. The Angles
are known (from other sources) to have migrated to Britain from central and south
Jutland, while the Frisians and Franks (again, from other sources) can be located in
territories southwest of the Danes. Other groups are almost impossible to locate. This
generalization applies even to the Ġēatas (see supra, pp.¯lxiv¯ff.), a group about whose
affairs, paradoxically, a great deal is said in the course of the poem. The barrow of
Bēowulf, king of the Ġēatas, is erected overlooking the sea at a place called Hrones
Næs so that seafarers can see it from afar, and yet no information is given as to what
sea this is, nor where on that coastline Hrones Næs might be found. Disappointing as
such vagueness may be to some modern readers, such imprecision should be under-
stood as natural to the poem’s genre: great heroic deeds are naturally situated in far-
away places at some indeterminate time because their extraordinary nature demands a
willing suspension of disbelief that is at odds with the familiar and the factual. It was
not the poet’s purpose to recreate a landscape or a historical period in all its particulars,
but to tell of deeds of long ago that have an intellectual and moral bearing on life as it
is generally lived.1

CHARACTERIZATION2

The persons of the main characters are described only sparingly, if at all. Hrōðgār is
eald ond ānhār (357a); Hyġelāc, by way of contrast, is ġeong (1831b) and his queen
Hyġd swīðe ġeong (1926b). Wealhþēo is distinguished physically by the gold jewelry
that she wears (1163a). Even Bēowulf himself, who commands attention from line 194
to the end, is never depicted visually. Instead, we are invited to imagine his physical
appearance by the effect he has on others. When the hero arrives at the shore of Den-
mark, the Danish shore watch is struck not only by his unequaled size (247b–8) but by
his ‘peerless’ (or ‘handsome’?) countenance (®nliċ ans©n, 251a). Hrōðgār’s trusted
oÌcer Wulfgār, likewise, is favorably impressed by the appearance of Bēowulf and his
group of retainers, armed as they are with helmets and coats of mail, signs of their high
status (368–70).
What the poet does direct our attention to is the character of the dramatis personae
as this is revealed through speech, action, indirect report, contrast, and certain other

1
Cf. Earl: ‘We cannot assume the poem is representative of any period, or even, ¢nally,
representative of anything at all. Like the Homeric poems, Beowulf portrays an imaginary society
with an imaginary culture’ (1994: 17, his italics). Even if what is depicted in a given narrative is
imaginary, however, a distinction can be drawn between pure fantasy, on the one hand, and the
kind of historical ¢ction that the Beowulf poet sustains.
2
See particularly Pirkhofer 1940, Orchard 2003: 169–202. Clemoes (in Calder 1979) suggests
that character in the modern sense is not to be looked for in Beowulf; instead, ‘a man’s “character”
is what others think of his actions — his reputation’ (p.¯162).
civ INTRODUCTION
means.1 Among the leading males, next in importance to the hero in Part I of the poem
is Hrōðgār, the grand and kindly ruler, full of eloquence and parental wisdom, who is
now, sadly, well past his prime.2 The most pious person depicted in the poem, he is
also by far the most emotional, with a tendency toward nostalgia and rapid changes of
mood (see 1321–5, 1397–8, 1870–80a, 2111–14). Among those in Hrōðgār’s service are
the fearless shore watch, a plain-spoken oÌcer and yet a diplomatic one; the decorous
and somewhat oÌcious Wulfgār, whose every other phrase is an honori¢c title for his
king (350b–5); the rancorous counselor Ūnferð, a man of dubious motives, shadowy
past, and Ïamboyantly aggressive speech, who nonetheless lends his sword to the hero
in what has the appearance of a gesture of friendship (499–606, 1455–71a); and the
loyal counselor Æschere, whose death his king takes so hard. After the hero returns to
Ġēatland, the supporting cast is smaller, but the men who take part in the action are
sharply de¢ned. There is the young king Hyġelāc, the hero’s dear maternal uncle, a
man both gracious and impetuous; there is the young Wīġlāf, who, though previously
unmentioned and untried, takes on a major role in the action as he risks his life to save
his beloved lord and kinsman and then comforts him in extremis; and there are Wīġ-
lāf’s counterparts, the cowardly Geatish retainers who receive such scathing condem-
nation. All these characters are of the nature of types, though each who assumes an
active role is convincing.
Women are given complex and, generally, sympathetic roles.3 The most fully devel-
oped of them is Wealhþēo, who exempli¢es the con¢dent freoðuwebbe through her
presence at the feast.4 As she circulates among the warriors, taking care to visit young
and old, hosts and guests in turn, she seems in every way a ¢tting counterpart to
Hrōðgār: she is a noble, gracious, farsighted queen.5 Her parental solicitude is evident
in the scene in which she tactfully reminds Hrōðgār that his desire to adopt Bēowulf
should not stand in the way of their own sons’ advancement (1175–80a). When she then
turns her attention to Bēowulf, she is lavish in her gifts (1192–6) and assures him of

1
Schücking 1933: 32–44 discusses characterization through speech, a topic that is emphasized
by Orchard 2003, esp. at 203–37.
2
E. Hansen The Solomon Complex (Toronto, 1988) 41–67 emphasizes his parental wisdom;
Frantzen (1998: 92–8) his manliness; R. Derolez (in Multiple Worlds, Multiple Words, ed. H.
Maes-Jelinek, P. Michel, & P. Michel-Michot [Liège, 1987] 51–8), on the other hand, ¢nds him
feeble and passive; see also Dockray-Miller Exemplaria 10 (1998) 1–28, and J. Sutton Death &
Violence in Old & Middle English Literature (Lewiston, 2007) 48–9. Irving 1989: 47–64 em-
phasizes his concurrent weakness (in old age) and dignity. Woolf Louisiana State Univ. Studies,
Humanities Ser. 5 (1954) 39–54 sees his function as, in part, to enhance Bēowulf’s heroic stature;
see also Chck. 347–8, Rose Journal of Popular Culture 1 (1967) 158–65, Carroll Mediaevalia 27.2
(2006) 16–18.
3
The two exceptions are the arrogant princess who is reformed upon her marriage to Offa, king
of the Angles (1931b–62), and Grendel’s mother. Only with some latitude, of course, is the latter of
these to be included in the category of the human.
4
The term freoðuwebbe is discussed with relation to Beo by Sklute NM 71 (1970) 534–41 and
Chance 1986: 98–108 passim. The role of women of the type of Wealhþēo in early Germanic lit-
erature and society is discussed by R. Schrader (God’s Handiwork [Westport, 1983]) and Enright
Frühmittelalterliche Studien 22 (1988) 170–203, while Damico 1984 analyzes that queen’s possible
aÌnities to the valkyries of ON mythological tradition. Overing 1995 discusses three of the poem’s
women from a post-Freudian psychoanalytic perspective. A. Olsen 1997 offers an overview of
female roles in Beowulf, as does Haruta Poetica 23 (1986) 1–15.
5
Adopting a different perspective from the one offered here, Joyce Hill, in New Readings on
Women in OE Lit., ed. H. Damico and A. Olsen (Bloomington, 1990) 235–47, discusses Wealhþēo
in relation to the type of the passive, sorrowing woman who de¢nes the essentials of heroic
tragedy. Similarly, Irving (1989: 74) sees her as powerless to control the intrigues brewing at
Hrothgar’s court and hence as ful¢lling a ‘pathetic’ role. On the other hand, Klein 2006: 199–22
sees in her an effective advocate of an ideal of heroic masculinity that encompasses the virtue of
gentleness; see also Fee NM 97 (1996) 285–94 (and cf. Liuzza OEN 31.2 [1998] 57–8) and Jamison
Women in German Yearbk. 20 (2004) 13–36.
 METHOD OF NARRATION cv
future rewards as well (1225b–6a). At the same time, no one could mistake her purpose
in asking the hero to be gracious to her son (Hrēðrīċ), the legitimate heir (1226b–7).
When she makes a point of calling attention to the peace and loyalty that prevail in
Heorot (1228–31), one should not suppose her words naïve. To the contrary, her speech
is a masterpiece of indirection: she makes known to the company her awareness of the
possibility of treachery (as well as the possible violence of men in their cups) through
well-chosen words of praise.
The peace-weaving role of women as brides deserves special note, for modern
readers may ¢nd this role diÌcult to understand unless it is interpreted in relation to the
poem’s economy of honor.1 In the social world of Beowulf, a high-ranking bride is the
supreme element in a system of gift-exchange involving two families that might or
might not otherwise be on good terms, but that both stand to gain from this inter-
change. She not only has a distinguished pedigree but also is uniquely capable of
giving birth to children who will descend from both her own and her husband’s blood
lines, and hence will have the potential to unify them. And yet, as is typical of the
Beowulf poet’s method, we hear less about successful peace-weaving marriages than
about ones that end tragically, such as Frēawaru’s impending marriage to Inġeld
(2024b–69a). A failure of a similar kind is highlighted in the poem’s most brutal inset
story, the song telling of the strife at Finnsburg that results in the deaths of Queen
Hildeburh’s brother Hnæf and of her unnamed son, then the killing of her husband Finn
(1063–1159a).
Many persons who are mentioned only in passing (including Ælfhere, Bēanstān,
Dæġhrefn, Ecglāf, Ecgwela, Ēomēr, Folcwalda, and others) remain no more than
names. As regards the possibility that certain personal names are intended to be mean-
ingful, in the sense that a name might reÏect on the character or role of the ¢gure who
bears it, see Lang. §¯26.10.
The poet’s typical method of characterization is to reveal information bit by bit
rather than all at once. In addition, character is normally revealed through action.2 The
depiction of Grendel exempli¢es these tendencies, which promote horror by keeping
one in doubt as to what kind of creature he is, whether human or inhuman.3 When
Grendel is ¢rst introduced, we learn of his diabolical nature, his secluded haunts in the
wilderness, and his descent from Cain (99–107a). When he ¢rst attacks Heorot, we are
left to infer his gigantic size from the fact that he seizes and carries off thirty men at
once (123a). When he enters the hall on the night the hero lies in wait for him, the light
that shines from his eyes (727b) lends special terror to this scene and leaves one
wondering whether he is a creature of the natural world or not. We soon learn that not
only does he prey on human beings, but he drinks blood right from their veins and
devours them in huge morsels (739–45a).4 Soon we also learn that, though there is no
evidence that he uses human language, he is capable of savage howls.5 He is a mortal

1
As is discussed by J.M. Hill 1995: 25–37 (‘Feud Settlements’) with reference to J. Goody The
Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe (Cambridge, 1983) and other studies of con-
structed kinship. Especially inÏuential in this regard is G. Rubin ‘The TraÌc in Women,’ in
Toward an Anthropology of Women, ed. R. Reiter (New York, 1975) 157–210.
2
From this perspective, speech serves as a kind of action. The oratorical brilliance of Bēowulf’s
response to Ūnferð (well analyzed by Baker 1988) exempli¢es his brash con¢dence in his youth,
while his speeches in Part II reveal a seriousness bordering on melancholy.
3
Niles 1983: 7–12; cf. Baird NM 67 (1966) 375–81.
4
Orchard (2003: 141) calls attention to the ecclesiastical tradition — a relevant one, given
Grendel’s ancestry — that antediluvian giants consumed Ïesh with blood, a practice since then
proscribed.
5
Irving (1968: 15–22; cf. O’Brien O’Keeffe TSLL 23 [1981] 284–94) has noted the extent to
which Grendel is de¢ned by what he lacks, from a human perspective: he seems to be incapable of
articulate speech, he does not use weapons, he lacks normal family relations, he pays no werġild.
Rather than seeming simply monstrous, he thus takes on the appearance of an ‘anti-thegn,’ a
cvi INTRODUCTION
being, with sinews and joints that are capable of experiencing excruciating pain. Only
after his Ïight from Heorot, once his severed arm is put on display, can it be seen that
his ¢ngers end in steely claws, while his skin or hide is so tough that no man-made
sword could have cut through it (984b–90). After the combat against Grendel’s mother,
when Bēowulf uses the giant-wrought sword to behead Grendel, the torso wīde sprong
(1588b) at the blow, almost as if it still had life in it — another sign of his uncanny
nature. Grendel’s head then provides a clear indication of his size, for four men
walking with diÌculty (weorcum, 1658b) are needed to carry it to Heorot on a spear.
Finally, when Bēowulf reports to King Hyġelāc about his adventures in Denmark, one
last detail is revealed: Grendel carried a dragon-skin pouch or game-bag (glōf, 2085b)
into which he had intended to stuff his prey.
Like the human characters in the poem, Grendel’s mother is never described in a
straightforward fashion and hence can be visualized differently by every reader. She
remains in the realm of the shadowy and the half-known, and her role is that of avenger
(1256b, 1278b, 1333b). We know her ¢rst of all from the effect she has on human beings
when, forsaking her customary solitude, she bursts into Heorot the night after her son
returns home mutilated and on the verge of death. If her strength, being that of a
woman, is less than her son’s (1282b–4), then her rage (together with the factor of
surprise) makes up for that difference. We next hear of her by report when Hrōðgār
speaks of her as a creature who has sometimes been spotted on the moors in the
company of the monster they call Grendel (1345–55a). The careful reader will observe
that Hrōðgār does not appear to be aware that she is Grendel’s mother. He and the
other Danes know only that the two awful creatures are of one kin (1339a).1 In the
climactic scene in which Bēowulf has sought her out in her bloody pool, it is
astonishing to learn that she makes her home not in the dark waters themselves, but in a
well-appointed underwater chamber complete with a ceiling (1515a), a ¢replace
(1516b), an assortment of weapons (1557), and at least one bed (1585b). These domestic
touches stand, for us, in odd contrast to her horri¢c nature. The hero himself has no
time to wonder in what sort of a place he is, for he has been swept into a life-and-death
struggle with a creature whose hide, like her son’s, cannot be penetrated by ordinary
weapons (1519b–28). All in all, she must be judged a ¢tting adversary in an episode in
which the poet, needing to avoid anticlimax after the ¢rst ¢ght, makes his furthest
venture into the realm of the supernatural. Unlike her son, however, Grendel’s mother
is nowhere referred to as a devil or as devil-like. Whether one views her as a beast
(brimwylf 1506a, 1599a) or as a monstrous perversion of the female sex, she remains a
mother, and her violent response to her son’s death can be understood in that relation
even if abhorred.2
As for the ¢redrake, while naturally inspiring fear, it is also presented with respect.3
Until its sudden attack, it has evidently lived for centuries doing nothing but guarding
the hoard. In the end it is even awarded a kind of sea burial, albeit an unceremonious
one (3131b–3). In many ways the dragon and Bēowulf are a well-matched pair. The
dragon is wintrum frōd (2277a) and is repeatedly called a hordweard (2293b, 2302b,
2554b, 2593a), much as Bēowulf himself is frōd (2209b, 2513a, 2625a; cf. 1844b) and

grotesque parody of the human. His relation to the Danes (and to God) is presented in the guise of
a regular feud (see 154b–8, 811b, 978a, 1001a).
1
Bēowulf himself, on the other hand, later speaks of her as Grendeles mōdor (2118b, 2139b). It
is not clear on what basis he has been able to recognize her as such.
2
See Chance TSLL 22 (1980) 287–303; cf. id. 1986: 95–108. On the characterization of Gren-
del’s mother, see also Damico 1984 (she is a Valkyrie reÏex), Kiernan In Geardagum 6 (1984) 13–
33 (she is an embodiment of revenge).
3
As has been observed by Gang 1952, Bonjour 1953, Sisam 1958, Nelson Explicator 43 (1985)
4–7, Stilton Bull. of the John Rylands Univ. Libr. 79 (1997) 67–77, and S. Heaney in the intro. to
his translation (New York, 2000) xix, among others.
 METHOD OF NARRATION cvii
acts as the hordweard of his people (2513a, 1852a). When they clash, both the human
warrior and his inhuman enemy are called awesome opponents (āgl®ċean, 2592), not
unlike each other in regard to their indomitable will. Never described as hellish, the
dragon yet seems an emblem of limitless pride and rage. Its full nature is revealed only
in stages. First it is seen pacing about, then biding its time impatiently until nightfall;
then it bursts forth into the night skies, showering ¢re in all directions (2312–15). The
next day, when Bēowulf challenges it to emerge from its den, its horri¢c size can be
inferred from the fact that the earth resounds (2558b). Only after the ¢ght is over is a
crucial detail con¢rmed: its jaws are poisonous, as the king had assumed (2523), so that
his wounds prove fatal (2711b–15a). When the dead dragon lies on the ground, its shape
no longer obscured by night and Ïames and its writhing motion, its size can be
measured: it is ¢fty feet long.
The poet’s practice of revealing character through speech and action is nowhere
plainer than in his portrayal of Bēowulf himself. When the hero ¢rst speaks (260–85),
in response to the challenge of the shore watch, we learn that, especially for one so
young, he has appreciable tact. He does not claim to know all about Grendel and the
Danes’ inability to deal with him — a topic about which they are likely to harbor some
sensitive feelings — nor does he say that he has come to accomplish the deed that they
have not been able to accomplish. Rather, he has come only to offer advice to Hrōðgār
about how he may rid himself of Grendel.1 When he ¢rst addresses Hrōðgār (407–55),
on the other hand, we see another, bolder side of his character. He speaks of past
victories and, asserting on their basis his ability and his determination to defeat the
monster, he shows that he does not shrink from the thought of the danger posed to
himself, but he trusts to his own fate.2 When Ūnferð challenges his resolve, asserting
that he is not the champion he has portrayed himself to be, his response is likewise
direct and undaunted: Ūnferð has only faulty knowledge of his swimming exploit,
which in fact was an accomplishment superior to anything told of Ūnferð himself, who
has neither the courage nor the moral standing — nor the sobriety — to have overcome
Grendel himself. Aside from illustrating the hero’s resolve, perhaps the most re-
markable thing about this response is that it remains a contest of words, and Bēowulf
(unlike, for instance, so many heroes of the Icelandic sagas) shows himself level-
headed enough to respond in kind and not with weapons.3 An ordinary man might well
have reveled unreservedly in his victory over such a monster as Grendel, but when the
king has seen the creature’s severed limb and showers praise on him for the deed, he
shows his humility by saying he wishes he had been able to display the corpse itself,
but he trusts in God’s judgment (958–79).4 When Grendel’s mother attacks, and the old
king is consumed anew by grief and fear, it is Bēowulf who inspires him with
con¢dence, advising, in a suitably brief and pithy speech, that immediate action is the
best course for one who would accomplish greatness in this short life, and he will
confront the creature without delay (1384–96). Another side of his character is revealed
by his continued dealings with Ūnferð. When he returns the þyle’s sword to him, an
opportunity presents itself for the hero to avenge the man’s verbal attack of the
previous evening. The sword, after all, proved worthless against Grendel’s mother, and
(considering the metonymic relation of men and their weapons) to have said so would

1
See Pepperdene ES 47 (1966) 409–19.
2
On this speech, see in particular Irving 1968: 62–8.
3
See Jucker & Taavitsainen Jnl. of Hist. Pragmatics 1 (2000) 77; Momma in Harbus & Poole
2005: 163–4; also Higgins Iowa Eng. Yearbk. 9 (1964) 43–6. Lees 1994: 145, following Clover’s
inÏuential comparative analysis of this scene (1980), observes that Bēowulf triumphs not by giving
a true account of the exploit (the truth being incapable of veri¢cation in the present circumstances)
but by virtue of his rhetoric.
4
For further evidence of the hero’s modesty and civility, see Bonjour RES 2 (1951) 1–10, Baird
N&Q 14 (1967) 6–8, Niles N&Q 27 (1980) 99–100.
cviii INTRODUCTION
have been to deliver an asked-for wound. Instead, the narrator makes a decided point of
it that the hero had only words of praise for the weapon (1807–12), and the generosity
of this is all the more remarkable in that, unlike the hero, the narrator himself seems
never to have forgiven Ūnferð (see 980¯ff., 1165¯ff., 1465¯ff.), despite the latter’s gesture
of reconciliation in lending Bēowulf the sword.1 The hero’s lengthy report to Hyġelāc
and his court (2000–2151) reveals both his political acumen, in his prediction of
renewed strife between the Danes and the Heaðo-Beardan, and his loyalty, as he closes
this speech with the profession that he still owes all to his lord and uncle Hyġelāc. His
loyalty and sense of honor are demonstrated also by his refusal of the throne offered
him by Hyġd: his sense of what is right tells him that he must not displace his young
cousin Heardrēd, but he must offer him advice and support so that he may grow into
the role of king (2369¯ff.). It is only after this point that the narrator indulges to any
great extent in direct characterization of the hero (2177–89, 2331b–2, 2419b–20, 2736b–
9a, 3098b–3100, 3180–2), no doubt for reasons of narrative economy.2
Bēowulf is thus the most fully developed character in the poem. He stands apart, as
well, by virtue of his extraordinary size and strength,3 his unusual name,4 and his lack
of a wife or children (but see the note on 3150¯ff.). His special qualities permit him to
forge alliances (with Danes, with Swedes) that transcend mere ethnic loyalty. In addi-
tion, he is the only character we see in the whole cycle of life, for mention is made of
him as an infant (when his exiled father visited Denmark, 372), as a child (when he was
fostered by King Hrēðel, 2428¯ff.), in his youth (the Breca episode), as a young man
(his adventures in Denmark), as a mature adult (when involved in the various quasi-
historical events mentioned in Part II), and as an aged king (in the dragon episode). We
never truly know him, and yet he typi¢es humankind. Like all the characters in the
poem, he is less than perfect.5 He lives in the half-light of pre-Christian belief, and he
shows no consistent awareness that his greatest successes are owing to divine favor
(but see ll.¯1658, 1661). Less than infallible in judgment, even headstrong, he is also
wise in foresight and gifted with ¢ne speech.6 Still, in his various roles, but in partic-
ular as courageous thegn and well-loved king, he shows himself a great hero, without
fear and without reproach.

1
Woolf MLQ 10 (1949) 145–52 argues that the improvement we see in Ūnferð’s character over
the course of the poem is an effect of his growing admiration for the hero, an attitude that thereby
serves to characterize Bēowulf.
2
On the characterization of Bēowulf the aged king, see Bonjour in Green¢eld 1963: 129–35;
Pope in Philological Essays, ed. J. Rosier (The Hague, 1970) 55–64; Malone ASE 1 (1972) 139–45
(cf. John 1974: 419–22); Pettit NM 77 (1976) 526–35; Russom Speculum 53 (1978) 1–15; T. Hill in
The Vikings, ed. R. Farrell (London, 1982) 165–79.
3
When the hero’s character is assessed, it is essential to keep in mind that his God-given
strength is matched by self-restraint; see 2180b–3a, 2737b–8a. He is not just a strong man with a
thirst for glory.
4
See the discussion at p.xlix supra. Conspicuously, his name does not alliterate with that of his
father Ecgðēo, his uncle Hyġelāc, his grandfather Hrēðel, or other of the Ġēatas.
5
His imperfections have been noted by many, including Tolkien 1953, Brodeur 1959, Leyerle
1965, and Huppé 1984; cf. Fajardo-Acosta 1989. G. Clark (in Bjork & Niles 1997: 280) attributes
to Tolkien’s inÏuence a postwar turn toward the idea of the hero’s tragic and Ïawed character. In
Clark’s own view, which he develops in detail (ibid. 275–90), the hero exempli¢es a noble desire
for good repute: ‘the poem’s theme and the hero’s goal are one’ (290). Cf. G. Clark 1990, and see
p.¯cxxiv¯f.
6
Note Hrōðgār’s judgment of his guest’s character: Þū eart mæġenes strang, ond on mōde frōd,
/ wīs wordcwida (1844–5a). For Schücking (1929a), the mature Bēowulf represents the Augustinian
ideal of the rex justus. For Kaske (1958), the hero embodies the twin ideals of sapientia and
fortitudo. For Irving (1968: 246), he is ‘the incarnation of the heroic spirit and the radiant center of
the poem.’ For Malone ASE 1 (1972) 139–45 he is headstrong and yet strong in the right. For Pope
(see n.¯2 supra) the aged king makes up for his doubts and misgivings through the heroic force of
his will.
 MOOD, TONE, AND STYLE cix
VIII. MOOD, TONE, AND STYLE1

Amidst all the judgments that have been voiced in the critical literature about Beowulf,
many of them contentious, there is one point about which literary scholars have tended
to agree ever since the poem ¢rst began to attract the attention of modern readers. This
is the excellence of the poem’s style, its verbal surface, in comparison not only with
other Old English verse but with the poetry of other eras as well. Wanley, who was
apparently the ¢rst modern person to have gained a fair understanding of some parts of
the poem at least, described it as a ‘Tractatus nobilissimus Poeticè scriptus’ and, again,
as ‘Poeseos Anglosaxonicæ egregium . . . exemplum’ (1705: 218–19). Conybeare, simi-
larly, when introducing the poem to a wide literary audience, characterized it as a ‘sin-
gular production’ that ranks ‘among the most perfect specimens of the language and
versi¢cation of our ancestors’ (Cony. 30). Subsequent studies have provided the
groundwork for a more speci¢c understanding of the inner mechanisms by which this
style operates, as well as for a more general aesthetic appreciation of the sensibilities
involved in the production of a poetic work of this kind — one that is at the same time
so digni¢ed and so exuberant.

THE ALTERNATION OF TWO MOODS

Feelings of grief and sadness abound in Beowulf. The bleak atmosphere of Part II of
the poem, in particular, is in keeping with the view (so familiar in the devotional lit-
erature of the Middle Ages) that life on earth is a form of exile from the only true joy,
which is in heaven. What is noteworthy is the manner in which the poet dwells on
sorrowful feelings with humane understanding. Hrōðgār’s grief for his thegns (129b–31,
473–6a, 1322–9), his touching farewell to Bēowulf (1870–80a), the gloomy forebodings
of Bēowulf’s men and their yearning love of home (691–3), the ever-recurring surges
of care, the abundance of epithets denoting sadness of heart — all give ample evidence
of a sustained effort to come to terms with powerful emotions. Profound in their pathos
are the ‘Elegy of the Last Survivor’ (2247–70a), with its portrait of a human being cut
off from all companionship, and the ‘Father’s Lament’ (2444–62a), with its images of a
desolate courtyard and a parent’s unmitigated sorrow for his dead son. Hrōðgār’s regret
for the passing of his youth (2111–14), the lament for the dead (1117b–18a, 2446b–7a,
3150–6a, 3171–2), the tragic conÏict of duties (Henġest, 1138b–39; Inġeld, 2063–6), the
lingering fear of a catastrophe in the royal family of the Scyldings (see p.¯liii supra),
and the anticipation of the downfall of the whole race of the Ġēatas aptly typify the
prevailing mood of seriousness, solemnity, and sadness that has sometimes been char-
acterized as Germanic and that con¢rms the orthodox Christian doctrine of the vanity
of earthly things.
Nowhere is tragic pathos worked into the story with greater dignity and in a more
touching manner than in relation to Bēowulf’s demise. At the point of death due to the
effects of the dragon’s poison (2711b–15a, 2788–92a), the wounded king yet gathers his
last bit of strength and speaks coherently. He declares his spiritual readiness to die,
thanks God for having won a great store of treasure for his people, orders his tomb, and
bequeaths his arms and a gold neck-ornament to his young kinsman Wīġlāf. Then his
soul departs. By the time the cowardly Geatish warriors make their way to the barrow,
they ¢nd Wīġlāf there, still trying to revive his lord with water, even though him wiht
ne spēow (2854b). As for the treasure, with irony typical of this poem it is never en-
joyed by his people, for they have shown themselves unworthy of it.

1
See particularly Tolkien 1936, Blom¢eld 1938, Brodeur 1959; also Clemoes in Chase 1981:
173–86, id. 1995; Shaheen SAP 13 (1981) 149–62; Silber TSLL 23 (1981) 471–83; Bately 1985;
Brinton SN 59 (1987) 177–85; Irving 1989: 80–132.
cx INTRODUCTION
There is thus much in the latter part of Beowulf that is in keeping with the sorrowful
mood of certain Old English elegiac poems, The Wanderer in particular. When one
surveys the poem as a whole, however, one is struck by the extent to which its mood is
not just elegiac; it is also celebratory, for laughter and conviviality also abound.1 The
happiness of men gathered together in the hall (drēam, 88b, 99b, 497b; cf. 2016a) comes
in for prominent attention, even if in contexts in which it is under threat. Much em-
phasis is placed on the pleasures associated with song, instrumental music, good com-
pany, and convivial drinking. Indeed, two near-synonyms for life itself are seledrēam
(2252a) and gumdrēam (2469a). To be cut off from the comfort of society, as is the
unhappy fate of the exiled Cain, the exiled Heremōd, and the cursed Grendel, is viewed
as the most wretched of misfortunes (721a, 850b, 1264b, 1715b, 1720b).
One special feature of Beowulf is the way that these two moods, so opposite in kind,
are presented within the con¢nes of a single narrative. Joy alternates with sadness,
good fortune with ill, in what seems like an endless process of reversal (one referred to
supra, p.lxxxiii, as edwenden). The Danes in Heorot live blessedly until the night of
Grendel’s ¢rst attack; twelve years of grief then ensue. The Danes’ happiness is re-
newed on the day when Bēowulf arrives as a potential savior, and it is con¢rmed by the
hero’s victory over Grendel; and yet the celebrations that follow are short-lived, for
straightway another monster bursts upon the scene. In Part II, Bēowulf’s peaceful reign
of ¢fty years is succeeded by the catastrophe of the dragon’s attack, which inaugurates
a period of bitter confusion. Nothing is stable in this world, it seems. This attitude,
again, is a perfectly orthodox one and resembles the spirit of the so-called elegies, with
the difference that in Beowulf, the joys of life on earth are as palpable as the sorrows
and are often presented as part of the present moment rather than as memories that
evoke regret for their loss.

IRONY AND UNDERSTATEMENT

While humor is not a quality generally associated with Old English poetry,2 evident in
Beowulf is what has been called ‘a tone of grim jesting about horrible things.’3 Bēowulf
does not just kill the sea-serpents with which he grapples in the Breca episode; he
serves them suitably with the sword (560b–1) so that in the morning, they lie about
sweo[r]dum āswefede (567a) among the Ïotsam and jetsam. Probably a grim joke is
intended when Bēowulf remarks to Hrōðgār that the king will no longer need to
provide meals for him (¯feorm ‘feeding, sustenance’ 451a) if Grendel has made a meal
of him (449). When, later in the action, Grendel’s severed head is brought into Heorot,
held by the hair, this grisly sight is described as a wlitesēon wr®tliċ (1650a), in a phrase
that normally would connote something beautiful to look upon.
Highly characteristic and much fancied by the Beowulf poet, and another variety of
irony, is the device of litotes (or meiosis), which lends itself to a kind of humor,
sometimes of a grimly laconic sort.4 This generally assumes the form of a negative

1
That the poem has a cheerful side is emphasized by Mitchell Neophil. 47 (1963) 126–38. The
likelihood that both positive and negative attitudes toward the joys of the hall (feasting and
drinking, in particular) are present in Beo is discussed by Magennis NM 86 (1985) 159–64; 1996:
60–81.
2
The essays included in Humour in AS Lit., ed. J. Wilcox (Woodbridge, 2000) draw attention to
some exceptions.
3
Stanley in Med. Narrative, ed. H. Bekker-Nielsen et al. (Odense, 1979) 78. Since the detection
of irony in a literary work is a matter of critical judgment, differences of opinion exist as to where
it is to be found in Beowulf; note in this connection, e.g., DeGregorio Exemplaria 11 (1999) 309–
43, Risden in Essays on Old, Middle, Modern English and Old Icelandic, ed. L. Gruber et al.
(Lewiston, 2000) 139–49, and T. Clark A Case for Irony in Beowulf (Bern, 2003).
4
Bracher PMLA 52 (1937) 915–34 discusses the prevalence of understatement in OE verse;
Liggins Parergon 29 (1981) 3–7 and A. Harris ES 69 (1988) 1–11 analyze its use in Beo; see also
 MOOD, TONE, AND STYLE cxi
expression, as in nō þæt ©ðe byð / tō beϽnne (1002–3), when what is meant is ‘it is
impossible’ to Ïee death. Ūnferð, we are told, had not been ārfæst (1168a) to his
brothers at the play of swords; to the contrary, he had killed them (or caused their
deaths, 587–9). Bēowulf, it is related, nō . . . scamiġan ðorfte in regard to the precious
sword that was given him by Hrōðgār (1025b–6); rather, he can take great pride in it.
Litotes is nowhere more effectively coupled with grim humor than toward the end of
Hrōðgār’s description of the landscape of Grendel’s mere. After a detailed account of
the horrors of this hidden locale, including mention of a stag that will give up its life
rather than enter the pool, the king offers the laconic remark, nis þæt hēoru stōw
(1372b).
The substantive and adverb l©t, the construction with negated fela, the pre¢x un-,
and the suÌx -lēas are often used in a manner that reinforces the poem’s digni¢ed tone
through decorously ironic understatement.1 A good example of the ¢rst of these rhetor-
ical ¢gures is at lines 2150b–1, when Bēowulf remarks to his maternal uncle Hyġelāc
that he has l©t . . . hēafodmāga apart from him; what is implied is that all his other close
relations have died. Similarly, Wīġlāf declares at 2882b that werġendra tō l©t thronged
around their lord in his time of greatest need during the dragon ¢ght, when Wīġlāf
himself was the only one to give help (cf. 2836¯ff., 2897b–8, 3129–31a). The dying
Bēowulf takes some satisfaction in having sworn nē . . . fela āða on unriht (2738b–9a)
— that is, one can infer, no false oaths at all. The messenger who announced the hero’s
death to his people ne lēag fela (3029b), we are told; to the contrary, he spoke the bitter
truth. The pre¢x un- is used adroitly at 727b, when a lēoht unf®ġer shines from
Grendel’s eyes — that is, a horrible one. In the world of this poem, a duguð unl©tel
(498a) is ‘a considerable host’; torn unl©tel (833a) is ‘terrible grief’; to win dōm unl©tel
(885b) is to win ‘lasting fame’; and — with a touch of humor — a sword unslāw
(literally ‘un-torpid,’ 2564a) in its blade is a sharp weapon indeed (see 2564¯n.). The
suÌx -lēas, similarly, is used in situations in which a merely positive adjective would
not suÌce. Grendel’s abode is not just gloomy; it is wynlēas ‘cut off from joy.’ In this
regard it is like hell, which is not just a dreary place but one where there is nothing but
pain and sorrow. Similarly, a dōmlēas deed is a despicable one (2890a; cf. 787a, 843a,
1416a, 1720b).

POETIC DICTION AND THE FORMULA

If the style of Beowulf, like that of most Old English poems, is far removed from that
of prose, that distinction has chieÏy to do with diction.2 A large number of the poem’s
words are limited (or virtually limited) to poetic use.3 The general effect of this

Patterson in Medieval Lit. & Hist. Inquiry, ed. D. Aers (Cambridge, 2000) 133–57; Frank in
Walmsley 2006: 59–73. In addition to examples cited in the present paragraph, note 793–4a, 841b–
2, 1071–2a, 1076–7a, 1167b–8a, 1930–1a, and 2738b–9a.
1
On the use of un-, see Shuman & Hutchings MP 57.4 (1960) 217–22; on the poetic effect of
compounds in -lēas, Storms in Green¢eld 1963: 171–86.
2
Calder (1979: 1–65) offers an exemplary critical conspectus of approaches to the study of style
in OE poetry from the ¢rst modern recovery of the Anglo-Saxon poetic records to the mid-1970s.
Most of the studies cited there deal primarily with diction, although stylistic aspects of syntax
come in for increasing critical attention beginning in the 1940s. Valuable studies of diction and
imagery in OE verse include Wyld E&S 11 (1925) 49–91 and Stanley 1956, in addition to the more
specialized studies cited infra.
3
See the Glossary, with its symbols relevant to poetic usage; these include the obelus † for
words found only in verse, and the double obelus ‡ for words found only in Beo. The appearance
in Beo of certain prose words that are not met with in other poems, like heor(r), sadol, web(b),
yppe, drynċfæt, wīnærn, nōn, undernm®l, upprihte, ūt(an)weard (see Gloss.), perhaps reÏects the
poet’s comparatively wide range of interests, though it could also reÏect the unique character of
the material of the narrative, or perhaps, in some instances, especially archaic usage. On OE poetic
cxii INTRODUCTION
vocabulary is to persuade us not only that the story told in this poem is a special one,
standing apart from life as it is ordinarily known, but that heroic society itself is
something elevated and rare.
While such observations could be made of Old English poetry in general, they apply
to this poem with particular force. A good many words used in Beowulf are recorded
nowhere else. Some of these may be suspected to be the poet’s own coinage. Other
words have every appearance of being archaisms. It is not clear that the members of the
poet’s original audience, or even the poet himself, would have understood the exact
meaning of every word that is used, nor should readers assume that an exact under-
standing of each one is necessary. An example is the word icge that is applied to gold
heaped on Hnæf’s funeral pyre (1107b). While a lexicographer may despair of de¢ning
this nonce word, one has no trouble inferring that icge gold is the kind of gold that is
suitable for special ceremonies.
Particularly impressive is the poet’s dexterity in the use of compound diction.1 The
number of distinct substantive compounds is 903, of which 518 are peculiar to
Beowulf. The number of compound adjectives comprising major-class constituents
(adjectives, adverbs, nouns) with an adjective as head (gromh©diġ, feorrancund,
morgenċēald, etc.) is 200, of which 122 appear nowhere else, and there are 36
exocentric (bahuvrīhi) adjective compounds, i.e. with a nominal constituent as head
(blondenfeax, ġearofolm, etc.), 15 of which are not found in other poems.2 Although
such words are sometimes used in ornamental variation (so feohġiftum 21, landfruma
31, þēodġestrēonum 44, etc.), much more commonly they stand alone as primary
content words (ġeārdagum 1, þēodcyninga 2, meodosetla 5, etc.). Yet even in variation,
where they are an aid to composition in the alliterative form, the deployment of com-
pounds evinces considerable inventiveness and poetic skill. On average, there occurs a
compound in every other line, and a different compound in every third line, so that in
point of numbers, no Old English poem, with the sole exception of Exodus, shows a
higher incidence of compound words — though with a smaller variety of ¢rst con-
stituents (Mazo OT 6 [1991] 79–92). For the most part, however, the compound diction
of Beowulf is more transparent than that of Exodus. Even if a compound is unattested
elsewhere, a reader who knows the meaning of its two component parts will usually be
able to infer its meaning. The formulaic nature of compounding is illustrated by the
observation that gūð, for example, is employed as the ¢rst element of different com-
pounds 30 times, w®l 24 times, hild(e) 25 times, heaðo 20, wīġ 16, here 14, beadu 12,
heoro 7, s® 19, medo 11, mæġen 9, hyġe 8. The use of such varied speci¢ers with a
single compound head (e.g. beado-, gūð-, heaðo-, mago-, s®-rinċ) allows for great
Ïexibility in satisfying the metrical and alliterative requirements of verse construction
(Niles 1983: 138–51).

diction, see GriÌth ASE 20 (1991) 167–86 and Cronan 2003; on prosaic diction, Stanley NM 72
(1971) 385–418.
1
On compounding as a poetic device, see particularly Brodeur 1959: 7–38 and 254–71, building
on Krackow 1903. The poet’s originality in this regard, though grounded in Germanic tradition
(Carr 1939), is one of the work’s most distinctive features. Representative examples found
nowhere else in verse or prose are īsernscūr‡, ecgbana‡, gomenwudu‡, hāmweorðung‡, þēod-
ġestrēon‡, lēodcyning‡, ferhġenīðla‡, ®fengrom‡, benċswēġ‡. Examples found elsewhere only in
verse are fāmiġheals†, stānfāh†, brēostġehyġd†. One of the two elements may be more or less
devoid of distinct meaning; e.g. ende(stæf¯)(†), earfoð(¯þrāg)(‡), orlēġ(hwīl¯)‡, ġeogoð(¯feorh)†,
(bealo)cwealm‡. Several ¢rst elements like sīġe-, frēa-, frēo-, dryht-, eald-, þr©ð-, may carry a
general commendatory sense: ‘noble,’ ‘splendid,’ ‘excellent.’ Tautological compounds are not
lacking, e.g. dēaðcwealm‡, mæġenstrenġo†, mæġencræft†, gryrebrōga†, mōdsefa†, wongstede†,
frēadrihten†, dēaðf®ġe‡. There occur in Beo 28 alliterating compounds like br©dbūr, cwealm-
cuma‡, goldġyfa†, heardhicgende‡, and three rhyming compounds: foldbold‡, wordhord†, and
ðr©ðsw©ð.
2
The word count offered here is that of Brodeur 1959: 7.
 MOOD, TONE, AND STYLE cxiii
As these numbers suggest, the poet’s use of repeated or partially repeated words and
phrases (‘formulas’) is a key aspect of his style. Scholars have naturally devoted con-
siderable attention to this feature, sometimes with the aim of determining whether the
compositional methods of the poem can accurately be termed ‘oral-formulaic.’ Since
the large literature on this topic has been reviewed elsewhere,1 the following discussion
will be brief and oriented toward this particular text.
While whole-line formulas do occur, they are by no means as frequent as in the
poems of Homer or other narrative poems known or thought to be based in an oral
technique.2 Examples are Beowulf maðelode, bearn Ecgþeowes, repeated eight times in
the course of the narrative, or on ð®m dæġe ðysses līfes, used at 197, 790, 806.3 Such
lines have the effect of providing momentary resting-places where language is enjoyed
for its own sake. Occasionally a line stands out by the fact that it departs from an
expected pattern, as at 2724, when the hero is at the point of death: Bīowulf maþelode
— hē ofer benne spræc. Another instance (as one can say with hindsight) occurs when
the hero makes his ¢rst major speech and his imposing martial appearance comes in for
special attention: Bēowulf maðelode; on him byrne scān (405).
Much more frequent than whole-line formulas are half lines that are repeated
verbatim or nearly so. Examples are ealdsweord eotenisc (1558a; cf. 2616a, 2979a), a
phrase that is used of both the giant-wrought sword and two other swords; be s®m
twēonum (858b, 1297b, 1685b), a phrase that could easily be introduced almost any-
where in the sense ‘on earth’ (see 858¯n.); and ðā (or ðæt) hē ġebolgen wæs (723b,
1539b, 2220b, 2550b), a phrase that is used alternately of Grendel’s, the hero’s, and the
dragon’s battle-rage. It is hardly necessary to cite all instances of this phenomenon.4
Within the ¢rst twenty-¢ve lines, leaving particles and inÏectional syllables aside, the
following twelve verses are repeated elsewhere in the poem either verbatim or nearly
so:5 1b in ġeārdagum, 2a þēodcyninga, 3a hū ðā æþelingas, 5a monegum m®ġþum, 6b
syððan ®rest wearð, 9b þāra ymbsittendra, 11b þæt wæs gōd cyning, 13b þone God
sende, 15a þæt hīe ®r drugon, 15b aldorlēase, 16a lange hwīle, and 17a wuldres
wealdend. On the other hand, 38 of these verses are not repeated verbatim or nearly so
elsewhere. To say that all non-repeated verses are non-formulaic would be an over-
simpli¢cation, for many of them, too, are highly patterned. Verse 23a wilġesīþas is not
found elsewhere in the poem, for example, but closely related verses are: ealdġesīðas
(853b) and sw®se ġesīþas (29a, 2040a, 2518a). Moreover, the traditional character of a
non-repeated verse can sometimes be recognized through its occurrence elsewhere in
the Old English corpus in the same form. An example is the verse ofer hronrāde ‘over
the whale’s bridle path’ that is used in 10a (but only there) as a circumlocution for
‘sea.’ Since the two very similar verses on hronrāde (And 821a) and ġeond hronrāde

1
See particularly O’Brien O’Keeffe in Bjork & Niles 1997: 85–104. Cf. Haarder 1975: 178–201;
J. Foley, ed., Oral-Formulaic Theory and Research (New York 1985) and Theory of Oral Com-
position (Bloomington 1988); Orchard in O’Brien O’Keeffe 1997: 101–23; Orchard 2003: 85–91.
See also the discussion of the poem’s possible mode of composition at pp.¯cxxv¯f. infra, with
references.
2
This difference has much to do with the prosody of the OE alliterative line, which works to
promote variation rather than economy of diction. On this essential point, see Fry ES 48 (1967)
193–204, id. MP 65.4 (1968) 353–6, Niles 1983: 121–9. Fixed epithets of the familiar epic variety
like πολύμητις ’Οδυσσεύς, γλαυκуπις ’Αθήνη, pius Aeneas, are not to be found in Beo. For
example, the phrase m®re þēoden, which occurs 13 times, is applied to Hrōðgār, Bēowulf, Here-
mōd, Onela, and unnamed lords.
3
Whole lines and whole verses that are repeated intact are listed in J. Bessinger A Concordance
to Beowulf (Ithaca, 1969) 285–336, amidst examples of other kinds of repetition. Cf. Orchard
2003: 274–326.
4
In addition to the studies cited in the previous note, see Kistenmacher Die wörtlichen Wieder-
holungen im Beowulf (Greifswald diss., 1898) for a list of several hundred repeated half-lines.
5
Evidence supporting this claim is set forth by Magoun 1953: 464–5 and Niles 1983: 129–37.
cxiv INTRODUCTION
(GenA 205a) occur elsewhere in the poetic corpus, it is safe to conclude that this
locution is not the poet’s invention but belongs to poetic tradition. Moreover, the Beo-
wulf poet seems to have used this verse in free alternation with another verse of a
similar kind denoting ‘over the sea,’ namely ofer swanrāde (200a; cf. 1429b on seġl-
rāde). Either of these two phrases might have served a poet’s needs in a given instance
depending on what alliteration was desired, whether on h or on s. The formulaic nature
of the poem’s diction is therefore plainly not restricyed to verbatim iteration of entire
verses.
The fundamental compositional unit employed in the crafting of the poem is thus the
Ïexible formulaic system one half-line in length. The words that, in a given instance,
¢ll the half-line are very likely to be formed on the basis of one or another abstract
linguistic pattern useful to poets composing in the alliterative form, regardless of
whether or not the resulting verse has the appearance, to our eyes, of a ¢xed formula.
From the perspective of generative composition and its formal procedures, the poet’s
formulaic language therefore operates as language does in general, only it is more
specialized because of the added requirements of meter and alliteration. These formal
requirements may well amount to a constraint, but if they do, the constraint is a large
part of the means by which Anglo-Saxon poets achieved an elevated style suited to
heroic narrative.
Chevilles, or phrases that can be used as ‘¢llers,’ abound, although they are not nec-
essarily empty of meaning in any one instance; moreover, the Beowulf poet is more
sparing than other Old English poets in their use. Examples are prepositional phrases
like in (on) burgum, or ġeardum, or wīcum, or under wolcnum, heofenum, roderum, or
sweġle, or mid yldum. Copulative alliterative phrases are used with some frequency and
were evidently a favorite feature of the formulaic style. A few examples are ord ond
ecg, w®pen ond ġew®du, mēaras ond mādmas, wīgum ond w®pnum, wordum ond
weorcum, synn ond sacu, ne lēof ne lāð, grim ond gr®diġ, miċel ond m®re, habban ond
healdan. There are a few rhyming combinations, as well: hond ond rond, s®l ond m®l,
frōd ond gōd, ġē wið fēond ġē wið frēond. One favored type of on-verse consists of a
noun or adjective (or sometimes adverb) plus a prepositional phrase, such as ġeong in
ġeardum, m®rne be mæste, aldor of earde, sinċ æt symble, hlūdne in healle, heard
under helme, hraþor on holme. As for the poem’s gnomic elements, they often are
marked out by the use of such words or phrases as swā sceal (20a, 1172b; cf. 24b,
3077a); swylċ sceolde (2708b, 1328b); sēlre bið (1384b; cf. 2890b, 1838b–9); ā or ®fre
(ne) (455b, 930b, 2600b); oft (572b, 2029b, 3077a); and ēaðe mæġ (478b, 2291, 2764;
cf. 1002b).
In part so as to provide the alliterations that constitute the most prominent aural
feature of Old English verse, a host of synonyms enliven the narrative.1 These naturally
occur most often in the vocabulary pertaining to the core elements of heroic society. It
is best to think of these for the most part as near-synonyms rather than exact equi-
valents, for each term may convey a particular shade of meaning that is evoked either
more or less fully in a given instance. Listed in Appendix B are synonyms for the king
(§1), for the band of warrior-thegns (§2), for women (§4), and for war-gear (§8), with
attention in that latter category to the sword, the spear, the coat of mail, the shield, the
bow and arrow, the trumpet, and the banner.2 Special terms relating to song and music
(§9) and the ship (§11) are cited there as well. The central importance of the hall in the

1
K. Schemann, Die Synonyma im Beowulfsliede (Münster diss., 1882) offers a systematic
review of the poet’s synonyms, though in the context of a critical debate (regarding Liedertheorie)
that no longer has any criticzal currency. Synonyms used in the whole corpus of Old English
poetry (for the sea, ships, the sun, the body, death, and so on) are listed and discussed by Wyld
E&S 11 (1925) 49–91.
2
For discussion of terms for the king, see Ushigaki Stud. in Eng. Lit. (Tokyo) 58 (1982) 63–78;
for warrior or hero, Whallon 1969: 86–116 and Brady 1983; for weapons, Brady 1979.
 MOOD, TONE, AND STYLE cxv
world of Beowulf is indicated by the use of some thirty terms for ‘hall, house.’1 The
large place of the sea in the Anglo-Saxon imagination ¢nds expression in a wealth of
terms applied to the ocean and in numerous allusions to its geographical importance.2
The poet’s interest in mental operations is evident in numerous terms used for ‘mind,
spirit.’3 Other synonyms pertain to miscellaneous topics to which mention is made with
some frequency.4
Generously and judiciously the poet employs those circumlocutory words and
phrases known as kennings: that is, two-fold expressions used in place of ordinary
nouns for the sake of expressive variety.5 Typically these ¢gures of speech involve an
arresting use of metaphor: examples are rodores candel or heofones ġim, used of the
sun; ganotes bæð or windġeard or ©ða ġewealc, used of the sea; bānhūs or bānfæt, used
of the body; beadulēoma or homera lāf, used of a sword; h®ðstapa, for a stag; mere-
hræġl, for a sail.6 If one compares the use of kennings in Beowulf with the use of sim-
ilar ¢gures in the verse of the skalds, what one ¢nds in the Old English poem is usually
an unstrained, yet pleasing, conceptual relationship between the metaphorical sense of
the kenning and the literal sense of its constituent elements. The word hronrād may
serve as an example, though more compact than most. A hron¢sc is a whale, while a
rād is a riding-path; the hronrād is therefore the bridle path of the whale, imagined as
if that animal were a horse traversing a path made of water. By extension, hronrād is a
kenning for ‘the sea.’ This ¢gure of speech yields additional pleasure when one takes
into account the ship-kennings merehenġest and s®henġest that are found elsewhere in
Old English verse,7 as well as the sea-kenning seġlrād (literally ‘the bridle path of the
sail,’ hence of the ship) that occurs at Beowulf 1429b. Rather than being arbitrary

1
Leaving aside compounds (for which see Appx.B §¯9), these are as follows: hūs, ærn, reċed†,
Ïet(t), heal(l¯), sæld†, sæl†, sele(†), bold, burh, ġeard, hof, wīċ.
2
Thus, be s®m twēonum 858b, 1297b, 1685b, 1956b; swā sīde swā s® bebūgeð, / windġeard,
weallas 1223–4; ofer hronrāde 10a; cf. 1826b, 1861b, 2473a. For discussion of terms for the sea, see
Brady 1952.
3
These are mōd, sefa, hyġe†, myne†, ferhð†, and brēosthord†; there are also the compounds
mōdsefa†, mōdġehyġd†, and mōdġeþonc(†).
4
Worth noting in addition are twenty synonyms for ‘man’ (or ‘human being’) and ‘men’ (or
‘people’): man(n), eorl, ċeorl, wer, guma(†), rinċ†, beorn†, secg†, hæle(ð)†, fīras†, niððas†,
ylde†; landbūend, grundbūend†, foldbūend(e)†; sāwolberend†; ylda, niðða, gumena bearn†. Given
the importance of patrilineal descent in determining a person’s identity, it is unsurprising that
seven different terms are used for ‘son’: sunu, maga†, mago†, byre, bearn, eafora†, yrfeweard.
Four terms are used for ‘heaven’: heofon, rodor, swēġl†, wolcnu; three for ‘hand’: hand, mund†,
folm†; four for ‘blood’: blōd, drēor†, heolfor†, swāt(†); three for ‘wound’: wund, benn†,
(syn)dolh(‡). Three terms denote ‘old’: eald, frōd(†), gamol†, while another three allude to the
appearance of hair on the elderly: hār, gamolfeax†, blondenfeax†. There are nine terms for ‘time’:
tīd, hwīl, fyrst, fæc, þrāg, s®l, m®l(†), stund, sīð. The poet’s reliance on synonymic diction while
discussing speci¢c aspects of the world of Beo is noted, either directly or in passing, by many,
including Green¢eld Speculum 30 (1955) 200–6 (on the language of exile), Bonjour 1957 (on the
beasts of battle), Taylor JEGP 85 (1986) 191–205 (on terms for treasure; cf. Tyler 2006: 25–100),
Whallon PMLA 80 (1965) 19–23 (incorporated into id. 1969: 118–22), and Robinson 1985: 42–3
and n. 48 on p.¯94 (on terms for God).
5
From OIcel. kenning ‘mark of recognition,’ ‘descriptive name,’ ‘poetic periphrasis.’ On the
OE kenning in general, see Marquardt 1938 and Gardner MP 67.1 (1969) 109–17; its use
speci¢cally in Beo is analyzed by Brodeur 1959: 17–19 and 35, Gardner Neophil. 56 (1972) 464–8,
Brinton SN 59 (1987) 177–85, and A. Lee 1998: 53–83. The de¢nition of the kenning is a matter of
dispute. Some scholars restrict the term to examples involving a distinct circumlocution, while
others use it also to include expressions such as wīn-sele, in which one of the two elements is non-
metaphorical.
6
Other noteworthy examples: brēosthord for ‘mind, heart’; woruldcandel for ‘sun’; freoðu-
webbe for ‘woman.’ The number of kennings in Beo has been tallied at 60 to 70 (Lee 1998: 58) in
an estimate that excludes the more literal compounds.
7
The ¢rst occurs in Rid 14.6b and Met 26.25a, the second in And 488a.
cxvi INTRODUCTION
signi¢ers, kennings thus often take part in systems of metaphor in which a connoisseur
of poetry can take delight.
In like manner, concrete periphrases abound by which straightforward events are
expressed in oblique terms. Obvious examples are the euphemisms for ‘dying’ (e.g.
ellor hwearf 55b; cf. 264b–5a, 1550a–1a, 2254b; also gumdrēam ofġeaf, Godes lēoht
ġeċēas 2469). More curious to modern perceptions are oblique expressions for ‘going’
(hwanon feriġeað ġē f®tte scyldas, etc., 333¯ff.; cf. 2661b–2a, 2754b–5a, 2850–1), or for
‘holding court’ (hringas d®lan 1970a) or ‘conquering’ (monegum m®ġþum meodosetla
oftēah 5). By the use of such phrases, the poet calls ordinary events to mind in diction
that serves as a reminder of the concrete material basis of social life.
In contrast to metaphor, which pervades the language of the poem and is sometimes
striking in its effects,1 very few similes are to be found. Four exceptional ones occur in
the ¢rst part of the poem: fugle ġelīcost 218b (used of a ship under sail), liġġe ġelīcost
727a (used of the light emanating from Grendel’s eyes), st©le ġelīcost 985b (used of
Grendel’s claws), and īse ġelīcost 1608b (used of the melting blade of a sword).
Something akin to a Homeric simile occurs once only, late in the poem, when the grief
of Hrēðel after the accidental death of his son is likened to that of a man who lives to
see his son hang on the gallows.2 The striking lines that describe the shining of a light
efne swā of hefene hādre scīneð / rodores candel (1571–2a) at the moment of the hero’s
second great victory involve an elaborate simile that includes a sun-kenning.
Whether or not the poet always uses the mot juste is a matter of critical debate. The
compounded names of peoples, for example, are often deployed in a manner sugges-
tive of alliterative convenience. ‘North Danes,’ ‘South Danes,’ ‘East Danes,’ ‘West
Danes,’ ‘Spear Danes,’ ‘Ring Danes,’ ‘Glorious Danes,’ and so forth, seem generally to
function more or less as ‘Danes.’ The semantic emptiness of such expressions can
never be assumed, however.3 The references to the four points of the compass perhaps
express the expansiveness of Danish hegemony, and there may be sharp irony in the
Danes’ being called hwate Scyldingas (1601a) at the moment when they abandon their
place overlooking the mere in the false understanding that Bēowulf has died there.
Again, for the hero to refer to his hosts as Siġe-Scyldingas (597b) when what he is
talking about is precisely their inability to cope with Grendel’s threat is an instance of
irony verging on insult. In the use of epithets, as in other regards, the Beowulf poet was
an artist in words, not the prisoner of his verse medium.
Altogether, on display in Beowulf is an array of poetic diction that represents a
triumph of ornament over utility. Adapting to Anglo-Saxon studies a phrase that has
been used with reference to the poetry of Late Antiquity, we might well call it a
product of ‘the jeweled style,’4 thus distinguishing the decorative rhetoric of Old Eng-
lish verse from the utilitarian accents of ordinary prose. Of course, the style of Beowulf
is consistent with what is seen in Old English poetry more generally, though the quality
of expression here often strikes one as exceptional in its variety and inventiveness. In
general, the words of Old English verse are conceived as issuing from a hoard located
in the chest.5 One is invited to think of them as gem-like and durable. When imagined

1
As in all language, of course, metaphor in Beo is by no means always used self-consciously
for artistic effect. To the extent that a given metaphor was an inherited part of the word-hoard, it
may have been lexicalized (i.e. become ‘dead’) or nearly so by the poet’s day, though the bases for
determining this are quite limited. (The discussion in Appx.C § 5 is relevant.)
2
Note the framing of this passage by two occurrences of the adverb swā (in 2444a and 2462b),
much as сς .¯.¯. мς (or мς .¯.¯. сς) is used to frame the extended similes of ancient Greek epic.
3
The argument, perhaps overstated, that such compounds are regularly used with a special
regard for their contextual relevance has been made by Bryan Kl.Misc. 124¯f. and, especially,
Storms 1957, writing against Magoun 1949, who sees them as functional equivalents. For addi-
tional references see 383¯n.
4
Niles 2007b: 82–3 n.; cf. M. Roberts The Jeweled Style (Ithaca, 1989).
5
See Jager Speculum 65 (1990) 845–59.
 MOOD, TONE, AND STYLE cxvii
to be spoken among interlocutors, as in so many scenes in Beowulf, they are presented
ceremoniously, like a gift (Bjork 1994).

SYNTAX AND RHETORIC1

As the preceding analysis of the formula has shown, the verse (or ‘half-line’) is the
fundamental building block among the poem’s syntactic components. Certain abstract
syntactic patterns are favored, in large measure because of their utility in producing the
alliterative form. A few examples are noun (gen. sg. or pl.) plus noun, e.g. folces hyrde,
bēaga brytta, Ġēata lēode; verbal plus auxiliary, e.g. būgan sceolde, onberan wolde,
wealdan mōston; noun (subj.) plus verb, e.g. weard maðelode, sele hlīfade; noun (obj.)
plus verb, e.g. hrinġm®l ġebr®d, þrym ġefrūnon; preposition plus noun, e.g. in
ġeārdagum, under heregrīman; adjective plus noun, e.g. f®tte scyldas, hwate Scyld-
ingas. There is no need to cite more than a handful of these syntactic frames, most of
which will strike the reader as routine stylizations of normal speech patterns. While
they sometimes generate ¢xed formulas, they also yield verses of almost in¢nite in-
dividuality, given the Ïexibility of the Old English verse form and the natural elasticity
of language.
Verse is very often added to verse in a paratactic manner,2 so that a sentence may be
syntactically complete a number of times before it comes to a full stop. Since most sen-
tences end at the mid-line caesura, a seamless forward momentum, abetted by allitera-
tion, propels the narrative to advance. On the other hand, all speeches (and, of course,
all ¢tts) come to a stop at the end of a full line, sometimes with distinct rhetorical clos-
ure. Thanks in part to the poet’s leisurely additive style, in part to his strategic use of
hypotaxis,3 the sentence is often far more elaborate than serves minimal needs. The
stately dilation of virtually any sentence, when taken together with the characters’ long
speeches, the narrator’s numerous asides, and the temporal complexity of Part II,
makes for the epic style of Beowulf.
Among the more technical aspects of the poem’s syntactic style are some notable
restrictions as regards the manner in which verses are combined. It is not plain why
words of variable stress, or ‘particles,’ such as ¢nite verbs, substantive pronouns, and
demonstrative adverbs, ought to cluster at or near the onset of the clause if they are to
remain unstressed.4 A consequence is that verses with onsets containing such un-
stressed particles may appear only at the start of a clause.5 In this regard the style of the
poem is distinctive, as Beowulf is the most conservative poem in a West Germanic

1
See esp. Green¢eld PMLA 82 (1967) 377–87; id. in Creed 1967: 275–84; Robinson ES 49
(1968) 508–16; Donoghue 1987.
2
While Andrew (1940: §§¯97–114) discounts this aspect of the poem’s art, preferring to see
subordinate or coordinate clauses where others see parataxis, his arguments (though repeated in
Andrew 1948) have not been very generally accepted. See, e.g., OES §¯1686, w. refs. Müller
(Literaturwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch 29 [1988] 9–22) compares the use of parataxis versus hypo-
taxis for stylistic effect in the scene of Beowulf’s ¢ght with Grendel. See also Stanley N&Q 33
(1986) 434–8.
3
The long, elegant periods of Hrōðgār’s farewell speech (1841–65), for example, convey the
sentimental eloquence of an aged ruler and fatherly friend. Among the syntactically most complex
combinations of clauses that demand to be regarded as periods are ll.¯277b–85, 293–300, 419–26a,
874b–82, 1002b–8a, 1080b–94, 1127b–36a, 1443–54, 1584b–90, 1845b–53a, 2200–8a, 2570b–5a,
2638b–46a, 2864–72, and 2999–3007a. Only slightly less complex are the constructions in 67b–73,
217–23a, 562–9a, 798–805a, 907–13a, 932–9a, 1050–7a, 1474–9, 1575b–84a, 1671–6, 1830b–5, 1855–
61, 2347b–54a, 2836–42a, 3014b–21a, 3021b–27, and 3051–7.
4
See Appx.C §¯6. Very likely the positional regulation, at least, pertains to the requirements of
alliteration, and grouping such particles at the start of the clause reduces the risk of being required
to lend alliterative precedence to such words later in the clause, where they ought to be sub-
ordinated to the fully stressed words like nouns and adjectives that are found there.
5
See Kendall 1991 or, more succinctly, Speculum 58 (1983) 1–30.
cxviii INTRODUCTION
language in respect to this principle. It is even more diÌcult to discern why light
clause onsets that do not contain at least one such particle should be so infrequent, or
why auxiliaries comprising or ending in a single stressed metrical position should
appear so rarely outside the clause onset, considering that no such constraint applies to
other sorts of auxiliaries (see Appx.C §¯7). The syntax of verse, and particularly of
Beowulf, is thus constrained in ways that the syntax of prose is not, even though the
limitations imposed do not render the task of ex tempore composition easier in any ob-
vious fashion.
As regards rhetoric, by far the most important rhetorical ¢gure, in fact the very soul
of the Old English poetical style, is the device of variation, which may be studied to
perfection in Beowulf.1 Simply de¢ned, variation is a double or multiple statement of
the same basic concept in different words (Brodeur 1959: 40).2 Very often, each re-
peated statement occupies a single half-line, though other arrangements occur, as well.
Thanks to the inÏectional morphology of Old English, two verses that are grammat-
ically in apposition need not be immediately juxtaposed, though that is one favored
arrangement. Since, naturally, no two statements of the same concept have exactly the
same semantic value, variation is a device by which the poet develops his meaning by
small increments, adding phrase to phrase for the sake of clari¢cation, ampli¢cation, or
emphasis until a thought is complete, with its alliterative enhancements.3 Sometimes
sentences are made expansive through grammatical apposition, sometimes through
other techniques. Lines 189–93, which recapitulate Hrōðgār’s troubles during Gren-
del’s twelve-year reign of terror, provide a representative example:

Swā ðā m®lċeare maga Healfdenes

singāla sēað; ne mihte snotľr hæleð
wēan onwendan; wæs þæt ġewin tō sw©ð,
lāþ ond longsum, þē on ðā lēode becōm,
n©dwracu nīþgrim, nihtbealwa m®st.

Here a complex period is developed out of three main clauses (plus the relative clause
of 192b) that develop a single idea in three different ways. Hrōðgār is ¢rst introduced
by a patronymic epithet, maga Healfdenes, that calls attention to his identity as a leg-
endary Scylding king, albeit a powerless one at the moment. In the next clause, the epi-
thet snotor hæleð calls attention to his individual moral qualities of sapientia et for-
titudo (on which see Kaske 1958), even if in a context in which neither of those virtues
can turn aside his aÑictions. In the third main clause, the harm that Grendel has
wrought (alluded to twice in the two preceding clauses via the nouns þā m®lċeare and
wēan) is mentioned three more times in a rising rhetorical crescendo. Initially it is

1
See W. Paetzel Die Variationen in der altgermanischen Alliterationspoesie (Berlin, 1913) for a
discussion of variation as a common feature of Old Germanic verse; Brodeur 1959: 39–70 for a
detailed study of its use in Beo; Robinson 1979 for an account of several of its precise effects; and
Robinson 1985 for an approach to variation (or apposition) as a controlling thematic ¢gure in the
poem.
2
Brodeur 1959: 40. Parallelism, by contrast, is generally understood to comprise the apposition
of non-synonymous elements, e.g. swēġ 89b and sang 90a, which, though similar in meaning, refer
to the sound of the harp and of the singer, respectively. The distinctions among variation, paral-
lelism, and other aspects of the additive style are often diÌcult to draw: see, among others, A.
Harris ES 63 (1982) 97–108. See further McTurk LSE 37 (2006) 63–73.
3
Appositive elements are sometimes added to one another in conspicuous clusters, as at 2602–
4a, 1228–31, 1557–62, 3071–3a; 50b–2, 1345–46, 1004–6; 426b–30a, 1474–6a; 1357b–9a, 847–9,
858–60a; 513–15a, 910–13a. On the other hand, not a single variation interrupts Bēowulf’s most
resolute and businesslike speech (1384–96), which thus contrasts with the plaintive lingering on
the depredations wrought by Grendel (147–62a). Clearly, the poet has mastered the art of adapting
his style to the demands of the occasion.
 MOOD, TONE, AND STYLE cxix
indicated by the neutral term ġewin; then it is called a n©dwracu nīþgrim, a ¢erce act of
malicious violence forced upon the Danes; ¢nally, in typically superlative terms, the
poet calls it nihtbealwa m®st. In yet further elaboration upon Grendel’s hostility, we
are ¢rst told that it is tō sw©ð to be overcome, then (in an incremental manner) that it is
too much driven by hatred (lāð) and too long-lasting (longsum) to be turned aside, as
well. The sentence could have ended six times before its close (after 190a, 191a, 191b,
192a, 192b, and 193a), but it would have been the poorer for such foreshortening,
especially given the thunderous climax that is achieved by the conjunction of three
alliterating compound words in line 193 (n©dwracu, nīþgrim, nihtbealwa).1 Typically,
each of the ¢rst two of these is a rare word found just once elsewhere in the Anglo-
Saxon poetic records (and nowhere in prose),2 while the third occurs only here. What
begins as leisurely recapitulation thus ends in a pyrotechnic display.
The retarding element of parenthesis or parenthetic exclamation3 (at 18b, 55b–6a,
107b–8, etc.), though naturally less essential and frequent than variation, is likewise an
important element of the Beowul¢an style. In contrast with variation, it is nearly al-
ways placed in (or begins with) the second half of the line.4 Commonest is the paren-
thesis comprising one verse (almost always the off-verse), but parentheses of two
verses are not infrequent, and although it is sometimes ambiguous whether a sequence
of verses is to be regarded as parenthetic, some groups of up to four verses are undeni-
ably used this way.5 Similar to the parenthesis, though to different effect, is the device
of deploying a syntactically isolated off-verse as a kind of aural punctuation to mark
the close of a passage, for example þæt wæs gōd cyning (11b), signaling a change of
topic from Scyld to his son Scēf, and hē him þæs lēan forġeald (114b), ominously
putting an end to the discussion of the feud of Cain’s kin with God. The device is
deployed in other poems, both in Old English and in related literatures, but nowhere as
frequently and as deftly as in Beowulf.6
In addition to using variation in a complex and subtle manner, the Beowulf poet
draws on the typical constructions by which Old English poets shaped the development
of their works (Bartlett 1935). Among these are parallelism, incremental development,
and (of greater interest) the so-called envelope pattern by which a given passage is
framed by the same word, phrase, or idea at its beginning and its end.7 Other stylistic
features may be mentioned brieÏy. Several instances of the same word, or of two or
more similar-sounding words of different meaning, are sometimes clustered in what
has been called a formation of echo-words.8 Verb-initial clauses lend vigor to certain
narrative units.9 The pacing of a passage may be made more urgent through a series of
curt paratactic clauses, as at 1567b–70 (cf. 658–60a, 741b–3a, 2132–4), just as it is made
more relaxed and leisurely through abundant use of variation and other syntactic de-
vices (A. Harris ES 63 [1982] 97–108). The conjunctive phrase oð ðæt is used with
pronounced rhetorical effect to dramatize the iterated theme of the reversal of fortune
(Irving 1968: 31–42).

1
Compare the way the poet elsewhere increases the rhetorical force of a passage by employing
a cluster of compounds, e.g. at 130–1, 475–7a, 1710b–15, 2900–4a.
2
Note ond hyra n©dwræce (GuthA 553b); þēostru nīþgrim (PPs 54.5b).
3
See Schü.Sa. 135–9, Krapp MLN 20 (1905) 33–7, Andrew 1948: §§¯69–72, OES §§¯3848–57.
4
The only exceptions are 3056a, 3115a.
5
One verse: 18b, 423b, 586b, 811b, 900b, etc. (on-verses: 2778a, 3056a, 3115a); two verses: 55b–
6a, 536b–7a, 835b–6a, 1142, 2209b–10a, etc.; three or more verses: 32a–3a, 280–1, 705b–7, 1131b–3a,
1341–2, 1588b–90a, 2995b–6, 3067b–8b. Andrew 1948: §¯72 observes that at least one editor has
made a twelve-line parenthesis of 1573b–85a.
6
Other examples: 455, 852, 897, 915, 1124, 1250, 1650, 2323, 2390, 2668, 2687, 2693, 3155,
always in the off-verse. See IJGLSA 1 (1996) 77–8.
7
E.g. at 12–19, 115–25, 767–70, 1323b–9, 1384b–9, 1441b–72. See supra, p.¯lxxxii.
8
Beaty PMLA 49 (1934) 365–73; cf. Quirk 1963; Rosier 1963 and ES 58 (1977) 193–203.
9
E.g. Grendel’s approach to Heorot, at 702b, 714a, 720a, 728a; cf. 710a. See Lang. §¯26.8.
cxx INTRODUCTION
An organic relation may be noted in the style of Beowulf between its particularities
of diction and rhetoric, on the one hand, and its broader narrative features, on the other.
Thus, tautological compounds like dēaðcwealm, redundant combinations like bēġa
ġehwæþres (1043b) and worn fela (530a, 1783b), the ubiquitous element of variation,
and repetitions in the telling of the story are all manifestations of the same copious or
pleonastic tendency. The freedom of element order by which closely related words may
become separated (e.g. at 1–2, 270–1a, 450b–1, 473–6a, 1285–7, 1488–90a, 2098–9a,
2448b–9, 2886b–8a), and especially the feature of retardation by means of variation and
parentheses, ¢nd their counterpart in the disconnectedness of narration as shown in
digressions, episodes, and circuitous movements of the plot. The proleptic function of a
pronoun preceding a substantive noun phrase in apposition, as in hī hyne þā ætb®ron
.¯.¯. sw®se ġesīþas (28–9a) or þæt fram hām ġefræġn .¯.¯. Grendles d®da (194–5; cf. 194–
5, 1563, 77b–8a, 350b–3) is matched by the peculiar method of introducing the hero and
his antagonist, who at their ¢rst mention are referred to as familiar persons and later
receive fuller attention when their name and family history are speci¢ed.1 The prepon-
derance of the nominal over the verbal element, one of the outstanding features of Old
English diction, parallels the favorite practice of stating merely the result of an action
and of dwelling on a state or situation when a straightforward account of action would
seem to be called for. The semantic inde¢niteness of many words and expressions2
recalls the lack of visualization in regard to persons and places. The indirectness of
litotes is similar in kind to the author’s veiled allusions to treachery in Heorot and to
the remarkable reserve practiced in regard to the mention of overtly Christian elements.
In addition to the use of formulaic diction, various stylistic features to be noted in
Beowulf may be residual traces of orality.3 Among these are the free and easy use of
personal pronouns, along with the sudden changes of subject that leave one in doubt as
to the person meant;4 the preference for paratactic constructions;5 the failure to express
logical relations between facts;6 and the simple way of connecting sentences by þā or
of dispensing with connectives altogether.7 Comparable to these features are the ex-
clamatory element, the fondness for repetition (by the side of occasional omission), and
the divagatory trend of the narrative. On the other hand, no proof is needed to show the
artistic complexity and sophistication of Beowulf when compared to any number of
texts taken down directly from oral performance. Moreover, the epic manner of Beo-
wulf is notably different from that of the ballad or the short narrative poem.8

1
See 86¯ff. (noting the demonstrative adjective) and 194¯ff.
2
For the vague and elastic character of words, see e.g. nīð, torn, anda, sīð, heaðorēaf, āgl®ċa,
f®hðo, fāh, lāð, f®ġe, m®re, rōf, frōd. Also to be noted is the vagueness of phrases like cwealm-
bealu c©ðan (1940a; cf. 276–7a) and the peculiar preference for passive constructions, as in 1629–
30a: ðā wæs of þ®m hrōran helm ond byrne / lungre āl©sed; cf. 642–3a, 1103b, 1399, 1787–8, 1896–
7, 2284, 3021b–2.
3
Indeed, residual features of pre-literate cognition may be present in Beo as well, as is dis-
cussed by Irving (1989: 16–30) with reference to the writings of Walter Ong; see also Clemoes
1995.
4
See H.-J. Diller in Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im englischen Mittelalter, ed. W. Erzgräber
& S. Volk (Tübingen, 1988) 15–25; id. in Historical Eng. Syntax, ed. D. Kastovsky (Berlin, 1991)
125–40; Köberl Neophil. 79 (1995) 481–95, the last arguing that the ambiguity is intentional. Ex-
amples: 902b, 913b, 915b, 2490; 109, 115, 169b, 748b, 1809b, 2618b–19. The pronominal object (and,
of course, subject) may be entirely omitted: see Lang. §¯26.4.
5
Sometimes it is hard to tell whether to call a clause demonstrative or relative; see e.g. s¬, sēo,
þæt in Gloss.; þ®r 420, etc.; Appx.C §¯2. An unavoidable result of the paratactic style is the fre-
quent use of the semicolon in modern editions.
6
For the loose use of the conjunction þæt (and of forðām, forðon), see Gloss.
7
On asyndetic parataxis, see OES §§¯1683–1708.
8
The distinction between the style of a long poem like Beo and that of a short poem like the
Hildebrandslied or Finn (the epic versus the lay, in traditional terminology) is set forth by Heusler
1923: 1–48; cf. W. Ker 1908, A. Campbell 1962. See also infra, pp.¯277–8.
 MOOD, TONE, AND STYLE cxxi
It is possible to analyze certain passages of Beowulf using the rhetorical terms of
early medieval grammarians, thus discovering antithesis (183b–9), anaphora (864–71a,
2107–13a), polysyndeton (1763–7a, 1392b–4), and other apparently learned devices.1 On
the other hand, since the rhetoricians’ schemas may be little more than formalizations
of verbal tools common to many languages, one must hesitate before assuming the
direct inÏuence of the schools (Bonner 1975–6). As for the number of Latin loan-words
in Beowulf (about two dozen), it seems unremarkable in a poem of this length. Most of
these are commonplace nouns that are likely to have been adopted into the general
vocabulary of English, or in some cases antecedent forms of continental Germanic, at
an early date: ancor, camp, candel, ċēap, ċeaster(būend), dēofol, disc, draca, ġīgant,
ġim, (ġe-)la¢an, mīl(ġemearc), nōn, ōr, orc(nēas), (¯for-, ġe-)scrīfan), seġn, str®t, sym-
bel (?), syrċe (?), (hearg)træf, weal(l¯), wīċ, wīn. Latin models for certain kennings and
metaphors have been pointed out, particularly as regards appellations of God, names
for the devil (Grendel), and terms denoting ‘dying’ and ‘living.’2 Some examples are
līf-frēa (‘auctor vitae’), wuldres wealdend, wuldurcyning, kyningwuldor; fēond man-
cynnes, ealdġewinna, Godes andsaca, helle hæfta (‘captivus inferni’); worolde brūcan;
ylda bearn (‘¢lii hominum’). Again, most of these terms are commonplaces of Old
English devotional literature, and the poet may or may not have been aware of their
ultimate derivation from Latin. In sum, there is no reason to think of the rhetoric (and,
in general, the language and style) of Beowulf as anything other than a con¢dent native
development that, like other aspects of the poem, is likely to have been brought to a
greater degree of re¢nement through the inÏuence of Latin models.

THE POET AS AUTHOR AND ARTISAN

The question may well be asked, To what extent can the narrative style that is charac-
teristic of Beowulf be regarded as this poet’s invention, and to what extent is it the
product of a prior Anglo-Saxon verse-making tradition?
Any attempt to answer that question is hampered by the limited nature of the
comparative evidence. An unknown amount of the vernacular poetry that can be as-
sumed to have been in circulation during the Anglo-Saxon period does not survive,
either because it was never written down or because manuscripts have been lost. To
judge from what survives, however, it would be rash to discount either the inÏuence of
tradition on Beowulf or the role of individual talent in its making. What is impressive
throughout is the poet’s professionalism, his grace and ease in handling his chosen
medium. Though he may well have been a person of some learning, there is no need to
think of him as a Latin-educated cleric who imitated a native poetic form from which
he was alienated by virtue of his education. To the contrary, the poet mastered the re-
sources of a poetic tradition that seems to have been both long-standing and, for him, a
kind of second nature,3 and he brought it to a level of achievement that is not attested
elsewhere in Old English on nearly so grand a scale.

1
See esp. J. Campbell MP 63.2 (1965) 189–201 and JEGP 66 (1967) 1–20; Knappe 1994 and
ASE 27 (1998) 5–29; and for discussion and further refs., Schaefer in Bjork & Niles 1997: 118–20;
also Drout MP 104.2 (2006) 224–8.
2
See Rankin JEGP 8 (1909) 357–422 & 9 (1910) 49–84; Klaeber 1911–12: [9–10], Archiv 126
(1911) 348¯ff.
3
One sign of the antiquity of the verse-making tradition that underlies Beo is the common
alliterative verse form that was practiced (with some variations) by OE, OS, OHG, and ON/ OIcel.
poets. This form is certainly a common heritage. Also worth note is the fund of formulaic
vocabulary common to these different traditions (see, e.g., Carr 1939: 40–68, 96–127), as well as
the existence of a common body of knowledge concerning the heroic past of the Germanic
peoples. Some isolated comments by Roman authors concerning the oral poetry of the Germanic
peoples tend to ¢ll out this picture. See Heusler 1923 for a classic overview of early Germanic
literature; Opland 1980: 40–73 for the evidence from the period A.D. 100–600; and Kellogg in
cxxii INTRODUCTION
Though less expansive than the monumental epics of Homer, though less polished
and proportional than literary epics of the type of Virgil’s Aeneid or Milton’s Paradise
Lost, the poem exhibits admirable technical skill in the achievement of its desired ends.
It contains passages that in their way are nearly perfect; it has strong, inspired lines that
thrill and linger in memory. There is nothing so ¢ne as this, whether in style or concep-
tion, in the literature of England before the late fourteenth century, and nothing remote-
ly like it from a later time.

IX. SOME TRENDS IN LITERARY CRITICISM1

Early scholarship on Beowulf was not often given over to what would now be called
literary concerns. Much effort was devoted to establishing the text and ascertaining its
content and meaning; literary characterizations of the poem were generally restricted to
appreciations of its nobility and stylistic vigor.2 Indeed, literary criticism as we under-
stand it (particularly as an academic discipline) was not practiced much before the end
of the nineteenth century. Due to the centrality, and the many impressive successes, of
language study in Germany and Scandinavia during that century, however, an appreci-
able body of scholarship on the language of Beowulf was produced there at that time,
not least of all in the form of dissertations on topics assigned to their doctoral students
by leading scholars of the day. In addition, no small attention was lavished on the
proposed mythological origins of Bēowulf’s heroic deeds, a development spurred by
the rise of theories of the development of myth analogous to the theories of linguistic
evolution that had proved paradigmatic for humanistic scholarship of the day. Also im-
portant were studies of the historical backgrounds of the poem. Beowulf (along with
Widsith) was generally regarded as the earliest substantial vernacular witness to the
nature of Germanic antiquity, a subject of keen interest in the post-Romantic quest to
de¢ne national identity. As a pristine testimony, seemingly, to the early Germanic
world, the poem came to play an important role not only in the way that scholars de-
¢ned what was perceived as a Northern character and the Germanic antiquities relevant
to it, but also as regards how they negotiated the competing claims of national identity
that fueled the politics of the day, in support of such ideological imperatives as precip-
itated the Dano-Prussian wars of the nineteenth century. Early Beowulf scholarship is
thus often marked with the coloring of nationalist agendas.3
Although, apart from Kemble’s landmark edition of the poem, England produced
little noteworthy scholarship in regard to Beowulf for most of the nineteenth century
(see Chambers xxii), the poem was not insulated from the larger currents of literary
analysis set in motion by Arnoldian criticism and the British aestheticism that were to

Bessinger & Creed 1965: 66–74, Norman in Med. Lit. & Civilization, ed. D. Pearsall & R. Waldron
(London, 1969) 3–27, and Niles 1983: 31–65 for discussion of OE verse in relation to its Germanic
antecedents.
1
For an overview of the development of OE literary scholarship, see R. Liuzza in OE Shorter
Poems, ed. K. O’Brien O’Keeffe (New York, 1994) 103–47; speci¢cally on the development of
literary scholarship on Beowulf, see Irving ANQ 3 (1990) 65–9, Stanley 1994, and Fulk & Cain
2003: 191–213, as well as the various chapters included in Bjork & Niles 1997.
2
See, e.g., p.¯cix supra, as well as the many selections (representative of the period 1705–1935)
included in Shippey & Haarder 1998.
3
See particularly Shippey & Haarder 1998; also Bjork 1996, id. in Anglo-Saxonism and the
Construction of Social Identity, ed. A. Frantzen & J. Niles (Gainesville, 1997) 111–32. Sometimes
these agendas were not wholly regrettable: on the Scandinavian side, for example, the Danish
scholar N.F.S. Grundtvig’s life-long engagement with ascertaining the poem’s meaning in both a
literal and a more spiritual sense was not just patriotic but also humanistic in its motives and
effects (see Noack and also Bradley in Heritage & Prophecy: Grundtvig and the English Speaking
World, ed. A. Allchin et al. [Aarhus, 1993] 33–43 and 45–72, respectively).
 SOME TRENDS IN LITERARY CRITICISM cxxiii
lead to literary Modernism, and hence to literary criticism as it has subsequently been
practiced. Of especial inÏuence, at the beginning of the twentieth century, was the
comparison drawn by W.P. Ker (1908: 158–75; 1st ed. 1897) to Homeric and Virgilian
epics, a linkage that encouraged the idea of Beowulf as a kind of national epic and thus
a foundational text in English literary history.1 While Ker considered the poem inferior
to such classical models, especially because of a perceived Ïaw in its design (which
featured the fantastic elements at its center), he also found much to admire in it, and in
this regard his critique of the poem echoes earlier assessments of its outstanding lit-
erary merits. Of particular importance also was the work of L.L. Schücking and Bertha
Phillpotts. Schücking’s analyses of the poem’s view of kingship (1929a) and treatment
of character and material things (1933) established the basis for nuanced critical discus-
sions of these topics within a context broad enough to include both Germanic and Lat-
inate cultural elements. Phillpotts (1928), placing the poem in the context of early Ger-
manic heroic literature, found it curiously different in spirit from the Hildebrandslied,
Middle High German epic, and the heroic poems of the Poetic Edda. The difference,
she argued, is that the cruel dilemmas faced by the protagonists of other early German-
ic literatures, imposing conÏicting duties (as when, for example, in the Nibelungenlied
Brynhild must choose between vengeance for her brothers and loyalty to her husband),
are banished in Beowulf to the digressions and episodes, because a Christian poet could
not make such hopeless conÏicts his central theme.2
Hopelessness was nonetheless ascribed a place of centrality in the poet’s outlook by
J.R.R. Tolkien (1936), who viewed the poem’s theme as tragedy and its mood as ele-
giac.3 From Tolkien’s perspective, the poem shares with other early Germanic heroic
works the attitude that human endeavors are by nature destined to ruin, and the only
noble course of action in the face of such futility is thus the exercise of unwavering
determination against all odds. (Cf., e.g., the Northern gods’ magni¢cent battle at the
end of time, in preparation for which they make the vain gesture of collecting an army
of human heroes to support them, despite knowing that they will be overwhelmed and
destroyed by giants and other enemies, a parallel pointed out already by Ker.) This
tragic theme pervades all aspects of the poem (in which beginnings and ends, for ex-
ample, are continually balanced against each other), and particularly its overall struc-
ture, which contrasts the hero’s youth and age in a manner designed to celebrate a great
loss. Loss, as an expression of this underlying attitude of the hopelessness of this life,
is also central to the poet’s historical vision, for his interests are antiquarian, and he
looks back upon the lost world of the Scandinavian heroic age with a profound mixture
of admiration and regret. Tolkien thus frames his argument as a reverent but critical
response to Ker, maintaining that the poem must be understood not against the back-
drop of a foreign tradition such as classical epic, but on its own terms, with its own
aesthetics. The centrality of the monsters in the poem is thus not a defect (nor, it might
be added, a necessity forced upon the poet, as Phillpotts supposed) but an elevation of

1
Under the heading ‘Literary Criticism’ in Klaeber’s bibliography (ed.3 p.¯cliii), Ker’s book is
listed as the earliest example. Aside from studies of such technical matters as language, textual
criticism, and versi¢cation, prior works listed in the bibliography are devoted chieÏy to study of
the poem’s legends, its supernatural and mythical elements, and its date and place of composition.
There was also some earlier attention to style (mainly for comparative purposes) and aspects of
early Germanic culture. Ker was, it should be noted, by no means the ¢rst to compare Beowulf to
classical epic: for refs., see Lapidge in O’Brien O’Keeffe 1997: 21–2; also 37–8 n.¯18 for more
recent work. A particularly inÏuential comparative study, positing a Heroic Age with comparable
features in classical and Germanic cultures, is Chadwick 1912, with a vastly expanded scope in
Chadwick & Chadwick 1932. See also M. Bowra Heroic Poetry (London, 1952).
2
Cf. A. Galloway’s more recent discussion of moral choice in the poem (PMLA 105 [1990]
197–208).
3
Tolkien’s 1936 lecture is now known to have been an abridgment of a much longer study,
which, under the title Beowulf & the Critics, has been edited by M. Drout (Tempe, 2002).
cxxiv INTRODUCTION
the poem’s theme: the monsters lend universal signi¢cance to the story by raising the
hero’s struggles to a cosmic level.
Part of the reason for the importance subsequently accorded Tolkien’s argument1 is
no doubt its synthesis of the poem’s constituent elements, including its structure,
theme, and genre, into a coherent and self-consistent account of its unique character. In
addition, the time was ripe for such a revision to the general understanding of the
poem. Although it would be an anachronism to think of Tolkien as a New Critic,2 his
views anticipated many of the principles of the New Critical school of literary analysis
that was soon to rise to dominance in the English-speaking world. These principles in-
clude the subordination of historical and other extra-literary considerations so as to
concentrate attention on a literary work’s internal patterns of coherence as regards style
and form, often with the aim of celebrating it as an autonomous and transcendent crea-
tion. The discovery of ambivalence, irony, and other complex modes of signi¢cation
often attended this process. In the years following Tolkien’s lecture, a great deal of
attention was focused on his formalist concerns, especially in regard to the poem’s
structure and its artistic and thematic unity.3
While Tolkien’s analysis of such matters has remained inÏuential, the binding sub-
stance that holds his vision of the poem together, the assumption of an ethic of hope-
less resistance to inevitable doom, has almost entirely faded from view. One cause for
this perhaps surprising development is that Tolkien’s assumption of the centrality of a
theme of hopelessness is diÌcult to reconcile with the poem’s religious outlook, which,
as the century progressed, was increasingly found to be that of orthodox Christianity.
Tolkien grappled with this problem, but he was obliged in the end to argue that certain
passages of a particularly devout cast, which seem at odds with the high value set on
glorious resistance to ineluctable tragedy (particularly 175–88, but also 1724–60 and
168–9), must be later interpolations. Such a view did not thrive in the critical atmo-
sphere of rising formalism, which chafed at the implication of such disunity in the text.
In later years (after the social trauma of a war that had left much of Europe devastated
and perhaps inclined him to equate defeat with moral refutation: see G. Clark 1997:
280), Tolkien himself came to terms with this apparent contradiction by modifying his
explanation of the poem’s fatalistic attitude: the tragedy resides not simply in the con-
dition of being human but in both the character of the hero and the culture that made
him what he is. That is, Bēowulf is wrong to ¢ght the dragon and thus expose his
people to the danger of retributive warfare upon his death, though the fault lies not so
much with the individual as with the aristocratic society that demanded of him self-
sacri¢cing heroism rather than pragmatism (1953: 13–18). In a brilliant analysis, G.
Clark (1997) demonstrates how this reformulation enabled critics to read Beowulf (and
Maldon, as well) as tragedies of character or to shift the fatal Ïaw from the individual
hero to the heroic world and its ideals and institutions. ‘The poem could then be read,’

1
The dominance of Tolkien’s views by the late 1950s is suggested, for example, by the fact that
Brodeur identi¢ed them without hesitation (1959: vii) as the starting point for his own major
analysis of the poem’s aesthetics.
2
See Lees 1994: 130–5; cf. M. Drout Beowulf & the Critics (Tempe, 2002) 20–2.
3
Especially noteworthy in this regard are studies by Bonjour (1950), Irving (1968), and Green-
¢eld (esp. 1972). For discussion and refs. to literature on structure and unity, see pp.¯lxxix supra.
On theme, see G. Clark 1997. In regard to more local themes, such as weapons, kingship, and food
and drink, some references to the scholarship are provided supra, pp.¯lxxxi¯f. Among the very
numerous remainder, some of the weightier examples are D. Whitelock Changing Currents in AS
Studies (Cambridge, 1958) 10 (combating fear of nature); Storms ES 40 (1959) 3–13 (loyalty);
Diamond 1961 (voyages); Magoun in Stud. in Med. Lit., ed. M. Leach (Philadelphia, 1961) 273–83
(gratitude of recipients & brandished arms); Renoir 1963 (oaths); Rosier 1963 (hands & feasts);
Foley 1981: 235–61 (feasts); Robinson 1985 (the poet’s dual perspective); S. Green¢eld & D.
Calder A New Critical Hist. of OE Lit. (New York, 1986) 140–2 (various). In regard to formulaic
themes, see pp.¯cxi¯ff.
 SOME TRENDS IN LITERARY CRITICISM cxxv
Clark writes, ‘as a cultural tragedy (Berger and Leicester 1974), social criticism (Ley-
erle 1965; Halverson 1969), or an indictment of pagan society judged from a triumphal
Christian perspective (D. Williams 1982)’ (280).
The last-mentioned of these viewpoints relates closely to a school of analysis ini-
tiated by the Princeton scholar D.W. Robertson, the fundamental premise of which, as
it pertains to Beowulf, is that the poet was deeply learned in Christian patrology, and he
deployed that learning in the service of overarching doctrinal and didactic purposes.1
Accordingly, such approaches are often referred to as ‘Robertsonian criticism.’2 If alle-
gorical and exegetical criticism seldom reached any accommodation with formalist
analyses, this was due in part to the New Criticism’s insistence upon the literary integ-
rity of the work itself, regardless of its historical context or intellectual foundations. As
a consequence, this school of criticism had lost currency by the mid-1980s, by which
time, as well, the assumptions underlying the New Criticism had begun to come under
attack. The study of patristic sources is still a matter of intense interest in Anglo-Saxon
studies,3 but rarely does it now play a leading role in the criticism of Beowulf. Yet such
studies have left a lasting mark. Tolkien’s view of Bēowulf as a Ïawed hero is still
shared by many, and this probably would not be the case if Robertsonian scholarship
had not promoted this view.4 Arguments that the hero must be regarded as damned (see
supra, pp.¯lxxvi¯f.) have also made it possible for negative evaluations of his character
to thrive even outside of strictly exegetical approaches to understanding the poet’s
religious outlook (see, e.g., 3182b¯n.).
If the exegetical school labored to demonstrate pervasive Mediterranean inÏuence on
the poem, a nativist counterpart ran parallel to it with the mid-twentieth-century rise of
oral-formulaic theory. Awareness of the formulaic nature of Old English poetry was
nothing new, for scholars writing during earlier periods were conscious of it, though
similarities of phrasing between poems were generally regarded as evidence of literary
inÏuence or composite authorship rather than as the heritage of a common tradition
(some refs. in 1700–84a¯n.). Scholars of the early nineteenth century, including the
Grimms, were also aware of the possible relevance of Serbian oral epic to an under-
standing of the composition of Beowulf (see Stanley N&Q 44 [1997] 6–21). Yet it was
not until 1953 that a putatively oral component in Beowulf (as its text is currently pre-
served) came to play an appreciable role in literary scholarship. Inspired by the work
of Milman Parry and Albert Bates Lord, who applied their ¢ndings about the composi-
tional techniques of unlettered singers in the Balkans to the analysis of Homeric verse
(and, in the case of Lord, to Beowulf and other medieval works), F.P. Magoun, Jr.
(1953) argued that Beowulf is an oral text composed entirely of formulas. He supported
this claim with a detailed analysis of the poem’s ¢rst 25 lines, showing exact or nearly
exact parallels to its substantive components elsewhere in the poetic corpus. Yet

1
Robertson 1951 was the seminal study for Beowulf studies. It should be understood that
Robertson assumed that his methods applied across the entire range of the Middle Ages, and his
aims were more particularly focused on Chaucer and the fourteenth century. See, e.g., Hanna
Chaucer Review 41 (2007) 41–9 for discussion of this approach and what are now generally
thought to have been its weaknesses.
2
References to studies in this area are provided supra, pp.¯lxxvi¯ff. The term ‘historical
criticism’ has also been applied to this school, since to situate the poem in relation to the concerns
of early medieval churchmen is to provide a historical context for reading it. That term enjoys little
currency now, however, no doubt because of the range of other approaches that could be called
historical.
3
Witness the impressive Fontes Anglo-Saxonici database, located on the World Wide Web at
http://fontes.english.ox.ac.uk/data/, and the results of the complementary, ongoing Sources of
Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture project (SASLC), also currently mounting on the Web.
4
The role of exegetical studies in promoting this view is especially evident in Orchard 1995, in
which the hero’s Ïaw is identi¢ed as pride, and in Bliss 1979, in which it is called avarice (along
with pride), these being the two Ïaws ascribed to him by Goldsmith 1970.
cxxvi INTRODUCTION
Magoun’s thesis that oral poetry is entirely formulaic, while formulas play only an
incidental role in lettered compositions, was stated in such absolute terms that it was
easily disproved by demonstrating that even such plainly lettered poets as Cynewulf
and King Alfred (if indeed he is the one who composed the Meters of Boethius)1
employ formulas with a density comparable to that encountered in Beowulf.2 Rather, it
is now recognized that the Greek model of formulaic diction, on which Magoun’s
claims were based, differs in signi¢cant ways from the Old English model, in which the
formula is not a more or less unvarying phrase employed to ¢ll one consistent metrical
position, but rather the product of a more abstract system of phrasing that is Ïexible
enough in its metrical and syntactic properties to generate a number of similar-
sounding phrases that may satisfy several different alliterative requirements (see
pp.¯cxiii¯f. supra). A good deal of oral-formulaic scholarship in the years following
Magoun’s initial study was devoted to working out a way to de¢ne the formula that
would express its structured quality and, at the same time, its relative lack of ¢xity.3
Subsequent work in this area has taken new directions, one of which has devoted
sustained attention to rendering less absolute the opposition between orality and
literacy, in order to recognize the ways in which all recorded poems in Old English,
though they are not, by de¢nition, oral, nonetheless incorporate both oral and literate
features. They thus reÏect a state of residual orality4 or transitional literacy, and this
latter insight has been employed to explain certain aspects of scribal performance
(O’Brien O’Keeffe 1990).5 Another approach taken in this ¢eld of scholarship has been
to promote recognition of traditional elements as encoding a wide intertextual system
of meanings. The referentiality of traditional components thus reaches beyond the text
and, in metonymic fashion (pars pro toto), invokes the totality of a phrase’s signi¢-
cance as that phrase is habitually used in the tradition.6 Still other scholars emphasize
the ‘vocality’ of a poem like Beowulf, sifting its perceived aural qualities as clues to
performance.7 This approach is sometimes adopted in conjunction with proposals for
methods of editing that would be expressive of a putative oral performance.8 It should
be added that in the early years of its development, oral-formulaic theory was a source
of some unease among formalists, who perceived it as premising a mechanical method
of composition that was inimical to the fashion of close reading adopted by the New
Critics.9 Over the course of time, greater Ïexibility in the de¢nition of the formula,
coupled with the changing fortunes of New Criticism itself, has served to blunt the
force of this controversy.10
The rise to prominence of feminist criticism in the 1970s did not fail to produce
results in Beowulf scholarship. Gender had occasionally played a role before this — an

1
Doubts as to the authorship and date of the OE translation of Boethius traditionally ascribed to
King Alfred have recently been expressed by Godden MÆ 76 (2007) 1–23.
2
See Benson 1966, Russom SP 75 (1978) 371–90, Orchard in O’Brien O’Keeffe 1997: 105–7;
also Diamond PQ 38 (1959) 228–41, Whitman NM 76 (1975) 529–37.
3
See esp. Fry ES 48 (1967) 193–204, id. MP 65.1 (1968) 53–6, Foley in Niles 1980: 117–36,
Niles in Foley 1981: 394–415 (reworked in Niles 1983: 121–37), Acker Revising Oral Theory (New
York, 1998). Additional refs.: O’Brien O’Keeffe in Bjork & Niles 1997: 101–2.
4
A term developed in the writings of W. Ong, esp. Rhetoric, Romance, and Technology (Ithaca,
1971) 23–47.
5
See also Amodio 2004; id. New Directions in Oral Theory (Tempe, 2005) 179–208.
6
J.M. Foley The Singer of Tales in Performance (Bloomington, 1995) 181–207.
7
See, among others, Zumthor New Literary History 16 (1984) 67–92; U. Schaefer Vokalität
(Tübingen, 1992).
8
A. Doane in InÏuence & Intertextuality, ed. E. Rothstein & J. Clayton, Jr. (Madison, 1991) 75–
113.
9
See esp. S. Green¢eld ELH 34 (1967) 141–55.
10
See, e.g., Bonner MP 73.3 (1976) 219–28 (offering a synthetic view of the Latinate and native
rhetoric of OE verse); also O’Brien O’Keeffe in Bjork & Niles 1997: 102–3.
 SOME TRENDS IN LITERARY CRITICISM cxxvii
example is Phillpotts’s argument, discussed supra, about dilemmas of conÏicting loy-
alty, since, as she notes, the ¢gures confronted with such dreadful alternatives in early
Germanic literature are more often than not women, the reason being that marriage,
particularly in societies that practice female exogamy, allies every woman to two dif-
ferent families. But the ¢rst contributions to the interpretation of Beowulf to draw on
the inspiration of the second wave of the women’s movement were of a kind with most
feminist studies of the day, performing a recuperative function by de¢ning the roles of
women in the poem and highlighting the importance of those roles, with particular
emphasis on the role of the ‘peace-weaver’ (¯freoðuwebbe) as a stabilizing, though vul-
nerable, element in society.1 Such approaches came to be regarded by some inÏuential
feminist critics as counterproductive, serving to reinforce essentialist notions of gender
roles and the tenets of prior criticism, now ¢rmly seen as masculinist in its underlying
assumptions.2 Subsequent work has tended rather to concern itself with the dynamic
interplay of masculine and feminine roles and their relation to positions of power,3 or
with bringing to light the gendered categories of earlier scholarship or of medieval
texts.4 Indeed, such newer work is better described as belonging to gender studies than
to feminist criticism. A relatively recent contribution is historicist in nature, comparing
the enclosure of Anglo-Saxon religious women to the way that the female characters of
the poem are enclosed by the re-evaluation, iterated throughout the narrative, of the
success of women as peace-weavers.5 Particularly signi¢cant is the argument of Over-
ing 1990 that the women of Beowulf are ‘hysterics,’ in the sense that they continually
disrupt the masculine economy of desire in the poem, the discourse of which is marked
by violence, resolution, and metaphor, as opposed to the multivalent and metonymic
qualities of feminine discourse.6 In addition, Judith Butler’s theory of gender as per-
formance has been applied to Offa’s queen.7 Particularly because of the Lacanian ori-
entation of much work in gender studies during the 1990s, this area shows appreciable
interests shared with psychoanalytic approaches to the poem.8 Not all studies with a
strong psychological component, however, are concerned chieÏy or exclusively with
gender. Some deal with ancient myth and ritual, oppositions of chaos and cosmos,
Jungian archetypes, Terrible Fathers, Terrible Mothers, Oedipal and pre-Oedipal con-
Ïicts, the cultivation of violence, and comparable themes.9 Of especial note in this

1
Some examples are Sklute NM 71 (1970) 534–41, Hansen Michigan Academician 9 (1976)
109–17, Kliman Nottingham Mediaeval Studies 21 (1977) 32–49. For extensive refs., see A. Olsen
1997.
2
See particularly Overing 1990: 76–81, Frantzen Speculum 68 (1993) 447–8, Lees 1994: 130, id.
in O’Brien O’Keeffe 1997: 146–69.
3
See Morey JEGP 95 (1996) 486–96; Dockray-Miller Exemplaria 10 (1998) 1–28; Pigg Jnl. of
Curriculum Theorizing 21.4 (2005) 13–20; Klein 2006: 87–123.
4
Bennett Exemplaria 4 (1992) 35–50, Frantzen Speculum 68 (1993) 457–67, Lees 1994,
Davidson MP 103.2 (2005) 143–55, Acker PMLA 121 (2006) 702–16, Trilling Parergon 24 (2007)
1–20.
5
S. Horner The Discourse of Enclosure (Albany, 2001) 65–100.
6
These opposed qualities of discourse stem from French feminist criticism, esp. in the work of
Luce Irigaray and Hélène Cixous.
7
Dockray-Miller Women & Lang. 21.2 (1998) 31–8.
8
Converging interests are particularly evident in Foley American Imago 34 (1977) 133–53, Hill
Assays 5 (1989) 3–36, Overing 1990, Earl 1994, and Hala Exemplaria 10 (1998) 29–50, as well as
Dockray-Miller ibid. 24–8.
9
These approaches are too various to be characterized succinctly here. See Meigs Xavier
Univerity Studies 3 (1964) 89–102; Helterman ELH 35 (1968) 1–20; Page & Cassidy Orbis Litter-
arum 24 (1969) 101–11; Babb Arlington Quarterly 2 (1970) 15–28; Dow Connecticut Rev. 4 (1970)
42–8; Nagler in Niles 1980: 152–6; Pollock OEN 13.2 (1980) 25–6; Vaught Allegorica 5.2 (1980)
125–37; Purdy Chaucer Rev. 21 (1986) 257–73; Butts ES 68 (1987) 113–21; Faber Psychoanalytic
Rev. 76 (1989) 262–80; J.M. Hill 1995: 108–40; Thormann Lit. & Psych. 43 (1997) 65–76 (a
Lacanian approach); Downes 1997: 24–60; Earl in New Methods in the Research of Epic, ed. H.
cxxviii INTRODUCTION
connection is Earl 1994, ranging among myth theory, anthropology, phenomenology,
and Freudian psychoanalysis, often from a personal viewpoint.
Studies of gender in Beowulf have naturally and frequently drawn on the methods of
poststructuralist analysis that came to dominate critical studies in the last part of the
twentieth century.1 There is great diversity in approaches of this kind — indeed, their
nonconvergence of methods may be identi¢ed as a de¢ning characteristic — but certain
qualities are habitually shared among them. One of these is a general avoidance of the
kind of close reading that characterized the New Criticism, in large part because such
studies take it as an axiom not simply that interpretive closure is illusory (an axiom that
the New Critics likewise embraced) but that texts are necessarily as plurivocal and self-
contradictory (and hence as self-subverting) as the cultures that produce them. Multi-
valence is thus, for many, not simply an interesting feature of texts but a de¢ning
quality, one of central critical concern. Accordingly, for example, Tolkien’s conception
of the poem as a critique of heroic society has been developed into the conception of a
text at war with itself, in which the indirections of Bēowulf’s speech as he contem-
plates approaching the dragon (2425–2537) simultaneously subvert the narrativity of
the poem and the heroic action required at this particular juncture.2 Not uncommonly,
the cultural anxieties thus detected in texts are matters of especial current critical
interest, such as the competing claims of orality and literacy, which several scholars
perceive as central to an understanding of the one direct depiction in the poem of a
literate act, Hrōðgār’s reading of the inscribed hilt that the hero recovered from
Grendel’s mere.3
ReÏecting the rise in importance of cultural studies in the academy, some recent
theoretical approaches take the form of cultural critique, with particular attention to one
of cultural (and postcolonial) studies’ perennial preoccupations, nationalisms and eth-
nicities. An especially important and inÏuential example of this tendency is Frantzen’s
commentary on the culture of Beowulf scholarship and pedagogy, illuminating persis-
tent ties to nineteenth-century myths of national origins.4 Ethnicity as a category within
such heroic poems as Beowulf and Widsith has also been given attention of late, some-
times with the aim of perceiving the possible role of Old English verse in articulating
the Anglo-Saxons’ own sense of their collective identity.5 Another promising avenue of
current research is anthropological approaches to the poem.6 Of particular interest in

Tristram (Tübingen, 1998) 161–71; Sandner Extrapolation 40 (1999) 162–76; J. White Hero-Ego in
Search of Self (New York, 2004), representing a Jungian viewpoint.
1
For overviews of postmodern critical trends in relation to Beowulf, see Lerer in Bjork & Niles
1997: 325–39, Pasternack in O’Brien O’Keeffe 1997: 182–9, Joy & Ramsey 2006. Some further
studies in a theoretical vein: Thormann in De Gustibus, ed. J. Foley (New York, 1992) 542–50,
Breizmann MLN 113 (1998) 1022–35, J. Lionarons The Med. Dragon (En¢eld Lock, 1998) 23–48,
Prendergast New Lit. Hist. 30 (1999) 129–41, DeGregorio Exemplaria 11 (1999) 309–43. From a
reader-centered perspective: Amodio OT 10 (1995) 54–90, K. Harris ELN 37.1 (1999) 1–15.
2
Georgianna 1987; see the note on these lines. A similar appropriation of Tolkien’s viewpoint
to theoretical ends is to be found in Evans Jnl. of Folklore Res. 22 (1985) 85–112. On conÏicting
narrative modes in the text, see further Waugh Jnl. of Narrative Technique 25 (1995) 202–22,
Duncan in Modern Critical Interps. of Beowulf, ed. H. Bloom (New York, 1987) 111–30, and
Sharma MP 102.3 (2005) 247–79.
3
See the note on 1688¯f. The insecurities of language and identity are also examined by Kim MP
103.1 (2005) 4–27.
4
Frantzen 1990: 168–200. See also S. Harris 2003; Siewers Viator 34 (2003) 1–39. For
examples of postcolonial approaches, see Goetsch in New Methods in the Research of Epic, ed. H.
Tristram (Tübingen, 1998) 185–200, and Lerer in Postcolonial Approaches to the Eur. Middle
Ages, ed. A. Kabir & D. Williams (Cambridge, 2005) 77–102.
5
InÏuential in this regard is Howe 1989; see also Niles 1993, id. PQ 78 (1999) 171–213, Davis
1996, id. ASE 35 (2006) 111–29, S. Harris 2003.
6
See, e.g., Bauschatz 1982; Luecke in The OE Elegies, ed. M. Green (Rutherford, 1983) 190–
203; N.-L. Surber-Meyer Gift & Exchange in the AS Poetic Corpus (Geneva, 1994) 159–92;
 LANGUAGE AND POETIC FORM cxxix
this respect is the work of J.M. Hill, whose 1995 book (see also Hill 2000) argues that
the post-Tolkienian view of heroic life as debased is a modern ethnocentrism: the
things that scholarship since Tolkien has deplored, such as revenge, drinking, and the
pursuit of treasure and glory, are integral elements of a stable system from which the
poet does not feel signi¢cant critical distance, except in regard to religious belief.
According to this view, the poet does not condemn the heroic code itself as futile but
only laments particular failures of it that lead to tragedy.1
The inÏuence of recent studies such as these is a welcome sign of vitality in Beowulf
studies and in Old English studies more generally. Despite the oft-reported demise of
critical theory,2 poststructuralist methods are likely to continue to contribute fruitfully
to scholarship on Beowulf for some time to come, especially since the critical habit of
destabilizing metanarratives and decentering the subject has been assimilated so
thoroughly into literary hermeneutics. Continued interest is also likely to stem from the
fact that medievalists often ¢nd themselves in dialogue rather than agreement with
points of literary theory that, as usually formulated, may be less pertinent to early texts
than to modern ones.3

X. LANGUAGE AND POETIC FORM

The transmitted text of Beowulf¯ is chieÏy Late West Saxon in its linguistic features,
but like nearly all OE verse, it shows a signi¢cant admixture of forms from other
dialects, primarily Mercian. On the signi¢cance of this mélange of forms, see §§¯28–30.
The chief differences between the language of the poem and standard LWS are
itemized below, with some indication of the dialect distribution of such features in
prose, revealing some of the de¢ning elements of poetic language. A few LWS features
are remarked, as well, for the sake of comparison with Early West Saxon, since that is
the dialect standard of some OE primers. It must remain a matter of doubt, however,
whether certain departures from WS norms are due to the inÏuence of poetic language
or to scribal misapprehension.4

VOWELS OF STRESSED SYLLABLES5

The survey is arranged so that readers may determine easily whether a particular
stressed vowel grapheme in a word of interest in the poem would be abnormal in LWS

Thieme Mich. Gmc. Stud. 22 (1996) 126–43 (also on gift exchange); Biggs Neophil. 87 (2003)
635–52, Speculum 80 (2005) 709–41.
1
Niles 2007b: 61–3 draws a distinction between a ‘normative’ past (using Hill’s term) and an
‘exemplary’ one in which both negative and positive examples of behavior are presented for
contemplation in a work that encourages a perspective different from that of the characters por-
trayed.
2
See, e.g., T. Eagleton After Theory (New York, 2003), W. Mitchell & W. Ning Critical
Inquiry 31 (2005) 265–70, and (already more than a decade past) Spellmeyer College English 58
(1996) 893–913.
3
See, e.g., Kries GRM 52 (2002) 219–35 and Lin No. Dakota Qtrly. 69 (2002) 40–9, both in
dialogue with M. Bakhtin on history and epic. See also, in regard to OE texts more generally,
Huisman in The Preservation & Transmission of AS Culture, ed. P. Szarmach & J. Rosenthal
(Kalamazoo, 1997) 313–31 (on obstacles to perceiving a decentered subject); S. Harris 2003: 38–9
(in response to Benedict Anderson’s inÏuential model of ‘imagined communities’; see also Foot
Transactions of the Royal Hist. Soc. 6th ser. 6 [1996] 25–49); C. Pasternack & L. Weston in their
Sex & Sexuality in AS England (Tempe, 2004), xix–xlix (in response to M. Foucault).
4
See, e.g., §§¯2.1 rem., 3.6 rem. 1, 7.3, 11.2 rem., 12.2(b), 13.2 rem., 15.1, 17 rem., 20.4(b), rem.
to 20.5.
5
See Davidson PMLA 6 (1891) 106–33 (rvw. Karsten EStn. 17 [1892] 417–20); Thomas MLR 1
(1906) 202–7.
cxxx INTRODUCTION
prose, as a gauge of other inÏuences on the stressed vocalism of the poem. For an eval-
uation of non-LWS vowels as evidence of dialect origins, see §¯29. For an alternative
arrangement of vowels, under the heading of particular phonological processes (break-
ing, smoothing, etc.), see Cameron et al. 1981: 38–46. On the marking of quantity in
vowels bearing half-stress, see Appx.C §¯3.

§¯1. a

= Unbroken1 Gmc. a before l + cons. [Angl., EWS, early Kent.] See Luick §§¯138,
146, OEG §¯143, SB §¯85, Hogg §¯5.15, HOEM §¯335.1; Stanley 1969, Lutz ASE 13
(1984) 51–64.
alwalda 316, 955, 1314 (alwealda 928; always: eal[l]), anwalda 1272; aldor 29×
(ealdor 21×; always: eald); baldor 2428 (bealdor 2567), -balde 1634; balwon (dp.) 977
(ea in inÏected forms 6×); galdre 3052 (ġealdor 2944); galg(a) 1277, 2446, 2940;
(-)hals 298, 1566 (ea 8×); wald- 1403; waldend 8× (wealdend 3×; always wealdan, 9×);
Folcwalda 1089.
Remark. On MS geþah 1024 (cf. ġeþeah 618, 628), see §¯25.3. On the interchange of
a and o before nasal consonants, see §¯6.

§¯2. æ

1. WS & Gmc. e. [Kent. (inverted spelling) and late Angl.] See Luick §¯289, OEG
§§¯288, 327–8, SB §¯55¯n., Hogg §¯5.188–9; Deutschbein BGdSL 26 (1901) 195¯f.;
Gabrielson Beibl. 21 (1910) 208–19; Kuhn PMLA 60 (1945) 642–6.
spræc 1171 (sprecan, etc.2 4×); ġebræc 2259; wæs 407 (wes 5×); næfne 250 (MS
næfre), 1353 (e 8×);3 the MS spellings hwæðre 2819 (i.e. hræðre), fæder- 3119 (i.e.
fæðer-); þæs 411 (see SB §¯338 n.¯4).
Remark. Given that in all these instances the MS form is the normal spelling of a
different word, it is possible that æ is due to scribal misapprehension of the text rather
than to preservation of a dialect spelling. (But on wæs 407, see Varr.) That the scribes
would so readily alter e to æ in these instances, however, would suggest that they had
grown accustomed to making this change, and thus that they were working from an
exemplar with a strong Angl. or Kent. coloring (see §¯3.1).
2. = i-umlaut of Gmc. a (WS broken ea) before l + cons. [Angl.] See Luick §¯188,
OEG¯§¯193(a); SB¯§¯96.4; Hogg §¯5.79.2(a), HOEM §¯335.4.¯—¯See also §¯5.3: y; §¯3.2: e.
bælde 2018 (n.; cf. And 1186: bældest); (-)wælm 2066, 2135, 2546.
3. = WS broken ea before rg, rh, or h + cons. (smoothing). [Angl.] See Luick §¯238,
OEG §§¯223–4, SB §¯120, Hogg §¯5.98, HOEM §§¯340–2. — See also §¯3.3: e.
hærg(trafum) 175 (MS hrærg-); ġeæhted 1885 (ea 3×, e 1×), ġeæhtle 369.
4. = WS ea after initial sc, ġ. [Angl., but also met with in Kent.] See Luick §§¯172–3,
OEG §§¯185–7, SB §¯91(a), Hogg §§¯5.50–2. — See also §¯3.4: e.
ġescær 1526 (e 2973); ġescæp- 26 (ea 650, 3084).
With conditions for i-umlaut: (-)gæst 1800, 1893, 2312, 2670, 2699 (see also Gloss.:
ġist, gryreġiest, and gāst, g®st). See Luick §¯188.4, OEG §§¯193(c), 204.5, SB §¯105,
Hogg §¯5.79.2(d).
5. = WS y, i in ryht, riht. [Angl. smoothing of eo to e (æ); ræht- 2× in Li.] See Luick
§¯274, OEG §¯227 n.¯2, SB §¯119 n.¯5(d), Hogg §¯5.98, HOEM §¯341.1.
(wiðer)ræhtes 3039.

1
To be more precise, the vowel is perhaps retracted, having earlier been fronted to æ (but cf.
Hogg §¯5.15).
2
I.e., including various grammatical forms or derivatives from the same stem. This is to be
understood also with regard to many of the following examples.
3
Flasdieck A. 69 (1950) 135–71 regards these as arti¢cial forms, Saxonizations of Angl. nefne.
 LANGUAGE AND POETIC FORM cxxxi
Remark 1. Interchange of æ and e in cases of i-umlaut of (a) æ and of (b) a, o before
nasals is seen in (a) æfnan, efnan; ræst, rest; sæċċ(e), seċċ(e); wræċċa, wreċċa;
-mæcgas 491, 2379, -mecgas 332, 363, 481, 799, 829; æl- 1500, 2371, el-, ellor, etc.
(See Luick §¯188, OEG §§¯193[c], 194, SB §¯96.2, 3[b], Hogg §¯5.80.2.) — (b) -hlæmm,
-hlemm; læ[n]ġ, lenġ; mæniġo, meniġo. [This æ is found in all dialects, though it is
very rare in later North.: see Luick §¯186, OEG §¯193(d), SB §¯96.5, Hogg §¯5.78.1; N.
Davidsen-Nielsen in Stud. in the Pron. of Eng., ed. S. Ramsaran (London, 1990) 67–75.]
Remark 2. hwæder 1331 (= hwider) occurs sporadically in OE; it seems to suggest a
LWS scribe. See Siev. 1884a: 263; Deutschbein BGdSL 26 (1901) 201¯f.; Holt.Et.
Remark 3. On the initial vowel of Ælfheres 2604, see Sievers 1903: §¯80 n.¯3; Cosijn
1883–8: 1.31; Fulk 1988: 162–3; Hogg §¯5.82 n.¯4; Colman in From Runes to Romance,
ed. M. Rydén (Umeå, 1997) 21–31.

§¯3. e

1. = WS æ. [(Late) Kent., partly Merc.] See Luick §¯180, OEG §§¯164–9, 288, SB
§¯52, Hogg §§¯5.87–92, 189; Ball ArchL 14 (1962) 130–45; HOEM §¯335.5.
drep 2880; hreþe 991, 1914 (see Varr.; æ 1437, a 14×); Hetware 2363, 2916; hrefn
1801, 2448, 3024, Hrefnes 2935, Hrefna 2925 (e prob. owing to analogy to hremn: cf.
OEG §¯193(d) n.¯4, but see HOEM §¯335 n.¯42); meþel(-) 236, 1082, 1876 (see Weyhe
BGdSL 30 [1905] 72¯f.); ren- 770 ([-]ærn 7×, see also §¯20.7 infra); sel 167 (sæl 3×;
possibly compromise between sæl and sele); þrec- 1246 (ġeþræc 3102).
2. = EWS ie, i-umlaut of ea (see §¯5.3: y);
(a) before r + cons. [Angl., Kent.] See Luick §¯194, OEG §§¯193(a), 200.2, SB §¯96.4
& n.¯6, Hogg §¯5.82, HOEM §¯335.6.
under[ne] 2911; merċels 2439; -serċe 2539, 2755 (-ær- blotted to -er-); werhðo 589;
prob. werġan 133 (n.), 1747.
(b) before l + cons. [Kent., partly Angl.] See Luick §¯194.2, OEG §¯200.1, SB §¯96.4
& n.¯6, Hogg §¯5.82, HOEM §¯335.7. — See §¯2.2: æ.
elde 2214, 2314, 2611, 3168, eldo 2111.
3. = WS broken ea (see §¯2.3: æ);
(a) before rg, rh. [Angl.] See Luick §¯238, OEG §§¯223–4, SB §§¯119–20, Hogg
§¯5.98, HOEM §§¯340–2.
hergum 3072.
(b) before h, h + cons. [Partly Angl., Kent., (chieÏy Late) WS.] See Luick §¯238,
OEG §§¯223–4, SB §§¯ 119–21, Hogg §¯5.98, HOEM §§¯340–2.1
ehtiġað 1222; ġefeh 827, 1569, 2298 (ea 2×); -fex 2962, 2967 (ea 5×); mehte2 1082,
1496, 1515, 1877 (ea 35×, i 20×); ġenehost 794 (ġeneahhe 783, 3152); -seh 3087 (ea
18×); sex- 2904 (MS siex-; see §¯13 rem.).
4. = WS ea (Gmc. a) after initial ġ, sc. [LWS, Kent., occasionally Merc.] See Luick
§§¯172–3, OEG §§¯185, 312, SB §§¯91 n.¯1, 123, Hogg §§¯5.49–50, 120. — See §¯2.4: æ.
(be)ġet 2872 (be-, on-ġeat 7×); sceft 3118 (ea 2×); scel 455, 2804, 3010 (very often
sceal¯); ġescer 2973 (æ 1526); scepen 2913 (ea 2228, 2230 Varr.).
With i-umlaut (of ea or æ), = EWS ie. [Angl., Kent.] See Luick §¯172 n.¯1, OEG
§¯193(c), SB §¯91(a), Hogg §¯5.79 n.¯12; Suzuki FLH 5 (1984) 257–77. — See also §¯2.4.
(-)ġest(-) 994, 1976.
5. = WS broken eo before rg, rh. [Angl. smoothing.] See Luick §¯237, OEG §¯227,
SB §¯120, Hogg §¯5.96, HOEM §§¯340–2.3

1
Analogy to the pres. accounts for cwehte 235, þehton 513, wehte 2854: OEG §¯753.9(b).
2
This spelling is rare outside of EWS, but it occurs also in Marv and Alex: see Bately 1985:
414–15. Spellings in meaht- are common in EWS and in verse, and again in Alex. The normal LWS
spelling is miht-.
3
Possibly ġehðo 3095 belongs here (smoothing of eo before h): see p.¯cxxxviii n.¯3.
cxxxii INTRODUCTION
(hlēor)ber[g] 304 (eo 1030); ferh(-) 305, 2706 (eo 11×); (-)ferhð(-) 19× (never eo in
OE, but see Fort 26).
6. The combination weo- (from we-) appears changed to wu [LWS] in wurðan 282,
807, swurd 539, 890, 1901; to wy- [inverted late WS spelling, also in Jud: see Siev.
1884a: 202, Luick §¯286 n.¯1, OEG §¯324, SB §¯113 n.¯1, Hogg §¯5.185 n.¯1] in swyrd
2610, 2987, 3048, perhaps wyruld- 3180 (see rem. infra); to wo- [in general,
Northumbr. and (partly) LWS: see Luick §§¯156, 284, 286 n.¯2, OEG §§¯147, 210, 319,
SB §§¯113(a, b), 115, Hogg §§¯5.30, 110, 177–8] in hworfan 1728 (eo 2888), (¯for)sworc-
eð 1767 (eo 1737), worc 289, 1100, 1833 (n.; eo 29×) [Northumbr.: werc, wærc]; worð-
mynd 1186 (eo 4×); also in worðiġ 1972 [occurring also in EWS].
Remark 1. The form (āð)sweord 2064 perhaps represents an original -swyrd, which
was erroneously ‘corrected’ to -sweord, either by inverted spelling (OEG §¯324) or
because of association with sweord ‘sword’ (see Gloss.). — The change of beorht in
byrhtan 1199 is probably unrelated to the foregoing: see OEG §¯305 nn.¯1, 2; or it may
be due to scribal confusion with the verb byrhtan. — The form worold(-) 17× (already
in EWS) is due to combinative back mutation (OEG §¯210.1), whence perhaps wyruld-.
— hwyrfaþ 98 (see §¯5.3) could, after all, be identi¢ed with strong hweorfan rather than
weak hwyrfan. — swulċes (for swylċes) 880 is a very late form: cf. And 1713: wunn,
and see Schlemilch 1914: 11¯f., 14, 47, Luick §¯287.
Remark 2. It cannot be determined whether trem 2525 contains Southeastern e = WS
y (OEG §§¯288–91) or whether trym (Mald 247) is an inverted spelling (like fyredon,
§¯5.9). See HOEM §¯335.8.
§¯4. i

1. = y, i-umlaut of u. [ChieÏy LWS.] See Luick §¯287, OEG §§¯315–17, SB §¯31 n.¯2,
Hogg §¯5.174; M. Ångström Studies in OE MSS (Uppsala, 1937).
bicgan 1305; (-)driht(-) 10× (in A,1 y 11×); (-)drihten 15× in A, 2× in B1 (y 32×); Ïiht
1765; (-)hicgan 5× in A (y 3× in B); hiġe(-) 5× in A, 3× in B (y 2× in A, 3× in B, -h©diġ
723, 1749, 2667, 2810, cf. -hēdiġ, §¯8.6), Hiġelāc 15× in A, 8× in B (Hyġe- 8× in B, 1×
in A; H©- 1530, see Gloss.; §¯19.10 infra); scildiġ 3071 (y 3×); scile 3176 [found also in
Alfred and in Northumbr.] (scyle 2657); Wil¢ngum 461 (y 471); sinniġ 1379 (synn[-]
9×); þinċean 4× (in A, y 2× in B).
Remark. bisigu 281, 1743 (y 2580) is probably not an example: see Holt.Et., OED:
busy.
2. = EWS ie, front mutation of ea by breaking. See OEG §§¯200.3, 301.
(-)miht(iġ) 31× (ea 35×; e 4× in A); (-)niht 29×.
3. = EWS ie, palatal dipthongization of e. See OEG §§¯185, 317.2
ġifan, etc. 19× (y 13×); ġifen ‘sea’ 1690 (y 1394; eo: see §¯12.1); ġilp(-) 4× (y 9×);
onġitan 5× (y 3× in A); scild- 3118 (y 8×); Scildingas 3× in A, 2× in B (very often with
y); Scil¢ngas 2968, 3005 (MS Scildingas; y 3×).
4. = EWS ie, front mutation of ea by palatal diphthongization. [ChieÏy EWS, but
sporadic in LWS.] See OEG §§¯170, 200.4, 317, cf. 316, 318.
ġist- 4× in A (y 1× in A, 1× in B); oncir(r)- 2857, 2951, 2970 (no y); ġeġiredan 3137
(y 9×).
§¯5. y

1. = EWS i. See Luick §¯287, OEG §§¯315–18, SB §¯22 n.¯2, Hogg §§¯5.170–5.
scypon 1154 (i 6×); swymman 1624; ācwyð 2046 (i 2041), bysigum 2580 (i 2×; see
§¯4.1 rem.), -cwyde 1841, 1979, 2753 (i 3×); (¯fyr)wyt 232 (reduced stress); wylle, wylt,

1
A = the work of the ¢rst scribe, B = that of the second.
2
Cf. i under reduced stress in andġit 1059.
 LANGUAGE AND POETIC FORM cxxxiii
wyllað 7× (i 16×); (-)hwylċ 48× (e 148);1 swylċ(e) 37× (i 1152);1 swynsode 611; nymeð
598, 1846 (i 8×); sym(b)le 2450, 2497, 2880; lyfað, etc. 5× (i 13×); ġyf 6× (in A only, i
23×); fyren 15× (i 1932); fyrst 7×; hylt 1687 (i 8×); ylca 2239; syn- 743, 817, 1135 (sin-
6×); ġynne 1551 (i 3×); hyt(t) 2649; hwyder 163 (hwæder 1331), þyder 3×; nyðer 3044
(i 136o); syððan 57× (i 17×; originally ī: see OEG §¯709); ġerysne 2653;2 hrysedon
226; hyne 30× (24× in B) (hine 44×, mostly in A); hyre 7× (hire 8×, in A only); hyt 8×
(in B only, hit 30×); ys 2093, 2910, 2999, 3084 (is 36×), synt 260, 342, 364, syndon
237, 257, 361, 393, 1230 (sint 388); byð 1002, 2277 (bið 22×).3
2. = EWS ie from e after ġ, sc. See Luick §¯263, OEG §§¯300–1, SB §§¯90–1, Hogg
§§¯5.163–9.
ġyfan, etc. 13× (i 19×); ġyfen(es) 1394 (i 1690, eo 362, 515); ġyldan 7× (no i); ġylp(-)
9× (i 4× in A); ġystran 1334; on-, forġytan 3× (i 5×); scyld(-) 8× (i 3118), very often
Scyldingas (Scyld; cf. Scyl¢ngas 3×) (scyldan 1658).
3. = EWS ie, i-umlaut of ea = Gmc. a by breaking. — See §¯2: æ; §¯3: e.
(a) before l: ylde 7×, yldo 4×, yldan 739, yldra 3×, yldesta 3×; ylfe 112; byldan 1094;
(-)fyl(l¯) 5×, ġefyllan 2×; (-)wylm 16×.
(b) before r: yrfe(-) 5×; yrmþu 2×; byrġean 448; (-)dyrne 10×; fyrd- 9×; ġyrwan 9×
(ġeġiredan 3137); āhyrdan 1460; (land)ġemyrċe 209; myrð(u) 810 (n.); (-)syrċe 6×;
(-)syrwan 4×; (-)wyrdan 2×; (grund)wyrġen 1518; (¯for)wyrnan 2×;4 hwyrfan 98.4,5
(c) before h: (ġe-, ond-)slyht 3×; lyhð 1048 (lŷhð, see Appx.C §¯9).
4. = EWS ie, i-umlaut of ea = Germanic a after ġ. — See §¯13: ie, §¯2: æ, §¯3: e.
ġyd(d) 7× (i 5×); (-)ġyst 2× (ġist 4× in A).
5. = EWS ie, i-umlaut of io from Gmc. i by breaking before r. — See §¯12: eo.
Yrmen- 1324; yrre(-) 8×, yrringa 2×; -ġebyrġea 269; fyrn- (5×); fyrst (7×); (-)hyrde
17×; hyrtan 2593; hwyrfaþ 98 (but see §¯3 rem.¯1); (ed)hwyrft 163, 1281 (reduced
stress); fyrġen- (4×); myrċe 1405; ġesyhð 2×; -tyrwyd 295; wyrde 1337; -wyrht 2657
(cf. 457 Varr.); wyrp- 1315; wyrsa 5×;6 wyrðe 5×;6 fyr 2×.6
6. = EWS i before ht, from eo, io (Angl. e, i). [LWS.] See SB §¯22 n.¯2.
fyhtum 457 (¯feoht- 5×), cnyht 1219 (cniht- 372, 535).
Remark. ryht 1555 (i 15×) is the normal spelling in EWS, and it is common in verse.
It is also found in some late charters. See OEG §¯305 n.¯2; Bately 1985: 413–14.
7. = EWS eo, io from Gmc. e, i after s, by u-umlaut. [LWS.] See Luick §¯282, OEG
§¯299(c), SB §§¯124 n.¯3.
syfan(-) 2428, 3122 (eo 517, 2195).
8. = e in the combination sel-. See Luick §¯282, OEG §§¯325–6, SB §¯124, Hogg
§¯5.171 n.¯2.
(a) from Gmc. a by i-umlaut. syllan 2160, 2729 (e 4× in A).
(b) Gmc. e. sylliċ 2o86, 2109, 3038 (e 1426); sylf 17× (16× in B, & 505; e 17× in A;
eo 3o67).
9. = e, by hypercorrection. [Southeastern.] See SB §¯31 n.¯1, Hogg §¯5.194.
fyredon 378 (¯feredon, etc. 11×). See also §¯3 rem. 2.
Remark. On swyrd, swurd, byrht, see §¯3.6 & rem. 1.

1
EWS hwelċ, swelċ: see OEG §¯717 and n.¯1.
2
Possibly also and-, ondrysn- 1796 (n.), 1932 (n.).
3
þysses, þyssum, þysne (7×) are found already in Alfredian prose. It must be conceded that also
some of the other y spellings cited are not entirely unknown there: see Hogg §¯5.172.
4
Met with already in Alfredian prose: see Cosijn 1883–8: 1.34, Hogg §¯5.166.
5
Cameron et al. (1981: 39) would include here snyrian on the basis of the proposed derivation
from *snarhijan (Holt.Et., Pokorny 1959: 977). That etymology must be incorrect, since the pret. is
snyrede, with a short root syllable indicated by the lack of syncope, even though *snarhid® should
have produced a long root syllable in OE (cf. Dietz A. 88 [1970] 22–4). Presumably hyrstan shows
reduced grade of the root, like wyrċan.
6
Found already in Alfredian prose; byrnan (2272, 2548, 2569) is likewise Alfredian: see Cosijn
1883–8: 1.65, Hogg §¯5.166.
cxxxiv INTRODUCTION
§¯6. o and u

o = Germanic a before nasal consonants. [Angl., eKent., EWS.] See Luick §§¯110–
12, OEG §¯130, SB §¯79, Hogg §§¯5.3–6.
Parallel forms are, e.g., gamen, gomen; gamol, gomol; gangan, gongan; hand, hond;
hangian, hongian; sang, song. Möller (EStn. 13 [1889] 258) counts 383 examples of a
before nasal cons., 305 of o, excluding þone, etc.1 See also Phillips JEL 14 (1980) 20–
3; T. Toon The Politics of Early Eng. Sound Change (New York, 1983) 90–118; Hogg
NM 83 (1982) 225–9. The spelling an(-) occurs under stress (1247; 251, 1000, 1935,
etc.), rarely without stress (677, 1251, 1291¯n.): see ES 35 (1954) 77.
Remark. On (-)wo-, (-)wu- for (-)weo- (from [-]we-) and swulċes 880, see §¯3.6 &
rem. 1.

§7. ®

1. = WS ēa, Gmc. (and ON) au in (Heaþo-)R®mes 519. [A change sometimes met

with in LWS (from ca. 1000), in late Merc. and, at an earlier date, in Kentish docu-
ments.2] See Luick §¯356 n.¯1; OEG §¯329.2; Schlemilch 1914: 35–6; Zupitza ZfdA 33
(1889) 55; R. Wolff Untersuchung der Laute in den kentischen Urkunden (Heidelberg
diss., 1893) 54–5; Taxweiler Ags. Urkundenbücher von kentischen Lokalcharakter
(Berlin diss., 1906) 33. — Is lēanes 1809 (see n.) an inverted spelling (for l®nes)?
2. = WS ēa before g. [Angl. smoothing.] See Luick §¯238 n.¯1, OEG §¯233, SB §¯119
n.¯5.
®ġ(weard) 241 (see Gloss.),3 ġedr®ġ 756. — See also §¯8.5: ē.
3. = ē, i-umlaut of ō. Perhaps to be accounted for by alteration of original ¹ [archaic
and Angl.: SB §¯101]. See Deutschbein BGdSL 26 (1901) 199¯f., OEG §¯198, Hogg
§¯5.77 n.¯1; HOEM §¯335.9; but also Schlemilch 1914: 21.
®ht 2957 (n.); (hiġe)m®ðum 2909 (ē 325, 2442); (on)s®ċe4 1942 (ē 24×); (ġe-)sacan
1004 (MS) is perhaps miswritten for sæcan, i.e. s®ċan. Hr®dles, Hr®dlan have been
similarly explained (H. & N. Chadwick 1932: 503); see Gloss. (& note on 2869¯f.).
(The MS spelling reote 2457 (n.)5 has been taken by many, incl. Kl.3, to point to ori-
ginal roete, i.e. r¹te.)
Remark. On the spelling bęl 2126 (= b®l¯), see 1981¯n.

§¯8. ē

1. = WS & Gmc. ®. [Angl., Kent.] See Luick §¯117, OEG §¯128, SB §¯21, Hogg
§§¯3.22–5; HOEM §¯335.10.
ēdrum 742 (® 2966); ġefēgon 1627 (® 1014); (-)mēċe 12×;6 Ēomēr (MS geomor)
1960; (¯folc)rēd 3006, Heardrēd 2202, 2375, 2388, Wonrēdes 2971, Wonrēding 2965;7

1
See further p. clv¯ n.¯7. GriÌth 1997: 12 reports that the ¢rst scribe prefers a, the second o,
though less strongly in Jud.
2
Note also Bede’s spelling Aeduini, the Ēd- forms of the Northumbr. Liber Vitae, and a few Ēd-
forms occurring in the AS Chronicle (see Cosijn 1883–8: 1, §¯93). But cf. H. Chadwick Studies in
OE (London, 1899) 4 (®, ē due to umlaut).
3
On the etymology of ®ġ-, see Weyhe BGdSL 31 (1906) 88 n.; Holt.Et.; OEG §¯636 (es-stem).
4
Chambers and Kock5 94¯f. refer it to onsacan, but cf. Jul 678¯f.
5
On similar eo spellings in late MSS, see Schlemilch 1914: 22.
6
This, the nearly invariable form in OE (but cf. Brun 40 [MS A]: m®ċa), had become ¢xed
through its use in Angl. poetry. See OEG §¯128 n.¯2; Sisam 1953: 126–8.
7
Examples in noninitial syllables of quasi-compounds and lexicalized compounds, as in these
names, are probably due to reduced stress: see OEG §¯372, and cf. ōwer 2870 beside ōhw®r 1737
(n.).
 LANGUAGE AND POETIC FORM cxxxv
sēle 1135 (® 8×; see HOEM §¯335.10); ġesēgan 3038, 3128 (® 1422); sētan 1602 (®
564, 1164); þēgon 563, 2633 (® 1014); wēġ(-) 1907, 3132 (® 1440).
2. = EWS īe, i-umlaut of ēa. [Angl., Kent.] See Luick §¯194.1, OEG §¯200.5–7, SB
§¯106, Hogg §¯5.82, HOEM §¯335.12; Suzuki FLH 5 (1984) 257–77. — See also §§¯10.2
& 4: ©; also §¯9.3: ī.
ēðe 2586, ēþ- 1110, 2861;1 lēġ(-) 2549, 3040, 3115, 3145 (ī 10×); (þrēa)-nēdla 2223;
(-)rēċ 2661, 3144, 3155; (-)ġesēne 1244; (ġe)hēġan 425; ġētan 2940.
3. = (E)WS ēa (from ®) after ġ.2 [Angl., Kent., LWS.] See Luick §§¯172–3, OEG
§§¯185–7, SB §¯91(b), Hogg §¯5.50; and see next.
(of¯)ġēfan 2846 (ēa 1600); cf. -beġēte 2861 (with conditions for i-umlaut).
4. = EWS ēa (from Gmc. au) after sc. [LWS.] Luick §¯279, OEG §§¯312–14, SB
§¯123, Hogg §¯5.119–23.
ofscēt 2439 (ēa 2319); Scē¢ng 4.
5. = WS ēa before c, g, h. [Angl., partly LWS.] See Luick §§¯238, 278, OEG §§¯225–
6, 312–14, SB §§¯119–21, Hogg §¯5.99, 119–23. — See also §7.2: ®.
bēcn 3160 (ēa 2×); bēg 3163 (ēa 30×); ēc 3131 (ēa 5×); ēg(strēamum) 577 (ēagor-
513); (ā)lēh 80 (ēa 3029); nēh [2215,] 2411 (ēa 12×); þēh 1613, 2967 (ēa 30×).3
6. = © (from yġ-, with i-umlaut of u). [Later Kent.] See OEG §¯244, Hogg §¯7.71.
(nīð)hēdiġe 3165. (See §¯10.4.)
Remark. On MS fela, thought by some to show Angl. smoothing of Gmc. iu, see
1032¯n.; cf. also 2863a n. On strêd, see 2436¯n.

§¯9. ī

1. = ©, i-umlaut of ū (incl. Gmc. un before fricative). See OEG §¯317.

-þīhtiġ 746 (© 1558); wīston 1604 (n.).
2. = WS broken īo, ēo before h, from Gmc. ī. [Angl. smoothing.] See Luick §¯236,
OEG §¯229, SB §¯119, Hogg §¯5.95, HOEM §¯341. — See also §¯8 rem.
wīġ(weorþung) 176 (WS wēoh), Wīhstān 2752, 2907, 3076, 3110, 3120 (ēo 2602,
2613, 2862).
3. = EWS īe, i-umlaut of ēa from Gmc. au. [LWS.] See OEG §§¯200.5, 301. — See
also §¯8.2: ē; §¯17 rem.: īe.
āċīġde 3121; līġ(-) 10× (ē 3×); ġedīġan 7× (© 2×: see §¯10.2).
4. = EWS īe, i-umlaut of Gmc. iu. [LWS.] See OEG §§¯201.3, 300 n.¯2, Hogg §¯3.18.
— See also §¯10.3: © and §¯18: īo.
nīw- (5×), ġenīwan (3×).
5. = EWS īe, palatal dipthongization of ē. [LWS.] See OEG §§¯185, 300, 317.
ġīt 6× (© 12×).
6. = EWS broken īe (Angl. īo), front mutation of i broken to io before rh (with sub-
sequent loss of h and compensatory lengthening: Angl.: *¢orha- > *¢rha- (smoothing)
> fīra-). [Angl.] See OEG §§¯201, 241.2.
fīras 91, 2001, 2286, 2741 (¯f©ra 2250).
7. = EWS broken īe (Angl. īo), front mutation of ī broken to īo before h, x. [LWS,
Angl.] See OEG §§¯201, 229, 301; HOEM §¯341.1 n.¯75.
līxte 311, 485, 1570.
Remark. Predominantly LWS is the spelling ig for ī (brought about after a change of
forms like fāmiġ to fāmī 218). See OEG §¯271, SB §§¯24 n., 214.5. hiġ 1085, 1596; siġ

1
On ēðe 2216, see Gloss.: ēaðe.
2
The form tōġēnes 3114 (from tōġēanes [6×], tōġeaġnes) occurs already in Alfredian prose;
also ġēfe (Cosijn 1883–8: 1.84, 2.138) has been found there. See Hogg §¯5.120. Note also ġēnunga
2871.
3
The forms nēh and þēh occur already in Or: see Hogg §¯5.120.
cxxxvi INTRODUCTION
1778; biġ(-) 3047; liġġe 727; wiġġe 1656, 1770; wiġtiġ 1841; -stiġġe 924; Sceden-iġġe
1686; cf. uniġmetes 1792. See also 2220 Varr.

§¯10. ©

1. = Gmc. ī. [ChieÏy LWS.] See Luick §¯287, OEG §§¯316–17, SB §¯22 n.¯2, Hogg
§¯5.173 n.¯1.
f©f(-) 1582 (ī 6×); f©ra 2250 (ī 4×); ġ©tsað 1749; sc©ran 1939 (scīr[-] 5× in A);
(-)sw©ð(-) 8× (ī 2o×); sw©n 1111 (ī 1286, 1453).
2. = EWS īe, i-umlaut of ēa (mostly Gmc. au). See §¯8.2: ē.
ġeċ©pan 2496; d©ġel 1357 (ēo 275: see p. cxxxviii n.¯¯8); ġeÏ©med 846, 1370;
(-)ġ©man 4×; h©nan 2319, h©nðo 5×; h©ran uniformly, 19×; ġel©fan uniformly, 5×;
āl©san 1630; n©d(-) 10× (ī 976, ē 2223); n©hstan 1203 (īe 2511); sc©ne 3016; best©med
486; ġeþ©we 2332; ©ðan 421; ©ðe(-) 4× (see §¯8.2: ē); (-)©wan 2149, 2834 (ēo [also used
in WS] 1738, ēa [practically non-WS] 276, 1194).1 — (ġe)d©ġan 2531, 2549. (ġedīġan
7× — through palatal inÏuence: see SB §¯31 n.¯3; so āċīġan 3121, līġ 83, 727, 781, 1122,
2305, 2341, etc.: see §¯8.5: ē.)
3. = i-umlaut of īo (older iu) and īowj (older iuwj, ewwj). See Luick §¯191, OEG
§¯201.3, SB §¯107, Hogg §¯5.83. — See also §¯16.1: ēo, īo; also §¯9: ī.
d©re 2050, 2306, 3048, 3131 (ēo 7×, īo 1×); (un-)h©re 2120 (ēo 2×, īo 1×); ġestr©nan
2798; (an-)s©n 251, 928, 2772, 2834 (īo 995); (-)tr©we 1165, 1228 (ēo- 1166); þ©stru 87
(cf. ēo 2332).
4. Varia. — f©ra 2250 (from the smoothing of *¢orh-: see §¯9.6, and cf. GuthB 988,
Phoen 492, etc.); ġ©t 12× (ī 6×: see §¯9.5); st©l- 985, 1533 (from Gmc. *stahlja-); h©
(plur.) 10× (beside hīe, hī, see Gloss.; SB §¯130.3); s© 3× (sīe 3×, sī 1×); (-)ġes©ne 7×
(umlaut of ēa or īo? See Holt.Et., SB §¯218.2; cf. OEG §¯201.3); t©n(e) 5× (see SB §¯129
n.¯6); -h©diġ 723, 1749, 2667, 2810 (fr. -hyġdiġ: see §§¯4.1, 8.6, OEG §¯243).
Interchange of ē and © in Frēsan, Fr©san. See Holt.Et.; H. Kuhn 1969–78 (1963):
3.277–85.

§¯11. ea

1. by u-, o/a-umlaut = WS a. [Merc., partly eKent.] See Luick §¯231, OEG §§¯206–7,
SB §¯109, Hogg §¯5.106; HOEM §¯350; Girvan 1935: 11.
beadu- 16× (see 2660 Varr.); eafora 14×; eafoð 8× (eo 2534, see §¯12.2); eatol 2074,
2478 (a 11×); heafo 1862,2 2477; (-)heafola 2661, 2679, 2697 (a 11×); heaþu- 35×,
Heaðo- 7×; -heaðerod 3072 (a 414).
Remark. ealu(-) (7×) has passed into WS also. See J. & E. Wright 1925: §¯78 n.¯3,
OEG §¯208. The diphthong of cearu, etc. (8×; care [3171]), is not due to back mutation
(OEG §¯208), nor of bealo(-), ġearo(-), nearo(-), searo(-) (OEG §¯209).
2. = WS eo, u-umlaut of e. [Paralleled in Northumbr. and sporadically in Merc. and
eKent., rarely in WS.] See OEG §¯278, SB §¯35 n.¯1, Hogg §§¯5.43–5.
eafor- 2152 (eo 4×), Eafores 2964 (eo 1×, io 2×).
Remark. fealo 2757 may stand for feola (o/a-umlaut of e, Angl., Kent.) or may
represent feala, a form found in several texts (incl. WS): see SB §¯110 nn.¯1, 5 (cf. Hogg
§5.42 n.¯1); Tupper 1911: 246–7; Schlemilch 1914: 34–5.3 — On the relation of sealma
2460 to salm, see Hogg §5.14 n.¯3.

1
eowian (with a short diphthong; cf. DOE) is analogically developed from the pass. part. (see
OEG §¯753.6 n.¯2, HOEM §¯335.17) and disrupts the meter (see note on 1737¯f.). ēawan shows lack
of front mutation, evidencing transferral from the third weak class (OEG §¯764, HOEM §¯353.6).
2
As in the Gloss., an italicized line no. indicates an emendation.
3
The very form fealo is recorded in Li and DurRitGl.
 LANGUAGE AND POETIC FORM cxxxvii
§¯12. eo

1. Non-WS cases of u-, o/a-umlaut [Angl., Kent.] See Luick §§¯222–30, OEG
§§¯210–21, SB §§¯110–11, Hogg §§¯5.103–5, HOEM §§¯343–9.
(a) of e.
eodor 428, 663, 1037, 1044; eoton, etc. 112, 421, 668, 761, 883, 1558, 2979 (e 2616);
ġeofena 1173 (ġeofum 1958; LWS ġyf-), -ġeofa 2900 (see §¯14.2: io, §¯5.2: y, i); ġeofon
515, 362 (i 1690, y 1394); meodu- 5, 638, 1643, 1902, 1980 (e 13×); meoto 489 (n.);
meotod- 1077 (e 14×); weora 2947 (9 corresponding instances of e).
(b) of i.1
(-)freoðo(-) 188, 522, 851, 1942, 29592 (i 2017; see §¯14.1: io); hleonian 1415;
-hleoðu 710, 820, 1358, 1427 (i 1409); leoðo- 1505, 1890, 2769; seonowe 817; seoððan
1775, 1875, 1937; weotena 1098 (i 6×),2 (-)weotode 1796, 1936, 2212 (i 9×);
wreoþen(hilt) 1698 (i 3×).
2. eo for ea, a) u-umlaut of a (see §¯11.1). [Found sporadically in Merc.] See Luick
§¯231 n.¯3, OEG §¯207, SB §¯109 n.¯2, Hogg §¯5.106; HOEM §¯351.
eofoðo 2534.
b) breaking of a. [Northumbr.] See Luick §¯133, OEG §¯276, SB §¯35 n.¯1, Hogg
§¯5.44.
beorn (MS) 1880. [Prob. scribal confusion w. beorn ‘hero.’]
3. = EWS ie, i-umlaut of io, Gmc. i; see §¯5.5: y. [Merc., Kent.] See Luick §§¯191,
261, OEG §§¯201, 293–5, SB §§¯38, 107, Hogg §§¯5.83, 155–62.3
eormen- 859, 1201, 1957, 2234 (Yrmen- 1324); eorres 1447; feorran 156.
4. = breaking of e in seolf(a) 3067 (e 17×, y 17×). [Merc., No. Northumbr., eKent.]
See Luick §¯137 and n.¯2, OEG §¯146, SB §¯85, Hogg §¯5.22; HOEM §¯353.7.4
5. ġeong 2743, for gong. [Northumbr.] See OEG §¯173, SB §¯92 n.¯4, Hogg §¯5.61.
But already in Laµamon’s Brut (Caligula MS, ca. 1275), of the Southwest Midlands, we
¢nd inf. µeongen and similar forms.
For the combination weo-, see §¯3.6.

§¯13. ie

1. = non-WS e, as the EWS front mutation of ea (non-WS æ), the product of palatal
diphthongization. — See §¯2.4: æ.
(gryre)ġieste 2560.
2. = non-WS i(o), eo, prob. either by analogy or under low stress. See SB §¯334 n.¯1.
hiera 1164.5
Remark. In siex(bennum) 2904, this MS spelling probably presupposes the form sex
(= seax 1545, 2703; see §¯3.3), which was mistaken for the numeral and altered to siex.6

1
Prob. also -cleofu 2540. But sweotol 141, 817, 833 (u 90) is also EWS; and heonan 252, 1361
is the normal WS form, e.g. Ælfric’s.
2
For EWS freoðo-, wiotan etc., see Cosijn 1883–8: 1.49–50, 52; SB §¯111 n.¯2.
3
Klaeber proposes to include heorde 2930 (MS) here, saying that it apparently presupposes a
form herde (see Bülbring 1902: §¯186 n.) in place of original -hredde. Yet the problem is more
likely scribal than phonological. One possibility: perhaps the scribe mistook hred- for hired- and
wrote the Merc. form of this (see Pope 2001: 124–5), on which MS bryda was then thought to
depend.
4
According to W. Bryan Studies in the Dialects of the Kentish Charters of the OE Period
(Chicago diss., 1915) 20, seolf¯(a) is distinctively Anglian. seolf- occurs occasionally in WS texts,
including GD and Or: see the DOE corpus.
5
This form is common in EWS texts, but it also appears once in the (Merc.) Vespasian Psalter
(PsGlC).
6
See Fulk 2007a: 269–70. This seems more natural than a direct translation of ea to ie (as
explained by Cos. viii 573, w. ref. to CP [Hatton MS] 111.23: forsieh). See also Sisam RES o.s. 22
cxxxviii INTRODUCTION
§¯14. io
1. Non-WS cases of u-umlaut of i.1
frioðu- 1096, 2282 (i 2017; and see §¯12.1: eo); riodan 3169; scionon 303 (i 994).
2. io for eo, u- or o/a-umlaut of e. [ChieÏy Kent.] See Luick §¯260, OEG §§¯210.3,
294–7, SB §¯38, Hogg §§¯5.158, 160.2
hioro- 2158, 2358, 2539, 2781 (eo 13×); Hior(o)te 1990, 2099 (eo 18×); Iofore 2993,
2997 (see §¯11.2); siomian 2767 (e0 2×); ġiofan 2972.
3. io for eo, breaking of e before r + cons. [Kent., rarely WS.] See Cosijn 1883–8:
1.39, SB §¯84 n.¯5.3
biorg, etc. 2272, 2807, 3066 (eo 18×); biorn 2220, 2404, 2559 (eo 10×).

§¯15. ēa

1. for ēo in fēa 156 (¯fēo 2×). [Northumbr., or Merc., Kent.: see Luick §¯127, OEG
§¯278, SB §¯35, Hogg §§¯5.43–5, 160; Language 22 (1946) 19–26; HOEM §¯351.]4 (Or
lexical confusion?)
2. hrēa- 1214 for hr®(w) (ā 277, 1588). [LWS.] OEG §¯273, SB §¯126 n.¯2.
3. On ēaweð etc., see §¯10.2.
Remark. Kl.1–2 argued (referring to Bülbring 1902: §¯333; Schlemilch 1914: 36;
Wood JEGP 14 [1915] 506) that through shifting of stress, -glēaw developed to
(-gleāw,) -glāw 2564 MS, and this explanation was retained in Kl.3, even though the
word is there emended: see Varr. & note on line. Though this analysis was accepted by
some (e.g. Brooks 1961: xxxiii), none of the standard handbooks countenances a stress
shift in this case, the parallels cited are signi¢cantly different, and such a word-speci¢c
development seems unlikely.5 — On lēanes 1809, see §¯7.1. — On ēaðe 228, see Gloss.

§¯16. ēo

1. ēo, īo = WS īe,¯©, i-umlaut of īo (older iu) & īowj (older iuwj, ewwj). [Angl., Kent.,
partly WS.] See Luick §¯191, OEG §¯201.3, SB §¯107, Hogg §¯5.83. — See §¯10.3: ©.
dēore 488, 561, 1309, 1528, 1879, 2236, 2254, dīore 1949;6 (-)hēoru 987, 1372,
unhīore 2413; nēos(i)an 115, 125, 1125, 1786, 1791, 1806, 2074, nīos(i)an 2366, 2388,
2486, 2671, 3045; nīowan 1789 (ī 9×); -sīon 995, -sēon 1650; trēowde 1166; þēostrum
2332.7
2. ēo = normal ēa.
(a) = Gmc. au. [So. Northumbr.] See Luick §¯119, OEG §¯278, SB §¯35 n.¯1, Hogg
§¯5.44; HOEM §¯351.8

(1946) 268 on examples of ie for ea in PsGlC. Von Schaubert takes this to license retention of MS
siex-; but while such a spelling could be regarded as intentional in PsGlC, it can hardly be any-
thing but an error in the Beowulf MS.
1
nioðor 2699 is also found in WS: see OEG §¯221; Hogg §¯5.104.1 and n.¯7.
2
Possibly swioðol 3145 is to be included: see Gloss. Most of these forms show, or should show,
back mutation in WS (but with eo); but cf. WS semian, ġiefan.
3
Possibly ġiohðe 2267, 2793 should be placed here (e broken before h); in that event ġehðo
3095 should be grouped with the forms in §¯3.5 (but with smoothing before h).
4
For similar ēa forms in (very) late WS, see Perlitz Die Sprache der Interlinear-Version von
Defensor’s Liber Scintillarum (Kiel diss., 1904) §¯17; also Schlemilch 1914: 38.
5
Indeed, other proposed cases of OE Akzentumsprung are questionable: see Lass 1988; cf.
Luick §§¯265, 360, OEG §§¯302–3.
6
Cf. PC 411.27, 439.32: īo.
7
Cf. Or 256.16, 19: ēo.
8
Also late Southern texts contain examples of this ēo: see Schlemilch 1914: 36. Possibly dēogol
275 (© 1357: §¯10.2) is an example: so Kl., though others would explain it as is due instead to the
WS use of īo, ēo for īe from Gmc. iu (§¯16.1; see SB §¯141 n.¯2; Brunner Beibl. 52 [1941] 53). Yet it
 LANGUAGE AND POETIC FORM cxxxix
(ā)brēot¯1 2930; dēoð 1278.
Remark. Ġēatena 443 (= Ġēata)2 involves alteration by the scribe of eo to ea (see
Varr.). The original error may be due to scribal identi¢cation of the Ġēatas with the
Jutes (so Rie.Zs. 400¯f.; Kl.3 Su. 454), as in the OE Bede (i, ch. 15), where Ġēata,
Ġēatum = Bede’s Iutarum, Iutis ‘Jutes’ (see 445a n.).
(b) = WS ēa(h) from ®(h) in nēon 3104. [Angl., Kent.] See OEG §¯152.
Remark. On MS reote 2457, see §¯7.3.

§¯17. īe

1. = non-WS ē, as the EWS front mutation of ēa (Angl. smoothed ē from Gmc. ®),
the product of breaking of WS ®. See OEG §¯200.6.
nīehstan 2511.
2. = LWS ©, ī after contraction of ī + e. [ChieÏy Angl., EWS.] See OEG §§¯237.3,
703, 768(d), SB §§¯130.3, 334, 427 nn.¯3–4; Bately 1985: 411–13.
hīe 59× (© 10×, ī 9×, iġ 3×), sīe 3× (© 3×, iġ 1×).
Remark. If MS mid 976 were emended to nīd- (so Kl.1–3) rather than nīð- (see
976¯n.), ī would be an EWS spelling (§¯9.3): see OEG §¯300.

§¯18. īo

1. = (L)WS ēo. [Presumably Kent., though also EWS and partly Merc.] See Luick,
§§¯124–6, OEG §§¯294–7, SB §¯38, Hogg §§¯5.155–62.3
(a) Gmc. eu.
bīodan 2892 (ēo þ3×); bīor 2635 (ēo 9×); ċīosan 2376 (ēo 2×); dīop(e) 3069 (ēo 3×);
dīor(-) 2090, 3111, 3169 (ēo 10×); (-)drīor(-) 2693, 2789 (ēo 9×); hīofende 3142;
nīod(e) 2116 (ēo 1320); -sīoc 2754, 2787 (ēo 4×); þīod(-) 2219, 2579 (ēo 21×), þīoden
2336, 2788, 2810 (ēo 37×).
(b) Contractions [of √¯+¯ƒ, √¯+¯≈, e¯+¯u: see OEG §§¯120, 238.1; contraction to īo partly
Northumbr. also, thus: fīond, hīo, sīo, ðrīo, bīo.
bīo(ð) 2063, 2747 (ēo 5×); (on)cnīow 2554; fīond(a) 2671 (ēo 26×); ġīong 2214,
2409, 2715 (ēo 5×); hīo 11× (3× in A; hēo 18× in A); hīold 1954 (ēo 33×); sīo 16× (sēo
13×, see Gloss.); Swīo(rīċe) 2383, 2495 (ēo 5×); þrīo 2174 (ēo 2278).
Remark. To these should be added Bīowulf 15× (in B; ēo 40× [37× in A, see Pers.
Names]) if the ¢rst element is identical to Northumbr. bīo ‘bee’; but see Fulk & Harris
2002. — Klaeber’s inclusion of (on)cnīow, ġīong, hīold (but not (ġe)īode 2200 [ēo
20×]) in this category is probably correct: in originally reduplicating verbs, preterites
in ēo, īo very likely show contraction (see BGdSL 109 [1987] 159–79), though earlier
than in bīoð, fīond, etc. — Klaeber also includes here Ongen-, Ecg-ðīo(w) 1999, 2387,
2398, 2924, 2951, 2961, 2986 (ēo 17×; Wealh-þēo[w] 6×), on the authority of Bülbring
1902: §¯118; but see OEG §584(b), HOEM §§¯162–9; Appx.C §¯17.
2. For īo, ēo = WS i-umlaut of īo, see §¯16.1.
3. iō, eō (rising diphthongs, unless the i, e is inserted merely as a diacritic, indicating
the palatal quality of ġ or sc: see Hogg §§¯5.59–60, 65–70) in (-)ġiōmor- 2267, 2408,

has been derived plausibly from Gmc. *deuµul-, and d©ġel from *dauµil- (Dietz Sprachwissen-
schaft 25 [2000] 201–27).
1
Possibly inÏuenced by redupl. preterites like bēot; so also Bamm. GL 25 (1985) 6 n.¯3.
2
Strong and weak declension of tribal names may be found side by side, e.g. Ēote, Ēotan, Intr.
lxv; OEG §¯610.7; also of persoanl names, e.g. Hrēðel, Hr®dla; Bēaw, Bēo(w), Bēowa.
3
Instances of īo by the side of ēo in EWS (Cosijn 1883–8: 1.37, 44, 66¯–7, 113–14): (a) bīodan,
bīor-, dīop, dīor, hīofan, sīoc, ðīod; (b) bīon, fīond, hīo, hīold, sīo, ðīow, ðrīo. On the use of īo, io
in EWS, see Sievers 1900: 39¯ff.
cxl INTRODUCTION
2894, 3150, (-)ġeōmor(-) 12× (from Gmc. ® before nasal);1 Hondsciō (or -sciô) 2076.2
See also Luick §§¯169–70, OEG §§¯170–83, SB §¯92, Hogg §§¯5.60, 69.

UNSTRESSED SYLLABLES

§¯19. Weakening (and interchange) of vowels (and inÏectional syllables)

1. -um (dat. pl. ending) appears as -un, -on, -an. See Luick §¯326 n.¯2, OEG §§¯378,
572, SB §¯293 n.¯2, Hogg §¯6.60.
a) -un; herewæsmun 677, wīcun 1304.
b) -on; hēafdon 1242, scypon 1154; possibly grimmon 306 (n.).
c) -an; āþumswēoran (MS swerian) 84, hlēorber[g]an 304, uncran eaferan 1185,
grimman 1542, feorhġenīðlan 2933, l®ssan 43, ®rran 907, 2237, 3035, cf. 1064?
Remark. On cases like heardan clammum (so 963; heardum clammum 1335), dēoran
sweorde 561, lāþan ¢ngrum 1505, see §¯26.3. Note balwon (bendum) 977, hāton
(heolfre) 849, the latter perhaps due to scribal confusion (see Varr.). — The reverse
spelling (ū, i.e.) -um for -an appears in 158, 1068(?), 2821, 2860; see also 1382¯n. and
Appx.C §¯8.
2. -u appears as -o, -a. See Hogg §§6.55–61.
a) -o; eafeþo 534, -ġew®do 227, ġeþinġo 1085, -hliðo 1409, wado 546; f®hðo 2489;
-strenġo 533, (sinċ)þego 2884, etc. (110× in A, 73× in B; -u 65× in A, 35× in B).
b) -a; þūsenda 1829, 2994 (or gen. pl.?) (see OEG §¯689); -beala 136, ġeara 1914
(see Bu.Zs. 194, Kl. A. 27 [1904] 419); possibly also -ġew®da 2623 (n.).
Remark. Analogical use of -u for -a in the gen. & dat. sg. of sunu: 1278, 344,
1808(?), acc. pl.: 2013(?). (See SB §¯271 nn.¯1–2; I. Dahl Substantival InÏexion in Early
OE [Lund, 1938] 181–2; cf. Bamm. A. 103 [1985] 365–70) See also 1243. Campbell
(OEG §¯613) regards this confusion as phonological; prob. not orthographic, as it is
distributed widely (see Lapidge ASE 29 [2000] 12 n.¯36). — Probably analogical also is
-e for -u in cwice 98, wynsume 612 (see §¯22); perhaps also wlenċe 508. — On
preservation of the ¢nal vowel in ġiohðo 2267, ġehðo 3095, f®hðo 2489, see OEG
§¯589.6, SB §¯255.3. Analogical nom. sg. f®hð 2403, 3061 may have been substituted
for f®hðo, while f®hð for f®hðo 2999 would make for inferior meter (Appx.C §¯28).
3. -a (gen. plur. or [2×?] fem. acc. pl.) appears as -o. See Siev. 1884a: 230; Kl. MLN
16 (1901) 17 (mainly an Angl. phenomenon); Sisam MLR 11 (1916) 337; A. 122 (2004)
617¯f., 626¯f.
h©nðo 475, 593, mēdo 1178, meoto 489 (acc.; but see n.), mōdþr©ðo 1931 (acc.), yldo
70 (n.).
Remark. Kl.3 includes here examples of -e for -a: myrðe 810, fyrene 811, sorge 2004,
yrmðe 2005; also MS -hwile 2710 (so Mal. A. 54 [1930] 97¯f., Hoops St. 131¯f.); and
[n]®niġre 949. (See Fulk 2007b: 147–8.) The ending of the last of these is almost
certainly a copyist’s alteration (see n.); the rest are now either analyzed differently or
emended. The alternative explanations of Matthes A. 71.2 (1953) 148–58 are mostly
unpersuasive.
4. -an appears as -on
(a) in in¢nitives (see SB §¯363 n.¯1): breġdon 2167, būon 2842, healdon (MS
heoldon) 3084 (but see note on l.), hladon (MS hlodon) 2775, onġyton 308.
(b) in mannon 577, hæfton 788.
Remark. The change of -on to -an in the pret. ind. pl. (see OEG §¯377) is seen in 43,
650, 1328, 1945, 2116, 2204, 2206, 2380, 2475, 2479, 2544, 2599, 2706, 2846, 2850,

1
Thus, e.g., in the Kent. OccGl 49 (ZfdA 21 [1877] 20.94), 5.11: ġiōmras.
2
Note that Hondsciō is not a plausible Kent. spelling, since no glide is written between sc and ō
in Kent. This is most likely a mechanical conversion of earlier eo to io, though also scio- is found
twice in EWS: sciolde (CP 13.77.11), sciop (Bo 35.101.3). See OEG §¯179.
 LANGUAGE AND POETIC FORM cxli
2852, 3038, 3047, 3137, 3169, 3173. The older ending -un is found in 60, 1280, 2633,
3131. Whether the adhortative imperative ġeferian 3107 belongs here or whether the
form is actually subjunctive (i.e. -an for -en) is a matter of debate: see OES §¯885
n.¯229. — Note also MS frecnen for frēcnan 1104 and reafeden for rēafedon 1212. See
Hogg §¯6.62.
5. -es (gen. sg.) appears as
(a) -as (as found in various later texts: see SB §¯237 n.¯1; Hogg §¯6.62; cf. Matthes
Angl. 71.2 (1953) 158–62 [unpersuasive]);1 Heaðo-Scil¢ngas 63, Merewīoingas 2921,
yrfeweardas 2453; nal(l¯)as 5× (n[e]alles 18×). — The spelling -es for -as, accusative
plural, occurs just once, 519 (see Malone Angl. 54 [1930] 98, Hoops 79; Matthes
162¯f.).
(b) -ys (see SB §¯237 n.¯1: late, esp. LWS); wintrys 516.
A similar transition of e in inÏectional syllables to y in: (nīw)tyrwyd 295, feormynd
2256 (cf. 2761), though in the latter instance we may have mechanical substitution of y
for ie (Angl. e).
6. Various changes of normal -e-.
(a) -ende (pres.ptc.) > -inde: weallinde 2464; > -ande (see SB §¯363 n.¯4): -āgande
1013.
(b) -en (pres. sj. plur.) > -an (see SB §¯361 n.¯1): fēran 254, scēawian 3008; -en (pret.
sj. plur.) > -on (see SB §¯365): feredon 3113; also in 482, 538, 1086, 1102, 2636; per-
haps 563, 564, 3050 (n.).
(c) -e- (before n) of middle syllables > -o-; in the pp. (see SB §¯366 n.¯3): ġecorone
206, (þurh)etone 3049 (cf. Ruin 6: undereotone); gen. pl.: sceaðona 274 (see SB §¯276
nn.¯3, 4); — ricone 2983.
(d) > æ in inÏ. superl.: ġinġæste 2817;2 also in suÌx -nes: onlīcnæs 1351;3 and in
gen. sg. nalæs 43.3
7. i in the second constituent of an obscured compound weakened to e (see OEG
§¯372): fyrwet 1985, 2784 (¯fyrwyt 232).4
8. Pre¢x -ġe- > -i- in uniġmetes 1792, which is reasonably to be considered equiv-
alent to unimetes (or unīmetes: OEG §§¯370 n.¯1, 467), showing a late transition of ġe-
to i- (SB §¯212 n.¯1, cf. unilīċ, uniwemmed; Met 7.33, 10.9: uniġmet), and analogical
spelling iġ (which is rather frequent in that portion of the MS).5
9. The isolated te 2922 (see Gloss.: tō) shows an interesting weakening: see BT s.v.;
Luick §¯325; Hogg §¯6.50 n.¯1.
10. The loss of the middle vowel of Hyġelāc in H©lāc(es) 1530 (from Hyġlāc) has
been designated largely Northumbr., with reference to the analogous forms of the Liber
Vitae Dunelmensis (London, BL, Cott. Domitian vii; see Siev.R. 463¯f.).6 The metrical

1
Some examples from poetic texts: GenB 485, Ex 248, Dan 3o, 115, And 523, 1501, Wan 44,
Rid 11.4. Cf. Sisam RES o.s. 22 (1946) 268, OEG §¯379, Fulk 2007b: 148.
2
Such weak æ is found in a variety of unstressed syllables in some late texts. Superl. -æst-
occurs, e.g., in AldV 1, 4474; ClGl 3, 899; PsGlE 137.3; BenRGl 1.11.4; PsGlK 104.12; PsCaK
7(6), 20; and in many charters. See Hogg §¯6.62.
3
In the view of Kl., the MS spelling onlic næs shows scribal miscomprehension. This is pos-
sible, but the spelling -næs(-) for this suÌx is not infrequent in late texts: there are examples in
HomU 17.1, 93, ChronE s.a. 1086, Leof 36, BenRW64.131.34, and in several charters (276, 574,
1402, 1476, 1485, 1506, 1511, 1514) and Psalter glosses (E, I, K), in forms like godcundnæsse,
ofermōdiġnæss, and mildheortnæs. The spelling -næss should be expected in early texts (cf. Go.
-inassus; Kluge 1926: §§¯137¯f.), though -næs here in Beo is hardly likely to be an archaism, any
more than nalæs < -es < -æs.
4
Hæðcen 2925 may be a weakened form of Hæðcyn (2434, 2437, 2482) (or Kent.?).
5
That this ig should stand, by mistake, for an old or dialectal ġi- (see Bülbring 1902: §¯455 n.¯1)
is a far less plausible hypothesis.
6
Sievers posits the uniform use of the form Hyġlāc (as well as Wedra) for the original text;
similarly Siġemund 875, 884 may have been substituted for Siġmund. Also Fitela 879, 889 has
cxlii INTRODUCTION
evidence is dubitable (see Lapidge 1982: 177–8; HOEM §¯355.6), and the connecting
vowel is missing from the name in all MSS of the Liber monstrorum (see Orchard
1995: 258). The syncope of the post-tonic vowel in Heort 78, 991, originally due to the
example of the inÏected forms (see 2099; Hogg §¯6.68), is demanded by the meter in
l.¯78 (see Siev.R. 248, Appx.C §¯38). The chronological signi¢cance of this is uncertain:
see Fulk 2007a: 276–7. Cf. also Hæðcyn < *Haþ(u)-kunja-, and frequent Wedra (2120,
2462, etc.).
11. The verb pre¢x on- takes the prehistoric form ond- in ondhwearf 548 and, most
likely, ondsendeþ 600 (n.). Confusion of ond- and on- is occasionally met with else-
where (OEG §¯73 n.¯1; see also Bamm. SN 74 [2002] 143–5). — Pre¢x bi- (stressed
form) for be- in binēat 2396.
Remark. The weakening of unstressed vowels, accompanied by orthographic con-
fusion, has been dealt with often.1 However, not all of the cases cited are equally plain.
A typically ambiguous instance is fyrene corrected to fyrena 879.

CONSONANTS
§¯20.
1. g.
Loss of ġ before dental cons., transition of -iġ to -ī (later i). See Luick §§¯251–2,
OEG §§¯243–5, 267, SB §¯214.3–5, Hogg §§¯5.128, 7.70–1. On the reverse spelling iġ
for ī, see §¯9 rem.
Wīlāf 2852 (Wīġ- 6×); H©lāc(es) 1530 (see §¯19.10); -br®d 723, 1664, 2575, 2703,
frīn(an) 351, 1322, -h©diġ, etc. 434, 723, 1749, 1760, 2667, 2810, cf. 3165, s®de, etc.
1696, 1945, 3152; by analogy (see OEG §¯243 n.¯2, SB §¯214 n.¯9) also ġefrūnon 2, 70,
(-)brōden 552, 1443, 1548; in unstressed sylls. fāmī- 218, -s®lī 105.
The disappearance of g in gende 1401 (gengde 1412) may or may not be merely an
orthographic feature: see OEG §¯477.4, SB §§¯184¯n., 215 n.¯1; cf. Hogg §¯7.83 n.¯6.
The pre¢xing of g in the MS spelling geomor 1960 (for Ēomēr) suggests either a
Kentish scribe or late hypercorrection: see OEG §¯303, SB §¯212 n.¯2, Hogg §¯5.209.
Transition of ¢nal ng to nc (common in Kent. and later North.) in ætspranc 1121: see
OEG §¯450, SB §¯215. ġecranc 1209 is possibly to be referred to -crincan, a parallel
form of -cringan: see Bloom¢eld BGdSL 37 (1912) 253¯f. Cf. MS guðrinc 1118 (n.).
Remark. Interesting spellings: (a) sorhge 2468 (cf. an analogous spelling of h in
f®ghðe 2465; SB §§¯214 n.¯6), ābealch 2280 (archaic? OEG §¯57.3, SB §¯223 n.¯1). —
(b) Spellings for cg (see OEG §¯64, SB §¯216 n.¯1, Hogg §¯2.67 n.¯1): secggende2 3028,
fricgcean 1985; Ec-þēow 957 (n.), -lāf 980 (Ec- corrected to Ecg- 263), sec 2863 (n.).3
2. h.
Loss and addition of initial h. See SB §¯217 nn.¯1–2; cf. Scragg A. 88 (1970) 165–96.
The loss of initial h in the MS spellings of 312, inne 1868 may or may not be of
phonetic signi¢cance.4 Loss of h in a voicing environment at the beginning of the
second constituent of a compound is seen in -rēade 1194 and possibly -rēo(u)w 58,

been declared a Southern scribe’s alteration of *Fitla (Weyhe BGdSL 30 [1905] 98). — On the
forms hilde- and hild- in compounds, see Appx.C §§¯5, 23; JEGP 106 (2007) 304–6.
1
See Mal. 1930 (also A. 54 [1930] 97¯f.; but cf. R. Derolez in Album Edgard Blancquaert
[Tongeren, 1958] 77–84); A. Marckwardt in Philologica, ed. T. Kirby & H. Woolf (Baltimore,
1949) 79–88; G. Brook in The Anglo-Saxons, ed. P. Clemoes (London, 1959) 280–91; Armborst
LSE 9 (1977) 1–18; R. Derolez in The History of the Dialects of English, ed. A. Fischer, AF 203
(Heidelberg, 1990) 91–102; Blake 1993; Kitson FLH 11 (1990) 27–87; id. 1997; Nielsen 2003.
2
Cf., e.g., El 160, 387, 560.
3
So And 1225, WaldA 5. Cf. Gifts 70 (wic), Rim 7 (wic) Rid 85.5 (hryc); OrW 70 (gar secges),
etc. — Whether cg is erroneously spelt for g in ecgclif 2893 is doubtful: see Gloss.
4
The incorrect beortre 158 (see, however, SB §¯221 n.¯2) has been altered by another hand to
beorhtre; so also ferþe 1718 (cf. uncorrected -ferð 2785).
 LANGUAGE AND POETIC FORM cxliii
629, 1719 (OEG §¯468, but cf. Pokorny 1959: 332); also Jul 481, GuthA 406, And 1334,
as well as And 1116, Rid 84.2.
On the unwarranted spelling h in initial position in hraþe 1390, 1975, see Appx.C
§¯24; on hnægdon 2916 (cf. 1318), hroden 1151, see Appx.C §¯42; on hun ferð see note
to 499a. Obvious mistakes are hand-, hond- 1541, 2094, 2929, 2972, also hattres 2523.
On the use of h in āhl®ċan 646, 989, see ELL 6.1 (2002) 84¯f., 93¯f.; on ¢nal h for g,
see Cameron et al. 1981: 50.
3. n.
n before f, b, is changed to m (assimilation: see OEG §¯484, SB §¯188.1, Hogg
§¯7.91.1) in ġimfæst 1271 (cf. n 2182), hlimbed 3034.
Loss of n in the form cyniges 3121 is not exclusively Northumbr. (see Luick §¯344 n.,
OEG §¯474.5), for this spelling of the stem may be found in several (mostly late) texts.1
The absence of ¢nal n in ræswa (MS) 60 has been explained as a Northumbrianism:
see SB §§¯188.2, 276 n.¯5, Bülbring 1902: §¯557; Napier 1901: 379 n.; more likely omis-
sion of a titulus is the cause. The form weardode 2164 may be an archaism (see Bloom-
¢eld JEGP 29 [1930] 100–13; OEG §¯473); MS lemede 905 and ofereode 1408, how-
ever, more likely show scribal error than weakening of normal -don or lack of congru-
ence (so Kl.): see the notes to these lines.
4. Doubling of consonants.
(a) Normal doubling of t before r (see OEG §453, SB §¯¯229) in āttres 2523, ®ttren
1617, hence also āttor 2715, 2839 (ātĺr 1459). On the vowel quantities in these forms,
see NOWELE 33 (1998) 11–23.
(b) Due to lexical (or perhaps merely orthographic) confusion seems to be the doub-
ling of intervocalic t after long vowel or diphthong in MS fættum 716 (see Gloss.:
f®ted), gegrettan 1861 (see n.), sceatta 752 (n.; cf. sceat[t]2). MS gehedde 505 would
be another example if to ġehēġan (so Kl.; see note to that line).3
(c) Doubling of (element-)¢nal l after short vowel: sceall¯4 (1862 Varr.), 2275, 2498,
2508, 2535, 3014, 3021, 3077; till 2721; well 1951, 2162, 2812; wæll- 2703. (Doubled l
after an unstressed vowel: æþellingum 906.) The form dyhttig 1287 (if this is what the
MS once read) may have a related explanation.
5. Simpli¢cation of double consonants.
(a) hh between vowels is simpli¢ed (in spelling) to h in ġenehost 794. See SB §¯220
n.¯1, Bülbring 1902: §¯554 n.¯2: found quite frequently in Angl. texts, but found also in
WS MSS.5
(b) tt spelt t in hetende6 1828; nn spelt n in īrena 673 (n.), 1697, 2259 (see OEG
§¯647 n.¯2).
Remark. Degemination, while common in late MSS after unstressed vowels (OEG
§¯457), does not normally occur after stressed vowels except at the end of a word or
constituent of a compound (OEG §§¯66, 458; it is commoner in the work of A than of
B: Cameron 1981: 50). This is why wr®tte, not wr®te, is required in 2771, 3060, and
niðða 2215: see SP 104 (2007) 172–3. In regard to the two exceptions mentioned supra,

1
Or 98.3, Marv 18.1, PsGlG 71.10, 101.23, ChronC 1017, 1018, and several others.
2
The same spelling, Ex 429: sceattas. Such double spellings occur rather irregularly in
Northumbr.: see, e.g., Lea A. 16 (1894) 131–3; Lindelöf 1890: 70–1. On such spellings in late
Southern texts, see Schlemilch 1914: 64–6. — The double t after shortened diphthong in
þreottēoða 24o6 is LWS: see OEG §§¯287, 693, SB §§¯229 n.¯2, 328.
3
See also Weyhe 1925: 319; cf. Luick §¯352 n.¯4.
4
Frequent in LWS (SB §¯423). See also Schlemilch 1914: 63.
5
Thus, e.g., GenA 2844: ġeneahe, Mald 269: ġenehe; GenA 1582, 2066, El 994: hlihende;
HomS 8 (Blickl. hom. ii) 25.23: hlihaþ; also the Kent. OccGl 49 (ZfdA 21 [1877] 18), 1.11: hlihe;
Luke (WSCp) 6.21: hlihaþ; Li, ib.: hlæheð; so 6.25.
6
Perhaps inÏuenced by hete, heteliċ, hetol. Thus El 18, 119: hetend(um); also PsGlE 105.20:
hetende. — The spelling niða 2215 (not uncommon in OE MSS) for niðða seems to be due to
analogy to (or confusion with) the noun nīð.
cxliv INTRODUCTION
the reduction of hh is explicable because intervocalic hh and h do not contrast, due to
loss of intervocalic h; and the simpli¢cation in hetende is most likely analogous (see
p.¯cxliii n.¯6).
(c) The simpli¢cation of ateliċ 784 (for atelliċ), eorliċ 637 (for eorlliċ), wildēor 1430
(for wilddēor), and andrysnum 1796, ondrysne 1932 (for and-, ond-drysn-) is normal.
See OEG §§¯457–8.
6. Simpli¢cation of triconsonantal clusters. See Bülbring 1902: §¯533; also Kl. MLN
18 (1903) 243–5.
t. (here)wæsmun 677 (OEG §¯477.2). The loss (in a case involving two words) in MS
siðas sige 2710 (see Varr.) is dubitably phonological; confusion with the plural noun
may be at fault.
d. (Heaða-, Heaðo-)Bear[d]na 2037, 2067; cf. -Beardna 2032.1 The spelling
hearede 2202 (= Heardrēde) is likely a mere blunder (haplography).
Thus, -wæsmun is the only fairly probable instance of intentional phonetic spelling
of this sort.2 — Use of -e for -ne in pres. participles (46, 2781) need not attest to a
phonological process: see 48¯n.
7. Varia. — Absence of metathesis of r (cf. ærn) is noted in (archaic) ren(weard)
770: see OEG §¯193(d) n.¯4, SB §¯179.1; but see Varr.3 Also grynna 930 (gyrn 1775). —
bold 773, 997, 1925, 2196, 2326, 3112 with ld from þl (WS tl¯) is considered predom-
inantly (West) Merc. & poetic: see SB §¯201.3; Parsons & Styles 1997: 135–7.4 — Loss
of ¢nal d in scyppen (but with d added by the other scribe) would not be unusual in
Northumbrian: see SB §¯286 n.¯4.
f. The solitary spelling u for intervocalic f, in hlīuade 1799 (hlīfade 1898), may
bespeak the hand of a late scribe (see SB §¯194; Schlemilch 1914: 49);5 yet such
spellings are also found in the early glossaries,6 and the same scribe’s hleonige for
hleouige (once in Alex) and leone for leoue (6× in Marv) show that he worked from an
exemplar with occasional u for f. See Sisam 1953: 85–6 n.¯1.
k. This letter occurs only in kyning 619, 665, 2144 2335 (and see 3171: Varr.),
normally spelt with c 51×. See OEG §¯427 n.¯1.

INFLECTION

A few noteworthy forms in addition to those mentioned in §19 are to be pointed out
here.

1
Cf. Wid 49: -bearna with d added above the line. The handbooks of grammar do not admit
such a phonological loss, and indeed, for example, there are nearly 25 instances of acc. sg. masc.
(-)heardne in OE, but no *hearne. It is therefore necessary to assume confusion with the noun
bearn (see 902–4 [n.] on the scribes’ diÌculties with proper nouns), rather than a phonological
change, and to emend. So Kl.; cf. Hoops St. 7. — The spelling -rædenne 51 is interpreted by Mal.
A. 53 (1929) 335¯f. as a legitimate form (cf. 1142 & n.), though this is not very plausible (see
Brodeur 1943a: 313–23). Especially in view of the normal spelling -r®dende 1346, the emended
form has been preferred.
2
Exceedingly doubtful examples are MS sweodum 567 (see Varr.), hol (þegnas) 1229, -wyl (þa)
1506, and þeo (ge streona) 1218.
3
The same form is recorded in the early ErfGl 1, 1137: rendeġn = ‘aedis minister’; besides, as
the second constituent of a compound, in Ch 336, 1.6: meteren; also in hordren, ZfdA 33 (1889)
245.42, gangren, ibid. 246.80. Stanley EGS 5 (1952–3) 103–15 would date this metathesis quite
late, after the later Angl. change of io to eo. It is plain that metathesis occurred more than once in
the prehistoric language: see OEG §¯155.
4
The seemingly metathesized ġ©stað 1749 cited by Cameron et al. 1981: 51 is due to a misprint
in Kl. 3 Gloss.
5
Thus, e.g., El 834: begrauene, And 142: eaueðum, Thureth 4: loue, GDPref 21: forgyu(e).
6
See J. Pheifer OE Glosses in the Épinal-Erfurt Glossary (Oxford, 1974) lxxx n.¯5.
 LANGUAGE AND POETIC FORM cxlv
§¯21. Nouns

1. Of nouns of more than one gender, s® once (2394) appears as fem. (perhaps in
this instance an archaism: see note on line), (īsern)scūr 3116 as fem. (archaism).1 The
(Angl.?) fem. gender of bend is seen in wælbende 1936.2 On (hand)sporu, see note on
984¯ff.; on wr®c, Gloss.; on frōfor, note on 698; on hl®w, note on 2297a. See also notes
on 48, 2338, and Appx.C §¯37. For neut. hwealf (Gloss.), cf. OIcel. hválf. On hilt, see
§¯22; the apparent fem. use of sār 2295, 2468 (see nn.) is simply unparalleled. For neut.
lēanes (if for l®nes, as an archaism: see 1809 n.), cf. OFris. lēn, OS, OHG lēhan, OIcel.
lán.
2. The fem. nouns of the i-declension regularly form the accusative singular without
-e, the only very probable exceptions being d®de 889 and tīde 2226, the latter emen-
ded.3 The feminine wynn Ïuctuates between the jō- and the i-type, the acc. sg. (-)wynne
occurring 8×, the accusative singular ēðelwyn in 2493.4 — The nominative plural lēoda
3001 shows association of lēod(e) with þēod and transferral to the ō-declension: see
OEG §¯610.7 n.¯3; SB §¯264; Royster MLN 23 (1908) 121¯f.; BT. Cf. Malone Angl. 54
(1930) 97¯f., taking this for early evidence of the general Middle English confusion of
inÏections.
3. The form nēodlaðu 1320, though not impossible as a late, analogical dat. sg. (see
OEG §¯587, SB §¯252 n.¯2), is probably meant for -laðum (u written for ū).
4. Of distinct interest is the archaic dat. (instr.) dōgor 1395, 1797 (but the latter
altered, prob. by the second scribe, to dōgore; see Varr.: 1797; Intr. xxxii¯f.; cf. 2573).5
As to form, -sigor 1554 could also be an archaic dat. sg.,5 though the perfective mean-
ing of ġewealdan harmonizes better with the acc.
5. The gen. pl. in -i(ġ)a, -iġea in short-stemmed i-stem nouns (Denia, etc. 14× [cf.
465b Varr.; Dena 17×], winia 2567) seems a de¢nite archaism. Elsewhere in OE it is
found only in GuthB (1365, MS wiinga or wunga for winiga). See HOEM §§¯279–80.
6. The LWS analogical fem. gen. pl. inÏection -ena (OEG §¯586, SB §¯252 n.¯4) is
probably merely scribal in lārena 269 (cf. lāra 1220, and see Appx.C §¯12) and ġeofena
1173 (cf. ġifa 1930). As for masc. Ġēatena 443 (vs. Ġēata 39×), this is due to a scribal
misapprehension.6

§¯22. Adjectives

A remarkably late, analogical form of the acc. pl. neut. would be fāge 1615 (where
the meter requires a dissyllable), if construed with a neut. hilt.7 However, hilt may be
used here as a fem. (cf. 1563?): see SB §¯267(a), Hoops, Girvan 1935: 10; cf. OEG
§¯636, OES §¯62, Gr.Spr., Fulk 2007a: 274–5. Note also cwice 98 (scribal, for cwicu),
ābrocene 2063, and wynsume 612. In the last case, the inÏection -e makes for diÌcult
meter (see note), and it is to be noted that in the Merc. PsGlA, -sum does not take the

1
So Go. skūra: see P.Grdr.2 i 770; De Vaan Sprache 41 (1999) 39–49.
2
Also GenB 371, but the OS cognate is fem.
3
The forms br©de 2956, gumcyste 1723, sēle 1135 should be understood as acc. pl. The phrase
in þā tīde is found GD 2 (C) 4.111.21, GD 4 and Pref (C) 27.299.11, Bede 3 17.232.19; cf. Jud 306a:
þeġnas on ðā tīd; Met 26.43a: þæt on ðā tīde, but cf. the alliteration in 12a.
4
In l.¯1782 Sievers would introduce the acc. sing. -wynn, in l.¯2493, -wynne (see Varr.). Sievers
1903: §¯269 arranges wynn with the i-stems, while in BGdSL 1 (1874) 494¯f. he classes it as,
primarily, a jō-stem. OS wunnia is a jō-stem, OHG wunna a jō-stem, OHG wunnī an ī-stem: see
Szadrowsky BGdSL 52 (1928) 398–423.
5
See Weyhe BGdSL 31 (1906) 85–7.
6
The scribe at ¢rst wrote geotena (see Varr.), perhaps perceiving a reference to Ēotan (with
seeming Kent. or hypercorrective ġ-: see §¯20.1), and he appears to have thought n in that name
organic (see 902¯n.; §¯16.2(a) rem. supra).
7
See Gloss.: hilt.
cxlvi INTRODUCTION
inÏection -u in the nom. sg. fem. (and thus presumably not in the nom.-acc. pl. neut.):
see R. Zeuner Die Sprache des Kentischen Psalters (Vespasian A.1.) (Halle, 1881) 138.
Cf. also alternation between -licu (232, 641, 1584, 2637) and -lic (215, 1650, 2086,
2618 [or sg.?]) in the nom. sg. fem. and nom.-acc. pl. neut.: the meter requires -u at
l.¯1584 and forbids it in ll.¯215, 1650, 2618. Forms in -licu are not found in PsGlA. Acc.
sg. masc. wæċċende 2841 is not out of the ordinary (see Varr.).
On the use of uninÏected adjectives and participles qualifying a preceding noun or
pronoun, see the note on hēah 48. On the inÏection of pass. participles with auxiliaries,
see OES §§¯759¯ff.; Donoghue 1987: 27–9.

§¯23. Pronouns

The poem shows some distinctive acc. forms of personal pronouns characteristic of
Angl. prose: meċ, þeċ, ūsiċ, ēowiċ.1 — The poss. adj. ūser 3002, 3107 is Northumbr. in
prose, but it is used widely in verse, including some Southern compositions. It grows
scarce in late poems: see HOEM §¯353.9. The chieÏy Northumbr. gen. pron. ūser 2074
(see Gloss.: iċ) is also poetic.2 It has been argued (by Bauer A. 81 [1963] 329–34) that
the use of (generally) reÏexive sīn, which is rare outside of verse, correlates to date of
composition in verse, though the evidence is debatable. — On the apparent use of sē =
sēo, hē =hēo, see notes to 1260, 1344, 1887.3 — A single instance of hīe, nom. sg. fem.,
occurs 2019 (so regularly [twice] in the Merc. PsGlA: see OEG §¯703, SB §¯334 nn.¯1–
2). — The transmitted sīe, nom. sg. fem., 2219 (see Varr.) is well known (just once sēo)
in PsGlA (see OEG §¯708, SB §¯337 n.¯4). — In the view of Kl., þāra 1625 is dat. sg.
fem., in which event, if it is not due simply to scribal error, it suggests dialectal or late
usage (see OEG §¯708, SB §¯337 nn.¯2 & 4, and Siev. 1884a: 271). But see note. — The
erroneous here 1199 could be interpreted as a blunder for þ¬re (Kent., Merc.: see OEG
§¯708, SB §¯337 nn.¯3 & 4), i.e. normal þ®re.4 — The MS form si 2237 is defended by
Mal. as an instance of the rare raising of a close ē: see Jesp.Misc. 45–54, 1933a: 151.

§¯24. Prepositions

Angl. unstressed fore 1064, 1215, 2059 (see also 457¯n.) corresponds to WS for
(HOEM §¯353.14). — On Angl. in, see §¯27; on mid with the acc. case, see §¯26.7.

§¯25. Verbs

1. The uniform use of the full endings -est, -eð (2 & 3 sg. pres. ind.) of long-
stemmed strong verbs and weak verbs of the 1st class, and of the unsyncopated forms
(ending -ed) of the pp. of wk. verbs of the 1st class with root terminating in a dental
consonant, is in accord with the postulate of the Angl. origin of the poem.5 Conclusive

1
See Gloss.: iċ, þū; OEG §¯702; HOEM §¯355.7. The shorter acc. forms mē (5×), þē (8×), etc.,
are used beside the longer ones in Merc. texts: see SB §¯332; GriÌth 1997: 24 n.¯85.
2
It is also found twice in the OE Bede. Widespread use of the stem ūss- < ūsr- in late prose
shows that the Northumbr. adj. was once in wider use.
3
Such a form as fem. sē is a dialectal possibility: see E. Brown 1891–2: §¯81; Bülbring 1902:
§¯454; Bu.Zs. 205; Hoops St. 7.
4
The Merc. (PsGlA) form ūr has been conjecturally proposed for 2642b: see Varr.
5
See SB §§¯358.2, 402.2, 406, Siev. 1884a: 273, R. 464–75, A.M. §¯76.3. Unsyncopated forms
are also found in poems showing Southern dialect features (see Met 1.8, 9, 3.2, 5, 4.4, etc.), and
thus syncope plainly was regarded as poetic as well as dialectal (so GriÌth 1997: 21); but in
Southern poems syncopated forms are also used. Those who have cast doubts on Sievers’s formu-
lation of this indicator of dialect origins have intimated the value of these conjugational features as
a criterion of early date, so far as Southern texts might be concerned: see ten Brink 213; Tr.Kyn.
 LANGUAGE AND POETIC FORM cxlvii
instances (guaranteed by the meter) are (a) ofersw©ðeþ 279, 1768; ġedīġeð (-est) 300,
661; þenċeð 355, 448, 1535, 2601; weorþeð 414, 2913; wēneþ 6oo; scīneð 606, 1571;
brūceð 1062; healdest 1705; scēoteð 1744; ġedrēoseð 1754; etc. (On the absence of WS
umlaut, see OEG §¯733(a), SB §¯371.) (b) hyrsted 672; ġec©þed 700; āfēded 693;
ġel®sted 829; forsended 904; scynded 918; etc.1 The dissyllabic value of the 2 & 3 sg.
pres. ind. of short-stemmed verbs is likewise con¢rmed by the meter, e.g. cymest 1382,
nymeð 1846, 2536, gæleð 2460, siteð 2906. The use of syncopated (-)cwið 2041, 2046
is in accordance with both Southern and Merc. usage (OEG §¯733[a]). Note that in
PsGlA, strong verbs with e in the inf. (or eo due to back mutation, e.g. beoran) retain
mutated i in the 2 & 3 sg. pres., despite restoration of the unsyncopated ending: cf.
consistent byreð 296, 448, 2055, wiġeð 599, but eteð 449, swefeþ (4×).
2. An archaic, or Angl., feature is the ending -u in full®stu 2668: see OEG §§¯731(a),
735(a), SB §¯355. (Cf. hafu under 5 infra.) Another archaism would be the ending -æ
on fæðmię 2652, if the scribal alteration of ¢nal -e to -ę were to be granted authority
(see Fu.1 197¯f.): see OEG §¯731(a), SB §¯361.
3. The pret. of (-)¢ndan is both funde (6×, in accordance with the regular EWS
practice: see Cosijn 1883–8: 2.132) and fand (11×), fond (2×). The form (-)funde is not
diagnostic of the WS dialect (cf. Jack, note to l.¯750), as possibly it is also Merc.: see
HOEM §¯355.9. — The pret. of (-)cuman is both cwōm(-) (26×, chieÏy Angl.) and
cōm(-) (24×). See HOEM §¯353.4. — The pret. sg. of (-)niman is nōm (2×, the normal
Angl. form), nam (18×), pl. nāmon (2×).2 — It may be that (ge)þah (MS) 1024 is an
individual WS scribe’s ineffectual respelling of Angl. þæh (so Kl.), but ġeþāh, as if to
a verb of the ¢rst strong class, is the usual pret. sg. to ġeþicgan in verse,3 perhaps
originally due to a general WS incomprehension of Angl. þæh, since the usual WS
pret. is þiġ(e)de. See SB §¯391 n.¯9, Siev. 1884a: 283; Deutschbein BGdSL 26 (1901)
235¯n.4 — Not strictly WS are s®gon 1422, ġesēgan 3038, ġesēgon 3128: see OEG
§¯743, SB §¯391 n.¯8, HOEM §¯353.5. — Late [Kent., WS] is specan 2864.5 — Quite
exceptional (found nowhere else, it seems) is pp. dropen 2981 (OEG §¯743, SB §¯391
n.¯1). — As for hlēod 895, probably ēo here for expected ō is an analogical spelling
like wēox (to weaxan) and spēon (to spanan), perhaps due to the resemblance of Merc.
hleadan to an in¢nitive of the reduplicating class: see OEG §¯744, SB §¯392 nn.¯4–5.
But since the spelling eo for o after l is occasionally met with (Bu.Zs. 215; Kl. A. 25
[1902] 272), Kl. and others (incl. Holt., Wn., MR) regard the e as merely orthographic
and represent the word as ġehleōd. Usually, however, e is employed as a diacritic this
way only after c or g. — Possibly a pret. sj. *scēode to scādan lies behind MS scolde
1106 (see note).
4. The unique preterite gang 1009, 1295, 1316 (cf. PPs 54.12.5: preterite plural
gangan) is referred by Gr.Spr. to an in¢nitive *ġingan (by Krogmann Angl. 57 [1933]
216¯f. to an in¢nitive *gungan). According to Horn 1924: 72–3, gang is shortened from

71¯n.; Tupper 1911: 255–61, JEGP 11 (1912) 84¯f.; Sisam 1953: 119–39. The improbability of this
alternative analysis is demonstrated in HOEM, ch. 11.
1
Metrically inconclusive cases are, e.g., 93b, 1460a, 1610a, 2044a, 2460a.
2
OEG §¯742, SB §¯390 n.¯3. However, nōm is insecure as a dialect indicator, since presumably
MS nom could have a short vowel with rounding of a before nasal cons. (§¯6 supra).
3
So GenA 885, Ex 354, Wid 3, 65 (MS geþeah altered by the scribe to geþah), Deor 40, Met
1.53. Cf. etymologically correct ġeþeah (without Angl. smoothing) at Beo 618, 628. The evidence
thus heavily favors a fairly regular scribal substitution of ġeþāh for unfamiliar Angl. ġeþæh in
verse rather than repeated devisement of the same peculiar spelling by different scribes — peculiar
because ă before h does not otherwise occur in WS, and it is diÌcult to believe that WS scribes
would regard it as proper.
4
Cf. Kl. Beibl. 37 (1926) 249¯f., 38.356¯f., arguing for a meaning ‘receive’ for ġeþēon at Wid 13,
ChristA 377.
5
See OEG §¯475, SB §¯180. The only other instance in OE poetry: sp®con, PPs 57.3. See also
Holt.Et.: specan, sprecan; Bamm. 1979: 122.
cxlviii INTRODUCTION
*ġegang. It has even been explained as an unreasonably mechanical transcription into
WS of a form ġēong (which was taken for a Northumbrian imperative ġeong [South
Northumbrian gong]: see §¯12.5). The form (ġe)gangeð 1846 is perhaps Anglian (WS
g®ð): see A. Hardy Die Sprache der Blickling Homilien (Leipzig diss., 1899) 75¯n.
5. hafu, hafo 2150, 2523, 3000 (see §¯25.2), hafast (uniformly, 5×), hafað (uniformly,
9×) are Anglian or poetic: see OEG §¯762, SB §¯417 n.¯1(c), HOEM §¯353.1, 3;
(-)li¢(ġ)ende 468, etc. (10×) is not the standard WS form: see OEG §¯762, SB §¯417 n.¯2,
HOEM §¯353.2.1 — telġe 2067 probably evidences a compromise between telle and
taliġe (so 532, 677, 1845).2 — The mainly non-WS ending -ad-, as in hlīfade 81, losade
2096 (so -ad as in ġeweorðad, etc.), occurs sporadically in both parts of the MS (29×):
see OEG §¯757, SB §¯414.3
6. The archaic, poetical form dēdon (which is found Saxonized as d®don, ġed®de in
Gen 722, 2894) is metrically desirable at 1828b (see apparatus of variants, and cf. 44b).
The form is not exclusively Northumbrian (as supposed by Siev.R. 498 and Imelmann
1907: 14, 17), for the reason that it is found also in the originally Merc. OE Bede.4 See
HOEM §¯355.4.
7. The Angl. and archaic pres.ptc. formation in -ende of weak verbs of the 2nd class
(see OEG §¯757, SB §¯412 n.¯10, Siev.R. 482, A.M. §¯76.7, HOEM §¯353.11) is seen in
feormend- 2761 (see Lang. §¯19.5).
8. The uninÏected inf. after tō (316, 2556), rare in verse and rarer in prose, seems to
be an archaism. In addition, poetic meter several times requires an uninÏected form
where an inÏected is found: see Siev.R. 255¯f., 312, 482, SB §¯363 n.¯3, HOEM §¯3, Fulk
1997: 40–1; Appx.C §¯21.

SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS

§¯26.

Some notable features are the following:

1. The use of the singular of concrete nouns in a collective sense (see 794¯n.). — The
singular meaning of the plural of nouns such as burh, ġeard, eard, wīċ; rodor, heofon
(cf. ecclesiastical Lat. caeli); bānhūs; folc; searo; list, lust, ēst, snyttru, ġeþyld (semi-
adv. function of dat. pl.; cf. on s®lum); cyme; oferhyġd; the use of the plural of abstract
nouns with concomitant concretion of meaning, e.g. hrōðor, liss, willa.5 — The parti-
tive genitive (esp. when it precedes the phrase head) is particularly poetic and appar-
ently archaic.6

1
K. Wildhagen Der Psalter des Eadwine von Canterbury, SEP 13 (Halle, 1905) 180 makes it out
to be Angl., and so it is, chieÏy, though hafast, hafað, and especially lif(i)ġende are not entirely
unknown in WS.
2
Cf. And 1484: tæliġe. It almost certainly does not evidence conjugation according to the third
weak class: see OEG §763 and n.¯4.
3
In verse, however, this spelling occurs also in poems of Saxon composition: see HOEM
§¯355.10.
4
The spellings dede and dedon also occur in the Cotton MS of CP, but Sievers (1903: §¯429
n.¯1) explains these as Cantianisms (with e for y: see §¯3 rem. 2 supra, and cf. SB §¯429 n.¯1). Sweet
(1871: xxvii), followed by Tupper 1911: 264 n.¯3, regards these rather as archaisms in EWS, but the
idea is not, after all, easy to credit that supposed dēde should be old, since such a sg. form does not
occur in prose in the dialects that preserve pl. dēdon. Compare dedon at HyGl 2, 20.4 (a text with
many Kent. spellings); dedyst at PsGlC 38.10 may have been inÏuenced by Lat. dedisti in the pre-
ceding verse.
5
See Kl. 1905–6: 263–5; id. Archiv 126 (1911) 354; Rynell 1991.
6
It is less common in Mald, and far less so in prose: see Kjellmer A. 119 (2001) 596, ¢nding
202 instances in Beo.
 LANGUAGE AND POETIC FORM cxlix
2. The absolute (substantival) use of adjectives in their strong inÏection, e.g. gomele
ymb gōdne onġeador spr®con 1595.1 The employment of the (more concrete) adj. in
cases where our modern linguistic feeling inclines toward the (abstract) adverb, as
hādor 497; 2553; 130, 3031; 626, 1290, 1566; 897; etc. The appearance of the compara-
tive in a context in which no explicit comparison takes place, e.g. betera 1703, sēlran
1839, lēofre 2651, syllicran 3038 (but see n.).2
3. Of great interest, as a presumable archaism, is the frequency of the weak adj.
when it modi¢es a noun not preceded by a determiner, i.e. a demonstrative (s¬, þ¬s) or
a possessive (mīn, his),3 as in gomela Scilding, heaþostēapa helm, wīdan rīċes, ofer
ealde riht,4 some 75 instances (apart from vocatives) being found — including,
however, the doubtful instrumental (dative) forms like dēoran (sweorde), heardan
(clammum).5 The comparative paucity of demonstratives, together with the more or
less demonstrative force of (the attributive) s¬, sēo, þæt recognizable in many places,
has likewise been considered a highly characteristic feature and has received much
attention from investigators.6 However, the value of the relative frequency of the
demonstrative use (and the use of the weak adjective) in Old English poems as a
criterion of chronology is impaired by the recognition that the scribes could easily
tamper with their originals by inserting articles in conformity with later or prose use,
not to mention the possibility of archaizing tendencies — though archaization will not
account very persuasively for the extent of the difference, at least, between Beo and
other poems in this respect.7 Though the use of weak adjectives (and demonstrative sē)
is not a secure foundation on which to build a chronology of OE verse, it is nonetheless
true in a broad sense that ‘the later the verse the less it diverges from the syntax of

1
The substantival function cannot always be distinguished from the adjectival (appositive) one,
e.g. wīġes heard 886 is either ‘he, being brave in battle’ or ‘the brave one.’
2
See Kl. 1905–6: 251–2; Ingersoll NM 77 (1976) 177–89. It may happen that the missing
member of the comparison is easily supplied: ðā wæs swīġra secg 98o (‘more reticent,’ sc. ‘than
before’). Indeed, Mitchell (OES §§¯183–6) argues that a real comparison is always intended in such
instances in the poem.
3
That is, in ‘inde¢nite’ usage. Demonstrative s¬ is sometimes referred to as ‘the de¢nite
article,’ but this term is problematic: see OES §§¯328–9. For studies of the wk. adj. in indef. usage,
see Lichtenheld ZfdA 16 (1873) 325–93; Cha.Intr. 105–7; Andrew 1948: §¯90; Amos 1980: 110–24.
For a list of instances, see Cameron et al. 1981: 69.
4
Listed by Cameron et al. 1981: 69. The type of the order hrefn blaca is found in 1177, 1243,
1343, 1435, 1553, 1801, 1847, 1919, 2474; cf. 412. (The type se maga ġeonga: 2675, possibly
3028.) Otherwise the type is found only at Rid 40.55 (Frank 2003: 240).
5
dēoran could be a weakened form of the normal strong dat. sg. in -um; heardan might stand
for the weak or strong dat. pl.: see OEG §¯378, SB §¯187. Besides, the desire to avoid suÌx rhyme
has to be taken into account: see Sarrazin EStn. 38 (1907) 147, Frank 2003: 242–9.
6
Treated most extensively in Lichtenheld ZfdA 16 (1873) 325–93; Barnouw 1902; Sarrazin
EStn. 38 (1907) 146–9; Girvan 1935: 23; Funke ES 30 (1949) 151–6; Whitman TSLL 21 (1979) 1–
16; Amos 1980: 110–24 (w. refs.); Orešnik Linguistica (Ljubljana) 24 (1984) 383–9. See also
Hodler 1954; Micillo AION-SG 25 (1982) 161–202; OES §§¯137–41; Godden in The Cambr. Hist. of
the Eng. Lang., I, ed. R. Hogg (Cambridge, 1992) 504–6.
7
See Schücking 1905b; Tupper 1910: lxxviii. This does not mean that these features do not in
all likelihood attest to the archaic nature of the poem’s language (cf. Amos 1980: 124), only that
the test cannot be applied broadly to establish a chronology of OE poems: see Pope 1981. Similarly
inconclusive as chronological tests are the use of the preposition mid (in place of the instrumental
case, though it seems to be true that the instrumental grows less frequent in later OE) and the
construction of impersonal verbs with the formal subject hit. In both respects Beo would seem to
occupy an intermediate position between the so-called Cædmonian and the Cynewul¢an poetry.
See Sarrazin EStn. 38 (1907) 183¯f., id. 1913: 5; W. Sorg Zur Syntax und Stilistik des Pro-
nominalgebrauches in der älteren ags. Dichtung (Breslau diss., 1912) 3–9; Dančev 1967;
Amos 1980: 125–8, 132–5; OES §§¯1031–5, 1223–8, 1367–70. For references to scholarship on
impersonal verbs, see J. Anderson in Lang. Hist. & Ling. Modelling, ed. R. Hickey & S. Puppel
(Berlin, 1997) 1.251–63.
cl INTRODUCTION
prose in this matter’ (OEG §¯638; so also OES §¯114). — On the strong adj. with def.
reference, see 615a (n.).
4. Omission of the personal pronoun both as subject1 and object2 is abundantly
exempli¢ed in the poem; perhaps also the indef. pronoun man is left unexpressed, 1365
(see note, and cf. 1290¯f., 2547). That the possessive pronoun is dispensed with in many
places where a modern English translation would use it, and that the personal pronoun
in the dative may be found instead,3 need hardly be mentioned. Mürkens BBzA 2 (1899)
111–12 offers some fairly convincing evidence that in early verse the demonstrative s¬
(with or without þe) is the commonest form of relativizer, while in late verse it is þe
alone. Beo would appear to stand between Ex and And in this regard.4 Postpositive use
of the demonstrative þone has a high probability of being archaic.5 Other evidence in
regard to relative pronouns is less persuasive.6
5. The sometimes peculiar use of such adverbs of place as hider, þonan, nēan, feor,
ufan, sūþan, hw®r,7 and of certain prepositions, like ofer, under, and on with acc., as
well as tō and of, well evidences the characteristic of the older Germanic languages that
the idea of motion (considered literally or ¢guratively) is predominant in many verbs8
that are now more commonly felt to be verbs of rest.9 Sometimes, it should be added,
motion is conceived in a direction at odds with that of ordinary modern usage,10 and
sometimes, contrary to expectation, the idea of rest rather than motion determines the
use (or regimen) of the preposition (see æt, on with dat.). Certain semantic distinctions,
which are still fairly well preserved, between verbs with and without the pre¢x ġe-,11

1
See Pogatscher A. 23 (1900) 261–301; Andrew 1948: §§¯75–7; Amos 1980: 132–5; Blockley in
Baker & Howe 1998. See 68, 286, 300, 470, 567b–9a, 1367, 1487, 1923, 1967, 2344, 2520, 2547,
3018.
2
See Kl. 1905–6: 253; Ohlander SN 16 (1943–4) 105–27; Andrew 1948: §¯78. See 24, 31 (n.),
48¯f., 93, 387 (n.), 748, 1487, 1808, 2940.
3
E.g. in 40, 47, 49, 726, 755, 816, 1242, 1446. In the same way, of course, the dat. of a noun
instead of a MnE gen., as in 2044, 2122¯f. See A. Ahlgren On the Use of the De¢nite Article with
‘Nouns of Possession’ in Eng. (Uppsala, 1946) §§¯128–36; OES §§¯304–10; Ohta in Stud. in Eng.
Philology, ed. K. Jin (Tokyo, 1990) 129–40.
4
In response to the objection (raised by Amos 1980: 129–31) that regularities in data like
Mürkens’s are vitiated by the possibility of scribal tampering with the text, see Fulk ASE 32 (2003)
23–4.
5
Thus 2007, 2334, 2588, 2959, 2969, 3081; also 3097. This peculiarity, not found elsewhere in
OE, is what we should expect as a relic of SOV order: see Dryer Language 68 (1992) 81–138; A.
Campbell 1971: 286; Orton RES 50 (1999) 300–1 n.¯47. Frank (1981: 133–4; so earlier Kl. Archiv
191 [1955] 219) argues for the Norse origin of this order, but the models proposed seem unlikely to
have affected the conservative language of verse but not of prose. The fact that no instance appears
before l.¯2007 is noted by Magoun (1963: 134–5) in evidence that the poem comprises three
separate compositions, but cf. Brodeur 1970: 19–20, and see p.xci n.¯2 supra. See also Barnouw
1902: 12, and cf. the use of heora in the same manner at GenA 1911, Ex 55.
6
Hock (1991: 65) maintains that the separation of þē 2735 from its antecedent þāra by the verse
boundary is a syntactic archaism; but surely the antecedent of þē is folccyning.
7
Thus, in 394, 2408, 528, 1701, 1805, 330 (n.), 606, 762 (n.).
8
Including, e.g., such as (ġe)sēon, scēawian, (ġe)h©ran, ġefriġnan, ġefricgan, bīdan, sēċan,
wilnian, wēnan, ġel©fan, ġemunan, sprecan, scīnan, standan.
9
See Siev. BGdSL 12 (1887) 188–200; Dening 1912; Kl. 1905–6: 255–9. See those prepositions
in the Gloss. Note the contrast between æt- and tō-somne, -gæd(e)re.
10
See some examples under tō.
11
E.g. sittan, ġesittan; standan, ġestandan; feallan, ġefeallan; gān, ġegān; bīdan, ġebīdan. See
Lorz 1908; Kl. 1905–6: 262–3; Karp 1989; Hopper 1990: 162, 165. In this connection, the use of
terms like ‘durative’ and ‘perfective,’ ‘ingressive’ and ‘resultative,’ must not be taken to assign
purely aspectual signi¢cance to ġe-: see Joly Canad. Jnl. of Ling. 12 (1967) 78–89; J. Lindemann
OE Preverbal Ge- (Charlottesville, 1970) passim (esp. 17–18, 63–6); Niwa SEL Eng. no. 1974,
155–67; OES §§¯865–73, esp. 870; Drobnak SAP 28 (1994) 123–41; cf. L. Brinton The Develop-
ment of Eng. Aspectual Systems (Cambridge, 1988) 199¯ff.
 LANGUAGE AND POETIC FORM cli
the concretion of meaning attending verbs denoting a state, or disposition, of mind,1
and the unusual, apparently archaic regimen of some verbs2 are further notable points.
Archaic patterns in the formation of the periphrastic pass. are inconclusive evidence.3
— The etyma of the modern auxiliaries (bēon/wesan, habban, sculan, willan, magan,
etc.) show only inchoate grammaticization, being less frequently stressed than other
¢nite verbs; the process of recategorization is more advanced in Mald (Getty ELL 4.1
[2000] 37–67). Similarly, the uses of such auxiliaries have been described as more
modern in Met and GenB than in Beo and GenA (Ogawa 1989: 52–4). — Kuhn BGdSL
57 (1933) 105 regards Beo as the most archaic poem in a Germanic language, on the
basis of its conformity to his two laws (Appx.C §§¯6–7); cf. A. Campbell 1962: 16 n.¯1.
6. Shifting concord as shown in the interchange of cases,4 and the violation, or free
handling, of the consecutio temporum,5 are notable features. Some examples of the
latter perhaps illustrate use of the historical pres. (see OES §§¯626, 859–64). The coup-
ling of a sg. verb with a plural subject is probably unintentional.6
7. The construction mid with acc. is considered an Anglianism.7 — Einenkel A. 35
(1912) 247 offers evidence from the proportion of different types of negation (of the
verb, or another element, or both) that would date the poem to the beginning of the
eighth century; but comparison with the proportions in other OE poems is not at-
tempted.
8. In the matter of word order, the outstanding feature is the predominance, ac-
cording to ancient Gmc. rule, of the end-position of the verb both in dependent and, to
a somewhat less notable degree, independent clauses, as exempli¢ed in the very ¢rst
lines of the poem. The opposite order, verb-subject, is not infrequently found to mark
an advance in the narrative8 (the more restful normal order being more properly
adapted to description or presentation of situations and minor narrative links)¯9 or to
intimate in a vague, general way a connection of the sentence with the preceding one,
such as might be expressed more de¢nitely by ‘and,’ (negatively) ‘nor,’ ‘so,’ ‘indeed,’
‘for,’ ‘however.’10 Besides, any part of the sentence may appear in the emphatic head-
position, whereby the author is enabled to give effective syntactic prominence to the
most important elements, as shown, e.g., in 1323: dēad is Æschere, 548: hrēo w®ron
©þa, 769: yrre w®ron bēġen, 994¯f.: goldfāg scinon / web after wāgum, 343: Bēowulf is

1
E.g. hatian (‘show one’s hatred by deeds,’ ‘persecute’), lu¢an, unnan, eahtian. See Kl. 1905–
6: 60–1.
2
Thus, the dative after forniman, forgrindan, forswerian, forgrīpan (the last also GenA 1275);
see H. Winkler Germanische Casussyntax (Berlin, 1896) 387–90; Visser 1966–73: 1.291–2. The
instr. function of the gen. in connection with verbs: 845, 1439, 2206; 1825 (?), 2035(?), 2791. On
both of these features, see Fulk 2007a: 271–2. On the gen. object in 2439, see Frank 1981: 132. See
also 1751 (n.).
3
For example, the scarcity of adjectival modi¢ers of past participles (Estival Diachronica 6
[1989] 23–54, esp. 29–31); the data seem insecure (e.g., fæst 137 is not participial) and sparse.
4
Thus, wið with acc. and dat.: 424¯ff., 1977¯f.; with ġebr®d 2703¯f.; also (if the emendation is
rejected) an apposition in the acc. case following a noun in the dat., 1830¯f. See Cameron et al.
1981: 68–9.
5
Transition from pret. to pres. in dependent clauses: 1313¯f., 1921 ff., 1925¯ff., 2484¯ff., 2493¯ff.
(n.), 2717¯ff. (n.) See A. 32 (1909) 250¯f. Hoops 160 would add 381.
6
Kl. assumes examples in the following: with the verb preceding, 1408; with the verb fol-
lowing, 904¯f.; and (in a dependent clause) 2163¯f. But see the notes on these verses; and for more
ordinary types of seeming lack of concord (þāra þe + sg. vb.; compound subject + sg. vb.; sg.
[collective] subject + pl. vb.; sg. subject + sg. vb. + pl. vb.), see Cameron et al. 1981: 68–9.
7
See HOEM §¯355.1, w. the refs. there.
8
See, e.g., 217¯f., 399, 620, 640¯f., 675¯f., 1125, 1397, 1506, 1518, 1870, 1903.
9
Ll.¯320¯ff., 1898b, 19o6b, 1992¯ff., 2014 may serve as illustrations. Highly instructive is the
interchange of the two orders, as in 399¯ff., 688¯ff., 702¯ff., 1020¯ff., 1600¯ff., 1963¯ff.
10
Thus in 83b, 109, 134, 191b, 271b¯f., 411, 487b, 609b¯f., 828b¯f., 969b¯f., 1010, 1620, 1791, 2461b,
2555, 2975. This analysis is approved by Mitchell (OES §¯3945).
clii INTRODUCTION
mīn nama, 2583¯f.: hrēðsigora ne ġealp / goldwine Ġēata, 1237¯f.: reċed weardode /
unrīm eorla, 2582¯f.: wīde sprungon / hildelēoman, 287¯f.: ®ġhwæþres sceal / scearp
scyldwiga ġescād witan. For a detailed study of this subject, see Ries 1907. These styl-
istic observations suggest further obstacles to regarding the position of the verb as an
indicator of the relative chronology of verse composition,1 though it is true that there
are more verb-¢nal clauses in verse than in prose.2 The initial placement of negative
elements (nō, n®fre, nalæs, etc.) other than negated verbs, however, appears to be ar-
chaic.3 — See also notes on 122¯f., 180¯f., 575¯f., 786¯ff.4
9. The high incidence of paratactic rather than hypotactic constructions is a notable
feature, though as an indicator of date it is not to be trusted.5 — It has been proposed
that traces of Latin inÏuence are to be recognized in the use of certain appositive
participles (thus in 815, 916, 1368, 1370, 1913, 2350) and, likewise, in the predilection
for the pass. construction (in cases like 642¯f., 1629¯f., 1787¯f., 1896¯f., 3021¯f.: see supra,
p.¯cxx n.¯2).6 Pl. ealra 1727, if neuter, may be a Latinism: see Kl. 1911–12: 118. See also
note on 1838¯f.7
10. Speci¢cally in regard to semantics, it has been observed that several words are
used in their older, often pre-Christian sense, including synn ‘hostility,’ fyren ‘pain,
violence,’ bealu ‘aggression’: see Robinson 1985: 56–7, Cronan 2003: 400–5, ASE 33
(2004) 23–50. — The semantics of personal names have been lent considerable
attention, chieÏy by literary scholars, on the assumption that, whether or not the names
were intended by the poet to do so, they reÏect in one way or another upon the char-
acters who bear them. Thus, for example, the name Hyġd ‘thought, deliberation,’ taken
to connote wisdom (cf. 1927–8), has been declared a poetic invention prompted by an
intended contrast to her husband, whose frivolity is suggested by his name Hyġelāc, lit.
‘thought-play’ (Kaske 1963; Robinson A. 86 [1968] 52–7). Ūnferð (or Unferð) has been
taken variously to mean ‘mar-peace’ (-ferð = -frið ‘peace’) or (assuming -ferð = -ferhð
‘mind, spirit’) ‘nonsense, folly’ or ‘absence of spirit or heart’ or ‘having a great spirit
or heart’ or (reading Hūn- with the MS) ‘having a giant’s spirit or heart’ or ‘Hun-
hearted’ or ‘bear-cub-spirit.’8 It has even been widely assumed that the name of Wealh-
þēo, queen of Denmark, literally characterizes her as a Celtic slave, i.e. a Celt captured
in war (see Gloss. of Proper Names). The best-reasoned defense of such analyses is
offered by Robinson (opp. cit.). In onomastic scholarship, on the other hand, dithematic
names are generally held not to reÏect the sum of their parts (see, e.g., C. Clark 1992:
457–9), and more recently, serious objections have been raised to analyzing the names
Ūnferð and Wealhþēo this way.9 Perhaps the commonest assumption along these lines,

1
See Hübener A. 39 (1915) 291, BGdSL 45 (1921) 85–102; cf. Cohn EStn. 57 (1923) 321–9,
Funke ES 37 (1956) 99–104, Amos 1980: 136–9.
2
There is now a virtual consensus that both dependent and independent clauses are under-
lyingly verb-¢nal in OE, with movement of the verb occurring more frequently in primary clauses.
See, for refs., S. Pintzuk Lang. Variation & Change 7 (1995) 229–60; and, more recently, Pintzuk
2002, and eadem ELL 9 (2005) 115–38; also Heggelund ES 88 (2007) 351–61.
3
See van Kemenade 2002.
4
Also in regard to word order, W. Lehmann Language Typology 1987 (Amsterdam, 1990) 187
identi¢es preposed genitives as archaic. See also §¯26.1 supra.
5
See Rynell 1952; Menner A. 70 (1951) 294; cf. Amos 1980: 139–40, OES §¯1686.
6
So Kl.1–3. H. & N. Chadwick (1932: 557 n.) issue a warning against such assumptions; they
point to similar ON usage.
7
In addition, the three instances of pres. part. + bēon may reveal Latin inÏuence (see Scheler
1961: 63); but in each instance the participle may be analyzed as an agentive noun (see notes on
159, 1105, 3028). See also Scheler 1961: 89–90 and n.¯340, on appositive past participles.
8
See, among many others, Olrik 1903–10 [1.148 n.¯8]; Bloom¢eld 1949–51; Robinson 1970b (cf.
Pope in P. Brown et al. 1986: 173–87); Green¢eld 1972: 102–3, 106; Silber Names 28 (1980) 101–
11; P. Taylor in Hermeneutics & Med. Culture, ed. P. Gallacher & H. Damico (Albany, 1989) 109–
20.
9
See, resp., MP 85 (1987) 113–27 and Jurasinski Neophil. 91 (2007) 701–15.
 LANGUAGE AND POETIC FORM cliii
that the name Mōdþr©ð (or Mōdþr©ðo or Þr©ð or Þr©ðo) reÏects the headstrong char-
acter of Offa’s queen (though the name would not be appropriate after her marriage to
Offa) is built upon shifting ground, for it seems likely that the letters mod þryðo in the
MS do not represent a name, after all (see the note on 1931¯f.). For an overview of
diÌculties facing the literary use of onomastics, see Anglo-Saxon 1 (2007) 109–36. In
the current state of scholarship, assuming a characterizing function for the names of
humans in the poem, especially dithematic names, seems hazardous. Grendel is natur-
ally a different matter.

VOCABULARY
§¯27.

On the diction of Beo, see pp.¯cxi¯ff. The vocabulary sheds some light on the ques-
tion of dialect origins, though caution is required in speaking of Anglian elements in
the lexicon, since the testimony of prose texts, if they are of a later date, as to earlier
dialect distribution is of circumscribed value.1 It is also plain that some Anglian words
were regarded as suitable to verse, even by Southern poets. One can thus speak only of
probabilities. Still, several words can with reasonable assurance be called primarily
Anglian rather than poetic:2 ġēn, ġēna (beside ġēt[a], ġīet[a], which is also WS); nefne,
nemne,3 nymþe (WS conj. būtan); unstressed prep. in;4 sceþðan;5 oferhyġd (WS
ofermōd);6 weorc in the sense ‘pain’;7 ac used as interrog. particle (a Latinism?);8
semninga (samnunga);9 worn;10 tēo(ġa)n ‘arrange’;10 and probably rēċ11 and -scua (see
l.¯160).12 Other fairly probable examples are ācweðan in the sense ‘say,’ byrġan ‘taste,’
-cofa (see l.¯1445), symbel, wæċċan, and wīsfæst.13 The form īren appears to be
speci¢cally Merc.14 Typical words that are absent, more or less, from LWS are
bebycgan,15 ġefēon (WS fæġnian), (ġe)friġnan (usu. WS āscian),16 and snyttru (cf.

1
See Menner PMLA 62 (1947) 583–97; Sisam 1953: 126–32; cf. HOEM §§¯356–68.
2
See esp. Jordan 1906 and Wenisch 1979. The latter, though invaluable, must be used with
caution in regard to its conclusions, which depend upon the dismissal of much counter-evidence.
3
Nemne/nefne is Merc.: see HOEM §¯361, w. refs. Both nemne and nemþe occur in the OE life
of Machutus (ed. D. Yerkes [Toronto, 1984], who regards it as a Winchester translation), and for
this reason GriÌth (1997: 23) would disqualify it as a dialect indicator. Yet despite the Æthel-
woldian vocabulary of the text, it also shows a considerable variety of Merc. features: see Fulk (in
press). Even if this were not the case, the sole exception of this text would hardly nullify the
probabilistic value of the word as a dialect indicator, given its otherwise striking distribution in
both prose and verse.
4
Wenisch 1979: 174–5, HOEM §¯362, both w. refs. To state the case accurately, in the South, in
was early supplanted by on. But there seems to be erroneous substitution of in for on in 1029 (cf.
1052, etc.) and 1952; and in 1302, Scribe B has altered A’s on to in, apparently without reference
to the exemplar: see p. xxxiii supra.
5
Wenisch 1979: 211–15, HOEM §¯363.
6
H. Schabram Superbia (Munich, 1965) esp. 123–31; cf. HOEM §¯365.
7 Jordan 1906: 51–3, HOEM §¯366; cf. ANQ 15.2 (2002) 58–63, ibid. 17.2 (2004) 6–12.
8 See Napier A. 10 (1888) 138; also Sarrazin 1913: 69–70; Wenisch 1979: 96–100; HOEM

§¯355.8; but cf. Aant., Mitchell NM 78 (1977) 100, both supposing ac 1990 is simply ‘but.’
9
Wenisch 1979: 148 n.¯353, w. refs.
10
Jordan 1906: 65–6; Menner PMLA 62 (1947) 585; Wenisch 1979: 130, 142.
11
Wenisch 1979: 183 & n.¯617, w. refs.
12
Wenisch 1979: 215–16, w. refs.
13
All treated in Wenisch 1979. There are also several words that seem to be limited in prose,
more or less, to Angl. texts, but which nonetheless appear in some Southern verse. These include
līxan, morðor (WS morð), n®niġ, ombeht, reċene, and winnan. Less secure are friġnan and þrēat
(on the latter of which, see Stanley Poetica 42 [1995] 13–19).
14
See Kleinman NM 98 (1997) 371–90.
15
See Wenisch 1979: 104–6, and note Or 15.9: unbeboht.
16
See Grinda IF 87 (1982) 331; Wenisch 1979: 156–60.
cliv INTRODUCTION
wīsdōm).1 Also notable is the absence of typical WS words such as ġehende (Mald,
DAlf, JDay II) and ealneġ (Met, Aldhelm).
It has often been remarked that Scedenīġ 1686 is archaic by comparison to Alfredian
Scōneġ, borrowed from Norse: see Gloss. and Townend 2002: 108. — It has been
maintained that the relatively large number of exocentric adj. compounds (i.e. of the
bahuvrīhi type, e.g. gūþmōd 306, st©lecg 1533, blōdiġtōð 2082) is a sign of the poem’s
antiquity.2 — The copulative (dvandva) compound suhterġefæderan 1164 is quite
archaic: see T. Gardner 1968: 90–5. — A few nonpoetic words in the poem are found
rarely in verse: unġemete, næs ‘not,’ sl®pan, hatian, slēac, -ġeseġen (869), hors,
worðiġ, and compounds in undern- and æt-. As some of these are characteristic of late
prose, Schücking BGdSL 47 (1923) 304–11 argues that Beo is a late poem; yet Menner
A. 70.3 (1952) 285–94 shows that the same might be said of a number of other poems,
and so the dating value of this vocabulary is inconclusive. — Borrowings from Latin
are used casually, and those with originally ecclesiastical overtones seem fully sec-
ularized: forscrīfan (Lat. proscribere), nōn (Lat. nona), ġīgant, dēofol, and candel, the
last used only metaphorically.3 (See also p.¯cxxi supra.)

LINGUISTIC CONCLUSIONS

§¯28. Poetic Language and Textual History

What is to be made of the welter of diverse forms, seemingly early and late (see
§¯30), WS, Northumbr., Merc., and Kent., in the poem’s language? It was formerly
believed that such a mixture evidenced the ‘translation’ of the text into several different
dialects in succession in the course of its manuscript transmission. There is now
practically a consensus, however, that the language of most verse represents a κοινή, a
literary dialect,4 like the language of Homer, just as EWS is now generally understood
to be an arti¢cial, literary dialect showing signi¢cant Merc. inÏuence.5 Although
Klaeber acknowledged that the assumption of a literary κοινή might explain certain
archaisms and poetic conventions, like many of his contemporaries he did not believe
this an adequate explanation of the co-occurrence of different forms of one and the
same word,6 without any inherent principle of distribution. Now, however, similar
irregular alternation may be seen in the use of parasited and nonparasited forms,
contracted and uncontracted forms, and other ‘structural’ variants (see Appx.C §§¯9¯ff.).
Since such alternants are found in poems seemingly both early and late, they are
unlikely to be due to sound changes in progress but to poets’ awareness of a range of
poetic variants available to them, some quite archaic. It may be, then, that the mélange
of orthographic variants that seems to point to repeated dialect translation of the poem

1
See Seebold A. 92 (1974) 291–333.
2
See Girvan 1935: 5–7; see also Last 1925. Amos (1980: 157–9) seems ambivalent about
Girvan’s argument. On the type, see Austefjord NOWELE 42 (2003) 29–40.
3
See Girvan 1935: 24–5; Whitelock 1951: 5–6. Amos 1980: 142 concludes that the casualness
of such usage indicates ‘a date well into the seventh century and probably later.’
4
See O. Jespersen Growth & Structure of the Eng. Lang., rev. ed. ([Berlin,] 1912) §¯53; C.
Hotchner Wessex & OE Poetry [Lancaster, PA, 1939] 86¯ff.; Sisam 1953: 119–39; OEG §¯18;
Cameron et al. 1981: 34, 37; Newton 1993: 9–12; also Collitz PMLA 16 (1901) 123–40 (on Old
Saxon). To the objections of Megginson 1995, cf. OEN 30.2 (1997) 19; see also HOEM §¯52 n.¯78.
5
So OEG §§¯17, 185; Flasdieck BGdSL 48.2 (1924) 388; Sisam 1953: 294; Vleeskruyer 1953:
41–62; Gneuss ASE 1 (1972) 82, and many others; see also HOEM §§¯337–9; cf. Stanley 1969.
Hogg 1988: 189–90 argues that the Merc. inÏuence is class-based and phonological rather than
orthographic; cf. HOEM §¯46 n.¯71.
6
Thus, ġifan, ġyfan, ġiofan; lifað, lyfað, leofað; ġiest, ġist, ġyst, gæst, ġest; dēore, dīore, d©re;
sweord, swurd, swyrd; Eafores, Eofores, Iofore; ealdor, aldor; eahtian, æhtian, ehtian; dryhten,
drihten; etc.
 LANGUAGE AND POETIC FORM clv
should instead be attributed to the same cause. Accordingly, the supposition that phon-
ological features evidence repeated dialect translation has not subsequently been so
widely held as it was in Klaeber’s day, and, indeed, some reasons have been offered to
suppose that the poem was copied directly, or nearly so, from an archaic source.1
The view of Klaeber and his contemporaries seemed to derive strong support from a
certain peculiarity of spelling. The text in the unique MS is the work of two scribes, the
second hand beginning at mōste 1939. As the ¢rst of these scribes (A, 1–1939) copied
also the three preceding prose pieces, viz. a short Christophorus fragment (LS 4),
Marv, and Alex,2 and the second one (B, 1939–3182) copied the poem Jud also, an
examination of the spelling habits of the two scribes, in comparison both to each other
and to their own work in the other texts of the MS, prompted some conclusions about
their treatment of the exemplar of Beo and the condition in which they found it. The
most obvious difference between the language of A and of B is the multitude of io
spellings in the work of B (115× in 53 MS pp., by Sisam’s reckoning, often w. √o for
etymological ¬o), in comparison to their relative scarcity in the work of A (11× in 87
MS pp., never for etym. ¬o).3 As no io forms at all are contained in the text of Jud, ten
Brink (pp.¯237–41) argued that scribe B did not introduce those spellings into Beo but
found them in his original, adhering to his text more faithfully than scribe A.4 If ten
Brink’s reasoning were to be accepted, an earlier Kent. recension would seem probable
for the exemplar.5 Sisam (1953: 93–3), however, shows it to be unlikely that A elim-
inated √o from his portion of Beo, since he writes io often in Alex (66× in 50 MS pp.),
and in any case it is implausible that he should have retained only instances of √o that
are etymologically correct, since at the time of his writing, the etymological distinction
had been thoroughly disrupted everywhere but in Northumbria.6 If B himself intro-
duced the io spellings, it could be that he was himself Kentish (see esp. §§¯2.1, 3.1,
3.2[b], 8.6, 20.1), though it could also be that he saw the io spellings as poetic. Yet
Kiernan (19812: xxvi¯f.) argues that B has at least three times altered io to eo (in
ll.¯1971a, 2220a, 2510a), and though it is not Kiernan’s conclusion (quite the contrary: cf.
pp.¯59–61), this would seem to support ten Brink’s position. The evidence on both sides
is estimable, and the question seems incapable of resolution. Note, however, that
Hondsciō 2076 seems to be an instance of the mechanical substitution of io for eo
rather than an actual Kent. form (§¯18.3), suggesting that whoever is responsible for the
io spellings in B’s work may not actually have been Kentish but merely used them
because they seemed poetic. It is also a point of some interest that some of the scribes’
spelling habits change in the course of copying.7

1
See, e.g., Pope 1981: 190; refs. also in Appx.C §¯8.
2
The identity of the handwriting of Beo A and Alex was recognized by Sed.1 (p.¯2 n.). That the
same scribe wrote also the two other prose texts was pointed out by Sisam MLR 11 (1916) 335. See
Förster 1919: 34–5.
3
For details, see §§¯14, 16.1, 18. The instances in A are scionon 303, hīo 455, 623, 1929,
ġewiofu 697 (u-umlaut of i before labial), -sīon 995, frioðu- 1096, hiora 1166, ġiogoð (iogoþ) 1190,
1674, nīowan 1789.
4
Hulbert PMLA 43 (1928) 1196–9 and Orchard 2003: 23 support ten Brink’s position. Lucas
RES 41 (1990) 473 agrees that the io spellings evidence an earlier dialect layer. Cf. earlier EStn. 13
(1889) 258–62, 314¯f.; MLN 5 (1890) 43–5, 123, 189¯f. (to which cf. GriÌth 1997: 16–17).
5
Although it is true that there are large areas of AS England for which little or no direct
linguistic evidence is available, Middle Eng. evidence does not suggest that any dialect but Kentish
underwent so thorough a change of ¬o to √o: see Jordan 1974: §§¯65–9, 73, 84–5; and for the East
Angl. dialect in particular, Kristensson 2001. Sisam 1953: 92–3 argues that the unetymological io
spellings in Alex may be Merc., but those in Beo Southeastern.
6
About the earlier evidence of Rypins (1924: xiv–xxix), contra ten Brink, that A is the more
mechanical copyist, Sisam says, ‘Though some of his arguments are inconsequent, this is a valid
objection’ (1953: 67 n.¯3).
7
Illustrations of passing scribal moods are the occurrence of the spelling iġ = ī with any degree
of frequency in a de¢nitely limited portion only (see §¯9 rem., and cf. the sporadic appearance of
clvi INTRODUCTION
Some other features could be interpreted as signs of conservatism on the part of B.
Noteworthy examples are the following:
B: (-)wælm, (-)wylm, A: (-)wylm; B: eldo, elde (only 2117: yldum), A: yldo, ylde.
(See §§¯2.2, 3.2, 5.3.)
B: -derne, (-)dyrne, A: (-)dyrne; B: merċels, A: -ġemyrċu; B: -serċe, A: (-)syrċe.
(See §§¯3.2, 5.3.)
B: eatol, atol, A: atol (Jud: atol¯); B: (-)heafola, A: hafela. (See §¯11.1.)
B: hafu, hafo, A: hæbbe (§¯25.5); B: ġesēgon, A: s®gon, ġesāwon (§§¯8.1, 25.3).
B: lēġ(-), līġ(-), A: līġ. (See §§¯8.2, 9.3.)
B: Wedra (only [2186,] 2336¯:¯Wedera), A: Wedera. (See p.¯cxli n.¯6)
B: wundur(-), wundor-, A: wundor(-), wunder(-); B: wuldur-, A: wuldor(-) (Jud:
wuldor); B: sāwul-, sāwol, A: sāwol-, sāwl-; B: sundur, A: sundor-. (See OEG §¯363;
SB §§¯152–3.)1
A preference for the spelling y in B, and for later i in A, is shown in certain groups
of words, thus B: dryhten (cf. 2186a Varr.), A: drihten, dryhten; B: dryht, A: driht,
dryht; B: hycgan, A: hicgan; B: hyġe, hiġe, A: hiġe, rarely hyġe; B: Hyġelāc, Hiġelāc,
A: Hiġelāc (nearly always); B: þynċan, A: þinċan; see §¯4. Yet it is true that the
spelling y is favored by B also in certain words in which i represents the earlier sound;
thus B: syððan, A: syððan, siððan, B: hyt, hit, A: hit, B: hyne (hine), A: hine (hyne), B:
is, ys, A: is, B: wylle, A: wille (y 3×); cf. also B: syllan, A: sellan, B: sylf, A: self (only
505: y); see §¯5.2
In A only are to be found the remarkable gen. (and acc.?) pl. forms in -o (§¯19.3, but
possibly acc. mōdþr©ðo 1931), and forms like fāmī- (§¯20.1), mæniġo (§¯2.5 rem. 1),
ēowan, ēawan (see §¯10.2), hworfan, worc (§¯3.6), hreþe (§¯3.1), ġef®gon.3
That a number of these distinctive spellings of A were actually introduced by that
particular scribe is made probable by a noteworthy agreement in various orthographic
details between A and the three prose texts4 that precede Beo. Thus we ¢nd yldo, Alex
112r 7, 130r 12; līġite, ibid. 119v 9, līġ, LS 4, 94v 3, 8; self 9× in Alex (y 2×, eo 4×; see
Braun 1911); þurstī, ibid. 120r 9, cf. monī- 108v 20, 118r 4, s®lī- 119v 16, ®nī 122v 5;
-wlitī, Marv 106r 7, n®nīne, ibid. 104v 15; gen. plur. -fato, Alex (107r 6?) 118v 11, 124r 8,
earfeðo 125r 14¯f., Mēdo 111v 3, ondswaro 112r 13, etc.;5 mæniġo, Alex 118v 2, 121r 2
(bis), 13, 124r 12, 114v 4, 115r 14, (126v 14), Marv 98v 8, 99v 14, LS 4, 94v 13, 95r 9;
-ēawest, Alex 108v 1, -ēowde, etc. 107v 14, 121v 10, 110r 12, 17, 113r 10; hworfeð, ibid.
120r 3, 130v 17, ġeworc, LS 4, 97v 9; hreðnisse, Alex 109r 5; f®gon, Alex 131r 8.6

Hyġelāc, Prop. Names); the solitary instances of seoððan 1775, 1875, 1937; the irregular use of the
a and o spellings (exclusive of þone, etc.) before nasals, which show the following proportions:
ll.¯1–927, 2¯:¯1, ll.¯928–1340, 8¯:¯1, ll.¯1341–1944, 7¯:¯6, ll.¯1945–2199, 31¯:¯32, ll.¯2200–3182, 4¯:¯7
(Möller EStn. 13 [1889] 258; see also §¯6 supra); the varying frequency of the preposition in (as
against on), which appears in ll.¯1–185 10×, in ll.¯1300–2000 5×, in ll.¯2458–3182 10×.
1
The same archaic u in post-tonic syllables appears in A: eodur 663, Heorute 766; so 782, cf.
1075.
2
In contrast to fyrwyt A: 232 is found fyrwet B: 1985, 2784; cf. the analogous weakening to e in
Hæðcen 2925 (see §¯19.7). It may be noted that A has ġedīġan, B ġedīġan, ġed©ġan (§¯10.2).
3
Such forms as f®gon, s®gon, d®don, which are not found in WS prose, are due to mechanical
replacement of Angl. ē by WS ®: see Deutschbein BGdSL 26 (1901) 194. Similarly, Hulbert PMLA
43 (1928) 1197¯f. maintains that A has introduced -ed- into the pret. of weak verbs of the second
class, since B uses this spelling only in Jud (5×; but cf. ġelafede 2722). Yet A’s -ed- is almost
entirely due to dissimilation in the plural ending -odon > -edon (17× [OEG §¯385]; otherwise only
1788, 1906, 1935; also emended 1796), and there happen to be far fewer pret. plurals in B’s work,
for narrative reasons (in this class, just 2075, 3050, 3173, 3178; in A, cf. 423, 639, 1626 with -od-).
4
Here cited from Rypins 1924.
5
See §¯19.3. A strong preference for the vowel o in endings appears in this text.
6
Of minor importance is the use in Alex of ġesāwon 122r 2, 4, etc.; ġemindiġ 107r 9; ġedīġde
110b 3; wīscte and wolde 108r 8¯f. (wīston, Beo 1604); þēoh, ibid. 107r 20 (see §¯16.2); eorre, ibid.
 LANGUAGE AND POETIC FORM clvii
That also B in some respects asserted his independence seems probable on account
of some orthographic parallels between his work on Beo and Jud, such as the uniform
spellings hyne, ys, sylf in Jud; ©wan, Jud 174 (ēo 240; see §¯10.2); d©re, Jud 300, 319,
and 4× in B (ēo 2×, īo 1×; A: ēo 5×; see §§¯16.1, 10.3); the regular use of ymbe, prepos.,
in Jud (47, 268), B : ymbe(-) 7× (ymb 3×, A: ymb; see Appx.C §¯22); the form swyrd,
preferred in Jud (6×), and occurring 3× in the latter part of B’s work (never swurd as
3× in A); the representation of æ by ę, Jud 150, and 4× in B (by later addition; see
Varr.: 1981a; also [2221]). Even the exclusive use of ðām (þām) in Jud and the marked
preference for þ®m (ð®m) in Alex are plainly matched by the distribution of those
forms in B and A, respectively: see Gloss.
Ultimately, then, it does not seem possible to establish which of the two scribes is
the more mechanical copyist. Both seem to have introduced some modernized LWS
spellings, and both seem to have allowed some older forms to stand. Accordingly,
spelling patterns in the MS furnish no decisive answer to the question whether variable
spelling evidences iterated dialect translation of the text or the inÏuence of the poetic
κοινή.

§¯29. Non-WS Features as Dialect Evidence

It has generally been assumed that, regardless of whether the poem was copied
repeatedly by scribes from different regions, it must have been recorded ¢rst in an
Anglian dialect. Indeed, most OE poetry has been widely regarded as Anglian in origin,
on the basis of the many Anglian features found in it, and especially the non-
syncopation in verb forms like brūceð, healdest, scynded, etc. (§¯25.1), since this fea-
ture is, as Sisam (1953: 121) says, ‘structural,’ i.e., diÌcult for scribes to alter without
disturbing the poetic meter. Yet Sisam questions whether this feature proves Anglian
origins: as long as poems showing such non-syncopation are assumed to antedate the
Alfredian period, they might as well be WS, since it cannot be proved that unsynco-
pated forms were not the rule in Wessex before the late ninth century. Indeed, Sisam’s
caution that non-structural features may simply have been added by scribes, as part of
the κοινή, is well taken, since it has been demonstrated that most of the purely ortho-
graphic Anglian features listed supra in §§¯1–20 are also to be found in poems of
Southern origin (West Saxon or Kentish, as determined by their evincing syncopated
verb forms), and not infrequently in Southern prose. For example, the (chieÏy Anglian)
retraction of æ to a before covered l in words like waldend and aldor (§¯1.1) is common
in poems like The Meters of Boethius and the Kentish Psalm 50 that are known to have
been composed south of the Thames. Just a few such orthographic features show any
possibility of real usefulness as dialect indicators.1 The recognition that most of the
non-WS orthographic features of Beo are well attested in poems that are unlikely to
have passed through any Anglian recension, and that such features must thus be
conventional and of no signi¢cance to the question of the textual history of the poem,
lends support, then, to the assumption that the mixture of forms in the poem’s language
is due to scribes’ awareness of the κοινή rather than iterated dialect translation (see
HOEM §§¯335–9).

116r 16 (see §¯12.3); ¢xas, ibid. 110b 12 (though -¢scas 115r 7), Beo 540, 549 -¢xas (WS, chieÏy
late: see OEG §¯440, SB §¯204.4; Weyhe EStn. 39 [1908] 161–88).
1
These are smoothing (§§¯2.3, 2.5, 3.3, 3.5, 7.2, 8.5, 9.2), back mutation (especially such
unconventional instances as riodan 3169 and scionon 303 [§¯14.1], as well as wreoþen- 1698
[§¯12.1]), and perhaps confusion of ¬o and ¬a (§§¯11.2, 12.2, 15.1, 16.2). See HOEM §§¯340–52; cf.
Kiernan 1981: 50–61. To these might be added confusion of e and æ (§§¯2.1, 3.1; HOEM §¯335.5),
non-WS ē for ® (§¯8.1, HOEM §¯335.10), and the high incidence of īe in hīe, sīe, rare in known
Southern compositions (§¯17.2; prob. Angl., since the evidence for EWS inÏuence on the language
of the poem is meager; but cf. Bately 1985: 410–15).
clviii INTRODUCTION
Yet these orthographic characteristics, along with syncope in verbs, are not the only
Anglian features to be considered. There are quite a few non-phonological (or not quite
purely phonological), seemingly Anglian, features, both structural and non-structural,
that are not regularly found in poems of Southern (or more speci¢cally WS) origin.
These include 1 sg. pres. ending -u (§§¯25.2, 25.5); pret. cwōm(-) (§¯25.3); pret. sēgon
and such (§§¯25.3); ēawan, as opposed to LWS ©wan (§¯10.2); seolf (§¯12.4); loss of -i-
in verb forms of the second weak class (§¯25.7); 3 sg. pres. cwið (Merc.) in texts that
otherwise do not show Southern syncope in verbs (§¯25.1); retention of umlaut in byreð,
wiġeð (§¯25.1); unstressed fore (WS for; §¯24); certain non-WS spellings in compounds
and quasi-compounds, which seem particularly signi¢cant (e.g. Wīhstan 5×; HOEM
§¯353.17); use of mid with the acc. case (§¯26.7); the masc. gender of s® (with the
perhaps archaic fem. usage at 2394; §¯21.1); the long root vowel in f®ġer 773 (Appx.C
§¯25, HOEM §¯355.3); dydon for structural dēdon (§¯25.6); acc. sg. pronouns meċ, þeċ,
ūsiċ, ēowiċ (§¯23); possible use of ac as an interrogative particle (§¯27); pret. sg.
(-)fand, fond (§¯25.3); and possibly the fem. gender of wælbende 1936 (§¯21.1). Con-
versely, certain Southern features are not to be found in poems that show consistent
non-syncopation in verbs (and would thus appear to be Anglian): exclusively Southern
forms of the verb habban (hæfst, hæfþ, næfst, næfþ), as opposed to Angl. hafast, hafað
(§¯25.5); WS libban as opposed to li¢(ġ)an, lifġan (§¯25.5); and the high frequency of
the loss of ġ before dental consonants in Southern texts, a less frequent occurrence
elsewhere (§¯20.1; HOEM §¯353.15).1 In addition, there is the substantial number of
items of Anglian vocabulary, ġēn/ġēna, nefne/nemne/nymþe, unstressed prep. in, and
so forth (§¯27).
The distribution of such dialect features coincides so closely with the distribution, in
verse, of Anglian syncope in verbs that it appears not to be attributable to use of the
poetic κοινή. This seems strong evidence that Beo, as is widely believed, is Anglian in
origin. This conclusion is supported by certain cases of faulty substitution (e.g. MS
næfre, hwæðre, fæder §¯2.1, -beran §¯3.5, þeod [i.e. dēoð] §¯16.2). Whether the original
dialect more closely resembled Northumbr. or Merc. as we know them (assuming unity
of composition: see p.¯xci) cannot be determined conclusively, but the most persuasive
of the small amount of linguistic evidence favors Merc. composition.2

§¯30. Linguistic Archaisms and Innovations

Certain of the poem’s linguistic features seem distinctly archaic by comparison to

the usage not only of WS prose but of demonstrably late verse. Probable examples
include uninÏected in¢nitives after tō (§¯25.8; Appx.C §¯21); unmetathesized ren-
(§¯20.7); verb pre¢x ond- (§¯19.11); instr. dōgor (§¯21.4); Ec- for Ecg- (§¯20.1 rem., note
to 957); gen. pl. (-)Deni(ġ)a/Deniġea and winia (§¯21.5); use of dative direct objects
with certain verbs bearing the pre¢x for- (p.¯cli n.¯2); certain unconventional examples
of the instr. genitive with verbs (ibid.); possibly the sj. pl. weardode 2164 (if this is not
simple scribal error; §¯20.3); the high frequency of the use of weak adjectives without
determiners, and of the low incidence of sē, along with its frequently demonstrative

1
On all these non-phonological features, see HOEM §§¯353–5.
2
Speci¢cally Merc. are nefne, nemne (§¯27); unconventional instances of the back mutation of
æ, esp. in eatol and heafo (§¯11.1); syncopated cwið in a text that otherwise shows consistent Angl.
non-syncope in verbs (§¯25.1); umlaut in byreð, wiġeð in a text that otherwise levels out umlaut in
such verb forms (§25.1); and the co-occurrence of acc. meċ with mē and þeċ with þē (§¯23). Most
of these features are not found in poems with a better claim to Northumbr. composition: see
HOEM §¯420. Of course, many other features may also be Merc., though they are not limited to
that dialect in prose. The poem’s speci¢cally Northumbr. features are less convincing because
more readily attributable to use of the κοινή, or other causes: confusion of ¬o and ¬a (§§¯11.2, 12.2,
15.1, 16.2); ġeong 2743 (§¯12.5); H©lāces 1530 (§¯19.10); r®swa 60 (§¯20.3); scyppen (§¯20.7); and
ūser (§¯23). See also Girvan 1935: 12.
 LANGUAGE AND POETIC FORM clix
force (§¯26.2–3); the fem. gender of īsernscūr (§¯21.1); the fem. gender of s® in the
sense ‘lake’ (§¯21.1); fem. sg. ġehw®m in place of LWS ġehw®re (see 25¯n.); the neuter
gender of lēanes 1809, if it stands for l®nes (see the note on that line); the gender of
cræft if it is fem. in 418, 2181 (n.); the metrical inconsequence of analogically restored
vowels (Appx.C §§¯10, 12¯f.); certain archaic items of vocabulary, such as Scedenīġ and
suhterġefæderan (§¯27); and the high incidence of forms without structural vowel para-
siting or contraction, and other conservative metrical features treated in HOEM, includ-
ing the short scansion of inÏected forms of -þeo(w) in personal names (Appx.C §¯17;
other conservative metrical features are listed infra, p.¯clx). The rarity of ictus on the
adjective suÌx -lic- when immediately post-tonic is also notable (Appx.C §§¯26, 32,
HOEM §¯221). Archaic smoothed æ in MS hrærg 175 is probably preserved only be-
cause the misspelling made the word incomprehensible: see Girvan 1935: 14. Partic-
ularly noteworthy is the conformity of the poem throughout to Kaluza’s law (see
p.¯clx). The high frequency of clause-initial negative elements other than negated verbs
may also indicate earliness (§¯26.8), though more direct comparison to other poems is
needed. On supposed wundini, see 1382¯n. P. Schmook (in Festschrift für Gerhard
Cordes, II, ed. F. Debus & J. Hartig [Neumünster, 1976] 322–53) ¢nds that the seman-
tics of the vocabulary of suffering and patience in the poem are more archaic than in
the early ninth-century Heliand. Menner (A. 70 [1952] 285–94, supported by Amos
1980: 147) ¢nds that the vocabulary of the poem is like that of GenA 852–2936 and is
thus likely to be archaic. Indeed, as remarked supra (§¯26.10), several words, including
synn, fyren, and bealu, are used in archaic senses.
Neologisms in the poem are consistently either nonstructural (and thus attributable
to scribal modernization of spelling) or undatable. Examples are hlīuade (§¯20.7),
specan (§¯25.3), swyrd (§¯3.6), swulċ (§¯3 rem.¯1), and uniġmetes, fāmī (§§¯19.8, 20.1).
The form fāge need not be an innovation (see §¯22), though if it is not, the unparalleled
fem. gender of hilt 1614 is one (see Fulk 2007a: 274–5). Analogical acc. sg. d®de and
tīde (§¯21.2) need not be late: see SB §¯269 n.¯1. The argument that the use of here 1248
in a positive sense signals late composition (Kiernan 1981: 21–2) has been shown to be
unfounded (Pulsiano & McGowan SAP 23 [1990] 3–13). The confusion of active
participles and agentive nouns seen in secggende 3028 is undatable (see Fulk 2007a:
275–6). On the gender of frōfor 698, see the note on that line; the gender of sār is an
innovation if it is fem. in 2295, 2468 (nn.). Latin loans (nōn, ġīgantas, etc.) need not
demand a late date of composition, according to Amos (see p.¯cliv n.¯3; also Girvan
1954: 176, and Bjork & Obermeier 1997: 26, w. refs.).
On the implications of such linguistic features for the dating of the poem, see
pp.¯clxv¯ff.

METER AND ALLITERATION

More than any other OE composition, Beo is admired for the regularity and con-
servatism of its metrical style. It is, in Klaeber’s words, the standard of Anglo-Saxon
metrical art. Once allowance is made for probable instances of textual corruption, few
verses cannot be analyzed on the principles laid down by Sievers (see Appx.C ad ¢n.)
and on those of analyses based on his.1 The poem shows an incidence of types C, D,
and E unmatched by any of the longer poems but Ex. This may indeed indicate an
exceptional technical mastery, as Cable (in Chase 1981: 77–82) says, though it may be
the consequence of another variety of skill, expressed by the exceptionally high
incidence of compounds in these two poems.2

1
Metrical and alliterative peculiarities of the poem are identi¢ed and discussed in Appx.C
§§¯27–43.
2
See Brodeur 1959: 8–10; Amos 1980: 159–61, w. refs.
clx INTRODUCTION
Certainly the poem shows a variety of archaic metrical features: it is the most
conservative Old English poem in regard to the metrical treatment of parasite vowels
(see Appx.C §§¯14–16) and compensatory lengthening upon loss of postconsonantal h
(Appx.C §¯11); it is among the most conservative in regard to both phonologically
induced vowel contractions (Appx.C §¯10) and morphologically constrained ones (ne
wæs 2467, ne wiston 798, ¶ġhwæþres 287, etc.: HOEM §§¯131–55),1 as well as ana-
logical lengthening in diphthongal declensional stems (e.g. fēa 2246: Appx.C §¯17,
HOEM §§¯162–9).2 The poem also lacks certain presumably late metrical innovations,
such as ictus granted to analogically restored vowels that had earlier been syncopated
(Appx.C §¯12, HOEM §§¯216–17) and verses of the type hwīlon hē on bord scēat (Mald
270a: HOEM §¯291); in addition, it has a low incidence of other evidently innovative
types, such as lāðlicu lāc 1584a (Appx.C §¯32, HOEM §¯230) and umbľrwesendum ®r
1187a (HOEM §¯272). The unusual verse type D with a short second lift beginning a
new word (e.g. feorh cyninges 2912b: Appx.C §¯29, HOEM §§¯275–7) is found else-
where only in Dan, and given its conformity to Kaluza’s law (see infra), it would ap-
pear to be an archaism rather than an innovation. Less certain in this regard is type A2k
with þone in the coda (2007, 2334, 2588, 2959, 2696, 3081); the word is not found in
such a verse type in other poems (see Lang. §¯26.4). Russom 2002 draws attention to
the exceptional distribution of certain varieties (A3; C, D, and E without compounds;
A1 comprising two words), characterizing the metrical style as re¢ned and, presum-
ably, archaic. The metrical treatment of words of lesser stress is the most conservative
in Germanic (see Lang. §¯26.5). As regards whether the poem really is an early com-
position or whether the poet was simply extraordinarily cognizant of formally archaic
features in verse, see pp.¯clxv¯ff.
The most remarkable metrical feature of the poem is the high incidence of verses of
type A2l with resolution of the second constituent of the compound (e.g. brimclifu
blīcan 222, some 62 examples, according to Bliss §¯35). In every instance the vowel of
the resolved inÏectional syllable is etymologically short, in conformity to Kaluza’s
law, according to which an etymologically heavy syllable ought not to be resolved with
a preceding syllable under secondary stress.3 Verses of this sort are not common in any
other poem — the highest incidence is shown by Ex, with 5 examples — and the ex-
amples tend not to conform to Kaluza’s law. This regularity has a notable bearing on
the question of when the poem was composed (see pp.¯clxv¯f.) and on the accuracy of
Sieversian metrics in general (see JGL 14 [2002] 331–55). The verse type is rather
evenly distributed throughout the work, and this more plainly has implications for the
question of the compositional integrity of the poem (see p.¯xci).
Groups of hypermetric verses are introduced at three places, 1163–8, 1705–7, 2995–
6; lone examples are mostly dubitable.4 In some poems the use of hypermetrics is asso-
ciated with narrative or dialogue of particular dignity or emphasis, as, often, when God
speaks in GenA. The Beo poet, too, seems sometimes to have used this elaborated form
for rhetorical emphasis. In 1163–8 the emphatic, hypermetric mode is taken up just
where the sinister tableau of Hrōðgār and Hrōðulf sitting together is introduced, with
Ūnferð at the king’s feet, and it ends brilliantly, making of Ūnferð an occasion for a

1
In regard speci¢cally to negative contraction, see also, more recently, Jack RES 50 (1999)
133–54.
2
fēa þingian 156 does not belong here, pace HOEM §¯167.
3
See Kaluza 1896; Bliss §§¯34–40; HOEM §§¯170–83, 406–21; Stockwell & Minkova 1997: 64–
5; Cable in Development in Prosodic Systems, ed. P. Fikkert & H. Jacobs (Berlin, 2003), 145–58.
An etymologically heavy syllable is one that ends in a preserved consonant or in a vowel circum-
Ïected in reconstructions of Proto-Germanic. For a survey of etymologically heavy and light in-
Ïections, see HOEM pp.¯419–25.
4
If it is hypermetric, 2173a is an unusual sort (see Appx.C §¯30; cf. Bliss §¯106), though 2297a
seems natural enough (cf. 1165a); but see the note. Whether 2367a is to be called hypermetric
depends on whether an alliterating ¢nite verb must be stressed (see Bliss §¯20; Appx.C §¯36).
 LANGUAGE AND POETIC FORM clxi
pointed allusion to disloyalty among kin, along with a formula that connects the insin-
uation to Wealhþēow’s following ironic speech. In 1705–7 the form reverts to hyper-
metrics at the height of the hero’s glory, just when Hrōðgār bestows on him the lof that
we are repeatedly told is a hero’s greatest reward and his raison d’être. In 2995 we
have another scene of reward, though the deployment of the device is less obviously
signi¢cant in this instance (but see Orchard 2003: 227).
Occasionally there is alliteration that appears to be supplementary to the primary
alliteration in a verse pair, in a pattern of cross-alliteration (abab: 1, 19, 32, 34, 39, etc.,
some 80 exx.) or transverse alliteration (abba: 16, 47, 106, etc., some 30 exx.).1 Such
patterns, however, are almost certainly fortuitous (see Siev.A.M. §¯21[d]), as they occur
irregularly and at a rate consonant with happenstance (see Bredehoft OEN 34.1 [2000]
19–23), and the majority of perceived instances of the latter involve unstressed words,
while the principle of alliterative matching depends for its existence upon the salience
lent to syllables by stress: see, e.g., Gąsiorowski 1997: 112. Probably accidental, as
well, is so-called enjambment of alliteration,2 i.e., the matching of a non-alliterating
stave in the off-verse with the alliterating staves in the following verse pair. It occurs
some 200 times (sometimes in groups, as in 168–70, 178–80, 287–9, 3037–9, etc.).3
Ornamental alliteration on consonant clusters other than sp-, st-, sc-, probably inten-
tional in some instances, occurs occasionally.4 Rhyme, a bookish device in OE poetry,
is never sustained, as it is in some learned verse (cf. El 1236–50, ChristB 591–6, Rim),
and thus there is no instance in which it is unquestionably intentional.5
The Ïuid style (Bogenstil, Hakenstil¯) of West Gmc. verse, with its frequent use of
enjambment (run-on lines), is characteristic of Beo: the ends of clauses and sentences
very often do not coincide with the ends of off-verses. The stichic style (Zeilenstil,
employing end-stopped lines) has widely been regarded as more original,6 and it has
even been supposed that Beo was originally strophic, i.e. stanzaic, like Scandinavian
verse, the variety that many earlier scholars regarded as the original form of Germanic

1
The instances are listed by Le Page JEGP 58 (1959) 434–41, with corrections by Stanley 1974.
Despite Le Page’s persuasive statistics countering the supposition of intentionality, many sub-
sequent observers still regard such devices as artful, e.g. Pope 152–6; Baum MP 46.3 (1949) 146; J.
Ogilvy & D. Baker Reading Beowulf (Norman, 1983) 127–9; Hoover 1985: 85–7¯nn.; Stanley 1994:
134–8; see also Bredehoft JEL 31 (2003) 203–7. What Snorri says in his Edda (Háttatal, ch. 1)
about alliteration in skaldic meters is also detrimental to the notion of supplementary alliteration.
Emerson JGP 3 (1901) 128–37 traces the early history of scholarship on transverse allit., beginning
with a paper of 1833 by Lachmann.
2
Kaluza 93. Cf. Heusler 1925: §¯340; also Oakden MLR 28 (1902) 233.
3
The use of the same alliterating stave in two successive lines (e.g. 63¯f., 70¯f., 111¯f., 216¯f.) is
generally avoided; just 50 instances are to be found; the iteration runs through three lines in 897–9.
See MLR 28 (1902) 233¯f.
4
Thus 99, 424, 741, 1104, 2930. See Minkova 2003: 240–5; cf. Barquist Literary & Ling. Com-
puting 2 (1987) 19–23. Hengen NM 89 (1988) 171–3 argues for the meaningfulness of particular
kinds of alliteration.
5
Aside from the rather frequent suÌx rhymes, the instances are the following. Within the long
line: 726, 734, 1014, 2258, 3172. Between an off-verse and a following on-verse: 1404–5, 1718–19,
2389–90. In two successive on- or off-verses: 465–6, 1132–3, 3070–1; 890–1, 1882–3, 2590–1,
2737–8 (2377b¯: 79a). Within a single verse: 131a, 259b, 279a, 656a, 736b, 1008a, 1398a, 1422a, 1611a,
1668a, 1693b, 1864a, 2440a, 2558a, 2609b. It would be surprising if, in a composition of this length,
chance alone did not produce rhyme at this rate of occurrence. On rhyme in OE, see Kluge BGdSL
9 (1884) 422–50, Cook MLN 34 (1924) 77–82 (perceiving Aldhelmian inÏuence on Beo 1422),
Stanley 1988: 19–38 (w. refs.), Bredehoft A. 123 (2005) 204–29.
6
See, e.g., Siev.A.M. §¯30; Heusler ZfdA 46 (1902) 235¯f., ibid. 57 (1920) 5–16, 1925: §§¯349–
67; Cha.Wid. 274–6; W. Paetzel Die Variationen in der altgermanischen Allitterationspoesie, Pal.
48 (Berlin, 1913) 174, 177¯f.; Mal. 1948: 26; Marold R.-L.2 3.174–5; Stanley 1994: 112–13. Note,
however, that Deutschbein 1902: 25–7 and F. Schwarz (Cynewulfs Anteil am Christ [Königsberg
diss., 1905] 85–6) regard Hakenstil as older, and Stanley 1987: 288–91 iterates their error of taking
JDay II as reliable evidence: see Calder 1979: 37. See also Krauel 1908.
clxii INTRODUCTION
verse.1 Whether or not the stichic style is older than the enjambed, the proportion of
end-stopped to mid-stopped lines is generally agreed to bear no notable relation to the
chronology of OE poems.2 However, Raw argues that the use of metrical types ending
with a lift (B, D4, E) in end-stopped lines has a stylistic purpose meant to lend em-
phasis (1978: 104 et passim), though such judgments can only be subjective.3

XI. DATE, ORIGINS, INFLUENCES, GENRE

Like all but a few Old English poems that have come down to us, Beowulf is of un-
known authorship and date. The poem cannot have been recorded earlier than the
events it describes or alludes to (ca. A.D. 500), nor earlier than missionaries’ intro-
duction of the art of writing to the English in the late 6th century. On the other hand, it
cannot postdate the manuscript into which it was written (ca. 1000). Between these
broad chronological limits, numerous theories have been proposed, some more likely
than others, but none of them de¢nitive in the present state of knowledge.
Compounding these problems is the diÌculty of ascertaining what kind of literary
work Beowulf is, since in many ways it is sui generis. Some critics, emphasizing the
author’s debt to prior oral traditions, have supposed that he4 was an expert in oral
performance whose chief poetic training would have come through mentorship in his
craft.5 Others, impressed by the work’s literary artistry and its continuities with the
world of medieval Christian letters, have envisaged the author as a learned cleric
writing pen in hand about the Northern legendary past.6 Still others have tried to ¢nd a
middle way to account for the existence of a poem that seems to bridge the two worlds
of oral-traditional lore and Latin, Christian learning.7 While these issues cannot be
adjudicated here, the current terms of the debate can at least be sketched in.

1
See G. Neckel Beiträge zur Eddaforschung (Dortmund, 1908) 1¯ff., et passim; cf. Sieper
1915: 40–3. Möller goes so far as to rewrite the poem in 344 quatrains.
2
An exception to this rule is Mal. RES o.s. 19 (1943) 201–4. Cha.Wid. 175 reports the following
proportions for narrative poems: Beo 385¯: 282; GenA 259¯: 255; El 105¯: 138; And 221¯: 112.
3
Similar analyses, attributing an onomatopoetic or other literary effect to the poet’s selection of
verse types: Heusler 1925: §¯348; Kl.3 lxix¯f.; Chickering JEGP 91 (1992) 497–9; Pasternack 1995:
63–6; Zehnder in Authors, Heroes, and Lovers, ed. T. Honegger (Bern, 2003) 27–46, among
others.
4
Use of the pronouns ‘he’ and ‘his’ to refer to the poem’s unknown maker reÏects, of course,
no more than long-standing convention. As Robinson has noted (ANQ 3 [1990]: 59–64), it is con-
ceivable that the author was a woman, though that claim has not seriously been advanced in the
critical literature because so few female authors from this period are known, and none in the realm
of heroic poetry.
5
Sisam, for example, doubtless speaks for many when he characterizes Beo as the work of ‘a
good scop trained in the old tradition’ (1965: 68); he ¢nds it likely that, to some extent, works of
this kind would have been recomposed with each performance. The training of epic singers who
have mastered the art of composition-in-performance (see pp.¯clxxxi¯f. infra) has been lucidly des-
cribed by Lord on the basis of his ¢eld experience in the Balkans (1960: 13–29). For a portrait of
one such singer, see the introduction (pp.¯3–12) to A. Međedović The Wedding of Smailagić Meho,
tr. A. Lord (Cambridge, MA, 1974).
6
Wormald, in turn, speaks for many when characterizing the poet as a person of some learning
wh0 was ‘most probably a cleric, or an associate of clergy’ (1978: 39); he develops that claim with
reference to the close dependence of many early AS ecclesiastical establishments on members of
the secular nobility. See Blair 2005: 81–108 for more detailed historical information with a bearing
on this argument. Statements that the Beo poet was necessarily a learned monk (or, to the contrary,
was necessarily an unlettered singer) can be found in the critical literature but have no compelling
evidential basis.
7
Brodeur, for example, while granting that the poet was ‘trained as a scop’ and so a master of
native oral traditions, also sees him as ‘an educated man’ who drew on Latin, Christian sources
 DATE, ORIGINS, INFLUENCES, GENRE clxiii
DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION

Certain peculiarities in the work of both scribes are diÌcult to explain except as errors
committed in the course of copying the text from a written exemplar (see supra,
pp.¯xxviii, xxxiii). And like so much Old English poetry, Beowulf gives the impression
of having been composed in a dialect other than the chieÏy Late West Saxon one in
which it is now recorded (see Lang. §¯29). There may in fact have been a series of
earlier manuscript copies, though an impressive array of evidence has been assembled
in support of the argument that the extant text was copied, directly or indirectly, from
an archaic exemplar.1 Running counter to such investigations into the possible pre-
history of the text is the theory that the poem is contemporaneous with its extant manu-
script, which is seen as a kind of work in progress. According to this view, the poem
represents two eleventh-century poems joined by the scribes of this manuscript during
the reign of Canute (1016–35) and revised by them. Such a theory, assigning the poem
to a period after most specialists date it on either philological or cultural grounds, has
understandably met with marked opposition, though also a degree of support.2 At all
events, once it is acknowledged that the text was copied from an earlier manuscript, the
possibility arises that the poem was composed long before the Vitellius manuscript was
made. Certainly, the example of medieval Irish and Welsh literatures shows that very
archaic texts could be preserved in late copies only.3
Considerations such as these, taken together with evidence summarized below, have
led some literary scholars to favor a relatively early date and some a relatively late one,
though advocates of one or the other position generally conclude that no certainty can
be had in an area of inquiry so fraught with diÌculties. Linguists, though not in perfect
agreement, are for the most part persuaded that the poem is a relatively early composi-
tion.4 Archaeologists, too, though understandably cautious, have tended to the view that
the material culture described in the poem is in general accord with conditions in the
early Anglo-Saxon period, though a date in the 9th or 10th century is ‘not impossible in
archaeological terms’ (Hills 1997, and see infra, pp.¯clxvii¯ff.). There is thus nothing
like a single prevailing view of Anglo-Saxonists about the date of composition of
Beowulf, and the methodologies of the different critical practices that make up the ¢eld
may militate against the formation of a consensus across subdisciplines.
A further obstacle to establishing a date of composition is that doing so demands the
prior assumption that the poem is the work of a single poet. Certainty on this point, too,
is unattainable, but there is some suggestive linguistic evidence for unity of composi-
tion (see p.¯xci), and most literary scholars at present seem willing to assume single
authorship on the basis of stylistic and thematic consistencies found throughout the
work.5 A more troublesome consideration, perhaps, is that some Anglo-Saxon scribes

(1959: 236). A different hypothesis (see p.¯clxxxiii) is that if the text was taken down by an edu-
cated cleric from the dictation of a poet working in the oral tradition, by that process it would have
become a tertium quid differing from both writerly texts and the words heard in oral performance.
1
See Appx.C §¯8. The objections of Stanley ANQ 15 (2002) 64–72 and Frank 2007: 857 are
countered by G. Clark ‘The Date of Beowulf and the Arundel Psalter Gloss’ (forthcoming).
2
This is the view of Kiernan 1981: 219–43. For bibliographical references, see p.¯xci n.¯3.
3
For example, even though Dumville (in Early Welsh Poetry, ed. B. Roberts [Aberystwyth,
1988], 1–16) offers salutary caution about the usual assumption that the medieval Welsh poem Y
Gododdin was composed in the 7th century, the poem, he concludes, must still have been com-
posed centuries before the Book of Aneirin (13th century), in which it is contained, was made.
4
For references to the views of linguists, see Fulk 2007a: 278 n.¯2.
5
This has been the dominant strain in Beowulf criticism since the late 19th century: see Bjork &
Obermeier 1997: 28–9, w. refs. There are exceptions, e.g. Kiernan (as just mentioned) and Magoun
Arv 14 (1958): 95–101 and id. 1963 (positing different authors for the different episodes). The
modern concept of authorship, in addition, has come under attack in some quarters as not
corresponding to early medieval practices of textual production. See also supra, p.¯lxxxii.
clxiv INTRODUCTION
evidently had a practice of recomposing vernacular verse as they copied it.1 Given that
the resulting alterations can in a few cases be shown to be extensive, is it sound
reasoning to assume that any Old English poem preserved in just one copy closely
resembles the form it took when ¢rst recorded? This consideration intensi¢es the
diÌculty of dating practically any Old English poem — a point that will be taken up
below with speci¢c reference to Beowulf.

Critical Background

The poem’s ¢rst editor, Grímur Jónsson Thorkelín, believed that the poet was present
at Bēowulf’s funeral obsequies, which he dated to A.D. 340 (see Bjork 1996). Very
soon after Thorkelín’s edition appeared, however, Grundtvig discovered a reference to
Hyġelāc’s raid on Frankish territory in Gregory of Tours’s history of the Franks (see
supra, p.¯li). This demanded that the poem have been composed after the ¢rst quarter of
the sixth century, and perhaps much later, given that the poet seems to conceive the
events of the narrative as having taken place in the distant past (ll.¯1, 175¯ff., 700¯ff.,
etc.). In addition, the poem’s Christian elements cannot be dated earlier than the
conversion of the English, beginning in 597 — though many early scholars regarded
the Christian elements as later interpolations (see supra, p.¯lxxxix). From the earliest
days of Beowulf scholarship, then, a wide range of possible dates of composition has
been recognized, from the sixth century to the date of the unique manuscript, which
was made about 1000. It is remarkable, then, that with few exceptions, specialists
quickly settled on a fairly narrow chronological range, in the late seventh century or the
early eighth.2
Recent scholarship on dating sometimes conveys the impression that this earlier
near-consensus was founded on linguistic considerations. In actuality, it was formed
long before any of the linguistic evidence for dating had been adduced. The ¢rst his-
tories of English literature to offer opinions3 date Beowulf early, in part on the assump-
tion that poems on Germanic legendary themes ought chronologically to antecede
poems on Christian themes, in part on the basis of considerations of style, and in part
as a consequence of the perceived inÏuence of one poem upon another. None of these
considerations can now be regarded as very persuasive. The Christian elements of
Beowulf are no longer held to be a super¢cial and late increment, style is a notoriously
subjective means of differentiation, and, for the most part, verbal similarities between
Old English poems are now regarded (with certain exceptions: see infra) as the effect
not of literate borrowing but of individual poets’ deployment of a common store of
diction and formulas circulating in oral tradition. The linguistic evidence that was later
supplied in support of widespread assumptions about poetic chronology might then be
imagined to have provided a sound footing for this ill-supported consensus. But the

1
See especially O’Brien O’Keeffe 1990: 23–46, particularly 41; Moffat Speculum 67 (1992)
805–27; Doane 2003. The issue of changes made in the course of the scribal transmission of Old
English texts, a topic of particularly contentious debate in recent years, is taken up also by, among
others, Dumville 1981: 130–1, Liuzza 1995: 290–5 (countered by Fulk ASE 32 [2004] 16–26), and
(comprehensively) Orton 2000.
2
For historical conspectuses and overviews of the current state of scholarship, see Chase 1981:
3–8, Wetzel Angl. 103 (1985) 371–400, Bjork & Obermeier 1997, and Müller-Zimmermann in H.
Tristram, ed., Med. Insular Lit. between the Oral & the Written II (Tübingen, 1997) 29–64. The
most prominent exceptions to this earlier consensus are Schücking BGdSL 42 (1917) 347–410 and
ibid. 47 (1923) 293–311 (end of the ninth century) and Whitelock 1951 (latter half of the eighth).
For further refs., see Frank 2007: 846 n.¯12.
3
Examples are B. ten Brink Geschichte der englischen Literatur, I (Strassburg, 1877; tr. H.
Kennedy [New York, 1883], I, 26–7); Brooke 1892: 17; W. Moody & R. Lovett A First View of
Eng. Lit. (New York, 1905) 4; R. Wülker Geschichte der englischen Literatur, I (Leipzig, 1906)
16–17.
 DATE, ORIGINS, INFLUENCES, GENRE clxv
truth is that the linguistic evidence rarely inspired much con¢dence even among philo-
logists. Klaeber, for example, expressed distrust in the linguistic evidence for dating
and conceded only that it held good in a general way. His doubts were well founded,
since the relevant linguistic studies were hardly in agreement, especially in regard to
crucial calculations of the incidence of features held to be archaic.1
Critical opinion was thus overdue for reassessment when a conference was convened
in Toronto in 1980 for that purpose.2 The time was particularly opportune, for in that
same year one of the conference participants published an important study ¢nding little
value in the linguistic evidence for dating, and another shortly afterward published the
hypothesis, alluded to supra, about the role of the Vitellius scribes in the poem’s com-
position.3 Since that time, the issue has remained unsettled. The following remarks on
the poem’s date and place of composition aim to summarize the different sorts of
evidence as they are currently understood, illustrating the diÌculties they involve.

Linguistic and Philological Considerations

In comparison to the language of most Old English verse, that of Beowulf has the ap-
pearance of exceptional archaism, and it lacks secure linguistic innovations that would
date the poem late: see Lang. §¯30 and p.¯clx. Both linguistically and metrically, the
poem is plainly unlike poems de¢nitely datable to the last quarter of the 10th century,
and also unlike many poems generally thought to have been composed earlier than this,
such as Andreas and the works signed in runes by Cynewulf. The linguistic changes
that the poem’s archaic features would seem to precede, however, generally cannot be
dated exactly, and so while such archaisms might be taken to imply a relatively early
date of composition, most of them shed no speci¢c light on the question of dating.
Their witness is also complicated by the observation that OE poetic language is archaic
by nature, and that the Beowulf poet undeniably employs forms that are unlikely to
have been current in the speech of his own day, especially certain forms with non-
syllabic postconsonantal resonants (see Appx.C §§¯14–16). It might therefore be sup-
posed that the language of the poem is so antiquated not because it was composed early
but because the poet happened to cultivate a more than usually archaic style.
A small amount of evidence suggests that this is not the case, and the poem’s lan-
guage is archaic because the work was composed early:¯4
Perhaps the most signi¢cant linguistic indicator in regard to dating is the poet’s
repeated use of verses of Sievers’s type A2l with resolution of the ¢rst drop, e.g.
cwealmbealu c©ðan 1940a (U N | U G), in conformity to Kaluza’s law (see p.¯clx).
Under this law, the second of the resolved syllables must be etymologically light. Other
poets (with the possible exception of the poet of Exodus) employ the type rarely, and
generally in violation of the law. If the distinction between the relevant long and short
¢nal vowels had not yet been eliminated when Beowulf was composed, or at least had
only very recently been eliminated (as the poet’s strict conformity to the law would
seem to suggest), this would date the poem no later than the ¢rst half of the eighth

1
Discrepancies between MS forms and their scansion were ¢rst noted by Siev.R. & A.M., and
they were subsequently studied for their possible relevance to poetic chronology by Sarrazin EStn.
38 (1907) 145–95 (esp. 170¯ff.), Richter 1910, Seiffert 1913, with objections offered by Tupper 1911
and others cited in HOEM §¯5 n.¯6. Some other linguistic bases for dating were proposed by
Lichtenheld ZfdA 16 (1873) 325–93 (see Lang. §¯26.3) and Morsbach 1906 (cf. Amos 1980: 18–29,
HOEM §¯402); for further refs., see Amos 1980 passim.
2
Many of the papers delivered at the conference appear in Chase 1981.
3
See Amos 1980, Kiernan 1981.
4
In addition to the reasons on this score offered here, it is argued in a forthcoming study by R.
Fulk that the frequency with which names in -þēo(w) are spelt without ¢nal w by both scribes is
diÌcult to explain as anything but a genuine archaism, and explanation of these spellings as an
archaizing gesture on the part of the poet is unlikely.
clxvi INTRODUCTION
century if it was composed south of the Humber, or the ¢rst half of the ninth north of it,
limits imposed by the loss of the relevant length distinctions in the dialects of the
respective areas.1 This evidence also serves to counter the objection that the poem may
have been so thoroughly modi¢ed by copyists in the course of its MS transmission that
the extant copy and the work ¢rst committed to parchment could not reasonably be
regarded as essentially the same poem.2 Rather, the poet’s strict conformity to the law
shows that whatever scribal changes have been made in the course of transmission,
they have not been so thoroughgoing as to obscure the evidential value of its metrical
features in regard to dating.
Another factor discourages the notion that the poem’s archaic language is due to
exceptional antiquarianism on the part of the poet: in poems with less archaic language,
not only are nonsyllabic ¢nal postconsonantal resonants much fewer in number, but
they are preserved only in transparently formulaic phrases, while in Beowulf their uses
seem much more varied and spontaneous.3 Such a distributional distinction suggests
evolution in the poetic tradition, with later poets, as they sought to reproduce the fea-
tures of tradition, having to rely on formulaic language, whereas earlier poets, for
whom such features may not have been so archaic, used them more spontaneously.
An additional consideration is the great variety of linguistic features that appear to
be archaic, coupled with the dearth of features that can securely be identi¢ed as the
result of linguistic developments of a fairly late date (see Lang. §¯30). It may be, as
remarked above, that the poet had so great a talent at archaizing his composition as to
color it with many kinds of seemingly ancient qualities. If so, however, his crafts-
manship must have been quite extraordinary, and to the degree that his talent must
thereby be regarded as exceptional, so must this explanation be held less probable.
This consideration is of greatest weight in regard to those features that are rare or
nonexistent elsewhere in Old English verse.4

1
See HOEM, ch. 6, for a detailed explanation of Kaluza’s law, and pp.¯348–92 on the reasons
for attaching particular dates to the relevant linguistic changes. Aspects of the domain of the law
and its conditioning (phonological or morphological) are contested: see Hutch. 78–94, id. JEGP
103 (2004) 297–322; Suz. 207–33; but cf. Fulk IJGLSA 3 (1998) 290–9, id. JEGP 106 (2007) 317–
23. The domain is not immediately relevant to the points under consideration here, though the type
of conditioning is. Morphological conditioning would allow a later date than phonological, but
even those who advocate morphologization of the conditioning usually concede that loss of the
relevant phonological contrast can only have been a recent development when the poem was
composed, since the regularity of this poet’s conformity to the law (especially in comparison to
other poets’ disregard of it) is striking. It should be noted, as well, that Amos (1980: 100) discounts
the evidence of Kaluza’s law on the ground that some poets may not have felt bound by it. If this
were to be regarded as a valid objection, however, it would have the effect of allowing earlier dates
of composition for some other poems, without affecting the dating of Beo; see further HOEM
§¯181. The arguments of Frank (2007) have appeared too recently to be engaged by other scholars,
but her analysis appears to be a variety of the morphological approach advocated by others and
already countered, as noted supra.
2
Liuzza (1995: 290–5) presents statistics in support of his view that metrically signi¢cant
alterations were made so routinely in the scribal transmission of OE verse texts that conclusions
about dating based on metrical considerations must be considered unreliable. It has been pointed
out in response, however, that a more careful assessment of what amounts to a metrically signi¢-
cant alteration leads to the conclusion that alterations of this sort are too infrequent to affect met-
rical evidence for dating to any appreciable degree. See Fulk ASE 32 (2004) 16–26.
3
See Fulk JEGP 106 (2007) 304–12.
4
These features include the verb pre¢x ond- (Lang. §¯19.11); instr. dōgor (§¯21.4); Ec- for Ecg-
(§¯20.1 rem., note to 957); gen. pl. (-)Deni(ġ)a/Deniġea and winia (§¯21.5); use of dative direct
objects with certain verbs bearing the pre¢x for- (p.¯cli n.¯2); certain unconventional examples of
the instr. genitive with verbs (ibid.); fem. sg. ġehw®m in place of LWS ġehw®re (see 25¯n.); the
neuter gender of lēanes 1809, if it stands for l®nes (see the note on that line); the gender of cræft if
it is fem. in 418, 2181 (n.); certain archaic items of vocabulary, such as Scedenīġ and suhterġe-
fæderan (§¯27); the archaic senses of several words, including synn, fyren, and bealu (§¯26.10); and
 DATE, ORIGINS, INFLUENCES, GENRE clxvii
Thus, while some apparent archaisms may be explained as having a stylistic basis,
for a small number of them such an explanation can be shown to be fairly unlikely.
All in all, Beowulf resembles Guthlac A in regard to the degree of conservatism of its
metrical features, and the latter poem would appear to have been composed no later
than the middle of the eighth century, since it refers repeatedly to the events of Guth-
lac’s life as having occurred within the recall of living persons (e.g. in 154–7; see
HOEM, pp.¯399–402). As to the compositional terminus a quo, to judge by the lan-
guage of the earliest manuscripts containing Old English, a date before ca. 685 is
linguistically less probable than a later one.1
ChieÏy on the basis of linguistic evidence, it has generally been accepted that the
poem is, like most preserved Old English verse, of Anglian, rather than Saxon or
Kentish, provenance. That is, the poet’s dialect was apparently Northumbrian or Mer-
cian, or perhaps East Anglian (though that dialect is ill attested in Anglo-Saxon times,
due to the collapse of monasticism north and east of Watling Street during the Viking
Age). Identifying the dialect as Anglian, however, leaves open a wide range of possible
places of origin. A small number of features supports Mercian over Northumbrian
origins. For the evidence, see Lang. §¯29.
In sum, the linguistic evidence, while it strongly favors an Anglian, probably Mer-
cian, provenance, does not provide incontrovertible proof of early composition, and
indeed, to expect proof from the linguistic evidence is to misunderstand the nature of
linguistic argumentation. Such evidence does, however, plainly and rather consistently
favor a relatively early date. Accordingly, assigning the poem a date of origin in, say,
the 10th century, would involve a number of linguistic improbabilities.2

Cultural and Archaeological Considerations

Given their lack of chronological speci¢city, almost none of the poet’s allusions to
persons and events can help to ¢x the date of the work. Much has therefore been made
of the two allusions in the poem that seem to be con¢rmed in independent historical
sources. One is the raid in which Hyġelāc met his death in the Rhineland (lines 1202–
14a, 2354b–9a, and 2914b–19a; cf. 2501–6a), for this event, as is mentioned supra (p.¯li),
can be dated to the period 516–31 on the basis of a reference to it made by Gregory of
Tours — though this can hardly be said to shed much light on the poem’s date of
composition. The other is the allusion contained in the word Merewīoingas 2921a. Most
scholars have taken this to be a reference to ‘the Merovingian,’ i.e., the Frankish king.
Since the Merovingian dynasty came to an end in 751, and such a term would not, it
has been maintained, have continued in reference to the Frankish king long thereafter,
the term has often been taken to indicate composition no later than the ¢rst half of the
eighth century.3 Alternatively, an argument has been offered that the name was taken
by the poet from a relatively late Frankish written source, while a recent study by T.
Shippey has made a strong case that the form of the name points to its transmission in

the rarity of ictus on the adjective suÌx -lic- when it is immediately post-tonic (see Appx.C §§¯26,
32, HOEM §¯221). Especially suggestive is the evidence of MS hrærg (for hærg) 175, which ap-
pears to retain an archaic vowel because the corrupted form of the word made it unintelligible: see
Girvan 1935: 14.
1
See HOEM §¯400.
2
Particularly noteworthy (as remarked by Bjork & Obermeier 1997: 28) are the fully Anglicized
forms that Scandinavian names in the poem take and the absence of convincing Scandinavian
loanwords (see p.¯clxxi infra). These factors testify, if not to an early date, then at least to a long
insular tradition as regards much of the legendary material represented in the poem.
3
That the word should mean ‘the Merovingian’ was ¢rst recognized by Grundtvig Brage og
Idun 4 (1841) 509¯n. Its signi¢cance to the dating of the poem was ¢rst proposed by Bachlechner
ZfdA 6 (1849) 524–6. For additional bibliography, see von Schaubert’s note and Bjork & Ober-
meier 1997: 18–9.
clxviii INTRODUCTION
oral rather than written form.1 In view of the uncertainties involved,2 the evidence
cannot be said to compel agreement one way or another.
Standing as an impediment to a very early dating of Beowulf is the poem’s Christian
character. The work obviously derives from a period after Augustine’s mission of 597
to convert the English. As has often been pointed out (see pp.¯lxvii¯ff. supra), the
density and nature of the religious allusions in Beowulf, as well as their conventional
quality, point to the poem’s composition at a time when Christianity had advanced in
Britain to the point of being a mode of perception, over and above being a set of
religious precepts and practices. While the passage condemning the Danes’ idolatry is
in keeping with 10th- and 11th-century strictures against paganism (which, during the
Viking Age, was constantly being re-introduced to the British Isles by Scandinavian
invaders), the poem can hardly be assigned even an approximate date on the basis of
such a commonplace sentiment, since paganism was routinely condemned at a much
earlier date as well, e.g. in the penitential teachings of Archbishop Theodore (d. 690;
and see Orchard 2003: 100). Some have thought the nature of the Christianity ex-
pressed in the poem to be of a transitional sort, such as might be found in the early
years of the faith’s progress among the English.3 But the notion that con¢nement of
biblical references to the Old Testament reÏects an early stage in the process of con-
version has no historical basis (Whitelock 1951: 6–7; Irving 1997: 186), and at all
events, the absence of references to Christ and speci¢cally Christian concepts be¢ts a
poem set in the Germanic heroic age. Moreover, doctrinal sophistication came to the
English early, under the tutelage of Archbishop Theodore and Abbot Hadrian at their
Canterbury school, and so the question of religious sophistication imposes few chrono-
logical limits. More promise is perhaps offered by the search for a cultural setting for
the poem’s composition that would be congenial to its sympathetic and complex
attitude toward characters who are, though seemingly monotheistic, apparently not
Christian.4
Archaeology, too, has been thought to furnish clues to the poem’s date of com-
position. Caution is required with regard to all such claims, however, given the poem’s
character as a historical ¢ction.5 A century ago, the Beowulf poet’s descriptions of

1
To the argument for late composition, on the basis of this name, offered by Wright Notting-
ham Med. Stud. 24 (1980) 1–6, and the skepticism expressed by Goffart in Chase 1981: 88 and
Stanley ibid. 201 about the value of the name as dating evidence, compare Shippey’s counter-
arguments (in O’Brien O’Keeffe & Orchard 2005: 1.389–406) that the name does indeed point to
an early 8th-century archetype for the poem. Goffart’s arguments are also countered by Bremmer
2004: 10–11.
2
The word is hardly free of problems. The ending -as is peculiar if this is a genitive singular,
though such an inÏection is not unparalleled in the poem (see Lang. §¯19.5a), and it could be due to
an archaic -æs ending in the original. A further source of uncertainty is that for Merewīoingas milts
the MS reads mere wio ingasmilts, but the last string has been altered (though seemingly in the
same hand: Ki.) from ingannilts. Several emendations have been proposed (see Varr. and 2920b–
1¯n.), but these were originally prompted by the conviction that sense could not be made of the text
at this point, and so they are hardly justi¢ed now that the MS reading is known to be plainly inter-
pretable.
3
See, among others, Lawrence 1928: 273–84; K. Schneider 1986: 199–232; M. Parker Beowulf
& Christianity (New York, 1987); Lehmann SN 66 (1994) 175–9.
4
See esp. Cronan 2007; also Russom in press; and Chase 1981: 161–71; but cf. T.M. Andersson
1983: 297–8. Frank 1982a argues that the sense of history evident in Beo is not likely to have arisen
before the time of King Alfred’s educational reforms, when a belief in Christian doctrine does not
seem to have been thought incompatible with an interest in Germanic antiquity.
5
It should be noted that the descriptions of material objects in the poem may be due to poetic
conventions rather than to ¢rst-hand knowledge of weapons and such of an early age: see Webster
2000: 59. Thus, for example, while it may be that the Frisians and their riches mentioned promi-
nently in the poem would have been more topical in the seventh and eighth centuries than later
(Bremmer 2004: 13–15), poetry is designed to build legends about such matters.
 DATE, ORIGINS, INFLUENCES, GENRE clxix
swords, helmets, and other material objects were thought to correspond closely to arti-
facts pertaining to the Late Germanic Iron Age culture of Sweden (Stjerna 1912). The
poem was therefore thought to be early in date (6th or 7th century) and Swedish in
either origin or inspiration. Such theories now seem less compelling, for archaeological
discoveries made in many places other than Sweden have con¢rmed the existence of a
broad North Sea cultural zone that affords any number of Iron Age and Viking Age
parallels to the artifacts mentioned in Beowulf (see Maps). Since 1939, when Mound
One at Sutton Hoo, on the Deben in East Anglia, was excavated,1 there has been a
natural tendency for scholars to link the poem to that spectacular site.2 While Sutton
Hoo provides priceless insights into the material culture of Anglo-Saxon England
during the late pagan period, the question may legitimately be asked whether it offers
more than an impressionistic entry-point to the material world evoked in Beowulf
(Frank 1992). What can be said with con¢dence is that the poet had an antiquarian
interest in his people’s material past, including such speci¢c items, well known to
archaeologists, as boar-crested helmets (¢g.¯7, cf. ¢g.¯6), helmets with chain mail at-
tachments, and ring-hilted swords. To be sure, such items to a considerable degree
match excavated objects of the pre-viking period better than those of later times (see,
e.g., Hills 1997: 308–9). But the language of the poem, with its elaborate systems of
synonyms, is steeped in antique associations — so much so that the mere mention of a
richly decorated helmet or sword could call up the idea of an antique era.3 It has been
argued that the poem ought to be dated to the Viking Age because Bēowulf’s ship
moves under sail (1905–6), while pre-viking ships of Scandinavian design did not carry
sail.4 This may indeed be an anachronism, though the evidence concerning northern
ships of this early date is sparse. But the Anglo-Saxons and the Scandinavians used sail
by the late seventh century, and probably earlier.5 Thus, while it may be tempting to
envisage Bēowulf’s vessel as resembling a stylish Scandinavian warship of the Viking
Age, with its curved prow, mast, and sail (¢g. 3), the poet may have had in mind a
design pertaining to an earlier age. Indeed, certain aspects of ship design that are
mentioned in the poem have been thought by some to suggest shipbuilding techniques
that were antiquated by the ninth century, though what precisely is meant by terms like
wudu bundene and bundenstefna is matter for debate.6 In like manner, in regard to
dating on the basis of material culture, an early date has been opposed on the basis of
the reference to a tamed hawk (2263–4); in point of fact, however, hawks were used for
hunting in England as early as the late seventh century, and probably earlier.7 No
aspect of the material culture described in the poem has yet been shown persuasively to
exclude a date of composition as early as the latter half of the seventh century, nor
(especially in view of the poet’s antiquarian interests) one as late as the beginning of
the eleventh.

1
The chief evidence relating to the excavations undertaken at Sutton Hoo is set out in B-
Mitford. Additional information drawn from more recent excavations is presented by Carver 1998,
2005. See A. Evans The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial (London, 1986) for a succinct guide.
2
See, e.g., Lindqvist Fornvännen 43 (1948) 94–110 (Eng. tr. in Antiquity 22 [1948] 131–40);
Wrenn in Cha.Intr. 495–507; Bruce-Mitford in the 1971 reissue of Girvan 1935 (London; pp.¯85–
98); Davidson in Garmonsway & Simpson 1968: 350–60.
3
Some reasons for caution as regards the archaeological evidence are offered by C. Morris in
Image & Power in the Archaeology of Early Medieval Britain, ed. H. Hamerow & A. MacGregor
(Oxford, 2001), 147–61. Dumville (1981: 134), as well, aptly refers to ‘the transmission of a socio-
logical context’ as an inherent aspect of heroic tradition, which by its nature looks back to a former
age and calls its material culture to mind in terms that may be quite ancient.
4
See Meaney 2003 [1989]: 42; S. Smith ANQ 3 (1990) 99–103.
5
Thier 2003, w. refs.; also M. Jones Stud. in Med. & Ren. Hist. n.s. 13 (1992) 31–67. Cf.
Webster in MR 192–3; also Osborn ANQ 13.2 (2000) 3–6.
6
See the notes on 216b, 1910a.
7
Stanley 1981: 205; cf. 2263b–4a n.
clxx INTRODUCTION
In any event, the idea that Beowulf is the product of Anglo-Danish cultural contacts
during the Viking Age has been proposed more than once.1 For many years this possi-
bility was not seriously entertained because of the objection that no English poet would
have expressed sustained admiration for Danes during the years when the hated vikings
were wreaking havoc in Britain.2 But it is probably not much more improbable that the
poem should have been composed at such a time than that it should have been copied,
at great labor and expense, into a manuscript of this period, as it manifestly was. Ac-
cordingly, in recent decades it has been argued that the poet’s strong interest in Danish
legendary history points to composition of the poem at some time after a substantial
number of people of Scandinavian descent had settled in Britain.3 One way to read
Beowulf (though by no means the only way) is as a response to the tensions of the
period extending from the reign of King Alfred the Great (871–99) through much of the
10th century. By the second quarter of that century, Alfred’s grandson King Æthelstan
(927–39) and his immediate successors ruled over a hybrid nation in which men of
Scandinavian descent held positions of responsibility in both church and state. The
poem has thus been viewed by some as one expression of a royally directed attempt to
integrate the potentially hostile Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon populations of Britain
into a united society.4 In particular, arguments have been made for the direct inÏuence
upon the poet of skaldic verse of the 10th century.5 Klaeber’s assessment of the evi-
dence for Scandinavian inÏuence remains valid, however, that investigations along this
line have brought out interesting similarities rather than proofs of inÏuence.6
In this connection, attention has been drawn to the poem’s genealogical preface
(lines 4–19, 53–63), concerning a Danish king (Scyld Sce¢ng) who, by the late 9th
century, had been allotted a place in the mostly ¢ctitious genealogy of the kings of
Wessex, which is preserved in various forms and contexts (Appx.A §§¯1.1–4, 8, 11.1).7

1
Studies arguing for peaceful interaction between Englishmen and Danes that could have
produced a milieu favorable to the creation or transmission of a poem of this kind include
Schücking BGdSL 42 (1917) 347–410, Jacobs Poetica 8 (1978) 23–43, Poussa NM 82 (1981) 276–
88, and the essays by Murray (101–11), Page (113–22), and Frank (123–39) in Chase 1981.
2
This justi¢cation for imposing a terminus ante quem was ¢rst proposed by Grundtvig, ac-
cording to Chase 1981: 6, and was subsequently often repeated, e.g. by Whitelock 1951: 24–5.
3
Some additional historical and literary studies favoring a date of composition after the
beginning of the viking raids are Reynolds in Studi in onore di Armando Sapori, II (Milan, 1957)
175–8, Kiernan 1981, Busse and Holtei 1981, Niles 1983: 96–117, Carsley Assays 7 (1992) 31–41,
Abraham 1993: 285, and Davis ASE 35 (2006) 111–29. See also Bibire in British Writers, suppl. VI,
ed. J. Parini (New York, 2001) 35–6.
4
This is an argument advanced by Kellogg in Damico & Leyerle 1993: 139–56, as well as by
Niles 1993.
5
Frank 1981, 1982b, SS 59 (1987) 338–55.
6
Klaeber’s conclusion is offered speci¢cally in regard to similarities of vocabulary and idiom,
including atol, bront; eodor, lēod (in their poetic meanings: cf. OIcel. jaðarr, ljóði); (¯feoh)ġift in
the same sense as ġifu (probably an archaism); beadolēoma (see Gloss.); bonan Ongĺnþeoes (see
1968¯n.) and other kennings; ġehēġan ðinġ 425¯f. (see note, and cf. OIcel. heyja þing); m®l is mē tō
fēran (316: see note); iċ þē . . . biddan wille . . . ānre bēne 426¯ff. (see note); beornas on blancum
856 (cf. Bj∂rn reið Blakki [Kálfsvísa 4 in Skáldsk. ch. 58]); use of the historical present (esp. 2486;
see Lang. §¯26.6); and īsiġ (33¯n.; see Holt. Beibl. 14 [1903] 82¯f., Hollander MLN 32 [1917] 246¯f.).
The exaggerated claims of Sarr.St. (also ZfdPh. 29 [1897] 224¯ff.) are vigorously rebutted by
Sievers BGdSL 12 (1887) 168–200. On postpositive þone, see p.¯cl n.¯5. As for non-linguistic paral-
lels, some are remarked in the notes on 20¯ff., 244–7, 499–661, 804b, 1457, 1459b–60a, 2683–6,
3024–7, 3166–8. Klaeber attributed the easy identi¢cation of such parallels to the abundance of
secular literature from medieval Scandinavia. Earlier studies of such include Kl. Angl. 29 (1906)
379 n.¯4 (ll.¯249¯ff.); id. 1911–12: [55 n.¯6] (ll.¯445¯f.); id. Archiv 115 (1905) 179¯n. (ll.¯1002¯f.); id.
JEGP 14 (1915) 549 (ll.¯1121¯f.).
7
The West Saxon royal genealogy and its possible political signi¢cance have been discussed by
Sisam PBA 39 (1953) 287–348, Dumville in Early Medieval Kingship, ed. P. Sawyer & I. Wood
(Leeds, 1977) 72–104, id. Anglia 104 (1986) 1–32, and Davis ASE 21 (1992) 23–36.
 DATE, ORIGINS, INFLUENCES, GENRE clxxi
This greatly expanded genealogy, which includes the names Ġēat, Bēaw, Sceldwa,
Heremōd, and Scēaf, among many others, was probably fashioned with King Alfred’s
knowledge and consent and was inserted into the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle under the
year 855, where it commemorates the death of Alfred’s father, King Æthelwulf
(Lapidge 1982: 187). The view has been offered that a poem that begins in this manner
was most likely inspired by royal politics of the Viking Age,1 or even that the
genealogy that begins the poem draws on the substance of Æthelwulf’s genealogy,2
which in turn is derived, in part, from the traditions of Danish settlers. Yet the opposite
of this position, that the genealogy instead draws on heroic tradition, and perhaps some
version of the Beowulf story itself, has been maintained as well.3 To the view that the
poem is an attempt to wed English and Danish interests, it has been objected that no
real syncretism is in evidence, the matter of the poem being almost solely Scandi-
navian.4 Moreover, it has been remarked that the Scandinavian adventure tales that
undergird the poem (or at least some of them) must have been known in England by
the end of the eighth century, if not earlier, since Alcuin refers to the hero Inġeld in a
letter of 797.5 An additional diÌculty to be overcome, if the introductory genealogy, or
indeed any part of the poem, is to be thought a product of Danish traditions, is the
spelling of the names contained in it. These are thoroughly English in form, being
entirely unlike the Scandinavian names found in records of the 9th century and later.6
They thus would appear to be the result of an English tradition of no brief duration
about the Scyldings and their contemporaries, and if that is so, then late Danish inÏu-
ence on the poem, if there was any, would seem to have been only of a very general
kind. In this connection, too, it is noteworthy that the poem contains no such veri¢able
Scandinavian loanwords as might be expected under Danish inÏuence.7 The possibility
of such inÏuence nonetheless remains tantalizing.

1
Murray in Chase 1981: 108–10. Sisam PBA 39 (1953) 339 (but cf. 345) earlier argued on
related grounds that the genealogical preface is a later addition to an early poem, and A. Campbell
1971: 290 seems to have had something similar in mind.
2
Meaney 2003 [1989]; this position is maintained in somewhat moderated form in the additions
to the reprinted (2003) version of this article (see pp.¯54–9).
3
Lapidge 1982: 187; J. Bately The AS Chronicle: Texts & Textual Relationships (Reading,
1991) 46; see also Fulk RES 40 (1989) 318–22. Newton 1993: 54–76 likewise grants the gene-
alogies native authority that antedates the arrival of the vikings. Recently it has been argued that
the forms Scyldwa and Bēowi in the Chronicle (the latter only in the Northern, D text, but cor-
roborated by the corrupted form Bedwīġ in other versions) evidence an archaic written source for
this portion of the genealogy (see Fulk Anglo-Saxon 1 [2007] 126–8), a claim that may be of
relevance to arguments for the existence of an archaic exemplar for Beowulf (Appx.C §¯8).
4
T.M. Andersson 1983: 294; also 299–301. Adopting a different perspective, Niles (2007b: 35–
49, 67–71) argues for the presence of English allusions in the poem that, even if oblique, would
have been readily understood by an audience of Anglo-Saxons.
5
T.M. Andersson 1997: 147. For the relevant passage from Alcuin’s letter, see Appx.A §¯4.
6
Stanley 1981: 207 argues that, particularly in a bilingual environment, English speakers could
readily have anglicized Scandinavian names so as to yield the forms encountered in Beowulf, but
objections to that claim have been raised: see Fulk PQ 61 (1982) 343–4; T.M. Andersson 1983:
292–3; Newton 1993: 21. By the 9th and 10th centuries, the Scandinavian equivalents of names like
Hrōðweald (cf. Hraold, ChronA 918), Hereweald (cf. Hareld, ChronA 871), and Hālga (cf. Elgi,
Helge, and similar forms in various late sources) had undergone important changes, and this
consideration (in combination with the fact that many of the names in Beowulf were not familiar,
everyday AS names) suggests that similar names in Beowulf are not recent borrowings. For further
examples, see Björkman 1910.
7
Frank 1981: 135–6 argues that benċþelu (486, 1239) and the positive sense of lofġeornost
(3182) may be borrowings from skaldic poetry. But the former may simply be cognate with ON
bekkþili or borrowed early (T.M. Andersson 1983: 296), and borrowing in the opposite direction,
of which this may be an example, is amply attested (see D. Hofmann Nordisch-englische Lehn-
beziehungen der Wikingerzeit [Copenhagen, 1955]). The meaning of the latter word can be ex-
plained without recourse to Norse inÏuence: see 3182b¯n.
clxxii INTRODUCTION
Historical and cultural reasons have of course been offered, as well, for locating the
poet in the period before about 835, when the viking attacks grew ¢erce. The eighth
century has been declared the most likely period in which to ¢nd the particular mix of
heroic and religious interests that pervades the poem (Wormald 1978). The poet’s
distinct Scandinavian interests have been explained by quite a few scholars as suited to
conditions in East Anglia in the early period.1 An early date has also been supported on
the basis of a perceived shift of poetic style witnessed in presumably later poems,2 and
on the grounds of the apparently archaic quality of the poet’s representation of king-
ship (Swanton 1982, Clemoes 1995: 3–67).
Numerous and ongoing attempts, some of them designed with the aim of discovering
historical allegory, have been made to place the composition of the poem at a particular
Anglo-Saxon royal court, such as that of the 7th-century Mercian king Penda, or of
Cūðburg (d. 718), queen of the Northumbrians, or of King Æþelstān (r. 924–39). Con-
siderable ingenuity has been expended on various arguments that ascribe authorship to
a particular person.3 The most widely credited of these arguments hangs on the poet’s
prominent praise of Offa, king of the continental Angles, as ealles moncynnes . . . þone
sēlestan bī s®m twēonum (1955–6). Whitelock (1951: 63), among others, has perceived
this as an oblique compliment to Offa’s namesake, the great king who ruled over the
Mercians from 757 to 796.4 If the digression concerning Offa and his queen of un-
certain name is granted to have English political implications, then a terminus a quo of
the later decades of the 8th century could be accepted for the poem, or at least this part
of it. In not entirely dissimilar fashion, a connection has been drawn between Wīġlāf, a
character with no parallel in the related Scandinavian sources, and the king of that
name who was one of the last independent rulers of Mercia (827–40) before that
Midland kingdom was fractured by the Danes and thereafter brought under the rule of,
and gradually absorbed into, Wessex.5 The coincidence of names has been lent par-
ticular signi¢cance by the observation that the poet ascribes to his ¢ctive Wīġlāf a
father named Wīhstān (2752, 2907, 3076, 3110, 3120; Wēohstān 2613, Wēoxstān 2602)
and, apparently, an ancestor named W®ġmund (see 2607, 2814). The historical King
Wīġlāf of Mercia had a grandson named Wīġstān (d. 849) and a son named Wīġmund
(ca. 815–35). Genealogically as well as linguistically, the correspondences are impre-
cise (Wīġ-, it will be noted, is etymologically distinct both from Wīh-/Wēoh- and from
W®ġ-), but the names might still be taken as echoes of English political history, sug-
gesting composition of the poem (or its dragon episode) no earlier than the mid-ninth
century. But many such historical allusions have been suggested, and in truth, few
cultural settings between the late seventh century and the late 10th would have been

1
See Magoun ES 35 (1954) 203–4; N. Chadwick 1959: 203; O’Loughlin Medieval Archaeology
8 (1964) 1–19; Farrell 1982; J. Harris in Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft VI, ed. K. von
See (Wiesbaden, 1985) 265–6; Mosteller Med. Perspectives 7 (1992) 124–40; Newton 1993; and
Storms ES 80 (1999) 46–9.
2
Clemoes in Chase 1981: 173–85, Sorrell OT 7 (1992) 28–65, esp. 30–1.
3
In addition to the references provided by Chase 1981: 5–7 and Bjork & Obermeier 1997: 19–
23, see, among others, Thundy NM 87 (1986) 102–16, Howlett 1997: 537–40, Fajardo-Acosta in
Essays in Old, Middle, Modern Eng., ed. L. Gruber (Lewiston, 2000) 49–71 (identifying the hom-
ilist Wulfstān as the author), and North 2007.
4
See Commentary, p.¯224 w. n.3. This same passage could have served to compliment Offa’s
descendants, since the Mercian royal line was eventually folded into the royal line of Wessex
through King Alfred’s marriage to Ealhswith, a Mercian princess. Praise of Offa, like praise of
Scyld, could therefore, in the view of some, have carried ideological implications in an Alfredian
milieu. See Murray in Chase 1981: 108–9, Niles 1993: 98.
5
Brandl Research & Progress 2 (1936) 195–203; Bond SP 40 (1943) 481–93; Niles 1993: 99;
Harris 2000: 162; most recently and with the greatest accumulation of detail by North (2007). The
following remarks about Wīġlāf’s relations reÏect the analysis of Niles, originating with ideas
expressed by Brandl 203.
 DATE, ORIGINS, INFLUENCES, GENRE clxxiii
uncongenial.1 Indeed, historical arguments in general must be regarded with con-
siderable caution, because they tend to be self-con¢rming, particularly if the poem is
used to create a historical context that is then used to date the text.2 Even the question
whether the poem was composed in a courtly or a monastic setting cannot be settled
conclusively, though the extant manuscript of the poem was certainly produced in the
scriptorium of a religious house, and the recording of literary works outside such
settings can never have been extensive.
As regards the poem’s place of origin, the historical and archaeological evidence is
suggestive but even less informative. In the earlier years of Beowulf criticism there was
a pronounced tendency to associate the poem with Bede’s Northumbria, probably
because so much more is known about the North than about the rest of the country in
the early period (see Bjork & Obermeier 1997). As more has been learned about the
other kingdoms, especially on the basis of archaeological ¢nds, and as a wider range of
possible dates has been entertained, attention has shifted to other geographical areas.
As remarked supra, the Mercian court of King Offa in the latter half of the eighth
century has been advocated, as has East Anglia before the onset of the viking attacks.
Likewise the view that the poem reveals Danish inÏuence of the Viking Age has
prompted the argument that the poem was composed in the Danelaw (Schücking
BGdSL 42 [1917] 347–410) — though it must be conceded that Danish inÏuence could
have been felt in many other places, as well. Malmesbury in Aldhelm’s day has also
been ably defended as a place of origin (Lapidge 1982). Indeed, the Grendel place-
names, many of which are clustered in Wessex and southern Mercia, have been held by
Lapidge (ibid. 179–84) to point toward that area as a point of origin for certain of the
story’s fabulous elements. In truth, however, the place-names are widely distributed
from Cornwall to Middlesex and Surrey, while the charter evidence for areas east and
north of Watling Street is so slender that it would be incautious to assume that such
place-names were never found there, too. And the linguistic evidence tells rather ¢rmly
against Wessex as a place of origin, wherever the extant manuscript copy may happen
to have been made.
It will have been noted that all these localizations are connected to the assumption of
composition during a particular period of time. Indeed, the problems of dating and
localizing the origins of the text are not wholly inseparable matters. Recording of the
text during the period lasting from the middle of the ninth century through the end of
the reign of Æþelstān is of course possible, but it is likelier that it should have been
written down either before or after this period of about a century. The reason is that
regular monastic life had fallen off dramatically in England by the time of Alfred, and
though Alfred and his grandson Æþelstān were strong promoters of the religious life,
full monastic discipline was not restored in the Anglo-Saxon realms until the Bene-
dictine Reform of the second half of the 10th century.3 That Alfred’s translations were
produced and copied during this period demonstrates that literary activity took place,
but the relative paucity of new textual production is underscored by the dearth of man-
uscripts that survive from this era, even after the viking threat was blunted by Alfred’s

1
See Jacobs Poetica 8 (1978) 42, and cf. the conclusion of Bjork & Obermeier (1997: 22), with
reference to attempts to locate the poem’s composition in an Anglo-Scandinavian milieu, that such
‘cultural studies, like their predecessors, remain inconclusive.’
2
This point is made, for example, by Howe in O’Brien O’Keeffe 1997: 83–4; also Liuzza 1995:
284–6.
3
D. Knowles The Monastic Order in England, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1963) 24, 31–6, speaks of a
complete cessation of regular monastic life by the reign of Alfred. More recent and, in some re-
gards, less dire a characterization of the destructive impact of the viking invasions on English
society and the English Church during the late 9th century is offered by Wormald in The Anglo-
Saxons, ed. J. Campbell et al. (London, 1982) 132–49, w. refs. at 253–4, and, in greater partic-
ularity on the topic of secularization and low-level continuity in AS monasticism (as opposed to
wholesale abandonment of sites), Blair 2005: 291–341.
clxxiv INTRODUCTION
successors.1 Even after the restoration of monastic life in much of the realm, the
recording of texts north and east of Watling Street (roughly half the land area of Anglo-
Saxon England) ought to be considered far less likely than elsewhere, since monastic-
ism was only partly restored in the east in the later 10th century, and not in the area
north of the Humber (where only the community of Durham persisted) until after the
Conquest. At all events, given these historical probabilities, although Beowulf could be
an exception,2 the bulk of the surviving Old English verse is likely to have been ¢rst
recorded in writing either early or late, not in this middle period.

Relation to Other Anglo-Saxon Literary Works

One of the notorious problems pertaining to the study of Old English verse texts is that
of ascertaining a ¢rm enough chronology to enable an assessment of their respective
sources and inÏuences. Disappointingly few poems survive in more than a single
manuscript. Moreover, although they were surely composed at various times, almost all
of them are preserved in copies made during the period ca. 950–1020. Almost all rely
on a single pool of formulaic diction (though they may draw on that pool to different
degrees and in different ways), and almost all are composed in virtually the same
alliterative meter (again, with slight, not easily detectible differences from one work to
another). Arguments for the inÏuence of one text upon another can therefore often be
made either way. Thus, Klaeber rightly urged extreme caution in asserting a direct
relation between different poems on the basis of so-called Parallelstellen, in view of
the scholarly excesses of his day, which often led to assigning widely divergent compo-
sitions to a single poet, especially to Cædmon and to Cynewulf, who are nearly the
only named poets from whom compositions are generally agreed to survive, on the
basis of rather vague resemblances.3 Studies of literary inÏuence within the poetic
corpus were brought into further disfavor by the rise of oral-formulaic theory within
Anglo-Saxon studies, with the resulting widespread recognition that poets drew upon a
vast common store of formulas and themes. It is not that scholarship had not recog-
nized formulaic language before, but that its pervasiveness had not been suÌciently
acknowledged. Accordingly, scholars grew less inclined to see resemblances between
poems as attributable to direct inÏuence. In recent years, a few well-designed inter-
textual studies (mentioned infra) have urged that the assumption of direct inÏuence
between texts should not be so readily discarded. Keeping in mind Klaeber’s word of
warning, then, it is worth comparing Beowulf to other examples of Old English verse.
Despite the caution he advised, Klaeber himself was of the opinion that Beowulf
shows the inÏuence of Genesis A, which in turn presupposes the poetic labors of
Cædmon, if Bede’s assertion is to be trusted that none before Cædmon composed

1
According to N. Ker (1957: xv), of the 189 manuscripts containing OE described in some
detail in his catalogue (of more than 400 listed), just 14 are to be dated to the period extending
from the reign of Alfred to the ¢rst stirrings of the monastic reform. The great majority are of later
date, while 8 (including 2 fragments and 3 sets of glosses) date from ca. 900 or before. The total
production of MSS written (in OE or Latin) or owned in England before the year 1000 can be
estimated from H. Gneuss Handlist of AS Manuscripts (Tempe, 2001), supplemented by id. ASE 32
(2003) 293–305. On the basis of a preliminary version of the Handlist, Wormald (op. cit. 254)
concludes that of 950 such MSS, about 130 (almost all of them in Latin) date from before the
Alfredian revival; the rest are of later date.
2
Some of those who see Beowulf as exceptional when compared with other OE poetic produc-
tions (which do not dwell at length on the adventures of monster-slaying heroes in the ancient
North) regard an early monastery with signi¢cant ties to the secular aristocracy (Wormald 1978:
49–58), or an unreformed one of any period (Dumville 1981: 141, Niles 1983: 115), as being more
likely than a strictly reformed monastery to have been hospitable to a work of this character.
3
Examples of such inÏuence studies are Kail Angl. 12 (1889) 21¯ff.; Sarrazin Angl. 14 (1892)
188; Brandl P.Grdr.2 iia 1009; Kl. EStn. 42 (1910) 321¯f.
 DATE, ORIGINS, INFLUENCES, GENRE clxxv
religious verse in the vernacular.1 He adduced numerous and noteworthy parallels of
words and phrases, many of them traceable nowhere else,2 and he noted the occurrence
in both poems of the religious themes of the creation, Cain’s fratricide, the giants, and
the deluge, which may be taken together with the perceived Old Testament character of
Beowulf.3 Moreover, certain turns of phrase suggest the possibility of imitation, as with
the lines at the close of Beowulf that tell of the praise awarded the hero (3174–82), lines
that recall the opening of Genesis A (1–3a, 15–17a).4 The linguistic and metrical features
of Genesis A, it has often been remarked, are exceptionally conservative, and so if the
poem has inÏuenced Beowulf, the relation sheds no light on the latter’s date of com-
position.
On the other hand, many readers of Andreas have suspected that the author of that
versi¢ed saint’s life used Beowulf as a model.5 The similarities of phrasing between
these two poems are closer than would be expected if their authors were doing no more
than drawing on a common word hoard.6 Analysis of these parallels points to the
priority of the Beowulf poet. Borrowings of phrases that more than once seem forced
into a strange context (as with the notorious instance of meoduscerwen, And 1526b; cf.
ealuscerwen, Beo 769a), when taken together with parallels in the heroic conception of
the story, suggest that the author of the religious poem was following in the footsteps
of the Beowulf poet. It is therefore plausible that after Beowulf was recorded, it was
read and admired by at least this one author, who was evidently a member of the
clergy. Andreas has generally been regarded as a later composition than Beowulf, per-
haps contemporary with the works of Cynewulf, but no date from the later 8th century
to the mid-10th can positively be ruled out.
The relation of Beowulf to Judith is of interest, particularly in view of their physical
proximity in the Cotton manuscript and by the fact of their having been written out (at

1
H.E. iv, cap. 24. The likelihood that Bede’s story of Cædmon (more correctly Ċædmon)
incorporates some ¢ctive elements, as well as its structural similarity to a folktale type well known
in modern Irish and Scottish tradition (Niles Folklore 117 [2006] 141–55), does not necessarily
contradict the view that Cædmon was a historical personage who had a signi¢cant inÏuence on the
development of religious poetry in the vernacular. It has been argued that, speaking realistically,
Cædmon must have had predecessors who composed OE verse on Christian themes, despite
Bede’s statement that he was the ¢rst; see Magoun Speculum 30 (1955) 57–9. Opland 1980: 111–20
explains Cædmon’s originality in terms of the adaptation, to Christian ends, of native eulogistic
poetry in praise of chiefs and kings.
2
Thus G 230, B 466; G 1220¯f., B 2798; G 1385, B 2706; G 1631¯f., B 196¯f., 789¯f.; G 1742¯f., B
1179¯f.; G 1895¯f., B 138¯f.; G 1998, B 1073; G 2003¯ff., B 1554; G 2008, B 1665; G 2155, B 63; G
2156¯f., B 595¯ff.; G 2430¯f., B 612¯ff.; G 2544, B 114.
3
The resemblance between the more admirable of the Germanic kings and heroes named in this
poem and the patriarchs of Old Testament history has often been remarked, e.g. by Tolkien 1936:
270, 285, Brodeur 1959: 219, and Wieland 1988.
4
The somewhat strange expression applied to Hrēðel’s death, 2469¯ff., seems reminiscent of the
phraseology lavished on the dry genealogical lists, GenA 1178¯ff., 1192¯ff., 1214¯ff., etc. — See also
Sarrazin Angl. 14 (1892) 414, EStn. 38 (1907) 170¯ff.; Kl. EStn. 42 (1910) 327¯ff. (additional mater-
ial); Sievers 1929: 75 (serious objections).
5
See esp. Krapp 1906: lv–lvi; T. Arnold Notes on Beowulf (London, 1898) 123¯ff.; C. Schaar
Critical Studies in the Cynewulf Group (Lund, 1949); Brooks 1961: xxii–xxvi; Stanley 1966: 110–
14; Hamilton ASE 1 (1972) 147–58, id. in Nicholson & Frese 1975: 81–98; Riedinger in Damico &
Leyerle 1993: 283–312; Cavill Neophil. 77 (1993) 479–87; Orchard 2003: 291–4; cf. Peters PMLA
66 (1951) 844–63 (cf. Brodeur 1968); Schabram Nachrichten der Giessener Hochschulgesellschaft
34 (1965) 201–18, id. in Geschichtlichkeit und Neuanfang im sprachlichen Kunstwerk, ed. P.
Erlebach (Tübingen, 1981) 39–47; Calder in P. Brown et al. 1986: 115–36. See also the refs. in the
note on 769.
6
Examples: A 303, B 2995; A 333, B 1223; A 360¯ff., B 38¯ff.; A 377¯f., B 691¯f.; A 429, B 632; A
454, B 730; A 459¯f., B 572¯f.; A 497, B 218; A 553¯f., B 1842¯f.; A 622, B 3006; A 668, B 82; A 985,
B 320; A 999¯f., B 721¯f.; A 1011¯ff., B 1397, 1626¯ff.; A 1173¯ff., B 361¯ff.; A 1235¯f., B 1679, 2717,
2774, 320; A 1240¯f., B 3147, 849, 1422¯f.; A 1492¯ff., B 2542¯ff., 2716¯ff.; A 1526, B 769.
clxxvi INTRODUCTION
least in part) by the same scribe. The two poems are not as different in style or content
as might at ¢rst be supposed, given that one poem is set in ancient Assyria and the
other in ancient Scandinavia. Each poet draws vigorously on the resources of the Old
English poetic vocabulary, including terms of Christian religious signi¢cance that
function effectively in a pre-Christian environment. The Beowulf poet is less ana-
chronistic in this regard than the Judith poet, who at one point (lines 83–6a) has his Old
Testament heroine pray to the Trinity. Since the theme of beheading is featured in
Judith as it is in Beowulf, some lurid imagery provides a link between these two verse
narratives, each of which relates a heroic struggle of righteousness versus evil (see
Godfrey TSLL 35 [1993] 1–43). The hateful Holofernes (who is nerġende lāð, Jud 45b)
and the God-cursed Grendel have in common their quickness to engage in laughter in
expectation of triumph (Jud 23, Beo 730b). In each instance the villain’s glee proves to
be premature, and the audience thereby derives some satisfaction from the dramatic
irony inherent in each scene. One might add to these factors the ethnocentric impulse
whereby the Jews of Old Testament history are depicted like Germanic warriors. Thus,
despite their manifest differences of style and content, Beowulf and Judith evince such
similarities in conception that their collocation in one MS may result from more than
coincidence. Although a few scholars have thought Judith an early composition, most
assign it to the 10th century, chieÏy on the basis of the examples of late and prosaic
vocabulary to be found in it.1
Among other Old English heroic poems composed on secular themes, The Fight at
Finnsburg testi¢es to the currency of the story that the Beowulf poet presents in the
song-within-a-song performed by Hrōðgār’s scop in Heorot (1063–1159a). This narra-
tive culminates in the death of the Frisian king Finn on the second of two occasions
when ¢ghting breaks out between his men and a band of visiting Healf-Dene, including
a chieftain with the suggestive name Henġest (see 1083¯n.). Differences with regard to
the way the story is told in the two accounts are indicative of distinct generic expecta-
tions on the part of their respective audiences. Two poems that tell the same story
could scarcely do so more independently. The Finnsburg poet (in the fragment that sur-
vives) recounts a martial incident in a straightforward, stirring manner, focusing his
attention on the heroic resistance of Henġest’s men in the ¢rst of the two combats.
Characteristically, the Beowulf poet plunges us into the tragic consequences of heroic
action as perceived by the survivors of a scene of carnage. Among the mourners in
Friesland, it is Finn’s queen Hildeburh who is given center stage, thus showing the
Beowulf poet’s interest in the tragic consequence of feud for ¢gures (in Germanic
literature, more often than not women) who have ties of loyalty to both sides in the
conÏict (Phillpotts 1928). Grief and the inexorable will to avenge are what the Beowulf
poet chooses to dramatize in this episode, not fame won through high deeds. The rel-
ative date of these two works is uncertain at best (see infra, p.¯280 n.¯2).
As for Deor and the two extant fragments of Waldere (the latter in Appx.D), they
have an obvious relation to Beowulf in that they, too, derive from native heroic tradi-
tion and allude to renowned legendary ¢gures, including the master smith Wēland
(Deor 1–6, WaldA 2, B 9; cf. Beo 455), King Eormenrīċ the Goth, a grand and cruel
tyrant (Deor 21–6; cf. Beo 1200b–1a), and King Þēodrīċ (Theodoric) of Ravenna, the
Dietrich von Bern of Middle High German story (Deor 17–19; WaldB 4–7a). The exis-
tence of these poems in copies written down very close to the time when the extant text
of Beowulf was recorded is evidence of continued interest in heroic traditions (and
knowledge of them, to judge by the allusiveness of Beowulf and Deor) late in the
Anglo-Saxon period. Moreover, the leisurely narrative style of Waldere, with its long
inset speeches and its interest in the genealogy of weapons, is closely reminiscent of
the epic style of Beowulf. If the two fragments of Waldere had not happened to survive,

1
See HOEM pp.¯197, 335–6, for discussion and refs.
 DATE, ORIGINS, INFLUENCES, GENRE clxxvii
Beowulf would seem an even more isolated literary production than it now does. Still,
there is little reason to think that any of these poems directly inÏuenced the others, or
that Deor or Waldere can be used to advocate a speci¢c date for Beowulf.
Of all Old English poems, the one with the most particular aÌnities to Beowulf as
regards its legendary content is Widsith. In both these works, though in no other extant
source, the name Heorot is given to the seat of power of the kings of Denmark (Beo 78,
etc.; Wid 49). In both poems, conspicuous mention is made of the peace maintained
between Hrōðgār and Hrōðulf, two potential rivals for the Danish throne (Beo 1014b–
19; Wid 45–6). Both poets mention Inġeld, prince of the Heaðo-¯Beardan, and his war
against the Danes (Beo 2063–9a; Wid 47–9). Both speak of Breca, prince of the Brond-
ings, a ¢gure who is otherwise unknown (Beo 506, 531; Wid 25, with the Kentish or
archaic Anglian spelling Breoca). Both poets praise King Offa of Angeln in extra-
vagant terms (Beo 1955–60a, Wid 35–9), and both make undisguised reference to Eor-
menrīċ’s violent disposition (Beo 1200b–1a; Wid 8b–9a). Also worth noting is the
manner in which Swedes, Ġēatas, and Danes, the three chief nations treated in Beowulf,
are mentioned together in Wid 58. Moreover, both poets hold up as an idealized object
of admiration the traditional Germanic scop, or court singer, as an implied model for
poets of more recent times — perhaps unsurprisingly, as the poet may have wanted to
imply continuity between himself and those earlier ¢gures. There could then be some
compositional aÌnity between the two works, despite their differences of style, tone,
and genre (Widsith being a catalogue poem, not a narrative poem in any but a rudi-
mentary sense). Worth note in this connection is the (admittedly vague, and contextu-
ally quite different) verbal parallelism of Beo 311 (līxte se lēoma ofer landa fela) and
Wid 99 (Hyre lof lengde ġeond londa fela; cf. 136b: geond grunda fela). Widsith has
usually been regarded as one of the very earliest poetic compositions in Old English,
though a few scholars have identi¢ed 10th-century contexts that would have been
congenial to its composition, just as many have for Beowulf itself.1 And as with Beo-
wulf, the linguistic evidence instead favors an early date for its ¢rst commitment to
parchment.2 Thus, many of the same uncertainties and points of disagreement pertain
to the two poems, and one can hardly be used to date the other without ¢rst settling the
fundamental point of disagreement about what criteria should carry the most conviction
in regard to dating.
No conclusions can safely be drawn concerning the chronological relation of Beo-
wulf to other poems in the Old English corpus. A case has been made for the inÏuence
of Daniel on Beowulf,3 but the evidence to that effect remains less than conclusive. At
those moments when homiletic elements are introduced to the narrative, as when
Hrōðgār warns the hero of the dangers of pride and complacency (1724b–61a), the
poet’s phrasing resembles what is to be found in some Old English religious poetry
(esp. Vainglory). Such similarities need not, however, be viewed as evidence of literary
borrowing. As for the four signed poems of Cynewulf (ChristB, Jul, El, and Fates),
notwithstanding a possible imitation of the style of Beowulf in the opening lines of
Fates (Orchard 2003: 291–4) and the heroic style of the passages about Constantine’s
battle with Huns and Goths in Elene (18b–68, 105–52), these poems are the product of a

1
Thus Reynolds Le Moyen Âge 59 (1953) 299–324 (whose more fanciful arguments, however,
are countered by Malone in Nordica et Anglica, ed. A. Orrick [The Hague, 1968] 10–18); Langen-
felt Namn och Bygd 47 (1959) 70–111; and Niles PQ 78 (1999) 171–214. Joyce Hill NM 85 (1984)
305–15, while still accepting the likelihood of an early (7th-century) date of composition, considers
what the poem might have meant to readers in the 10th century, when it was written into the Exeter
Book.
2
See Fulk & Cain 2003: 219, and cf. the remark supra about the name Breoca. It is less likely
to be Kentish (there is no remarkable evidence for Kentish linguistic inÏuence on the poem) than
archaic Anglian (see OEG §§¯205, 247). Malone 1962: 112–17 also lays out linguistic reasons to
date the poem early, though not all the evidence offered is reliable.
3
Thomas MLR 8 (1913) 537–9; see note on 1700–84; see further Kl.3, pp.¯cx¯f.
clxxviii INTRODUCTION
literary sensibility distinct from what we see in Beowulf. The fact that both Cynewulf
and the Beowulf poet drew on a common pool of formulaic diction, especially when
dealing with Christian themes, does not disguise the differences between their works as
regards style, tone, religious content, and possible mode of composition.1
As regards vernacular prose, little of it has a speci¢c bearing on Beowulf. While the
homilists Ælfric and Wulfstan touch on many topics, it is striking how little relation
their writings bear to this poem. Analogues in anonymous prose sources, however,
have been suggested. Mention was made above of the similarity between the genea-
logical preface to Beowulf and the West Saxon royal genealogy found in various texts,
including some versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle sub anno 855/856. Parallels
have also been adduced between Beowulf and the prose works that precede it in the
Cotton MS. For the most part these similarities are of a general kind and may result
from no more than a common culture about monsters. The reader of Alexander’s Letter
to Aristotle whose ears are attuned to Beowulf may hear the occasional echo of a Beo-
wul¢an word, phrase, or theme (Orchard 1995: 45–7, 132–9). Since Alexander is rep-
resented as a ¢gure of overweening pride in the work that bears his name (more so in
the Old English version than in its Latin source), it is instructive to see how much more
sympathetically the prince of the Ġēatas is portrayed. More signi¢cant in its implica-
tions is an isolated parallel to Beowulf that occurs in the Blickling Homilies, an anon-
ymous collection found in a 10th-century manuscript. At the end of hom. xvi occurs a
passage (Appx.A §¯6) that is so similar, in some respects, to the Beowulf poet’s des-
cription of Grendel’s mere as to suggest a genetic relationship between these texts.
What the Beowulf poet describes is a nightmarish landscape, reminiscent of hell, that is
populated by strangely demonic creatures; what the Blickling homilist describes,
drawing on a version of the Visio S. Pauli, is the literal entrance to hell. Present in both
scenes are cliffs, icy trees, mists, descending waters, sea-serpents (or, in the homily,
devils in the form of serpents), and even a hoary (lichen-covered?) stone. While the
relationship between these texts has been debated, some scholars have seen here
another instance, analogous to the Andreas connection, of the inÏuence of the written
text of Beowulf on a clerical author, for the passage from Beowulf suits its narrative
context well, while the passage from the sermon reads like a half-connected after-
thought to the text that precedes it.2 If this inference is correct, then a version of Beo-
wulf closely resembling our poem was in existence by about the middle of the 10th
century at the latest and made an impression upon this author.3 Alternatively, the
Beowulf poet and the homilist may have drawn independently on the Visio S. Pauli
(Hoops 164, C.D. Wright 1993: 113–36). The view that the direction of inÏuence is the
opposite, and Beowulf draws upon the homily (Collins 1983), is not now generally
credited, though certain problems remain to be explained.4

1
For suggestions regarding Cynewulf’s dates and cultural milieu, see Fulk 1996, with the
important correction in Fulk & Cain 2003: 134. On arguments for Cynewulf’s authorship of all or
parts of Beowulf, see 1700–84¯n.
2
The inÏuence of Beo on this part of the sermon has been thought likely by R. Kelly, ed., The
Blickling Homilies (London, 2003) 191, as well as by Brown PMLA 53 (1938) 905–9, Brunner
Études Anglaises 7 (1954) 3–4, A. Healey, ed., The OE Vision of St. Paul (Cambridge, MA, 1978)
52, and Niles 1983: 17–19.
3
No date of composition for Blickling hom. xvi can be pinned down, however, nor can more
than an approximate date be ascribed to the collection as a whole, despite a reference to the year
971 in one of the sermons.
4
Particular objections to Collins’s argument are raised by Meaney 2003 [1989]: 23–4. Signi¢-
cantly, however, the icy trees mentioned in Beo 1363–4 are not to be found in the Visio S. Pauli;
yet the homilist certainly did rely on the Visio, as he refers speci¢cally to St. Paul. For this reason,
too, it must be doubted that the homilist and the poet drew independently on general homiletic
conventions, without speci¢c reference to the Visio (Tristram NM 79 [1978] 111). For further
parallels to the Blickling and other homilies, see Hasenfratz LSE 21 (1990) 45–69.
 DATE, ORIGINS, INFLUENCES, GENRE clxxix
Far less attention has been paid to possible parallels between Beowulf and Anglo-
Latin writings of the period.1 A number of commentators, however, have been struck
by certain similarities between Beowulf and the anonymous Liber monstrorum (usually
thought to have been composed in England ca. A.D. 700, though its dating has been
debated). The most striking parallel is the Liber’s reference to King Higlacus of the
Getae, who was killed by the Franks, but some other parallels are of interest, especially
mention of venom so powerful that it will melt the blade of a sword (Appx.A § 17).
The usual thought, under the assumption that Beowulf is of early date, has been that a
version of the vernacular poem inÏuenced the Latin text.2 But some have concluded
that the nature of the relationship between the two works cannot be identi¢ed with any
certainty, or that there is no direct relation between them.3 It is quite possible that they
draw independently on Germanic traditions and other early medieval lore. At all
events, in the present state of scholarship, reasons do not seem suÌcient to compel any
conclusion about the precise manner in which the two works might be connected.
Examination of Beowulf in relation to other literary works of the Anglo-Saxon
period thus suggests that the poet was working within a con¢dent tradition of vernac-
ular verse that was by no means isolated from the general learning of his time.

Conclusions about Date and Place of Composition

Current critical opinions about the date of the poem’s composition vary widely, espe-
cially among historians and literary scholars, who in recent years have found reasons
for associating a poem of this kind with periods of Anglo-Saxon history ranging from
the middle of the seventh century to the second or third decade of the eleventh. There is
considerably less disagreement among linguists, who with few exceptions favor a date
before the onset of the Viking Age. The nearly uniform preponderance of the linguistic
evidence favors an early date of composition, most plausibly in the ¢rst half of the
eighth century. Later dates (or, within limits, earlier ones) are by no means impossible,
but greater and greater linguistic improbabilities loom the further removed from that
period the poem is assumed to have been composed. Archaeologists, too, have tended
to favor this earlier period, though with justi¢able caution.
Likewise in regard to place of composition, historical and literary considerations
admit a wide range of possibilities. In recent years, areas formerly regarded as improb-
able have been advocated, so that now seemingly no part of Anglo-Saxon England can
be ruled out conclusively. By contrast, the linguistic evidence, which is much stronger
for localization than for dating, favors the assumption that the poem was ¢rst recorded
in an Anglian dialect, more likely Mercian than Northumbrian, even though the
language of the present copy is, like that of nearly all preserved Old English poetry,

1
On numerous Latin inÏuences, see Schrader Am. Benedictine Rev. 31 (1980) 39–69. On paral-
lels to Aldhelm, see Cook 1922, id. MLN 39 (1924) 77–82, ibid. 40 (1925) 137–42; Lapidge 1982;
Sorrell Parergon 12 (1994) 57–87. On parallels to Bede, see McGalliard in Life & Thought in the
Early Middle Ages, ed. R. Hoyt (Minneapolis, 1967) 101–21; Helder Eng. Studies in Canada 13
(1987) 243–55. On parallels to Alcuin, see Bolton 1978; Crépin in Genèse de la conscience
moderne, ed. R. Ellrodt (Paris, 1983) 51–60. On resemblances to early saints’ lives, see Oshitari in
Stud. in Eng. Philology and Ling. in Honour of Dr. Tamotsu Matsunami (Tokyo, 1984) 221–32;
Meaney 2003 [1989]: 43–50.
2
On the possible inÏuence of a version of Beowulf on the Liber monstrorum, see Whitbread MS
36 (1974) 465; similar views are expressed by F. Porsia, ed., Liber monstrorum (Bari, 1976) and C.
Bologna, ed., Liber monstrorum de diversis generibus (Milan, 1977; cf. Knock MÆ 48 [1979] 259–
62); Princi Braccini Studi medievali 3rd ser. 25 (1984) 681–720.
3
Whitelock 1951: 53, Goldsmith 1970: 98–9, Lapidge 1982: 177, Orchard 1995: 109–15. Sisam
1953: 288–90 ¢nds in the reference to Higlacus in the Liber monstrorum important evidence that,
as regards their knowledge of heroic legend, the Anglo-Saxons were not insulated from post-
settlement continental inÏuences.
clxxx INTRODUCTION
predominantly late West Saxon, with an admixture of features characteristic of other
dialects (see Lang. §§¯28–30).
The value of all the various sorts of evidence proposed in regard to identifying both
the poem’s date and place of composition is of course quite uneven. In the present state
of scholarship, the lack of a scholarly consensus would in fact appear to depend less on
the volume of evidence available than on scholarly disagreement about the relative
weight to be attached to the varieties of evidence.

ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE POEM INTO ITS PRESENT STATE

Since many of the speci¢c scenes, incidents, and personages that ¢gure in the poem
lack parallels elsewhere, they may be original inventions (Benson 1970). On the other
hand, while the poem’s setting should not be confused with any real-world location, its
initial action is ¢rmly located in Denmark. In this regard, archaeology has revealed a
striking parallel to the scenes called to mind by the Beowulf poet, for as the result of
excavations undertaken in 1986–8 and 2004–6, the remains of two Iron Age and Viking
Age hall complexes have been discovered at the village of Gammel Lejre, 8 km south-
west of Roskilde, Zealand.1 The earliest hall was built ca. A.D. 550 and may have been
occupied for a hundred years or so. Two additional halls, built in succession to each
other on the same site one-half km south of the ¢rst, were constructed ca. 660 and 880,
respectively. The royal settlement at Lejre (for such it almost surely was) ceased to be
occupied close to the year 1000. Each of these halls (which measured between 47 and
48.5 m long and between 8.5 and 11.5 m wide) was among the largest buildings of its
era in southern Scandinavia (see ¢g.¯4); moreover, no halls nearly as large are known
from Anglo-Saxon England. As has long been known, Lejre is the place where medi-
eval chroniclers, poets, and saga writers agree in locating the seat of power of the
legendary Skj∂ldung dynasty of Danish kings (Cha.Intr. 16–20; cf. Appx.A §§¯7.2, 8,
10, 11.2, 11.3, 11.6, 12). These kings, with some differences of nomenclature and
chronology, are the same as the Scylding kings who are celebrated in the ¢rst part of
Beowulf, including Hrōðgār as their latter-day representative. The hall that the Beowulf
poet refers to by the name Heorot, therefore, had a historical counterpart at Lejre,
though no one can say just who the actual kings or chieftains were who ruled and
maintained their residence there. Knowledge of the existence of these hall complexes,
plus a major 7th-century cremation mound,2 at the very place where the action of the
Danish episodes of Beowulf has long been located on the basis of independent literary
evidence, cannot help but affect one’s reading of Part I of the poem. It is perhaps too
soon to say whether such knowledge can help to clarify the poem’s Scandinavian
aÌnities.3

1
T. Christensen Lejre: Syn og sagn (Roskilde, 1991), Jnl. of Danish Archaeology 10 (1991)
163–85, and R.-L.2 18.248–54; J. Jensen Danmarks oldtid, IV (Copenhagen, 2004) 310–16; Hed-
eager in The New Cambridge Medieval History, I, ed. P. Fouracre (Cambridge, 2005) 522; Niles
2007a. The last-named publication includes an English translation of Lejre: Syn og sagn (at pp.¯13–
101) plus a report by Christensen on the most recent excavations (at pp.¯109–26).
2
The mound named Grydehøj, the largest of its era in southern Scandinavia; this was built up
over charred remains dating from ca. 630–50; see S. Andersen Aarbøger for nordisk oldkyndighed
og historie 1993: 7–142, re¢ning the conclusions of H. Andersen in Nationalmuseets arbejdsmark
(Copenhagen, 1960) 13–35; for select English translations of both studies, see Niles 2007a: 129–38
and 143–57, respectively.
3
Niles 2007a: 212–27 develops a dual hypothesis that a cycle of heroic legends about the
Skj∂ldung kings was cultivated at the second hall site after the abandonment of the ¢rst, and that
some such legends thereafter migrated to Britain (where they were shaped into a form that the
English would have found politically and religiously signi¢cant) in the company of Viking Age
adventurers or settlers. Shippey in the same volume (469–79) argues that the migration of such
legends could just as well have predated the Viking Age. Given how recently the latest evidence
 DATE, ORIGINS, INFLUENCES, GENRE clxxxi
A set of seven Anglo-Saxon charters of various dates1 are of possible signi¢cance
with regard to the poem’s development (as well as its folkloric aÌnities), for in each of
them the name Grendel or Grindel ¢gures as an element of local toponyms (Appx.A
§¯5).2 These place-names, many of them pertaining to Wessex and the south of West
Mercia, almost all designate a pool, mire, or other body of water. A Wiltshire charter
pertaining to the year 931, in particular, makes tantalizing reference to a Grendles mere
located close by a place called Bēowan hamm. While these Grendel names are attached
to no story and therefore have no indisputable signi¢cance for Beowulf studies,
Lapidge concludes that by the 10th century at the latest, and perhaps much earlier, the
Anglo-Saxons in these regions were naming bogs and pools ‘after someone or some-
thing called Grendel’ (1982: 183). Since the name ‘Grendel’ is otherwise almost
unknown, these documents can, not improbably, be taken as signs of a native English
element in the story materials of Beowulf — one that is particularly associated with the
hero’s ¢rst great adversary, characterized as a creature of the fens and moors.
The role of oral tradition in the prehistory of Beowulf has naturally attracted atten-
tion, seeing that the poet’s con¢dent style of narration relies on formulaic techniques of
the kind that facilitate the art of composition in oral performance.3 This is an art that
depends not on rote memorization, but on the singer’s ability, within limits, to compose
a fresh version of a work in each performance. The plot remains the same, and some
lines or passages may be repeated intact, but the manner in which the story’s elements
are drawn out by epic ampli¢cation — or foreshortened to make a quick end — may
differ from occasion to occasion, depending on the audience’s interest and the singer’s
energy or hope of reward. It is to be understood, in any case, that in a society such as
that of Anglo-Saxon England, where much knowledge was disseminated by oral means
and through face-to-face encounters, an audience would not normally have experienced
a heroic poem as a ¢xed text such as we ¢nd in the Cotton MS. This explains some
marked differences between modern and early medieval literary attitudes, accounting
for, among other things, the anonymity of most Old English poems and the tendency of
some scribes to recompose poems as they copied them.4 Since the material, rather than

from Lejre has come to light, it is to be expected that yet other hypotheses may be advanced in
coming years to account for its bearing on the prehistory of Beowulf.
1
The dates on the faces of these documents range from the early 8th century to the late 10th,
though none of the sets of bounds in them that contain the relevant names necessarily antedates the
10th century.
2
Cf. Cha.Intr. 304–10, Whitelock 1951: 72–5, Lapidge 1982: 179–84. Lapidge calls attention
also to a place in Cornwall called Greencombe. In the earliest attestation of the name, in a
document of 1339, it is called Gryndeliscombe, with similar spellings in somewhat later sources.
3
The classic formulation of the theory of composition-in-performance is by Lord (1960),
building on research by M. Parry later assembled in The Making of Homeric Verse, ed. A Parry
(Oxford, 1971). For Anglo-Saxonists, the substantial literature on this topic includes studies by
Magoun 1953, Creed ELH 26 (1959) 445–54, Fry ES 48 (1967) 193–204, Niles 1983: 121–37 and
1999, Renoir 1988, and Sorrell OT 7 (1992) 28–65. Two overviews of oral literary studies, with
bibliographies, have been provided by Foley (Oral-Formulaic Theory & Research [New York,
1985], Theory of Oral Composition [Bloomington, 1988]); see, more recently, Orchard in O’Brien
O’Keeffe 1997: 101–23, Amodio 2004: 33–78. The more mechanical aspects of oral-formulaic
criticism have been subject to critique at various times, e.g. by Watts The Lyre & the Harp (New
Haven, 1969) and Russom SP 75 (1978) 371–90. For Anglo-Saxonists, the research of Lord (1960;
cf. id., The Singer Resumes the Tale [Ithaca, 1995]), Opland (1980), Foley (1990, 1991, and The
Singer of Tales in Performance [Bloomington, 1995]), and Reichl (2000) is of the ¢rst importance
in the light of these scholars’ expertise in both OE studies and one or another branch of
ethnography.
4
On the last point, see supra, pp.¯clxiii¯f. The implications of anonymous, communal textual
production in a society like that of AS England have been explored by Pasternack 1995, w. refs. to
a wider theoretical literature. Cf. Swan in A Companion to AS Literature, ed. P. Pulsiano & E.
Treharne (Oxford, 2001) 71–83.
clxxxii INTRODUCTION
its speci¢c form, was what constituted the poem, the scop was less an auteur than a
conduit for the tradition, and he accordingly was unlikely to claim right of ownership.
Of course, the art of singers of tales can be absorbed or imitated by learned persons
(Benson 1966). The Beowulf poet could have been a well-educated author who shaped
the text in accord with his literate sensibilities, drawing on oral-traditional models as he
did so. For our purposes it is not necessary to draw a ¢rm line between these different
models of authorship. Whoever the poet was, he could not have fabricated the main
features of his narrative out of nothing, nor did he necessarily prize novelty over the
judicious synthesis of conventional elements. He alludes to a number of people and
events from the realm of Germanic legend as if they were already familiar to his
audience. In like manner, he refers familiarly to stories from the Book of Genesis, as if
they required no explanation: Cain and Abel, the giants who provoked God’s wrath, the
Ïood.1 The unique amalgam of features that the poem thus represents discourages
narrow views about the degree to which the work might be called oral or literate.
Ethnographic examples are abundant, in our own era, of poets who, though oftentimes
limited in their formal education, absorb the dominant culture of their age and convert
it into admirable verse.2 Examples are also known of persons, raised in an oral culture
and steeped in its lore, who at some point in their lives master the technology of script
and use it for literary purposes.3 Such examples make unnecessary the a priori assump-
tion that the author of a splendid early medieval work must have been either an un-
lettered singer or, on the other hand, a learned cleric.
The dual character of the poem — its blending of art and convention — can best be
accounted for by postulating an author who synthesized many kinds of knowledge and
skills while developing a long narrative set in the Scandinavian past. There must at one
time have existed a core story that resembled our poem but was a good deal simpler. At
some unknown point in time — it is impossible to say when — the dragon ¢ght was
added to the ‘two-troll’ story. Concurrently, the story came to feature a hero whose life
pursues a complex trajectory: someone who is not just an indomitable warrior in his
youth, but also a tragic ¢gure who meets his death as the result of a desperate venture
in his later years. At some point the English names Grendel and Bēowulf were added
(or some earlier form of these), together with the names of some supporting characters.
Details relating to Swedish dynastic history were introduced, and King Hyġelāc’s death
in the Rhineland was developed into a leitmotif. Characters were ¢lled out, speeches
added, descriptive passages introduced or expanded, and incidents drawn out to epic
proportion. A mood of deep melancholy came to permeate what was now, in its last
part, the tale of ‘the fall of the house of Bēowulf.’ Most signi¢cantly, the tale was
infused with Christian lore and doctrine to the point that its young hero, though un-
aware of it, serves as an agent of divine will, while Grendel embodies satanic evil.
Somewhere in the latter part of this process we are in the presence of the Beowulf
poet. Conceivably, this person perfected his work over some years, though no more
than one version of it has survived. Perhaps it would not be far wrong to think of
Beowulf as, in large measure, the creation of an unusually capable and creative poet

1
Whitelock 1951: 5 points out that the allusion to the race of giants depends not just on
knowledge of the Bible but on the interpretation in commentaries. In them originates the identi-
¢cation of the giants of Gen. 6: 4 with ‘the progeny of the union of the descendants of Seth with
those of Cain, a union thought to be implied’ in Gen. 6: 2.
2
See n.¯2 on the next page (the examples of Međedović and Rureke). For an overview of such
makers, see Harvilahti in Folklore: An Encyclopedia, I, ed. T. Green (Santa Barbara, 1997) 84–9,
s.v. ‘Bard.’
3
An example is the Montenegran prince-bishop Petar Petrović Njegoš II, who composed heroic
verse in the traditional oral manner in his youth and, later in life, became a fully literary poet (see
Lord in Oral Tradition in Literature, ed. J. Foley [Columbia, 1986] 19–64). Kendall (1991: 2–5)
offers an imaginary portrait of the Beo poet as just such a transitional ¢gure, born into the aristoc-
racy before entering a monastery later in life.
 DATE, ORIGINS, INFLUENCES, GENRE clxxxiii
who chose to work in a style that evokes the feeling of awe that attends matters of
considerable antiquity, drawing on handed-down lore as he did so (Tolkien 1936). This
seems likely regardless of whether the poem, more or less as we have it, was composed
early or late in the Anglo-Saxon period.
Related to the question of the originality of Beowulf is the question how a text of this
character came to be preserved in writing, especially during a period when parchment
was normally reserved for texts of more obvious utility to the religious houses in which
they were made. When literacy meets orality and a poet trained in an oral tradition is
enlisted in an effort to record a prized work in writing, the result may be superior,
when judged by literary standards, to the words of an ordinary performance,1 for the
text is meant for the eyes of posterity. Inevitably, in such a process, the transmutation
from audible word to visible script involves editorial improvements. In the modern
period, texts of epic length that have resulted from this kind of literary patronage have
tended to be well-organized literary productions.2 Meter may be smoothed out, errors
may be corrected, and some inconsistencies eliminated (though others may remain).
Works that are never performed aloud except in episodic fashion might be published as
whole narratives with their constituent elements set into a logical order (Clover 1986;
Foley 1991). The result of this process of textualization may be a hybrid form of lit-
erature that is neither oral nor written in the usual sense. Through such means, the
substance of an oral literature is preserved for future generations, and yet what is
recorded in writing is never the same as what listeners have previously heard.
Regardless of whether the text of Beowulf results from a process of oral dictation
(much as the narrative works of Cædmon are said to have been taken down) or is the
work of a learned member of the clergy who wrote about the Germanic past in an
antiquarian spirit not free from nostalgia, patronage is likely to have been required, if
only because parchment was, in terms of labor, an expensive medium, and someone of
high standing had to authorize its use. A point worth keeping in mind is that where
there is literary patronage, there is also the opportunity for a work to be augmented
and, to a signi¢cant extent, transformed (perhaps by the author himself) in the process
of its textualization, thereby becoming more nearly epic in manner than would other-
wise be the case.

SCANDINAVIAN, CELTIC, AND CLASSICAL INFLUENCES

If, in addition to being set in Denmark, Beowulf is ultimately of Danish origins, then
one would expect to ¢nd traces of that Scandinavian connection embedded in the
poem. The poem’s Scandinavian geography is presented in such general terms, how-
ever, as to discourage efforts to relate it to real-world locales, despite occasional at-
tempts along such lines.3 The poet speci¢es that the lands of the Danes, the Ġēatas, and
the Swedes are separated from one another by bodies of water (note, in addition to the
two sea voyages, ofer s® sōhton 2380a and ofer s® sīde 2394a, and see 2394¯n.). In the

1
Lord Trans. of the Amer. Phil. Assn. 84 (1953) 124–34; Niles Jnl. of Am. Folklore 106 (1993)
131–55.
2
An example from Scandinavia is the Finnish Kalevala, which had multiple singers and a
single collector (E. Lönnrot) who combined the roles of scribe, compiler, and editor. An example
from the Balkans (referred to supra) is The Wedding of Smailagić Meho, a work recorded from the
dictation of the illiterate singer Avdo Međedović, who was encouraged to draw it out in his
grandest style (Međedović The Wedding of Smailagić Meho, tr. A. Lord [Cambridge, MA, 1974]).
An example from sub-Saharan Africa is the Mwindo Epic, as recorded by D. Biebuyck from the
performer Shé-kárįsį Rureke, who normally performed this narrative only in discrete episodes, not
as a continuous work of epic proportions (D. Biebuyck and M. Kahombo The Mwindo Epic from
the Banyanga [Berkeley, 1971]).
3
E.g. D. Haigh The AS Sagas (London, 1861); Sarr.St., BGdSL 11 (1886) 159–83; Overing &
Osborn Landscape of Desire (Minneapolis, 1994) 1–38.
clxxxiv INTRODUCTION
absence of more speci¢c details, however, what seems to be represented is a stylized
epic landscape rather than a sharply visualized topographic one. That the coasts of both
Denmark and Geatland are distinguished by cliffs (222–3a, 230a; 1910–11a) may pertain
to no more than epic convention, since most of the shores of southern Scandinavia are
unimposing. The situation of the Danish royal hall a short distance inland (301–8;
compare the similar location of the royal hall in the hero’s homeland, 1921b–4) accords
both with the normal situation of Iron Age centers of power in Scandinavia, Lejre
among them, and with narrative economy. As for the hall Heorot in and around which
the action of much of the poem is located, it is like an actual Iron Age hall and yet
idealized, with its high gables, gilded benches, and resplendent exterior. Much the
same is true of the landscape of Grendel’s mere when considered in relation to any
real-world geography. While the existence of a hummocky post-glacial landscape of
pools, hills, and woods a short walk west of Lejre may be thought to strengthen the
inference that the poet’s story about hall-hauntings has its geographical origin there
(Niles 2007a: 217–21), the horri¢c landscape that the poet evokes in lines 1357b–76a
and 1408–17a owes more to early medieval conceptions of hell than to anyone’s obser-
vation of nature.
The funerals that ¢gure so prominently in the poem are of interest not only for their
literary function (Owen-Crocker 2000) but also in regard to possible Scandinavian in-
Ïuences. Great pagan funerals from an earlier period, such as the ones that took place
in the mid-7th century at Taplow, Sutton Hoo, and Lejre, could have been remembered
by their respective peoples long enough to inÏuence the poet’s conception of such
rites. In addition, if Beowulf is of late date, the poet could have modeled his accounts of
funerals on heathen ceremonies of the types practiced by vikings in the British Isles
and elsewhere. Moreover, the poet may have been inÏuenced by literary sources such
as the anonymous Vita I S. Gildae or Jordanes’ account of the funeral of Attila
(Appx.A §§¯18 and 16, respectively).1
As noted supra, attempts to detect Norse elements in the language of Beowulf have
produced interesting parallels rather than proof of inÏuence. There are no undoubted
Scandinavian loan-words such as are to be found, for example, in the late poems Mal-
don and Brunanburh.2 Also as remarked supra (p.¯clxxi), inimical to the assumption of
Viking Age origins for the material of the poem is the observation that the names of the
characters in Beowulf are uniformly English, even if the persons themselves are of
Danish, Swedish, Geatish, or other nationality. Thus, importantly, we hear of Hyġelāc
rather than ON Hugleikr or Dano-Latin Huglecus (or some variant of that spelling), and
of Hrōðgār and Hrōðulf rather than ON Hróarr and Hrólfr, respectively. Especially
since what we are told about these latter two persons in Beowulf and Widsith differs
markedly from what we ¢nd in Scandinavian sources, these name-forms must pertain
to an independent insular tradition. Native, too, are the terms þyle (1165, 1456, corres-
ponding to OIcel. þulr: see 499–661¯n.) and hæftmēċe (1457, designating a weapon
corresponding in narrative function to one called a heptisax in Grettis saga: see
1457¯n.), so that in form, at least, they do not raise suspicions of late Danish inÏuence.
Likewise, although the verbal dueling of Bēowulf and Ūnferð has remarkable parallels
in Scandinavian and other traditions (see 449–661¯n.), we cannot be certain that such
practices were otherwise unknown to the Anglo-Saxons. The killing of Herebeald by
Hæðcyn seems to bear some relation to the myth of Baldr’s slaying at the hand of
H∂ðr, as related in Snorra Edda (Appx.A §¯8), particularly given the etymological cor-
respondences between the names. There is, however, no scholarly consensus regarding
whether the poem here presents a historicized a myth (the usual assumption; see pp.

1
On the former, see 4–52¯n.; on the latter, Kl. PMLA 42 (1927) 255–67, and cf. Schröder ZfdA
59 (1921–2) 240–4.
2
Some possible examples are discussed supra, p.¯clxx & n.¯6. On nordicisms in Maldon, see
Robinson JEGP 75 (1976) 25–8; in Brunanburh, see Frank 1981: 123–4.
 DATE, ORIGINS, INFLUENCES, GENRE clxxxv
xlvii¯f.), whether the myth derives from a historical incident such as that described in
Beowulf 2435–43, or whether such a myth might have circulated from early times in
both England and Scandinavia. Of the many saga analogues that have been suggested
(see pp. xxxviii¯ff.), only Grettis saga and Hrólfs saga kraka have captured the imagi-
nation of many readers of Beowulf, and yet even the parallels that they furnish have not
been universally approved (T.M. Andersson 1997: 133).
In the earlier years of Beowulf criticism, Celtic inÏuence on the poem was generally
thought to be negligible. A strict adherence to that attitude may obstruct a balanced
assessment of the complex cultural milieu in which the poem arose, one in which
Germanic, Celtic, and Latin elements all had a role to play, as did both ecclesiastical
and folkloric inÏuences. A Celtic element in the main narrative has been discerned in
the motif of ‘The Hand and the Child’ that has been thought to underlie that part of the
Grendel episode in which the monster’s arm is torn off (Appx.A §¯20.2).1 The resem-
blance here, of course, is more in the realm of imagery than plot, and yet the closest
folktale analogues to Beowulf feature a combination of this imagery and the ‘two-troll’
sequence that is of more widespread occurrence in northern Europe, and this fusion of
elements is best documented in Irish sources (pp. xxxvi¯ff. supra). Many other possible
instances of the poet’s debt to Irish or British models have been identi¢ed by Puhvel
1979, as is noted here and there in the Commentary, though some of the examples
proposed (such as the hero’s swimming prowess, his encounters with underwater mon-
sters, and the corrosive power of blood) could no doubt be paralleled fairly widely in
the world’s folk literature.2 As for Celtic inÏuence on the religious content of the poem,
Irish theological inÏuence has been traced (as has been noted supra, p.¯lxix n.¯4)3 in the
peculiarity whereby at least some of the pagan characters in the poem have an intuitive
knowledge of the one true God and do not seem sundered from the prospect of sal-
vation.4 Grendel’s descent from monsters of Cain’s seed who survived Noah’s Ïood
has been identi¢ed as another possible point of Irish inÏuence, one that rests on the
authority of Isidore of Seville.5 Of interest in relation to the question why a poem of
this kind was recorded in writing at all is the fact that a model for the production of
poetic texts dealing with early Northern heroic history was available to the Anglo-
Saxons as early as the seventh century in the form of the Irish sagas (Dumville 1981:
119–20). Granted that all these possible lines of inÏuence must be scrutinized with
care,6 the Irish parallels to Beowulf provide a signi¢cant complement to the Scandina-
vian ones.
As for inÏuences from classical texts (as opposed to devotional works, inclujding,
naturally, the Bible, the impact of which is much more particularly to be discerned),
the greatest share of attention has naturally been concentrated on Virgil’s Aeneid as the
source from which the Beowulf poet is most likely to have derived the concept of a
heroic poem on such a grand scale. A number of speci¢c parallels between the two
works have been cited, suggesting that the later poet may in some degree be indebted

1
See pp.¯xxxvii¯ff. supra, and for discussion, Scowcroft 1999.
2
See the notes on 512bf., 499–661, 1495bff., and 1605bff. Also to be mentioned in this connec-
tion is Sayers’s attempt to connect the terror (gryre) inspired by the Grendel creatures (Grendel’s
mother, in particular) with female ¢gures of panic in early Irish saga literature: Proceedings of the
Harvard Celtic Colloquium: Colloquia 16 and 17, ed. K. Chadbourne et al. (2003) 256–68.
3
The inÏuence of Celtic Christianity on the poem’s unknown author is not, after all,
improbable, given how wide-ranging and, in some regions, how deep such inÏuence was on the
Anglo-Saxons in general; see Blair 2005: 43–9, w. refs.
4
See Donahue 1949–51, 1965; Cronan 2007; see also the note on 111¯f.
5
Carney 1955: 102–14; cf. Crawford MLR 23 (1928) 207¯f., and see note on 111¯f. The
comparison that Carney draws between Beowulf and the Irish Táin Bó Fraích, however, has
garnered no more support than Deutschbein’s earlier argument (GRM 1 [1909] 103–19) for the
inÏuence of Fled Bricrenn: cf. Olson MP 11.1 (1913) 1–21.
6
A point that is emphasized by Dumville 1981 and Scowcroft 1999, among others.
clxxxvi INTRODUCTION
to the earlier one.1 The notable and important similarities between these two works,
however, may chieÏy have to do with their shared sense of ‘many-storied antiquity’
and ‘stern and noble melancholy’ (Tolkien 1936: 291 n.¯21), together with their
evocative ‘epic scenery’ (A. Renoir Harvard Eng. Stud. 5 [1974] 147–60, T.M. Anders-
son Early Epic Scenery [Ithaca, 1976]). It is arguable that the fame of the Aeneid was
such as to inspire an Anglo-Saxon poet (at the behest of a patron?) to embark upon the
project of writing down a more ambitious vernacular poem on a secular theme than
seems otherwise to have been recorded, though the recording of Old Irish saga lit-
erature at an early period could have served as a similar sort of inspiration.
Other Latin texts of the classical tradition have occasionally been mined for paral-
lels, including Seneca, Silius Italicus, Ovid, and Virgil’s Georgics for the description of
Grendel’s mere;2 the Latin Apollonius of Tyre for various scenes of greeting in 356–
628, including Ūnferð’s reception of the hero;3 and Statius’s Thebaid for the account of
Bēowulf’s funeral.4 Even Homer has been invoked, not just as a source of parallels, but
as a possible inÏuence — though such arguments have gained few adherents in view of
the general unlikelihood that the Iliad and the Odyssey were known in Anglo-Saxon
England.5

GENRE AND AUDIENCE

As regards its genre, Beowulf is very near to being unique among the extant Anglo-
Saxon records (the two fragments of Waldere not constituting a substantial enough
body of verse for ¢rm comparisons to be drawn). The term ‘epic,’ though habitually
used of Beowulf, has little to recommend it other than convenience, for the poem is
quite unlike the major Western works of that genre from Homer to Milton (Tolkien
1936). The term ‘national epic’ that, with patriotic enthusiasm, has sometimes been
applied to such works as the Chanson de Roland and the Nibelungenlied is manifestly
inapplicable to Beowulf, seeing that this English poem is set entirely in Scandinavia,
while the fame of people of English ethnicity is worked in only obliquely. The generic
term ‘heroic history’ (Hanning 1974) calls attention to the way that, in an oral culture
such as the early Germanic world, there may be no ‘history’ distinguishable from ver-
sions of the past conveyed exclusively by heroic traditions, with the result that the dis-
tinction that we may be inclined to draw between the historical and the fabulous ele-
ments of the poem perhaps would not have made sense. Emphasizing the work’s mel-
ancholic character, Tolkien (1936) speaks of it as a ‘heroic-elegiac poem,’ a term that is
expressive of the lyrical and philosophical turn taken in the poem’s latter part, as well
as in many individual passages in the portion set in Denmark. In a similar manner, the
action of the poem’s last great episode, the dragon ¢ght, has been described as ‘heroic

1
See esp. Kl. Archiv 126 (1911) 40–8, T. Haber A Comparative Study of the Beowulf & the
Aeneid (Princeton, 1931), Brandl Archiv 171 (1937) 161–73, Trnka Poetica 12 (1981) 150–6; also
Kl. PMLA 42 (1927) 263–7, id. Archiv 187 (1950) 71¯f., ibid. 188 (1951) 109, Schlauch Eng. Med.
Lit. (Warsaw, 1956) 36–50, Takayanagi SEL 37 (1961) 149–63, A. Campbell 1971, Frank in
O’Brien O’Keeffe & Orchard 2005: 1.414; cf. H. Chadwick 1912: 73–6, Girvan MLR 27 (1932)
466–70, Hulbert PMLA 66 (1951) 1168–76, Nist College Eng. 24 (1963) 257–62, Niles 1983: 78–9,
Harris Neophil. 74 (1990) 596, and esp. T.M. Andersson 1997: 139–41, w. further refs. Many other
studies, esp. in more recent years, draw parallels without positing direct inÏuence. Particular paral-
lels are remarked in the notes on 90–8, 499–661 (p.¯150 n.¯2), 569¯ff., 599b–600a, 1322¯ff., 1357¯ff.,
1368–72, 1386¯ff., 1392¯ff., 1409¯f., 1605¯ff., 2041, 2105¯ff., 2595, 2802¯ff., 3137¯ff.
2
Cook MLN 17 (1902) 209–10, ibid. 22 (1907) 146–7.
3
Chapman MLN 46 (1931) 439–43.
4
Schrader CL 24 (1972) 237–59.
5
The chief proponent of Homeric inÏuence was Cook; see the refs. provided by T.M. Anders-
son 1997: 138–9. Homeric parallels are observed in the notes on 189¯f., 208¯ff., 461b–2, 2497¯f.,
2802¯ff., 3018¯f., 3137¯ff.
 DATE, ORIGINS, INFLUENCES, GENRE clxxxvii
tragedy.’1 That term, however, can scarcely be applied to the poem as a whole, which
tends to elude classi¢cation because of its unique conjunction of exuberance and pessi-
mism. Some of the poem’s elements, and particularly the monsters, are more plausibly
to be referred to romance than to epic.2 Indeed, the inÏuential argument has been ad-
vanced that the manuscript containing the poem was designed as a collection devoted
to monsters.3 An attractive case has also been made for considering Beowulf as lying
outside all genres, even the epic, and as representing a kind of summa litterarum
encompassing any number of the literary genres or subgenres of the poet’s day, in-
cluding gnomic verse, elegiac verse, heroic lay, Ïyting, and funeral lament.4
Yet epos remains a useful term for the study of Beowulf¯’s form. Rather than refer-
ring to a genre de¢ned by comparison to classical examples, this term designates the
more elaborate forms of Beowulf and the Nibelungenlied that are still widely assumed
to have developed out of the presumed standard short form of early Germanic oral
literature, the lay.5 It may well be, as it has often been thought, that the inspiration for
this process of developing such a longer form was chieÏy the Aeneid. And yet, it has
been pointed out, it is not necessary to look so far a¢eld, since Old English Bibelepik
(Genesis, Exodus, Daniel, and Judith) and versi¢ed saints’ lives (Andreas, Elene, the
two Guthlac poems, and Juliana) may have provided the model for such a long
composition as Beowulf.6 Moreover, most of the biblical poems are generally agreed to
be roughly as old as Beowulf, if not older. The obvious and important differences be-
tween Beowulf and these overtly religious works should not stand in the way of our
seeing the author as someone whose talent ran toward expansive narrative poetry
infused with both Christian and heroic sentiments. If such works did inÏuence the poet,
their chief contribution seems to have been in regard to the larger scope of the project,
since Beowulf stands quite apart from these in regard to its eclectic, allusive, and
digressive style of narration (see J. Harris 2000: 163).
All in all, there is no need to insist upon crisp generic de¢nitions, offered up in the
language of present-day literary criticism, when approaching an example of Anglo-
Saxon verse that resists approach except on its own terms. In the ¢rst three lines, the
poet announces his subject in a forthright manner: it is the glory of the kings of the
Danes in days gone by. As ¢tt gives way to ¢tt, that opening provides entry to a com-
plex narrative involving fantasy and adventure, exultant triumph and deep loss. While
the de¢ning phrase ‘long heroic poem set in the antique Northern past’ may lack ele-
gance, perhaps there is no more adequate way to describe this particular enterprise.
Scholars have naturally wondered what kind of audience or textual community
should be hypothesized for a work of such a nature.7 In earlier years, the poem was

1
Green¢eld Neophil. 47 (1963) 211–17.
2
See, e.g., Breizmann MLN 113 (1998) 1022–35, Stanley 1998a, A. Lee 1998: 19, 48–52 et
passim.
3
Lawrence 1928: 14, Sisam RES o.s. 10 (1934) 342; id. 1953: 65–8, Taylor & Salus NM 69
(1968) 199–204, Brynteson Res Publica Litterarum 5 (1982) 41–57. Crépin 1998 argues that the
book is a collection of adventure tales. Orchard 1995: 1–27 sees in the book a dual focus on the
monstrous and the activities of overweening pagan warriors from the distant past, while Powell
RES 57 (2006) 1–15 regards the contents of the codex as reÏecting, as well, an interest in mon-
strous and foreign aggression seen as a problem for rulers.
4
J. Harris PCP 17 (1982) 16–23, id. 2000, and id. in Gudar på jorden, ed. S. Hansson & M.
Malm (Stockholm, 2000) 322–38.
5
For an overview, and on rede¢ning epic this way, see Beck R.-L.2 7.423–8; also J. Harris
2000: 162. Contemporary work in this area takes as its point of departure the views of A. Heusler
Lied und Epos in germ. Sagendichtung (Dortmund, 1905).
6
Such is the view of T.M. Andersson Preface to the Nibelungenlied (Stanford, 1987) 21, 26.
7
B. Stock (The Implications of Literacy [Princeton, 1983], Listening for the Text [Baltimore,
1990]) uses the term ‘textual community’ to refer to a group of people who not only make books
and read them, but also talk about the content of books whether or not books are present. The term
clxxxviii INTRODUCTION
generally assumed to pertain to a court culture. Schücking (1929a) conceived of it as a
kind of mirror for princes. Whitelock (1951: 19–22) resisted the notion that the poem
was intended solely for a clerical audience, maintaining instead that it was composed
for lay persons quite knowledgeable about their religion. Wormald (1978: 52–7) pro-
posed that the poem was produced at one of the many Eigenkirchen, or family min-
sters, sustained by the nobility, that were a feature of 7th- and 8th-century England.
Busse and Holtei (1981: 328–9), postulating a later date for the poem, argue that it
would have been suitable for the education of the class of thegns.1 Other specialists,
emphasizing the poet’s reliance on the Christian learning of his time, ¢nd it likely that
Beowulf was composed by a monk chieÏy for the entertainment and edi¢cation of the
members of his religious community.2 Not all of these views are incompatible, nor do
they exhaust the possibilities. Attempts to identify the poet’s audience are complicated
by the likelihood that the poem was performed aloud, in one setting or another, in addi-
tion to being written down. Even as a written text, preserved (one assumes) in a monas-
tic library, Beowulf could have had multiple audiences, including readers of various
degrees of literary competence as regards vernacular poetry.3 The poem, in its Chris-
tian form, is hardly unsuited to delivery in secular contexts, and there is abundant evi-
dence from the Anglo-Saxon period of the power of Christian doctrine to permeate
court circles. Neither, on the other hand, is the poem wholly foreign to the atmosphere
of the cloister, for the strictures of Alcuin and various Church councils assure us that
even thoroughgoing secular entertainments (among which Beowulf cannot justly be
counted) were to be found in religious houses before the Benedictine Reform. Heroic
values, it is known, when directed to purposes consistent with Christianity, were res-
pected by members of the clergy, for one of the driving forces in the biblical verse
paraphrases of this period, as well as in its hagiography, is the heroic ethos turned to
religious ends.
But perhaps the most important audience of all is the implied (or ¢ctional) audience
that is generated by the rhetorical action of the text itself with each and every reading
of it.4 In the very ¢rst verse, the poet invokes a collective entity, a ‘we,’ among whose
members the reader or listener is assumed to belong. The narrator is consistently con-
¢gured not as a personage with individual features, but rather as a spokesman, an
‘authenticating voice’ that speaks to that collective audience as if a living person were
addressing his peers, assuring them of the validity and grandeur of all that is described
(Green¢eld ASE 5 [1976] 51–62). Every individual reader is thus inscribed within the
image of community that is created by the text. While the poet’s actual audience or
audiences will probably never be known, and while — with the exception of the two
persons known rather colorlessly as Scribe A and Scribe B — the people of the Anglo-
Saxon period who once read the work in manuscript form cannot be identi¢ed, the
poem’s implied audience is a permanent feature of the text.

XII. THE PRESENT EDITION

Frederick Klaeber’s Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg, ¢rst published in 1922, was
last given a thorough revision in 1936, with supplements added in 1941 and 1950. The

‘audience’ may be somewhat misleading in its suggestion of passivity on the part of readers and
listeners.
1
This point is pursued by Richardson PQ 78 (1999) 215–32.
2
E.g. Dumville 1981, Cassidy Yearbook of Research in Eng. & Am. Lit. 1 (1982) 1–12.
3
The scribes themselves seem to have found the poem diÌcult. As Gerritsen has pointed out
(1989: 20–4), there is a higher incidence of copyists’ errors in Beo than in the other works included
in the Nowell Codex.
4
See Ong PMLA 90 (1975) 9–22 on the author’s audience as a necessary ¢ction.
 THE PRESENT EDITION clxxxix
present editors’ aim in undertaking to revise this work was chieÏy to bring it up to date,
so that the wealth of scholarship and insight contained in Klaeber’s great work should
be preserved. We have thus endeavored to re¢ne and supplement Klaeber’s work rather
than to replace his aims and methods with our own. So as to encourage users of this
edition to explore and question the bases for the editorial establishment of texts, we
have made an enhanced effort to explain both the grounds for textual decisions and the
alternatives available. In regard to matters of critical debate about particular
constructions of the text or other scholarly points (and especially points about which
we ourselves are not in agreement), alternative views have been cited. However, limits
on the practice of noting interpretive indeterminacies have of necessity been observed.
It is to be hoped that the book will continue to serve the needs of literary scholars, but
it was originally designed for different sorts of users, including students of language,
history, folklore, material culture, and what we should now call cultural studies. It is
our aim that it should continue to do so.
One of the most impressive features of Klaeber’s Beowulf was the comprehensive-
ness of its bibliographical coverage. Yet because of the enormous fund of scholarship
on Beowulf that has appeared since 1950, and because of the markedly improved
bibliographical resources that have been produced since that time,1 it seemed neither
practicable nor entirely necessary to emulate Klaeber’s thoroughness in this regard.
Every effort has been made, however, to provide apposite (though economical) refer-
ences to the scholarly literature wherever they may be of use. Because one aim of the
present edition is to try to ensure that the earlier scholarship so lucidly presented by
Klaeber does not come to be omitted from current discussion of the poem, readers will
¢nd that, in general, references to more recent scholarship supplement rather than re-
place those to earlier work. For reasons of economy it has proved necessary to follow
Klaeber’s practice of providing publication information on very many studies at the
place of citation rather than in the list of Works Cited.
Several alterations have been made to the text, almost always on the basis of
scholarship that has appeared since Klaeber’s day. Occasionally these are remarked in
the Commentary, but, in general, reference to the scholarship that has prompted the
editors’ handling of the text is to be sought in the apparatus criticus of variants running
at the foot of the page. In a few places, Klaeber’s text has been corrected by reference
to the available facsimiles (Z., Mal., Ki.) or on the basis of examination of the manu-
script itself, in the case of contested readings (see Fu.1). Emendation is undertaken not
with the aim of restoring any supposed original form of the text, but of reversing the
effect of some number of alterations that can be identi¢ed with a relatively high degree
of con¢dence as having been introduced in the course of the text’s scribal transmission.
The reasons guiding editorial decisions about such issues as the treatment of scribe B’s
corrections in the manuscript and of the text on fols. 179 and 198v are offered at appro-
priate places elsewhere in this book.2 The editors have attempted to conform to the
rational, conservative principles adhered to by Klaeber in regard to the establishment
and presentation of the text. Although he nowhere stated these explicitly, the following
guidelines may be said to approximate his practices.3 (1) Emendation is justi¢ed when

1
See especially the headnote to the list of Works Cited, p.¯474.
2
On scribe B’s corrections, see Intr. xxxii¯f.; on the treatment of the text on fols. 179 and 198v,
see Intr. xxviii¯f.; on the use of the Thorkelín transcripts, see Intr. xxvi¯f. and the note on p.¯2
preceding the text; on scribal confusion of u(m) and a(n), see Appx.C §¯8.
3
For an account of the theoretical and (especially) practical bases for these principles, see Fulk
2007b. At the same place will be found supporting statements regarding the typographical devices
employed by Klaeber to indicate alterations and uncertainties in the text (including italics and
brackets, as explained infra in the note preceding the text of the poem) and to highlight differences
between the received text and the version rendered probable by considerations of poetic form (in-
cluding circumÏexion and underpointing, as explained in Appendix C).
cxc INTRODUCTION
the manuscript reading, to judge by the evidence, is the result of a copying error, ap-
parently due to a scribe’s miscomprehension or inattentiveness. Normalization of spel-
ling for its own sake has not generally been indulged in. Unusual spellings are not
regarded as errors unless a high degree of linguistic improbability attaches to them.1 (2)
Suspect metrical patterns alone generally are not regarded as suÌcient grounds for
emendation. In the present edition, a very few exceptional instances will be found in
which Klaeber’s own judgments are followed in this regard. (3) Although words are
supplied when there is suÌcient reason to believe that something has been omitted,
entire verses are supplied only when they do not substantially affect the meaning of the
text, as when a formula introducing a speech has been omitted (as at l.¯2792b), or when
the substance of the missing material is otherwise suÌciently obvious (as at l.¯403b). (4)
Whenever the reasons that have been adduced to account for unexpected manuscript
readings are so ingenious as to seem less plausible than the assumption of scribal error,
emendation has been preferred.2
In accordance with the usual practice in critical (as opposed to diplomatic) editions,
and to avoid confusion of capital letters found in the manuscript and capitals supplied
by the editors, all capitalization agrees with modern conventions rather than scribal
practice. In a departure from Klaeber’s habit, except for the proper name God, refer-
ences to the deity are not capitalized (see Robinson 1985: 34–5). The two scribes mark
the divisions between ¢tts in different ways (see pp.¯xxxiii¯f. supra); in imitation of
Klaeber’s treatment, ¢tt numbers are placed in the left margin, privileging neither
scribe’s practice over the other. On various details of punctuation, see Appendix C
§§¯2–7.
In regard to the spelling of ethnic names in the apparatus critici, these are modern-
ized when there is a standard modern equivalent (Danes, Swedes, etc.). Ethnic names
otherwise generally retain their Old English form (Ġēatas, Heaðo-Beardan, etc.).3
Names of persons in the poem are supplied with diacritics as an aid to pronunciation
(Hrōðgār, Ēadġils, etc., but Alfred, Cædmon, etc.).
The appendices mirror Klaeber’s, with some adjustments. It is to be understood that
they serve a supportive role. For example, Appendix A presents not all suggested ana-
logues but the most important ones cited in the Introduction and the Commentary.
Some supplementary materials are available on the World Wide Web at the follow-
ing address: ‹http://www.indiana.edu/~klaeber4/index.htm›.

1
On this principle, a few of Klaeber’s emendations have been removed and the original
spellings restored, e.g. scyppen 106, Eclāfes 980, sec 2863. Such spellings may reÏect linguistic
features of the scribes’ exemplar (see the notes on these verses), and thus they may reveal elements
of the poem’s textual history.
2
The editors wish readers to know that although the majority of the present editors initially ap-
proved the emendation in line 1663, this turned out no longer to be the case after the book had
been typeset.
3
This convention is prompted in part by the consideration that such unhistorical spellings as
Geats have encouraged among students of the poem historically impossible pronunciations, such
as [gits] for Geats.
 KLAEBER’S BEOWULF
AND
THE FIGHT AT FINNSBURG
 THE TEXT

Italics indicate alteration of words by emendation. Letters or words added by emen-

dation are enclosed in square brackets. Round brackets (parentheses) are used when the
conjecturally inserted letters correspond to letters of the MS which on account of its
damaged condition are missing or illegible and were so when the Thorkelín transcripts
were made. Round brackets are used in conjunction with italics to indicate departures
from the Thorkelín transcripts’ sole evidence (though occasionally early collations take
precedence). This device is employed also in 2207–52 and 3150–82 when the later
hand appears to have altered the earlier reading (see Intr. ¯xxix). Expansion of the usual
scribal contractions for þæt, -m, etc., is not marked.
The apparatus criticus of variant readings running below the text, it is believed, has
been made suÌciently full, although a system of careful selection had necessarily to be
applied. Indeed, the inclusion of many useless guesses would have served no legiti-
mate purpose. For the most part, only emendations accepted by one or more editors are
noted, though some exceptions will be found. The emendations adopted are regularly
credited to their authors. Of other conjectures, a number of the more suggestive and
historically interesting ones have been added. Often, scholars who have given their
support to certain readings are mentioned; also the expedient of the impersonal ‘et al.’
has been freely — no doubt somewhat arbitrarily — employed. The mark (?) after a
name or a citation indicates that an emendation has been regarded as more or less
doubtful by its author. An attempt has been made to indicate when proposed readings
are questionable on the basis of meter or alliteration, by ref. to the relevant section of
Appx.C, but the practice is by no means consistent. In many cases it has seemed help-
ful to record the views of the twelve most recent editors of the entire poem to provide
signi¢cant textual commentary (excl. Ki., since he regards his edition as experimental):
12 Edd. = Cha., Schü.14, Sed.3, Holt.8, Dob., Wn.2, v.Sch.18, Ni., Wn.-B., Crp., Ja., MR;
11 Edd. = the same editors excluding the one speci¢ed, and so forth. — Edd. = (all, or
most) editions, or the subsequent editions, with the exception of those speci¢ed; in
regard to editions since Kl.3 it refers only to those included in the 12 Edd., as do ref-
erences to “recent edd.” Only occasional reference is made to other editions since Kl.3.
In quoting the readings of various scholars, normalization has been practiced to the
extent of providing the proper marks of quantity, etc., in every instance, though pal-
atalization and affrication are not marked in the Apparatus of Variants.
The foliation employed is the older one; since it is used by Z. and Ki., it is more
convenient. A and B denote the two Thorkelín transcripts (see Intr. xxvi¯f.); whenever
they are referred to, it is to be understood that the MS in its present condition is defec-
tive. MS Ke., etc., means Kemble’s (etc.) reading of the MS. The number of colons
used in citing MS readings (see, e.g., 159a) marks the presumable number of lost
letters; in case their approximate number cannot be made out, points are used. In
quoting the readings of A and B, the plain points have been retained. The beginning of
a new line in the MS is sometimes indicated by a solidus; thus, 47b MS g . . / denne.
Fol. (130r, etc.) followed by a word (or part of it) signi¢es that a page of the MS
begins with that word, which, however, is very often no longer fully visible in the MS
itself. For other abbreviations, see the table on pp.¯xvii¯ff.
In the text, circumÏexion (e.g. s½n 1180) indicates metrical decontraction; under-
punctuation of a lone vowel (e.g. wintĺr 1128, ®nĽġe 972) indicates metrical suppres-
sion of an inorganic vowel; and underpointing of a consonant or morpheme (e.g. Ĺraþe
1390, ŐőŗŖ 9) indicates a probable scribal insertion. Such diacritics (as well as over-
pointing of ċ and ġ) are explained in Appx.C, along with other matters of textual crit-
icism, and in the Commentary. The obelus (†) indicates a seemingly corrupt reading
for which no satisfactory improvement has been found.
 BEOWULF
Hwæt, wē Gār-Dena in ġeārdagum,
þēodcyninga þrym ġefrūnon,
hū ðā æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scē¢ng sceaþena þrēatum,
5 monegum m®ġþum meodosetla oftēah,
eġsode eorl[as], syððan ®rest wearð
fēasceaft funden. Hē þæs frōfre ġebād:
wēox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þāh,
oð þæt him ®ġhwylċ ŐőŗŖ ymbsittendra
10 ofer hronrāde h©ran scolde,
gomban ġyldan. Þæt wæs gōd cyning.
Юm eafera wæs æfter cenned
ġeong in ġeardum, þone God sende
folce tō frōfre; fyrenðearfe onġeat —
15 þæt hīe ®r drugon aldor(l)ēase
lange hwīle. Him þæs līffr¼,
wuldres wealdend woroldāre forġeaf:
Bēow wæs brēme — bl®d wīde sprang —
Scyldes eafera Scedelandum in.
20 Swā sceal ġe(ong) guma gōde ġewyrċean,
fromum feohġiftum on fæder (bea)rme,
þæt hine on ylde eft ġewuniġen
wilġesīþas, þonne wīġ cume,
lēode ġel®sten; lofd®dum sceal

1a Fol. 129r begins. — 4b MS (now) AB sceaþen, Wanley 1705: 218 sceaþena. — 6a MS feared
over egsode ‘in a 16th century hand’ (Z.). — Schubert 1870: 7 inserts [hīe]. — Ke., Siev. 1895:
188¯f., 1904: 560–76, Holt., Schü., Sed., Cha., Ja., MR eorl[as]; Wn., Mag., Swn. Eorl[e] ‘Heruli.’
— 9b Siev.R. 256, 1895: 190 cancels þāra; so Holt., Schü., Sed., Cha., Kl., Mag.; Pope Specu-
lum lxiii 104¯ff., Ja. þ®r (¯for þāra) in on-verse. See Appx.C §¯36. — 12a Ni. wæs in off-verse (cf.
Appx.C §¯35). — 14b Schü.8–14 (Krauel) fyrn-. Cf. Hoops, Weisweiler IF xli 33¯ff. — 15a MS ³;
Thk., Ke.2, Kl., Dob., Le., Ja. þē; Bouterwek 1854: cv, Siev. 1884b: 136, Tr., Holt.1,7–8, Schü.,
Sed., Mag. (cf. Z.) þā; Holt.2–6, Cha., v.Sch., Wn., Ni., Crp., MR þæt. — 15b MS aldor(:):¯: ase,
but ‘all but top of l in le, invisible in ordinary light, Ïuoresces under ultraviolet’ (Ki.); Rask (in
Gru.tr. 267, but cf. Malone 1960: 192), Edd. -lēase; Holt.2–4 -lēaste; Whitbread ES xlvii 442¯ff.,
Ni. aldora lēase. — 18a MS beowulf; see 53b Varr. — 19a Ke., et al., Tr., Holt., Schü. eafera[n].
See note. — 20a MS :¯:¯:¯:¯:¯:(:)uma (Z.), but ge :¯:¯:(:)guma under UV (Ki.); Ke.1 wīgfruma, Ke.2
gūðfruma; Gr.1 glēaw guma; Gr.2 geong guma, so Edd. excl. He.1, Arn. — 21b Fol. 129v MS B
. . . rine, A . . . rme (Mal. PMLA lxiv 1191, cf. Ki.), Z. (:):¯: rme (si. Ki.); Ke., Mezger MLN lix
113¯f. feorme (cf. Appx.C §¯42); Bouterwek 1854: cv, Hold., Holt.2–6, 9 Edd. (-)bearme; Gr.1,
Schü., Sed., Holt.7–8 ærne; Gr.2 inne.
4 BEOWULF

25 in m®ġþa ġehw®re man ġeþ½n.

Him ðā Scyld ġewāt tō ġescæphwīle
felahrōr fēran on frēan w®re.
Hī hyne þā ætb®ron tō brimes faroðe,
sw®se ġesīþas, swā hē selfa bæd
30 þenden wordum wēold. Wine Scyldinga,
lēof landfruma lange āhte —
þ®r æt h©ðe stōd, hrinġedstefna
īsiġ ond ūtfūs — æþelinges fær;
ālēdon þā lēofne þēoden,
35 bēaga bryttan on bearm scipes,
m®rne be mæste. Þ®r wæs mādma fela
of feorwegum frætwa ġel®ded.
Ne h©rde iċ c©mlicor ċēol ġeġyrwan
hildew®pnum ond heaðow®dum,
40 billum ond byrnum; him on bearme læġ
mādma mæniġo, þā him mid scoldon
on Ïōdes ®ht feor ġewītan.
Nalæs hī hine l®ssan lācum tēodan,
þēodġestrēonum, þonne þā dydon
45 þē hine æt frumsceafte forð onsendon
®nne ofer ©ðe umbľrwesende.
Þā ġ©t hīe him āsetton seġen gy(l)denne
hēah ofer hēafod, lēton holm beran,
ġēafon on gārsecg; him wæs ġeōmor sefa,
50 murnende mōd. Men ne cunnon
secgan tō sōðe, seler®dende,
hæleð under heofenum, hwā þ®m hlæste onfēng.
25a Siev.R. 485, Holt., Schü., Sed., Wn.1–2, Mag. gehwām or gehw®m. See Appx.C §¯20. —
28 b Krapp MP ii 407 waroðe (so Thk.); cf. Kl. A. xxviii 455¯f. — 30 a Bright MLN x 43
wordum geweald; so Child ibid. xxi 175¯f., Andrew 1948: §¯186. — 31 a Rie.Zs. 381¯f. līf
(¯for lēof); Ni., Crp. lēoÏand fruma; MR lēof land fruma. — 31 b Gr.1 (?), (Siev. 1884b: 136
[?]), Aant. 1¯f. þrāge (¯for āhte); Klu. ix 188, Hold. 1 l®ndagas (¯for lange); Holt.2–5 (see Kl.
1905–6: 446) [hī] āhte; Holt. 8 landriht (¯for lange); Bamm. NM xcix 125¯ff. ®hte. Cf. Bu.
80; Kock 221¯ff. — 33 a īsig; Gru. (?) ©ðig (= ēaðig); Tr.1 127 īcig or ītig (cf. icge 1107¯?)
‘resplendent’ (?); Holt. Beibl. xiv 82¯f. √sig, cf. ON eisa ‘rush on,’ si. Krogmann A. lvi
438¯f.; Tr. BBzA xvii 151¯f. isig ‘ready’ (cf. eoset 224 a Varr.); Grienb. BGdSL xxxvi 95 ©sig
‘bailed out’; Hollander MLN xxxii 246¯f. ītig ‘splendid’ (cf. ON ítr); Sed. MLR xxvii 448 ūrig;
Campbell (in Orchard 2003: 54–5) īlig ‘speedy.’ See Bähr 1971. — 44 b MS (Z.) þon, so Arn.,
Tr., 12 Edd., Kl. þon; Thk., Edd. þon[ne]; MS þoň (i.e. þonne; so Kölbing 93, Kiernan
1984: 25, Fu. 1 ). — Tr., Holt.1 d®don. See Lang. §¯25.6. — 46 b Fol. 130 r sende; E., Tr.
-sendne; cf. SB §¯305 n.¯1. — 47b MS g . . / denne; AB have e after g, but added later (see J.R.
Hall 2006); Ki., Fu.1 see tail of y below g in MS; Ke., Edd. gyldenne; Gru. gewreðenne; Mal.,
Dob., Ni., Chck.1, Crp. geldenne. — 51b MS rædenne; Ke. ii, et al., 9 Edd. (excl. v.Sch., Ni., Crp.)
-r®dende (cf. 1346); cf. Mal. A. liii 335¯f.
 BEOWULF 5

I Ðā wæs on burgum Bēow Scyldinga,

lēof lēodcyning longe þrāge
55 folcum ġefr®ġe — fæder ellor hwearf,
aldor of earde — oþ þæt him eft onwōc
hēah Healfdene; hēold þenden lifde
gamol ond gūðrēouw glæde Scyldingas.
Юm fēower bearn forðġerīmed
60 in worold wōcun, weoroda r®swa[n],
Heorogār ond Hrōðgār ond Hālga til;
h©rde iċ þæt [. . . . . . wæs On]elan cwēn,
Heaðo-Scil¢ngas healsġebedda.
Þā wæs Hrōðgāre herespēd ġyfen,
65 wīġes weorðmynd, þæt him his winemāgas
ġeorne h©rdon, oðð þæt sēo ġeogoð ġewēox,
magodriht miċel. Him on mōd bearn
þæt healreċed hātan wolde,
medoærn miċel men ġewyrċean
70 þon[n]e yldo bearn ®fre ġefrūnon,
ond þ®r on innan eall ġed®lan
ġeongum ond ealdum swylċ him God sealde,
būton folcscare ond feorum gumena.
Ðā iċ wīde ġefræġn weorc ġebannan
75 maniġre m®ġþe ġeond þisne middanġeard,
folcstede frætwan. Him on fyrste ġelomp,
®dre mid yldum, þæt hit wearð eal ġearo,
healærna m®st; scōp him Heort naman
sē þe his wordes ġeweald wīde hæfde.
53b MS beowulf; Child MLN xxi 198¯f., et al. Bēaw or Bēow, so Pope 365, v.Sch., Mag., Chck.1;
Kl., Edd. Bēowulf; Fuhr 1892: 49, Kal. 56, Tr.1 128, Tr. Bēowulf Scylding; cf. Siev. 1904: 309–
11; see note. — 56a Whitbread NM lxix 63¯ff. ofer āde. — 58a Gr.1, et al. -rēow (thus Cony. 138
misread MS); Bu.Zs. 193 -rōf; E., Grienb. 746 -hrēow ‘weary’ [?]; Tr. -rōuw ‘weary.’ See Appx.C
§¯10. — 59b Dob. forð g. — 60b MS ræswa (and point after heoro gar); Ke.2, et al., 9 Edd. (excl.
Schü., v.Sch., Crp.) r®swa[n]. See Lang. §¯20.3. — 62 MS no gap; Ke.1 Elan cwēn [wearð
Ongenþeowes]; He.1 (cf. E.tr.), Gr.2 Elan cwēn [Ongenþeowes wæs]; Gru. in: Danne-Virke ii
(1817) 219 n.¯2 (see Malone 1960: 193), Brage og Idun iv (1841) 500, Ja. [On]elan cwēn, cf.
Gru.; Bu.Tid. 42¯f., Holt.2–6,8, Schü., Cha., v.Sch., Dob., Wn., Ni. [. . . . . . wæs On]elan c.; Klu.
EStn. xxii 144¯f., Hold.2, Soc.7, Schü.8–10, Holt.1, Sed.2 [Sigenēow wæs S®w]elan c., Holt.7 [Signī
wæs Seaf]elan c., see note; Mal. Kl.Misc. 157, Mag., Chck., Swn. [ªrse wæs On]elan c.; Ochs
NM lii 29¯f. [ānge dohtor wæs On]elan c.; Eliason 1975 [sēo ides wæs þæs æþ]elan c. (cf. HOEM
§¯291); Ki. [æþele ān wearð] Ēlan c. See note. — 68a Rask 1817, Ke., et al., Sed. þæt [hē]. See
Lang. §¯26.4. — 69 Fol. 130v medo (Wanley). Schönbach AfdA iii 42 māre for micel (cf. E.);
Harrison & Sharp 1894 micle mā, Tr. micel, mā, Bright MLN xxvii 181¯ff. micle māre (Holt.4,5
mērre) gewyrcean. — 70a MS þone; Gr.1 , 9 Edd. (excl. Crp., Ja., MR) þon[n]e; Tr. þon (cf.
44). — 73b Eliason A. lxxi 438¯f. feormum (cf. Appx.C §¯35). — 77b Kl., et al. ealgearo. See
1230b.
6 BEOWULF

80 Hē bēot ne ālēh: bēagas d®lde,

sinċ æt symle. Sele hlīfade
hēah ond hornġēap; heaðowylma bād,
lāðan līġes — ne wæs hit lenġe þā ġēn
þæt se ecghete āþumswēoran
85 æfter wælnīðe wæcnan scolde.
Ðā se elleng®st earfoðlīċe
þrāge ġeþolode, sē þe in þ©strum bād,
þæt hē dōgora ġehwām drēam ġeh©rde
hlūdne in healle. Þ®r wæs hearpan swēġ,
90 swutol sang scopes. Sæġde sē þe cūþe
frumsceaft fīra feorran reċċan,
cwæð þæt se ælmihtĽga eorðan worh(te),
wlitebeorhtne wang, swā wæter bebūgeð,
ġesette siġehrēþiġ sunnan ond mōnan,
95 lēoman tō lēohte landbūendum,
ond ġefrætwade foldan scēatas
leomum ond lēafum, līf ēac ġesceōp
cynna ġehwylcum þāra ðe cwice hwyrfaþ.
Swā ðā drihtguman drēamum lifdon,
100 ēadiġlīċe, oð ðæt ān ongan
fyrene fre(m)man fēond on helle;
wæs se grimma g®st Grendel hāten,
m®re mearcstapa, sē þe mōras hēold,
fen ond fæsten; fīfĺlcynnes eard
105 wons®lī wer weardode hwīle,
siþðan him scyppen forscrifen hæfde
in Cāines cynne — þone cwealm ġewræc
ēċe drihten, þæs þe hē Ābel slōg;
ne ġefeah hē þ®re f®hðe, ac hē hine feor forwræc,
110 metod for þ© māne mancynne fram.
Þanon unt©dras ealle onwōcon,
eotenas ond ylfe ond orcn¼s,
83b Holt.2 longe. — 84a MS secg; Gr.1, Edd. ecg-. — 84b MS aþum swerian; Bu.Tid. 45¯f.,
v.Sch., Crp. āþumswerian; Tr.1 130, Holt.1–7, Schü., Sed.1–2, Dob., MR -swēorum, Binz Beibl.
xiv 359, Sed.3, Hoops, Holt.8 , Ni., Ja. -swēoran. — 86a Gr.1 (?), Rie.Zs. 383 ellorgæst, Tr.1
130, Tr., Holt.1 , Sed. ellorg®st. See 1617a Varr. — 92a Fol. 132r cwæð. — 92b Cony. 84 n.1,
Ke., Edd. worh(te). — 101 a Cony., Ke., Edd. fre(m)man. — 101 b Bu. 80 healle for helle; so
Soc.5 , Tr., Holt.8, Bamm. 2006: 20–2. Cf. Aant. 3. — 106a Tr. (after Gru.) hine (but cf. Siev.
1904: 311). — MS scyppen altered to scyppend by the other scribe; Thk., Edd., Kl.
scyppend; Mal. A. liii 335¯f., v.Sch., Ni. scyppen. See Lang. §¯20.7. — 107a MS caines altered
from cames. (Confusion of Cain and Cham: see note.)
 BEOWULF 7

swylċe ġī(ga)ntas, þā wið Gode wunnon

lange þrāge; hē him ðæs lēan forġeald.

II 115 Ġewāt ðā nēosian, syþðan niht becōm,

h¼n hūses, hū hit Hrinġ-Dene
æfter bēorþeġe ġebūn hæfdon.
Fand þā ð®r inne æþelinga ġedriht
swefan æfter symble; sorge ne cūðon,
120 wonsceaft wera. Wiht unh®lo,
grim ond gr®diġ, ġearo sōna wæs,
rēoc ond rēþe, ond on ræste ġenam
þrītiġ þeġna; þanon eft ġewāt
hūðe hrēmiġ tō hām faran,
125 mid þ®re wælfylle wīca nēosan.
Ðā wæs on ūhtan mid ®rdæġe
Grendles gūðcræft gumum undyrne;
þā wæs æfter wiste wōp up āhafen,
miċel morgenswēġ. M®re þēoden,
130 æþeling ®rgōd, unblīðe sæt,
þolode ðr©ðsw©ð, þeġnsorge drēah,
syðþan hīe þæs lāðan lāst scēawedon,
werġan gāstes; wæs þæt ġewin tō strang,
lāð ond longsum. Næs hit lengra fyrst,
135 ac ymb āne niht eft ġefremede
morðbeala māre, ond nō mearn fore,
f®hðe ond fyrene; wæs tō fæst on þām.
Þā wæs ēaðfynde þē him elles hw®r
ġerūmlicor ræste [sōhte],
140 bed æfter būrum, ðā him ġebēacnod wæs,
ġesæġd sōðlīċe sweotolan tācne
healðeġnes hete; hēold hyne syðþan
fyr ond fæstor sē þ®m fēonde ætwand.
Swā rīxode ond wið rihte wan,
145 āna wið eallum, oð þæt īdel stōd

113a Fol. 132v gantas (AB ntas, added later [a written on e A], w. ga yet later added by Thorkelín;
see ASE xxviii 28 n.¯11); Ni. -gontas (see Mal.). — 115a Siev.R. 298 nēosan. See Appx.C §¯18. —
120a Siev. 1884b: 137, Hold., Soc., Tr., Holt. weras. Cf. Kock4 108¯f. — 120b Rie.Zs. 383 unf®lo.
— 128b Ki. upāhafen. — 132b Wn.1–2 scēawodon. See OEG §¯385. — 134b Fol. 133r fyrst. —
136a Rie.Zs. 384, Tr., Sed. -bealu. See Lang. §¯19.2. — 139a Gr.1 ge rūmlicor. — 139b Gr.1,
Edd. [sōhte], Wülck. [r©mde] (cf. Appx.C §¯42), Ki. [wolde] (cf. Gloss.: willan, & n. on 154). —
142a E.tr. (?), Bu. 80, Tr., Sed., Holt.8 helðegnes; cf. 719; Kl. 1905–6: 450; Hoops.
8 BEOWULF

hūsa sēlest. Wæs sēo hwīl miċel:

twelf wintra tīd torn ġeþolode
wine Scyldinga, wēana ġehwelcne,
sīdra sorga. Forðām [ġes©ne] wearð
150 ylda bearnum, undyrne cūð
ġyddum ġeōmore þætte Grendel wan
hwīle wið Hrōþgār, hetenīðas wæġ,
fyrene ond f®hðe fela missera,
singāle sæce; sibbe ne wolde
155 wið manna hwone mæġenes Deniġa,
feorhbealo feorran, fēa þingian,
nē þ®r n®niġ witena wēnan þorfte
beorhtre bōte tō banan folmum,
(ac se) ®ġl®ċa ēhtende wæs,
160 deorc dēaþscua, duguþe ond ġeogoþe,
seomade ond syrede; sinnihte hēold,
mistiġe mōras; men ne cunnon
hwyder helrūnan hwyrftum scrīþað.
Swā fela fyrena fēond mancynnes,
165 atol āngenġea oft ġefremede,
heardra h©nða; Heorot eardode,
sinċfāge sel sweartum nihtum.
Nō hē þone ġifstōl grētan mōste,
māþðum for metode, nē his myne wisse.
170 Þæt wæs wræc miċel wine Scyldinga,
mōdes brecða. Moniġ oft ġesæt,
rīċe tō rūne; r®d eahtedon,
hwæt swīðferhðum sēlest w®re
wið f®rgryrum tō ġefremmanne.
175 Hwīlum hīe ġehēton æt hærgtrafum
wīġweorþunga, wordum b®don
þæt him gāstbona ġēoce ġefremede
148a MS scyldenda; Gru.tr. 269, Edd. (excl. Crp.) Scyldinga. — 149b Tho. (in Ke.2) [syððan], so
most Edd. before Kl.; Gr.2 [sorgcearu]; E. [sōcen]; Bu. 367 [sārcwidum]; Tr.1 132¯f. sārlēoðum, Tr.
sārspellum (¯for forðām); Siev. 1904: 313 for ðām [sōcnum] (so Holt.1; si. Holt.7–8, but w. forðan);
Kl.1–3 (see Kl. 1907: 191), Schü. 1908: 101–2 & ed., Holt.6, v.Sch., Wn., Mag., Ni., Ja., MR
[secgum]; Holt.2–5, Ki. [sōna]; Andrew 1948: §¯184 [ges©ne] (cf. 1255b¯f.). — 151a Tr. geōmrum. —
156b Ke.2 fēo, so Holt., Schü., Sed. See Lang. §¯15.1. — 157a Holt.2–6, Sed.1–2 witena n®nig (cf.
Siev.R. 286); Tr. wigena. — 158b MS banū; Ke.2 banan; so Edd. excl. Gru. See Appx.C §¯8. —
159a Fol. 133v : : : : ; Tho. (in Ke.2), et plur., Sed., Cha., Ni., Crp., Ki. atol; Rie.Zs. 384, Hold.,
Tr., 8 Edd. ac se. — 169a Pogatscher BGdSL xix 544¯f., Engelhardt PMLA lxx 832 n. 20; Bamm.
1992 formetode ‘disdained.’ — 175b MS hrærg; Ke., Tho., Gr.1 , He.1 hearg-; Gru., Gr.2, He.2–4,
Edd. hærg-.
 BEOWULF 9

wið þēodþrēaum. Swylċ wæs þēaw hyra,

h®þenra hyht; helle ġemundon
180 in mōdsefan, metod hīe ne cūþon,
d®da dēmend, ne wiston hīe drihten God,
nē hīe hūru heofena helm herian ne cūþon,
wuldres waldend. Wā bið þ®m ðe sceal
þurh slīðne nīð sāwle bescūfan
185 in f©res fæþm, frōfre ne wēnan,
wihte ġewendan; wēl bið þ®m þe mōt
æfter dēaðdæġe drihten sēċean
ond tō fæder fæþmum freoðo wilnian.

III Swā ðā m®lċeare maga Healfdenes

190 singāla sēað; ne mihte snotľr hæleð
wēan onwendan; wæs þæt ġewin tō sw©ð,
lāþ ond longsum, þē on ðā lēode becōm,
n©dwracu nīþgrim, nihtbealwa m®st.
Þæt fram hām ġefræġn Hiġelāces þeġn
195 gōd mid Ġēatum, Grendles d®da;
sē wæs moncynnes mæġenes strenġest
on þ®m dæġe þysses līfes,
æþele ond ēacen. Hēt him ©ðlidan
gōdne ġeġyrwan; cwæð, hē gūðcyning
200 ofer swanrāde sēċean wolde,
m®rne þēoden, þā him wæs manna þearf.
Ðone sīðfæt him snotere ċeorlas
l©thwōn lōgon, þēah hē him lēof w®re;
hwetton hiġe(r)ōfne, h®l scēawedon.
205 Hæfde se gōda Ġēata lēoda
cempan ġecorone, þāra þe hē cēnoste
¢ndan mihte. Fīft©na sum
sundwudu sōhte; secg wīsade,
lagucræftiġ mon landġemyrċu.
210 Fyrst forð ġewāt; Ïota wæs on ©ðum,
bāt under beorge. Beornas ġearwe
on stefn stigon. Strēamas wundon,

182a Fol. 134r ne. — 186a Rie.Zs. 385 wīte. (See Bout. 74; Gr.1 note.) — 203b Fol. 134v þeah.
— 204a A pofne (? Mal. PMLA lxiv 1194), B forne; Rask (in Gru.tr. 270) -rōfne; so Edd. excl.
Gru. — 204b Sed.1 geēawedon. — 207b MS .xv. w. na above. — 210a Gru. (?), Holt. Lit.bl. xxi
64 fyrd; Tr. Ïēot.
10 BEOWULF

sund wið sande. Secgas b®ron

on bearm nacan beorhte frætwe,
215 gūðsearo ġeatoliċ; guman ūt scufon,
weras on wilsīð wudu bundenne.
Ġewāt þā ofer w®ġholm winde ġef©sed
Ïota fāmīheals fugle ġelīcost,
oð þæt ymb āntīd ōþres dōgľres
220 wundenstefna ġewaden hæfde,
þæt ðā līðende land ġesāwon,
brimclifu blīcan, beorgas stēape,
sīde s®næssas; þā wæs sund liden,
eoletes æt ende. Þanon up hraðe
225 Wedera lēode on wang stigon,
s®wudu s®ldon, syrċan hrysedon,
gūðġew®do; Gode þancedon
þæs þe him ©þlāde ēaðe wurdon.
Þā of wealle ġeseah weard Scildinga,
230 sē þe holmclifu healdan scolde,
beran ofer bolcan beorhte randas,
fyrdsearu fūslicĿ; hine fyrwyt bræc
mōdġehyġdum hwæt þā men w®ron.
Ġewāt him þā tō waroðe wicge rīdan
235 þeġn Hrōðgāres, þrymmum cwehte
mæġenwudu mundum, meþelwordum fræġn:
‘Hwæt syndon ġē searohæbbendra,
byrnum werede, þē þus brontne ċēol
ofer lagustr®te l®dan cwōmon,
240 hider ofer holmas? [Iċ hwī]le wæs
endes®ta, ®ġwearde hēold,
þē on land Dena lāðra n®niġ
mid scipherġe sceðþan ne meahte.
219a Cos. viii 568, He., Hold., Soc.6–7, Tr. ymb andtīd; Burch¢eld MLQ l 485¯ff. ymban tīd (cf.
Appx.C §§¯28, 43). — 222a Bamm. 1992 blican. Cf. Appx.C §¯38. — 223b Tho. sundlida, so Tr.,
Holt.3–5 , Sed. — 224a Tho. ēalāde (©ðlāde?); Gru. ēalondes (?); ten Brink P.Grdr.1, iia, 527 n.
eodores; Tr. eosetes; Holt. 1910 ēares; Holt.3–5 (see ZfdPh. xlviii 129; EGS v 17¯f., Wn.) ēoledes;
Sed.3 eateles (see MLR xxxvii 481); Holt.7 ēoleces; Holt.8 ēoÏotes; v.Sch.17–18 ēo lēten; Ni. ēolētes;
Ja. ēolēt. Cf. Bliss §¯4. — 226b Schlutter EStn. xxxviii 301 n. 2 (?) hryscedon (cf. ibid. xxxix
344¯f.). — 229a Fol. 135r þa. — 232a Siev.R. 280 (?), Holt.1–6 fūslic; cf. Siev. 1904: 566, 568;
Appx.C §¯30. — 240b Bu. 83 [hwīle ic on weal]le; Siev. A. xiv 146, Holt., Sed.2–3, Cha., Kl., MR
[hwaet, ic hwī]le; Kal. 47, Hold.2, Soc.6–7, Schü., v.Sch., Wn., Mag., Ni., Crp., Ja., Gerritsen
Neophil. lxxiii 448¯ff. [ic hwī]le; Tr.1 140 [Ic on hyl]le, cf. Siev. 1904: 327–8; Ki. hē. — 242a MS
þe; Thk., Tho., et al. þæt; Gru., et al. [þæt] þe. See Gloss.: þ¬, s¬ (p. 430). — 243b Cos. viii 572
sceaðana (= lāðra).
 BEOWULF 11

Nō hēr cūðlicor cuman ongunnon

245 lindhæbbende, nē ġē lēafnesword
gūðfremmendra ġearwe ne wisson,
māga ġemēdu. N®fre iċ māran ġeseah
eorla ofer eorþan ðonne is ēower sum,
secg on searwum; nis þæt seldguma,
250 w®pnum ġeweorðad, næfne him his wlite lēoge,
®nliċ ans©n. Nū iċ ēower sceal
frumcyn witan, ®r ġē fyr heonan
lēasscēaweras on land Dena
furþur fēran. Nū ġē feorbūend,
255 merelīðende, mīn[n]e ġeh©rað
ānfealdne ġeþōht: ofost is sēlest
tō ġec©ðanne hwanan ēowre cyme syndon.’

IIII Him se yldesta andswarode,

werodes wīsa, wordhord onlēac:
260 ‘Wē synt gumcynnes Ġēata lēode
ond Hiġelāces heorðġenēatas.
Wæs mīn fæder folcum ġec©þed,
æþele ordfruma, Ecgþēow hāten;
ġebād wintra worn, ®r hē on weġ hwurfe,
265 gamol of ġeardum; hine ġearwe ġeman
witena wēlhwylċ wīde ġeond eorþan.
Wē þurh holdne hiġe hlāford þīnne,
sunu Healfdenes sēċean cwōmon,
lēodġebyrġean. Wes þū ūs lārena gōd.
270 Habbað wē tō þ®m m®ran miċel ®rende
Deniġa fr¼n. Ne sceal þ®r dyrne sum
wesan, þæs iċ wēne: þū wāst, ġif hit is
swā wē sōþlīċe secgan h©rdon,
þæt mid Scyldingum sceaðona ĽŜ nāt hwylċ,
275 dēogol d®dhata deorcum nihtum
ēaweð þurh eġsan uncūðne nīð,
245b Ke., E.Sc., Tho., Gru., E., Z., Holt.2–7 nē gelēafnesword. — 249b Cl. Hall tr. (?), Bright
MLN xxxi 84 is for nis. — Thk., Ke., E.Sc., Tho., He.1, E. seld (cf. ‘seldom’) guma; Gr.1, Edd.
seldguma. — 250b MS næfre; Ke.1 260, Ke.2 næfne; so Edd. excl. Gru, Wn.-B., Crp., Ja., MR. —
252b Fol. 135v heonan. — 253a E.Sc., E., Tho., Wülck., Hold., He., Soc., Wy. lēase (cf.
Pogatscher AfdA xxv 12, Kl. A. xxix 379¯f.); Holt.Zs. 113, ed.1–3 [swā] l.; Tr. lēaf-. — 255b MS
mine; Ke.2 mīn[n]e; so Edd. excl. Ni., Crp. — 262 Tr.1 141¯f. fæder [monegum]; Tr. f. [foldan],
Holt.1 (see Zs. 113¯f.) [on foldan]; Holt.2, Sed.2 [frōd] f.; Holt.3–7 f. folcum [feor]. See Appx.C
§¯27. — 273b Fol. 136r secgan. — 275a Klu. ix 188, Hold.1 d®dhwata.
12 BEOWULF

h©nðu ond hrāfyl. Iċ þæs Hrōðgār mæġ

þurh rūmne sefan r®d ġel®ran
hū hē frōd ond gōd fēond ofersw©ðeþ —
280 ġyf him edwenden ®fre scolde
bealuwa bisigu, bōt eft cuman —
ond þā ċearwylmas cōlran wurðaþ;
oððe ā syþðan earfoðþrāge,
þrēan©d þolað þenden þ®r wunað
285 on hēahstede hūsa sēlest.’
Weard maþelode ð®r on wicge sæt,
ombeht unforht: ‘¶ġhwæþres sceal
scearp scyldwiga ġescād witan,
worda ond worca, sē þe wēl þenċeð.
290 Iċ þæt ġeh©re, þæt þis is hold weorod
frēan Scyldinga. Ġewītaþ forð beran
w®pen ond ġew®du; iċ ēow wīsiġe.
Swylċe iċ maguþeġnas mīne hāte
wið fēonda ġehwone Ïotan ēowerne,
295 nīwtyrwydne nacan on sande
ārum healdan, oþ ðæt eft byreð
ofer lagustrēamas lēofne mannan
wudu wundenhals tō Wedermearce,
gōdfremmendra swylcum ġifeþe bið
300 þæt þone hilder®s hāl ġedīġeð.’
Ġewiton him þā fēran; Ïota stille bād,
seomode on sāle sīdfæþmed scip,
on ancre fæst; eoforlīċ scionon
ofer hlēorber[g]an ġehroden golde,
305 fāh ond f©rheard; ferhwearde hēold
gūþmōd grīmmon. Guman ōnetton,
280a AB edwendan, Bu.Tid. 291 (cf. Gru. 117) edwendan = edwenden; Hold.1, Holt., (Cha.
note), Sed., Wn., Ja., MR edwenden. — 282b Gr.1 (?), t.Br. 49, Andrew 1948: §¯49 wurðan; E.
weorðan. — 286b Ke.1, Siev. 1884b: 137, Holt., Sed. ðær [hē]. — 297a Fol. 136v mas. — 299a
Gru., Holzm. 490, He.2–4, Hold.1 gūðfremmendra. — 300a Siev. 1884b: 137, Sed. þæt [hē]. —
302a MS sole; E.Sc., Gru. note, Holzm. 490, He.2–4, most Edd. sāle. Cf. Mal. ES xviii 257. —
303b E.Sc. scīone (or scīonum); Bu.Zs. 196 līcscīonon; Sed.1–2 scīonon (wk. apn.). — 304a MS
beran; E.Sc. ofer hlēor b®ron; Sed.2 ofer hleoþu bēran; E., Gering ZfdPh. xii 123 hlēorber[g]an;
so Holder, Edd. excl. Sed.1–2, Dob.; Tr. ofer helmum wera. — 305b Gr., He., Soc., Wy., Sed.1–2,
Hoops 55, Holt.6–7, Ni. ferh (= fearh) w. h.; Aant. 7 (?), Lübke AfdA xix 342, Tr. (cf. Tr.1 145),
Holt.1, Brown PMLA liii 910¯f., Mag. færwearde h. (si. Holt.8). — 306a MS guþmod grummon (so
Wn., Crp., MR); Ke.2, Tho., Gr.1, He., Arn., Hold.1, Soc., Holt.7 gūðmōd[e] grummon (¯from
grimman ‘rage’; cf. Bliss §¯4); Mackie 1939: 517 gūþbord grummon; Prokosch Kl.Misc. 200¯n.
gūþmōdgrimmon; construed w. 305b: Bu. 83¯f., Holt.2, Schü., Cha., Kl.1–2 gūþmōdgum men;
Lübke l.c. gūþmōdegra sum; Bright MLN x 43 gūþmōd grimmon (adv.), so (but dp. rather than
 BEOWULF 13

sigon ætsomne, oþ þæt h© [s]æl timbred

ġeatoliċ ond goldfāh onġyton mihton;
þæt wæs forem®rost foldbūendum
310 reċeda under roderum, on þ®m se rīċa bād;
līxte se lēoma ofer landa fela.
Him þā hildedēor [h]of mōdiġra
torht ġet®hte, þæt hīe him tō mihton
ġeġnum gangan; gūðbeorna sum
315 wicg ġewende, word æfter cwæð:
‘M®l is mē tō fēran; fæder alwalda
mid ārstafum ēowiċ ġehealde
sīða ġesunde. Iċ tō s® wille,
wið wrāð werod wearde healdan.’

V 320 Str®t wæs stānfāh, stīġ wīsode

gumum ætgædere. Gūðbyrne scān
heard hondlocen; hrinġīren scīr
song in searwum. Þā hīe tō sele furðum
in hyra gryreġeatwum gangan cwōmon,
325 setton s®mēþe sīde scyldas,
rondas reġnhearde wið þæs reċedes weal;
bugon þā tō benċe. Byrnan hringdon,
gūðsearo gumena; gāras stōdon,
s®manna searo samod ætgædere,
330 æscholt ufan gr®ġ; wæs se īrenþrēat
w®pnum ġewurþad.
Þā ð®r wlonc hæleð
ōretmecgas æfter æþelum fræġn:
‘Hwanon feriġeað ġē f®tte scyldas,
gr®ġe syrċan, ond grīmhelmas,
335 heresceafta hēap? Iċ eom Hrōðgāres
ār ond ombiht. Ne seah iċ elþēodĽġe
þus maniġe men mōdiġlīcran.
Wēn’ iċ þæt ġē for wlenċo, nalles for wræcsīðum
ac for hiġeþrymmum, Hrōðgār sōhton.’

adv.) Sed., Kl.3, v.Sch., Holt.7–8, Dob., Ni., Ja.; Tr.1 145, Tr. gūþmōd grīmmon; Holt.1,3–5, Brown
l.c., Mag. gūþmōd gummon. — 307b MS æltimbred; Ke. ii, Gr., nearly all Edd. [s]æl timbred. —
312b MS of; Ke.1 260, Ke.2, Edd. [h]of. — 319a Fol. 137r wrað. — 323b Tr. furður. — 330a
Holt.7–8 æscholt, ufangr®g. — 332b MS hæleþum; Gr., Edd. æþelum (cf. 331, 392). — 339a Fol.
137v þrymmum (so AB, but w. another ink & altered A, altered from ym mun B: Mal. PMLA lxiv
1196).
14 BEOWULF

340 Him þā ellenrōf andswarode,

wlanc Wedera lēod, word æfter spræc
heard under helme: ‘Wē synt Hiġelāces
bēodġenēatas; Bēowulf is mīn nama.
Wille iċ āsecgan sunu Healfdenes,
345 m®rum þēodne mīn ®rende,
aldre þīnum, ġif hē ūs ġeunnan wile
þæt wē hine swā gōdne grētan mōton.’
Wulfgār maþelode; þæt wæs Wendla lēod;
wæs his mōdsefa manegum ġec©ðed,
350 wīġ ond wīsdōm: ‘Iċ þæs wine Deniġa,
frēan Scildinga frīnan wille,
bēaga bryttan, swā þū bēna eart,
þēoden m®rne ymb þīnne sīð,
ond þē þā andsware ®dre ġec©ðan
355 ðē mē se gōda āġifan þenċeð.’
Hwearf þā hrædlīċe þ®r Hrōðgār sæt
eald ond anhār mid his eorla ġedriht;
ēode ellenrōf, þæt hē for eaxlum ġestōd
Deniġa fr¼n; cūþe hē duguðe þēaw.
360 Wulfgār maðelode tō his winedrihtne:
‘Hēr syndon ġeferede, feorran cumene
ofer ġeofenes begang Ġēata lēode;
þone yldestan ōretmecgas
Bēowulf nemnað. H© bēnan synt
365 þæt hīe, þēoden mīn, wið þē mōton
wordum wrixlan. Nō ðū him wearne ġetēoh
ðīnra ġeġncwida, glædman Hrōðgār.
H© on wīġġetawum wyrðe þinċeað
eorla ġeæhtlan; hūru se aldor dēah,
370 sē þ®m heaðorincum hider wīsade.’

VI Hrōðgār maþelode, helm Scyldinga:

‘Iċ hine cūðe cnihtwesende;

344b Ke.2, most older Edd., Sed. suna. See Lang. §¯19.2. — 357a MS un hár; Tr.1 147 (?), Tr.,
Holt., Cha., Dob., Le., MR anhār (cf. Crp.c). — 360b Fol. 138r to. — 361b Klu. ix 188, Holt.1–5
feorrancumene. — 367b E.Sc., Gr.2, E. glæd man; Gru., Holt.1–2, Sed.1–2 glædmōd; Sed.3 (see
MLR xxvii 448, Andrew 1948: §¯187) glæd mīn. See Gloss.: glædman. — 368a Kl., most Edd.,
Holt.7, Mag. wīggetāwum; He.2–4, E., Siev.R. 273¯f. (?), Kal. 75, Holt.1–6, Schü., Sed. wīggeatwum
(cf. 395); Pope 322, Kl.3 Su., Holt.8, v.Sch.17–18, Ni., Ja. -getawum. See Gloss. — 372b E., Tr.
-sendne; see 46b Varr.
 BEOWULF 15

wæs his ealdfæder Ecgþēo hāten,

ð®m tō hām forġeaf Hrēþel Ġēata
375 āngan dohtor; is his eafora nū
heard hēr cumen, sōhte holdne wine.
Ðonne sæġdon þæt s®līþende,
þā ðe ġifsceattas Ġēata fyredon
þyder tō þance, þæt hē þrītiġes
380 manna mæġencræft on his mundgripe
heaþorōf hæbbe. Hine hāliġ God
for ārstafum ūs onsende,
tō West-Denum, þæs iċ wēn hæbbe,
wið Grendles gryre. Iċ þ®m gōdan sceal
385 for his mōdþræce mādmas bēodan.
Bēo ðū on ofeste, hāt in gân
sēon sibbĺġedriht samod ætgædere;
ġesaga him ēac wordum, þæt hīe sint wilcuman
Deniġa lēodum.’ * * *
390 [Wedera lēodum] word inne ābēad:
‘Ēow hēt secgan siġedrihten mīn,
aldor Ēast-Dena, þæt hē ēower æþelu can,
ond ġē him syndon ofer s®wylmas
heardhicgende hider wilcuman.
395 Nū ġē mōton gangan in ēowrum gūðġetawum
under heregrīman Hrōðgār ġesēon;
l®tað hildebord hēr onbīdan,
wudu wælsceaftas worda ġeþinġes.’
Ārās þā se rīċa, ymb hine rinċ maniġ,

373a Gr.1, Gru., Tr., Cha., Sed.3 eald fæder. See Gloss.: ealdfæder. — 375b MS eaforan; Gru.tr.
272, Ke., nearly all Edd. eafora. — 378b Tho., Arn., Bu. 85¯f., Tr., Andrew 1948: §¯87 Gēatum. —
379a Aant. 7 hyder. — 379b MS .xxxtiges (cf. xxxtig on fol. 125a, l.¯11). Fol. 138v tiges. — 386b
Rie.V. 47, Andrew 1948: § 78 gan[gan], Siev.R. 268¯f., 477 gā[a]n (see Appx.C §¯9); Bright MLN
x 44 hāt [þæt] in gāe; Robinson 1993a: 108 hāt [hī]; Ni., Crp. ingân (without allit.). — 387a t.Br.
53¯n. on s®l for sēon; Bright, Andrew l.c. sēo. — t.Br. l.c., Holt.1–6 (cf. Beibl. x 267)
sib(b)gedriht; see Gloss., Appx.C §§¯5, 23. — 389a Robinson 1993a: 110 D. weorode (cf.
Orchard 2003: 51 n.¯169); Bamm. A. cxii 107¯ff. D. weorum. — 389b–90a Ke. restores 90a as
[Wulfgār maþelode]; [þā wið duru healle / Wulfgār ēode] supplied by Gr.1, Holt., Schü., Sed.,
Cha., Kl.1–2, Ni.; so v.Sch., Wn., Mag., Le., Chck.1, Swn. (but tō for wið, and dura for duru,
after Kl. 1926: 120); 4 verses inserted by E.Sc.; Kl. l.c., Kl.3 [þā tō dura ēode / wīdcūð hæleð,],
Su. efste for ēode (after Brown PMLA liii 911¯f.; Kl. A. lxiii 406); Gerritsen Neophil. lxxiii 448¯ff.
as in text. — 395b MS geata / wum; E.Sc., Gr.1, Hold., Tr., v.Sch.15–16, Kl.3, Mag. -getāwum;
Siev.R. 246 -geatwum; Holt.1–7, Kl.1–2 -searwum; Kl.3 Su., v.Sch.17–18, Holt.8, Ni., Crp., Ja.
-getawum. See 368a Varr.; Appx.C §¯42. — 397b MS (Z.) on bidman w. incomplete erasure of m,
esp. of the ¢rst minim (cf. Mal.: bidina altered to bidian); Thk. on bidian, Gru., et al., Holt.,
Schü., v.Sch., Ni., Chck., Crp. onbidian. — 398a Ki. wuduwælsceaftas.
16 BEOWULF

400 þr©ðliċ þeġna hēap; sume þ®r bidon,

heaðorēaf hēoldon, swā him se hearda bebēad.
Snyredon ætsomne, Őő secg wīsode,
under Heorotes hrōf; [ēode hildedēor]
hear(d) under helme, þæt hē on heo[r]ðe ġestōd.
405 Bēowulf maðelode; on him byrne scān,
searonet seowed smiþes orþancum:
‘Wæs þū, Hrōðgār, hāl! Iċ eom Hiġelāces
m®ġ ond magoðeġn; hæbbe iċ m®rða fela
ongunnen on ġeogoþe. Mē wearð Grendles þinġ
410 on mīnre ēþeltyrf undyrne cūð;
secgað s®līðend þæt þæs sele stande,
reċed sēlesta rinca ġehwylcum
īdel ond unnyt, siððan ®fenlēoht
under heofenes haðor beholen weorþeð.
415 Þā mē þæt ġel®rdon lēode mīne
þā sēlestan, snotere ċeorlas,
þēoden Hrōðgār, þæt iċ þē sōhte,
forþan hīe mæġenes cræft mīn[n]e cūþon;
selfe ofersāwon ðā iċ of searwum cwōm
420 fāh from fēondum, þ®r iċ fīfe ġeband,
©ðde eotena cyn, ond on ©ðum slōg
niceras nihtes, nearoþearfe drēah,
wræc Wedera nīð — wēan āhsodon —
forgrand gramum; ond nū wið Grendel sceal,
425 wið þām āgl®ċan āna ġehēġan

401b Fol. 139r hearda. — 402 A(B) þa canceled by Siev.R. 256, Hold.2, Holt., Sed.2–3, Kl.1–2, Mag.
(see Appx.C §¯36); Bu. 86, Andrew 1948: §¯53, Ni. þām; Russom 1987: 37¯f. moves þā into 402a
after ætsomne, Pope Speculum lxiii 104¯ff. before ætsomne. — 403b E.Sc., E. [(þā) mid (his)
hæleðum gē(o)ng]; Gr.1, et plur. [hygerōf ēode]; Kl.1–3 [heaþorinc ēode]; Brown PMLA liii 911¯f.
[hygeþyhtig gēong]; Kl.3 Su. (see A. lxiii 406, Sed.3 110) [herewīsa gēong]; Sed.3, v.Sch., Wn.,
Mag., Ni., Chck., Swn. [ēode hildedēor]; Alxr. [ēode heaþorinc] (cf. Siev.A.M. §¯16.1c). — 404a
MS B heard with d added later; word not in A. — 404b Tho. (in Ke.2), Holtzm. 490, Hold.1,
Holt.1–6, Sed.1–2, Mag., Ja., Chck.2 392 heo[r]ðe; Bu. 86 hlēoðe (‘hearing distance’?); Sed.3
hēape; Holt. Beibl. xliv 226, ed.8 Heorte. — 407a MS Ki. wære corr. to wæs; Hold.2, Tr., 12 Edd.
wæs; Ke.2, et al. wes. See Lang. §¯2.1. — 411b Thk., Ke.2, Holt., Schü., Sed. þes. See Lang. §¯2.1.
— 414 a MS hador; Ke., Tho., et al., v.Sch., Kl.3, Wn., Le., Ni. hādor; Gr.1, Soc., Tr., Holt.1–5,8,
Schü., Kl.1–2, Sed.3, Mag., Ja., MR, Chck.2 392 haðor. — 418b MS mine; Gr.1, et plur., 7 Edd.
(excl. v.Sch., Wn.1–3, Ni., Crp.) mīn[n]e; Dob. (note) mīnes (?). Cf. 255b; note to 2181. — 419b
Gr.1 (?), Bu. 368 on (¯for of). — 420b Rie.Zs. 399 þ®ra; Gr.1 fīfel or fīÏe (?); Bu. 367 [on]
fīfelgeban (= -geofon), t.Br. 50 fīfelgeban (and 421a hām for cyn); J.L. Hall 1892: 13 fīfelgeband,
Tr.1 150, Tr. fīÏa gebann (‘levy’?). — 423a Fol. 139v pedra A (altered to wedra), . edera (altered
to wedera w. another ink) B. — 424b Ke. ii, E.Sc., E., Tr., Holt.1–2, Krüger BGdSL ix 571,
Andrew 1948: §¯68 Grendle. See Lang. §¯26.6.
 BEOWULF 17

ðinġ wið þyrse. Iċ þē nūða,

brego Beorht-Dena, biddan wille,
eodor Scyldinga, ānre bēne,
þæt ðū mē ne forwyrne, wīġendra hlēo,
430 frēowine folca, nū iċ þus feorran cōm,
þæt iċ mōte āna, mīnra eorla ġedryht,
ond þes hearda hēap Heorot f®lsian.
Hæbbe iċ ēac ġeāhsod þæt se ®ġl®ċa
for his wonh©dum w®pna ne reċċeð;
435 iċ þæt þonne forhicge, swā mē Hiġelāc sīe,
mīn mondrihten mōdes blīðe,
þæt iċ sweord bere oþðe sīdne scyld,
ġeolorand tō gūþe, ac iċ mid grāpe sceal
fōn wið fēonde ond ymb feorh sacan,
440 lāð wið lāþum; ð®r ġel©fan sceal
dryhtnes dōme sē þe hine dēað nimeð.
Wēn’ iċ þæt hē wille, ġif hē wealdan mōt,
in þ®m gūðsele Ġēatena lēode
etan unforhte, swā hē oft dyde
445 mæġenhrēð manna. Nā þū mīnne þearft
hafalan h©dan, ac hē mē habban wile
d[r]ēore fāhne, ġif meċ dēað nimeð:
byreð blōdiġ wæl, byrġean þenċeð,
eteð āngenġa unmurnlīċe,
450 mearcað mōrhopu — nō ðū ymb mīnes ne þearft
līċes feorme lenġ sorgian.
Onsend Hiġelāce, ġif meċ hild nime,
beaduscrūda betst þæt mīne brēost wereð,
hræġla sēlest; þæt is Hr®dlan lāf,
455 Wēlandes ġeweorc. G®ð ā wyrd swā hīo scel.’

426b Thk. nū þā, 11 Edd., Kl. nū ðā; Holt., Mag. nū-ða. See Appx.C §¯6. — 427a Thk., Gru., Ni.,
Crp. beorht D. (so 609a). — 430a E.Sc., Tho., E., Arn. frēawine. — 431b–2a Ke. ii, Gr.1, 10 Edd.
(excl. MR), Kl. [ond] before mīnra (transposing it from before þes); Tho., Andrew 1948: §¯187,
Crp. [mid] m. e. g. — 435b Siev.R. 237 sī. Cf. Appx.C §¯9. — 443 a Bu.Tid. 47¯f., Holt. 1
goldsele. — 443b MS geo / tena altered to gea / tena, evidently by the ¢rst scribe (so Mal., Fu.1);
Thk., Edd., Kl. Gēotena; Gr.1, Gru., He., Wülck., Soc., Wy., Sed.1–2, Ni., Chck.1 Gēatena; Rie.Zs.
400¯f., Tr., Holt.1, Schü., Sed.3 Gēata; Holt.2–6 Gēotna. See. Lang. §¯16.2 rem. — 444b Fol. 140 r
oft. — 445a MS mægen hreð manna; Ke.1, Schü. 1908: 102, Schü., Holt.3–6, Kl.1–2, v.Sch., Mag.,
Ni., Ja., Ki., Chck.2 392¯f. mægenhrēð manna; Ke.1 260, Ke.2, Edd., Kl.3 mægen Hrēðmanna (Wn.,
Crp. [p.¯1049: ?], MR hrēð-); Tr. mægenþr©ð manna. See Fu.2. — 447a MS deore; Gru.tr. 273, Ke.,
Edd. (excl. Crp.) d[r]ēore. — 454b E.Sc. (?), Müll. ZfdA xii 260, Holt.1–6, Sed. Hrēðlan; Holt.7–8
(Siev.) Hr¹dlan. See Gloss. of Proper Names.
18 BEOWULF

VII Hrōðgār maþelode, helm Scyldinga:

‘Fore †fyhtum þū, wine mīn Bēowulf,
ond for ārstafum ūsiċ sōhtest.
Ġeslōh þīn fæder f®hðe m®ste;
460 wearþ hē Heaþolāfe tō handbonan
mid Wil¢ngum; ðā hine Wedera cyn
for herebrōgan habban ne mihte.
Þanon hē ġesōhte Sūð-Dena folc
ofer ©ða ġewealc, Ār-Scyldinga;
465 ðā iċ furþum wēold folce Deniġa
ond on ġeogoðe hēold ġinne rīċe,
hordburh hæleþa, ðā wæs Heregār dēad,
mīn yldra m®ġ unli¢ġende,
bearn Healfdenes; sē wæs betera ðonne iċ!
470 Siððan þā f®hðe fēo þingode:
sende iċ Wyl¢ngum ofer wæteres hrycg
ealde mādmas; hē mē āþas swōr.
Sorh is mē tō secganʼnĺ on sefan mīnum
gumena ®ngum hwæt mē Grendel hafað
475 h©nðo on Heorote mid his heteþancum,
f®rnīða ġefremed; is mīn Ïetwerod,
wīġhēap ġewanod; hīe wyrd forswēop
on Grendles gryre. God ēaþe mæġ
þone dolscaðan d®da ġetw®fan!
480 Ful oft ġebēotedon bēore druncne
ofer ealow®ġe ōretmecgas
þæt hīe in bēorsele bīdan woldon
457a MS fere fyhtum [the obelus (†) in this edition indicates a corrupt reading currently
incapable of correction]; Ke.2 Fore fylstum (þū, frēond, placing þū in the on-verse, as in most
Edd.); E.Sc., Tho., Arn., Schü. Fore fyhtum (þū, frēond: cf. Kl. Beibl. xxiv 290; also Brown
PMLA liii 912: þū, frēowine); Gr. 1 Fore wyhtum (si. Holt.7–8, w. Ferĺ); Gru. For werefyhtum (so
also Gr.2, He., Wülck., Hold., Soc., Wy., v.Sch., Wn., Mag., Ni., MR, Chck.2 393; so Hoops EStn.
lxx 77¯ff.; also Kl.3 Su., but w. þū canceled or in the off-verse?); E. For werefeohtum; Tr., Cha.,
Kl.1–3, Sed.3, Dob., Le., Chck., Ja. For gewyrhtum; Holt. ZfdPh. xxxvii 114, ed.1–2 For wælslyhtum;
Sed.1–2 fore wyrhtum; Holt.3 Fer wīgum (so ed.4–6, but w. For). — 459a Holt.1–7, Sed.1–2, Schü.10–14
þīn fæder geslōh. See Appx.C §¯27. See also Tr.1 153¯f. — 461b MS gara; Gru., He. 2–4 , et plur., 9
Edd. (excl. Crp.) Wedera; Tho., Gr., Wülck. Wara, Tuso MLQ xxix 259¯ff. wara, Wn.-B., Chck.
wāra (see note); Holt.8 (see Studia Philologica xiv 160; Beibl. liv¯f. 30), Le. wigana; Mal. MLQ i
37¯ff. Wulgara; Ki. wīgāra (cf. ASE xxxii 13). — 464b Fol. 140v scyldinga A(B). — 465b MS de /
ninga (standing under scyldinga), Gru., He.1–18, Ni. Deninga; Tho., 9 Edd. Deniga. Cf. 1686a
Varr. — 466b MS gim merice; Thk., et al., Schü., v.Sch., Ni., Crp., MR gimme rīce; Gr., Gru.,
He.1–5, Wülck., Wy., Cha., Wn. gimmerīce; E.Sc., Tho. (but rīcu), Arn., Hold., Soc.6–7, Tr., Holt.,
Dob., Ja. ginne rīce; Sed. gumena rīce; see note. — 473a Siev.R. 312, Holt.1–6, Schü., Sed., Kl. 1–2
secgan. See Appx.C §¯21. — 479a MS dol scaðan altered to dol sceaðan by the other scribe; Th.,
Edd., Kl. dolsceaðan; Ke., Gr.1–2, Gru., He.1–18, Hold., Wülck. dolscaðan. See Intr. xxxii¯f.
 BEOWULF 19

Grendles gūþe mid gryrum ecga.

Ðonne wæs þēos medoheal on morgentīd,
485 drihtsele drēorfāh þonne dæġ līxte,
eal benċþelu blōde best©med,
heall heorudrēore; āhte iċ holdra þ© l®s,
dēorre duguðe, þē þā dēað fornam.
Site nū tō symle ond ons®l meoto,
490 siġehrēð secgum, swā þīn sefa hwette.’
Þā wæs Ġēatmæcgum ġeador ætsomne
on bēorsele benċ ġer©med;
þ®r swīðferhþe sittan ēodon,
þr©ðum dealle. Þeġn nytte behēold,
495 sē þe on handa bær hroden ealow®ġe,
scencte scīr wered. Scop hwīlum sang
hādor on Heorote. Þ®r wæs hæleða drēam,
duguð unl©tel Dena ond Wedera.

VIII Ūnferð maþelode, Ecglāfes bearn,

500 þē æt fōtum sæt frēan Scyldinga,
onband beadurūne. Wæs him Bēowulfes sīð,
mōdġes merefaran, miċel æfþunca,
forþon þe hē ne ūþe þæt ®niġ ōðer man
®fre m®rða þon mā middanġeardes
505 ġehēdde under heofenum þonne hē sylfa:
‘Eart þū se Bēowulf, sē þe wið Brecan wunne
on sīdne s®, ymb sund Ïite,
ð®r ġit for wlenċe wada cunnedon
ond for dolġilpe on dēop wæter
510 aldrum nēþdon? Nē inċ ®niġ mon,
486a Fol. 141 r benc. — 489b–90a MS on sæl meoto; Ke. ii on s®lum ete (Whitbread MLR xxxvii
481: ēowa for ete); Tho. ons®l meodo sigehreðer; Dietrich ZfdA xi 411, Crp. ons®l meoto,
sigehrēð secgum; Gr. 2 (cf. Aant. 10) sigehrēðsecgum; Klu. ix 188, Hold.1 sigehrēð(e)gum; Holt.1
(see Zs. 114) on s®lum weota sigehrēðgum secgum; Schü. 1908: 103, ed. on s®l weota sigehrēð
secgum (cf. earlier Holt. ZfdPh. xxxvii 114); Körner EStn. ii 251, Kl. 1907: 192, Holt.2–5, Mag. on
s®l meota (imp. of metian; v.Sch., Wn., Ni., Chck., Ja. meoto) (Holt. sighrēð secgum; Wn. sige
hrēðsecga, see note), cf. Kl. MLN xxxiv 132, Kock 2 105; Sed. 2 on s®lum tēo (‘award’) s. s.;
Bright MLN xxxi 217¯ff. ons®l mētto s. s.; Imelmann EStn. lxv 195¯f. ons®l mē tō; Sed.3 on s®l ne
oftēoh; Holt.6 (see Beibl. xl 90) ons®l meotod, Holt. Lit.bl. lix 164, ed.7 o. meodogāl (cf. Siev.
A.M. §¯81), Holt.8 on s®l beota (see Patzig A. xlvii 97¯f.); BTSA 47, Swn., Alxr. on s®lum ēow. See
note. — 496a Crawford N&Q xiv 204¯f., Wn.-B., Crp. scīrwered. — 499 a MS HVN ferð; Rie.Zs.
414 Unferð; He., E., Arn., Wülck., Sed., Crp. retain H-; MP lxxxv 2.122, Ja. Ūn-. — 501b Tr.1
155 cancels sīð (or: Bēowan sīð [?]); Holt.7–8 beornes sīð (metri causa: see Appx.C §¯28). — 504a
Fol. 141v mærða A. — 505a MS ge / hedde; Holt.1, Kl., Sed.3, Le. gehēde (= gehēgde); Holt.2–8
gehēgde; si. Mag.
20 BEOWULF

nē lēof nē lāð, belēan mihte

sorhfullne sīð, þā ġit on sund r½n.
Þ®r ġit ēagorstrēam earmum þehton,
m®ton merestr®ta, mundum brugdon,
515 glidon ofer gārsecg; ġeofon ©þum wēol,
wintrys wylm[um]. Ġit on wæteres ®ht
seofonniht swuncon; hē þē æt sunde oferÏāt,
hæfde māre mæġen. Þā hine on morgentīd
on Heaþo-R®mes holm up ætbær;
520 ðonon hē ġesōhte sw®sne ēþel,
lēof his lēodum, lond Brondinga,
freoðoburh fæġere, þ®r hē folc āhte,
burh ond bēagas. Bēot eal wið þē
sunu Bēanstānes sō(ð)e ġel®ste.
525 Ðonne wēne iċ tō þē wyrsan ġeþinġea,
ðēah þū heaðor®sa ġehw®r dohte,
grimre gūðe, ġif þū Grendles dearst
nihtlongne fyrst n¼n bīdan.’
Bēowulf maþelode, bearn Ecgþeowes:
530 ‘Hwæt, þū worn fela, wine mīn Ūnferð,
bēore druncen ymb Brecan spr®ce,
sæġdest from his sīðe. Sōð iċ taliġe,
þæt iċ merestrenġo māran āhte,
eafeþo on ©þum, ðonne ®niġ ōþer man.
535 Wit þæt ġecw®don cnihtwesende
ond ġebēotedon — w®ron bēġen þā ġīt
on ġeogoðfēore — þæt wit on gārsecg ūt
aldrum nēðdon, ond þæt ġeæfndon swā.
Hæfdon swurd nacod, þā wit on sund r½n,
540 heard on handa; wit unc wið hron¢xas
werian þōhton. Nō hē wiht fram mē
516a MS wylm; Tho., (Rie.Zs. 387, 404,) Siev.R. 271, Schü., Cha., Sed.3, MR wylm[e]; Mö. 131,
Holt.1–5, Sed.1–2 [þurh] w. w.; Klu. (in Hold.1), Holt.6–8, v.Sch. Dob., Wn., Mag., Ni., Ja.
wylm[um]; cf. And 451¯f. — 517a Ke., Tho., et al., Sed. seofonniht; Gr., Edd., Kl. seofon niht. See
Appx.C §¯5, HOEM §¯199. — 519a MS heaþoræmes; Munch 1874 (1850): 371 (cf. E.tr.), Müll. ZfdA
xi 287, Holt., Schü., Sed.1–2 -R¬amas (cf. Wid 63); Gr.1, Cha., Kl.1–2, Sed.3, Dob. -R®mas. See
Lang. §§¯7.1, 19.5. — 520b MS .². (= ēþel). So 913a, 1702a. See NM cv 177–86. — 523b Fol. 142r
beot. — 524a Bu.Zs. 198 (?), Krüger BGdSL ix 573 Bānstānes; Bu.Zs. 198 (?), Hold.1, Holt.7–8
B¬ahstānes. — 524b MS A sode, B soðe w. ð altered from d in another ink (Z.). — 525b Ke. ii
þinges (?); Rie. Germ. ix 303, Zs. 389, Hold.1, Tr., Holt.1–2,7–8, Sed., Hoops geþinges. Cf. 398, 709.
— 530b MS hun ferð. See 499a. — 534a MS ear / feþo, so Edd., Kl.; He.1–3 Gloss. eafoð (?); Bu.Zs.
198, He.4, Hold.1, Tr.1 156, Sed.3 eafeþo. See note. — 540b Schü.Bd. 55¯f. horn¢scas, so And 370;
but cf. Alex (ed. Orchard 1995) §¯29: hron¢scas.
 BEOWULF 21

Ïōd©þum feor Ïēotan meahte,

hraþor on holme, nō iċ fram him wolde.
Ðā wit ætsomne on s® w®ron
545 fīfnihta fyrst, oþ þæt unc Ïōd tōdrāf,
wado weallende, wedera ċealdost,
nīpende niht, ond norþan wind
heaðogrim ondhwearf; hrēo w®ron ©þa.
Wæs mere¢xa mōd onhrēred;
550 þ®r mē wið lāðum līċsyrċe mīn
heard hondlocen helpe ġefremede;
beadohræġl brōden on brēostum læġ
golde ġeġyrwed. Mē tō grunde tēah
fāh fēondscaða, fæste hæfde
555 grim on grāpe; hwæþre mē ġyfeþe wearð
þæt iċ āgl®ċan orde ġer®hte,
hildebille; heaþor®s fornam
mihtiġ meredēor þurh mīne hand.

VIIII Swā meċ ġelōme lāðġetēonan

560 þrēatedon þearle. Iċ him þēnode
dēoran sweorde, swā hit ġedēfe wæs.
Næs hīe ð®re fylle ġefēan hæfdon,
mānford®dlan, þæt hīe mē þēgon,
symbel ymbs®ton s®grunde nēah,
565 ac on merġenne mēċum wunde
be ©ðlāfe uppe l®gon,
sweo[r]dum āswefede, þæt syðþan nā
ymb brontne ford brimlīðende
lāde ne letton. Lēoht ēastan cōm,
570 beorht bēacen Godes, brimu swaþredon,
þæt iċ s®næssas ġesēon mihte,
windiġe weallas. Wyrd oft nereð
unf®ġne eorl, þonne his ellen dēah!

544a Fol. 142v somne AB. — 545a Thk., Edd., Kl. fīf nihta. See 517a. — 547b Kl., Holt.7–8, Dob.,
Le., Wn.-B., Crp., Ja., MR norþanwind. See Appx.C §¯5. — 548a MS ℓ¯hwearf; Gr., E., Wülck.,
Bamm. 1986a: 89–90 and hwearf (adj., cf. Finn 34); Tr.1 156, Tr., Holt.3–6, Sed.3 onhwearf. —
552b Siev. 1884b: 138, Holt. [þæt mē] on. Cf. Kock4 112¯f. — 562a Holt.1–2 Nalæs. — 563b–4a Siev.
(in Holt.7–8) þēġen and ymbs®ten. — 565b Fol. 143r wunde. — 567a A speodū, B sve . . (v later
altered to w: Mal. PMLA lxiv 1197); Ke., Edd. sweo[r]dum. — 568a Holt. Archiv cv 366¯ff., Tr.
brādne; Sed.3 (see MLR v 286¯f.) forð (see Gloss: ford); Kolb ES xlvi 322¯f. bord. — 574a MS
hwæþere; Bu.Tid. 48 Swā ð®r (but cf. 890); Tr. Þēah þe. Cf. Siev. 1884b: 138.
22 BEOWULF

Hwæþere mē ġes®lde þæt iċ mid sweorde ofslōh

575 niceras nigene. Nō iċ on niht ġefræġn
under heofones hwealf heardran feohtan,
nē on ēgstrēamum earmran mannon;
hwæþere iċ fāra fenġ fēore ġedīġde,
sīþes wēriġ. Ðā meċ s® oþbær,
580 Ïōd æfter faroðe on Finna land,
wadu weallendu. Nō iċ wiht fram þē
swylcra searonīða secgan h©rde,
billa brōgan. Breca n®fre ġīt
æt heaðolāce, nē ġehwæþer inċer,
585 swā dēorliċe d®d ġefremede
fāgum sweordum — nō iċ þæs [fela] ġylpe —
þēah ðū þīnum brōðrum tō banan wurde,
hēafodm®gum; þæs þū in helle scealt
werhðo drēogan, þēah þīn wit duge.
590 Secge iċ þē tō sōðe, sunu Ecglāfes,
þæt n®fre Gre[n]del swā fela gryra ġefremede,
atol ®ġl®ċa, ealdre þīnum,
h©nðo on Heorote, ġif þīn hiġe w®re,
sefa swā searogrim swā þū self talast;
595 ac hē hafað onfunden þæt hē þā f®hðe ne þearf,
atole ecgþræce ēower lēode
swīðe onsittan, Siġe-Scyldinga;
nymeð n©dbāde, n®negum ārað
lēode Deniġa, ac hē lust wiġeð,
600 swefeð, ondsendeþ, seċċe ne wēneþ
tō Gār-Denum. Ac iċ him Ġēata sceal
eafoð ond ellen unġeāra nū,

574b Rie.V. 9 mēce (¯for sweorde); Holt.1 (see Zs. 114) ābrēat (¯for ofslōh). See Appx.C §¯42. —
578a MS hwaþere; Gru. (see Tho., Gr.1) hwæþere; so Edd. since Kl.3 excl. Dob., Chck.1, Crp. —
581a MS wudu; Gru.tr. 275, Ke. ii, most Edd. wadu. See note. — 586b Gr.1, et al., 10 Edd. (excl.
Crp.) [fela]; Klu. ix 188, Hold., Holt.1–6, Schü.9–10, Cha., Matthes 1955: 369 [geÏites]; Bamm.
NM xcvii 379¯ff. [sōþes]; MR [swīðe]; cf. W. Lehmann 1969: 223–4, R. Lehmann NM lxxii 37. —
588b Fol. 143v helle AB. — 591a MS gre del; Thk., Edd. Gre[n]del. — 596b E. ēowerra lēoda; Klu.
(in Hold.2) ēowra lēoda; Tr.1 157¯f., Tr., Holt.1–2, Sed. ēowre lēode. See 599a, 1124a. — 599b Ke. ii
[on] lust wīgeð (?); Bu.Tid. 48¯f. [on] lust þigeð. — 600a MS swefeð ond sendeþ; Ke.2 swefeð,
onsendeð; Tho., Arn., BT s. o. scendeð; Gru. (cf. Gru.tr. 275) swefen onsendeð (see Gr. Bibl. ii
p.¯414, Aant. 13); E., Holt. Lit.bl. xvi 82, Archiv clxxxvii 125, ed.8 (p.¯x) swendeþ (¯for sendeþ);
He.1–6 swēfeð o. s.; Holt.1–2 (see Archiv ciii 375, Beibl. x 267), Sed.3 swenceþ; Tr.1 158, Tr.
swelgeþ; Sed.1–2 serweþ (cf. 161a); Imelmann EStn. lxvi 324¯ff., Hoops St. 83, Kl.3, Chck.1 snēdeþ,
Holt.7–8, Bamm. N&Q xlvi 428¯ff. sn®deþ, MR s®ndeþ (all spelling varr.); 9 Edd., Kl.1–2, Kl.3 Su.
sendeþ. — 601b Tho., Gr. Bibl. ii 414 (?), Holtzm. 491 cancel ic.
 BEOWULF 23

gūþe ġebēodan. G®þ eft sē þe mōt

tō medo mōdiġ, siþþan morgenlēoht
605 ofer ylda bearn ōþres dōgľres,
sunne sweġlwered sūþan scīneð.’
Þā wæs on sālum sinċes brytta
gamolfeax ond gūðrōf; ġēoce ġel©fde
brego Beorht-Dena; ġeh©rde on Bēowulfe
610 folces hyrde fæstr®dne ġeþōht.
Юr wæs hæleþa hleahtľr, hlyn swynsode,
word w®ron wynsume. Ēode Wealhþēo forð,
cwēn Hrōðgāres cynna ġemyndiġ,
grētte goldhroden guman on healle,
615 ond þā frēoliċ wīf ful ġesealde
®rest Ēast-Dena ēþelwearde,
bæd hine blīðne æt þ®re bēorþeġe,
lēodum lēofne; hē on lust ġeþeah
symbel ond seleful, siġerōf kyning.
620 Ymbēode þā ides Helminga
duguþe ond ġeogoþe d®l ®ġhwylcne,
sinċfato sealde, oþ þæt s®l ālamp
þæt hīo Bēowulfe, bēaghroden cwēn
mōde ġeþungen medoful ætbær;
625 grētte Ġēata lēod, Gode þancode
wīsfæst wordum þæs ðe hire se willa ġelamp
þæt hēo on ®niġne eorl ġel©fde
fyrena frōfre. Hē þæt ful ġeþeah,
wælrēow wiga æt Wealhþ½n,
630 ond þā ġyddode gūþe ġef©sed.
Bēowulf maþelode, bearn Ecgþeowes:
‘Iċ þæt hogode, þā iċ on holm ġestāh,
s®bāt ġesæt mid mīnra secga ġedriht,
þæt iċ ānunga ēowra lēoda
635 willan ġeworhte oþðe on wæl crunge
fēondgrāpum fæst. Iċ ġefremman sceal
eorliċ ellen, oþðe endedæġ
on þisse meoduhealle mīnne ġebīdan.’

609a Fol. 144r brego AB. — 612a Kal. 56 wynsum (?); Tr. cancels w®ron. — 612b MS wealh þeo
altered to wealh þeow by the other scribe; Ke., Edd., Kl. Wealhþēow. See Intr. xxxii¯f. — 617a
Sed.3 (see MLR xxvii 448¯f.) b®dde; Gru. (?) blīðsian, Tr. blīðsan. — 629b Fol. 144v æt AB. — 632
Blockley RES xlvi 331¯f. þā in on-verse.
24 BEOWULF

Ðām wīfe þā word wēl līcodon,

640 ġilpcwide Ġēates; ēode goldhroden
frēolicu folccwēn tō hire frēan sittan.
Þā wæs eft swā ®r inne on healle
þr©ðword sprecen, ðēod on s®lum,
siġefolca swēġ, oþ þæt semninga
645 sunu Healfdenes sēċean wolde
®fenræste; wiste þ®m āhl®ċan
tō þ®m hēahsele hilde ġeþinġed,
siððan hīe sunnan lēoht ġesēon meahton
oþ ðe nīpende niht ofer ealle,
650 scaduhelma ġesceapu scrīðan cwōman
wan under wolcnum. Werod eall ārās.
[Ġe]grētte þā guma ōþerne,
Hrōðgār Bēowulf, ond him h®l ābēad,
wīnærnes ġeweald, ond þæt word ācwæð:
655 ‘N®fre iċ ®negum men ®r āl©fde,
siþðan iċ hond ond rond hebban mihte,
ðr©þærn Dena būton þē nūða.
Hafa nū ond ġeheald hūsa sēlest,
ġemyne m®rþo, mæġenellen c©ð,
660 waca wið wrāþum! Ne bið þē wilna gād
ġif þū þæt ellenweorc aldre ġedīġest.’

X Ðā him Hrōþgār ġewāt mid his hæleþa ġedryht,

eodur Scyldinga ūt of healle;
wolde wīġfruma Wealhþēo sēċan,
665 cwēn tō ġebeddan. Hæfde kyningwuldor
Grendle tōġēanes, swā guman ġefrungon,
seleweard āseted; sundľrnytte behēold
ymb aldor Dena, eotonweard’ ābēad.

643 Sed. transposes order of half-lines; cf. Kl. 1905–6: 240; Gering ZfdPh. xii 124 þēat; Andrew
1948: §¯81 þēoda. — 648b E.Sc., Tho., Holt., Schü., Sed., Cha., Dob., Wn.1–2, Swn. insert [ne] (cf.
Ke. ii 27, E.tr.). — 649a Ke., et al., 11 Edd. oþðe; Gru.tr. 276, Gru. oð þæt; Holt.8 oþ ðe; Andrew
MÆ viii 205 ōþre. — 652 MS grette; Gru.tr. 276 [Ge]grētte (cf. 2516a, 1870a, 34a, etc.); so Gr.1,
Soc.6–7, Edd.; Gr.2, E., Wülck. þā [glædmōd]; He.2–4, Soc.5 þā [giddum]; Ki. guma [guman] (cf.
Appx.C §¯27). — 653b Gr.1 heal (?); Cos. (in Hold.2) healle. But see Kl. 1905–6: 240 (bēodan used
w. two widely different objects). — 654a Fol. 145r geweald. — 657b Thk., Edd., Kl. nū ðā. See
426b. — 665b Ke. ii (?), Tho., Gru., Gr., He.1–5, Arn., Wülck., Hold.1, Wy., Holt.2, Sed. kyning[a]
wuldor; Tr. hæfde kyning wrāðum. See Kl. 1905–6: 454. — 668b Ke. eotenweard ābēad; Ke. ii
ēotnes weard ābād; Tho., eoten weard ābēad; Tr.1 161, Tr. e. w. ābād; Sed.1–2 eotonweard ābād;
Binz Beibl. xiv 360 (Lit.bl. xxxii 55) eotenwearde bēad; Sed.3 (see MLR xxviii 226) e. w. ābrēat.
 BEOWULF 25

Hūru Ġēata lēod ġeorne truwode

670 mōdgan mæġnes, metodes hyldo.
Ðā hē him of dyde īsernbyrnan,
helm of hafelan, sealde his hyrsted sweord,
īrena cyst, ombihtþeġne,
ond ġehealdan hēt hildeġeatwe.
675 Ġespræc þā se gōda ġylpworda sum,
Bēowulf Ġēata, ®r hē on bed stiġe:
‘Nō iċ mē an herewæsmun hnāgran taliġe
gūþġeweorca þonne Grendel hine;
forþan iċ hine sweorde swebban nelle,
680 aldre benēotan, þēah iċ eal mæġe.
Nāt hē þāra gōda þæt hē mē onġēan sl¼,
rand ġehēawe, þēah ðe hē rōf s¾
nīþġeweorca; ac wit on niht sculon
secge ofersittan ġif hē ġesēċean dear
685 wīġ ofer w®pen, ond siþðan wītiġ God
on swā hwæþere hond, hāliġ dryhten
m®rðo dēme, swā him ġemet þinċe.’
Hylde hine þā heaþodēor, hlēorbolster onfēng
eorles andwlitan, ond hine ymb moniġ
690 snelliċ s®rinċ selereste ġebēah.
N®niġ heora þōhte þæt hē þanon scolde
eft eardlufan ®fre ġesēċean,
folc oþðe frēoburh þ®r hē āfēded wæs;
ac hīe hæfdon ġefrūnen þæt hīe ®r tō fela micles
695 in þ®m wīnsele wældēað fornam,
Deniġea lēode. Ac him dryhten forġeaf
wīġspēda ġewiofu, Wedera lēodum,
frōfor ond fultum, þæt hīe fēond heora
ðurh ānes cræft ealle ofercōmon,
700 selfes mihtum. Sōð is ġec©þed
þæt mihtiġ God manna cynnes
669b Siev.R., Holt.1–3, Schü. trēowde; Kl.1–2 trūwľde. So 1095a (-trēowdon, -trūwedon), 1533b,
1993b, 2322b, 2370b, 2540b, 2953b. See Gloss.: truwian. — 672b Schü. EStn. lv 92
hyrstedsweord. See Appx.C §¯5. — 673a Siev.R. 308, Tr., Holt., Schü., Sed. īren[n]a. See note.
— 676a Fol. 145v geata. — 677a Gru.tr. 277 -wæs[t]mum; Aant. 13 -r®sum (?); Tr.1 162, Tr.
-w®pnum. — 681a Holt.7 nāh; Tho. þ®re gūðe. — 684b MS het; Ke.2, Edd. hē. — 688b Ke.1, He.1,
12 Edd. hlēorbolster; Ke.2, Tho., et al. hlēor bolster. — 694b Tho. hyra (¯for hīe) (?); Gr.1, Gru.
þætte ®r, Bu. 89 þæt ®r; Klu. ix 189, Hold.1, Sed. hiera (¯for hīe ®r). Cf. Kl. 1905–6: 455. —
697b Fol. 146r wedera. — 698a Tr. frōfre. — 702a AB ride; Cony. 143 side-, Coll. siðe-; Gru.tr.
277, Edd. wīde-.
26 BEOWULF

wēold (w)īdeferhð.
Cōm on wanre niht
scrīðan sceadugenġa. Scēotend sw®fon,
þā þæt hornreċed healdan scoldon,
705 ealle būton ānum — þæt wæs yldum cūþ
þæt hīe ne mōste, þā metod nolde,
se s[c]ynscaþa under sceadu breġdan —
ac hē wæċċende wrāþum on andan
bād bolgenmōd beadwa ġeþinġes.

XI 710 Ðā cōm of mōre under misthleoþum

Grendel gongan, Godes yrre bær;
mynte se mānscaða manna cynnes
sumne besyrwan in sele þām hēan.
Wōd under wol(c)num tō þæs þe hē wīnreċed,
715 goldsele gumena ġearwost wisse
f®tum fāhne. Ne wæs þæt forma sīð
þæt hē Hrōþgāres hām ġesōhte;
n®fre hē on aldľrdagum ®r nē siþðan
heardran h®le, healðeġnas fand.
720 Cōm þā tō reċede rinċ sīðian
drēamum bed®led. Duru sōna onarn
f©rbendum fæst, syþðan hē hire folmum (æt)hrān;
onbr®d þā bealoh©diġ, ðā (hē ġe)bolgen wæs,
reċedes mūþan. Raþe æfter þon
725 on fāgne Ïōr fēond treddode,
ēode yrremōd; him of ēagum stōd
liġġe ġelīcost lēoht unfæġer.

706a Gr.1, Gru., Gering ZfdPh. xii 124, Holt.1 hine ne. — 707a MS syn; Gr.1 s[c]in- (?), Gr.2
s[c]yn-; si. Tr., Holt., Schü., Cha., v.Sch., Dob., Wn.1–2 , Le., Ja., MR (but cf. 801b). See
Appx.C §¯28 fn. — 709b Ke. ii, Tho., Arn., Holt.1–6 beadwe. — 714a MS A wole (altered fr. pole,
Mal.), B wolc w. another ink. — 716a MS fættum; Thk., Ke., Edd., Kl. f®ttum. See Lang. §¯20.4; cf.
2256. — 718b Fol. 146v ne A. — 719a Thk., Edd., also Bu. 368, v.Sch., Ni. hæle (cf. Appx.C §¯27);
Siev.R. 275 (?), Holt. A. xxiv 267 (and ed.1,7–8), Tr., Sed., Cha., Wn., Mag., Crp., Ja., MR
h®le; Holt.2 (see Beibl. xviii 77) hilde; Schü. 1908: 104, ed. hæle[ðas]; Holt.2 ii 170, Holt.3–6
hæle[scipes] (cf. Appx.C §¯38); Tr.1 165 hwīle or m®le. See note. — 719b E.Sc. (?), Gr. Bibl. ii
414 (?), E. healþegen; Bu. 368 helðegn onfand. — 722b MS :¯:¯hran with UV, but before h ‘what
looks like e-head and t following it’ (Ki.; cf. Kiernan 1984: 27 [g]ehran); Ke.1 fornam; Tho.,
Edd., Schü., Sed. hrān; Gru.tr. 277 (?), Rask (see Ke.2, Gru.), Cha., Kl., v.Sch.15–16 , Dob.,
Mag., Le., æthrān; cf. 2270a; Z., Hold.1, Tr., Holt., Wn., v.Sch.17–18, Ni., Chck., Swn., Crp.,
Ja. gehrān; Kl. (n.¯[?]), MR onhrān. — 723b MS :¯:¯:¯:¯: bolgen; MS Dav. xiii þær abolgen (?); MS
Ki.: before bolgen ‘UV reveals hege, but ¢rst stroke of h is missing at top and bottom’; Thk.,
Cony. hē bolgen (Coll.: ellipsis before hē); Gru.tr. 277, Z., 11 Edd. hē gebolgen; Ke., Tho.,
E., Arn., Wülck., Soc. 5 hē ābolgen; v.Sch.18 þ®r gebolgen (canceling ðā; cf. Dav.).
 BEOWULF 27

Ġeseah hē in reċede rinca maniġe,

swefan sibbĺġedriht samod ætgædere,
730 magorinca hēap. Þā his mōd āhlōg;
mynte þæt hē ġed®lde, ®r þon dæġ cwōme,
atol āgl®ċa ānra ġehwylċes
līf wið līċe, þā him ālumpen wæs
wistfylle wēn. Ne wæs þæt wyrd þā ġēn
735 þæt hē mā mōste manna cynnes
ðicgean ofer þā niht. Þr©ðsw©ð behēold
m®ġ Hiġelāces hū se mānscaða
under f®rgripum ġefaran wolde.
Nē þæt se āgl®ċa yldan þōhte,
740 ac hē ġefēng hraðe forman sīðe
sl®pendne rinċ, slāt unwearnum,
bāt bānlocan, blōd ēdrum dranc,
synsn®dum swealh; sōna hæfde
unly¢ġendes eal ġefeormod,
745 fēt ond folma. Forð nēar ætstōp,
nam þā mid handa hiġeþīhtiġne
rinċ on ræste. Hē hi(m) r®hte onġēan,
fēond mid folme; hē onfēng hraþe
inwitþancum ond wið earm ġesæt.
750 Sōna þæt onfunde fyrena hyrde,
þæt hē ne mētte middanġeardes,
eorþan scēata on elran men
mundgripe māran. Hē on mōde wearð
forht on ferhðe; nō þ© ®r fram meahte.
755 Hyġe wæs him hinfūs, wolde on heolster Ïēon,
sēċan dēoÏa ġedr®ġ; ne wæs his drohtoð þ®r
swylċe hē on ealdĺrdagum ®r ġemētte.
Ġemunde þā se gōda, m®ġ Hiġelāces,

729a t.Br., Holt. 1–6 sibbgedriht. See 387 a . — 730 a Mö. xxvii, t.Br. magoþegna (cf. 728 b ).
— 739a Gru. Nō þ®r; Holt. 1–2 (see Zs. 115), Schü.8 Nō þæt. Cf. Kl. 1908a: 430. — 740a
Fol. 131 r (146 r bis) feng AB. — 747b MS ræhte on gean, w. erasure of he hi(m) before (see
Fu.1; cf. J.R. Hall 2006); Siev.R. 265, Holt.1–7, Schü., Sed.1–2, Cha., Kl.1–2, Cassidy MLN l 88¯f.
r®hte tōgēanes; Tr. 1 167, Tr., Swn., Rob. 56, Chck. 2 394 [him] r. o.; Sed. 3 (see MLR xxviii
226¯f.) [ond] r. o.; Pope 372, Holt. 8 , Mag. [him swā] r. o.; see note. — 748 b Sed. 3 [him]
onfēng. — 749a Aant. 14, Hoops St. 102, Andrew 1948: §¯78, Holt. 8 inwitþanc(u)lum.
(Gr. 1 note: inwitþanc used as adj.; so He., Kock 4 115.) — 752a MS sceat / ta (prob. an over-
sight: cf. 1282b, 986b); E.Sc., et al., Schü., Sed., Dob., MR, Ja. scēata. See Lang. §¯20.4. —
752 b Klu. EStn. xxii 145, Hold. 2 eldran (cf. Kl. 1905–6: 252); Tr. ōþrum. — 758a MS
goda; E. m®ra; Rie.V. 24, 43, Hold., Tr., Holt., Schü., Sed., Cha., Ja. mōd(e)ga. See note.
28 BEOWULF

®fenspr®ċe, uplang āstōd

760 ond him fæste wiðfēng; ¢ngras burston;
eoten wæs ūtweard, eorl furþur stōp.
Mynte se m®ra (hw)®r hē meahte swā
wīdre ġewindan ond on weġ þanon
Ïēon on fenhopu; wiste his ¢ngra ġeweald
765 on grames grāpum. Þæt wæs ġēocor sīð
þæt se hearmscaþa tō Heorute ātēah.
Dryhtsele dynede; Denum eallum wearð,
ċeastĺrbūendum, cēnra ġehwylcum,
eorlum ealuscerwen. Yrre w®ron bēġen,
770 rēþe renweardas. Reċed hlynsode.
Þā wæs wundor miċel þæt se wīnsele
wiðhæfde heaþodēorum, þæt hē on hrūsan ne fēol,
f®ġer foldbold; ac hē þæs fæste wæs
innan ond ūtan īrenbendum
775 searoþoncum besmiþod. Þ®r fram sylle ābēag
medubenċ moniġ, mīne ġefr®ġe,
golde ġereġnad, þ®r þā graman wunnon.
Þæs ne wēndon ®r witan Scyldinga
þæt hit ā mid ġemete manna ®niġ
780 betliċ ond bānfāg tōbrecan meahte,
listum tōlūcan, nymþe līġes fæþm
swulge on swaþule. Swēġ up āstāg
nīwe ġeneahhe; Norð-Denum stōd
ateliċ eġesa, ānra ġehwylcum
785 þāra þe of wealle wōp ġeh©rdon,
gryrelēoð galan Godes andsacan,
siġelēasne sang, sār wāniġean

762b Fol. 131 v (146 v bis) .¯.¯. ær A (altered from æn, Mal. PMLA lxiv 1198), hwaer (hw w.
another ink & crossed out in pencil) B; Thk., et al., Hold., Wy., Soc. 6–7 , Schü., Ki., Fu. 1
hw®r; E.Sc., 11 Edd., Kl. þ®r. See note. — 763a Tr. 1 169, Tr. wīdor; Tr. 1 (?), Sed. wīde.
See Kl. 1905–6: 263, Fu. 1 . — 765b MS he wæs; Gr. 1 , Edd. (see Crp. c ) wæs. — 766a Siev.
1884b: 138 þone (?) (¯for ³); Cos. (in Hold. 2 ), Tr. þē. — 769a Ke., et al. ealu scerwen;
He. 1–3 e. scerpen (suggested by a misreading of And 1526); Bu.Tid. 292¯ff. ealuscerwen;
Grienb. BGdSL xxxvi 85 (cf. ibid. 410), Sed. -scerpen ‘heartburn.’ — 770a Ke., et al.,
Sed. 2–3 rēn- (¯= regn-, see Ke. 1 251); t.Br. 39 n.¯2 rēnhearde (?); Weyhe BGdSL xxx 59, Kl.
1907: 193, Edd. ren- (¯= ern-, ærn-). See Lang. §¯20.7. — 779a Holt.1 þæt hit mid gemete ®fre. —
779b Holt.2–8, Pope 238 ®nig manna. Cf. Dan 595a, And 1267a, etc., and see Appx.C §¯27. — 780a
MS hetlic; Gru.tr. 278, Edd. (excl. Arn.) betlic. Cf. Prokosch Kl.Misc. 203¯n. — Holt. Beibl. xliv
226 bōnfāg (bōn- = ‘ornament’). — 782a E.Sc. swolaðe (?); Tho. swaloðe; Gru. staðule (si. Tr.).
— 782b Fol. 147r up.
 BEOWULF 29

helle hæfton. Hēold hine fæste

sē þe manna wæs mæġene strenġest
790 on þ®m dæġe þysses līfes.

XII Nolde eorla hlēo ®niġe þinga

þone cwealmcuman cwicne forl®tan,
nē his līfdagas lēoda ®ngum
nytte tealde. Þ®r ġenehost bræġd
795 eorl Bēowulfes ealde lāfe,
wolde frēadrihtnes feorh ealgian,
m®res þēodnes, ð®r hīe meahton swā.
Hīe þæt ne wiston, þā hīe ġewin drugon,
heardhicgende hildemecgas,
800 ond on healfa ġehwone hēawan þōhton,
sāwle sēċan: þone synscaðan
®niġ ofer eorþan īrenna cyst,
gūðbilla nān, grētan nolde,
ac hē siġew®pnum forsworen hæfde,
805 ecga ġehwylcre. Scolde his aldľrġedāl
on ð®m dæġe þysses līfes
earmliċ wurðan, ond se ellorgāst
on fēonda ġeweald feor sīðian.
Ðā þæt onfunde sē þe fela ®ror
810 mōdes myrðe manna cynne,
fyrene ġefremede — hē [wæs] fāg wið God —
þæt him se līċhoma l®stan nolde,
ac hine se mōdega m®ġ Hyġelāces
hæfde be honda; wæs ġehwæþer ōðrum
815 li¢ġende lāð. Līċsār ġebād
atol ®ġl®ċa; him on eaxle wearð
syndolh sweotol, seonowe onsprungon,
burston bānlocan. Bēowulfe wearð
gūðhrēð ġyfeþe. Scolde Grendel þonan
820 feorhsēoc Ͻn under fenhleoðu,
sēċean wynlēas wīċ; wiste þē ġeornor
788a Tho., et al. helle-hæftan (-on); Holt.1–5 (see Zs. 124) helle hæftling (so And 1342, Jul 246). —
788b Cony., et al. [tō] fæste (Coll.: to? fæste; nothing AB); so Wülck., Hold., Soc., Tr., Schü.,
Sed.1–2. — 793b MS ænigum (second scribe’s insertion? So Mal.; see Fu.1, Intr. xxxii¯f.); Thk.,
Edd., Kl. ®nĽgum. — 797b Siev. (in Holt.7–8) meahten. — 801a Tr. sēocan. — 801b E.Sc., et al.,
Sed., Holt.7–8 [þæt] þ. Cf. 199b. — 804b Fol. 147v for AB. — 810a Gering 1906 mo[r]ð[r]es m. —
811b Ke.2, Holt., Schü, Sed., Dob., Mag. hē [wæs].
30 BEOWULF

þæt his aldres wæs ende ġegongen,

dōgera dæġrīm. Denum eallum wearð
æfter þām wælr®se willa ġelumpen:
825 hæfde þā ġef®lsod sē þe ®r feorran cōm,
snotor ond sw©ðferhð, sele Hrōðgāres,
ġenered wið nīðe. Nihtweorce ġefeh,
ellenm®rþum. Hæfde Ēast-Denum
Ġēatmecga lēod ġilp ġel®sted,
830 swylċe onc©þðe ealle ġebētte,
inwidsorge þe hīe ®r drugon
ond for þrēan©dum þolian scoldon,
torn unl©tel. Þæt wæs tācen sweotol
syþðan hildedēor hond āleġde,
835 earm ond eaxle — þ®r wæs eal ġeador
Grendles grāpe — under ġēapne hr(ōf).

XIII Ðā wæs on morgen mīne ġefr®ġe

ymb þā ġifhealle gūðrinċ moniġ;
fērdon folctogan feorran ond n¼n
840 ġeond wīdwegas wundľr scēawian,
lāþes lāstas. Nō his līfġedāl
sārliċ þūhte secga ®nĺgum
þāra þe tīrlēases trode scēawode,
hū hē wēriġmōd on weġ þanon,
845 nīða ofercumen, on nicera mere
f®ġe ond ġeÏ©med feorhlāstas bær.
Юr wæs on blōde brim weallende;
atol ©ða ġeswinġ eal ġemenġed
hāton heolfre heorodrēore wēol.
850 Dēaðf®ġe dēog siððan drēama lēas
in fenfreoðo feorh āleġde,
h®þene sāwle; þ®r him hel onfēng.

827a Fol. 148r niðe. — 836b MS B hr . . ; Rask (in Gru.tr. 279, cf. Gru. ed. note), Edd. hrōf; Miller
A. xii 398 horn. — 845a Kal. 82 n. oferwunnen (?); Holt.1–6 n. gen®ged; Lit.bl. lix 167, ed.7–8 mid
n. See Appx.C §¯27. — 846b Gr.1, Tr.1 171, Tr. feorlāstas. — 847a Aant. 14¯f. cancels on (cf.
1422a). — 849a MS hat on; Thk., et al. hāt on; Gr.1, Rie.Zs. 389¯f., Ant. 14, 12 Edd. hāton. See
Kühlwein BGdSL (T) xci 77¯ff. — 849b Fol. 148v heoro AB. — 850a Ke.2 dēag (‘the dye’), Tho.
dēog (‘dyed’), Leo (in He.1) dēog (‘lay concealed’); Siev. 1884b: 138, Hold., Tr., Holt.7–8, Andrew
1948: §¯168 d. dēop (no punct. after wēol), cf. Ke. ii, E.tr.; Bu. 89¯f. dēaðf®ges dēop; Aant. 15,
Holt.8 dēaðfāge dēop; Z. Archiv lxxxiv 124¯f., Schü., Sed. dēaf (‘dived’); Tr.1 172, Holt.2–6, Kl.1–2
dēof = dēaf; Whitbread MLR xxxvii 481¯f. dēaðdæge ne gefeah.
 BEOWULF 31

Þanon eft ġewiton ealdġesīðas

swylċe ġeong maniġ of gomenwāþe
855 fram mere mōdġe mēarum rīdan,
beornas on blancum. Юr wæs Bēowulfes
m®rðo m®ned; moniġ oft ġecwæð
þætte sūð nē norð be s®m twēonum
ofer eormengrund ōþer n®niġ
860 under sweġles begong sēlra n®re
rondhæbbendra, rīċes wyrðra.
Nē hīe hūru winedrihten wiht ne lōgon,
glædne Hrōðgār, ac þæt wæs gōd cyning.
Hwīlum heaþorōfe hlēapan lēton,
865 on ġeÏit faran fealwe mēaras,
ð®r him foldwegas fæġere þūhton,
cystum cūðe. Hwīlum cyninges þeġn,
guma ġilphlæden, ġidda ġemyndiġ,
sē ðe eal fela ealdġeseġena
870 worn ġemunde, word ōþer fand
sōðe ġebunden; secg eft ongan
sīð Bēowulfes snyttrum styrian
ond on spēd wrecan spel ġerāde,
wordum wrixlan; wēlhwylċ ġecwæð
875 þæt hē fram Siġemunde[s] secgan h©rde
ellend®dum, uncūþes fela,
Wælsinges ġewin, wīde sīðas,
þāra þe gumena bearn ġearwe ne wiston,
f®hðe ond fyrena, būton Fitela mid hine,
880 þonne hē swulċes hwæt secgan wolde,
¼m his nefan, swā hīe ā w®ron
æt nīða ġehwām n©dġesteallan;
hæfdon eal fela eotena cynnes
sweordum ġes®ġed. Siġemunde ġesprong
885 æfter dēaðdæġe dōm unl©tel
syþðan wīġes heard wyrm ācwealde,

855b Klu. BGdSL ix 189 ridon. Cf. Appx.C §¯27. — 868b Tr. glīwhlæden. — 869a Thk., et al., Ni.,
Crp. eal fela (so 883a); Ke., Gr., most Edd., Kl. ealfela (see 1230b, Appx.C §¯29). — 871b Rie.Zs.
390, Bu.Zs. 203 secg[an]. — 872b Fol. 149r styrian. — 873b Siev. (in Schü.10–14 gloss.), Holt.5–7
spelgerāde. — 875a MS sige munde; Gr., E., Wülck., Hold., Soc., Schü., Sed., Dob., Ja., MR
Sigemunde[s]; Holt. (cf. Siev.R. 463¯f.) Sigmunde[s], so 884b: Sigmunde. See Lang. §¯19.10 n. 6
(p.¯cxli). — 879a MS fyrene corr. to fyrena in same hand; Matthes A. lxxi 152¯f., v.Sch., Ni. fyrene.
— 883a Ke., Gr., most Edd., Kl. ealfela. See 869a.
32 BEOWULF

hordes hyrde. Hē under hārne stān,

æþelinges bearn, āna ġenēðde
frēcne d®de, nē wæs him Fitela mid;
890 hwæþre him ġes®lde ðæt þæt swurd þurhwōd
wr®tlicne wyrm, þæt hit on wealle ætstōd,
dryhtliċ īren; draca morðre swealt.
Hæfde āgl®ċa elne ġegongen
þæt hē bēahhordes brūcan mōste
895 selfes dōme; s®bāt ġehlēod,
bær on bearm scipes beorhte frætwa
Wælses eafera; wyrm hāt ġemealt.
Sē wæs wreċċena wīde m®rost
ofer werþēode, wīġendra hlēo,
900 ellend®dum — hē þæs ®r onðāh —
siððan Heremōdes hild sweðrode,
eafoð ond ellen. Hē mid Ēotenum wearð
on fēonda ġeweald forð forlācen,
snūde forsended. Hine sorhwylmas
905 lemedon tō lange; hē his lēodum wearð,
eallum æþellingum tō aldľrċeare;
swylċe oft bemearn ®rran m®lum
swīðferhþes sīð snotor ċeorl moniġ,
sē þe him bealwa tō bōte ġel©fde,
910 þæt þæt ðēodnes bearn ġeþēon scolde,
fæderæþelum onfōn, folc ġehealdan,
hord ond hlēoburh, hæleþa rīċe,
ēþĺl Scyldinga. Hē þ®r eallum wearð,
m®ġ Hiġelāces, manna cynne,
915 frēondum ġefæġra; hine fyren onwōd.
Hwīlum Ïītende fealwe str®te
mēarum m®ton. Ðā wæs morgenlēoht
scofen ond scynded. Ēode scealc moniġ
swīðhicgende tō sele þām hēan

895b Fol. 149v sǽ. — Tho., many Edd. gehlōd. See Lang. §¯25.3. — 897b Scherer 1893 (1869):
494, Tr.1 174 hāte. Cf. Kl. 1905–6: 251. — 900b Cos. viii 568, Hold., Soc.5, Tr., Holt.1–5, Sed.3
āron ðāh (cf. 8b); Boer 1912: 26 ār onþāh (‘received honor’). — 902a MS earfoð; J. Grimm
1840: 101 (?), Gr.1, nearly all Edd. eafoð. Cf. 602a, 2349a. — 902b Ke., et al., Cha., Wn.
eotenum; Ke. ii, et al. Ēotenum. — 904b Bu. 41 sorhwylma hrine. — 905a MS lemede; so Kl.,
11 Edd.; Gru.tr. 280, Ke.2, et al., Tr., Holt. lemedon. — 911a Tho., Gr.1, Gru., Arn., Wy. fæder
æþelum. Cf. Ex 361. — 913a MS .². — 915a Ke. ii, Gr.1, Sed.3 gef[r]®gra; Gru. gefægenra (?).
— 916b Aant. 16 fealwum. — 918b Fol. 150r eode.
 BEOWULF 33

920 searowundor sēon; swylċe self cyning

of br©dbūre, bēahhorda weard,
tryddode tīrfæst ġetrume micle,
cystum ġec©þed, ond his cwēn mid him
medostiġġe mæt mæġþa hōse.

XIIII 925 Hrōðgār maþelode — hē tō healle ġēong,

stōd on stapole, ġeseah stēapne hrōf
golde fāhne, ond Grendles hond:
‘Ðisse ans©ne alwealdan þanc
lungre ġelimpe. Fela iċ lāþes ġebād,
930 grynna æt Grendle; ā mæġ God wyrċan
wunder æfter wundre, wuldres hyrde.
Ðæt wæs unġeāra þæt iċ ®niġra mē
wēana ne wēnde tō wīdan feore
bōte ġebīdan, þonne blōde fāh
935 hūsa sēlest heorodrēoriġ stōd,
wēa wīdscofen witena ġehwylcum,
ðāra þe ne wēndon þæt hīe wīdeferhð
lēoda landġeweorc lāþum beweredon
scuccum ond scinnum. Nū scealc hafað
940 þurh drihtnes miht d®d ġefremede
ðē wē ealle ®r ne meahton
snyttrum besyrwan. Hwæt, þæt secgan mæġ
efne swā hwylċ mæġþa swā ðone magan cende
æfter gumcynnum, ġyf hēo ġ©t lyfað,
945 þæt hyre ealdmetod ēste w®re
bearnġebyrdo. Nū iċ, Bēowulf, þeċ,
secg bet[e]sta, mē for sunu wylle
frēoġan on ferhþe; heald forð tela
nīwe sibbe. Ne bið þē [n]®niġŗĺ gād
924a Gru.tr. 281, Ke., et al., Ni. -stīg gemæt; 11 Edd. -stigge mæt. — 926a Rask (in Gru.), Gr.1
369 (?), Bu. 90, Tr., Ekwall ES xxxv 80, Rosier MÆ xxxiv 223¯ff., Ni. staþole. — 936a Gru.tr.
281 wēan wīdscufon; Gru. wēan wiðscufon (?); Tr., Holt.2 [hæfde] (cf. Bu. 90) wēa wiðscofen
(cf. Gr.2; si. Sed. MLR xxvii 449 & ed.3 but w. [Nū is]); Holt.2 ii (?), Sed.1 wēa wīde scēaf, Sed.2
wēan wīde scufon. — 936b MS ge hwylcne; Ke. ii, Tho., Holt.3–6,8, Schü.10–14, Cha., Sed.3,
Dob., Wn.-B., Ja., MR gehwylcum; Siev. (in Holt.7) assumes loss after gehwylcne (misprinted
as gehwylene); cf. Kl. EStn. xlii 326. — 939a Fol. 150v scuccum AB. — 945a Tho., Gr., Gru., et
al., Ni., Crp. eald metod.¯—¯947a Siev.R. 312, Tr., Holt.1–6, Schü., Sed.1–2, Cha., Kl.1–2, Holt.8
(p.¯x) secg[a]; Tr.1 175 secg [se] (?); Sed. MLR xxviii 227, ed.3, HOEM §276 bet[o]sta; Holt.7–8
betsta [mē]; Pope 320, Mag., Bamm. NM ci 519¯ff. bet[e]sta. See note. — 949b Gr.1 (see Bu.Zs.
203¯f.), Schü., Cha., Kl.1–2, Sed.3, Dob., Mag. [n]®nigra; Gr.2, v.Sch., Kl.3, Wn., MR, Ja. [n]®nigre
(gp.: see Mal. A. liv 97¯f., Hoops 121¯f., OES §¯1611, Lang. §¯19.3 rem., Mitchell, Poetica xv–xvi
34 BEOWULF

950 worolde wilna þe iċ ġeweald hæbbe.

Ful oft iċ for l®ssan lēan teohhode,
hordweorþunge hnāhran rinċe,
s®mran æt sæcce. Þū þē self hafast
d®dum ġefremed þæt þīn [dōm] lyfað
955 āwa tō aldre. Alwalda þeċ
gōde forġylde, swā hē nū ġ©t dyde!’
Bēowulf maþelode, bearn Ecþeowes:
‘Wē þæt ellenweorc ēstum miclum,
feohtan fremedon, frēcne ġenēðdon
960 eafoð uncūþes. Ūþe iċ swīþor
þæt ðū hine selfne ġesēon mōste,
fēond on frætewum fylwēriġne.
Iċ hine hrædlīċe heardan clammum
on wælbedde wrīþan þōhte,
965 þæt hē for mundgripe mīnum scolde
licgean līfbysiġ, būtan his līċ swice;
iċ hine ne mihte, þā metod nolde,
ganges ġetw®man, nō iċ him þæs ġeorne ætfealh,
feorhġenīðlan; wæs tō foremihtiġ
970 fēond on fēþe. Hwæþere hē his folme forlēt
tō līfwraþe lāst weardian,
earm ond eaxle. Nō þ®r ®niġe swā þēah
fēasceaft guma frōfre ġebohte:
nō þ© lenġ leofað lāðġetēona
975 synnum ġeswenċed, ac hyne sār hafað
in nīðgripe nearwe befongen,
balwon bendum; ð®r ābīdan sceal
maga māne fāh miclan dōmes,
hū him scīr metod scrīfan wille.’
980 Ðā wæs swīġra secg, sunu Eclāfes,
on ġylpspr®ċe gūðġeweorca,

9¯ff.); Tr.1 175 (?), Holt.2,4–8, Sed.1–2 [n]®nges; Tr. [n]®nge (adv.). — 954a Tr. d. geæfned; Holt.2,8
(see Lit.bl. xxi 64), Sed.1, Cha. [mid] d.; Holt.3–7 d. gefremed[ne]; Andrew 1948: §¯171 d. gefēred.
See Appx.C §¯27. — 954b Ke.1 260, Ke.2, Edd. [dōm] (cf. And 541); Ki. [d®d]. — 957b MS ec;
Tho., Gr., He., Wülck., et al., Holt., Kl., Dob., Wn., MR, Ja., Chck.2 394 Ec[g]-. So 980b; see
note. — 962a Gru.tr. 281 on fæterum; Bu. 90 þone fr®tgan (cf. Jul 284). — 963a MS him; Tho.,
Edd. (excl. v.Sch., Ni., Crp.; see also Mal. EStn. xviii 257¯f.) hine. — 963b Fol. 151r heardan.
— 965a MS hand; Ke., Edd. (excl. Gru., Arn.) mund-. — 976a MS in mid; Tho., Gr., He.1–3, E.,
Arn., Sed., Ki. in nīð-; Gru. 209, Bu.Tid. 49, He.4, et al., Cha. in n©d-; Schü. (1908: 105–6),
Holt.3–8, Dob. mid n©d-; Kl., v.Sch., Wn., Ni., Swn., Crp., Ja., MR in nīd-. See SP civ 162–4. —
980b See 957b .
 BEOWULF 35

siþðan æþelingas eorles cræfte

ofer hēanne hrōf hand scēawedon,
fēondes ¢ngras; foran ®ġhwylċ wæs,
985 steda næġla ġehwylċ st©le ġelīcost,
h®þenes handsporu, hilderinċes,
eġl’ unhēoru. ¶ġhwylċ ġecwæð
þæt him heardra nān hrīnan wolde
īren ®rgōd þæt ðæs āhl®ċan
990 blōdġe beadufolme onberan wolde.

XV Ðā wæs hāten hreþe Heort innanweard

folmum ġefrætwod; fela þ®ra wæs,
wera ond wīfa þe þæt wīnreċed,
ġestsele ġyredon. Goldfāg scinon
995 web æfter wāgum, wundľrsīona fela
secga ġehwylcum þāra þe on swylċ starað.
Wæs þæt beorhte bold tōbrocen swīðe,
eal inneweard īrĺnbendum fæst,
heorras tōhlidene; hrōf āna ġenæs
1000 ealles ansund, þē se āgl®ċa
fyrend®dum fāg on Ïēam ġewand,
aldres orwēna. Nō þæt ©ðe byð
tō beϽnne — fremme sē þe wille —
ac ġesēċan sceal sāwlberendra
1005 n©de ġen©dde, niþða bearna,
grundbūendra ġearwe stōwe,
þ®r his līċhoma leġerbedde fæst
swefeþ æfter symle.

984b Miller A. xii 397 ®ghwylcne; Tolkien (see Mitchell LSE xx 315), Ja., MR ®ghw®r. — 985a
MS steda; Gru. stedig; E., Siev. 1884b: 138, Tr., Holt., Kl., Dob., Le. stīðra (cf. 1533a); Sed.1–2
(see MLR v 287) stīð-; Sed.3 studu-; BTSA, Swn., Ja., MR stede-. — MS nægla ge hwylc; Tho.,
E., Siev. l.c., Tr., Holt. cancel gehwylc (also Kl. Archiv cxv 179). — 986a Gru., Gr.2, E.,
Wülck., Sed.3, Holt.7 -spora; Rie.Zs. 390 -speru, Holt.2–6 -speoru. — 986b hilde at foot of Fol.
151r wrongly repeated on Fol. 151v. — 987a MS egl; Ke. ii egl[e] (noun); Rie.Zs. 391, Holt.1–7,
Schü., Dob. egl’ (adj.); Tr., Kl., Holt.8, Le., MR, Ja. egl[u] (adj.); Ball Archiv cci 45 egla heoru
(‘terrible sword’; cf. Appx.C §¯27); Ni., Crp. egl-unhēoru. Cf. Appx.C §¯37. — 989b, 990b Gru.
131, Siev. 1884b: 139, Holt.1–5, Sed. þē for þæt (ref. to him 988, i.e. Bēowulf¯). — Siev. l.c.,
Holt.1–5, Andrew 1948: §¯169 āberan mihte (cf. 988b); Holt. Lit.bl. xxi 64, Tr. scolde for wolde.
— 991a Gru.tr. 282, Gru. hēa(h)timbrede (?) (¯for hāten hreþe), Bu.Tid. 50 hēatimbred; Tr.
handum for hāten; Sed.3 hraðe. See also Klu. ix 189; Bu. 91; Tr.1 178; Sed. (& MLR v 287). —
992a Bu. 91, Sed.3, Holt.8 gefrætwan. — 998 Holt.2 viii, ed.3–5 eal innĺweard fæst / īrenbendum.
— 1000b E.Sc., Tho., Gr.1, et al., Holt., Sed. þā (¯for þē); Gru. þonne. See Gloss.: sē. —
1004a MS ge sacan; Ke. ii, Siev.R. 291, 12 Edd. gesēc(e)an. See Lang. §¯7.3. — 1005a Ke. ii,
Holt.8 gen©ded.
36 BEOWULF

Þā wæs s®l ond m®l

þæt tō healle gang Healfdenes sunu;
1010 wolde self cyning symbel þicgan.
Ne ġefræġen iċ þā m®ġþe māran weorode
ymb hyra sinċġyfan sēl ġeb®ran.
Bugon þā tō benċe bl®dāgande,
fylle ġef®gon; fæġere ġeþ®gon
1015 medoful maniġ māgas þāra
swīðhicgende on sele þām hēan,
Hrōðgār ond Hrōþulf. Heorot innan wæs
frēondum āfylled; nalles fācĺnstafas
Þēod-Scyldingas þenden fremedon.
1020 Forġeaf þā Bēowulfe brand Healfdenes,
seġen gyldenne sigores tō lēane,
hroden hildecumbľr, helm ond byrnan.
M®re māðþumsweord maniġe ġesāwon
beforan beorn beran. Bēowulf ġeþāh
1025 ful on Ïette; nō hē þ®re feohġyfte
for sc[ē]oten[d]um scamiġan ðorfte.
Ne ġefræġn iċ frēondlicor fēower mādmas
golde ġeġyrede gummanna fela
in ealobenċe ōðrum ġesellan.
1030 Ymb þæs helmes hrōf hēafodbeorge
wīrum bewunden walu ūtan hēold,
þæt him fē[o]la lāf frēcne ne meahte
scūrheard sceþðan, þonne scyldfreca
onġēan gramum gangan scolde.
1035 Heht ðā eorla hlēo eahta mēaras
f®tedhlēore on Ïet t½n,
(in) under eoderas; þāra ānum stōd
1009a Fol. 152 r gang. — 1015b MS þara; t.Br. 73, Kl. A. xxviii 442, ed.1–2, Holt. 2–5 w®ron
(-an); Schü., Sed. wāron, Cha. wāran; Hornburg 1877: 23, Tr. 1 180, Tr. þw®re; Patzig A.
xlvii 99 dēore. See Bu. 91. — 1020b MS brand; Gru.tr. 282, most Edd. (incl. Kl., excl. v.Sch.)
up to Dob. and Le.4 (+ Le. 5) bearn. — 1022a MS hilte cumbor; E.Sc., Gr. 1, Rie.Zs. 392, Arn.,
Tr., Siev. 1910: 420, Hoops, 9 Edd. (excl. Cha.) hilde-; Cos. (in Hold.2), Kl. 1–2 hilt-; Tr.1 180
hilted. (Ke., Tho., Ni., Crp. hrodenhilte.) — 1024b Holt.1–5,7–8, Hoops geþeah. — 1026a MS
scotenum; Ke. ii, 9 Edd. scēotendum; Mal. A. liii 335¯f., v.Sch., Ni., Chck., Crp. sc(e)ōtenum
(cf. 51b). — 1031b MS walan; E.Sc., Gr., Wy., Holt.1–6, Cha., Schü. 9–14, Kl., v.Sch., Le., Ni.,
Chck., Crp., MR wala; Siev.R. 257, Bu. 369, Tr., Sed., Dob., Wn., Mag., Ja. walu; Friend
MLN lxxiv 292¯f. wal an-. — 1032a Edd. fēla (so Kl.); Tho. fealo; Rie.L., Sed. fēola. — Fol. 152v
laf AB; (Gru.), Gr. 1, et al., Holt.1,7–8, Wn., Alxr. lāf[e] (cf. Appx.C §¯35). — 1032b MS meahton;
Ke. ii, Tho., Bu. 91¯f., Tr., Holt. 2, Schü., Sed., Mag., Le., Ja., MR meahte; Holt.7–8 meahten. —
1033a Collinder 1954: 17–19 scūr heard ‘hard skulls.’ — 1037a MS AB munder, altered w. another
ink in B to in under. — 1037b Aant. 18, Holt.2–5 [on] ānum.
 BEOWULF 37

sadol searwum fāh, sinċe ġewurþad;

þæt wæs hildesetl hēahcyninges
1040 ðonne sweorda ġelāc sunu Healfdenes
efnan wolde — n®fre on ōre læġ
wīdcūþes wīġ ðonne walu fēollon.
Ond ðā Bēowulfe bēġa ġehwæþres
eodor Ingwina onweald ġetēah,
1045 wicga ond w®pna; hēt hine wēl brūcan.
Swā manlīċe m®re þēoden,
hordweard hæleþa, heaþor®sas ġeald
mēarum ond mādmum, swā h© n®fre man lŷhð,
sē þe secgan wile sōð æfter rihte.

XVI 1050 Ðā ġ©t ®ġhwylcum eorla drihten

þāra þe mid Bēowulfe brimlāde tēah
on þ®re medubenċe māþðum ġesealde,
yrfelāfe, ond þone ®nne heht
golde forġyldan, þone ðe Grendel ®r
1055 māne ācwealde — swā hē hyra mā wolde,
nefne him wītiġ God wyrd forstōde
ond ðæs mannes mōd. Metod eallum wēold
gumena cynnes, swā hē nū ġīt dêð.
Forþan bið andġit ®ġhw®r sēlest,
1060 ferhðes foreþanc: fela sceal ġebīdan
lēofes ond lāþes sē þe longe hēr
on ðyssum windagum worolde brūceð.
Þ®r wæs sang ond swēġ samod ætgædere
fore Healfdenes hildewīsan,
1065 gomenwudu grēted, ġid oft wrecen,
ðonne Healgamen, Hrōþgāres scop
æfter medobenċe m®nan scolde
Finnes eaferan; ðā hīe se f®r beġeat,
hæleð Healf-Dena, Hnæf Scyldinga
1070 in Frēswæle feallan scolde.
1048b Siev.R. 269 [ne] lyhð (so Holt.1–2,8), or lēið; Holt.7 lehið. See Appx.C §¯9. — 1051b MS
leade; Ke., Edd. -lāde; Tripp MP lxxxvi 191¯ff. -lēade. — 1053a Fol. 153r fe lafe. — 1058b
Holt. 8 gīt[a]. — 1064a Mö. EStn. xiii 280 ofer (‘concerning,’ for fore); Holt. for. — Lübke AfdA
xix 342 H. [suna]; Tr.1 183 Hrōðgāres, Tr.F. 11, Tr., Mal. JEGP xxv 116 Healfdena. — 1065b
Lübke l.c., Tr. eft. Cf. Siev. 1904: 571. — 1068a MS ¢nnes eaferum; Tho. (in Ke.2), Kl., Hoops St.
55¯ff., Dob., Chck., Ja. [be] Finnes eaferum; Soc., Mackie 1939: 520 F. eaferum [fram] (cf. Appx.C
§¯30); Tr.1 183, Holt.2–4, Schü. F. eaferan; Tr.F. 11¯f., Tr. F. gefēran. — 1069a Gru.tr. 283, Ke.2, et
al. Healfdenes; Tol. 94 Healfdene.
38 BEOWULF

Nē hūru Hildeburh herian þorfte

Ēotena trēowe; unsynnum wearð
beloren lēofum æt þām lindplegan
bearnum ond brōðrum; hīe on ġebyrd hruron
1075 gāre wunde; þæt wæs ġeōmuru ides!
Nalles hōlinga Hōces dohtor
meotodsceaft bemearn syþðan morgen cōm,
ðā hēo under sweġle ġesēon meahte
morþľrbealo māga, þ®r hē[o] ®r m®ste hēold
1080 worolde wynne. Wīġ ealle fornam
Finnes þeġnas nemne fēaĿm ānum,
þæt hē ne mehte on þ®m meðĺlstede
wīġ Henġeste wiht ġefeohtan,
nē þā wēalāfe wīġe forþringan,
1085 þēodnes ðeġne; ac hiġ him ġeþinġo budon,
þæt hīe him ōðer Ïet eal ġer©mdon,
healle ond hēahsetl, þæt hīe healfre ġeweald
wið Ēotena bearn āgan mōston,
ond æt feohġyftum Folcwaldan sunu
1090 dōgra ġehwylċe Dene weorþode,
Henġestes hēap hringum wenede
efne swā swīðe sinċġestrēonum
f®ttan goldes swā hē Frēsena cyn
on bēorsele byldan wolde.
1095 Ðā hīe ġetruwedon on twā healfa
fæste frioðuw®re. Fin Henġeste
elne unÏitme āðum benemde
þæt hē þā wēalāfe weotena dōme
ārum hēolde, þæt ð®r ®niġ mon
1100 wordum nē worcum w®re ne br®ce,
nē þurh inwitsearo ®fre ġem®nden,
ðēah hīe hira bēagġyfan banan folgedon

1072b Gru. unsynnig or unsynnigum; Holt.1–5 (see Beibl. x 273), Tr.F. 13, Tr. unsyn(n)gum. Cf.
2089b. — 1073b MS hild; Ke., Edd. (excl. Gru.; see Crp. 1049) lind-. — 1075a Fol. 153v wunde
AB (w altered from v B). — 1079b MS he; E.Sc., Tho., Edd. hē[o]; Cha. hē (begins sentence w. þ®r
hē; so Ni., Crp., Ja.). — 1081b MS fea.ū — 1083 Gr.1 Wīg-Hengeste (?) (cf., e.g., 63, 1108;
B∂ðvarr Bjarki, Intr. l n. 4); Rie.L. & Zs. 394 wiht H. wið g. (so E., Holt.1); Holt.3–5,7 wiþ for wiht.
See also Tr.F. 15¯f., Tr., Kl. A. xxviii 444; Binz ZfdPh. xxxviii 530. — 1085a Brown ðegna (see
note); so Sed.3, Dob. — 1087b ESc. (?), Tho., Tr.F. 17, Tr., Holt.1–5, Sed. healfne. — 1095a See
669b Varr. — 1097a Gru. unhlytme (?), Holt.1 unhlītme, Rosier RES xvii 171¯ff., Ni., Ja. unhlitme,
see 1129; Tr.1 185 unslāwe (cf. GuthB 950); Tr.F. 24, Tr. unblinne; Holt. Lit.bl. xxi 64 unslitne. —
1097b Fol. 154r be.
 BEOWULF 39

ðēodenlēase, þā him swā ġeþearfod wæs;

ġyf þonne Fr©sna hwylċ frēcnen spr®ċe
1105 ðæs morþľrhetes myndgiend w®re,
þonne hit sweordes ecg syððan scēde.
Ād wæs ġeæfned ond icge gold
āhæfen of horde; Here-Scyldinga
betst beadorinca wæs on b®l ġearu.
1110 Æt þ®m āde wæs ēþġes©ne
swātfāh syrċe, sw©n eal gylden,
eofer īrenheard, æþeling maniġ
wundum āwyrded; sume on wæle crungon.
Hēt ðā Hildeburh æt Hnæfes āde
1115 hire selfre sunu sweoloðe befæstan,
bānfatu bærnan, ond on b®l dôn
ēame on eaxle. Ides gnornode,
ġeōmrode ġiddum. Gūðrēċ āstāh,
wand tō wolcnum; wælf©ra m®st
1120 hlynode for hlāwe. Hafelan multon,
benġeato burston ðonne blōd ætspranc,
lāðbite līċes; līġ ealle forswealg,
g®sta ġīfrost, þāra ðe þ®r gūð fornam
bēġa folces. Wæs hira bl®d scacen.

XVII 1125 Ġewiton him ðā wīġend wīca neosĽan

frēondum befeallen, Fr©sland ġesēon,

1104b Tho. frecnan, Gr.1, et al., 7 Edd. (excl. v.Sch., Wn.1–3, Ni., Crp.), Kl., Tol. frēcnan. See Lang.
§¯19.4 rem. — 1105 b Tr.F. 32, Tr., Holt.1–6 myndgend. See Siev.R. 482. — 1106b Tr.F. 19 (?),
Tr., Sed. 1–2 sehtan (¯for syððan); Kl. (see JEGP viii 255), Sed.3, Dob., Tol., Ja. sēðan (or sēman
[?], so Tr.F. 19 [?]), Ni., Crp. s©ðan (=¯sēðan); Holt. 3–5 sw©ðan (or snyððan); Imelmann
1909: 998 sc©ran (note allit.); Siev. (see Holt. Lit.bl. lix 164), Holt.7–8 sidian. — MS scolde.
Dahood MÆ xlix 1¯ff. reports a vertical stroke after this in Z.’s facsimile; cf. Fu. 1. — 1107a
MS að, Edd. Āð; Gru.tr. 283, Gru., Ād; so Holt. 6–7 , Sed. 3 , Dob., Wn. 1–2 , Mag., Tol., MR.
— 1107b MS ℓ icge; E.Sc. (?), Rie.L. (?), Singer BGdSL xii 213 incge (cf. 2577); Bu. 30
ondīege (‘openly,’ cf. 1935a Varr.; si. Sed.1); Holt. Beibl. xiii 364 icge = īdge (īdig
‘resplendent’), Holt. 2 ītge (cf. ON ítr, see 33a Varr.); Bouman APS x 143¯f. ecge; Sed. 3
ondlicge; Ball A. lxxviii 403¯ff., North LSE xxi 33¯ff., Ja. incge-; Rosier PMLA lxxxi 342¯ff
inge- (cf. Ex 142, 190). See also Tr. 1 185, Tr.F. 20, Tr.; Grienb. A. xxvii 331¯f., BGdSL
xxxvii 95, Siev. ibid. 421. — 1111 b Thk., et al., Ni. eal gylden (so 2767b); Ke., Gr., most
Edd., Kl. ealgylden. See Appx.C §§¯29, 39. — 1115a Tho., Gr.1 suna, cf. Cos. viii 569. —
1117a MS earme; Tho., Rie.Zs. 395 axe (‘ashes’) for eaxle; Boer ZfdA xlvii 135 earm ond
eaxle (?); Holt. BGdSL xvi 549¯f., Tr., Sed., Dob., Tol., Ja., MR ēame. — 1118b MS guð rinc,
Thk., Edd., Kl. gūðrinc; Gru.tr. 284, Ke.1 260, Gru., Rie.Zs. 395, Tol. gūðrēc, Gr.2, Tr.
-rēoc; Gr. 1 (?) gūðhring (= ‘clamor’?), so Sed. (= ‘spirals of smoke’); Scherer 1893 (1869):
494, Boer l.c. gūðrincas tāh. — 1119 a Fol. 154v to AB; Siev. (in Holt.7–8) [ðā] tō. — 1120a
Gru., Tr.F. 21, Tr. from for for. — Holt.Zs. 116 hrāwe. — 1122 Tol. līges. Līc eall. — 1125b
Holt. 1–6, Schü. nēosan. See Appx.C §¯18. — 1126 b Boer ZfdA xlvii 136¯ff. Fr©san. See note.
40 BEOWULF

hāmas ond hēaburh. Henġest ðā ġ©t

wælfāgne wintĺr wunode mid Finne;
h[ē] unhlitme eard ġemunde,
1130 þēah þe ne meahte on mere drīfan
hrinġedstefnan — holm storme wēol,
won wið winde, wintĺr ©þe belēac
īsġebinde — oþ ðæt ōþer cōm
ġēar in ġeardas, swā nū ġ©t dêð,
1135 þā ðe syngāles sēle bewitiað,
wuldľrtorhtan weder. Ðā wæs winter scacen,
fæġer foldan bearm. Fundode wreċċa,
ġist of ġeardum; hē tō gyrnwræce
swīðor þōhte þonne tō s®lāde,
1140 ġif hē tornġemōt þurhtēon mihte,
þæt hē Ēotena bearn inne ġemunde —
swā hē ne forwyrnde woroldr®denne —
þonne him Hūnlā¢ng hildelēoman,
billa sēlest on bearm dyde,
1145 þæs w®ron mid Ēotenum ecge cūðe.
Swylċe ferhðfrecan Fin eft beġeat
sweordbealo slīðen æt his selfes hām,
siþðan grimne gripe Gūðlāf ond Ōslāf
æfter s®sīðe sorge m®ndon,
1150 ætwiton wēana d®l; ne meahte w®fre mōd
forhabban in hreþre. Ðā wæs heal roden
fēonda fēorum, swilċe Fin slæġen,

1128b–9a MS ¢nnel unhlitme; Ke.1 260, Ke.2 Finne / elne (cf. 1097a) unhlitme, so Hold.2, Soc.6–7,
Holt. 1–5,7, Schü., Cha., Crp., Ja.; He.1–5 Finne / ealles unhlitme; Tho. Finne / unÏitme; Rie.L. &
Zs. 397, Gr. 2, E., Wülck., Hold.1, Wy., Sed. F. / elne unÏitme; Gr.1 F. / ēðles unhlitme; Kock2
110 F. / unhlīte (‘misfortune, exile’) in; Kl., Holt. 6,8, v.Sch., Wn., Mag., Ni., MR F. / eal
unhlitme; Ki. Fin / eal unhlitine. Cf. Tr.1 187¯f., Tr.F. 23¯f. — 1130a MS þeah þe he; Gru.tr.
284, many Edd., Sed., Cha., Dob., Ja., MR, Chck. 2 395 þ. þ. hē [ne]; Gr. (see Wülck.),
Holt. 5–8, Wn., Hoops 142, Kl.3 þ. þ. ne; Tr. þēah hē ne. — 1134 b–5a Tho., Tol. dōð; Aant. 20,
Tr., Holt.2–8, Schü. dōað; Gr.1, Sed. (see MLR v 287) dēð / þām ðe. See also Siev. 1884b:
139; Bu. 30¯f. — 1139a Fol. 155r þohte AB. — 1140 a Gru. torngemōd. — 1141 Tho. þæs for
þæt; Gru. þæt hyt for þæt hē; Siev. BGdSL xii 193, Holt. 3,7 þ®r hē; Cos. BGdSL xxi 26, Sed.,
Holt. 4–6 þæt hē [wið]. — Rie.L. bearnum and gemynte. — Tr.F. 25, Tr. īrne for inne, so
Hoops St. 64, Kl. 3, Holt.8. — Cf. Rie.Zs. 397; Bu. 31; Kl. 1908a: 430. — 1142b Mö. 68, Bu.
32, Soc., Sed.2–3 worodr®denne (so Tol. but weorod-); Tr.F. 25 wraðr®denne (‘assistance’);
Mal. JEGP xxv 159 (cf. Mal. 1923: 22) woroldr®dende; Kl. A. lvi 421 worodr®dende, Kl.3
weorodr®dende. Schü. makes 1142 subord. clause, close of period. So v.Sch. — 1143a Bu. 32,
Tr.F. 26, Tr. Hūn Lā¢ng. — 1143b Holt., Tol. Hildelēoman; Ni., Crp. hilde l. — 1151b MS
hroden; Bu.Tid. 64, 295, Hold., 9 Edd. (excl. v.Sch., Ni., Crp.), Tol. roden (Holt. 7–8 Ĺroden).
— 1152a Holt. Lit.bl. xxi 64 drēore. Cf. 1210b.
 BEOWULF 41

cyning on corþre, ond sēo cwēn numen.

Scēotend Scyldinga tō scypon feredon
1155 eal inġesteald eorðcyninges,
swylċe hīe æt Finnes hām ¢ndan meahton
siġla searoġimma. Hīe on s®lāde
drihtliċe wīf tō Denum feredon,
l®ddon tō lēodum.
Lēoð wæs āsungen,
1160 glēomannes ġyd. Gamen eft āstāh,
beorhtode benċswēġ; byrelas sealdon
wīn of wundĺrfatum. Þā cwōm Wealhþēo forð
gān under gyldnum bēage þ®r þā gōdan twēġen
s®ton suhterġefæderan; þā ġ©t wæs hiera sib ætgædere,
®ġhwylċ ōðrum tr©we. Swylċe þ®r Ūnferþ þyle
æt fōtum sæt frēan Scyldinga; ġehwylċ hiora his ferhþe trēowde,
þæt hē hæfde mōd miċel, þēah þe hē his māgum n®re
ārfæst æt ecga ġelācum. Spræc ðā ides Scyldinga:
‘Onfōh þissum fulle, frēodrihten mīn,
1170 sinċes brytta. Þū on s®lum wes,
goldwine gumena, ond tō Ġēatum spræc
mildum wordum, swā sceal man dôn.
Bēo wið Ġēatas glæd, ġeofena ġemyndiġ,
nēan ond feorran [þā] þū nū hafast.
1175 Mē man sæġde þæt þū ðē for sunu wolde
hereri[n]ċ habban. Heorot is ġef®lsod,
bēahsele beorhta; brūc þenden þū mōte
maniġra mēdo, ond þīnum māgum l®f
folc ond rīċe þonne ðū forð scyle,
1180 metodsceaft s½n. Iċ mīnne can
glædne Hrōþulf, þæt hē þā ġeogoðe wile
ārum healdan ġyf þū ®r þonne hē,
1156a Tr., Holt. swylc. Cf. El 31¯f. — 1159a Fol. 155v to AB. — 1161a Sed. (see MLR v 287)
beorhtmode (cf. bearhtm). Cf. Gifts 94. — 1165b MS hun ferþ. See 499a. — 1174b E.Sc., Gr.,
E., He., Wülck., Hold., Soc., Wy., Schü.8 þ. n. [friðu] h. (or freoðu; cf. Rie.V. 29, Appx.C
§¯38.), si. Siev. (in Holt.7, cf. Lit.bl. lix 165), transposing feorran ond n¼n in 1174a; Rie. l.c. Þū
n©d h. (and punct. after feorran, like Ke.2, Tho., Gru.); Bu. 92 inserts after 1174b [secgas
ætsomne in sele þām hēan]; Tr. 1 191 [þā] or [þē] þū, Sed., Ja., MR [þē] þū; Tr. nū [genōg];
Siev. EStn. xliv 297 [þē] þ., and lacuna before 1174; Brown PMLA liii 913¯f., Holt. Beibl.
liv/lv 30 nū [frēode] (cf. Patzig A. xlvii 99: nēode for nū). See also Kl. 1907: 256¯f.; Schü.
EStn. xliv 157. — 1175 Gru. [swā] mē; Blockley RES xlvi 331¯f. þæt in on-verse. — Fol. 156r
þu AB. — 1176a MS here ric; Ke.2, nearly all Edd. (excl Ni., Crp.) hereri[n]c. Cf. Grienb.
BGdSL xxxvi 92, Mal. A. lxiii 103, JEGP l 19¯ff.; cf. also 2466a MS heaðo ri,c. n
— 1178a MS
AB medo; Ke., et al. mēda; Gr.1 māðma (?); Tr.1 1 9 1 mērða (?); Tr. mēða. See Lang. § ¯ 19.3.
42 BEOWULF

wine Scildinga, worold oϮtest;

wēne iċ þæt hē mid gōde ġyldan wille
1185 uncran eaferan ġif hē þæt eal ġemon,
hwæt wit tō willan ond tō worðmyndum
umbľrwesendum ®r ārna ġefremedon.’
Hwearf þā bī benċe, þ®r hyre byre w®ron,
Hrēðrīċ ond Hrōðmund, ond hæleþa bearn,
1190 ġiogoð ætgædere; þ®r se gōda sæt,
Bēowulf Ġēata be þ®m ġebrōðrum tw®m.

XVIII Him wæs ful boren, ond frēondlaþu

wordum bewæġned, ond wunden gold
ēstum ġeēawed, earmrēade twā,
1195 hræġl ond hringas, healsbēaga m®st
þāra þe iċ on foldan ġefræġen hæbbe.
N®niġne iċ under sweġle sēlran h©rde
hordmāððĿm hæleþa syþðan Hāma ætwæġ
tō þ®re byrhtan byriġ Brōsinga mene,
1200 siġle ond sinċfæt — searonīðas flēah
Eormenrīċes, ġeċēas ēċne r®d.
Þone hrinġ hæfde Hiġelāc Ġēata,
nefa Swertinges n©hstan sīðe,
siðþan hē under seġne sinċ ealgode,
1205 wælrēaf werede; hyne wyrd fornam
syþðan hē for wlenċo wēan āhsode,
f®hðe tō Fr©sum. Hē þā frætwe wæġ,
eorclanstānas ofer ©ða ful,
rīċe þēoden; hē under rande ġecranc.
1210 Ġehwearf þā in Francna fæþm feorh cyninges,
brēostġew®du, ond se bēah somod.
Wyrsan wīġfrecan wæl rēafeden
æfter gūðsceare; Ġēata lēode
1187a Bu. 92 ®r in off-verse; Tr.1 191 cancels ®r. See Appx.C §¯29. — 1194b MS reade; Gr.1,
et al., Kl., Le., Ja., MR -[h]rēade. See Lang. §¯20.2. — 1195a Fol. 156v gas AB. — 1197a Tr.,
Holt. n®nne (metri causa). — 1198a MS mad mum; E.Sc. -māðum (?), so Kl., MR; Gr.
-māððum (so Sed. 3, v.Sch., Dob., Wn., Chck., Ja.); Gru., Tr., Holt.2–8, Schü., Sed.1–2 -māðm;
Cha. -mādm. See Siev.A.M. §¯85 n. 2; Malone 1962: 161; Fu. 2 350; cf. 2193a. — 1199a MS
here; E.Sc., Edd. þ®re; v.Sch., Wn., Ni., Swn., Alxr., Crp.c þēre. See Kl. A. lxiii 418. — 1199b
Grimm D.M. 255 (307), Bu. 75 Brīsinga. — 1200b MS fealh; Leo 1839: 44, Gru., Edd. (excl.
v.Sch., Ni., Chck., Crp., MR) Ïēah. — 1208a Gru.tr. 285, et al. eorcnan-. — 1210b Siev. 1884b:
139 feoh; Tr. feorm. Cf. 1152a; Bu. 92. — 1212b E.Sc., et plur., 6 Edd. (excl. v.Sch., Wn.-B., Ni.,
Crp., MR), Kl. rēafedon (see Lang. §¯19.4 rem.); Wn.1–2 rēafodon. Cf. 132b. — 1213a Holtzm. 494
gūðceare.
 BEOWULF 43

hrēawīċ hēoldon. Heal swēġe onfēng.

1215 Wealhðēo maþelode; hēo fore þ®m werede spræc:
‘Brūc ðisses bēages, Bēowulf lēofa,
hyse, mid h®le, ond þisses hræġles nēot,
þēo[d]ġestrēona, ond ġeþēoh tela,
cen þeċ mid cræfte, ond þyssum cnyhtum wes
1220 lāra līðe. Iċ þē þæs lēan ġeman.
Hafast þū ġefēred þæt ðē feor ond nēah
ealne wīdeferhþ weras ehtiġað,
efne swā sīde swā s® bebūgeð,
windġeard, weallas. Wes þenden þū li¢ġe,
1225 æþeling, ēadiġ. Iċ þē an tela
sinċġestrēona. Bēo þū suna mīnum
d®dum ġedēfe, drēamhealdende.
Hēr is ®ġhwylċ eorl ōþrum ġetr©we,
mōdes milde, mandrihtne hol[d];
1230 þeġnas syndon ġeþw®re, þēod eal ġearo;
druncne dryhtguman dōð swā iċ bidde.’
Ēode þā tō setle. Þ®r wæs symbla cyst,
druncon wīn weras. Wyrd ne cūþon,
ġeōsceaft grimme, swā hit āgangen wearð
1235 eorla manegum, syþðan ®fen cwōm,
ond him Hrōþgār ġewāt tō hofe sīnum,
rīċe tō ræste. Reċed weardode
unrīm eorla, swā hīe oft ®r dydon.
Benċþelu beredon; hit ġeondbr®ded wearð
1240 beddum ond bolstrum. Bēorscealca sum
fūs ond f®ġe Ïetræste ġebēag.
Setton him tō hēafdon hilderandas,
bordwudu beorhtan; þ®r on benċe wæs
ofer æþelinge ©þġesēne

1214b Cos. viii 570, Aant. 21, Hold., Tr. healsbēge. See note. — 1217b Fol. 157r ℓ A. — 1218a MS
þeo; Gru.tr. 285, Ke.2, Edd. þēo[d]-. — 1222a Andrew 1948: §¯175 ealle. — 1224a MS wind geard
weallas; Ke., et al. windge eardweallas (cf. Appx.C §¯30); E.Sc., et al. wind(i)ge weallas; Krackow
Archiv cxi 171, cf. id. 1903: 44 windgeard weallas. — 1225a Several Edd. omit comma after æþeling.
See Kl. 1905–6: 457. — 1226b Tho., Gr., E., Arn., Stanley PBA lxx 266 sunum. — 1229b MS hol
(altered from heol; cf. Ki.); Thk., Ke., Edd. hol[d]; Mal. (also 1965: 120), Crp., Ki. hlēo (cf.
Orchard 2003: 44–5). — 1230b Thk., Ke., et al., Cha., Ni. eal g. (so 77b; cf. 2241b); Gr., most
Edd., Kl. ealgearo. See Appx.C §¯39 & fn. — 1231b MS doð; Siev. 1884b: 140, Holt.1–6,8, Sed.,
Kl.1–2 dō. See also Klu. ix 189. — 1234a Klu. BGdSL viii 533¯f., Holt.1–5 geasceaft (supposed
ancient form of gesceaft w. stressed pre¢x). So 1266a. — MS grimne; E.Sc., nearly all Edd. (excl.
Ni., Crp.) grimme. — 1241b Fol. 157v beag AB.
44 BEOWULF

1245 heaþostēapa helm, hrinġed byrne,

þrecwudu þrymliċ. Wæs þēaw hyra
þæt hīe oft w®ron anwīġġearwe,
ġē æt hām ġē on herġe, ġē ġehwæþer þāra
efne swylċe m®la swylċe hira mandryhtne
1250 þearf ġes®lde; wæs sēo þēod tilu.

XVIIII Sigon þā tō sl®pe. Sum sāre anġeald

®fenræste, swā him ful oft ġelamp
siþðan goldsele Grendel warode,
unriht æfnde, oþ þæt ende becwōm,
1255 swylt æfter synnum. Þæt ġes©ne wearþ,
wīdcūþ werum, þætte wrecend þā ġ©t
lifde æfter lāþum, lange þrāge,
æfter gūðċeare; Grendles mōdor,
ides āgl®ċwīf yrmþe ġemunde,
1260 sē þe wætereġesan wunian scolde,
ċealde strēamas, siþðan Cāin wearð
tō ecgbanan āngan brēþer,
fæderenm®ġe; hē þā fāg ġewāt,
morþre ġemearcod mandrēam Ͻn,
1265 wēsten warode. Þanon wōc fela
ġeōsceaftgāsta; wæs þ®ra Grendel sum,
heorowearh heteliċ, sē æt Heorote fand
wæċċendne wer wīġes bīdan.
Þ®r him āgl®ċa ætgr®pe wearð;
1270 hwæþre hē ġemunde mæġenes strenġe,
ġimfæste ġife ðe him God sealde,
ond him tō anwaldan āre ġel©fde,
frōfre ond fultum; ð© hē þone fēond ofercwōm,
ġehn®ġde helle gāst. Þā hē hēan ġewāt,
1275 drēame bed®led dēaþwīċ s½n,
mancynnes fēond, ond his mōdor þā ġ©t
ġīfre ond galgmōd ġegān wolde

1247b MS anwig gearwe; Thk., Ke., Th., Gr.1, He.4, Wy., Tr., 7 Edd., Kl. an wīg gearwe; E.Sc.,
Gr.2, Cha., Prokosch Kl.Misc. 201, Mag., Ni., Crp. ānwīggearwe; Cos. viii 570, Brown PMLA liii
914, Holt.7–8 an(d)wīg-, Siev.R. 222, Hold., Holt.1–6, Sed., Pope 234 anwīg-. — 1248b E.Sc., Hold.,
Schü.8 cancel gē. — 1258a Tr. gūðsceare (cf. 1213). — 1260a E.Sc., et al. sē[o]. — 1261b MS
camp; Gru.tr. 286, Ke., Edd. Cāin. See 107 a Varr.; Lehmann NM lxxii 35¯ff. — 1264b Fol. 158r
man AB. — 1266a See 1234a.
 BEOWULF 45

sorhfulne sīð, sunu dēoð wrecan.

Cōm þā tō Heorote, ð®r Hrinġ-Dene
1280 ġeond þæt sæld sw®fun. Þā ð®r sōna wearð
edhwyrft eorlum, siþðan inne fealh
Grendles mōdor. Wæs se gryre l®ssa
efne swā micle swā bið mæġþa cræft,
wīġgryre wīfes be w®pnedmen,
1285 þonne heoru bunden, hamere ġeþrūen,
sweord swāte fāh swīn ofer helme
ecgum dyhttiġ andweard scireð.
Þā wæs on healle heardecg togen
sweord ofer setlum, sīdrand maniġ
1290 hafen handa fæst; helm ne ġemunde,
byrnan sīde, þā hine se brōga anġeat.
Hēo wæs on ofste, wolde ūt þanon,
fēore beorgan, þā hēo onfunden wæs;
hraðe hēo æþelinga ānne hæfde
1295 fæste befangen, þā hēo tō fenne gang.
Sē wæs Hrōþgāre hæleþa lēofost
on ġesīðes hād be s®m twēonum,
rīċe randwiga, þone ðe hēo on ræste ābrēat,
bl®dfæstne beorn. Næs Bēowulf ð®r,
1300 ac wæs ōþer in ®r ġeteohhod
æfter māþðĿmġife m®rum Ġēate.
Hrēam wearð on Heorote; hēo under heolfre ġenam
cūþe folme; cearu wæs ġenīwod,
ġeworden in wīcun. Ne wæs þæt ġewrixle til,
1305 þæt hīe on bā healfa bicgan scoldon
frēonda fēorum.
Þā wæs frōd cyning,
hār hilderinċ on hrēon mōde

1278b MS sunu þeod; E.Sc. (?), Gr.2 (?), Scherer 1893 (1869): 495, Rie.Zs. 401, He.3–4, et al.,
Schü., Sed., Cha., Dob. suna (or sunu) dēað; Holt.2–8, recent Edd. s. dēoð (deoð–ðeod–þeod. See
Lang. §¯16.2); Brown MP lxxii 172¯ff. þēode (cf. HOEM §¯351 n.¯84). — 1280b Holt.1–6 (see Zs.
117) sō[c]na. — 1282b MS gryr / re corr. to gryre. — 1284b Ki. bew®pnedmen ‘man deprived of
weapons.’ — 1285a Holt.7, Ni. heorubunden. — 1285b MS geþuren; Gr.1 (?), Siev. 1884a: 282,
294, cf. Siev.R. 265, 458 geþrūen. So Tr., Holt., Schü., Sed., Cha., Ja., MR. See note. — 1287a
Fol. 158v dyhttig A, dyttig B (‘later’ Ki.); Gr.1, He., Wülck., et al., Schü., Holt., Sed., Cha.,
v.Sch., Kl., Ni., MR, Ja. dyhtig. See Appx.C §¯20.4. — 1288a Kl., MR Ðā. — 1291b Gr.1 (?),
Bu.Tid. 296, Rie.Zs. 401, He.3–4, Hold., Holt.8 þe for þā; so also Tr., canceling hine. — 1302a
MS o.in (altered by the second scribe); Thk., Ke., Gru., E., He.1–4 on; Th., Edd., Kl. in. See Intr.
xxxii¯f. — 1302b Bu. 92¯f. hrōf; Miller A. xii 399¯f. hēofe; Gru., Tr. heolstre. — 1307b Fol. 159r
mode AB.
46 BEOWULF

syðþan hē aldorþeġn unly¢ġendne,

þone dēorestan dēadne wisse.
1310 Hraþe wæs tō būre Bēowulf fetod,
sigorēadiġ secg. Samod ®rdæġe
ēode eorla sum, æþele cempa
self mid ġesīðum þ®r se snotera bād
hwæþer him alwalda ®fre wille
1315 æfter wēaspelle wyrpe ġefremman.
Gang ðā æfter Ïōre fyrdwyrðe man
mid his handscale — healwudu dynede —
þæt hē þone wīsan wordum n®ġde
frēan Ingwina, fræġn ġif him w®re
1320 æfter nēodlaðu[m] niht ġet®se.

XX Hrōðgār maþelode, helm Scyldinga:

‘Ne frīn þū æfter s®lum! Sorh is ġenīwod
Deniġea lēodum: dēad is Æschere,
Yrmenlāfes yldra brōþor,
1325 mīn rūnwita ond mīn r®dbora,
eaxlġestealla ðonne wē on orleġe
hafelan weredon, þonne hniton fēþan,
eoferas cnysedan. Swy(lċ) scolde eorl wesan,
[æþeling] ®rgōd, swylċ Æschere wæs.
1330 Wearð him on Heorote tō handbanan
wælg®st w®fre; iċ ne wāt hwæder
atol ®se wlanc eftsīðas tēah,
fylle ġefrēcnod. Hēo þā f®hðe wræc
þē þū ġystran niht Grendel cwealdest
1335 þurh h®stne hād heardum clammum,
forþan hē tō lange lēode mīne
wanode ond wyrde. Hē æt wīġe ġecrang
1314a MS hwæþre; Siev. ZfdPh. xxi 357, Tr., Holt., Sed., Dob., Ja. hwæþer. Cf. 2844a. — MS alf
walda; Thk. alwealda, Tho., Edd. alwalda. — 1317a Tho., Sweet 1892, Wy., Holt., Hoops -scole.
See Gloss. — 1318b MS AB hnægde; E.Sc. nēgde, Gr.1, most Edd. (excl. Crp.) n®gde. — 1320a MS
neod laðu; E.Sc. -lāde; E., Wülck., Holt.1–6, Sed., Dob., Ja. -laðum; Sweet 1892, Holt.7–8, Mag.,
Wn.-B., Swn. -laðe; Cos. viii 570 nēadlāðum. Cf. Mackie 1939: 521¯f.; Lang. §¯21.3. — 1328b Fol.
159v swy .¯.¯.¯.¯.¯. A, svy .¯. B; Thk., Edd. swylc; Ki. swylc eorl scolde. — 1329a Gru. [ædeling], Gr.2,
He.2–4, most Edd. [æðeling]. Cf. 130a, 2342a. — 1331b MS hwæþer; Gr.1 (?), Rie.V. 45, Wülck.,
Soc.5, Bu. 93, Sed.3 hwider; Gr.2, He.2–4, Sweet 1892, Tr., Sed.1–2, Schü.10–14, Cha., Holt.7–8, v.Sch.,
Dob., Wn., Ni., Chck., Crp. (p.¯1049) hwæder. (He.1, Holt.1–6, Crp.c hwæþer = hwider.) See Lang.
§¯2.5 rem.¯2. — 1333a MS fylle ge frægnod; Ke. ii, et al., Hold., 7 Edd., Kl., Mag. f. gefægnod;
Tho., Tr. f. gefrēfrod; Gru. 145 f. gefrēcnod; He., Soc., Wy., Schü., Cha., Wn., Chck., Crp. f.
gefr®gnod ‘made famous by that deadly deed.’
 BEOWULF 47

ealdres scyldiġ, ond nū ōþer cwōm

mihtiġ mānscaða, wolde hyre m®ġ wrecan,
1340 ġē feor hafað f®hðe ġest®led —
þæs þe þinċean mæġ þeġne monegum,
sē þe æfter sinċġyfan on sefan grēoteþ —
hreþerbealo hearde; nū sēo hand liġeð,
sē þe ēow wēlhwylcra wilna dohte.
1345 Iċ þæt londbūend, lēode mīne,
seler®dende secgan h©rde
þæt hīe ġesāwon swylċe twēġen
micle mearcstapan mōras healdan,
ellorg®stas. Юra ōðer wæs,
1350 þæs þe hīe ġewislicost ġewitan meahton,
idese onlīcnæs; ōðer earmsceapen
on weres wæstmum wræclāstas træd,
næfne hē wæs māra þonne ®niġ man ōðer;
þone on ġeārdagum Grendel nemdo(n)
1355 foldbūende; nō hīe fæder cunnon,
hwæþer him ®niġ wæs ®r ācenned
dyrnra gāsta. Hīe d©ġel lond
wariġeað, wulfhleoþu, windiġe næssas,
frēcne fenġelād, ð®r fyrġenstrēam
1360 under næssa ġenipu niþer ġewīteð,
Ïōd under foldan. Nis þæt feor heonon
mīlġemearces þæt se mere standeð;
ofer þ®m hongiað hrinde bearwas,
wudu wyrtum fæst wæter oferhelmað.
1365 Þ®r mæġ nihta ġehw®m nīðwundor sēon,
f©r on Ïōde. Nō þæs frōd leofað
gumena bearna þæt þone grund wite.
Ðēah þe h®ðstapa hundum ġeswenċed,
heorot hornum trum holtwudu sēċe,
1370 feorran ġeÏ©med, ®r hē feorh seleð,

1344a E.Sc., Gr.2, E., Holt. sē[o]. — 1351a MS onlic næs; Ke., et al., Schü., Sed.1–2, Cha., v.Sch.,
Kl., Dob., Wn., Ja., onlīcnes (see Lang. §¯19.6 & n.¯3); Gru.tr. 287, Holt., Sed.3 onlīc (canceling
næs); si. Ni., Crp., but placing næs in off-verse (so Sweet 1892, Hold., Andrew 1948: §¯54, but
wæs for næs). — 1352b Fol. 160r træd. — 1354b MS AB nemdod; Ke. 2 , Edd. nemdon. — 1358b
MS A windige, B windig. — 1362b MS stanðeð (not w. accidental cross-stroke on d; cf. Crp.);
Thk., Edd. standeþ. — 1363b Morris 1874–80: vi¯f., Sweet 1892, Wülck., Soc.5, Wy. hrīmge (see
Appx.A §¯6); Cos. viii 571, Holt.7–8, Mag. hrīmde (= hrīmge); Sarrazin BGdSL xi 163¯n., BT s.v.
hrind, Sed. hringde (cf. hring ‘circle’); Wright EStn. xxx 341¯ff., Edd. hrinde: see Gloss. —
1365a Gr.2, He.2–3, Wülck. mæg [man].
48 BEOWULF

aldor on ōfre, ®r hē in wille,

hafelan [beorgan]; nis þæt hēoru stōw.
Þonon ©ðġeblond up āstīgeð
won tō wolcnum þonne wind styreþ
1375 lāð ġewidru, oð þæt lyft ðrysmaþ,
roderas rēotað. Nū is se r®d ġelang
eft æt þē ānum. Eard ġīt ne const,
frēcne stōwe, ð®r þū ¢ndan miht
sinniġne secg; sēċ ġif þū dyrre!
1380 Iċ þē þā f®hðe fēo lēaniġe,
ealdġestrēonum, swā iċ ®r dyde,
wundnan golde, ġyf þū on weġ cymest.’

XXI Bēowulf maþelode, bearn Ecgþeowes:

‘Ne sorga, snotor guma. Sēlre bið ®ġhw®m
1385 þæt hē his frēond wrece þonne hē fela murne.
Ūre ®ġhwylċ sceal ende ġebīdan
worolde līfes; wyrċe sē þe mōte
dōmes ®r dēaþe; þæt bið drihtguman
unlifġendum æfter sēlest.
1390 Ārīs, rīċes weard, uton Ĺraþe fēran,
Grendles māgan gang scēawiġan.
Iċ hit þē ġehāte, nō hē on helm losaþ,
nē on foldan fæþm nē on fyrġenholt
nē on ġyfenes grund, gā þ®r hē wille.
1395 Щs dōgor þū ġeþyld hafa
wēana ġehwylċes, swā iċ þē wēne tō.’
Āhlēop ðā se gomela, Gode þancode,

1372a MS hafelan .¯.¯.¯; Ke. ii, Edd. [h©dan] (cf. 446a); Holt. ii, i8 [beorgan] (cf. 1293a);
Gerritsen Neophil. lxxiii 448¯ff., Bamm. 1992, Ja., Orchard 2003: 47–8, Chck.2 395 [helan] (cf.
Appx.C §¯27); Ki. [hafenian]. See Kl. A. lxiii 419¯f.; cf. MLN lxx 3¯ff. — 1375b MS drysmaþ (so
Thk., Edd., Kl.); Sed.3 (see MLR xxvi 449), Wn. (see TPS 1943 p.¯18), Mag., Swn., Chck.2 395
ðrysmaþ. See SN 77 (2005) 150–1. — 1376a Sed. l.c. rēcað. — 1377a Fol. 160v þe AB. — 1379a
MS fela sinnigne (so Thk., et al., Ni., Crp.); He.2–4, Hold., Soc., Tr., Schü., Cha., Sed., Holt.8
cancel fela; Holt.1–6 (cf. Zs. 117): lacuna before fela, which he makes the last word of the
preceding line; Malone MLR xxv 191, Hoops, v.Sch., Dob., Wn., MR felasinnigne; Holt. Lit.bl.
lix 165, ed.7: lacuna after felasinnigne; Andrew MÆ viii 205¯f. sele sinnigra (canceling secg);
Pope MLN lxvii 505¯f., Mag. seldsīenne. — 1382a MS wun / dini or -dmi (so Z.; most read the
former, Kiernan 1981: 30¯ff. and Crp. the latter, with support from A; cf. Fu.1); Gru.tr. 287
wunden-; E.Sc., et al., Bu. 93, Schü., Sed., Kl., Dob., Mag., Ni., Ja., MR wundnum; Thk.,
Grimm Grammatik IV1 752, Hold.2, Holt., Cha., Hoops, v.Sch., Kl.3 Su., Wn. wundini; Ki., Crp.
wundun-. — 1388b MS gumen w. a above e in same hand. — 1391b MS gang (corr. in another
hand). — 1392b Tho., et al. hē[o]; so 1394b. — Tho. (in Ke.2), E., Arn., Hold., Aant. 23 holm.
— 1393b Z. translit. no (misprint).
 BEOWULF 49

mihtigan drihtne, þæs se man ġespræc.

Þā wæs Hrōðgāre hors ġeb®ted,
1400 wicg wundenfeax. Wīsa fenġel
ġeatoliċ gende; gumfēþa stōp
lindhæbbendra. Lāstas w®ron
æfter waldswaþum wīde ġes©ne,
gang ofer grundas, [þ®r] ġeġnum fōr
1405 ofer myrċan mōr, magoþeġna bær
þone sēlestan sāwollēasne
þāra þe mid Hrōðgāre hām eahtode.
Oferēode þā æþelinga bearn
stēap stānhliðo, stīġe nearwe,
1410 enġe ānpaðas, uncūð ġelād,
neowle næssas, nicorhūsa fela;
hē fēara sum beforan gengde
wīsra monna wong scēawian,
oþ þæt hē f®ringa fyrġenbēamas
1415 ofer hārne stān hleonian funde,
wynlēasne wudu; wæter under stōd
drēoriġ ond ġedrēfed. Denum eallum wæs,
winum Scyldinga, weorce on mōde
tō ġeþolianne, ðeġne monegum,
1420 onc©ð eorla ġehw®m, syðþan Æscheres
on þām holmclife hafelan mētton.
Flōd blōde wēol — folc tō s®gon —
hātan heolfre. Horn stundum song
fūsliċ (fyrd)lēoð. Fēþa eal ġesæt.
1425 Ġesāwon ðā æfter wætere wyrmcynnes fela,
selliċe s®dracan sund cunnian,
swylċe on næshleoðum nicras licgean,
ðā on undernm®l oft bewitiġað
sorhfulne sīð on seġlrāde,
1430 wyrmas ond wildēor. Hīe on weġ hruron,
bitere ond ġebolgne; bearhtm onġēaton,
1398b Fol. 161r spræc A, spręc B. — 1401a E.Sc., et al., Holt., Schü., Sed. gen[g]de; see 1412.
Cf. Lang. §¯20.1. — 1404b MS gegnū for; Siev. 1884b: 140, Soc., Hold.2, Tr., Holt., Schü.8,
Sed., Cha., Dob., Swn. [þ®r hēo] g. f.; Bu. 94 [hw®r hēo] g. f.; Aant. 24 gegnunga (?); Kl.
1907: 195, ed.1–3 [swā] (or fērde for fōr, so Schü.9–14), so Wn.1–2, Mag., Ja.; MR [þ®r] g. f. See
Appx.C §¯33. — 1407b Tho. (?), Tr. ealgode. — 1418a Tr., Schü.8 wigum; Holt.1 (n.) witenum.
— 1423a Fol. 161v hatan (A)B (see Mal. PMLA lxiv 1202). — 1424a MS B f . . . (Ki.: prob. a
conjecture based on allit.); Bout. 92, Gr., He., Wülck., Edd. fyrd-; Ki. forð-; MS gesæt corr.
from geseah in scribe’s hand. — 1430a Holt. (see Beibl. xiii 205), Mag. wildor.
50 BEOWULF

gūðhorn galan. Sumne Ġēata lēod

of Ïānbogan fēores ġetw®fde,
©ðġewinnes, þæt him on aldre stōd
1435 herestr®l hearda; hē on holme wæs
sundes þē s®nra ðē hyne swylt fornam.
Hræþe wearð on ©ðum mid eofersprēotum
heorohōcyhtum hearde ġenearwod,
nīða ġen®ġed, ond on næs togen,
1440 wundľrliċ w®gbora; weras scēawedon
gryrelicne ġist.
Ġyrede hine Bēowulf
eorlġew®dum, nalles for ealdre mearn;
scolde herebyrne hondum ġebrōden,
sīd ond searofāh, sund cunnian,
1445 sēo ðe bāncofan beorgan cūþe,
þæt him hildegrāp hreþre ne mihte,
eorres inwitfenġ, aldre ġesceþðan;
ac se hwīta helm hafelan werede,
sē þe meregrundas menġan scolde,
1450 sēċan sundġebland sinċe ġeweorðad,
befongen frēawrāsnum, swā hine fyrndagum
worhte w®pna smið, wundrum tēode,
besette swīnlīcum, þæt hine syðþan nō
brond ne beadomēċas bītan ne meahton.
1455 Næs þæt þonne m®tost mæġenfultuma
þæt him on ðearfe lāh ðyle Hrōðgāres;
wæs þ®m hæftmēċe Hrunting nama;
þæt wæs ān foran ealdġestrēona;
ecg wæs īren, ātĺrtānum fāh,
1460 āhyrded heaþoswāte; n®fre hit æt hilde ne swāc
manna ®ngum þāra þe hit mid mundum bewand,
sē ðe gryresīðas ġegān dorste,
folcstede fāra; næs þæt forma sīð
þæt hit ellenweorc æfnan scolde.
1465 Hūru ne ġemunde mago Ecglāfes,
eafoþes cræftiġ, þæt hē ®r ġespræc
1440a Tr., Holt.1–2 w®gfara; Kl. 1908b: 463 -dēor (? cf. ChristC 987); Holt. Beibl. xxi 300 -þora
(cf. þweran). See Gloss. — 1448b Fol. 162r hafelan AB. — 1451a Holt.1–2 (cf. ZfdPh. xxxvii
124) freoðowrāsnum. — 1454a Aant. 24 (?), Tr., Holt.1–5, Sed. brogdne, Bliss §¯44 brodne. —
1459b Cos. viii 571, Aant. 24, Holt.1–2 ātert®rum (= -tēarum, ‘poison drops’); Ni. æcertānum
‘ornaments’; Tr. -tācnum.
 BEOWULF 51

wīne druncen, þā hē þæs w®pnes onlāh

sēlran sweordfrecan; selfa ne dorste
under ©ða ġewin aldre ġenēþan,
1470 drihtscype drēogan; þ®r hē dōme forlēas,
ellenm®rðum. Ne wæs þ®m ōðrum swā
syðþan hē hine tō gūðe ġeġyred hæfde.

XXII Bēowulf maðelode, bearn Ecgþeowes:

‘Ġeþenċ nū, se m®ra maga Healfdenes,
1475 snottra fenġel, nū iċ eom sīðes fūs,
goldwine gumena, hwæt wit ġeō spr®con,
ġif iċ æt þearfe þīnre scolde
aldre linnan, þæt ðū mē ā w®re
forðġewitenum on fæder st®le.
1480 Wes þū mundbora mīnum magoþeġnum,
hondġesellum, ġif meċ hild nime;
swylċe þū ðā mādmas þe þū mē sealdest,
Hrōðgār lēofa, Hiġelāce onsend.
Mæġ þonne on þ®m golde onġitan Ġēata dryhten,
1485 ġesēon sunu Hr®dles, þonne hē on þæt sinċ starað,
þæt iċ gumcystum gōdne funde
bēaga bryttan, brēac þonne mōste.
Ond þū Ūnferð l®t ealde lāfe,
wr®tliċ w®ġsweord wīdcūðne man
1490 heardecg habban; iċ mē mid Hruntinge
dōm ġewyrċe, oþðe meċ dēað nimeð.’
Æfter þ®m wordum Weder-Ġēata lēod
efste mid elne, nalas andsware
bīdan wolde; brimwylm onfēng
1495 hilderinċe. Ðā wæs hwīl dæġes
®r hē þone grundwong onġytan mehte.
Sōna þæt onfunde sē ðe Ïōda begong
heoroġīfre behēold hund missera,
grim ond gr®diġ, þæt þ®r gumena sum
1500 ælwihta eard ufan cunnode.
Grāp þā tōġēanes, gūðrinċ ġefēng
1471a Fol. 162v mærdam AB, : : rðum Z. (?), Ki., Fu.1; Tho., Gr.2, Edd. -m®rðum. — 1473a Kl.,
Wn., MR maþelode. — 1480 Ki. mīnum in on-verse. Cf. HOEM §§¯170¯ff. — 1481 a Gru.,
Holt. 1–4 hondgesteallum (cf. 2596b); Holt. ii -geseldum (?). — 1485a Tho., et al. Hrēðles. See
454b. — 1488a MS hunferð. See 499a . — 1489a Tho. wīg- (¯for w®g-); Klu. (in Hold.1) wæl-.
— 1491b Fol. 163r oþðe.
52 BEOWULF

atolan clommum; nō þ© ®r in ġescōd

hālan līċe; hrinġ ūtan ymbbearh,
þæt hēo þone fyrdhom ðurhfōn ne mihte,
1505 locene leoðosyrċan lāþan ¢ngrum.
Bær þā sēo brimwyl[f], þā hēo tō botme cōm,
hringa þenġel tō hofe sīnum,
swā hē ne mihte — nō hē þæs mōdiġ wæs —
w®pna ġewealdan, ac hine wundra þæs fela
1510 swe[n]cte on sunde, s®dēor moniġ
hildetūxum heresyrċan bræc,
ēhton āgl®ċan. Ðā se eorl onġeat
þæt hē [in] nīðsele nāthwylcum wæs,
þ®r him n®niġ wæter wihte ne sceþede,
1515 nē him for hrōfsele hrīnan ne mehte
f®rgripe Ïōdes; f©rlēoht ġeseah,
blācne lēoman beorhte scīnan.
Onġeat þā se gōda grundwyrġenne,
merewīf mihtiġ; mæġenr®s forġeaf
1520 hildebille, hond swenġ ne oftēah,
þæt hire on hafelan hrinġm®l āgōl
gr®diġ gūðlēoð. (Ð)ā se ġist onfand
þæt se beadolēoma bītan nolde,
aldre sceþðan, ac sēo ecg ġeswāc
1525 ðēodne æt þearfe; ðolodĺ ®r fela
hondġemōta, helm oft ġescær,
f®ġes fyrdhræġl; ðā wæs forma sīð
dēorum mādme þæt his dōm ālæġ.
Eft wæs ānr®d, nalas elnes læt,
1530 m®rða ġemyndiġ m®ġ H©lāces:
wearp ðā wundenm®l wr®ttum ġebunden

1504a Holt.1–2, Sed. (see E.Sc.) -homan. Cf. Jud 192. — 1506a MS wyl; Ke.1 260, Ke.2, Edd.
-wyl[f]. — 1508 Thk., Ke., Gru., Siev. 1884b: 140, Hold., Aant. 24, 10 Edd., Mag. place nō in
off-verse, Tho., E., Gr., He., Wülck., Sweet 1892, Soc., Wy., Cha., Schü. 8–9, Sed., Kl.1–2,
Holt.6 in on-verse. — MS þæm; Gru., He.2–4, Hold., Soc., Holt. 1–5,7–8, Schü.8–9, Kl.3, v.Sch.,
Dob., Wn., Mag., Ni., Ja., MR þæs; Gr. 1, E., Arn., Wülck., Wy., Cha. þēah; Aant. 24 (?),
Schü.10–14, Sed. þ®r. — 1510a MS swecte; Ke. ii, Tho, Gr., Edd. swe[n]cte. — 1513a Tho.,
Gr. [in]; so Edd. excl. Hold. — 1514a Martin EStn. xx 295 wæter[a]; Holt. (cf. Lit.bl. xxi 61),
Morgan BGdSL xxxiii 126 wæter n®nig. See Appx.C §¯27. — 1516b Fol. 163v fyr AB. —
1520b MS hord swenge; Bout. 92, Andrew 1948: §¯187 hondsweng (Ki. hondswenge; cf.
2488¯f.), Gr. 1, Edd., Cha., Ni., Crp. hond swenge; Tr., 9 Edd., Hoops hond sweng. — 1522b
MS AB da, altered to ða w. another ink B. — 1530b MS hylaces; most early Edd., Sed.
Hygelāces; Kl. 1905–6: 458, 9 Edd. H©lāces; Holt., Wn. 1–2 Hyglāces. See Lang. §§¯19.10,
20.1. — 1531a MS wundel; Ke.2 wunden-; so Edd. excl. Gru., Crp. — MS mæg corr. to mæl.
 BEOWULF 53

yrre ōretta, þæt hit on eorðan læġ,

stīð ond st©lecg; strenġe ġetruwode,
mundgripe mæġenes. Swā sceal man dôn
1535 þonne hē æt gūðe ġegān þenċeð
longsumne lof, nā ymb his līf cearað.
Ġefēng þā be eaxle — nalas for f®hðe mearn —
Gūð-Ġēata lēod Grendles mōdor;
bræġd þā beadwe heard, þā hē ġebolgen wæs,
1540 feorhġenīðlan, þæt hēo on Ïet ġebēah.
Hēo him eft hraþe andlēan forġeald
grimman grāpum ond him tōġēanes fēng;
oferwearp þā wēriġmōd wigena strenġest,
fēþecempa, þæt hē on fylle wearð.
1545 Ofsæt þā þone seleġyst, ond hyre seax ġetēah
brād [ond] brūnecg; wolde hire bearn wrecan,
āngan eaferan. Him on eaxle læġ
brēostnet brōden; þæt ġebearh fēore
wið ord ond wið ecge, ingang forstōd.
1550 Hæfde ðā forsīðod sunu Ecgþeowes
under ġynne grund, Ġēata cempa,
nemne him heaðobyrne helpe ġefremede,
herenet hearde, ond hāliġ God.
Ġewēold wīġsigor wītiġ drihten,
1555 rodera r®dend; hit on ryht ġescēd
©ðelīċe, syþðan hē eft āstōd.

XXIII Ġeseah ðā on searwum siġeēadiġ bil,

ealdsweord eotenisc ecgum þ©htiġ,
wigena weorðmynd; þæt [wæs] w®pna cyst, —
1560 būton hit wæs māre ðonne ®niġ mon ōðer
tō beadulāce ætberan meahte,
gōd ond ġeatoliċ, ġīganta ġeweorc.
Hē ġefēng þā fetelhilt, freca Scyldinga

1533b See 669b Varr. — 1537a Rie.V. 24, Sweet 1892, Hold.1, Tr., Holt., Schü., Sed., Cha., Ja.,
Alxr. feaxe; also Morgan BGdSL xxxiii 117, Bamm. N&Q xlviii 3¯f. — 1541b MS handlean (hand-
retained by Arn., Wülck., Wy., Sed. [¯= and-], Crp., MR); Rie.Zs. 414, 9 Edd. and-. See note. —
1542a Fol. 164r man. — 1543a E.Sc. (?), Sed.2 oferwearp [hine]. — 1543b–4a E.Sc. strengestan,
Aant. 24 strengel (so Tr., Holt.1–2, Sed.1,3); E.Sc., Aant. 25, Tr., Sed.3 -cempan. — 1545b MS
seaxe (so Schü., Crp., MR); E.Sc., most Edd. seax. — 1546a Gru. 150, He.2–4, Edd. (excl. Arn.,
Wülck., Hold.1, Wy., Crp., Wn.-B.) [ond]. Cf. Mald 163; Appx.C §¯33. — 1558a Ke., Tho., Gr., et
al., Dob. eald sweord. So 1663a, 2616a, 2979a. See Appx.C §¯5. — 1559b Gru.tr. 290 (?) [wæs]
þæt; Ke. þæt [wæs] and so most Edd., excl. v.Sch., Ni., Crp. — 1563b Byers MP lxvi 47 Scyl¢nga.
54 BEOWULF

hrēoh ond heorogrim, hrinġm®l ġebræġd

1565 aldres orwēna, yrringa slōh,
þæt hire wið halse heard grāpode,
bānhringas bræc; bil eal ðurhwōd
f®ġne Ï®schoman, hēo on Ïet ġecrong;
sweord wæs swātiġ, secg weorce ġefeh.
1570 Līxte se lēoma, lēoht inne stōd,
efne swā of hefene hādre scīneð
rodores candel. Hē æfter reċede wlāt;
hwearf þā be wealle, w®pĺn hafenade
heard be hiltum Hiġelāces ðeġn,
1575 yrre ond ānr®d. Næs sēo ecg fracod
hilderinċe, ac hē hraþe wolde
Grendle forġyldan gūðr®sa fela
ðāra þe hē ġeworhte tō West-Denum
oftor micle ðonne on ®nne sīð,
1580 þonne hē Hrōðgāres heorðġenēatas
slōh on sweofote, sl®pende fr®t
folces Deniġea f©ft©ne men
ond ōðer swylċ ūt offerede,
lāðlicu lāc. Hē him þæs lēan forġeald,
1585 rēþe cempa, ðæs þe hē on ræste ġeseah
gūðwēriġne Grendel licgan,
aldorlēasne, swā him ®r ġescōd
hild æt Heorote — hrā wīde sprong
syþðan hē æfter dēaðe drepe þrōwade,
1590 heoroswenġ heardne — ond hine þā hēafde beċearf.
Sōna þæt ġesāwon snottre ċeorlas,
þā ðe mid Hrōðgāre on holm wliton,
þæt wæs ©ðġeblond eal ġemenġed,
brim blōde fāh. Blondenfeaxe,
1595 gomele ymb gōdne onġeador spr®con
þæt hiġ þæs æðelinges eft ne wēndon,
þæt hē siġehrēðiġ sēċean cōme
m®rne þēoden; þā ðæs moniġe ġewearð
þæt hine sēo brimwylf ābroten hæfde.
1600 Ðā cōm nōn dæġes. Næs ofġēafon
1565b Fol. 164v sloh AB. — 1584a Holt. [ful] lāðlicu. See Appx.C §¯32. — 1585b MS to ðæs þe
(retained by Edd., Kl.); Tr. þā. — 1591b Fol. 165r ceorlas. — 1599b MS abreoten; Ke. ii ābroten;
so Edd. excl. Ni., Crp.
 BEOWULF 55

hwate Scyldingas; ġewāt him hām þonon

goldwine gumena. Ġistas sētan
mōdes sēoce ond on mere staredon;
wīston ond ne wēndon þæt hīe heora winedrihten
1605 selfne ġesāwon.
Þā þæt sweord ongan
æfter heaþoswāte hildeġiċĺlum,
wīġbil wanian; þæt wæs wundra sum
þæt hit eal ġemealt īse ġelīcost,
ðonne forstes bend fæder onl®teð,
1610 onwindeð w®lrāpas, sē ġeweald hafað
s®la ond m®la; þæt is sōð metod.
Ne nōm hē in þ®m wīcum, Weder-Ġēata lēod,
māðm®hta mā, þēh hē þ®r moniġe ġeseah,
būton þone hafelan ond þā hilt somod
1615 sinċe fāge; sweord ®r ġemealt,
forbarn brōdenm®l; wæs þæt blōd tō þæs hāt,
®ttren ellorg®st sē þ®r inne swealt.
Sōna wæs on sunde sē þe ®r æt sæċċe ġebād
wīġhryre wrāðra, wæter up þurhdēaf;
1620 w®ron ©ðġebland eal ġef®lsod,
ēacne eardas, þā se ellorgāst
oÏēt līfdagas ond þās l®nan ġesceaft.
Cōm þā tō lande lidmanna helm
swīðmōd swymman; s®lāca ġefeah
1625 mæġenbyrþenne þāra þe hē him mid hæfde.
Ēodon him þā tōġēanes, Gode þancodon,
ðr©ðliċ þeġna hēap, þēodnes ġefēgon,
þæs þe hī hyne ġesundne ġesēon mōston.
Ðā wæs of þ®m hrōran helm ond byrne
1630 lungre āl©sed. Lagu drūsade,
wæter under wolcnum, wældrēore fāg.
Fērdon forð þonon fēþelāstum
ferhþum fæġne, foldweġ m®ton,
cūþe str®te; cyningbalde men
1602b MS secan; Gru.tr. 290, Gr.1, He.1 s®ton, Gr.2, Edd. sētan. — 1604a Ke. ii w©s[c]ton, Tho.,
Gru., Arn., Holt.1 wīs[c]ton. — 1610a Gru.tr. 291 (?), Ke., et al. w®grāpas. — 1616b Fol. 165v
to AB. — 1617a MS ellor altered from ellen. — 1619a Gr.Spr. (?), Aant. 25 wīggryre. — 1624b
MS lace (so Ke., Edd., Kl.: -lāce); Tr. (?), Holt. (see Zs. 117), Delbrück 1909: 682 -lāca. —
1625b E., Tr. cancel þāra; Bu. 369, Soc.5–7 þ®re. — 1633b Sed. metan (metri causa). — 1634b
Gr., E., Aant. 25, Holt.1–2, Sed. cynebalde; Bu. 369 cyningholde. Cf. 1925: bregorōf (Kl. 1905–
6: 459).
56 BEOWULF

1635 from þ®m holmclife hafelan b®ron

earfoðlīċe heora ®ġhwæþrum
felamōdiġra; fēower scoldon
on þ®m wælstenġe weorcum ġeferian
tō þ®m goldsele Grendles hēafod,
1640 oþ ðæt semninga tō sele cōmon
frome fyrdhwate fēowert©ne
Ġēata gongan; gumdryhten mid
modiġ on ġemonge meodowongas træd.
Ðā cōm in gân ealdor ðeġna,
1645 d®dcēne mon dōme ġewurþad,
hæle hildedēor, Hrōðgār grētan.
Þā wæs be feaxe on Ïet boren
Grendles hēafod, þ®r guman druncon,
eġesliċ for eorlum ond þ®re idese mid,
1650 wlitesēon wr®tliċ; weras on sāwon.

XXIIII Bēowulf maþelode, bearn Ecgþeowes:

‘Hwæt, wē þē þās s®lāc, sunu Healfdenes,
lēod Scyldinga, lustum brōhton
tīres tō tācne, þē þū hēr tō lōcast.
1655 Iċ þæt unsōfte ealdre ġedīġde
wiġġe under wætere, weorc ġenēþde
earfoðlīċe; ætrihte wæs
gūð ġetw®fed, nymðe meċ God scylde.
Ne meahte iċ æt hilde mid Hruntinge
1660 wiht ġewyrċan, þēah þæt w®pen duge;
ac mē ġeūðe ylda waldend
þæt iċ on wāge ġeseah wlitiġ hangian
ealdsweord ēacen; ofost wīsode
winiġea lēasum, þæt iċ ð© w®pne ġebr®d.
1665 Ofslōh ðā æt þ®re sæċċe, þā mē s®l āġeald,
hūses hyrdas. Þā þæt hildebil
forbarn brogdenm®l, swā þæt blōd ġesprang,
hātost heaþoswāta. Iċ þæt hilt þanan

1640a Fol. 166r semninga. — 1644a gân. See 386b. — 1650 Thk., Ke., et al., Schü. (cf. Bd. 81),
v.Sch., Ni., Crp., Ki. onsāwon (most taking wlitesēon as its obj.); Siev. ZfdPh. xxi 360, 9 Edd.
on sāwon (cf. 1422b; see IF lxxxvii 334). — 1656 Tho. weorce; Aant. 25 wīg and weorce. (Cf.
Kl. 1908b: 463¯f.) — 1658 a Gru., Bu.Tid. 52, Tr., Holt.1,7–8 Sed. gūðe (1657 wæs 1 sg.). See Aant.
25. — 1662b Fol. 166v hangian A. — 1663a See 1558a. — 1663b MS oftost (so Ke., Edd., Kl.);
Siev.R. 256 (?), Hold.2, Holt., Sed. oft. See Appx.C §¯31.
 BEOWULF 57

fēondum ætferede, fyrend®da wræc,

1670 dēaðcwealm Deniġea, swā hit ġedēfe wæs.
Iċ hit þē þonne ġehāte þæt þū on Heorote mōst
sorhlēas swefan mid þīnra secga ġedryht
ond þeġna ġehwylċ þīnra lēoda,
duguðe ond iogoþe, þæt þū him ondr®dan ne þearft,
1675 þēodĺn Scyldinga, on þā healfe,
aldľrbealu eorlum, swā þū ®r dydest.’
Ðā wæs gylden hilt gamelum rinċe,
hārum hildfruman on hand ġyfen,
enta ®rġeweorc; hit on ®ht ġehwearf
1680 æfter dēoÏa hryre Deniġea fr¼n,
wundľrsmiþa ġeweorc; ond þā þās worold ofġeaf
gromheort guma, Godes andsaca,
morðres scyldiġ, ond his mōdor ēac,
on ġeweald ġehwearf woroldcyninga
1685 ð®m sēlestan be s®m twēonum
ðāra þe on Scedeniġġe sceattas d®lde.
Hrōðgār maðelode; hylt scēawode,
ealde lāfe. On ð®m wæs ōr writen
fyrnġewinnes; syðþan Ïōd ofslōh,
1690 ġifen ġēotende ġīganta cyn,
frēcne ġefērdon; þæt wæs fremde þēod
ēċean dryhtne; him þæs endelēan
þurh wæteres wylm waldend sealde.
Swā wæs on ð®m scennum scīran goldes
1695 þurh rūnstafas rihte ġemearcod,
ġeseted ond ġes®d, hwām þæt sweord ġeworht,
īrena cyst ®rest w®re,
wreoþenhilt ond wyrmfāh. Ðā se wīsa spræc
sunu Healfdenes; swīgedon ealle:
1700 ‘Þæt, lā, mæġ secgan sē þe sōð ond riht
fremeð on folce, feor eal ġemon,
eald ēþelweard, þæt ðes eorl w®re
ġeboren betera. Bl®d is ār®red
ġeond wīdwegas, wine mīn Bēowulf,

1677a Kluge EStn. xxii 145, Hold.2, Holt. Gyldenhilt. See Intr. xli n. 6. — 1681b Müll. ZfdA xiv
213, Bu.Zs. 201¯f., Holt., Sed. cancel ond. — 1685b Fol. 167r sæm. — 1686a MS scedenigge (the
¢rst g altered from n). — 1697a See 673a Varr. — 1698a Crp. wreoþen h. — 1702a MS .². —
1702b Bu.Tid. 52¯f., Tr. þæt ðē eorl n®re. See Lang. §¯26.2, Gloss.: betera; note on 1850.
58 BEOWULF

ðīn ofer þēoda ġehwylċe. Eal þū hit ġeþyldum healdest,

mæġen mid mōdes snyttrum. Iċ þē sceal mīne ġel®stan
frēode, swā wit furðum spr®con. Ðū scealt tō frōfre weorþan
eal langtwīdiġ lēodum þīnum,
hæleðum tō helpe.
Ne wearð Heremōd swā
1710 eaforum Ecgwelan, Ār-Scyldingum;
ne ġewēox hē him tō willan ac tō wælfealle
ond tō dēaðcwalum Deniġa lēodum;
brēat bolgenmōd bēodġenēatas,
eaxlġesteallan, oþ þæt hē āna hwearf,
1715 m®re þēoden mondrēamum from.
Ðēah þe hine mihtiġ God mæġenes wynnum,
eafeþum stēpte ofer ealle men,
forð ġefremede, hwæþere him on ferhþe grēow
brēosthord blōdrēow, nallas bēagas ġeaf
1720 Denum æfter dōme; drēamlēas ġebād
þæt hē þæs ġewinnes weorc þrōwade,
lēodbealo longsum. Ðū þē l®r be þon,
gumcyste onġit; iċ þis ġid be þē
āwræc wintrum frōd.
Wundor is tō secganʼnĺ
1725 hū mihtiġ God manna cynne
þurh sīdne sefan snyttru bryttað,
eard ond eorlscipe; hē āh ealra ġeweald.
Hwīlum hē on lufan l®teð hworfan
monnes mōdġeþonc m®ran cynnes,
1730 seleð him on ēþle eorþan wynne,
tō healdanne hlēoburh wera,
ġedēð him swā ġewealdĺne worolde d®las,
sīde rīċe, þæt hē his selfa ne mæġ
for his unsnyttrum ende ġeþenċean.
1735 Wuna(ð) hē on wiste; nō hine wiht dweleð
1707a MS Thk., Tho., Wülck., Cha., Mal. freode (cf. Gru.tr. 292), MS Ke., Gru., Z., Fu. 1
freoðe; 12 Edd., Kl. frēode. Cf. 2476¯f. — 1708a Crp. eallang twīdig (note allit.). — 1709a Fol.
167v hæledum AB (d altered to ð w. another ink B), now ðum remains. — 1710a Schaldemose
1847, Holtzm. 495, Müll. 50, Andrew 1948: §¯174 eafora. — 1724b Kl.1–2 (et al.: see 473a)
secgan; see Appx.C §¯21. — 1728a Gru. on luste (?); Tr. on lustum; Holt.1, Sed.1 on hēahlufan;
Holt.2 on hyhte; Holt.3–6 on luston (or -an); Sed.2–3 on hlīsan; Holt.7–8 on lufene ‘tenancy’ (see
Kock5 88¯f.). — 1732a Fol. 168r ge deð. — 1733b Tr. sēlþa. — 1734a MS A for his; B, Ke., Z. his
(so Wy., Sed., Cha., Kl., v.Sch. 15–16); Thk., Tho., Kl.3 Su., most Edd. for his. — 1735a MS AB
wunad, w. d altered to ð in another ink B.
 BEOWULF 59

ādl nē yldo, nē him inwitsorh

on sefa(n) sweorceð, nē ġesacu ōhw®r,
ecghete eoweð, ac him eal worold
wendeð on willan; hē þæt wyrse ne con —

XXV 1740 oð þæt him on innan oferhyġda d®l

weaxe(ð) ond wrīdað; þonne se weard swefeð,
sāwele hyrde; bið se sl®p tō fæst,
bisgum ġebunden, bona swīðe nēah,
sē þe of Ïānbogan fyrenum scēoteð.
1745 Þonne bið on hreþre under helm drepen
biteran str®le — him bebeorgan ne con —
wōm wundľrbebodum werġan gāstes;
þinċeð him tō l©tel þæt hē lange hēold,
ġ©tsað gromh©diġ, nallas on ġylp seleð
1750 f®tte bēagas, ond hē þā forðġesceaft
forġyteð ond forġ©með, þæs þe him ®r God sealde,
wuldres waldend, weorðmynda d®l.
Hit on endestæf eft ġelimpeð
þæt se līċhoma l®ne ġedrēoseð,
1755 f®ġe ġefealleð; fēhð ōþer tō,
sē þe unmurnlīċe mādmas d®leþ,
eorles ®rġestrēon, eġesan ne ġ©með.
Bebeorh þē ðone bealonīð, Bēowulf lēofa,
secg bet[e]sta, ond þē þæt sēlre ġeċēos,
1760 ēċe r®das; oferh©da ne ġ©m,
m®re cempa. Nū is þīnes mæġnes bl®d
āne hwīle; eft sōna bið
þæt þeċ ādl oððe ecg eafoþes ġetw®feð,
oððe f©res fenġ, oððe Ïōdes wylm,
1765 oððe gripe mēċes, oððe gāres Ïiht,
oððe atol yldo; oððe ēagena bearhtm

1736a MS AB adl, w. l added later in another ink B. — 1737a MS AB sefað (altered from sefad B;
cf. Z.); Gru.tr. 292, Ke., Edd. sefan. — 1737b Gr.2, Wülck., Tr., Holt., Sed. gesaca (‘adver-
sary’); Sie.R. 248, Holt. ōwer. — 1741a MS AB weaxed; Ke., Edd. weaxeð. (Gru.tr. does not have
weaxeð; cf. Z., Mal., Crp., et al.) — 1742b Holt.7–8 tō [ðon]. — 1748b MS to lange w. to
‘imperfectly erased’ (Z., Mal., Ki.; cf. Wn.: discoloration only; see Fu.1). — 1750a MS
fædde; Tho. f®tte; so Edd. excl. v.Sch., Dob., Ni., Crp. — 1752a Fol. 168v waldend AB (w altered
from v in B). — 1759a Tho. (in Ke.), Siev.R. 312, Holt., Schü., Sed.1–2, Cha., Kl.1–2 secg[a]; Gru.
153, He.2–5 secg [se]; Sed.3, HOEM §276 bet[o]sta; Pope 320, Mag., Crp. (p.¯761), Bamm. NM
ci 519¯ff. bet[e]sta. See 947a. — 1763a Kilpiö N&Q xlviii 97¯f. oððe ece (cf. Bamm. N&Q xlix
174¯f.; Frank ANQ xv 2.59¯f.). — 1766b Pope 343¯f. would cancel oððe; Buckalew NM lxxv
60 BEOWULF

forsiteð ond forsworceð; semninga bið

þæt ðeċ, dryhtguma, dēað ofersw©ðeð.
Swā iċ Hrinġ-Dena hund missera
1770 wēold under wolcnum ond hiġ wiġġe belēac
manigum m®ġþa ġeond þysne middanġeard,
æscum ond ecgum, þæt iċ mē ®niġne
under sweġles begong ġesacan ne tealde.
Hwæt, mē þæs on ēþle edwenden cwōm,
1775 gyrn æfter gomene, seoþðan Grendel wearð,
ealdġewinna, ingenġa mīn;
iċ þ®re sōcne singāles wæġ
mōdċeare micle. Þæs siġ metode þanc,
ēċean dryhtne, þæs ðe iċ on aldre ġebād
1780 þæt iċ on þone hafelan heorodrēoriġne
ofer eald ġewin ēagum stariġe.
Gā nū tō setle, symbĺlwynne drēoh
wīġġeweorþad; unc sceal worn fela
māþma ġem®nra siþðan morgen bið.’
1785 Ġēat wæs glædmōd, ġēong sōna tō,
setles nēosan, swā se snottra heht.
Þā wæs eft swā ®r ellenrōfum,
Ïetsittendum fæġere ġereorded
nīowan stefne. Nihthelm ġeswearc
1790 deorc ofer dryhtgumum. Duguð eal ārās;
wolde blondenfeax beddes nēosan,
gamela Scylding. Ġēat uniġmetes wēl,
rōfne randwigan, restan lyste;
sōna him seleþeġn sīðes wērgum,
1795 feorrancundum forð wīsade,
sē for andrysnum ealle beweotede
þeġnes þearfe, swylċe þ© dōgor
224¯ff. would emend to seoððan. Cf. Kl. BGdSL lxxii 124. — 1774b MS ed wendan; Gr.1 (?), Spr.,
Gr.2, most Edd. (excl. Ni.) edwenden. See 280a. — 1776a Tho., Gr.1 Gru., et al. eald gewinna. —
1777a Fol. 169r Ic. — 1781a Holt.2,3 ealdgewinnan, Dob. ealdgewin (cf. 1776a). — 1782b Siev.R.
266, Holt. symbelwynn. See Lang. §¯21.2. — 1783a MS wigge weorþad, so Gr.1, Arn., Wy.,
Hold.2, Schü., Cha., v.Sch., Dob., Hoops; E., Cos. viii 571, Hold.1, Soc., Tr., Holt.1–5,7–8, Sed.
wigge (Holt. wīge) geweorþad; Ke., Gru., Gr.2, He., Wülck., Holt.6, Wn., Mag., Ni., Ja., MR
wīggeweorþad. See Intr. xxxii n. 2. — 1784a Kock2 115 gem®ne. Cf. Kl. MLN xxxiv 132¯f. —
1792b MS unig / metes; Ke., 11 Edd. unigmetes; (Gru.tr. 293), Tho., et plur. ungemetes; E.
ungimetes; Sed.3 ungemete (cf. 2420, 2721). See note & Lang. §¯19.8. — 1796b MS be weotene;
Gru.tr. 293, Ke. ii, Edd. beweotede. — 1797b MS dogore, but e ‘added in another hand’ (Z.),
likely ‘by the second scribe’ (Ki.); Edd. dōgore (Kl. et al. dōgľre); Siev.R. 233, 245, Holt.,
Weyhe BGdSL xxxi 85 dōgor. So 1395; cf. 2573b. See Lang. §¯21.4.
 BEOWULF 61

heaþolīðende habban scoldon.

Reste hine þā rūmheort; reċed hlīuade
1800 ġēap ond goldfāh; gæst inne swæf,
oþ þæt hrefn blaca heofones wynne
blīðheort bodode. Ðā cōm beorht [lēoma]
[ofer sceadwa] scacan; scaþan ōnetton,
w®ron æþelingas eft tō lēodum
1805 fūse tō farenne; wolde feor þanon
cuma collenferhð, ċēoles nēosan.
Heht þā se hearda Hrunting beran
sunu Ecglāfes, heht his sweord niman,
lēoÏiċ īren; sæġde him þæs lēanes þanc,
1810 cwæð, hē þone gūðwine gōdne tealde,
wīġcræftiġne, nales wordum lōg
mēċes ecge; þæt wæs mōdiġ secg.
Ond þā sīðfrome, searwum ġearwe
wīġend w®ron; ēode weorð Denum
1815 æþeling tō yppan, þ®r se ōþer wæs,
hæle hildedēor Hrōðgār grētte.

XXVI Bēowulf maþelode, bearn Ecgþeowes:

‘Nū wē s®līðend secgan wyllað
feorran cumene þæt wē fundiaþ
1820 Hiġelāc sēċan. W®ron hēr tela,
willum bewenede; þū ūs wēl dohtest.
Ġif iċ þonne on eorþan ōwihte mæġ
þīnre mōdlufan māran tilian,
gumena dryhten, ðonne iċ ġ©t dyde,
1825 gūðġeweorca, iċ bēo ġearo sōna.
Ġif iċ þæt ġefricge ofer Ïōda begang
þæt þeċ ymbsittend eġesan þ©wað,
swā þeċ hetende hwīlum dydon,

1802b Fol. 169v ða com B (see Mal. PMLA lxiv 1204). — 1802b–3b MS ða com beorht scacan
scaþan onetton; Gr.1 cōman beorhte [lēoman / ofer scadu] s. S. o.; Gr.2 ð. c. b. [lēoma] / s. [ofer
scadu]. S. o.; He.2–7 Ð. c. b. [sunne] / scacan [ofer grundas]; s. o.; (so Sed.3, but [sigel] for
[sunne]); Siev. A. xiv 137¯f., Hold., Tr., Holt., Schü., Cha., v.Sch., Wn., Mag., Ni., Alxr. Ð. c. b.
scacan / [scīma æfter sceadwe] etc. (so Kl., Chck., but w. [ofer sceadwa]); Sed.1 Ð. c. b. scacan /
[scīma scyndan] (Sed.2 scynded), etc. — 1805a MS farene ne; Ke.2, Edd. farenne. — 1808a Gru.
suna. — 1808b (Gru.), Holt.2–8 heht [hine]. — 1809b Müll. ZfdA xiv 215, E., Hold., Wy., Tr.,
Holt.7–8, Wn.1–2, Mag., Chck.2 396 l®nes. — 1813a Ke., Sed. cancel Ond; E. Sōna (¯for Ond). —
1816a MS helle; Ke. ii, Edd. hæle. See Orchard 2003–4: 54. — 1826a Fol. 170r fricge. — 1828a
Gr.1, Arn., Siev.R. 296, Tr., Holt., Schü., Sed.2–3 hettende. See Lang. §¯20.5.— 1828b Siev.R. 498,
62 BEOWULF

iċ ðē þūsenda þeġna bringe,

1830 hæleþa tō helpe. Iċ on Hiġelāc wāt,
Ġēata dryhten, þēah ðe hē ġeong sŷ,
folces hyrde, þæt hē meċ fremman wile
wordum ond worcum, þæt iċ þē wēl heriġe
ond þē tō ġēoce gārholt bere,
1835 mæġenes fultum, þ®r ðē bið manna þearf.
Ġif him þonne Hrēþrīċ tō hofum Ġēata
ġeþinġeð þēodnes bearn, hē mæġ þ®r fela
frēonda ¢ndan; feorc©þðe bēoð
sēlran ġesōhte þ®m þe him selfa dēah.’
1840 Hrōðgār maþelode him on andsware:
‘Þē þā wordcwydas wiġtiġ drihten
on sefan sende; ne h©rde iċ snotľrlicor
on swā ġeongum feore guman þingian.
Þū eart mæġenes strang ond on mōde frōd,
1845 wīs wordcwida. Wēn iċ taliġe,
ġif þæt ġegangeð þæt ðe gār nymeð,
hild heorugrimme Hrēþles eaferan,
ādl oþðe īren ealdor ðīnne,
folces hyrde, ond þū þīn feorh hafast,
1850 þæt þe S®-Ġēatas sēlran næbben
tō ġeċēosenne cyning ®niġne,
hordweard hæleþa, ġyf þū healdan wylt
māga rīċe. Mē þīn mōdsefa
līcað lenġ swā wēl, lēofa Bēowulf.
1855 Hafast þū ġefēred þæt þām folcum sceal,
Ġēata lēodum ond Gār-Denum
sib ġem®nu, ond sacu restan,
inwitnīþas þe hīe ®r drugon,
wesan, þenden iċ wealde wīdan rīċes,

Tr., Schü. d®don, Holt. dēdon; Sed.2–3 ð©don; Kinloch MLR li 71 ©ðdon. See Appx.C §¯27; Lang.
§ 25.6. — 1830b–1a MS hige lace; Edd., Kl. Hiġelāce; Tr., Holt., Sed.3, Dob., Wn.-B. Hig(e)lāc;
Sed.2 Ic wāt on Higelāce. — MS (Z.) wat altered from wac w. another ink. — E., Klu. (in Hold.),
Sed.1 dryhtne. See note. — 1833a MS weordum; Tho., Edd. (excl. Crp.) wordum; — MS worcum;
Tho., Gr.1, Gru., E., Arn., Wülck., Soc., Wy., Schü., Cha., Kl., v.Sch., Wn., Ni., MR weorcum. —
1833b Lübke AfdA xix 342, Sed.3 (see MLR xxviii 227) nerige. — 1836a M S hreþrinc; Gru.tr. 294,
Tho., Edd. Hrēþrīc. — 1837a MS geþinged; Ke.2 geþingað, Gr.Spr., Gr.2, He., Edd. geþingeð. —
1840 Holt.1–6 (cf. Z s . 125) inserts after maþelode, [helm Scyldinga, / eorl æðelum gōd]. See note.
— Fol. 170v sǽ A(B). — 1854a Gr.Spr. ii 498 (s.v. swā3), Soc., Tr., Holt., Schü., Sed. sēl for wēl;
E . bet; B u . 96 bet or sēl. — 1857a MS ge mænum; Siev. 1884b: 140, Edd., Kl. gem®ne; Bamm.
ANQ xvi 3¯ff. gem®nu.
 BEOWULF 63

1860 māþmas ġem®ne, maniġ ōþerne

gōdum ġegrētan ofer ganotes bæð;
sceal hrinġnaca ofer heafu bringan
lāc ond luftācen. Iċ þā lēode wāt
ġē wið fēond ġē wið frēond fæste ġeworhte,
1865 ®ġhwæs unt®le ealde wīsan.’
Ðā ġīt him eorla hlēo inne ġesealde,
mago Healfdenes, māþmas twelfe;
hēt [h]ine mid þ®m lācum lēode sw®se
sēċean on ġesyntum, snūdĺ eft cuman.
1870 Ġecyste þā cyning æþelum gōd,
þēodĺn Scyldinga ðeġn bet[e]stan
ond be healse ġenam; hruron him tēaras
blondenfeaxum. Him wæs bēġa wēn
ealdum infrōdum, ōþres swīðor,
1875 þæt h[ī]e seoðða(n nō) ġesēon mōston,
mōdiġe on meþle. (W)æs him se man tō þon lēof
þæt hē þone brēostwylm forberan ne mehte,
ac him on hreþre hyġebendum fæst
æfter dēorum men dyrne langað
1880 born wið blōde. Him Bēowulf þanan,
gūðrinċ goldwlanc græsmoldan træd
sinċe hrēmiġ; s®genġa bād
āge[n]dfr¼n, sē þe on ancre rād.
Þā wæs on gange ġifu Hrōðgāres
1885 oft ġeæhted; þæt wæs ān cyning
®ġhwæs orleahtre, oþ þæt hine yldo benam
mæġenes wynnum, sē þe oft manegum scōd.

1861a MS gegrettan; Ke., Gr.2, et al., 9 Edd., Kl. gegrēttan, Tho., Gr.1, He., et al., Dob., Ja.
gegrētan; Holt.8 gegrēte. — 1862a l after sceal erased. — 1862b MS hea þu; Klu. ix 190, Siev.R.
235, Edd. (excl. Soc., Wy., Crp., MR) heafu. — 1867b MS .xii. — 1868a MS inne; Tho., Edd.
hine. Cf. 1866b. — 1870b Ni. cyning in on-verse (cf. Appx.C §§¯6, 33). — 1871b MS ðegn
betstan; Ke., Schubert 1870: 41, Siev.R. 232, Wülck., Hold.2, Holt., Schü., Sed.1–2, Cha., Kl.1–2
ðegn[a]; Sed. MLR xxviii 227, Sed.3, HOEM §276 bet[o]stan; Pope 372, Mag., Bamm. NM ci
519¯ff. bet[e]stan. See 947a, 1759a. — 1874a Fol. 171r frodum. — 1875a MS he; Gru.tr. 294,
Edd. h[ī]e; Tho. hī. — Thk., Edd. seoþþa(n); Bu. 96, Siev. Angl. xiv 141 (cf. E., Siev. 1884b:
141), Tr., Holt.1–6,8, Sed., Cha., v.Sch., Wn., Mag., Ni. seoððan [nā]; Kl., Dob., Le., Crp., Ja.,
MR s. [nō]. — 1875b Mackie 1939: 523 mōste (cf. Dob.); Holt.7 [ne] mōston. — 1876b MS A
þæs; Gru.tr. 294 wæs. — 1880a MS beorn; so Ke., Edd., Kl.3 (see Thomas MLR xxii 72, Hoops);
Tho., Siev. ZfdPh. xxi 363, Hold.2, Soc.6–7, Tr., Holt., Schü., Sed., Kl.1–2 born; Gr., E., Wy.,
Cha. bearn. Cf. 2673, ChristB 540; see Lang. §¯12.2. — 1883a MS agedfrean; Ke.1 260, Ke.2, Edd.
āge[n]d-. — 1887b Gr.1, E., Holt. sēo.
64 BEOWULF

XXVII Cwōm þā tō Ïōde felamōdiġra,

hæġstealdra [hēap], hrinġnet b®ron,
1890 locene leoðosyrċan. Landweard onfand
eftsīð eorla, swā hē ®r dyde;
nō hē mid hearme of hliðes nōsan
gæs(tas) grētte, ac him tōġēanes rād,
cwæð þæt wilcuman Wedera lēodum
1895 scaþan scīrhame tō scipe fōron.
Þā wæs on sande s®ġēap naca
hladen herew®dum, hrinġedstefna
mēarum ond māðmum; mæst hlīfade
ofer Hrōðgāres hordġestrēonum.
1900 Hē þ®m bātwearde bunden golde
swurd ġesealde, þæt hē syðþan wæs
on meodubenċe māþme þ© weorþra,
yrfelāfe. Ġewāt him on naca
drēfan dēop wæter, Dena land ofġeaf.
1905 Þā wæs be mæste merehræġla sum,
seġl sāle fæst; sundwudu þunede;
nō þ®r wēġÏotan wind ofer ©ðum
sīðes ġetw®fde; s®genġa fōr,
Ïēat fāmiġheals forð ofer ©ðe,
1910 bundenstefna ofer brimstrēamas,
þæt hīe Ġēata clifu onġitan meahton,
cūþe næssas; ċēol up ġeþrang,
lyftġeswenċed on lande stōd.
Hreþe wæs æt holme h©ðweard ġeara,
1915 sē þe ®r lange tīd lēofra manna

1889a E., Holt.1–2, Sed., Björkman Beibl. xxx 122 -stealda (but cf. GenA 1862); Gr.1, et al., 12
Edd. [hēap]. See Appx.C §§33, 27 fn.; cf. W. Lehmann 1969: 221¯ff. — 1889b MS bæron, w. left
side of æ underpointed; Siev.R. 224 (?), Tr., Sed.3, Andrew 1948: §¯186 beran, Holt.1–6 beron
(in¢n. w. cwōm; cf. 2754b). — 1892a Tr. hrēame. (Cf. LawEGu 6.6.) — 1892b Siev.R. 248,
Holt.1–6,8, Schü., Sed., Cha., Kl.1–2, Dob., Mag., Ja., also Holt.Et., Pope 357, Bliss §¯60 hliðes
nōsan; Hoops, v.Sch., Kl.3, Holt.7, Wn., Ni., Crp. (p.¯977, but cf. 956) hlīðes nosan; MR hlīðes
nōsan (cf. Appx.C §¯35). So 2803b. — 1893a Fol. 171v gæs .¯.¯. grette A; Gru.tr. 294, Ke.1 gæstas
ne g.; Ke.2, Arn. gæst n. g.; Gr.1, Andrew 1948: §¯187 gæst gegr. (but cf. 1896, 237¯ff.); Gr.2,
Edd. gæstas grētte; Ki. giestas g. — 1894b Gr. lēode. — 1895a MS sca / :¯:¯: , A scawan, B
scaþan; Gr. scaþan. — 1902b MS maþma, weorþre; Tho., most Edd. (excl. Sed.1–2) -me, -ra. —
1903b MS nacan; Gr., He., E., Wülck., Soc. [©ð]nacan; Rie.Zs. 402, Kl. 1905–6: 461, Hold.,
Holt.2–7, 10 Edd. naca; Sed., Holt.8, Stanley 1992: 276–9 [eft] on nacan. (Bu. 97 assumes loss of
2 verses before gewāt.) — 1913a Tr. (cf. Rie.Zs. 405) lyfte g. (?). Cf. 1783a. — 1913b Siev.
1884b: 141, Hold., Holt., Sed. [þæt hē] o. l. s. (Cf. 404b.) — 1914a MS hreþe altered to hraþe by
the other scribe; Ke., Edd., Kl. hraþe. — Fol. 172r holme.
 BEOWULF 65

fūs æt faroðe feor wlātode;

s®lde tō sande sīdfæþme scip
oncĺrbendum fæst, þ© l®s hym ©þa ðrym
wudu wynsuman forwrecan meahte.
1920 Hēt þā up beran æþelinga ġestrēon,
frætwe ond f®tgold; næs him feor þanon
tō ġesēċanne sinċes bryttan,
Hiġelāc Hrēþling, þ®r æt hām wunað
selfa mid ġesīðum s®wealle nēah.
1925 Bold wæs betliċ, bregorōf cyning,
hēa[h on] healle, Hyġd swīðe ġeong,
wīs wēlþungen, þēah ðe wintra l©t
under burhlocan ġebiden hæbbe,
Hæreþes dohtor; næs hīo hnāh swā þēah,
1930 nē tō gnēað ġifa Ġēata lēodum,
māþmġestrēona. Mōdþr©ðo wæġ
Fremu, folces cwēn, ¢ren’ ondrysne;
n®niġ þæt dorste dēor ġenēþan
sw®sra ġesīða, nefne sinfr¼,
1935 þæt hire an dæġes ēagum starede,
ac him wælbende weotode tealde
handġewriþene; hraþe seoþðan wæs

1916a Krapp MP ii 407 waroðe. See 28b Varr. — 1917b Tho., Gru., Arn., Sed.3 -fæþmed (see
302, but cf. And 240). — 1918a MS oncear; Gru.tr. 295, Ke.1 260, Ke.2, Tho., Edd. oncer-. —
1923b Siev. 1884b: 141, Holt. þ®r [hē]. — Tho. wunode, so (or -ade) Gr., Arn., Wülck., Hold.,
Tr., Holt.2. See Intr. clxx n. 6, Lang. §¯26.6. (Cf. Siev. 1884b: 141: dir. discourse.) — 1925b Ke.,
Gru., Holt., v.Sch., Wn., Mag., Ni., Crp., Ja., MR bregorōf (cf. 1634b; Kock2 116); Tho., Gr., E.,
Arn., Wülck., Wy., Schü., Sed., Cha. brego rōf; Tr., Scheinert BGdSL xxx 386 (?) beadorōf. —
1926a Klu. (in Hold.), Holt.3–4 on hēan healle (Ni. om. on); He.2–7 hēa on healle; Grienb. 750,
Schü. hēahealle (so Sed., but w. on); Kock2 116, Holt.5–6, Kl.3, Wn., Mag., Chck., Ja. hēah on
healle; so Holt.7, Dob., Swn., MR, but w. in; Holt.8 heard in healle. — 1928b Tho., Tr. (?), Holt.1–2
hæfde. See 1923b. — 1931b MS mod þryðo wæg; Ke., Tho., Wn.1–2 mōdþr©ðo; Holt.Zs. 118, ed.1,
Sed., Mag. mōdþr©ðe (cf. GenA 2240, etc.; Sisam RES xxii 266¯n.); Gr. (cf. Jahrb. f. rom. u.
eng. Lit. iv 279¯ff.), Kl.3, Wn.-B., Ni., Ja. Mōdþr©ðo (proper name); E. Mōdþr©ð onwæg; Gru.,
Suchier BGdSL iv 501, He.3–4, Arn., Wülck., Hold., Soc., Wy., Tr., v.Sch. mōd Þr©ðo; Schü. (cf.
1908: 108–9), Holt.2–5,8, Cha., Kl.1–2 mōd Þr©ðe [ne] wæg (cf. Kock3 102¯f.); Imelmann 1920:
456¯ff., Holt.6, Crp. mōd Þr©ð ō wæg; Hoops St. 64¯ff., Holt.7 Mōdþr©ð ō wæg (or Mōdþr©ðo
wæg). — 1932a Tho. frome (?); Rie.Zs. 403 fremu = fremþu, Tr. fremþu; Bu.Zs. 206 fremu =
framu, si. Holt.1–2 fromu, Sed. fre(o)mu (cf. GenA 2794, Ex 14); Cos. viii 572, Hold. frēcnu. —
1932b Gr.1, v.Sch. (see A. lxii 173¯ff.) ¢renondrysne; E. ¢rena o., Rie.Zs. 402 ¢renum o., Cos. viii
572 ¢renon o.; Cha. suggests masc. use of ¢ren (cf. 698a). See Appx.C §§¯37, 31. (Type D1.) —
1934b Gru., et al., Holt., Cha. sīn f. See Rie.V. 31. — 1935a Holt.2 hīe for hire; cf. Holt.Zs. 119.
— Ke., Tho. āndæges (‘daily’); (Munch, in) Bu.Tid. 296, Hold.1 and-ēges (‘eye to eye’: cf. Go.
andaugjō), Sed.1–2, Schü.11–14 and®ges w. the same meaning; Sed.3 (cf. MLR xxviii 227) on egesan
‘with intimidating mien’; Wn.1–2 on dæges (cf. Lang. §¯6); Smithers 1966: 424 andæges ‘in the
high-seat’ (cf. OES §¯1396). — 1936b Fol. 172 v weotode AB (w altered from v in B).
66 BEOWULF

æfter mundgripe mēċe ġeþinġed,

þæt hit sceādenm®l sc©ran mōste,
1940 cwealmbealu c©ðan. Ne bið swylċ cwēnliċ þēaw
idese tō efnanʼnĺ, þēah ðe hīo ®nlicu s©,
þætte freoðuwebbe fēores ons®ċe
æfter liġetorne lēofne mannan.
Hūru þæt onhōhsnod[e] Hemminges m®ġ:
1945 ealodrincende ōðer s®dan,
þæt hīo lēodbealĺwa l®s ġefremede,
inwitnīða, (s)yððan ®rest wearð
ġyfen goldhroden ġeongum cempan,
æðelum dīore, syððan hīo Offan Ïet
1950 ofer fealone Ïōd be fæder lāre
sīðe ġesōhte; ð®r hīo syððan well
in gumstōle, gōde m®re,
līfġesceafta li¢ġende brēac,
hīold hēahlufan wið hæleþa brego,
1955 ealles moncynnes mīne ġefr®ġe
þone sēlestan bī s®m twēonum,
eormencynnes; forðām Offa wæs
ġeofum ond gūðum, gārcēne man,
wīde ġeweorðod, wīsdōme hēold
1960 ēðel sīnne; þonon Ēomēr wōc
hæleðum tō helpe, Hem[m]inges m®ġ,
nefa Gārmundes, nīða cræftiġ.

XXVIII Ġewāt him ðā se hearda mid his hondscole

sylf æfter sande s®wong tredan,
1965 wīde waroðas. Woruldcandel scān,
siġel sūðan fūs. Hī sīð drugon,
elne ġeēodon, tō ðæs ðe eorla hlēo,
bonan Ongĺnþeoes burgum in innan,

1939b With moste the work of the second scribe begins. — 1941a Siev.R. 312, Holt., Schü., Sed.
efnan. See Appx.C §¯21. — 1942b MS on sæce; Ke. ii, Rie.Zs. 403, Holt., Schü., Sed. onsēce;
Cha., Kock5 94¯f. onsæce (‘attack’ or ‘accuse’). Cf. Jul 678¯f. See Lang. §¯7.3. — 1944a MS on
hohsnod (w. s inserted later: Ki.); Tho., Edd. onhōhsnod[e] (or onhoh-); Sed.3 hohs onwōd
(‘scorn [for such conduct] ¢lled’); Ki. on hōh snōd (cf. HOEM §¯291). — 1944b MS hem ninges;
Ke., Müll. ZfdA xiv 243, Siev.R. 501, most Edd. (excl. v.Sch., Ni.) Hemminges. (Gr.1, Siev.R. 264
Hēminges.) Cf. Mal. A. lxiii 104¯f. — 1947b MS A fyððan, B syððan, ‘s later’ (Ki.). — 1956a MS
þæs; Tho., He.1,4, Bu.Zs. 208¯f., Edd. (excl. MR) þone. — 1957b Fol. 173r wæs. — 1960b MS
geomor; Tho. Ēomēr, Bachlechner Germ. i 298 Ēom®r; Mal. Gmc. Rev. xiv 235¯f., Crp. þon
ongeōmor (but cf. p.¯1049). — 1961b MS hem inges. See 1944b. (Ke. ii p.¯80: mm).
 BEOWULF 67

ġeongne gūðcyning gōdne ġefrūnon

1970 hringas d®lan. Hiġelāce wæs
sīð Bēowulfes snūde ġec©ðed,
þæt ð®r on worðiġ wīġendra hlēo,
lindġestealla li¢ġende cwōm,
heaðolāces hāl tō hofe gongan.
1975 Hraðe wæs ġer©med, swā se rīċa bebēad,
fēðeġestum Ïet innanweard.
Ġesæt þā wið sylfne sē ðā sæċċe ġenæs,
m®ġ wið m®ġe, syððan mandryhten
þurh hlēoðľrcwyde holdne ġegrētte,
1980 mēaglum wordum. Meoduscenċum hwearf
ġeond þæt [heal]reċed Hæreðes dohtor,
lufode ðā lēode, līðw®ġe bær
hæleðum tō handa. Hiġelāc ongan
sīnne ġeseldan in sele þām hēan
1985 fæġre fricgcean; hyne fyrwet bræc,
hwylċe S®-Ġēata sīðas w®ron:
‘Hū lomp ēow on lāde, lēofa Bīowulf,
þā ðū f®ringa feorr ġehogodest
sæċċe sēċean ofer sealt wæter,
1990 hilde tō Hiorote? Ac ðū Hrōðgāre
wīdcūðne wēan wihte ġebēttest,
m®rum ðēodne? Iċ ðæs mōdċeare
sorhwylmum sēað, sīðe ne truwode
lēofes mannes; iċ ðē lange bæd
1995 þæt ðū þone wælg®st wihte ne grētte,
lēte Sūð-Dene sylfe ġeweorðan
gūðe wið Grendel. Gode Ľċ þanc secge
þæs ðe iċ ðē ġesundne ġesēon mōste.’

1972a Siev. (in Holt.7–8) þæt [hē]. — 1978b Fol. 173v syððan B; siððan A, so Kiernan 1984: 33¯f.,
Ja. (cf. Ki.). — 1980b Gr.1, Gru., He.2–4, v.Sch., Wn., Ni. hwearf in 1981a (cf. Appx.C §¯40). —
1981a MS side ręced (so Ni., also Crp. [reced]); but side added over the line by same hand in
another ink; hook under e made w. same lighter ink (Z., Ki.; see Fu.1, and cf. 1989a, 2126b,
2652b); Ke. (?), Tho., 8 Edd. healreced (or -ręced; so Kl.; cf. 68a); Gr.2 hēa reced; MR hēahreced;
Gr.1, Gru., He.2, v.Sch. cancel side; Holt.1–4 (cf. Zs. 119): 2 half-lines dropped out after s. r. —
1983a MS hæ nū (ð erased after æ); Gr.1, He.2–4, Wülck., Hold.1, Wy., Sed.1–2 hælum (cf. Platt
BGdSL ix 368¯f., SB §¯290); Z., Bu. 9¯f., Soc., Hold.2, Schü., Cha., v.Sch., Crp. H®num = H®ðnum
(cf. Wid 81; Wn., Mag., Ni. have the latter); MR h®ðnum (see Robinson 1985: 10); Tr., Holt. (cf.
Zs. 125), Sed.3, Dob., Ja., Hoops, Björkm.Eig. 55¯f. hæleðum. See Orchard 2003–4: 54; cf. Doane
2003: 71. — 1986b Siev. (in Holt.8) w®ren. — 1989a MS hook under æ in sæcce added later; cf.
1981a, and see Fu.1. — 1991a MS wið; Thk., Tho., Edd. wīd-. — 1993b See 669b Varr.
68 BEOWULF

Bīowulf maðelode, bearn Ecgðioes:

2000 ‘Þæt is undyrne, dryhten Hiġe(lāc),
(m®ru) ġemēting monegum fīra,
hwyl(ċ) or(leġ)hwīl uncer Grendles
wearð on ðām wange, þ®r hē worna fela
Siġe-Scyldingum sorge ġefremede,
2005 yrmðe tō aldre; iċ ðæt eall ġewræc,
swā beġylpan [ne] þearf Grendeles māga
(®)n(iġ) ofer eorðan ūhthlem þone,
sē (ð)e lenġest leofað lāðan cynnes,
f®r(e) bifongen. Iċ ð®r furðum cwōm
2010 tō ðām hrinġsele Hrōðgār grētan;
sōna mē se m®ra mago Healfdenes,
syððan hē mōdsefan mīnne cūðe,
wið his sylfes sunu setl ġet®hte.
Weorod wæs on wynne; ne seah iċ wīdan feorh
2015 under heofones hwealf healsittendra
medudrēam māran. Hwīlum m®ru cwēn,
friðusibb folca Ïet eall ġeondhwearf,
b®dde byre ġeonge; oft hīo bēahwriðan
secge (sealde) ®r hīe tō setle ġēong.
2020 Hwīlum for (d)uguðe dohtľr Hrōðgāres
eorlum on ende ealuw®ġe bær,
þā iċ Frēaware Ïetsittende
nemnan h©rde, þ®r hīo (næ)ġled sinċ

1999b Holt.7–8 -þīowes. — 2000a Fol. 174r ³. — 2000b MS B hige .¯.¯.¯. w. lac in another ink on the
ellipsis. — 2001a MS defective, see 2002a, 2003a (Z.), 2006a, 2007a, 2009a, etc. — Gr., Edd.
(m®re); Moore JEGP xviii 210, Holt.6, v.Sch., Wn., Mag., Ni., Swn., MR (m®ru); Kl. (? cf.
2354b–5a), Dob., Ja., Alxr. (micel); Andrew 1948: §¯43 (on ðā) (cf. Appx.C §¯6). — 2002a MS A
hwyle followed by a blank, B hwylce . .; Mad. or after Thk.’s hwylce; Tho., Gr., Edd. hwylc
(orleg-); Ki. hwylc e(arfoð-). — 2004a MS dingū altered from dungū. See 2052b, 2101b, 2159a. —
2004b–5a Holt.8 sorga, yrmða. — 2006a MS A swabe, B swal . . (w altered from v); Gru.tr. 296,
Ke., et al., Soc., Wy., Schü.8, Sed.1–2 swā ne gylpan; Sed.3 (see MLR xxviii 228) s. hē g. [ne]; Gr.2,
E., Wülck., Hold.1, 11 Edd. swā begylpan [ne]; cf. Kl. 1908a: 431, Taylor NM lxxxii 359. — 2007a
MS B en . . ; Ke., Tho., Gr., Edd. ®nig; Mal., Ni., Crp. ēnig; Tr. ®fre; Ki. yfel. — 2008a MS AB
sede, w. d altered to ð in another ink B. — 2009a MS A fæ . . , B fer . . ; Thk., Ke., et al. f®r- for
f®re; Ke. ii fen- (?), Gru., He.3–7, Wy. fenne; Bu. 97, 9 Edd., Kl. fācne (so Jul 350; cf. Schröder
ZfdA xliii 365; Angl. xxxv 135); Mal., Ni., Chck., Crp. f®cne; Tr., Holt. Ï®sce (cf. 2424, GuthB
994, etc.); Ki. fyrene (too long for the space); f®re Hall JEGP cvi 417–27. — 2018a MS bædde;
Kl. 1905–6: 461 (& ed.1–2), Holt.2–6, Schü. bælde. — 2019 a Fol. 174v .¯.¯.¯.¯.¯.¯ær B(A); Tho., Gr.,
Edd. (sealde). — 2019 b MS hie; Ke., Tho., 11 Edd. hīe; Gr., Gru., et al., Sed., hīo. See Lang.
§¯23. — 2020 a MS :¯:¯:¯:¯ðe (Mal., Ki.), B .¯.¯.¯uguðe (ð altered from d w. another ink); Gru.tr.
296, Edd. (d)uguðe. — 2021 a Aant. 29 on handa (?). — 2023b Gr.1, Holt., Sed., v.Sch., Mag.
(næ)gledsinc, Gr.2, Edd. nægled sinc.
 BEOWULF 69

hæleðum sealde. Sīo ġehāten (is),

2025 ġeong goldhroden, gladum suna Frōdan;
(h)afað þæs ġeworden wine Scyldinga,
rīċes hyrde, ond þæt r®d talað,
þæt hē mid ð© wīfe wælf®hða d®l,
sæċċa ġesette. Oft seldan hw®r
2030 æfter lēodhryre l©tle hwīle
bongār būgeð, þēah sēo br©d duge.
Mæġ þæs þonne ofþynċan ðēodĺn Heaðo-Beardna
ond þeġna ġehwām þāra lēoda
þonne hē mid f®mnan on Ïett g±ð,
2035 dryhtbearn Dena, duguða biwenede.
On him gladiað gomelra lāfe,
heard ond hrinġm®l Heaða-Bear[d]na ġestrēon,
þenden hīe ðām w®pnum wealdan mōston —

[XXVIIII–XXX] oð ðæt hīe forl®ddan tō ðām lindplegan

2040 sw®se ġesīðas ond hyra sylfra feorh.
Þonne cwið æt bēore sē ðe bēah ġesyhð,
eald æscwiga, sē ðe eall ġe(man),
gārcwealm gumena — him bið grim (se)fa —
onġinneð ġeōmormōd ġeong(um) cempan
2045 þurh hreðra ġehyġd hiġes cunnian,
wīġbealu weċċean, ond þæt word ācwyð:
“Meaht ðū, mīn wine, mēċe ġecnāwan,
þone þīn fæder tō ġefeohte bær

2024 b MS B .¯.¯. se after gehaten (A: blank); Ke., et al. (wæs), Mal., Ni., Crp. (w)es; Klu.
(in Hold.), 10 Edd. (is). — 2026 a MS AB iafað (altered from fad B); Ke., Edd. hafað. —
2029 a Sed. 2 gesehte. — 2029 b Ke. ii, E. Seldan ōhw®r; He.1–7, Wülck., Wy. Oft [nō]
seldan (or [nalæs] He.); Klu. (in Hold.) oft seldan (= sealdon) w®re; Holt.3 oft [bið] sēl
and w®r; Sed. (cf. MLR v 287) oft sēlð onhwearf. Cf. Rie.Zs. 404; Bu. 369. — 2032 b MS
ðeoden; Ke., et al., Holt., Sed., Dob., Wn., Mag., Swn., Ja., Alxr., MR ðēodne. — 2035 a Klu.
ix 191 (?), Hold.1, Holt.1 dryhtbeorn. — 2035 b Tho. duguðe beþēnede; Gr., E., Wülck.,
Hold., Cha., Holt.8, Andrew 1948: §¯171 duguða bī werede (cf. Appx.C §§¯31, 38); so
Holt.1–3 but w. duguðe; Sed. duguðe biwenede. — 2037 b MS heaða bearna; Tho., et al.,
Sed., Heaðo-beardna (si. Holt., Dob., Wn., Ja., MR, but Heaða-). See Lang. §¯20.6. —
2039 a The fitt division is indicated by a large capital O. Cf. Intr. xxxv. — 2041 b Gr.1 bill (?)
(¯for bēah); Bu. 98 bā; Holt.Zs. 119, Sed. beorn. — Fol. 175r gesyhð. — 2042 b MS B
genam, but na added later; so Thk., Mal. JEGP xxxix 80¯f., A. lxv 227¯ff., PMLA lxiv
1206¯f., 1960: 199; Gru.tr. 296 ge(mon), Tho., Edd. ge(man). — 2043 b A grim fa (w. a
blank between); B grimme fa (w. me in another ink on ellipsis; see Mal.); Cony. &
Coll., Ke., Edd. (se)fa. — 2044 b Ke.1, Gr., 11 Edd. geong(um) (cf. 1948 b ); Gru.tr. 296,
Ke.2, Tho., He.1–7, Schü. geong(ne); Tr., Ki. geong(an) (cf. 2626 a ). — 2048 Holt.2, Sed.1–2
[frōd] fæder; Holt.3–7 fæder [f®ge] (cf. MLR xxviii 226); Blockley RES xlvi 331 tō in on-
verse. See Appx.C §¯27.
70 BEOWULF

under heregrīman hindeman sīðe,

2050 d©re īren, þ®r hyne Dene slōgon,
wēoldon wælstōwe, syððan Wiðerġyld læġ,
æfter hæleþa hryre, hwate Scyldungas?
Nū hēr þāra banena byre nāthwylċes
frætwum hrēmiġ on Ïet g±ð,
2055 morðres ġylpe(ð), ond þone māðþum byreð,
þone þe ðū mid rihte r®dan sceoldest.”
Manað swā ond myndgað m®la ġehwylċe
sārum wordum, oð ðæt s®l cymeð
þæt se f®mnan þeġn fore fæder d®dum
2060 æfter billes bite blōdfāg swefeð,
ealdres scyldiġ; him se ōðer þonan
losað (li)¢ġende, con him land ġeare.
Þonne bīoð (āb)rocene on bā healfe
āðsweord eorla; (syð)ðan Inġelde
2065 weallað wælnīðas, ond him wīÏufan
æfter ċearwælmum cōlran weorðað.
Þ© iċ Heaðo-Bear[d]na hyldo ne telġe,
dryhtsibbe d®l Denum unf®cne,
frēondscipe fæstne.
Iċ sceal forð sprecan
2070 ġēn ymbe Grendel, þæt ðū ġeare cunne,
sinċes brytta, tō hwan syððan wearð
hondr®s hæleða. Syððan heofones ġim
glād ofer grundas, g®st yrre cwōm,
eatol ®fengrom ūser nēosan,
2075 ð®r wē ġesunde sæl weardodon.
Þ®r wæs Hondsciō hild ons®ġe,
feorhbealu f®ġum; hē fyrmest læġ,
gyrded cempa; him Grendel wearð,
m®rum maguþeġne tō mūðbonan,
2051 b Gru.tr. 296, Gr.1, He.1–7 wiðergyld. — 2055 a MS B gylped, A gylwed; Ke., Edd.
gylpeð. — 2059 b He.1–3, Holt. for. — 2062 a Fol. 175 v figende A, . eigende B (see Mal.
PMLA lxiv 1208); He.2–4, et al., 12 Edd. (li)figende. — 2063 a MS A orocene (see Mal.
l.c.), B . orocene, Cony. & Coll. brocene (?); Ke., Z., 10 Edd. ābrocene; Tho., Wülck.,
Soc., Wy., Schü., Ki. brocene; MR gebrocene. See note. — 2064 a MS sweorð or sweord
w. indistinct cross-stroke on d (Z., Ki.; see Fu. 1 ); Thk., Ke., et al., 8 Edd. -sweord;
Wn. 1–3 , Ni., Crp. -sweorð. See Hoops; Gloss. — 2064 b Ke., Edd. (syþ)ðan; Mag. (and)
ðan. Cf. Mal. JEGP xxxix 86¯ff. — 2067 a MS bearna; Tho., et al. -beardna. See 2037 b . —
2070a Gr., Holt. ymb. See Appx.C §¯22. — 2076b MS hilde; Holtzm. 496, Rie.Zs. 405 hild; so
Edd. excl. Wülck. Cf. Mal. A. lvii 315; see 2483, Appx.C §¯31. — 2079a MS magū; Ke.2 magu-; so
Edd. excl. Wülck., Ni. Cf. 1857, 2514.
 BEOWULF 71

2080 lēofes mannes līċ eall forswealg.

Nō ð© ®r ūt ðā ġēn īdelhende
bona blōdiġtōð, bealewa ġemyndiġ,
of ðām goldsele gongan wolde,
ac hē mæġnes rōf mīn costode,
2085 grāpode ġearofolm. Glōf hangode
sīd ond sylliċ, searobendum fæst;
sīo wæs orðoncum eall ġeġyrwed
dēoÏes cræftum ond dracan fellum.
Hē meċ þ®r on innan unsynniġne,
2090 dīor d®dfruma ġedōn wolde
maniġra sumne; hyt ne mihte swā,
syððan iċ on yrre upprihte āstōd.
Tō lang ys tō reċċenʼnĺ hū i(ċ ð)ām lēodsceaðan
yÏa ġehwylċes ondlēan forġeald;
2095 þ®r iċ, þēoden mīn, þīne lēode
weorðode weorcum. Hē on weġ losade,
l©tle hwīle līfwynna brē(a)c;
hwæþre him sīo swīðre swaðe weardade
hand on Hiorte, ond hē hēan ðonan,
2100 mōdes ġeōmor meregrund ġefēoll.
Mē þone wælr®s wine Scildunga
f®ttan golde fela lēanode,
manegum māðmum, syððan merġen cōm,
ond wē tō symble ġeseten hæfdon.
2105 Þ®r wæs ġidd ond glēo; gomela Scilding,
felafricgende feorran rehte;
hwīlum hildedēor hearpan wynne,
gome(n)wudu grētte, hwīlum ġyd āwræc
sōð ond sārliċ, hwīlum sylliċ spell
2110 rehte æfter rihte rūmheort cyning;
hwīlum eft ongan eldo ġebunden,

2085a Fol. 176r grapode AB. — MS A, Z., Mal., Ki. geareo; Thk. gearo, Ke. geara-, Ke. ii, Edd.
gearo-. — 2088b Tr., Holt.1 of (¯for ond). Cf. Kl. 1905–6: 240. — 2092b MS A upprihte, B
uppriht; Thk., Crp., Ki. upprihte (cf. Gen [Ker] 37.7); Ke., Edd., Kl. uppriht. — 2093a Siev.R. 312,
Holt., Schü. reccan, Sed. -en. See Appx.C §¯21. — 2093b MS A huiedā; Gru.tr. 297, Ke., Edd. hū
ic ðām. — 2094b MS hond; Gr.1 (?), Rie.Zs. 415, Holt., Schü., Cha., v.Sch., Dob., Wn., Mag., Ja.
ond-. See 1541b. — 2097b MS A bræc, B brene altered to brec; Ke., Edd. brēac. See Mal. —
2105b Fol. 176v scilding AB. — 2106a Thk., et al., Cha., v.Sch., Wn.1–3, Ni., Crp. fela fricgende; 6
Edd. fela-. Cf. OES §¯3842. — 2108a MS AB go / mel; Gru.tr. 297, nearly all Edd. gomen-. —
2109a Gr.1 (?), Scheinert BGdSL xxx 366 (?), Holt.2–6 searolic.
72 BEOWULF

gomel gūðwiga ġioguðe cwīðan,

hildestrenġo; hreðer (in)ne wēoll
þonne hē wintrum frōd worn ġemunde.
2115 Swā wē þ®r inne andlangne dæġ
nīode nāman, oð ðæt niht becwōm
ōðer tō yldum. Þā wæs eft hraðe
ġearo gyrnwræce Grendeles mōdor,
sīðode sorhfull; sunu dēað fornam,
2120 wīġhete Wedra. Wīf unh©re
hyre bearn ġewræc, beorn ācwealde
ellenlīċe; þ®r wæs Æschere,
frōdan fyrnwitan feorh ūðgenġe.
Nōðer h© hine ne mōston, syððan merġen cwōm,
2125 dēaðwēriġne Denia lēode
bronde forbærnan, nē on bēl hladan
lēofne mannan; hīo þæt līċ ætbær
fēondes fæð(mum un)der ¢rġenstrēam.
Þæt wæs Hrōðgār(e) hrēowa tornost
2130 þāra þe lēodfruman lange beġēate.
Þā se ðēoden meċ ðīne līfe
healsode hrēohmōd þæt iċ on holma ġeþrinġ
eorlscipe efnde, ealdre ġenēðde,
m®rðo fremede; hē mē mēde ġehēt.
2135 Iċ ðā ðæs wælmes, þē is wīde cūð,
grimne gryrelicne grundhyrde fond;
þ®r unc hwīle wæs hand ġem®ne;
holm heolfre wēoll, ond iċ hēafde beċearf
in ðām [gūð]sele Grendeles mōdor
2140 ēacnum ecgum; unsōfte þonan
feorh oðferede; næs iċ f®ġe þā ġ©t,
ac mē eorla hlēo eft ġesealde
māðma meniġeo, maga Healfdenes.

2113b MS A mne, B . . ne; Thk. inne. — 2124a MS noðer; Andrew 1940: §¯84 nō þ© ®r. — 2126 b
MS bel changed to bęl; Edd. bĘl or b®l (so Holt., Cha., Kl., v.Sch., Dob., Ni., Ja.); Crp., MR
bēl. See 1981a, Fu.1. — 2127 b Fol. 177r hio AB. — 2128 MS A fæð der (long blank betw., fæð
in another ink), B fædr . . . . ðer, w. ungu in another ink on ellipsis; Thk. fædrunga þ®r under;
Ke.1 fæðrunga þ®r under, Ke.2, Crp. fædrunga under; Gr.2, Edd. fæðmum u.; Ki. fæðme u. Cf.
MÆ xxiii 64.— 2129a MS A hroð and a blank, B Hrodgar¯.¯.; Thk., Ke., Gru., Edd. Hrōðgāre. —
2136 a MS grimme; Tho. grimne; so Edd. excl. Gru., Ni., Crp. — 2137 b Gru.tr. 297, Ke., et al.,
Cha. handgem®ne. — 2139 a Tho., Holt., Sed., v.Sch., Dob., Wn., Mag., Ni., Ja., [gūð-] (cf.
1513, 443; Panzer 281, Lawrence PMLA xxvii 237 n.¯2); Gru.tr. 297, E.tr., et al., Schü., Cha.,
MR, Ki. [grund-] (cf. Matthes 1955: 371).
 BEOWULF 73

XXXI Swā se ðēodkyning þēawum lyfde;

2145 nealles iċ ðām lēanum forloren hæfde,
mæġnes mēde, ac hē mē (māðma)s ġeaf,
sunu Healfdenes on (mīn)ne sylfes dōm;
ðā iċ ðē, beorncyning, bringan wylle,
ēstum ġe©wan. Ġēn is eall æt ðē
2150 lissa ġelong; iċ l©t hafo
hēafodmāga nefne, Hyġelāc, ðeċ.’
Hēt ðā in beran eaforhēafodseġn,
heaðostēapne helm, hāre byrnan,
gūðsweord ġeatoliċ, ġyd æfter wræc:
2155 ‘Mē ðis hildesceorp Hrōðgār sealde,
snotra fenġel; sume worde hēt
þæt iċ his ®rest ðē ēst ġesæġde:
cwæð þæt hyt hæfde Hiorogār cyning,
lēod Scyldunga lange hwīle;
2160 nō ð© ®r suna sīnum syllan wolde,
hwatum Heorowearde, þēah hē him hold w®re,
brēostġew®du. Brūc ealles well!’
H©rde iċ þæt þām frætwum fēower mēaras
lungre, ġelīċe lāst weardode,
2165 æppelfealĿwe; hē him ēst ġetēah
mēara ond māðma. Swā sceal m®ġ dôn,
nealles inwitnet ōðrum breġdon
dyrnum cræfte, dēað rēn(ian)
hondġesteallan. Hyġelāce wæs
2170 nīða heardum nefa sw©ðe hold,
ond ġehwæðer ōðrum hrōþra ġemyndiġ.
H©rde iċ þæt hē ðone healsbēah Hyġde ġesealde,
wr®tlicne wundurmāððum, ðone þe him Wealhðēo ġeaf,
ðēod(nes) dohtor, þrīo wicg somod
2175 swancor ond sadolbeorht; hyre syððan wæs

2146 b Fol. 177v.¯.¯.¯.¯is B(A); Gru.tr. 297, Ke. māþmas (some Edd. mādmas). — 2147 b Ke., Edd.
(mīn)ne; Gru., He. (sīn)ne. — 2150 a Holt. Beibl. x 269 (cf. Siev.R. 312), Tr., Holt.1–2, Schü.8,
Sed.1–2 gelenge; Holt. Lit.bl. xxi 61, Schü.9, Holt.5–6 gelong lissa; Kl.1–2 (see JEGP viii 257),
Cha., Holt.3,7–8, Sed.3 [mīnra] l. g.; Siev. (in Schü.10–14), Holt.4 gelong[ra] (cf. 1784a). See
Appx.C §¯33. — 2152 a inberan Crp. (note allit.). — 2152 b Ke., He. 4–7 , Hold. 2 , Wy., 8
Edd., Kl. eafor hēafodsegn; Tho. eoforhēafodsegn; Gr., Gru., He. 1–3 , Wülck., Arn.,
Holt.2–7, Sed., Dob., Ni. eafor- (so Aant. 31); Klu. ix, Hold.1, Köppel EStn. xiii 468, Holt.8
ealdor h. — 2157 a Cony. & Coll. (?), Tho. ®rend; Gr.1 (?), Rie.Zs. 405¯f. ®rist (‘origo’?). —
2164 b Ke.2, Gru., Holt. weardodon (or -en). See note on 905a; cf. OES §¯19. — 2166 b Fol. 178r
mæg. — 2168 b Ke. ii, nearly all Edd. rēn(ian). — 2174 a Ke. ðēod(nes). — 2174b Sed. þrīowicg.
74 BEOWULF

æfter bēahðeġe br[ē]ost ġeweorðod.

Swā b(eal)dode bearn Ecgðeowes,
guma gūð(um) cūð, gōdum d®dum,
drēah æfter dōme; nealles druncne slōg
2180 heorðġenēatas; næs him hrēoh sefa,
ac hē mancynnes m®ste cræfte
ġinfæstan ġife þe him God sealde
hēold hildedēor. Hēan wæs lange,
swā hyne Ġēata bearn gōdne ne tealdon,
2185 nē hyne on medobenċe micles wyrðne
(dry)hten Wedera ġedōn wolde;
sw©ðe (wēn)don þæt hē slēac w®re,
æðeling unfrom. Edwenden cwōm
tīrēadĽgum menn torna ġehwylċes.
2190 Hēt ðā eorla hlēo in ġefetian,
heaðorōf cyning Hrēðles lāfe
golde ġeġyrede; næs mid Ġēatum ðā
sinċmāðþĿm sēlra on sweordes hād;
þæt hē on Bīowulfes bearm āleġde,
2195 ond him ġesealde seofan þūsendo,
bold ond bregostōl. Him wæs (b)ām samod
on ðām lēodscipe lond ġecynde,
eard ēðelriht, ōðrum swīðor
sīde rīċe þām ð®r sēlra wæs.

2200 Eft þæt ġeīode ufaran dōgrum

hildehlæmmum, syððan Hyġelāc læġ,
ond Hear[dr]ēde hildemēċeas
under bordhrēoðan tō bonan wurdon,
ðā hyne ġesōhtan on siġeþēode
2205 hearde hildĺfrecan, Heaðo-Scil¢ngas,
nīða ġen®ġdan nefan Hererīċes:
syððan Bēowulfe br(ā)de rīċe
2176 b MS brost; Tho.br[ē]ost. — 2177a MS A b dode, B bealdode (beal or eal w. another ink on
ellipsis). — 2186a Fol. 178v drihten B, altered in another ink from .¯.¯.¯.¯.¯. nten; a blank A. See
Lang. §¯28. — MS wereda; Aant. 31, Tr., Holt.3–8, Sed.2–3, Cha., Dob., Wn., Mag., Ni., Crp., Ja.
Wedera. — 2187a Gr.1 (wēn)don; so Edd. excl. Arn.; Ki. (sæg)don. — 2196b MS B bam altered w.
another ink from .¯.¯m, A a blank and am. — 2199b Gru. þe (¯for þ®r); E., Sed., Holt.7–8 þām [þe].
— 2202a MS hearede; Gru.tr. 298, Tho., nearly all Edd. Hear[dr]ēde. Cf. Blockley 2001: 92. —
2202b Bout. 102 -mecgas. — 2205a MS hilde; Gru., Siev.R. 305 (?), Holt., Schü., Kl., v.Sch., Wn.,
Mag., Ja., MR hild-. See Appx.C §§¯5, 15. — 2207a Fol. 179r beowulfe. On the damaged state of
this folio, see Intr. xxviii¯f. — 2207b MS later hand bræde (AB, Ki.) or brade (Z., Mal.); most
recent Edd. (incl. Kl.) brāde; Ni., Crp. br®de.
 BEOWULF 75

on hand ġehwearf; hē ġehēold tela

fīftiġ wintr(a) — wæs ðā frōd cyning,
2210 eald ēþel(w)eard — oð ðæt (ā)n ongan
deorcum nihtum draca rīcs[i]an,
sē ðe on hēa(um) h(of)e hord beweotode,
stānbeorh stēar(c)ne; stīġ under læġ
eldum uncūð. Þ®r on innan ġīong
2215 nið[ð]a nāthwyl(ċ, sē ðe nē)h ġ(eþ[r]on)g
h®ðnum horde; hond (ēðe ġefēng)
(searo) sinċe fāh. Nē hē þæt syððan (bemāð),
þ(ēah) ð(e hē) sl®pende besyre(d wur)de
þēofes cræfte: þæt sīe ðīod (onfand),
2220 b(ū)folc b(i)orn(a), þæt hē ġebolge(n) wæs.

XXXII Nealles (męt ġe)wēaldum wyrmhorda cræft,

sylfes willum, sē ðe him sāre ġesceōd,
2209a MS later hand wintru, Ki. wintra (?); Edd. wintra, Crp. wintru. — 2209b Tho., Rie.Zs. 406,
Holt.1–2, Sed., Mag. ðæt for ðā. — 2210a MS peard (so Mal., Fu.1), presumably written on weard.
— 2210b MS later hand ón (so Z., Cha., Mal., Fu.1). — 2211b A rics an (s altered from r [?];
probably A at first wrote r for si); B ricsan (s added much later on a blank; see Mal. PMLA lxiv
1211¯f.); Ke., Edd. rīcs[i]an. — 2212a MS Z. heaðo hlæwe (si. Holt.1–5, Schü.); Cha. heaum and
either hæþe (so Siev. 1910: 418, Ki. 1981: 235) or hope; Ki. heaum hofe or heþe; Mal., Fu.1
heaum hofe; Edd.: Sed.1–2, Holt.6–8, v.Sch., Mag., Ni., Crp., Ja., hēaum h®þe, Cha., MR hēaum
hope, Kock5 176, Sed.3, Dob., Wn., Alxr. h. hofe (cf. GenA 1489). — 2213a MS stearne, not on
original steapne (so Z.; cf. Mal., Ki.) but on stearcne (Fu.1); Edd.: stēapne; Ki. 1981: 235 n.¯54,
Crp. stear[c]ne. — 2215a Klu. (in Hold.2) nið[ð]a. See Lang. §¯20.5 rem. — 2215b MS letters betw.
nat and hæðnū indistinct; most now agree hwyl(c), then some missing characters, then (ne)h (Ki.
ℓ neah [?]; cf. Ki. 1981: 236) ge¯:¯:¯(n)g (prob. ge feng, as Wülck., Z., Mal., Ki. judge, but perh. on
orig. ge þong: see Sed.3, Fu.1); Edd.: Sed.1–2, Wph. 45 sē þe nēh (so Tr.) geþrang; Kl.1 forð nēh
gefealg; Kl.2–3 sē þe nēh gefealg; Holt.6–7 nēadbysge feng; Holt.8, Dob., Wn., Mag., Ni., Swn.,
Crp., Ja. sē ðe nēh gefēng; also Sed.3, but perceiving þ under later f; MR sē þe nīde ġefēng. —
2216b Bu. 100 hond (ætgenam); Tr., Kl., Swn. hond (w®ge nam); si. Holt.6–8, Mag., Anderson ELN
xii 1.1¯ff., but (māððum) for (w®ge) (cf. Appx.C §¯14); Trp. hond .¯.¯. rēafode (cf. Appx.C §¯31); Crp.
hond (gegrāp māðum) (cf. Bliss §¯54, Appx.C §¯31); Ki. hond(gewriþenne); see Fu.1. — 2217a Bu.
100 (seleful); Tr. (siġle); Kl. (sīd); MR (sm®te); MS fac w. h written above c; Sed., Holt.6–8, Wn.,
v.Sch., Dob., Crp., Ja. since fāhne; so Mag., adding [ne] to off-verse. — 2217b Bu. 100 (āgeaf); Kl.
A. xxviii 446, Cha., Mag., Swn. (bemāð); Tr. (hrēaw), w. him for hē; Sed.2–3, Holt.6–8, Chck., Trp.,
Crp. (wræc); Anderson ELN xii 1.1ff. (onfand); MR (þāh), canceling þæt (usu. supplied from AB);
Ki. (bohte); see Fu.1. — 2218a MS Z. et al. þ(eah) ð(e he); Crp. (see Ki. 1981: 236) leig (=¯læg) for
(hē). — 2218b Klu. (in Hold.2), Edd. besyre(d wur)de; Chck. besyre(de wur)de; Ki. 1981: 236–7,
Crp. besyre(d hræde) (cf. Appx.C §¯38); Ki. besyre(d hæfde); see Fu.1. — 2219b AB sie, Klu. (in
Hold.2), Tr., Holt., Sed., Cha. sīo (the orig. reading? so Cha.). — Gr.2, nearly all Edd. (onfand).
— 2220a MS apparently bu (Ki. ‘relatively certain’; Sed.3 bu or by); Bu. 100 (b©)folc (cf.
bīfylce); Kl., Hoops b(ig)-; Tr., 11 Edd. (excl. Schü.) (bū)folc; Klu. (in Hold.2) (burh)folc (too
long); Thk., et al. .¯.¯.¯. folcbiorn; Malone JEGP xxvii 320¯ff. bū folcbeorna. See Appx.C §¯39. (MS
biorna altered to beorna.) — 2220b Gr.1, Edd. gebolge(n). — 2221a MS Ke., Kölbing, Wülck., Z.,
Sed., Mal. mid (¯for męt; so Kl., most Edd.); Gru. to; Ki. 1981:¯237 næs (so Crp.; or wæs Ki.); Trp.
w®ge; see Fu.1. — MS ge weoldū (Z.: w. a changed to o by later hand; not so Mal., Ki., but cf.
Fu.1); 10 Edd. (excl. Ni., Crp.) gewealdum. — 2221b MS horda / cræft (see Fu.1); Tr. -hord āstrēad
(also Kl. 1905–6: 463; cf. 3126); Kal. (in Holt.2–8), 10 Edd., Kl. -hord ābræc; Ki. 1981: 237, Crp.
-hordan cræft; MR -hord ātræd.
76 BEOWULF

ac for þrēanēdlan þē(o) nāthwylċes

hæleða bearna heteswenġeas Ïē(a)h,
2225 ærnes þearf(a), ond ð®r inne (f)eal(h)
secg syn(by)siġ sōna (in þ)ā tīde,
þæt (þ®r) ðām ġyst(e) g(r)yrebr(ō)g(a) stōd;
hwæðr(e earm)sceapen (ealdre nēþd)e,
2230 forh(t on ferhðe) þā hyne se f®(r) beġeat,
sinċfæt (sōhte). Þ®r wæs swylcra fela
in ðām eorðse(le) ®rġestrēona,
swā h© on ġeārdagum gumena nāthwylċ,
eormenlāfe æþelan cynnes,
2235 þanchycgende þ®r ġeh©dde,
dēore māðmas. Ealle hīe dēað fornam
®rran m®lum, ond s(ē) ān ðā ġēn
lēoda duguðe, sē ð®r lenġest hwearf,

2223b Ke., Gr., He.1–3, E., Z., Hold., Soc.6–7, Tr., Holt.1–6, Schü., Lawrence PMLA xxxviii 554¯f.
þ(egn); Gru., Bu.Zs. 210, Arn., He.4, Wülck., Soc.5, Wy., 11 Edd., Kl. þ(ēow); Andersson Speculum
lix 495, Ki. þ(ēof). Lawrence l.c. þ(rece) or þ(rym) (?); Trp. þēo(de)n. See Fu.1. — 2224b MS Ïeoh
but w. o on earlier a (Z.; not so Ki.). — 2225a MS Z. ærnes (‘æ and n are almost certain’; Sed.
sees ærn¯:¯:¯, Mal. ærn¯:¯s, Ki. ðeodnes, Fu.1 most of ærnes), so Edd.; Crp. earmlic. — MS þea¯:¯:¯:¯,
read by Z. et al. þearfa (so Edd.); Ki. þearfe. See Fu.1. — 2225b MS AB weall (w altered from v
in B); now only weal (Z.: w on orig. f; not so Mal., Ki., Fu.1); Gr.1 fealh; so Edd., excl. Wülck.,
Crp. — 2226b MS mwatide; Tho. (cf. Bu. 101), Schü., Cha., v.Sch., Wn.1–2, Chck.1, Swn.
inwlātode (cf. Appx.C §¯31); E., He. 4 , Fu. 1 in þā tīde (so Gr. 2 et al., inserting [Wæs] before
sōna; see Lang. §¯21.2); Holt. hē wagode; Sed.1 hē þā ēode, Sed.2 þæt geīode, Sed.3 þonan swāt
īode (w. þonan for sōna); Wy. getīdde, Mal. (also 1965: 121) in þā tīd[d]e (i.e. in ‘inside,’ hence
stressed [unmetrical]), MR him þā tīde; Whitbread MLR xxxvii 483 him witad (cf. Appx.C §¯27);
Dobbie MLN lxvii 242¯ff. & ed., Magoun MLN lxviii 540¯f. & ed., Wn.-B., Ni., Ja., Alxr. onfunde;
Ki. 1981: 239 n.¯57, Crp. in wātīde (cf. Appx.C §§¯31, 39); Ki. onwacade; Kl. leaves unemended as
a hopelessly corrupt reading. The Edd. generally begin a new sent. w. sōna. — 2227 Gr.2, Wülck.,
Hold., Holt., Sed.3, Dob., Mag. (þ®r); Mal., Chck. (gehðo) (cf. Appx.C §¯ 34); Trp. bē; Crp. þūhte;
MR (grim) (cf. Appx.C §¯34); Ki. (gēan); see Fu.1. — MS Z. gyst(e gryre)brōga; Gr.1 had
conjectured gryre; so Edd. Cf. Dan 524¯f. — 2228a MS Z. (?) earm; MS Ki. (?) fyren (so
Crp.); Ke. (earm), so nearly all Edd. See Fu.1. — 2230a Fol. 179 v begins with an erased
dittograph of one entire MS line discovered by Ki., presumably re gryre broga s hwæðre
earm sceapen. (The recto is assumed here to end with forht on, only traces of which are
visible: see Fu. 1 , and so also now Chck. 2 400.) The second line of 179 v is presumed to
begin w. ferhðe, of which only the ascender of h can be seen. (For forht on ferhðe, Kl.
p.¯208 & Mag. supply fūs on fēðe.) Eliminating the dittograph has entailed dropping line
2229, though the remaining verses have not been renumbered. See Intr. xxviii¯f. — 2230b
MS Z. (?), Cha., Sed. 3 , Mal. (?), Ki. þa hyne; nearly all recent Edd. þā hyne. — MS Z. fǽs,
(but w. s written on r), si. AB, Tho., Gru., Kölbing, Wülck., Cha., Sed. 3 , Fu. 1 ; Mal., Ki. fǽr.
— 2231a Crp. -fæt(o) (see Ki. 1981: 239–40, but cf. Ki.). — (Gr.1 ), Sed. 3 , Creed PQ xxxv
206¯ff., Mag., Chck., MR (sōhte) (cf. 2300); He.2–7, Wy., Hold.2, Tr., Cha., Crp. (geseah);
Holt.2–8 (genōm); Cha. note (funde); 7 Edd., Kl. leave a blank (but Kl. 208 suggests firde, i.e.
fierrde). See Ki., Fu.1. — 2232a MS se¯.¯. (before er ge streona) B; a blank A; Ke. (scræfe); Z.,
nearly all Edd., Kl. (hū)se; Klu. (in Hold.2), Ki. se(le). See note. — 2234b A æþelan, B æðelan (ð
altered from d w. another ink). — 2237b MS later hand si; Ke. ii se; so Edd. excl. Gru., v.Sch., Ni.,
Crp.; Trp. ondlēan (¯for ond se ān). Cf. Mal. 1933b: 151.
 BEOWULF 77

weard wineġeōmor, (wēn)de þæs yl(c)an,

2240 þæt hē l©tel fæc longġestrēona
brūcan mōste. Beorh eall ġearo
wunode on wonge wæter©ðum nēah,
nīwe be næsse, nearocræftum fæst;
þ®r on inn(a)n bær eorlġestrēona
2245 hringa hyrde h(o)rdwyrðne d®l,
f®ttan goldes, fē(a) worda cwæð:
‘Heald þū nū, hrūse, nū hæleð ne m(ō)stan,
eorla ®hte. Hwæt, hyt ®r on ðē
gōde beġēaton; gūðdēað fornam,
2250 (f)eorhbeal(o) frēcne f©ra ġe(h)wylcne
lēoda mīnra, þ(o)n(e) ðe þis [līf] ofġeaf;
ġesāwon seledrēam(as). Nāh hwā sweord weġe
oððe f(orð bere) f®ted w®ġe,
drynċfæt dēore; dug(uð) ellor s[c]eōc.

2239a MS B weard (w altered from v; A feard), MS Z.: orig. wearð (so Holt.2–5, Sed.1–2; ð
doubted by Cha., Sed. 3 , Mal., Fu. 1 ); Gru., Tr., 12 Edd. weard; Tho., Sed.1–2 wearð. — 2239b
MS Z.: ‘rihde the later hand, but wende the first’; MS Sed.3, Mal., Ki. rende. See Fu.1. — MS
yldan, w. c prob. altered to d (Sed.). — 2240 b Tho., Rie.Zs. 407, E., Arn., Tr. leng gestrēona;
Bu. 102 l®n- (cf. Fates 83); Schröer A. xiii 343¯f. lond-. — 2241b Ke., most Edd., Kl.
eallgearo. Cf. 1230 b. — 2242 b MS A weter, B wæter; Crp. weter-. — 2243 a Tho., Sed. 3
niwel, Tr. niwol. Cf. Kl. 1926: 214. — 2243 b MS neoro altered to nearo. See Fu. 1 194. —
2244a MS Z. innon w. o altered fr. a (alteration doubted by Cha., Mal., Ki.; see Fu.1). —
2245b MS Z. hard wyrðne (cf. AB fyrdne; w and crossbar of ð not retouched; see Fu. 1 );
Gr., He. 1–7 , Arn., Wülck., Wy., Hold. 2 , Ki. 1981: 241, Crp. hardfyrdne ‘diÌcult to carry’;
Bout. 98 hord byrhtne; Bu. 102, Holt. 1–2 , Lit.bl. lix 165 hordwynne (cf. 2270); Schü. hord,
wyrðne; Kl. 1908a: 431, 10 Edd. hordwyrðne; Ki. hand-. — 2246b MS Z.: ‘fec later hand, but
originally fea’; MS Sed.3, Mal., Ki. fea. See Fu.1. — 2247 Trp. Hēahþrymm brūce nū, b®h ðone
m®stan. — MS Ke. 1 mæstun, Z. retouched mastun or maston (w. a on orig. o) altered to
mæstan; cf. Mal., Ki., Fu.1; Thk. mestan; Ke.2, et al., Holt., Schü., Sed., Dob., Ni., Ja. mōston;
Gr.2, 5 Edd. mōstan; Ki. 1981: 242 n.¯59, Crp. m®stan. — 2248 b –9 a Trp. ®rror, / ðe. — 2250 a
MS later hand reorh bealc (A, Z., Fu. 1 ), feorh bealc (Kölbing, Wülck.), feorh bealo (Sed.3 ,
Mal., Ki.); Ke., Edd. feorhbealo; Ki. 1981: 242, Crp. -beale. — 2250b MS fyrena; Ke. ii
fīra; Tho. f©ra, so Edd. excl. Gru.; Trp. fyrma. See Orchard 2003–4: 54. — MS later hand gel
ylcne, w. l written on hw. See Fu.1. — 2251a MS Trp. wanra (¯for mīnra). — 2251b MS Ke., Z.
þana ðe (Fu.1: seemingly written on þone ðe), Ki. þanæ ðe (which he emends to þā mēðe ‘the
weary ones’ [or þā m®ðe ‘this portion’ (1981: 243 n.¯61); so Crp.]; cf. ASE xxxii 16), Trp. wāt ā
ðe; Ke. ii, Edd., Kl. þāra ðe; Brown PMLA liii 915¯f. Þām ðe. — Ke. ii, 10 Edd. (excl. Crp.)
[līf]; Holt. 1910, ed.3–8, Brown l.c. [lēoht]. — 2252 MS gesawon; Rie.Zs. 408 gesiþþa, Holt.1–3
gesīþa; Tr., Kl.1–2 (see Kl. 1907: 193, 1908b: 465), Holt. 6–8 , Mag. secga (cf. And 1655¯f.; Pope
237, Andrew 1948: §¯66); Bu. 102, Brown l.c. ġesw®fon. — MS Z. sele dream¯:¯: (erasure);
Thk., Ke., et al., Kl. supply nothing after drēam; Bu., Brown l.c., Pope xxx, Kiernan 1981: 243,
Crp. seledrēamas (cf. Ex 36a); Holt., Sed., Cha., Dob., Ni. seledrēam. Ic (see Fu.1; Appx.C §¯35).
Cf. Trp. 2252a: Gē, nā womsele drēamlēas. — Fol. 180 r nah. — 2253a MS A f [.¯.¯.], B fe¯.¯.¯.; Z.
fe(:)r¯:¯:¯:¯; Gr.1, nearly all Edd., Kl. feormie; Kiernan Neophil. lxx 633¯ff. fægnie, Ki. fægrie;
Gerritsen Neophil. lxxiii 448¯ff. forð bere (?). So Ja., Alxr., Chck.2 400; see Fu.1. — 2254b Ke.
(ii), Gr., Edd. dug(uð); Trp. du(ge). — MS seoc; Gr.1, most Edd. scōc; Kl., Dob. sceōc.
78 BEOWULF

2255 Sceal se hearda helm (hyr)stedgolde,

f®tum befeallen; feormynd swefað,
þā ðe beadogrīman b©wan sceoldon;
ġē swylċe sēo herepād, sīo æt hilde ġebād
ofer borda ġebræc bite īrena,
2260 brosnað æfter beorne. Ne mæġ byrnan hrinġ
æfter wīġfruman wīde fēran,
hæleðum be healfe. Næs hearpan wyn,
gomen glēobēames, nē gōd hafoc
ġeond sæl swingeð, nē se swifta mearh
2265 burhstede bēateð. Bealocwealm hafað
fela feorhcynna forð onsended.’
Swā ġiōmormōd giohðo m®nde
ān æfter eallum, unblīðe hwear(f)
dæġes ond nihtes, oð ðæt dēaðes wylm
2270 hrān æt heortan. Hordwynne fond
eald ūhtsceaða opene standan,
sē ðe byrnende biorgas sēċeð,
nacod nīðdraca, nihtes Ïēogeð
f©re befangen; hyne foldbūend
2275 (swīðe ondr®)da(ð). Hē ġesēċean sceall
(hea)r(h on) hrūsan, þ®r hē h®ðen gold
warað wintrum frōd; ne byð him wihte ð© sēl.
Swā se ðēodsceaða þrēohund wintra
hēold on hrūsan hordærna sum
2280 ēacencræftiġ, oð ðæt hyne ān ābealch
mon on mōde; mandryhtne bær
f®ted w®ġe, frioðow®re bæd
hlāford sīnne. Ðā wæs hord rāsod,

2255b Gru.tr. 299, Ke., Edd. (hyr)sted golde; Kock 2 118, Kock 5 177, Holt.6 , Ja., MR
(hyr)stedgolde (cf. Hoops, Kl.3 Su. 468). — 2256b Ke.2, Gr. 2 , et al. feormend, Ke. ii, Gr.1, He.1–14
feormiend. — 2259b Siev.R. 253, Tr., Holt., Schü., Sed. īren[n]a. See 673 a Varr. — 2262a Thk.
heals, Gru., E., Sed.1, (Siev. in) Holt.7–8 healse. Cf. Mald 152. — 2262b Tho., Bu.Zs. 212, Wülck.,
Holt.1–7, Schü., Sed., Cha. nis; Schü. EStn. lv 97 nis [þ®r] (cf. 2458); Holt.8 næs [bið]. — 2266b
MS Z. fĺorð (i.e. forð). — 2268b MS A hpeir (all but h w. another ink), Mad. hwear and
descender of f, Ke. hweop (so Gr.1, Gru., He.1–8, Wülck., Z., Wy.: hwēop), Tho. hwæ¯.¯.¯; Gr.Spr.
(s.v. hwōpan), Hold., Tr., Holt.1–2 , Schü.9–10 wēop; Gr. 2 , 12 Edd. hwearf. — 2269b E. [him]
dēaðes. — 2275a Fol. 180v Z. (swiðe ondræ)da(ð) (so Edd.), Ki. 1984: 36 .¯.¯.¯nan; see Fu.1. —
2276a MS B bearn / .¯.¯.¯; Gr.2 (hea)r(h on); Z. (ho)r(d on), so Kl., Edd. (cf. Fu.1, but Chck.2 400¯f.);
Ki. 1984: 36 bearn on (cf. 1981: 248: beorn), Ki. hearm on. — 2278b Thk., et al. þrēohund; Ke.,
Edd., Kl. þrēo hund. See Appx.C §¯5. — 2279a MS hrusam; Thk., Edd. hrūsan. — 2280b Gru.tr.
300, Tho., et al. ābealh. — 2283b Bu.Zs. 212 hearh (?), Holt.Zs. 120, Sed. hl®w (¯for hord).
 BEOWULF 79

onboren bēaga hord, bēne ġetīðad

2285 fēasceaftum men; frēa scēawode
fīra fyrnġeweorc forman sīðe.
Þā se wyrm onwōc, wrōht wæs ġenīwad;
stonc ðā æfter stāne, stearcheort onfand
fēondes fōtlāst; hē tō forð ġestōp
2290 dyrnan cræfte dracan hēafde nēah.
Swā mæġ unf®ġe ēaðe ġedīġan
wēan ond wr®csīð, sē ðe waldendes
hyldo ġehealdeþ. Hordweard sōhte
ġeorne æfter grunde, wolde guman ¢ndan,
2295 þone þe him on sweofote sāre ġetēode;
hāt ond hrēohmōd hl®w oft ymbehwearf
ealne ūtanweardne; nē ð®r ®niġ mon
on þ(ām) wēstenne — hwæðre wīġes ġefeh,
bea(dwe) weorces; hwīlum on beorh æthwearf,
2300 sinċfæt sōhte; hē þæt sōna onfand,
ðæt hæfde gumena sum goldes ġefandod,
hēahġestrēona. Hordweard onbād
earfoðlīċe oð ðæt ®fen cwōm;
wæs ðā ġebolgen beorges hyrde,
2305 wolde se lāða līġe forġyldan
drinċfæt d©re. Þā wæs dæġ sceacen
wyrme on willan; nō on wealle læ[n]ġ
bīdan wolde, ac mid b®le fōr,
f©re ġef©sed. Wæs se fruma eġesliċ
2310 lēodum on lande, swā hyt lungre wearð
on hyra sinċġifan sāre ġeendod.

2284a Bu.Zs. 212 d®l (?), Cos. viii 572 (?), Holt.8 sum (¯for hord). — 2295b Aant. 33, Holt., Schü.,
Sed. sār. — 2296b Fol. 181r hlæwū; Ke.2, 12 Edd. hl®w; Gru., et al. hl®w nū. — Siev.R. 258,
Holt., Schü., Andrew 1948: §¯160 ymb-. See Appx.C §¯22. — 2297a MS ealne utanweardne;
Siev.R. 306, Holt.1–5,8 eal ūtanweard; Siev.A.M. §¯85 n.¯8 (?), Schü. ealne ūtweardne; Tr.,
Holt.6–7, Pope 323¯f. ealne ūtanweard; Sed.2–3 ealne ūtan. — 2297b MS ne; Gr.1, E., Hold.1, Mag.
ne [wæs]; Gr.1 (?), Aant. 34, Hold.2, Tr., Schü., Holt.3–8, Cha. næs; Sed.2–3 ne [wearð]; Dob. ne
[fand] (?). — 2298 MS A on þ¯.¯.¯., B on þære (surely a conjecture); Edd., Kl. on þ®re; W. Lehmann
1962 on h®re ‘on high’ (cf. Appx.C §¯28¯fn.); Kiernan 1986: 145, Hall N&Q xliii 254¯ff., MR on
þām, Ja. on þ®m; Rie.Zs. 408 assumes lacuna after wēstenne (also Holt.1–2), Sed. after wēstenne
(supplies wiht ges©ne) and after gefeh (suppl. hordærnes weard); Koeppel ZfdPh. xxiii 121 would
cancel 2296b–8a. — MS hilde (so Sed., Ni., Crp.); Tr., 9 Edd. wīges (see Bu. 103; t.Br. 132); Tr.
georn for gefeh. — 2299a Ke.1 bēa(h)-, Ke.2 bea(du)- (cf. Appx.C §¯33); 9 Edd., Kl.1–3 (see JEGP
viii 257¯f.), Pope 319 bea(du)[we] (cf. 2356, 2626); Holt. A. xxi 366 (and ed.1–2), Schü.8, Sed.
bea(du)weorces [georn]; si. Tr. but [bysig]; Mal., Ni., Chck., Crp. bea(d)[we]. See note. — 2305a
MS fela ða; Bu.Zs. 212 se lāða; so Edd. excl. v.Sch.15, Crp. — 2307b MS læg; so v.Sch., Dob., Ni.,
Crp.; Gru.tr. 300, et al. leng; Aant. 34, Edd. læng. — Sed. (so Siev.) beorhthofu.
80 BEOWULF

XXXIII Ðā se gæst ongan glēdum spīwan,

beorht hofu bærnan — brynelēoma stōd
eldum on andan; nō ð®r āht cwices
2315 lāð lyftÏoga l®fan wolde.
Wæs þæs wyrmes wīġ wīde ġes©ne,
nearofāges nīð nēan ond feorran,
hū se gūðsceaða Ġēata lēode
hatode ond h©nde; hord eft ġescēat,
2320 dryhtsele dyrnne, ®r dæġes hwīle.
Hæfde landwara līġe befangen,
b®le ond bronde; beorges ġetruwode,
wīġes ond wealles; him sēo wēn ġelēah.
Þā wæs Bīowulfe brōga ġec©ðed
2325 snūde tō sōðe, þæt his sylfes hām,
bolda sēlest, brynewylmum mealt,
ġifstōl Ġēata. Þæt ðām gōdan wæs
hrēow on hreðre, hyġesorga m®st;
wēnde se wīsa þæt hē wealdende
2330 ofer ealde riht, ēċean dryhtne
bitre ġebulge; brēost innan wēoll
þēostrum ġeþoncum, swā him ġeþ©we ne wæs.
Hæfde līġdraca lēoda fæsten,
ēalond ūtan, eorðweard ðone
2335 glēdum forgrunden; him ðæs gūðkyning,
Wedera þīoden wræce leornode.
Heht him þā ġewyrċean wīġendra hlēo
eall īrenne, eorla dryhten,
wīġbord wr®tliċ; wisse hē ġearwe
2340 þæt him holtwudu he(lpan) ne meahte,
lind wið līġe. Sceolde (lī)þend daga,
æþeling ®rgōd ende ġebīdan,
worulde līfes, ond se wyrm somod,

2315b Fol. 181v wolde AB (w altered from v in B). — 2322b See 669b Varr. — 2325b MS him; so
He., Wülck., Hold.; Gru.tr. 301, Edd. hām. — 2334a MS ealond utan; Sed. eal ūtanweard; Eliason
A. lxxi 454, MR eal ond ūtan. — 2334b Sweet 1896 eorðgeard (?); Sed.1,3 eorðweall. — Gr.1, Gru.,
Sed. 1–2 ðonne. — 2338a Gru., most Edd., Kl. eallīrenne; Bu.Tid. 56 eallīrenne [scyld]; Holt. Lit.bl.
xxi 61 & Zs. 120, ed.1–2,8, Schü.8–9 īrenne [scyld] (Holt.3–4: 2337b wigena hlēo [scyld]); Kock2
119¯f., Holt.5–6 eallīren ner (‘protection’); Holt.7 eallīrenen; Ni. eall i. Cf. 1111b, 2767b, etc., and
see Appx.C §¯39¯fn. — 2339b Fol. 182r wisse. — 2340b Thk., Edd. he(lpan). — 2341b MS þend;
Gru.tr. 301 (?), Ke. ii, Edd., Kl. l®n- (cf. 2591); Mal. (also 1965: 121), Ni., Swn., Crp. līþend daga;
Lehmann NM lxxii 39¯ff. belīþend d.; Chck., Rob. 57¯f., MR, Ki. līþenddaga ‘Ïeeting days, sea-
faring days.’
 BEOWULF 81

þēah ðe hordwelan hēolde lange.

2345 Oferhogode ðā hringa fenġel
þæt hē þone wīdÏogan weorode ġesōhte,
sīdan herġe; nō hē him þā sæċċe ondrēd,
nē him þæs wyrmes wīġ for wiht dyde,
eafoð ond ellen, forðon hē ®r fela
2350 nearo nēðende nīða ġedīġde,
hildehlemma, syððan hē Hrōðgāres,
sigorēadiġ secg, sele f®lsode,
ond æt gūðe forgrāp Grendeles m®gum
lāðan cynnes.
Nō þæt l®sest wæs
2355 hondġemōt(a) þ®r mon Hyġelāc slōh,
syððan Ġēata cyning gūðe r®sum,
frēawine folca Frēslondum on,
Hrēðles eafora hiorodrynċum swealt,
bille ġebēaten. Þonan Bīowulf cōm
2360 sylfes cræfte, sundnytte drēah;
hæfde him on earme (ealra) þrītiġ
hildeġeatwa þā hē tō holme (þron)g.
Nealles Hetware hrēmġe þorf(t)on
fēðewīġes, þē him foran onġēan
2365 linde b®ron; l©t eft becwōm
fram þām hildfrecan hāmes nīosan.
Oferswam ðā sioleða bigong sunu Ecgðeowes,
earm ānhaga eft tō lēodum;
þ®r him Hyġd ġebēad hord ond rīċe,
2370 bēagas ond bregostōl; bearne ne truwode,
þæt hē wið ælfylċum ēþelstōlas
healdan cūðe, ðā wæs Hyġelāc dēad.
Nō ð© ®r fēasceafte ¢ndan meahton
æt ðām æðelinge ®niġe ðinga

2347b MS hī þā (i.e. him þām); Ke. ii him þā; so Edd. excl. Gru., Wülck., Hold.1. — 2354a t.Br.
151 (?), Tr., Holt.1,6–8 cynne (so Kock5 178; Andrew 1948: §¯87). — 2355a MS AB gemot; Ke.,
nearly all Edd. (excl. Crp.) -gemōt(a). — 2356b Hoops gūðer®sum; si. 2626b. Cf. Kl. Archiv
clxxxviii 109, Dob., Appx.C §¯5. — 2361b Fol. 182v MS Z. .¯.¯.¯xxx.; Gr.1, Edd. (āna) þrītig;
Robinson SP lxii 11¯f. (?), Wn.-B., Chck., Ja., Alxr. (eorla) þrītigra (cf. Appx.C §¯31); MR (eorla)
þrītig; Ni. (eorl) þrītig (cf. Appx.C §¯33); Ki. (ealra). Cf. 3170. — 2362b Ke.1, Gru. (.¯.¯.)ig; Ke.2,
Edd. (stā)g (cf. 632); Tr., Mal. 1933b: 151, Dob., Mag., Ni., Crp. (bēa)g (cf. Kl. Beibl. l 332;
Wentersdorf SP lxviii 398); Ki. gīong. See Fu.1. — 2363b Ke., Edd. þorfton. — 2367a Tho. siol-
ēðel (canceling bigong); Bout. 100 seolhbaða; Gr.1 siolēða (= -©ða) (all metrically objectionable);
Sed.3 (see MLR xxviii 229) solewa ‘miry places.’ — 2370b See 669b Varr.
82 BEOWULF

2375 þæt hē Heardrēde hlāford w®re,

oððe þone cynedōm ċīosan wolde;
hwæðre hē him on folce frēondlārum hēold,
ēstum mid āre, oð ðæt hē yldra wearð,
Weder-Ġēatum wēold.
Hyne wræcmæcgas
2380 ofer s® sōhtan, suna Ōhteres;
hæfdon h© forhealden helm Scyl¢nga,
þone sēlestan s®cyninga
þāra ðe in Swīorīċe sinċ brytnade,
m®rne þēoden. Him þæt tō mearce wearð:
2385 hē þ®r [f]or feorme feorhwunde hlēat,
sweordes swenġum, sunu Hyġelāces,
ond him eft ġewāt Ongĺnðioes bearn
hāmes nīosan syððan Heardrēd læġ,
lēt ðone bregostōl Bīowulf healdan,
2390 Ġēatum wealdan; þæt wæs gōd cyning.

XXXIIII Sē ðæs lēodhryres lēan ġemunde

uferan dōgrum, Ēadġilse wearð
fēasceaftum frēond; folce ġestēpte
ofer s® sīde sunu Ōhteres,
2395 wigum ond w®pnum; hē ġewræc syððan
ċealdum ċearsīðum, cyning ealdre binēat.
Swā hē nīða ġehwane ġenesen hæfde,
slīðra ġeslyhta, sunu Ecgðiowes,
ellenweorca, oð ðone ānne dæġ
2400 þe hē wið þām wyrme ġewegan sceolde.
Ġewāt þā twelfa sum torne ġebolgen
dryhten Ġēata dracan scēawian;
hæfde þā ġefrūnen hwanan sīo f®hð ārās,
bealonīð biorna; him tō bearme cwōm
2405 mā(ð)þĿmfæt m®re þurh ðæs meldan hond.
Sē wæs on ðām ðrēate þreottēoða secg,

2377a MS hī; Tho., Gr. hine; so Kl., Edd. excl. v.Sch., Dob., Ni, Crp., MR. Cf. Mal. ES xviii 257¯f.
— 2383a MS ðe / ðe; Ke.2, Edd. ðe. — 2384a Fol. 183r þeoden AB. — 2385a MS orfeorme; Gr. on
feorme; Mö. 111, Hold., Soc., 12 Edd. [f]or feorme. — 2387b Siev.R. 266, Holt. Ongenðīoĺs. Cf.
Appx.C §¯17. — 2394a Schröder ZfdA xliii 366¯f., Schü.8–10 s®sīðe. But see Kl. 1908a: 432 (acc.
after ofer: cf. 736, 1781). — 2396a Aant. 35 cealde cearsīðas; Tr. cwealm cearsīðum. — 2401a
ª — 2404b Fol. 183v cwom A, cvom B. — 2405a MS AB madþum, Gru.tr. 302 maþþum-.
MS .XII.
 BEOWULF 83

sē ðæs orleġes ōr onstealde,

hæft hyġeġiōmor, sceolde hēan ðonon
wong wīsian. Hē ofer willan ġīong
2410 tō ðæs ðe hē eorðsele ānne wisse,
hl®w under hrūsan holmwylme nēh,
©ðġewinne; sē wæs innan full
wr®tta ond wīra. Weard unhīore,
ġearo gūðfreca goldmāðmas hēold
2415 eald under eorðan; næs þæt ©ðe ċēap
tō ġegangenne gumena ®nĽgum.
Ġesæt ðā on næsse nīðheard cyning
þenden h®lo ābēad heorðġenēatum,
goldwine Ġēata. Him wæs ġeōmor sefa,
2420 w®fre ond wælfūs, wyrd unġemete nēah,
sē ðone gomelan grētan sceolde,
sēċean sāwle hord, sundur ġed®lan
līf wið līċe; nō þon lange wæs
feorh æþelinges Ï®sce bewunden.
2425 Bīowulf maþelade, bearn Ecgðeowes:
‘Fela iċ on ġiogoðe gūðr®sa ġenæs,
orleġhwīla; iċ þæt eall ġemon.
Iċ wæs syfanwintre þā meċ sin(c)a baldľr,
frēawine folca æt mīnum fæder ġenam;
2430 hēold meċ ond hæfde Hrēðel cyning,
ġeaf mē sinċ ond symbĺl, sibbe ġemunde;
næs iċ him tō līfe lāðra Ňwihte,
beorn in burgum, þonne his bearna hwylċ,
Herebeald ond Hæðcyn oððe Hyġelāc mīn.
2435 Wæs þām yldestan unġedēfeŔŕŜĺ
m®ġes d®dum morþľrbed strêd,
syððan hyne Hæðcyn of hornbogan,
his frēawine Ïāne ġeswencte,

2410b Tho., E., Arn. āna; Schröer A. xiii 345 āne. But cf. 2774. — 2420b Holt. unigmete. (So also
2721, 2728; see 1792¯n.) — 2421a Gr., et al., Holt. sēo. Cf. 1887b. — 2423b Gru., Sed. (?) þonne.
— Gr.1 (?), Holt.8 leng ne; Aant. 35 længe. — 2426a MS giogoðe, Ki. gioguðe; see Fu.1. — 2428a
Fol. 184r ic. — 2428b MS A sinta (t altered from c), B sinca, but ca in another ink. — 2430b
Holt.1,7–8 (cf. Zs. 120), Sed. geaf mē H. c. (moved from 2431a); Holt.2–6 Hrēðel cyning geaf
(moved from 2431a). See Appx.C §¯27. — 2432b Siev.R. 256 (?), Holt.1–5, Schü. wihte, Tr., Holt.8
ōwiht, Holt.6, Bliss §¯64 ōhte. See Gloss.: wiht; Appx.C §¯31. — 2435b MS ungedefelice; Siev.R.
234, Schü.9–14, Holt.3–8, Kl.1–2 & Kl.3 Su. (see Kl. 1908a: 432), Sed.3 ungedēfe; Holt.1–2, Schü.8
ungedōfe (Sievers’s alternative); Edd., Hoops St. 10, Kl.3 ungedēfelīce. — 2436b Gr.1, Rie.Zs.
409¯f., Hold.1 st©red or styred; Wn.1–2 strē[ge]d. — 2438a Bu. 103, Tr., Holt.7–8 frēowine.
84 BEOWULF

miste merċelses ond his m®ġ ofscēt,

2440 brōðľr ōðerne blōdigan gāre.
Þæt wæs feohlēas ġefeoht, fyrenum ġesyngad,
hreðre hyġemēðe; sceolde hwæðre swā þēah
æðeling unwrecen ealdres linnan.
Swā bið ġeōmorlīċ gomelum ċeorle
2445 tō ġebīdanne, þæt his byre rīde
ġiong on galgan. Þonne hē ġyd wrece,
sāriġne sang, þonne his sunu hangað
hrefne tō hrōðre, ond hē him helpe ne mæġ
eald ond infrōd ®niġe ġefremman,
2450 symble bið ġemyndgad morna ġehwylċe
eaforan ellorsīð; ōðres ne ġ©með
tō ġebīdanne burgum in innan
yrfeweardas, þonne se ān hafað
þurh dēaðes n©d d®da ġefondad.
2455 Ġesyhð sorhċeariġ on his suna būre
wīnsele wēstne, windġe reste,
rēot[ġ]e berofene; rīdend swefað,
hæleð in hoðman; nis þ®r hearpan swēġ,
gomen in ġeardum, swylċe ð®r iū w®ron.

XXXV 2460 Ġewīteð þonne on sealman, sorhlēoð gæleð

ān æfter ānum; þūhte him eall tō rūm,
wongas ond wīċstede.
Swā Wedra helm
æfter Herebealde heortan sorge
weallinde wæġ; wihte ne meahte
2465 on ðām feorhbonan f®ghðe ġebētan;
nō ð© ®r hē þone heaðorinċ hatian ne meahte
lāðum d®dum, þēah him lēof ne wæs.

2441a Bu.Zs. 215 gewyrht. — 2442a Ke. Hrēðel; Gr.1, Tr., Holt.1–5, Sed.1–2 Hrēðle. — Tr., Scheinert
BGdSL xxx 387 (?) -mēðð0 or -mēðu, si. Holt.1–6,8, Sed.3. — 2446b Gr., He.1–3, E., Hold.1, Tr.,
Holt., Sed. wreceð. — 2448b MS helpan; Ke.2, nearly all Edd. helpe, cf. Siev. ZfdPh. xxi 357. —
2451a Fol. 184v eaforan AB. — 2454 Gru., Müllenhoff ZfdA 14 (1869) 232 þurh d®da n©d (or Gru.
176, Bu.Zs. 215: nīð) dēaðes gefondad. — 2456b Ke., Gru., He.1–14, Wy., Sed.1–2, Cha., Wn.
windgereste; Tho. -geræste. — 2457a MS reote; Tho. rōte (‘rote’); Gr.1, Rie.L. rēoce; Bu.Zs. 215
r(e)ōte (‘rest’); Hold. rōte (‘joy’); Tr. rince; Holt., Kl.1–2 rēte (orig. r¹te [so Mag.]; si. [with rēote]
Cha., Wn., Ni.; also [with rŢte] Hoops, Kl.3, v.Sch., Ja., MR); Sed.3 (see MLR xxviii 229) reorde. —
2457b Gr.1¯(?),¯Gr.2, Rie.L., Wülck., Holt.2–5 swefeð. — 2464a MS AB, Ki. linde, Cony. 150 &
Coll., Ke., most early Edd., Dob., MR -lende; 10 Edd. -linde. See RES vi 300, Lang. §¯19.6. —
2466a MS ri.c,n
the correction in a lighter ink; cf. Mal. A. lxiii 103¯f., JEGP l 19¯ff.
 BEOWULF 85

Hē ðā mid þ®re sorhge, þē him sīo sār belamp,

gumdrēam ofġeaf, Godes lēoht ġeċēas;
2470 eaferum l®fde, swā dēð ēadiġ mon,
lond ond lēodbyriġ, þā hē of līfe ġewāt.
Þā wæs synn ond sacu Swēona ond Ġēata
ofer (w)īd wæter wrōht ġem®ne,
herenīð hearda, syððan Hrēðel swealt,
2475 oð ðe him Ongĺnðeowes eaferan w®ran
frome fyrdhwate, frēode ne woldon
ofer heafo healdan, ac ymb Hrēosna Beorh
eatolne inwitscear oft ġefremedon.
Þæt m®ġwine mīne ġewr®can,
2480 f®hðe ond fyrene, swā hyt ġefr®ġe wæs,
þēah ðe ōðer his ealdre ġebohte,
heardan ċēape; Hæðcynne wearð,
Ġēata dryhtne gūð ons®ġe.
Þā iċ on morgne ġefræġn m®ġ ōðerne
2485 billes ecgum on bonan st®lan,
þ®r Ongenþēow Eofores nīosað;
gūðhelm tōglād, gomela Scyl¢ng
hrēas [hilde]blāc; hond ġemunde
f®hðo ġenōge, feorhswenġ ne oftēah.
2490 Iċ him þā māðmas þe hē mē sealde
ġeald æt gūðe, swā me ġifeðe wæs
lēohtan sweorde; hē mē lond forġeaf,
eard ēðelwyn. Næs him ®niġ þearf
þæt hē tō Ġifðum oððe tō Gār-Denum
2495 oððe in Swīorīċe sēċean þurfe
wyrsan wīġfrecan, weorðe ġeċ©pan;

2468b MS sio; Rie.L., Gr.2, E., Holt.1 – 2 , Sed.1–2, Dob. swā; Holt.3–5 giō; canceled by Schü.; Kl.,
Holt.6, Ja., Alxr. tō; Sed.3, Wn., Mag., Chck. sīo [þe him] sār[e]; so Holt.7–8, but w. sār. See note. —
2472a Fol. 185r wæs A, væs B. — 2473a MS A rid; Gru.tr. 303, Edd. wīd. Cf. 702a Varr. — 2475a
Thk. oþþe; si. Edd., Kl.; Sed.1 seoððe, Sed.2 oð ðæt. See note. — 2477a Sarr.St. 27¯f. heaþo. — 2477b
MS hreosna beorh; Gru.tr. 303, Ke., Tho., 11 Edd. (excl. Sed.), Kl. Hrēosnabeorh (see Appx.C
§¯5); Bu.Zs. 216 (?), Sed.1–2 Hrefna beorh (retracted: Bu. 11 ) ; Sed.3 Hrēosna Beorh. — 2478b MS
ge gefremedon; Thk. cancels first ge; so Edd. — 2481 Gr.1, He.1, Arn. þ. ð. ō. [hit] / h. e. g. (so Kl.1–2,
Ni., but without [hit]); He.2–7, Schü., Sed. þ. ð. ō. hit / e. g. (so Mag., but w. him); Hold.2, 9 Edd.
þ. ð. ō. his / e. g. — 2486b Gr., et al. nīosade, Holt.1–2 nīosde. Cf. 1923b. — 2488a Gr., et al., Wy.,
Hoops, Kl.3, Wn., Ni., Chck., Swn., Alxr., MR [heoro-]blāc (cf. RES v 178, MLR xlix 488); Bu.Tid.
297 [hrēa-]blāc; Holt. A. xxi 366 & ed., Soc.7, Schü., Sed., Cha., Kl.1–2, v.Sch., Dob., Ja.
[hilde-]blāc; Pope 305, Willard JEGP liii 620¯f., Mag. [hrēaw-]blāc gehrēas. Cf. Kl. Beibl. liv¯f. 278;
Bliss §¯87. — 2489b Holt.1–5 (see Zs. 121), Sed.1 -swenge; Mag. -swenc. Cf. 1520b. — 2493a E.,
Hold., Siev. 1884b: 141 -wynne. See Lang. §¯21.2. — 2495b Bu.Zs. 216, Holt.1–2 þorfte. Cf.
1923b, 1928b, 2486b. — 2496a Fol. 185v wyrsan A.
86 BEOWULF

symle iċ him on fēðan beforan wolde,

āna on orde, ond swā tō aldre sceall
sæċċe fremman, þenden þis sweord þolað
2500 þæt meċ ®r ond sīð oft ġel®ste,
syððan iċ for dugeðum Dæġhrefne wearð
tō handbonan, Hūga cempan —
nalles hē ðā frætwe Frēscyning[e],
brēostweorðunge bringan mōste,
2505 ac in campe ġecrong cumbles hyrde,
æþeling on elne; ne wæs ecg bona,
ac him hildegrāp heortan wylmas,
bānhūs ġebræc. Nū sceall billes ecg,
hond ond heard sweord ymb hord wīgan.’
2510 Bēowulf maðelode, bēotwordum spræc
nīehstan sīðe: ‘Iċ ġenēðde fela
gūða on ġeogoðe; ġ©t iċ wylle,
frōd folces weard f®hðe sēċan,
m®rðu fremman, ġif meċ se mānsceaða
2515 of eorðsele ūt ġesēċeð.’
Ġegrētte ðā gumena ġehwylcne,
hwate helmberend hindeman sīðe,
sw®se ġesīðas: ‘Nolde iċ sweord beran,
w®pen tō wyrme, ġif iċ wiste hū
2520 wið ðām āgl®ċean elles meahte
ġylpe wiðgrīpan, swā iċ giō wið Grendle dyde;
ac iċ ð®r heaðuf©res hātes wēne,
[o]reðes ond āttres; forðon iċ mē on hafu
bord ond byrnan. Nelle iċ beorges weard
2525 oferÏēon fōtes trem, ac unc [feohte] sceal
weorðan æt wealle, swā unc wyrd ġetēoð
metod manna ġehwæs. Iċ eom on mōde from,

2503b MS cyning; Gru.tr. 304, Edd. -cyning[e]. — 2505a MS cempan; Ke., Tho., 12 Edd.
compe or campe. Cf. 2502b. — 2509a Morgan BGdSL xxxiii 105¯f., Holt., Sed. heardsweord. So
2987a. (Cf. 2638a.) See Appx.C §¯5. — 2514a MS mærðū (i.e. m®rðum, so Hold., Wy., Cha.,
MR); Ke. ii m®rðo, Bu. 104, 10 Edd. m®rðu. Cf. 1857a, 2079a, 2347b. — 2519b Fol. 186r gif
AB. — 2520a MS ðam; Siev. 1884b: 141, Holt. ðæs. — 2521a Schröer A. xiii 345 gūþe (¯for
gylpe); Tr. gyste. — 2523a MS reðes ℓ hattres; Gr., Edd. [o]reðes; Gru.tr. 304, Ke. ii, Edd.
āttres. See 2557, 2715, 2839; MLN lxxi 551¯ff., lxxii 321¯ff., MLQ xx 339¯ff. — 2525a MS ofer
Ïeon; Bu. 104, Barnouw 1902: 232, Sed., Holt.7–8 Ïēo(ha)n (Ͻn); Tr., Holt.1, Dob. forÏēon,
Holt.3–6 ferÏēon; Wn.1–2 oferÏēo[ha]n. — 2525b Schubert 1870: 46, Barnouw 1902: 232, Tr.
[f®hðo]; Bu. 104, Soc.7, Schü.8–10, Holt.1 [feohte]; Kl. (see Archiv cxv 181), 11 Edd. (excl.
Crp.) [furður] or [furðor]. Cf. Mald 247, but see SP civ 171–2.
 BEOWULF 87

þæt iċ wið þone gūðÏogan ġylp ofersitte.

Ġebīde ġē on beorge byrnum werede,
2530 secgas on searwum, hwæðer sēl mæġe
æfter wælr®se wunde ġed©ġan
uncer twēġa. Nis þæt ēower sīð,
nē ġemet mannes nef(ne) mīn ānes,
þæt hē wið āgl®ċean eofoðo d®le,
2535 eorlscype efne. Iċ mid elne sceall
gold ġegangan, oððe gūð nimeð,
feorhbealu frēcne frēan ēowerne.’
Ārās ðā bī ronde rōf ōretta,
heard under helme, hioroserċean bær
2540 under stāncleofu, strenġo ġetruwode
ānes mannes; ne bið swylċ earges sīð!
Ġeseah ðā be wealle sē ðe worna fela
gumcystum gōd gūða ġedīġde,
hildehlemma, þonne hnitan fēðan,
2545 sto[n]dan stānbogan, strēam ūt þonan
brecan of beorge; wæs þ®re burnan wælm
heaðof©rum hāt, ne meahte horde nēah
unbyrnende ®niġe hwīle
dēop ġed©ġan for dracan lēġe.
2550 Lēt ðā of brēostum, ðā hē ġebolgen wæs,
Weder-Ġēata lēod word ūt faran,
stearcheort styrmde; stefn in becōm
heaðotorht hlynnan under hārne stān.
Hete wæs onhrēred, hordweard oncnīow
2555 mannes reorde; næs ð®r māra fyrst
frēode tō friclan. From ®rest cwōm
oruð āgl®ċean ūt of stāne,
hāt hildeswāt; hrūse dynede.
Biorn under beorge bordrand onswāf
2560 wið ðām gryreġieste, Ġēata dryhten;
ðā wæs hrinġbogan heorte ġef©sed

2528a Siev. 1884b: 141 þæs (¯for þæt); cf. Kl. 1905–6: 463¯f. See Gloss.: þæt. — 2528b Pope
MLN lxvii 506¯ff., Mag. gēoce.— 2533b MS A nefu, B nef¯.¯.¯. or nefu, later altered more than
once (see Z., Mal., Ki.); Gru.tr. 304, Edd. nef(ne). — 2534a MS wat; Gru.tr. 304, Ke., Edd.
þæt. — 2534b Sed. eafoðo. — 2540b See 669b Varr. — 2542b Fol. 186v seðe A(B). — 2545a MS
stodan; Tho., Gr., Wülck., Edd. sto[n]dan. — 2549a Gru.tr. 305, Gru. dēor (‘animal’), Bu.Tid.
297, Tr., Sed.1–2 dēor (adj.); Sed.3 dēaþ. See also Holt. Lit.bl. lix 165, Wn. — 2556a Sed. freoðo.
2559a Sed. (see MLR v 288) born. — 2561a Sarr. EStn. xxviii 409¯f. hringboran (i.e. Bēowulf¯).
88 BEOWULF

sæċċe tō sēċeanʼnĺ. Sweord ®r ġebr®d

gōd gūðcyning, gomele lāfe,
ecgum unslāw; ®ġhwæðrum wæs
2565 bealohycgendra brōga fram ōðrum.
Stīðmōd ġestōd wi(ð) stēapne rond
winia bealdor, ðā se wyrm ġebēah
snūde tōsomne; hē on searwum bād.
Ġewāt ðā byrnende ġebogen scrīðan,
2570 tō ġescipe scyndan. Scyld wēl ġebearg
līfe ond līċe l®ssan hwīle
m®rum þēodne þonne his myne sōhte,
ð®r hē þ© fyrste forman dōgľre
wealdan mōste swā him wyrd ne ġescrāf
2575 hrēð æt hilde. Hond up ābr®d
Ġēata dryhten, gryrefāhne slōh
inċġelāfe, þæt sīo ecg ġewāc
brūn on bāne, bāt unswīðor
þonne his ðīodcyning þearfe hæfde
2580 bysigum ġeb®ded. Þā wæs beorges weard
æfter heaðuswenġe on hrēoĿm mōde,
wearp wælf©re; wīde sprungon
hildelēoman. Hrēðsigora ne ġealp
goldwine Ġēata; gūðbill ġeswāc
2585 nacod æt nīðe, swā hyt nō sceolde,
īren ®rgōd. Ne wæs þæt ēðe sīð,
þæt se m®ra maga Ecgðeowes
grundwong þone ofġyfan wolde;
sceolde [ofer] willan wīċ eardian
2590 elles hwerġen, swā sceal ®ġhwylċ mon
āl®tan l®ndagas.
2562a Siev.R. 312, Holt., Schü., Sed. sēc(e)an. See Appx.C §¯21. — 2562b Mag. sweord’; cf.
1564, Appx.C §¯37. — 2564a MS un / glaw (letter erased after l; see Fu.1), B gleap; Tho.
unslēaw; Bu. 104, Soc., Wy., Hold.2, 6 Edd., Chck.2 401 unslāw; Kl.1–2 anglāw; v.Sch., Wn.1–3, Ni.,
Alxr., MR unglēaw; Crp. unglāw. — 2565b Fol. 187r broga AB. — 2566b MS A wid, B vid; Ke.
wið. — 2567a Gru.tr. 305, Gru., Tr. wigena. See 1418a. — 2570a Tho. gesceape; E. gescepe;
He.4–7 gescīfe (adj. ‘headlong,’ tō placed in 2969b); Holt.1–6 gescīfe (gescife6), Sed. gescife
(‘precipitation,’ hence tō gescife ‘headlong’; see BT: [niþer]scyfe; cf. scūfan); Holt.8 gescire (cf.
-scear 1213, 2478). — 2573b Cf. 1797b. — 2577a Ke. ii Gloss. s.v. lāf: īcge-; Tho., E., Sed.1–2
Incges (si. Holt.2: Inges), Gru. (?) Ingwina, Holt.3 Ingwines (cf. Grienb. 757); Tr. isigre; Tr.
Beibl. xxiv 42, Holt. Lit.bl. lix 166 irfe-; Sed.3 mid ege- (cf. MLR xxvii 449¯f.: ōmigre); Holt. Beibl.
xiii 78¯f.: yrrincga or æðelincges; Holt.8 Irincges. — 2577b Hoops St. 129, Holt.7–8 ³ = þā. Cf.
3134, note on 15. — 2589a Gr.2, He.2–7, Wülck. [wyrmes] (cf. Appx.C §§¯34¯f.); Aant. 35, Hold.2
[wyrme tō] (cf. ibid.); Rie.Zs. 410, 12 Edd. [ofer]; Brown PMLA liii 916 [wiþer]. Cf. 2409. —
2590b Fol. 187v sceal AB.
 BEOWULF 89

Næs ðā long tō ðon

þæt ðā āgl®ċean Ĺţ eft ġemētton.
Hyrte hyne hordweard, hreðer ®ðme wēoll,
nīwan stefne; nearo ðrōwode
2595 f©re befongen sē ðe ®r folce wēold.
Nealles him on hēape handġesteallan,
æðelinga bearn ymbe ġestōdon
hildecystum, ac h© on holt bugon,
ealdre burgan. Hiora in ānum wēoll
2600 sefa wið sorgum; sibb’ ®fre ne mæġ
wiht onwendan þām ðe wēl þenċeð.

XXXVI Wīġlāf wæs hāten, Wēoxstānes sunu,

lēoÏiċ lindwiga, lēod Scyl¢nga,
m®ġ Ælfheres; ġeseah his mondryhten
2605 under heregrīman hāt þrōwian.
Ġemunde ðā ðā āre þe hē him ®r forġeaf,
wīċstede weliġne W®ġmundinga,
folcrihta ġehwylċ, swā his fæder āhte;
ne mihte ðā forhabban, hond rond ġefēng,
2610 ġeolwe linde, gomel swyrd ġetēah;
þæt wæs mid eldum Ēanmundes lāf,
suna Ōhtere[s]; þām æt sæċċe wearð,
wræċċa(n) winelēasum Wēohstān bana
mēċes ecgum, ond his māgum ætbær
2615 brūnfāgne helm, hringde byrnan,
ealdsweord etonisc; þæt him Onela forġeaf,
his gædelinges gūðġew®du,
fyrdsearo fūsliċ — nō ymbe ðā f®hðe spræc,
þēah ðe hē his brōðor bearn ābredwade.
2620 Hē frætwe ġehēold fela missera,
bill ond byrnan, oð ðæt his byre mihte
eorlscipe efnan swā his ®rfæder;
ġeaf him ðā mid Ġēatum gūðġew®da

2592 Sed.3, Holt.7–8 (cf. Lit.bl. xxi 61) þæt h© þā āgl®cean eft g. — 2596b MS heand; Ke., Edd.
hand-. — 2610b Ki. gomelswyrd. See Appx.C §¯5. — 2612a Fol. 188r suna AB. — MS ohtere;
Gru.tr. 305, Ke., Edd. Ōhtere[s] (Thk. Oþeres). — 2613a E.Sc., Tho., Sed. wrecca(n); Gr.2,
Wülck., Hold., Soc., Edd. wræcca(n). — 2613b MS weohstanes; Gru.tr. 306 Wēohstān; so Ke.,
Edd. excl. He. — 2615a Tr. hasufāgne (cf. Rid 11.1). — 2615b Rie.V. 21, Holt., Sed.3, Pope
238, Wn.1–2, Mag. byrnan hringde. See Appx.C §¯41. — 2616a See 1558a, Appx.C §¯5. — 2620a
Gru., E., Siev. 1884b: 141, Hold.1, Holt., Kl. Hē [ðā]. — 2623b E.Sc. -gew®du.
90 BEOWULF

®ġhwæs unrīm þā hē of ealdre ġewāt

2625 frōd on forðweġ. Þā wæs forma sīð
ġeongan cempan þæt hē gūðe r®s
mid his frēodryhtne fremman sceolde.
Ne ġemealt him se mōdsefa, nē his m®ġes lāf
ġewāc æt wīġe; þæt se wyrm onfand,
2630 syððan hīe tōgædre ġegān hæfdon.
Wīġlāf maðelode, wordrihta fela
sæġde ġesīðum — him wæs sefa ġeōmor:
‘Iċ ðæt m®l ġeman, þ®r wē medu þēgun,
þonne wē ġehēton ūssum hlāforde
2635 in bīorsele, ðē ūs ðās bēagas ġeaf,
þæt wē him ðā gūðġetawa ġyldan woldon
ġif him þyslicu þearf ġelumpe,
helmas ond heard sweord. Ðē hē ūsiċ on herġe ġeċēas
tō ðyssum sīðfate sylfes willum,
2640 onmunde ūsiċ m®rða, ond mē þās māðmas ġeaf,
þē hē ūsiċ gārwīġend gōde tealde,
hwate helmberend — þēah ðe hlāford ūs
þis ellenweorc āna āðōhte
tō ġefremmanne, folces hyrde,
2645 forðām hē manna m®st m®rða ġefremede,
d®da dollicra. Nū is se dæġ cumen
þæt ūre mandryhten mæġenes behōfað
gōdra gūðrinca; wutun gongan tō,
helpan hildfruman þenden hyt sŷ,
2650 glēdeġĺsa grim. God wāt on meċ
þæt mē is micle lēofre þæt mīnne līċhaman
mid mīnne goldġyfan glēd fæðmie.
Ne þynċeð mē ġerysne þæt wē rondas beren
eft tō earde, nemne wē ®ror mæġen
2655 fāne ġefyllan, feorh ealgian

2626b Hoops gūðer®s. See Appx.C §¯5. — 2628b MS mægenes; E.Sc. m®ges; so Edd. excl.
Gru. Cf. 2698b. — 2629b MS þa; Tho. þæt; so Edd. excl. Ni., Crp. — 2633a Fol. 188v mæl A.
— 2636a MS getawa; He. 2–4 , Siev.R. 273¯f., Holt., Schü., Sed., Kl. 1–2 -geatwa. See 368a, 395b
Varr. — 2638a Holt. heardsweord. See Appx.C §¯5. — 2640b Bu. 49 ond mēda gehēt. — 2642b
Gru.tr. 306 ūre (¯for ūs; cf. Appx.C §§¯34¯f.); E.Sc., Tho., Bu.Zs. 216, Arn. ūser; Aant. 36 ūr (?).
— 2646a Tr. dōmlicra; Holt.1 dēorlicra. — 2649b Ke. ii, Bu. 105 hit [hāt]; Ke. ii, Tho., Sed.,
Andrew 1948: §¯168, Bamm. ANQ xiv 3.3¯ff. hāt (¯for hyt); Gr. hit (= ‘heat’); Gr.Spr. (?)
hitsie (¯from *hitsian). — 2650a Siev.R. 463, Holt. -egsa. So 2780b. See Appx.C §¯38. — 2652b
MS fæðmię, so Kl., Edd. excl. Crp., MR; cf. 1981a, and see Fu.1. — 2655b Fol. 197r (188r bis)
feorh AB.
 BEOWULF 91

Wedra ðēodnes. Iċ wāt ġeare,

þæt n®ron ealdġewyrht þæt hē āna scyle
Ġēata duguðe gnorn þrōwian,
ġesīgan æt sæċċe; ūrum sceal sweord ond helm,
2660 byrne ond beaduscrūd bām ġem®ne.’
Wōd þā þurh þone wælrēċ, wīġheafolan bær
frēan on fultum, fēa worda cwæð:
‘Lēofa Bīowulf, l®st eall tela,
swā ðū on ġeoguðfēore ġeāra ġecw®de
2665 þæt ðū ne āl®te be ðē li¢ġendum
dōm ġedrēosan; scealt nū d®dum rōf,
æðeling ānh©diġ, ealle mæġene
feorh ealgian; iċ ðē full®stu.’
Æfter ðām wordum wyrm yrre cwōm,
2670 atol inwitgæst ōðre sīðe
f©rwylmum fāh fīonda nīos(Ľ)an,
lāðra manna. Līġ ©ðum fōr;
born bord wið rond. Byrne ne meahte
ġeongum gārwigan ġēoce ġefremman,
2675 ac se maga ġeonga under his m®ġes scyld
elne ġeēode, þā his āgen (wæs)
glēdum forgrunden. Þā ġēn gūðcyning
m(ōd) ġemunde, mæġenstrenġo slōh
hildebille, þæt hyt on heafolan stōd
2680 nīþe ġen©ded; Næġling forbærst,
ġeswāc æt sæċċe sweord Bīowulfes
gomol ond gr®ġm®l. Him þæt ġifeðe ne wæs
þæt him īrenna ecge mihton
helpan æt hilde; wæs sīo hond tō strong,
2685 sē ðe mēċa ġehwane mīne ġefr®ġe

2659b MS urū; and ð (= deest) above the line, ref. to ð ·sceal· which has been inserted in the
margin; Tho., Gr.1, Arn., Tr. unc (¯for ūrum), Gr.2 unc nū þæt, Sed.1–2 (see MLR v 288) hūru.
— 2660a A a n t . 36, Holt.1–5,8 bord (¯for byrne). — MS byrdu scrud; E.Sc., Tho., E., Arn., 12
Edd. beaduscrūd (Kl. 1907: 2 5 8 ; cf. BT 138) . — 2661a MS réc altered from rǽc. — 2665a Perh.
ālēte (?). — 2671b MS B niosnan (nan pointed for deletion), A mosum; Ke., Holt., Schü. nīosan,
Gr.2, Edd. nīosian. See Appx.C §¯18. — 2672b–3a Ke., et al., Kl. Līġ©ðum; Willard MLN lxxvi
290¯ff., Wn.-B., Chck., Edd. Līġ ©ðum; Cony. Coll., Gru.tr., Ke.1 (-barn in Ke.2), Tho., Edd., Kl.
forborn in 2672b (and most read lig©ðum and emend to ronde, after Ke., He.2–4; but cf. 2693b);
Pope 320, Holt.8, Kl.3 Su., Dob., Wn.2–3, v.Sch.17–18, Mag., Ni., Crp., Ja., MR born in 2673a. —
2675a Bu. 371¯f. mōdga for geonga (cf. geongum 2674a). — 2676b Gru.tr. 306, Edd. (wæs). —
2678a Gru.tr. 306, Edd., Kl. m(®rða) (almost certainly too long); Ki. m(iht). — 2682a Fol. 197v
(188v bis) gomol AB. — 2685a Tho., et al. sēo. See 1344.
92 BEOWULF

swenġe ofersōhte þonne hē tō sæċċe bær

w®pen wundum heard; næs him wihte ðē sēl.
Þā wæs þēodsceaða þriddan sīðe,
frēcne f©rdraca f®hða ġemyndiġ,
2690 r®sde on ðone rōfan, þā him rūm āġeald,
hāt ond heaðogrim, heals ealne ymbefēng
biteran bānum. Hē ġeblōdegod wearð
sāwuldrīore; swāt ©ðum wēoll.

XXXVII Ðā iċ æt þearfe [ġefræġn] þēodcyninges

2695 andlongne eorl ellen c©ðan,
cræft ond cēnðu, swā him ġecynde wæs.
Ne hēdde hē þæs heafolan, ac sīo hand ġebarn
mōdiġes mannes þ®r hē his m®ġes healp,
þæt hē þone nīðgæst nioðor hwēne slōh,
2700 secg on searwum, þæt ðæt sweord ġedēaf
fāh ond f®ted, þæt ðæt f©r ongon
sweðrian syððan. Þā ġēn sylf cyning
ġewēold his ġewitte, wællseaxe ġebr®d
biter ond beaduscearp, þæt hē on byrnan wæġ;
2705 forwrāt Wedra helm wyrm on middan.
Fēond ġefyldan — ferh ellen wræc —
ond hī hyne þā bēġen ābroten hæfdon,
sibæðelingas; swylċ sceolde secg wesan,
þeġn æt ðearfe! Þæt ðām þēodne wæs
2710 sīðas[t] siġehwīla sylfes d®dum,
worlde ġeweorces.
Ðā sīo wund ongon,
þē him se eorðdraca ®r ġeworhte,

2686b Bu. 105, Holt.1–6 þone. — 2687a MS wundū (cf. 1460a?); Thk., Ke., et al., He.6–7, 7 Edd.
wundum; Tho., Gr. 1 , He. 1–5 , et al., Cha., Sed., Kl., Holt.7 (also ed. 8 p.¯x), Dob., Mag., Ja.
wund[r]um (so Hoops St. 130); Ni. -wundum. — 2691b Tho., Tr., Holt. ymb-. See Appx.C §¯22.
— 2692a Aant. 37, Tr. bendum. — 2694a Ke. [gefrægn]; so Edd. excl. Gru. — 2698b MS
mægenes; Ke.2, Tho., He.4, Edd. (excl. Wülck.) m®ges. Cf. 2879b, 2628b. — 2699a Ke.2, Tho.,
Rie.Zs. 407 þā (¯for þæt). — 2700b Siev. 1884b: 141 (cf. E.), Holt.1–6 cancel ðæt; Hoops,
Holt.7–8 þā ðæt. — 2701b Gru., Siev. 1884b: 141, Hold., Holt.1, Sed. þā ðæt. Cf. Kl. 1905–6:
463¯f. — 2703b E.Sc., He.1, Hold., Tr., Holt., Sed. -seax (so Krüger BGdSL ix 572, Hoops). See
note, and cf. 1830¯f., 1545¯f. — 2705a Fol. 189r helm AB. — 2706a E.Sc., Tho., Siev. 1884b:
141¯f., Hold., Tr., Sed. gefylde. — 2706b Ke. ferhellen; Klu. ix 192, Hold. ealne (¯for ellen),
Aant. 37, Holt.1–2,7–8 (cf. IF iv 384¯f.), Hold., Hoops ellor. — 2710a MS siðas; Ke.2 sīðes; Gru.tr.
307 sīþest; Gr.1, Gru. sīðast; so Edd. excl. v.Sch., Ni., Crp. See Lang. §¯20.6. — MS sige hwile
(hence Kl.3, 7 Edd.: -hwīle); Ke.2, Tr., Schü.8–10, Sed., Cha. sigehwīl; Gr., He.1–3, E., Wülck.,
Hold., Schü.11–14, Kl.1–2, Dob. sigehwīla (cf. 2427); Holt.1–5 sighwīl, Holt.6–8 sighwīla; see
Stanley PBA lxx 267¯f.; Lang. §¯19.3 rem., Fulk 2007b: 147–8.
 BEOWULF 93

swelan ond swellan; hē þæt sōna onfand,

þæt him on brēostum bealonīð(e) wēoll
2715 āttor on innan. Ðā se æðeling ġīong,
þæt hē bī wealle wīshycgende
ġesæt on sesse; seah on enta ġeweorc,
hū ðā stānbogan stapulum fæste
ēċe eorðreċed innan healde.
2720 Hyne þā mid handa heorodrēoriġne,
þēoden m®rne, þeġn unġemete till,
winedryhten his wætere ġelafede
hilde sædne ond his hel(m) onspēon.
Bīowulf maþelode — hē ofer benne spræc,
2725 wunde wælblēate; wisse hē ġearwe
þæt hē dæġhwīla ġedrogen hæfde,
eorðan wyn(ne); ðā wæs eall sceacen
dōgorġerīmes, dēað unġemete nēah:
‘Nū iċ suna mīnum syllan wolde
2730 gūðġew®du, þ®r mē ġifeðe swā
®niġ yrfeweard æfter wurde
līċe ġelenġe. Iċ ðās lēode hēold
fīftiġ wintra; næs sē folccyning,
ymbĺsittendra ®niġ ðāra
2735 þe meċ gūðwinum grētan dorste,
eġesan ð½n. Iċ on earde bād
m®lġesceafta, hēold mīn tela,
ne sōhte searonīðas, nē mē swōr fela
āða on unriht. Iċ ðæs ealles mæġ
2740 feorhbennum sēoc ġefēan habban;
forðām mē wītan ne ðearf waldend fīra
morðľrbealo māga, þonne mīn sceaceð
līf of līċe. Nū ðū lungre ġeong
hord scēawian under hārne stān,
2745 Wīġlāf lēofa, nū se wyrm liġeð,
2714b MS A mð, B niði; Schubert 1870: 35, Siev.R. 269, 12 Edd. -nīðe. — 2719a Holt.2–4 ēcne
(= ēacne). — 2719b A healde, B heald; E.Sc., Rie.Zs. 411, He.4–10, Holt.1–4,7–8 hēoldon; Ki.
healde(n). See note. — 2721b Z.: ‘there is a sort of angle above the t of till, the meaning of
which I do not know.’ The same sign above the n of unriht 2739a, and above the u of up 2893a.
Cf. Ki. (pen trials). — 2723b MS A helo, B heb or hel (see Mal. PMLA lxiv 1217); E.Sc. (after
Grimm), Gr., Gru., He.4, Edd. helm. — 2725a Gr.Spr. (?), Scheinert BGdSL xxx 375, Holt.
-blāte. (Cf. ChristB 771; see Gloss.) — 2727a Thk., Gru.tr. 307, Edd. wyn(ne). — 2731a Fol.
189v weard AB (w altered from v in B). — 2734a Tho., Tr., Holt. ymb-. See Appx.C §¯22. —
2735a Tr. -wigum. Cf. 1810. — 2743b Ke.2 gang; Tho., Holt. gong. See Lang. §¯12.5.
94 BEOWULF

swefeð sāre wund, sinċe berēafod.

Bīo nū on ofoste, þæt iċ ®rwelan,
gold®ht onġite, ġearo scēawiġe
sweġle searoġimmas, þæt iċ ð© sēft mæġe
2750 æfter māððĿmwelan mīn āl®tan
līf ond lēodscipe, þone iċ longe hēold.’
I
XXXVIII Ðā iċ snūde ġefræġn sunu Wīhstānes
æfter wordcwydum wundum dryhtne
h©ran heaðosīocum, hrinġnet beran,
2755 brogdne beaduserċean under beorges hrōf.
Ġeseah ðā siġehrēðiġ, þā hē bī sesse ġēong,
magoþeġn mōdiġ māððĿmsiġla fealo,
gold glitinian grunde ġetenġe,
wundur on wealle, ond þæs wyrmes denn,
2760 ealdes ūhtÏogan, orcas stondan,
fyrnmanna fatu, feormendlēase,
hyrstum behrorene; þ®r wæs helm moniġ
eald ond ōmiġ, earmbēaga fela
searwum ġes®led. Sinċ ēaðe mæġ,
2765 gold on grund(e), gumcynnes ġehwone
oferhīgian, h©de sē ðe wylle.
Swylċe hē siomian ġeseah seġn eall gylden
hēah ofer horde, hondwundra m®st,
ġelocen leoðocræftum; of ðām lēoma stōd,
2770 þæt hē þone grundwong onġitan meahte,
wr®tte ġiondwlītan. Næs ðæs wyrmes þ®r
ons©n ®niġ, ac hyne ecg fornam.
Ðā iċ on hl®we ġefræġn hord rēa¢an,
eald enta ġeweorc ānne mannan,
2775 him on bearm hladon bunan ond discas

2748b E., Aant. 41 gearwe. — 2749a Tho. sigel (¯for swegle), Rie.L. (?), Holt.1–6, Sed.1 siglu,
Rie.Zs. 411¯f. sigle (see 1157, Kl. 1905–6: 250); Holt.7–8 (after Siev.) swelce. — 2755b MS
urder; Thk., Edd. under. — 2757a Fol. 190r modig. — 2757b Ke.1, Wülck., Soc., Holt.1, Sed.
feola; Ke.2, Tho., Gr., He., E., Arn. fela. See Lang. §¯11.2 rem. — 2759b Tr., Holt., Sed., Swn.
geond (¯for ond, written ℓ, which may be an alteration: see Z.). — 2760b E., Mö. ii, Aant. 37 (?),
Hold.2 , Holt. 1–5 stōdun or -an. — 2765a Gru.tr. 307, Ke., Edd. grund(e). — 2766a Klu. ix 192
-h©dgian, si. Schü. -hīdgian; Gru. (?), Sed. 1,3 (see MLR v 288, xxvii 450) -hīwian; Sed. 2 ofer
hige hēan ‘render presumptuous.’ — 2767b Ke., et al., 12 Edd., Kl. eallgylden. See 1111b, Appx.C
§§¯29, 39. — 2769b MS leoman; Ke. 2 , Edd. lēoma. Cf. 1903b; Tripp ELN xv 244¯ff. — 2771a MS
wræce; Tho., Gr., He., Edd., Kl. wr®te. See Lang. §¯20.5 rem.; Tripp l.c. — 2775a MS hlodon;
Gru.tr. 308, Tho., et al., Sed., MR hladan; Hold., 10 Edd. hladon.
 BEOWULF 95

sylfes dōme; seġn ēac ġenōm,

bēacna beorhtost. Bill ®r ġescōd
— ecg wæs īren — ealdhlāfordes
þām ðāra māðma mundbora wæs
2780 longe hwīle, līġeġĺsan wæġ
hātne for horde, hioroweallende
middelnihtum, oð þæt hē morðre swealt.
Ār wæs on ofoste, eftsīðes ġeorn,
frætwum ġefyrðred; hyne fyrwet bræc,
2785 hwæðer collenferð cwicne ġemētte
in ðām wongstede Wedra þēoden
ellensīocne, þ®r hē hine ®r forlēt.
Hē ðā mid þām māðmum m®rne þīoden,
dryhten sīnne drīoriġne fand
2790 ealdres æt ende; hē hine eft ongon
wæteres weorpan, oð þæt wordes ord
brēosthord þurhbræc.
[Biorncyning spræc]
gomel on giohðe, gold scēawode:
‘Iċ ðāra frætwa frēan ealles ðanc,
2795 wuldĿrcyninge wordum secge,
ēċum dryhtne, þē iċ hēr on starie,
þæs ðe iċ mōste mīnum lēodum
®r swyltdæġe swylċ ġestr©nan.
Nū iċ on māðma hord mīne bebohte
2800 frōde feorhleġe, fremmað ġēna
lēoda þearfe; ne mæġ iċ hēr lenġ wesan.
Hātað heaðom®re hl®w ġewyrċean
beorhtne æfter b®le æt brimes nōsan;

2777b Ke., et al., (so Brett MLR xiv 4¯f.) ®rgescōd (‘brass-shod’); Bu.Tid. 299 (cf. Gru. note),
Rie.Zs.412, He. 4 , Edd. (excl. Wülck.) ®r gescōd. (Cf. 1587 b , 1615 b , etc.) — 2778b Rie.Zs.
412, Aant. 37, Hold. 1 , Sed. -hlāforde (i.e., the dragon). — 2779 a Tho., Gr., He. 1–3 , Arn. þe
(¯for þām); E. þæs þe; Sed. þām [þe]. — 2780b Cf. 2650 a . — 2781 a MS hogode altered to
horde. — 2782b Fol. 190v 0ð. — 2785a E. (cf. E.Sc.) -ferhðne. — 2790b Holt.8 (p.¯x) [on] hine. —
2791a Ke. ii (?), E.Sc., Tho., Bu.Zs. 218 (?), E., Holt. 1 , Sed. 3 , Holt. 8 wætere; Rie.Zs. 412,
Tr., Bamm. ANQ 19.1 (2006) 3–7 wætere sweorfan. See Gloss.: weorpan. — 2792b Gru.tr.
308, et al., Sed. 1–2 , Chck., Crp. [Bēowulf maþelode] (cf. Appx.C §§¯30¯f.); Tr. [Bīowulf m®lde];
Schü. (see EStn. xxxix 110), v.Sch., Wn., Mag., Swn. [Þā se beorn gespræc]; Holt. 2–8 , Cha.
[Bīowulf reordode] (cf. Appx.C §§¯30¯f.); Kl., Ni., Alxr. [Biorncyning spræc]; Sed.3 [Beorn geōmre
spræc]; Dob. [Byrnwiga spræc] (?), MR (in note) [Bregorōf gespræc]. — 2793a MS giogoðe; Ke. ii
gehðo (?), Grimm 1840: n. on And 66, E.Sc., Tho., Edd. giohðe; Holt.7 gēhðe. — 2799b MS
minne; E.Sc., Gr., He., Edd. (excl. Crp.) mīne. — 2800b Tho., Gr., He. 1–14 , E., Arn., Wülck.,
Hold., Bu. 96, Holt. 1–5 , Sed. 1 gē nū. Cf. Appx.C §¯27. — 2803a Siev.R. 306, Holt. 1–2 beorht. —
2803b See note.
96 BEOWULF

sē scel tō ġemyndum mīnum lēodum

2805 hēah hlī¢an on Hrones Næsse,
þæt hit s®līðend syððan hātan
Bīowulfes Biorh, ðā ðe brentingas
ofer Ïōda ġenipu feorran drīfað.’
Dyde him of healse hrinġ gyldenne
2810 þīoden þrīsth©diġ, þeġne ġesealde,
ġeongum gārwigan, goldfāhne helm,
bēah ond byrnan, hēt hyne brūcan well:
‘Þū eart endelāf ūsses cynnes,
W®ġmundinga; ealle wyrd forswēop
2815 mīne māgas tō metodsceafte,
eorlas on elne; iċ him æfter sceal.’
Þæt wæs þām gomelan ġinġæste word
brēostġehyġdum, ®r hē b®l cure,
hāte heaðowylmas; him of hræðre ġewāt
2820 sāwol sēċean sōðfæstra dōm.

Ðā wæs ġegongen guman unfrōdum

earfoðlīċe, þæt hē on eorðan ġeseah
þone lēofestan līfes æt ende
blēate ġeb®ran. Bona swylċe læġ,
2825 eġesliċ eorðdraca ealdre berēafod,
bealwe ġeb®ded. Bēahhordum lenġ
wyrm wōhbogen wealdan ne mōste,
ac him īrenna ecga fornāmon,
hearde heaðoscearpe homera lāfe,
2830 þæt se wīdÏoga wundum stille
hrēas on hrūsan hordærne nēah.
Nalles æfter lyfte lācende hwearf
middelnihtum, māðm®hta wlonc

2804a Siev. l.c., Holt.1–2 þæt (¯for sē). — 2805 b See 2477 b Varr., Appx.C §¯5. — 2808a Fol.
191r Ïoda B. — 2814b MS speof (see Fu.1); Ke. ii (cf. Grimm D.M. 336), Tho., Gr., Arn.,
Hold., Edd. -swēop; Ke., Gru., Gr. 2, He.1–7, E., Wülck. -swēof ‘banished’; Wn., v.Sch. 17–18,
Crp. -spēon. Cf. Jul 294. — 2819b MS hwæðre; Ke., et al., Sed., Dob., Ja. hreðre;
Gr.Spr., et al., 9 Edd. hræðre. (Only Gru. does not emend; see note.) — 2821a No fitt num-
ber in MS, but Ða (capital Ð) begins new line. — 2821b MS gumū; He. 1 , nearly all
Edd. guman; Bamm. 1992 gumun. See Appx.C §¯8. — 2828a Gr. 1 (?), Rie.Zs. 412, Hold.,
Wy., Tr., Holt. 1 – 2 , Schü., Sed., Dob., Wn.-B., Ja., Andrew 1948: §¯166 hine. Cf.
2772, and see Lang. §¯26.5. — 2829a MS scear / de; see Schü. 1908: 110; Tho., Gr. 1 ,
Arn., He. 4 – 7 , Tr., Holt. 1 – 5 , 7 – 8 , v.Sch. -scearpe (so also Bu.Zs. 218, Scheinert BGdSL xxx
378, Hoops). — 2832a Fol. 191v æfter.
 BEOWULF 97

ans©n ©wde, ac hē eorðan ġefēoll

2835 for ðæs hildfruman hondġeweorce.
Hūru þæt on lande l©t manna ðāh
mæġenāgendra mīne ġefr®ġe,
þēah ðe hē d®da ġehwæs dyrstiġ w®re,
þæt hē wið āttľrsceaðan oreðe ġer®sde,
2840 oððe hrinġsele hondum styrede,
ġif hē wæċċende weard onfunde
būon on beorge. Bīowulfe wearð
dryhtmāðma d®l dēaðe forgolden;
hæfde ®ġhwæðer ende ġefēred
2845 l®nan līfes.
Næs ðā lang tō ðon
þæt ðā hildlatan holt ofġēfan,
t©dre trēowlogan t©ne ætsomne,
ðā ne dorston ®r dareðum lācan
on hyra mandryhtnes miclan þearfe;
2850 ac h© scamiende scyldas b®ran,
gūðġew®du þ®r se gomela læġ;
wlitan on Wīlāf. Hē ġewērġad sæt,
fēðecempa frēan eaxlum nēah,
wehte hyne wætre; him wiht ne spēow.
2855 Ne meahte hē on eorðan, ðēah hē ūðe wēl,
on ðām frumgāre feorh ġehealdan,
nē ðæs wealdendes wiht onċirran;
wolde dōm Godes d®dum r®dan
gumena ġehwylcum, swā hē nū ġēn dêð.
2860 Þā wæs æt ðām ġeongan grim andswaru
ēðbeġēte þām ðe ®r his elne forlēas.
Wīġlāf maðelode, Wēohstānes sunu;
sec sāriġferð seah on unlēofe:
‘Þæt, lā, mæġ secgan sē ðe wyle sōð specan
2865 þæt se mondryhten, sē ēow ðā māðmas ġeaf,
2841a Tho., Tr. wæccendne. Cf. GenA 1081, Dan 475; OES §¯101. — 2844a MS æghwæðre;
Ke. ii, most Edd. ®ghwæðer; see Rie.Zs. 412; cf. Bamm. ES lxi 482¯f., 1986a: 102. — 2852a
Ke., Siev.R. 272, Holt., Sed. 1 – 2 wlītan. — 2854b MS speop; Thk., Edd. spēow. — 2857 a
Kl. 1907: 258 weorldendes (?). — 2857b Tho., Gr., Arn., Wülck., Hold. 1 , Tr., Holt. 1 – 5 ,
Schü. willan (¯for wiht); He. 1–7 [willan] wiht. — 2858 a Fol. 192r godes AB. — 2858b Bu.
106, Holt. 1 dēað ār®dan. — 2860a MS geongū; Barnouw 1902: 36, 10 Edd. (excl. Sed.,
Cha.) geongan. [geongum doubtfully defended by Lichtenheld ZfdA xvi 353, 355, and
geongun by Bamm. 1992; see Appx.C §¯8.] — 2863a MS sec; Thk., Ke., Tho., Edd., Kl.
sec[g]; Mackie 1941: 96¯f., v.Sch., Dob., Wn., Ni., Crp. sēc. See Lang. §§¯8.6 rem., 20.1 rem.
98 BEOWULF

ēoredġeatwe þe ġē þ®r on standað,

þonne hē on ealubenċe oft ġesealde
healsittendum helm ond byrnan,
þēoden his þeġnum, swylċe hē þr©dlicost
2870 ōwer feor oððe nēah ¢ndan meahte —
þæt hē ġēnunga gūðġew®du
wrāðe forwurpe ðā hyne wīġ beġet.
Nealles folccyning fyrdġesteallum
ġylpan þorfte; hwæðre him God ūðe,
2875 sigora waldend, þæt hē hyne sylfne ġewræc
āna mid ecge, þā him wæs elnes þearf.
Iċ him līfwraðe l©tle meahte
ætġifan æt gūðe, ond ongan swā þēah
ofer mīn ġemet m®ġes helpan;
2880 symle wæs þ© s®mra þonne iċ sweorde drep
ferhðġenīðlan, f©r unswīðor
wēoll of ġewitte. Werġendra tō l©t
þrong ymbe þēoden þā hyne sīo þrāg becwōm.
Nū sceal sinċþego ond swyrdġifu,
2885 eall ēðelwyn ēowrum cynne,
lufen ālicgean; londrihtes mōt
þ®re m®ġburge monna ®ġhwylċ
īdel hweorfan, syððan æðelingas
feorran ġefricgean Ïēam ēowerne,
2890 dōmlēasan d®d. Dēað bið sēlla
eorla ġehwylcum þonne edwītlīf!’

XL Heht ðā þæt heaðoweorc tō hagan bīodan

up ofer ecgclif, þ®r þæt eorlweorod
morgĺnlongne dæġ mōdġiōmor sæt,
2895 bordhæbbende, bēġa on wēnum,
endedōgľres ond eftcymes
lēofes monnes. L©t swīgode

2867b Tr. ēow (¯for oft). — 2869b MS þryd-; Thk., et. al., Schü., Kl. 1–2 þr©ð-; 11 Edd.,
Hoops St. 136 þr©d-. See OEG §¯424. — 2878a Perh. gifan (Kl. [?]) or āgifan (Andrew 1948:
§¯168). — 2880b Siev. 1884b: 142, Holt.1–5,7–8 þone (and 2881a -genīðla). — 2881b MS fyrun
(u altered from a) swiðor; Tho. f©r ran swīðor; Rie.L. (cf. Zs. 413), 12 Edd. f©r unswīðor. —
2882b MS fergendra; Gru.tr. 309, Edd. wergendra. — 2883b Sed.3 [on] hyne. — Fol. 192v
þrag AB. — 2884a MS hu, so (i.e. Hū) Ke.1, Gru., Holt. ii n. (?), Cha., Crp., MR; Ke.2, Edd.
Nū. — 2886a Grimm R.A. 731, Ke.2, Tr. leofen ‘sustenance’ (cf. 1728 Varr.); Tho. lēofum;
Sed. 3 lungre. — 2893a Ke. ii, Tho., et al., Holt.1–6, Schü., Sed., Cha. ēg-.
 BEOWULF 99

nīwra spella sē ðe næs ġerād,

ac hē sōðlīċe sæġde ofer ealle:
2900 ‘Nū is wilġeofa Wedra lēoda,
dryhten Ġēata dēaðbedde fæst,
wunað wælreste wyrmes d®dum;
him on efn liġeð ealdľrġewinna
sexbennum sēoc; sweorde ne meahte
2905 on ðām āgl®ċean ®niġe þinga
wunde ġewyrċean. Wīġlāf siteð
ofer Bīowulfe, byre Wīhstānes,
eorl ofer ōðrum unli¢ġendum,
healdeð hiġem®ðum hēafodwearde
2910 lēofes ond lāðes.
Nū ys lēodum wēn
orleġhwīle, syððan under[ne]
Froncum ond Fr©sum fyll cyninges
wīde weorðeð. Wæs sīo wrōht scepen
heard wið Hūgas, syððan Hiġelāc cwōm
2915 faran Ïotherġe on Frēsna land,
þ®r hyne Hetware hilde ġen®ġdon,
elne ġeēodon mid ofermæġene,
þæt se byrnwiga būgan sceolde,
fēoll on fēðan; nalles frætwe ġeaf
2920 ealdor dugoðe. Ūs wæs ā syððan
Merewīoingas milts unġyfeðe.
Nē iċ te Swēoðēode sibbe oððe trēowe
wihte ne wēne, ac wæs wīde cūð
þætte Ongenðīo ealdre besnyðede
2925 Hæðcen Hrēþling wið Hrefna Wudu,
þā for onmēdlan ®rest ġesōhton

2904a MS siex; Ke. ii, Tho., Gr.1, Gru., He.1, E., Arn. seax-; Holt., Sed., Dob., Ja., MR sex-;
so Crp., but Crp. c siex-. See Lang. §¯13 rem. — 2909a MS hige mæðum; Ke.2, et al. -mēðum;
Tho. hige mēðum; Gr., Edd. -m®ðum or -mēðum; Siev. 1884b: 142 (not so Siev. 1910: 419),
Hold.1, Holt. 1–2, Sed.1 -mēðe. See Lang. §¯7.3. — 2909b Fol. 193r heafod AB. — 2911b MS
under; Gr., He., Edd. (excl. Crp.) under[ne]; Ki. undyr[ne]. — 2916b MS ge hnægdon; Gr.1
(?), Bu.Tid. 64, Hold., Tr., 8 Edd. (excl. Schü., v.Sch., Ni., Crp.) gen®gdon. See Appx.C
§¯42; cf. v.Sch. Lit.bl. lvii 27. — 2921 MS mere wio ingasmilts (the last altered from ingannilts);
Gru.tr. 309, Ke.2 Merewīcinga milts (Ke.1 -wīcingas m.?); Tho., Gru., Gr., He., E., Arn., Wülck.,
Soc.6–7 Tr. Merewīoinga m.; Bu.Tid. 300, Holt.1–5,7, Sed., Cha., Dob., Wn., Mag., Crp., Ja., MR
Merewīoingas m.; Schü. EStn. lv 95¯f., Holt.6,8, v.Sch.15–16 merewīcingas m.; v.Sch.17–18, Ni.
merewīcingan (¯= -um) m.; BTSA, Swn. Merewīgingas m. — Luick BGdSL xi 475 ungyfðe (?)
(metri causa: cf. 1756a note). — 2922a MS te (so Gru., Holt.2–8, Cha., v.Sch., Wn., Ni., Crp., Ja.,
MR); Tho., Edd. tō. See Lang. §¯19.9. — 2925b See 2477 b Varr., Appx.C §¯5.
100 BEOWULF

Ġēata lēode Gūð-Scil¢ngas.

Sōna him se frōda fæder Ōhtheres,
eald ond eġesfull ondslyht āġeaf,
2930 ābrēot brimwīsan, br©d āhredde,
gomela[n] iōmeowlan golde berofene,
Onelan mōdor ond Ōhtheres,
ond ðā folgode feorhġenīðlan
oð ðæt hī oðēodon earfoðlīċe
2935 in Hrefnes Holt hlāfordlēase.
Besæt ðā sinherġe sweorda lāfe
wundum wērġe; wēan oft ġehēt
earmre teohhe ondlonge niht,
cwæð, hē on merġenne mēċes ecgum
2940 ġētan wolde, sum’ on galgtrēowu[m]
[fuglum] tō gamene. Frōfľr eft ġelamp
sāriġmōdum somod ®rdæġe,
syððan hīe Hyġelāces horn ond b©man,
ġealdor onġēaton, þā se gōda cōm
2945 lēoda dugoðe on lāst faran.

XLI Wæs sīo swātswaðu Sw[ē]ona ond Ġēata,

wælr®s weora wīde ġes©ne,
hū ðā folc mid him f®hðe tōwehton.
Ġewāt him ðā se gōda mid his gædelingum,
2950 frōd felaġeōmor fæsten sēċean,
eorl Ongenþīo ufor onċirde;
hæfde Hiġelāces hilde ġefrūnen,
wlonces wīġcræft; wiðres ne truwode,
þæt hē s®mannum onsacan mihte,
2955 heaðolīðendum hord forstandan,

2929b MS hond; Gr.1 (?), Rie.Zs. 414, Holt., 10 Edd. (excl. Sed., Crp.) ond-. So 2972b. See
1541b. — 2930a Ke.2, Gr., Sed. ābrēat. See Lang. §¯16.2. — 2930b MS bryda heorde; Gr., et al.,
Schü., Cha., Wn. br©d āheorde ‘released his bride from guardianship’ (so BT [?]); He.1–7, Hold.,
Wy. br©d āhēorde ‘liberated’; Bu. 107 (?), HoIt.3–8, Dob., Mag., Ni., Crp., Ja., MR br©d āhredde
(= āheorde Bu., v.Sch.; see Kl. EStn. xlii 329 [GenA 2032, 2085], Hoops; Lang. §¯12.3 n.¯3);
Holt.1–2 (see Zs. 122), Sed. br©d āfeorde ‘removed’; Ki. br©da herode ‘honored his bride.’ —
2931a Thk., Edd., Kl. gomela; Ke. ii gomele; Gr.1 (?), Lichtenheld ZfdA xvi 330, Mag., Chck., Ja.
gomelan; Barnouw 1902: 40 gomel or gomelan. — 2935a See 2477 b Varr., Appx.C §¯5. —
2937b Fol. 193v wean AB (w altered from v in B). — 2939a E. hē [hī]; Holt.4–8 h[ī]e. — 2940a
Tho., Sed.1–2 g[r]ētan. — 2940b–41a MS sum on galg treowu; Tho. sum[e] and [fuglum] and Ke.2
-trēowu[m] (so most Edd., incl. Kl.); Holt.4–7 oððe (¯for sum), Holt.8 swylce; Dob., Wn.-B., Crp.
sum’; Ki. [fēðan] (ds.). Cf. Siev. 1884b: 143; Bu.Tid. 60, Bu. 107, 372. — 2946b MS swona;
Thk., Edd. Sw[ē]ona. — 2948b Tr. f. geworhton. — 2953b See 669b Varr.
 BEOWULF 101

bearn ond br©de; bēah eft þonan

eald under eorðweall. Þā wæs ®ht boden
Swēona lēodum, seġn Hiġelāce[s]
freoðowong þone forð oferēodon,
2960 syððan Hrēðlingas tō hagan þrungon.
Þ®r wearð Ongenðīo ecgum sweorda,
blondenfexa on bid wrecen,
þæt se þēodcyning ða¢an sceolde
Eafores ānne dōm. Hyne yrringa
2965 Wulf Wonrēding w®pne ġer®hte,
þæt him for swenġe swāt ®drum sprong
forð under fexe. Næs hē forht swā ðēh,
gomela Scil¢ng, ac forġeald hraðe
wyrsan wrixle wælhlem þone,
2970 syððan ðēodcyning þyder onċirde.
Ne meahte se snella sunu Wonrēdes
ealdum ċeorle ondslyht ġiofan,
ac hē him on hēafde helm ®r ġescer,
þæt hē blōde fāh būgan sceolde,
2975 fēoll on foldan; næs hē f®ġe þā ġīt,
ac hē hyne ġewyrpte, þēah ðe him wund hrine.
Lēt se hearda Hiġelāces þeġn
brād[n]e mēċe, þā his brōðor læġ,
ealdsweord eotonisc entiscne helm
2980 brecan ofer bordweal; ðā ġebēah cyning,
folces hyrde, wæs in feorh dropen.
Ðā w®ron moniġe þe his m®ġ wriðon,
ricone ār®rdon, ðā him ġer©med wearð,
þæt hīe wælstōwe wealdan mōston.
2985 Þenden rēafode rinċ ōðerne,
nam on Ongenðīo īrenbyrnan,
heard swyrd hilted, ond his helm somod,
hāres hyrste Hiġelāce bær.

2957b–8b Holt. ōht. — Siev. 1884b: 143, Hold.1 sæcc (¯for segn). — Ke.2, Tho., et al., Bu.Tid.
61, Bu. 108, 9 Edd. (excl. Schü., Cha., Sed.) Higlāce[s] or Hige-. — 2959b MS ford; Thk., Edd.
forþ. — 2961a MS ðiow with w added in diff. ink (by diff. hand? to Kiernan 1981: 275 n.¯86, cf.
Ki.). — 2961b MS ecgum sweordū; Ke.2, Edd. ecgum sweorda; Gru. ēacnum sweordum. See
Appx.C §¯8. — 2964a Fol. 194r anne. — 2965a MS A, Ki., Fu.1 reðing; B reding (altered from
redmg), so Z., Mal. — 2972b See 2929b. — 2977a Siev. 1884b: 143, Holt., Sed.2–3 Lēt [þā]; Tr.
hearda [ðā]. — 2978a MS brade; Tho. brād[n]e; so nearly all Edd. — 2979a See 1558a. —
2982b E. hira. — 2987a See 2509a.
102 BEOWULF

Hē (ðām) frætwum fēng ond him fæġre ġehēt

2990 lēana (mid) lēodum, ond ġel®ste swā;
ġeald þone gūðr®s Ġēata dryhten,
Hrēðles eafora, þā hē tō hām becōm,
Iofore ond Wulfe mid ofermāðmum,
sealde hiora ġehwæðrum hund þūsenda
landes ond locenra bēaga — ne ðorfte him ðā lēan oðwītan
mon on middanġearde, syðða[n] hīe ðā m®rða ġeslōgon —
ond ðā Iofore forġeaf āngan dohtor,
hāmweorðunge, hyldo tō wedde.
Þæt ys sīo f®hðo ond se fēondscipe,
3000 wælnīð wera, ðæs ðe iċ [wēn] hafo,
þē ūs sēċeað tō Swēona lēoda,
syððan hīe ġefricgeað frēan ūserne
ealdorlēasne, þone ðe ®r ġehēold
wið hettendum hord ond rīċe
3005 æfter hæleða hryre, hwate Scilfingas,
folcrēd fremede, oððe furður ġēn
eorlscipe efnde. Nū is ofľst betost
þæt wē þēodcyning þ®r scēawian
ond þone ġebringan, þē ūs bēagas ġeaf,
3010 on ādfære. Ne scel ānes hwæt
meltan mid þām mōdĽgan, ac þ®r is māðma hord,
gold unrīme grimme ġeċēa(po)d,
ond nū æt sīðestan sylfes fēore
bēagas (ġeboh)te; þā sceall brond fretan,
3015 ®led þeċċean — nalles eorl wegan
māððum tō ġemyndum, nē mæġð sc©ne
habban on healse hrinġweorðunge,
ac sceal ġeōmormōd, golde berēafod
oft nalles ®ne elland tredan,
2989a MS B h¯. d¯.¯.¯; top of e still visible (Z.); Gru.tr. 310, Edd. hē (ðām). — E., Sed.3, Holt.8
(p.¯x) onfeng (cf. 1169a, w. dat. obj.). — 2990a MS leana .¯.¯. ; Gru., E. lēanian; Ke. (on); Gr.
(his); Gru., 12 Edd. (mid) (Bu. 108: cf. 2623, 2611); He. 4, Mal., Chck. (fore), Hold.1, Wy.,
Tr. (for). Cf. Kock4 121¯f.; Kl. 1926: 220¯f. — Fol. 194v leodū. — 2990b MS gelæsta; Ke.2,
Edd. gel®ste. — 2996b Gru.tr. 310, Edd. syðða[n]. — Ki. hīe [mā] (arranges 2995¯f. as normal
verses; cf. ASE xxxii 10¯ff.). — 3000b Ke., Gr., Edd. [wēn]; Ki. [wēan]. — 3001b Ke.2, et al.
lēode. — 3005 E. hæleðes. — MS scildingas; He., Gr.2, Wülck., Wy. Scil¢ngas; so E., Holt.2–5,
Sed., but inserting the line after 3001; Kl. 1–2 (see JEGP viii 259) S®-Gēatas; Hoops St. 78¯ff.,
Kl. 3, Holt.7–8, Mag., Ja., Alxr. scildwigan (cf. Appx.C §¯39). — 3007b MS me; Ke.2 Nū; so Edd.
excl. Gru. — 3012b MS Cony. & Coll. gecea .¯.¯. d; Ke. gecēa(po)d; so Edd. excl. Gru. — 3014a
Gru.tr. 311 (beboh)te, Gru., Edd. (geboh)te. — 3015a Holt. Beibl. x 273, Tr. þicgean; Sed.3
(cf. MLR xxviii 230) þecgean (‘destroy’). See Kl. 1907: 196. — 3015b Fol. 195r nalles.
 BEOWULF 103

3020 nū se herewīsa hleahtor āleġde,

gamen ond glēodrēam. Forðon sceall gār wesan
moniġ morgenċeald mundum bewunden,
hæfen on handa, nalles hearpan swēġ
wīġend weċċean, ac se wonna hrefn
3025 fūs ofer f®ġum fela reordian,
earne secgan hū him æt ®te spēow,
þenden hē wið wulf wæl rēafode.’
Swā se secg hwata secggende wæs,
lāðra spella; hē ne lēag fela
3030 wyrda nē worda. Weorod eall ārās;
ēodon unblīðe under Earna Næs,
wollentēare wundĿr scēawian.
Fundon ðā on sande sāwullēasne
hlimbed healdan þone þe him hringas ġeaf
3035 ®rran m®lum; þā wæs endedæġ
gōdum ġegongen, þæt se gūðcyning,
Wedra þēoden wundľrdēaðe swealt.
¶r hī þ®r ġesēgan syllicran wiht,
wyrm on wonge wiðerræhtes þ®r
3040 lāðne licgean; wæs se lēġdraca
grimliċ gry(refāh) glēdum besw®led;
sē wæs fīftiġes fōtġemearces
lang on leġere; lyftwynne hēold
nihtes hwīlum, nyðer eft ġewāt
3045 dennes niosĽan; wæs ðā dēaðe fæst,
hæfde eorðscrafa ende ġenyttod.
Him biġ stōdan bunan ond orcas,
discas lāgon ond d©re swyrd,
ōmiġe þurhetone, swā hīe wið eorðan fæðm
3050 þūsend wintra þ®r eardodon,
þonne wæs þæt yrfe ēacencræftiġ,

3027 a MS wulf; Gru.tr. 311, Ke., et plur., Holt., Schü., Sed., Cha., Kl. 1–2 , Mag. wulf[e]; 8
Edd., Hoops St. 12 wulf. See Appx.C §¯28. — 3028 a Gr.Spr., Gr. 2 , Z. secghwata. See
Lang. §¯26.3. — 3031 b See 2477 b Varr., Appx.C §¯5. — 3035 a MS Z. ærrun w. u altered
from a by erasure (so Holt.); MS Cha. & Sed. ærran w. a partly obliterated (Ki.: by
accident). — 3038 a Tho. ac, Gru., Hold. 1 ®c (= ēac, so Tr.) (¯for ®r); Bu.Zs. 219 cancels
þ®r, and so He. 4–7 ; Aant. 39 Æft hī þā; Siev. 1884b: 143, Holt.1–5, Sed. 1–2 þ®r hī þā; Sed. 3
(cf. MLR xxviii 230) Næs hī ®r; Holt. 7–8 (after Siev.) Ðā (¯for ®r). — 3041 a MS B(A)
gry¯.¯.¯.¯; Thk., et al. gryre; He. 4–14 , Holt.1–7 gryreg®st (Ki. -giest); Bu.Tid. 62, Hold. 1 , Tr.,
11 Edd. gryrefāh (cf. 2576). — 3041 b Fol. 195 v gledū. — 3045 a Holt., Schü. nīosan. See
Appx.C §¯18. — 3046 b Holt.1 (?), Sed. endes. — 3049 a Scheinert BGdSL xxx 377 ōme (?).
104 BEOWULF

iūmonna gold galdre bewunden,

þæt ðām hrinġsele hrīnan ne mōste
gumena ®niġ, nefne God sylfa,
3055 sigora sōðcyning sealde þām ðe hē wolde
— hē is manna ġehyld — hord openian,
efne swā hwylcum manna swā him ġemet ðūhte.

XLII Þā wæs ġes©ne þæt se sīð ne ðāh

þām ðe unrihte inne ġeh©dde
3060 wr®tte under wealle. Weard ®r ofslōh
fēara sumne; þā sīo f®hð ġewearð
ġewrecen wrāðlīċe. WundĿr hwār þonne
eorl ellenrōf ende ġefēre
līfġesceafta, þonne lenġ ne mæġ
3065 mon mid his (mā)gum meduseld būan.
Swā wæs Bīowulfe, þā hē biorges weard
sōhte, searonīðas — seolfa ne cūðe
þurh hwæt his worulde ġedāl weorðan sceolde —
swā hit oð dōmes dæġ dīope benemdon
3070 þēodnas m®re þā ðæt þ®r dydon,
þæt se secg w®re synnum scildiġ,
hergum ġeheaðerod, hellbendum fæst,
wommum ġewītnad, sē ðone wong strude.
Næs hē goldhwæte, ġearwor hæfde
3075 āgendes ēst ®r ġescēawod.
Wīġlāf maðelode, Wīhstānes sunu:
‘Oft sceall eorl moniġ ānes willan
wræc ādrēogan, swā ūs ġeworden is.
Ne meahton wē ġel®ran lēofne þēoden,

3056 a Gru. (?), Bu. 109 m. gehyht (cf. Hold. 1 : gehyht manna); Gr. 1 (?),2 hēlsmanna g.
(parallel to hord); Bu. 109, Morgan BGdSL xxxiii 110, Holt. 2–8 , Schü. hæleða (¯for
manna); Holt. note, Sed. 2–3 , Pope 258 (cf. xxxii) gehyld manna (cf. Kl. BGdSL lxxii 124);
Holt.Zs. 122 hēahmāþma g. See Appx.C §¯28. — 3059 b Bu. 109 (see Gru. note), Holt.1–6 ,
Andrew 1948: §¯171 geh©ðde (ref. to the thief¯). — 3060 a MS wræce; Tho., Gr., He.
wr®te; so Kl., Edd. excl. v.Sch., Ni. See 2771 a ; Lang. §¯20.5 rem. — 3065 a Ke. (mā)gum;
so Edd. excl. Gru. (who does not restore); Ki. (m®)gum; cf. Fu. 1 . — 3066 b Fol. 196 r þa.
— 3067 a Sed. 2–3 -nīða; Holt.8 -nīðe. — 3069 b Holt.Zs. 122 (?) & ed. 1 , Sed. 1–2 dīore. —
3073 b MS strade (see Fu. 1 ); Gru.tr. 311, Soc., Wy., Hold. 2 , Edd. strude. — 3074 a MS
næshe; Holt. 4,6 (cf. Siev. 1884b: 144), Lawrence PMLA xxxiii 562 næfne for næs, and
comma after strude; Tr., Kl. 3 (see Kl. 1926: 221¯f.) næfne for næs hē. — Siev. 1884b: 143,
Holt. 4–5,7–8 goldhwæte[s]; He. 4–7 , Wy., -hwæt; Holt.Zs. 122, Schü. -®hte; Holt. 1 note (?),
Sed. 1–2 -frætwe, Sed. 3 -w®ge; Patzig A. xlvii 104, Holt.6 , Kl. BGdSL lxxii 124¯f. -hwætne. —
3075 a Holt. 8 ®ht. — 3078 a MS wræc a dreogeð; Ke., Tho. wræca drēogan; Gr., Gru. wr®c
ādrēogan; so nearly all Edd.
 BEOWULF 105

3080 rīċes hyrde r®d ®niġne,

þæt hē ne grētte goldweard þone,
lēte hyne licgean þ®r hē longe wæs,
wīcum wunian oð woruldende;
hēold on hēahġesceap. Hord ys ġescēawod,
3085 grimme ġegongen; wæs þæt ġifeðe tō swīð
þē ðone [þēodcyning] þyder ontyhte.
Iċ wæs þ®r inne ond þæt eall ġeondseh,
reċedes ġeatwa, þā mē ġer©med wæs,
nealles sw®slīċe sīð āl©fed
3090 inn under eorðweall. Iċ on ofoste ġefēng
micle mid mundum mæġenbyrðenne
hordġestrēona, hider ūt ætbær
cyninge mīnum. Cwico wæs þā ġēna,
wīs ond ġewittiġ; worn eall ġespræc
3095 gomol on ġehðo, ond ēowiċ ġrētan hēt,
bæd þæt ġē ġeworhton æfter wines d®dum
in b®lstede beorh þone h¼n,
miċelne ond m®rne, swā hē manna wæs
wīġend weorðfullost wīde ġeond eorðan,
3100 þenden hē burhwelan brūcan mōste.
Uton nū efstan ōðre [sīðe],
sēon ond sēċean searo[ġimma] ġeþræc,
wundur under wealle; iċ ēow wīsiġe,
þæt ġē ġenōge nēon scēawiað
3105 bēagas ond brād gold. Sīe sīo b®r ġearo,
®dre ġeæfned, þonne wē ūt cymen,
ond þonne ġeferian frēan ūserne,
lēofne mannan þ®r hē longe sceal
on ðæs waldendes w®re ġeþolian.’
3110 Hēt ðā ġebēodan byre Wīhstānes,
hæle hildedīor hæleða monegum,
boldāgendra, þæt hīe b®lwudu
3084a MS heoldon; Ke.2, Sed. healdan, Bu.Zs. 221, Kl.1–2 healdon (= -an; cf. Kl.2 435); Gr.1,
Schü. hēoldon (1 pl., full stop after -ende; si. Ki. but 3 pl.); so Holt.7, w. preceding lacuna;
Wy., 10 Edd. hēold on. — 3084b Thk., Ke., et al., Wy., Cha., Ni. hēah g. — Gru., Sarr. EStn.
xxviii 410 gecēapod. — 3085b Ki. þæt gifeðe wæs. Cf. Appx.C §§¯6¯f. — 3086a Gru.tr. 311,
Gr.1, Gru., He.1–7, Arn., Wülck., Hold.1 [þēoden]; Gr.2, 12 Edd. [þēodcyning]; Kl.1–2 mannan.
— 3092b Fol. 196v ut. — 3096b Bu.Tid. 300, Siev. 1884b: 144, Hold.1, Holt.1–5 wine dēadum.
Cf. Aant. 41. — 3101b Gru.tr. 312, Ke.2 [sīðe]; so Edd. excl. Tho., Arn. — 3102b Ke., Tho., et
al. searogeþræc; Bu. 109 (cf. Siev.R. 269), Hold., 12 Edd. searo[gimma] geþræc (Ni.: 3 wds.);
Ki. [on] searogeþræc. — 3104a Siev. 1884b: 144, Holt.1–5,7–8 þ®r (¯for þæt) (Holt.1–5: 3103b in
parenthesis). — 3104b Gru., Sed. nēan.
106 BEOWULF

feorran feredon, folcāgende,

gōdum tōġēnes: ‘Nū sceal glēd fretan
3115 — weaxan wonna lēġ — wigena strenġel,
þone ðe oft ġebād īsernscūre,
þonne str®la storm strenġum ġeb®ded
scōc ofer scildweall, sceft nytte hēold,
fæðerġearwum fūs Ïāne fullēode.’
3120 Hūru se snotra sunu Wīhstānes
āċīġde of corðre cyniges þeġnas
syfone (tō)somne, þā sēlestan,
ēode eahta sum under inwithrōf
hilderinc[a]; sum on handa bær
3125 ®ledlēoman, sē ðe on orde ġēong.
Næs ðā on hlytme hwā þæt hord strude,
syððan orwearde ®niġne d®l
secgas ġesēgon on sele wunian,
l®ne licgan; l©t ®niġ mearn
3130 þæt hī ofostlīċ(e) ūt ġeferedon
d©re māðmas; dracan ēc scufun,
wyrm ofer weallclif, lēton wēġ niman,
Ïōd fæðmian frætwa hyrde.
Þā wæs wunden gold on w®n hladen,
3135 ®ġhwæs unrīm, æþeling boren,
hār hilde[rinċ] tō Hrones Næsse.

XLIII Him ðā ġeġiredan Ġēata lēode

ād on eorðan unwāclicne,
helm[um] behongen, hildebordum,

3115a Tr. wēstan; Holt.6 weasan; Sed.3 (see MLR xxviii 230), v.Sch., Ni. weaxen. — 3119a MS
fæder; Thk. fæþer, 7 Edd. fæðer-; Ke., Tho., et al., Holt., Schü., Sed., Cha., Dob. feðer-. — Sed.
-geatwum. — 3121b Fol. 198r cyniges; Thk., most older Edd., Holt., Sed., Dob., Ja. cyni[n]ges.
— 3122a Ke.2, Edd. (tō)somne; Gr.2, E., Wy., Cha., Holt.7–8, v.Sch., Wn., Mag., Ni., Chck.,
Swn., Ja., Alxr., MR (æt)somne (so Hoops). — 3124 Thk., et al., Aant. 41, Moore JEGP xviii
215¯f., v.Sch., Ni., Crp. -rinc, w. sum in on-verse (cf. Appx.C §¯27); E.Sc., Siev. 1884b: 144, R.
314, 9 Edd. -rinc[a] (cf. 1412¯f.; punctuation in text agrees w. Siev.). — 3130a E.Sc., Tho., Edd.
ofostlīc(e). — 3134a MS ³; Thk., Ke.2, E.Sc., 8 Edd. þā; Ke. ii, Edd., Schü., v.Sch., Ni. þ®r;
Tr. þon; Crp. þæt. — 3135b MS æþelinge boren (so Mal. A. lvii 315, Holt.7); Ke. 2, Tho.,
Gru., Arn., Ni., Chck., Crp.c æþelin[g] geboren; E.Sc., Gr., Edd. æþeling b.; Bu. 110, Tr.,
v.Sch., Wn., Swn., Alxr., also Hoops æþelingc b.; Barnouw 1902: 9 [ond se] æ., Tr. [ond] æ.
See Appx.C §¯27. — 3136a MS har hilde foll. by erasure of dittographic to; Gru.tr. 312, Ke.,
Gr.1, Gru. hār hilde[dēor]; E.Sc., Edd. hār hilde[rinc] (Crp.: 3 wds.); Ki. hār[um] hilde. —
3136b See 2477 b Varr., Appx.C §¯5. — 3139a MS helm behongen; Ke., Tho., Crp.
helmbehongen; Gr., Edd. helm[um] b. or helm[e] b. — Tr., Holt. 1, Sed., Andrew 1948:
§¯182 behēngon.
 BEOWULF 107

3140 beorhtum byrnum, swā hē bēna wæs;

āleġdon ðā tōmiddes m®rne þēoden
hæleð hīofende, hlāford lēofne.
Ongunnon þā on beorge b®lf©ra m®st
wīġend weċċan; wud(u)rēċ āstāh
3145 sweart ofer swioðole, swōgende lēġ
wōpe bewunden — windblond ġelæġ —
oð þæt hē ðā bānhūs ġebrocen hæfd(e)
hāt on hreðre. Hiġum unrōte
mōdċeare m®ndon, mondryhtnes cw(e)alm;
3150 swylċe ġiōmorġyd (Ġē)at(isc) meowle
(æfter Bīowulfe b)undenheorde
(sang) sorgċeariġ, sæ(id)e (ġe)neah(he)
þæt hīo hyre (here)ġ(eon)gas hearde ond(r)ēde,
wælfylla wo(r)n, (w)erudes eġesan,
3155 h©[n]ðo ond hæf(t)n©d. Heofon rēċe swealg.
Ġeworhton ðā Wedra lēode

3144b Ke., Edd. wud(u)-. — 3145a MS swicðole; Tho. Swīo-ðole (‘Swedish pine’); Bout.
82¯ff., Gr., nearly all Edd. swioðole; Bout. 84, Tr., Mag., Crp. swioloðe. — 3145b MS let;
Tho., nearly all Edd. lēg; Bu. 110, Tr., Chck. lēc. — 3146a Tr. wylme; Sed. 3 wōþe (‘with a
loud voice’). — 3146b Grimm 1865–90 (1849): 2.263 -blond [ne] gelæg; Bu. 110 -blonda lēg;
Lindqvist (in Collinder 1954: 25) -blonde gelīc. — 3147 b MS B hæfde, w. e added in a
different ink. — 3149b Ke., Edd. cw(e)alm. — 3150 a Wy., Cha. giōmor gyd. — 3150b Fol.
198v :¯iat¯:¯:¯:. On the obstacles to deciphering this page of the MS, see Intr. xxviii¯f. — MS Z.
(s)ia (a perh. orig. o, erroneously freshened up; so Kl.) g(eo)meowle (w. Lat. anus written
over it; but cf. Fu. 1); geo ¢rst conjectured by E.Sc.; MS Sm. :¯iat¯:¯:¯:¯.¯meowle, whence Pope
232¯f.: Gēatisc meowle (w. iat prob. written on eat: see Ki.), so Kl.3 Su., all recent Edd.; Ki.
G. ānmeowle (cf. ASE xxxii 14). — [3151a–5a For an earlier restoration, see Bu. 110¯f.; also
E.Sc., Gr.1–2, Bu.Zs. 223¯f., E. —] 3151a Grion 1883: 378 Hygd hēah cwēn; Bu. æfter
Bēowulfe (see Fu.1); Pope 233¯f. n.¯4 (cf. MLN lxvii 508¯ff., lxx 77¯ff.) br®d on bearhtme (so
Swn.) or br®d ond bodode (cf. Kl. BGdSL lxxii 125¯f.: bodode biornum); Mag. Wedercwēn
āwræc; Mal. (also 1965: 122), Chck. Bīowulfe brægd; Ni. Bīowulfes cwēn; Trp. bealonīð,
bemearn. — 3151b Ke., Gr.1, Pope MLN lxvii 509¯ff., Mustanoja NM lxviii 7, Mag., Clover
1986: 166–7 (w)unden(-); Gr. 2 (b)undenheorte, Bu., Edd. (b)undenheorde; Trp. he(arde)
(¯for -heorde). — 3152 a Bu., Edd., Kl. (song); MS (Ki. UV) more likely sang. — 3152b MS
later hand sælðe (so Z., Mal., Ki.; cf. AB, Ke., Kölbing, Wülck., Mal. 1965: 122: sælde),
perhaps on sæide (Dav.); Pope 232, Holt. 8, Dob., Wn.1–2, v.Sch. 17–18, Mag. swīðe (cf. Dav.);
Bu., Kl., Pope xxv, Wn.-B., Chck., Ja., MR s®de (cf. PPs 88.1.4; Holt.7 sægde). — MS later
hand neahl (Kölbing, Wülck., Z.: neahhe), Wph. (ge)neahl(eas) (so Ni., Crp., but Ki.: not
enough room for -leas); Ke., Edd. geneahhe. — 3153a Bu., Kl., Holt.7 (hearmda)gas; Pope
232, Holt. 8, Dob., Wn.1–2, Mag., Swn. (hēofun)g(da)gas (too long for the space); Dav., Holt. 7
(Nachtrag), Holt. 8 (p.¯x) (he¢)g(e da)gas; Mackie 1941: 95¯ff., Sm., Wph., Wn.-B., Ni., Chck.,
Crp., Alxr. heregeongas, Mackie, Mal. (also 1965: 122), Ja. heregangas. — 3153b Bu., all
recent Edd. ond(r)ēde. — 3154a MS later hand wonn; Bu., all recent Edd. (excl. Trp.) worn.
— 3154b MS Z. (w)igendes (?), so Bu., Kl.1–3, Holt.7 (cf. Bliss §¯4); MS Sm. (UV) werudes, si.
Mal., Ki.; Holt. 8 (see Lit.bl. lix 166) werodes (see Dav.), Kl. 3 Su., Edd. werudes. — 3155a
MS hyðo (Sm. hy’ðo, but see Fu. 1); Bu. h©[n]ðo; so all recent Edd. excl. Ni., Crp. — MS Ki.
(UV) ℓ¯hæf¯:¯nyd; Bu., all recent Edd. ond hæftn©d; Mal. (also 1965: 122) hæftnoð. — 3155b
MS Z., Mal. swe¯:¯lg, Wph. s¯:¯ealg, Ki. swealg; so E.Sc., all recent Edd.
108 BEOWULF

hl®(w) on h(ō)e, sē wæs hēah ond brād,

(w)ēġlīðendum wīde ġes©ne,
ond beti(m)bredon on t©ndagum
3160 beadurōf(e)s bēcn, bronda lāfe
wealle beworhton, swā hyt weorðlicost
foresnotre men ¢ndan mihton.
Hī on beorg dydon bēg ond siġlu,
eall swylċe hyrsta swylċe on horde ®r
3165 nīðhēdĽġe men ġenumen hæfdon;
forlēton eorla ġestrēon eorðan healdan,
gold on grēote, þ®r hit nū ġēn lifað,
eldum swā unnyt swā hyt (®ro)r wæs.
Þā ymbe hl®w riodan hildedīore,
3170 æþelinga bearn, ealra twelf(e),
woldon (care) cwīðan (ond c)yning m®nan,
wordġyd wrecan, ond ymb w(er) sprecan;
eahtodan eorlscipe ond his ellenweorc
duguðum dēmdon — swā hit ġedē(fe) bið
3175 þæt mon his winedryhten wordum herġe,
ferhðum frēoġe, þonne hē forð scile
of l(ī)ċhaman (l®)ded weorðan.
Swā begnornodon Ġēata lēode
3157a MS Z., Sm. hleo (?), Kölbing, Wülck., Pope 232¯f., Dav., Fu. 1 hlæw, Kiernan 1984: 40
hlæo (so Crp.); Ke., Edd. hl(®w); v.Sch., Dob., Wn., Ni. hl(ēo);. — MS A hde, B liðe (Z.: but
retouched as lide), Kölbing, Wülck. lide, Sm., Ki. hoe, Fu. 1 prob. hde written on hoe; Tho.,
Kl., Holt. 7–8 and most prior Edd. [h]līðe (but see n. to 1892b); Holt. 2–4, Schü. [h]liðe[s
nōsan]; v.Sch., Edd. hōe; Trp. (næ)se (¯for hōe / sē). — 3158a MS AB (.)et, Z., Wülck, Ki.
wæg, Sm., Dav., Mal., Fu. 1 weg; Ke.1, Wn., Swn., MR (wē)g-; Ke. 2, Edd., Kl. (w®)g-. —
3158b MS Thk., et al. to syne; MS Kölbing gësyne, Z. g(e)syne; He.4, Edd. ges©ne. — 3159b
Thk, Ke. t©ndagum, Tho., Edd., Kl. t©n dagum. See 517a. — 3160a MS later hand i on e in
rofes, head of orig. e still visible (see Fu. 1, and cf. Z., Mal., Ki., who think the freshened
form is e). — 3163b Tho. bēag[as], Tr., Holt. bēg[as]. See Kl. 1905–6: 250. — 3167b Sisam
RES ix 139¯f. ligeð. — 3168 b MS Z., Dav. hi¯:¯, Sm. he¯:¯:¯, Mal. hy¯:¯, Ki. (UV) hyt; Ke., Edd.,
Kl. hy(t) or hi(t); Holt. 8, Kl.3 Su. he(om). — Sm. (UV) .¯e¯:¯.¯or; Ke. 2, Edd. (®ro)r; Ki. (®re)r.
— 3169b MS Z., Mal., Ki. deore (so Kl. 3, 9 Edd.), Sm., Dav. diore (so v.Sch., Dob., Ja.). See
Fu.1 — 3170b MS twelfa, but a prob. written on e (Fu.1); E.Sc. twelfe; so nearly all Edd.
excl. Ni., Crp. — 3171a MS Z. :¯:¯:¯: , Ki. :¯:¯:¯:¯ģ (i.e. ge, but cf. Fu. 1); Gr., Edd. ceare (cf.
Wand 9); Kl., Chck., MR care; Sed.2–3 hīe. — 3171b MS A, Kölbing scyning, B, Wülck., Z.,
Sm., Mal., Ki., et al., kyning (so most Edd.), Fu. 1: later kyning on earlier ℓcyning (Siev.R
232, Pope 350; so Holt. 1,8, Trp., Chck. 2 403); Bu. 111¯f., Hold. 2, Tr., Holt.2–7, Kl., Sed. 3,
Dob., Mag., Ja., MR [ond] kyning. — 3172b Gr., Edd. w(er); Bu. 112, Soc. w(ēl); Tr. w(ēan).
— 3174b Ke.2 gedē(fe); so Edd. excl. Gru. — 3177a MS lachaman, but spacing shows
narrower letter retouched as a in lac (see Z., Cha., Sed., Ki. [?], Fu. 1; cf. Sm., Ker [in Dav.],
Mal.). — 3177 b MS Z., Mal. :¯:¯:¯: , Ki :¯:¯:¯:¯:¯, Fu. 1 :¯:¯ded or :¯:¯ðed; Ke. 2, et al., Schü. 8–10, l®ne;
Bu.Tid. 65 l®num; Klu. (in Hold. 2), Tr., Holt.1,7–8 (see Beibl. xliv 227), Sed. l©sed; Kock4
118 lēored; Tr. (?), Holt.2–6, 9 Edd. (excl. v.Sch., who leaves blank) l®ded (cf. Soul 21, etc.:
see Kl. A. xxxv 463; Magoun Speculum xxvii 462; cf. Kock); Mal. 1965: 123 (līfe).
 BEOWULF 109

hlāfordes (hry)re, heorðġenēatas;

3180 cw®don þæt hē w®re wyruldcyning[a]
manna mildust ond mon(ðw)®rust,
lēodum līðost ond lofġeornost.

3179a Tho. (hry)re; so Edd. excl. Gru. — 3180b MS wyruldcyning; Cony. -cyningnes (see note);
Ke., Schubert 1870: 35, Siev.R. 232, 10 Edd. (excl. Cha., Ni.; cf. Appx.C §¯33) -cyning[a];
Andrew 1948: §¯187 -cyning [gōd]. — 3181a MS B monne (word not in A), Cony. & Coll., Mal., Ja.
mannū, Ke., Z., Ki. manna, Trp. wyruld. See Fu.1. — 3181b MS A mondrærust, B mond .¯.¯.¯.¯.¯. rust, w.
ræ written on ellipsis; Gru.tr. 312, Edd. -(ðw)®rust.
 COMMENTARY

Omnia autem probate:

quod bonum est, tenete.

1–188. Introductory. (See Summary, Intr. xxiii–xxv)

1–52. Founding of the glorious Danish dynasty. Because these lines seem to have
been left outside the series of numbered sections (¢tts) in the manuscript (see Intr.
xxxiv), most 19th-century scholars considered them a prologue, and beginning with
Ettmüller in 1840 (Shippey & Haarder 1998: 232), many viewed them as proof that the
poem is a composite of separate lays or Lieder (see Intr. lxxxiv¯f.). In consequence of
the studies of Tolkien (1936) and Bonjour (1950: 3–11), the passage has generally been
accepted as a deliberate part of the poem’s design (but see van Meurs Neophil. 39
[1955] 114–30 and Evans Style 20 [1986] 126–41). Bonjour argued that the prologue
establishes the glory of the Danish dynasty and a parallel between Scyld and Bēowulf
as it offers an account of the past of the Scyldings that underscores the glory of Bēo-
wulf’s exploits. In addition, the rise of the Scyldings anticipates the reinvigoration of
the Danes in the poem and the fall of the Ġēatas in the epilogue, and the funeral of
Scyld foreshadows that of Bēowulf. See also Nicholson Classica et Mediaevalia 25
(1964) 166–97 on baptismal imagery uniting prologue and poem; E. Anderson YES 2
(1972) 1–4 on the connection between the metaphor of the mead hall in the prologue
and the building of Heorot; Niles PMLA 94 (1979) 924–35 (and 1983) on the ring
structure of the poem, the opening and closing of which form an envelope pattern by
evoking the distant past and the distant future; Earl 1994: 71–8 on how the parable of
the sparrow from Bede’s H.E. underlies the structure of prologue and poem; Irving
1989: 134–7 on how the prologue invokes feelings and beliefs that will ¢ll the hall, the
poem’s central symbol; and Lee 1998: 29–34 on cyclicality in prologue and poem, as
well as on rhetorical and metaphoric prolepsis in this passage. King NM 87 (2003)
453–71 emphasizes rather the contrasts between Scyld and Bēowulf, while Clark
Neophil. 90 (2006) 621–42 perceives the poem to be a disavowal of the idealized
heroic society presented in this opening passage. See also Shippey N&Q 214 (1969) 4–
5, T.M. Andersson 1980: 97, T. Hill 1986: 44, Robinson 1993: 57, Orchard 2003: 238–
9, and Intr. xlviii¯ff.
1–3. Hwæt also begins Ex, And, Fates, Dream, Jul, Vain, MSol I & II, JDay II, and
several divisions of PPs and of Met (for a survey, see Stanley 2000: 550–3). Though
some regard the word as an emphatic call to attention, it is metrically unstressed, and it
alliterates only slightly more frequently than an unstressed word normally would,
probably for formulaic reasons (see Hutcheson SN 64 [1992] 138 n.¯44). Regarding it as
stressed but extrametrical (so Raw 1978: 115, Crp., MR) is not a possibility at GenA
2643 or And 1376. See also Foley 1991: 214–23. — wē .¯.¯. ġefrūnon. The only instance
in Beowulf of wē, the more inclusive, emphatic plural, in the list of the ġefræġn-
formulas. Cf. the opening of Ex, Jul, And; Nibelungenlied, Annolied (early MHG); see
Rumble AnMed. 5 (1964) 13–20, Niles 1983: 198–9, Stanley LSE 20 (1989) 319¯–27.
Blockley PQ 70 (1991) 123–39 would translate ‘we heard’ rather than ‘we have heard’;
Bamm. ANQ 19.4 [2006] 3–7: ‘we know.’ On the function of the ġefræġn-formulas in
oral verse, see Parks ASE 16 (1987) 45–66. — Gār-Dena may be regarded as varying
þēodcyninga (as assumed here) or as dependent on it (so v.Sch. and most earlier edd.;
also MR), despite the objections of Spamer ES 62 (1981) 210, who would have it
depend on ġeārdagum (so also Bamm. op. cit.): cf. Kjellmer NM 85 (1984) 192¯f. — in
ġeārdagum is to be understood with reference to þrym, not ġefrūnon: see 575¯n. — ðā
probably should not be analyzed as an adverb (so Hoops St. 89, Bamm. op. cit.; cf. Kl.
 COMMENTARY 111
EStn. 68.1 [1933] 113). On the literary qualities of these lines and the theme of present
time confronting past time contained within them, see Robinson 1985: 27–8.
4–52. The Story of Scyld Scē¢ng. Scyld, the poet tells us, arrived in a boat as a
child, alone and destitute, on the Danish shore; he rose to power as a great and glorious
king, beloved by his loyal people; he conquered many nations beyond the sea; he was
blessed with a son; and when at the fated hour he passed away, with all the pomp of
military splendor he was committed to the same sea that had brought him to Denmark.
His illustrious career ¢ttingly initiates a great royal line. The similarity of the Scyld
legend to the famous (originally, perhaps, Netherlandish) story of the ‘swan knight’
was ¢rst recognized by J. Grimm (D.M. 306 [370], 3.108 [1391], 391–2 n.¯4 [1725–
6¯n.]). Cf. Rank 2004: 43–6. See also Salvador SELIM 8 (1998) 205–21, arguing that
the Scyld Scē¢ng story of a hero’s arrival by boat and foundation of a dynasty is a leit-
motif seen also in AS regnal tables in, for example, the stories of Henġest and Horsa
and of Cerdiċ and Cynrīċ. — The name Scyld Scē¢ng yokes two legendary ¢gures
who have separate but overlapping histories and are mentioned together or apart in
forty-three disparate medieval accounts, Beowulf and Wid the only OE poems among
them (Bruce 2002: 3). Nowhere outside Beowulf are Scyld’s arrival and departure by
sea narrated. Scyld ‘Shield’ is well known in the Scandinavian tradition as Skj∂ldr, the
eponymous ancestor of the Skj∂ldungar, or Scyldingas in Beowulf. (See Appx.A §§¯7.1,
8, 9, 11.3, 11.6, and Intr. lvii. It has been suggested that the existence of Scyld was
inferred from the name Scyldingas [i.e. ‘shield men’; see Olrik 1903–10: (1.437–41),
Chadwick 1907: 284]. For Scyld[wa], etc., in WS genealogies, see Appx.A §¯1.) The
account of Saxo Grammaticus, who pays tribute to his warlike and royal qualities,
particularly resembles that found in Beowulf. (See references in notes on 4¯f., 12¯ff.,
18¯f., 20¯ff.) Scēf ‘Sheaf’ is known in the same tradition as either an ancestor or a
descendant of Scyld, and in Beowulf he could be Scyld’s father (Scē¢ng may mean
‘son of Sheaf’ or ‘with a sheaf’). Scholars largely agree that Scyld, his son Bēow, and
Scēf all originate in myth. To judge by their names, Scyld undoubtedly personi¢es
protection, and Scēf agriculture. Neckel, for example, argues that Scēf is identical with
the Finnish vegetation divinity Sämpsä in the Kalevala (GRM 2 [1910] 678–9), and
Olrik (1903–10: 2.254–5) was the ¢rst to identify Bēow (cf. bēow ‘barley’) with the
Finnish-Estonian barley deity (Pellon) Pekko (see also Ch.Intr. 87–8, 299–301,
McHugh 1987: 17–18, Fulk RES 40 [1989] 313–22, Harris Arv 55 [1999] 7–23; von
Sydow Namn och Bygd 12 [1924] 76¯ff. disputes mythic underpinnings). In Wid, how-
ever, the warrior function of Scyld and the agricultural function of Scēf coincide. Scēf
is described there as the ruler of the ¢erce Langobards, and thus he is aligned with
other powerful rulers mentioned in the poem, such as Ætla (Attila), Eormenrīċ, and
Þēodrīċ (Theodoric) (Bruce 2002: 17). The stories of Scyld and Scēf, then, ‘seem to be
reminders of a cycle, that agricultural success leads to more people, which leads to the
conquering of new lands to feed these people, which leads to the cultivation of more
land and continued growth through agriculture’ (Bruce 2002: 28). See also Brandl Jesp.
Misc. 31¯ff., Harris PCP 17 (1982) 16–23, T. Hill 1986, Bjork 1997: 201–5. — It seems
likely that Scyld as the progenitor of the Danish Scyldingas replaced the legendary Ing,
the ancestor of the Ingwine in 1044 and 1319 and mentioned in MRune but no place
else in OE literature. See Olrik 1903–10: [1.416–21]; Chadwick 1907: 230–3, 287–90;
Halsall 1981: 146–7; North 1997: 182–94. — On the proposed use of the Scyld Scē¢ng
story for dating Beowulf, see Intr. clxxi.
4–5b. Saxo’s report (i 3,2[3], tr. 15) of Skyoldus sounds like an echo of the same
poetic tradition: ‘He fought with Scat, the governor of the Allemanni . . . and having
killed him and being enriched by tribute, he thoroughly subdued the race of the Alle-
manni.’ — 4b. sceaþena þrēatum. Regarded as an instrumental ‘by means of troops of
warriors’ by Tr., Sed. 1922: 142, Taylor 1986, Bamm. NM 102 (2001) 131–3, though
usually thought to vary monegum m®ġþum. — 5b. meodosetla oftēah, i.e. ‘subju-
gated.’ Bamm. 2006: 19–20, however, argues that the gen. object indicates that oftēah
112 BEOWULF
stands for oftāh ‘refused.’ In the view of Kl. and others (see Gloss.: oftēon), confusion
of the two verbs extended to regimen as well as meaning.
6. eġsode eorl[as]. The emendation eorlas, strongly advocated by Sievers against
the objections of Kock (see Siev. BGdSL 29 [1904], 560–76, ibid. 36 [1910] 421, Kock
Angl. 27 [1904] 219¯f., ibid. 28 [1905] 140¯f., ibid. 46 [1922] 187¯f., Kock 1918: 48–9)
was adopted by Kl. despite his earlier misgivings (1905–6: 249). Though it is rare in
the poetic corpus, the metrical form of eġsode eorl is not unparalleled even in this
poem (cf. 1158a, 1584a; Appx.C §¯32), and thus the MS reading cannot be discounted
altogether. (See also Kiernan Kentucky Rev. 6.2 [1986] 37–8, and cf. HOEM §¯230
n.¯70). Yet stylistically the sg. eorl seems suspicious. It is true that use of the sg. in a
collective sense is suÌciently probable (see n. to 794¯f.; Kl. loc. cit.), but such a use of
eġsode with a singular object in variation with oftēah with plural objects (þrēatum,
m®ġþum) raises particular doubts. (Note, however, that Sed., v.Sch., and Wn. place a
semicolon after oftēah, precluding variation.) A still less plausible type of variation
would result from the interpretation of eorl as nom. sg., ‘the hero terri¢ed [them]’
(Grienb. BGdSL 36 [1910] 94¯f.; BTS: eġesian), the heavy (plural) object requiring a
variation in preference to the subject; and as Siev. points out, eġesian is regularly
transitive (cf. Grein; Hulbert MLN 70 [1955] 364). Reference to an individual Ger-
manic people, the Herulians (as ¢rst proposed by Sewell Times Lit. Suppl. 11 Sept.
1924, p.¯556; see Cha.Wid. 216 and Varr.), though it provides a plausible explanation
for the faulty reading (i-stem pl. eorle misconstrued as dat. sg. and changed to acc.: so
Wn.), is doubtful in this context (see Ekwall 1954: 78; Girvan 1954: 178), and the basis
for the special signi¢cance accorded the Heruli in scholarship now seems dubitable
(see Mees NOWELE 42 [2003] 41–68). In addition, Eorle would not be the proper pl.
form of the name, since such i-stem plurals of national names ought to show front
mutation (the exception Seaxe being due to analogy to wk. Seaxan: see SB §¯261). A
neuter collective noun eorl ‘band of warriors’ is otherwise unattested, though another
instance has been perceived in 795 (Bamm. 1986a: 75, 1992: 239–43; cf. Ja.). Von
Schaubert supposes the verse means that Scyld even as an infant frightened his own
people, thus explaining syððan ®rest to mean ‘from the time when . . . ¢rst.’ More
likely ®rest (somewhat redundantly) accentuates the meaning of the conjunction
syððan (cf. MnE ‘when . . . ¢rst’). Schü. and Dob. would begin a sentence and a sub-
ordinate clause with the off-verse.
7b. þæs, ‘for that’ (see Gloss.: sē) refers to 6b–7a, i.e. Scyld’s destitute condition.
Similarly the OHG Ludwigslied (ed. Braune 1994: ll.¯3¯ff.) says of King Louis, Kind
uuarth her faterlōs. Thes uuarth imo sār buoz: / Holōda inan truhtīn, Magaczogo
uuarth her sīn. / Gab her imo dugidi, etc. (Cf. Jud 157¯f., Hel. 3362¯f.)
9. þāra is likely enough a scribal insertion, since it produces unusual meter (see
Appx.C §¯36) and is stylistically less desirable, given that the context does not justify
de¢nite usage, and the poet generally avoids unnecessary demonstratives: see Lang.
§¯26.3. Metrists generally cancel the word, with Kl.: so Pope, Bliss, Russom, Kendall,
Hutch.; see also Varr. Yet the stylistic rule is Ïexible, and as emendation solely on the
basis of meter is now largely avoided, the word is perhaps best allowed to stand. Cf.
Malone 1960: 192, arging that the word refers to m®ġþum 5 and belongs in the on-
verse (which, however, would then be unmetrical).
10. ofer hronrāde. ofer with acc., see Lang. §¯25.5. hronrād, a typical kenning: see
Brady PMLA 67 (1952) 556–60.
11. gomban ġyldan. See quotation from Saxo in the note on 4–5b. — Þæt wæs gōd
cyning. The emphasis at the beginning of Beo on good kingship (i.e. strong kingship,
kingship that gains the respect of neighboring peoples) directs attention to one of the
poem’s leading themes, the question of what makes for social order in a highly un-
stable world (see, e.g., Hume SP 72 [1975] 1–27; Niles 1983: 227–34). What Clark
refers to as the poet’s ‘royalist bias’ (1990: 47–8) provides part of the answer. Cf. Max
II 1b: cyning sceal rīċe healdan.
 COMMENTARY 113
12–19. Scyld has a son, Bēow, who promises to be a strong and virtuous leader who
respects the bonds of the comitatus and has the support of warriors and the nation as a
whole. As a model of a good and generous king, he stands in stark contrast to Heremōd
(see 901–15¯n.), whose depredations presumably left the Danes in the terrible ‘lordless’
time they had experienced before Scyld’s arrival. Saxo’s Skyoldus has a son named
Gram (i, 4,1), who is analogous to Bēow. See also Cox 1971: 165, identifying Bēow as
a fertility ¢gure aÌrming the cyclical nature of life. On the technique of ring composi-
tion exhibited in these lines, see Niles 1983: 152–3.
12b. æfter is probably not exactly ‘afterward’ but denotes rather ‘coming after him,’
as in 2731.
14. fyrenðearfe. Departing from the usual understanding of this word (‘dire dis-
tress’), whereby fyren- serves as an intensi¢er, Smithers 1951–2: 65–7 suggests ‘dis-
tress arising out of wrongdoing,’ in reference to the reign of Heremōd (cf. 901¯ff.,
1709¯ff.). Cf. 2441. — The subject of onġeat is God.
15¯f. MS ³ (= þæt) may have been introduced for rel. þē or þā in the course of
scribal transmission. (So Kl. et al.: see Varr.) Indeed, þē hīe ®r drugon is formulaic: cf.
831, 1858, Sat 74, 253, ChristB 615, Jud 158, always beginning with a relative pronoun
(Kl. 1926: 108). By comparison, þæs 16 might, but for the disparity in gender, also
have fyrenþearfe as its antecedent, but it probably instead refers more abstractly to the
idea of hardship expressed by the preceding clause, just as þæs 7 does. In that event, ³
here may perhaps also refer abstractly to the idea of suffering expressed by 14b rather
than to fem. fyrenþearfe itself, and it may be rendered ‘what.’ (Similarly MR.) Thus,
although emendation to þē or þā furnishes more ordinary syntax, it is not certain that it
is necessary. On þæt standing for the rel. pron. with a sg. masc. or fem. or a pl. ante-
cedent, see Kock 1897: 30–1; on a few cases of ³ used for þā, see Zupitza’s note; also
l.¯3134 (?). Cf. Hart MLN 1 (1886) cols. 175–7; Napier TPS 1907–10, p.¯188 (³ used as
contraction for þē); F. Wende Über die nachgestellten Präpositionen im Ags., Pal. 70
(Berlin, 1915) 37 (interchange of þē and þæt); Andrew 1948: §¯172; cf. OES §¯1930. See
also 649, 2475 (n.) (oþ ðe = oþ þæt) and note on 1141. Cha., with Holt.5–6, would treat
þæt as a conj. and take lange hwīle as the object of drugon, ‘a long time of sorrow’ (?);
but the expression should be adverbial: cf. 2030, 2097, 2159, 2780. Kock2 100 (also
Angl. 45 [1921] 123, 1923: 187) takes drugon intransitively or absolutely, ‘they lived
without a lord,’ and so others (see Varr.; OES §¯1572); but intransitively it ought to
mean ‘they acted’ (see DOE). Jin 1998: 119–20 regards the þæt-clause as a predication
of fyrenðearfe. — him, prob. dat. sg. (cf. Cha., Sed.).
18¯f. On Bēow, see Intr. xlviii¯ff., esp. xlix¯f. That MS beowulf here is in error is
likely enough, given the testimony of the WS genealogies and the meter in 53b (q.v.),
though here at ¢rst mention, the meter would accommodate either name. — The
emendation bl®d wīde sprang / Scyldes eafera[n] Scedelandum in, supported by Siev.
1884b: 135 in view of the similar passage, Fates 6¯ff., is unnecessary and even inadvis-
able, since springan should be followed by ġeond or ofer with acc., not by in with dat.:
see Kl. 1908a: 428; also Bu.Tid. 41¯ff., Kock4 107. — 18b. bl®d wīde sprang. Type
D4. — According to Saxo (i 4,1), ‘the days of Gram’s youth were enriched with sur-
passing gifts of mind and body, and he raised them to the crest of renown (ad summum
glorię statum prouexit). Posterity did such homage to his greatness that in the most
ancient poems of the Danes, royal dignity is implied in his very name.’ (ON gramr
‘chief.’) — Scedelandum in. As in other poems, the use of postposed, and therefore
stressed, prepositions is not infrequent: cf. 41, 110, 313, 564, 666, 671, 681, 689, etc.,
and see 1903b¯n.; also 2769b (Varr.). For a complete survey, see Lapidge in Walmsley
2006: 153–80.
20¯ff. Swā, ‘in such a way [as Bēow did].’ Here the poet most likely alludes to
Scyld’s son. The father’s liberality too, however, may be implied in the previous state-
ments concerning him, for how could Scyld have been so successful in war had he not
been conspicuous for generosity, which gained for him the loyalty of his followers? A
114 BEOWULF
king’s greatness is continually associated in the poem with his generosity: see, for
example, 1748¯ff. Saxo says in his praise of Scioldus’s liberality (i 3,3[2]): ‘Proceres
non solum domesticis stipendiis colebat, sed etiam spoliis ex hoste quęsitis, aÌrmare
solitus pecuniam ad milites, gloriam ad ducem redundare debere.’ Cf. Hrólfs saga
kraka 43.3¯ff. (ch. 15), 45.28¯ff. (ch. 16: Appx.A §¯12), 62.4¯ff. (ch. 23: Hrólfr kraki);
Bede H.E. iii, cap. 14 (Ōswine). — ġewyrċean (perfective) ‘bring about’; its object is
the þæt-clause beginning in 22. The reading wine (adopted by Gru., He.), in place of
bearme (for the MS is damaged here), has been recommended by Kock4 108, but it
appears to conÏict with the evidence of the MS, as do ærne and inne (see Varr.). See
Kl. 1926: 108–9, 1907: 190, Beibl. 40 (1929) 30. Siev. 1904: 307–8 objects to lēofne
‘sustenance’ (Tr.) on syntactic grounds. — þonne wīġ cume. The edd. generally
construe this as subordinate to the following clause, though it could be attached to the
preceding.
24. lēode ġel®sten. The object, probably hine (cf. 2500), may be understood (see
Lang. §¯26.4), or, more simply, it may be that the verse is in variation with 22b–3a. In
And 411¯f., Mald 11¯f. the dat. is used with ġel®stan, though the acc. is more usual; yet
there is no need to take lēode as dat. sg. (Kock2,3 100, 98: lēode ġel®sten = ‘follow their
prince’; so v.Sch., Wn., MR; OES §¯1572). See Kl. MLN 34 (1919) 129¯f., id. 1926: 109–
10. — sceal ‘will,’ ‘is sure to’ (in 20: ‘should,’ ‘ought to’).
25. in m®ġþa ġehw®re. Verses of type A with anacrusis usually have double allit-
eration (Appx.C §¯35). The exception here is very likely due to the scribal substitution
of analogical LWS fem. ġehw®re for earlier genderless ġehw®m (the latter preserved
w. fem. ref. in 1365; cf. also 2838, 800). The meter is notably disrupted by ġehw®re at
And 630, Prec 74.
26–52. Scyld’s ship funeral. This justly admired passage does not veri¢ably relate
to genuine funerary practice, although such burials do occur in the literature. Sinfj∂tli
disappears in a boat in the Eddic Frá dauða Sinfj∂tla, for example, and Baldr (Gylfa-
ginning, ch. 48), King Haki (Ynglinga saga, ch. 23, see Appx.A §¯9), and Sigurðr
Hringr (see Appx.A §¯11.7) are burnt on ships set out to sea, while the viking chieftain
described by the early 10th-century Arab diplomat Ibn FaŹlān is burnt in his ship on
land (see Smyser 1965). A signi¢cant parallel in the Celtic tradition, on the other hand,
is the description of the funeral of the 6th-century St. Gildas, who instructs his dis-
ciples to place his body in a ship and let it drift away (Cameron 1969; Meaney 2003
[1989]: 43–50; see Appx.A §¯18). In the OE MRune 67–70 we learn that Ing departed
the land of the East Danes ofer w®ġ, though the meaning of that phrase is perhaps
deliberately left opaque. (Cf. Lindow Am. Neptune 53 [1993] 39–50, arguing that the
Viking Age Gotland stones may depict the dead being conveyed by ship to the
afterlife.) What can be veri¢ed archaeologically are ship-burials in which the body,
ship, and belongings are all interred. These are frequent in Sweden, with examples
from Öland, Skåne, Vendel, Valsgärde, and Tuna; many examples are known from
Norway, as well, the most famous being those from Gokstad and Oseberg; and there is
one from Ladby, Denmark. Chief among these parallels for the study of Beowulf is the
ship-burial at Mound 1 at Sutton Hoo in East Anglia (B-Mitford, esp. vol. 1); with this
can be compared the nearby ship-burial at Snape, Suffolk (Bruce-Mitford 1974: 114–
40). See J. Lamm and H.-Å Nordström Vendel Period Studies (Stockholm, 1983),
Herschend 2001: 68–91, A. Christensen in Pulsiano 1993: 232 (s.v. ‘Gokstad’) and
457–9 (s.v. ‘Oseberg’), A. Sørenson et al. Ladby (Roskilde, 2001), Owen-Crocker
2000: 27–33, and Cha. 362¯ff. Meaney 2003 [1989] maps the distribution of boat- and
ship-burials up to ca. A.D. 800 (p.¯38) and during the Viking Age (p.¯41). Literary
parallels are found, e.g., in Atlamál 102¯f. and in various sagas. (Frotho’s law, Saxo v
7,6–8 [8,1–3], 8,8 [7,13], tr. 148.] Women as well as men could be honored in this
manner (see E. Nordahl Båtgravarna i Gamla Uppsala [Uppsala, 2001] 48 on grave 36
and E. Nylén et al. Tuna i Badelunda [Västerås, 1994]). A related archaeological
phenomenon is the ship-setting; this consists of raised stones, arranged in the shape of
 COMMENTARY 115
a ship, which often, but not always, encircle a grave. (See Capelle in The Ship as
Symbol in Prehistoric & Medieval Scandinavia, ed. O. Crumlin-Pedersen & B. Thye
[Copenhagen, 1995] 71–5. On other modes of burial, see note on ll.¯3137¯ff.) — Though
a pagan, Scyld is described as departing on frēan w®re, as is consistent with what is
said in 13b–7 regarding the workings of divine providence during this period of pre-
history. The phrase hints at the theme of the potential salvation of the heathen that
some have seen as central to the poet’s design (see Intr. lxx, lxxv, lxxix).
29¯ff. Scyld’s men prepare the funeral of their beloved king, as he had requested
while he still ‘wielded his words’ (cf. GuthB 1016, 1159; see Siev. 1904: 308, Kock2
101; see ll.¯2802¯ff., 3140), the phrase introducing the theme of words and deeds (see n.
on 237–57). The edd. have regularly regarded line 30 as a clause dependent on bæd 29,
with 31 as either a variant of 30 or an independent thought (Kl.: ‘his had been a long
reign’). This has occasioned a great many suggested emendations (though none of them
¢nding much favor), because āhte would then seem to lack an object. Klaeber argues
that the object need not be expressed (cf. 2208), but hī should be understood (cf. 522,
2732, 911, 2751; folcāgend[e]), and it is actually supplied by Holt.2–5. Likewise, it has
been suggested that land may be understood from landfruma (OES §¯1572, Ja.), or
geweald ‘control’ (implied by wēold: so He., Soc.), or Scyldingas (from line 28: so
Smithers 1966: 425), or word (Sed. MLR 5 [1910] 286). Yet absolute āhte 2208 is dis-
similar, since the understood object is mentioned in the preceding clause, and accord-
ingly no one proposes to emend there; here, however, the construction still seems
awkward and continues to provoke attempts to provide an object. Nickel’s ingenious
reading lēoÏand fruma lange āhte is improved by division of the ¢rst word in two
(since lēoÏand is unusual morphologically and alliteratively [see Bamm. 1986a: 76]; so
earlier Jelinek MLN 71 [1956] 239–42, foll. by MR), meaning ‘long had the leader
ruled the beloved land,’ thus providing an object for āhte; but the resulting word order
is knotty, and used attributively, lēof usually modi¢es animate nouns. The emendation
lange ®hte ‘in wide-extending power’ (Bamm. NM 99 [1998] 125–9) requires an un-
usual function for the adverbial accusative (see OES §§¯1382¯ff.). The punctuation
adopted here (see Fu.2) takes fær 33 to be the object of āhte: ‘The friend of the
Scyldings, beloved leader of the nation, long had owned — it stood in the harbor, a
ring-prowed ship, icy and ready to set out — a prince’s vessel.’ For the parenthesis
between the verb and its object, cf. 536¯f., 809¯ff., 1537¯f., 2777¯ff. This is by no means
a long parenthesis: cf. 1588¯ff., and see OES §¯3848. For suggested emendations, in
addition to the Varr., see Lübke AfdA 19 (1893) 341 (land lēodfruma); Bright MLN 10
(1895) 43¯f. (ġeweald for wēold; so also Child MLN 21 [1906] 175–7; and Sed. loc. cit.,
Dob.); Kock 221¯ff. (lān ġeāhte; cf. Kl. 1905–6: 447, Kock Angl. 28 [1905] 142); Tr.1
126 (langre ®hte), ed. (langan ®hte); Patzig Angl. 47 (1923) 97 (lange tāhte); Holt.
Archiv 187 (1950) 125, ed.8 p.¯x (landgē, cf. NHG Gau). For other proposals, without
emendation, see Holt.1,7 (lacuna after 31b); Schü. 1908: 100–1 (rel. swā as obj. of bæd
and āhte, a view later relinquished; cf. Kl. EStn. 39 [1908] 429; Kock2 101); Prokosch
Kl.Misc. 201 (point after wēold); Hoops St. 13–15 (lange = ‘followers’; so also Malone
1933a: 95; cf. Holt. Beibl. 43 [1932] 358, Girvan MLR 28 [1933] 245); v.Sch. Angl. 62
(1938) 182–6 (l.¯31 as nom. absolute, i.e. āhte = āhta, for āgna; cf. Dob.). — 33. īsiġ,
not ‘shining like ice’ (Ke., He.5–18; cf. Met 24.23) but perhaps ‘covered with ice’: see
Bu.Tid. 69¯f.; Siev. BGdSL 27 (1902) 572, 1910: 422–6; Bähr 1971; cf. Stanley Angl. 73
(1956) 440¯f. (= winterċeald; cf. v.Sch.). Unnecessary are the more fanciful suggestions
of Lehmann MLN 74 (1959) 577¯f. (‘magically prepared’); Mazzuoli Porru 1985, com-
paring the freezing of bodies among the Este described by the voyager Wulfstān in Or
1, 1.17.33¯ff.; and Ebbinghaus JEGP 62 (1963) 677, with a mythic interpretation. See
esp. Liberman 1996, furnishing an excellent conspectus of scholarship and advocating
the view of Leo and He.1–4 that the word refers to iron, hence ‘aglitter with metal,’
possibly in ref. to the ringed prow or to shields protecting the boards. Doubts about the
meaning and authenticity of MS isig arise largely from the consideration that no other
116 BEOWULF
indication has been offered that the season is winter. — hrinġedstefna. cf. hrinġnaca
1862, wundenstefna 220; OIcel. Hringhorni (Baldr’s ship). It has been speculated that
the word refers not to an actual metal ring attached to the prow (as would be of obvious
utility) but rather to the prow’s curved shape; Osborn ANQ 13.2 (2000) 3–6 suggests
‘ring-coiled,’ like the coiled prow of the Oseberg ship. Also plausible is Webster’s
suggestion (1998: 192–3) that the poet has in mind a ship’s wooden ¢gurehead with the
neck encircled by a series of carved collars, as on a ca. 4th-century carving found at
Moerzeke-Mariekirke in the river Scheldt, Belgium (Bruce-Mitford Acta Archae-
ologica 38 [1967] 199–209) and as depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry. Some earlier
speculations: Heyne 1864: 42 & n.¯3, Falk Wörter und Sachen 4 (1912) 38, Neckel
1920: 15 n.¯2. Possibly, however, the word is not meant to be nautically precise; it may
chieÏy be meant to call to mind a stylish high-status warship as opposed to a utilitarian
vessel.
36–42. m®rne be mæste, etc. Scyld’s body seems to have been placed amidships,
perhaps with his back against the mast. The remains of East Anglian ship-burials such
as that at Sutton Hoo (Bruce-Mitford 1979: 81–3) appear to indicate a similar position
for the dead. Swords, mail shirts, shield bosses, brooches, helmets, and other costly
objects have also been found in these graves, but the signi¢cance of grave goods gen-
erally is a matter of conjecture. They could, as has traditionally been assumed, rep-
resent the deceased’s wealth and social status or be important items that he or she
would need for the journey to the next world or for dwelling in it. Carver 2000, how-
ever, argues persuasively that grave goods had both private and public purposes and
can be read on analogy with poetry. Like the language of poetry, the language of burial
covers a broad range geographically and temporally, embraces anachronism and the
foreign, runs the gamut from the opaque to the illuminating, and frequently has little
direct relation to the reality of what is being depicted. The larger burial mounds, such
as those at Sutton Hoo, project a deliberate vision and can therefore all ‘be read as per-
orations in a theatre of death’ (38) that served the needs of the living as well as the
dead. (See Appx.A §¯16; see also Webster 2000: 56–7). On the treasure motif intro-
duced here, see Intr. lxxiii, and cf. the note on 612¯ff. Several scholars have tried to
reconcile the text with the archaeological or literary tradition by, for example, emend-
ing it (l.¯56, aldor of earde altered to aldor ofer āde ‘lord on the pyre’ [Whitbread NM
69 (1968) 66]) or by ¢nding analogues to the story. Thus, Cameron 1969 (see supra
26–52¯n.) identi¢es a hagiographical parallel. Newton 1993: 46–7, on the other hand,
maintains that the ship was set ablaze, as suggested by legendary accounts of other sea-
burials. See also Meaney 2003 [1989]; Boenig ELN 40.1 (2002) 1–13. — 36b. Þ®r may
be a conjunction: Emerson 1926: 395–6. — 40b. him, ref. to Scyld.
43–6. Scyld’s mysterious arrival. A counterpart of the story of the arrival of the
lone infant Scyld over the sea (hence by boat?) appears in the chronicles of Æthelweard
and William of Malmesbury, but it is told of Scēf, not Scyld, as the progenitor of the
WS kings (Appx.A §§¯1.3–4). Notable variations in William’s account are the identi¢-
cation of Schleswig as Scēf’s royal town and the derivation of his name from the sheaf
of grain lying at his head, which has taken the place of the weapons in Æthelweard’s
tale. In the AS Chronicle accounts, Scēf is described as having been born on Noah’s
ark. As the mythical fourth son of Noah and as the founder of the Germanic peoples, he
thus becomes the vital link in those genealogies between the pagan and Judeo-Christian
traditions (Bruce 2002: 38). — Nalæs . . . umbľrwesende. Litotes: see frumsceaft 7,
and cf. Meaney 2003 [1989]: 29–30.
47b. seġen gy(l)denne (cf. 1021; 2767; Appx.B §¯13. An emblem of royalty; cf. Bede
H.E. ii, cap. 16.
48. hēah is apparently left uninÏected, perhaps on account of its semi-adverbial
function. (Holt. regards it as an adverb.) Or is there a shifting from the masc. to the
neut. gender (see Gloss.: seġn)? Cf. 2767¯f. For non-agreement of adjectives and parti-
ciples qualifying a preceding noun (or pronoun), see 46b, 372b, 1126a, 2704a, 2841a,
 COMMENTARY 117
2869b, 3139a; H. Bauch Die Kongruenz in der ags. Poesie (Kiel diss., 1912) passim;
Kock 1918: 19–20 (numerous examples from OE poetry); A. Campbell 1962: 22; OES
§¯42; see also Lang. §¯26.6. — lēton holm beran. The object hine is understood (so in
49a). Cf. 3132b: lēton wēġ niman.
51b. On the idea of Malone (Angl. 53 [1929] 335¯f.) that seler®denne (MS) is a
plausible alternate spelling, see 1142b (n.).
53–85. The Danish line of kings. The building of Heorot.
53b. Bēow. The WS royal genealogies (see Appx.A §¯1) identify the son of Scyld as
Bēo(w) or Bēaw. Moreover, the reading Bēowulf, in agreement with the MS, produces
unusual meter, since verses of Sievers’s type D* are not normally found in the off-
verse (see Appx.C §¯31). There is suÌcient reason, then, to emend here and in 18a, as
¢rst proposed by Child MLN 21 (1906) 198¯f. That the name Bēow should have been
altered to Bēowulf by a scribe familiar with the substance of the poem is plausible
enough. Most scholars agree that Bēow or Bēaw is the intended name, and although the
edd. have been reluctant to emend, most agree with Kl. that the shorter name is likely
(see Anglo-Saxon 1 [2007] 123 n.¯45). Cf., however, Whitelock 1951: 69–70.
55¯f. folcum ġefr®ġe, ‘famous among peoples.’ Cf. the same use of the dat. after
forem®rost 309. — fæder ellor hwearf (Sievers’s type D4 [Pope]; cf. Bliss, Suz.: type
E). Note the periphrasis for ‘dying’ (Intr. cxvi). The pret. hwearf bears pluperf. sense.
— of earde varies ellor.
56b. oþ þæt has been called an adverbial (Glogauer 1922: 29¯ff.; v.Sch., et al.) rather
than a conjunctive phrase, but cf. Kl. Beibl. 52 (1941) 217¯f., and see 1740¯n.
57. Healfdene. On the Danish genealogy, see Intr. lii¯ff.
58b. glæde is now generally regarded as acc. plur., after Kl. Angl. 29 (1906) 379; it
was formerly explained as an adv. (cf. 1173).
59b. forðġerīmed. A variant of a conventional phrase, ġeteled rīme(s). See Gr.Spr.:
rīm.
60b. r®swa[n]. In ref. to sg. Юm 59a (so He., Tr., Holt., most recent edd.); less
likely to bearn (Ke. ii, Gr.Spr., Cha.); still less likely, if left unemended, to Heorogār
alone (Schü., Sed.1–2, v.Sch., and several earlier edd.; also Bamm. 1986a: 78). Crépin
regards the unemended form as a Northumbrianism (see OEG §¯472; Matthes Angl.
71.2 [1953] 179; cf. Lang. §§¯20.3, 29, p.¯clviii n.¯2).
61. Heorogār ond Hrōðgār ond Hālga til. In accordance with an ancient idiom
well known from Homer (e.g. ∆ουλίχιόν τε Σάμη τε καі бλήεσσα Ζάκυνθος, Odyssey ix
24), the last of three coordinate nouns, in particular proper names, is marked by the
addition of an epithet or some other qualifying element; thus ll.¯2434, 112; cf. 1189. See
Kl. Angl. 56 (1932) 425–9. Numerous instances in ME alliterative poems have been as-
sembled by Oakden RES o.s. 9 (1933) 50–3.
62¯f. Though the text is written without interruption and the MS is undamaged here,
some words are plainly wanting. Matthes (op. cit.) maintains that as many as ¢ve
verses are missing and the fourth child was a male, possibly Heremōd. The edd., how-
ever, have generally assumed the loss of less than a line of verse containing the name
of a daughter — which need not alliterate with the names of her brothers and father
(see Woolf MP 36.2 [1938] 113–20): cf. Frēawaru (though Malone holds that her real
name was Hrūt; see Intr. liv; Kl. 1905–6: 447, Beibl. 50 [1939] 330). Conversely,
Bamm. (ASE 13 [1984] 49, 1986a: 79) regards line 62 as a gloss later incorporated into
the text.1 The name Yrse was proposed by Clarke (1911: 82¯ff.; cf. E., Tr. Beibl. 10

1
A supposed erasure in the MS under heaðo which was taken as evidence of scribal confusion
after the word cwēn, and which gave rise to the unfortunate conjecture h©rde iċ þæt Elan cwēn
Hrōðulfes wæs (see MLN 19 [1904] 121–5, 21.143–5, 22.96; cf. Kl. ibid. 20 [1905] 9–11, 21.255¯f.,
22.160), is without foundation (Cha.). A Germanic name for a woman Elan or Ēlan would indeed
be more than doubtful. (Cf. Eliason 1975, analyzing it as El-ān ‘foreign-one’). Kluge’s recon-
struction h©rde ic þæt [Siġenēow wæs S®w]elan cwēn is in reference to the daughter of Hálfdan
118 BEOWULF
[1900] 261, Tr., Holt. ii; Belden 1913, MLN 33 [1918] 123¯f.), and in the form ªrse it is
con¢dently put into the text by Malone Kl.Misc. 157 (similarly Peter 1998; cf. Intr. liv
& n.¯9, Varr.); but he thinks the poet is mistaken, and ªrse is in reality Healfdene’s
daughter-in-law, since her name does not alliterate with his. Cf. Damico 1984: 116–18;
see also Saxo ii 6,1–7, tr. 52–4). The name Yrsa (Annales Lundenses: Yrsa, Ursula
[Malone: Ýrsa, but cf. Noreen 1923: §¯127]) has generally been thought a Latin loan-
word (Olrik 1903–10: [1.269]), though arguments have been offered for a native deriva-
tion (Loewenthal Afnf. 31 [1915] 155; Much AfdA 37 [1917] 68; Malone; G. Müller
Studien zu den theriophoren Personennamen der Germanen [Cologne, 1970] 18). The
partial emendation adopted in the text here violates Kuhn’s ¢rst law (see Appx.C §¯6),
but the expedient of moving wæs to the on-verse and placing tō before Onelan
(Hutcheson N&Q 40 [1993] 3–5) makes for an unusual use of tō.1 In a note, Holt.
suggests H©rde iċ [eorlas cweðan], þæt [hēo wæs On]elan cwēn, with loss of a line
containing the woman’s name after l.¯62; but the loss of three separate strings of letters
in one passage seems unlikely. — On the gen. sg. in -as (Scil¢ngas), see Lang. §19.5.
64. Heorogār’s reign, not mentioned here, is alluded to in 465¯ff., 2158¯ff.; see Intr.
lii. The account of Hrōðgār in the glory of his prime, in 64–67a, provides a brief sup-
plement to the image of him presented in the rest of the poem, where his age and
patriarchal demeanor contrast with the hero’s youth and vigor; see Intr. ciii¯f.
66b–7a. magodriht miċel represents the variation, as it were, of the preceding clause
(Kl. 1905–6: 247; cf. Tr.1 128, v.Sch., Wn.). Cf. Appx.A §¯14: Tacitus’s Germania 13.
67b. bearn, see Gloss.: be-irnan.
69¯f. miċel .¯.¯. þon[n]e. It has often been assumed that the positive miċel is used here
for the comparative, or that the compar. idea is left unexpressed: see Gr.Spr.: þonne, ii;
Bu.Zs. 193; Aant.; Koeppel EStn. 30 (1902) 376¯f.; Horn Archiv 114 (1905) 362¯f., Angl.
29 (1906) 130¯f. (blending of two constructions); W. Lehmann 1972: 327; so Hoops St.
92¯f., Kl.3. Yet despite the objections of v.Sch., Bright MLN 27 (1912) 181–3 has cast
doubt on the idiomatic status of that construction.2 Bright’s emendation micle māre
(see Varr.; Andrew 1948: §¯169) would remove the syntactic diÌculty but create a
metrical one. The possibility remains that after l.¯69 a line containing a compar. has
dropped out (so Holt.2–3,6–8, Kl.1–2). Kl.3 warns against supplying a line containing a
superl., ‘the most magni¢cent hall (sele),’ and thus to account for MS þone, since in
that event þāra þe would probably have been used. Alternatively, Robinson (1966),
taking the verb as sj., brilliantly explains þone rather as referring to healreċed 68 (since
it may be masc.: see Gloss.), rendering the sense ‘which the sons of men should hear of
forever.’ (On the legitimacy of the use of the pret. sj. to express futurity from a past
perspective, see Mitchell 1968: 296.) So also Wn.-B., Chck., OES §¯46, Ja. (Cf. Ono
Medieval English Studies Newsletter [Tokyo] 32 [1995] 3–6, contemplating emending
®fre to ®r ne; also Niles 2007a: 223, taking ġefrūnon as indic. and translating ‘that the
children of men have heard of ever since.’) Yet in that event a modal construction like
ġefriġnan sceoldon would be more usual, and in any case the poet (unlike some others:
see DOE s.v.) never uses ®fre in the sense ‘forever’ (not to say ‘ever afterward’),
which is expressed by ā (see Gloss.; in this case better ā syððan, a characteristic phrase

named Signý, married to the nobleman Sævill, in Hrólfs saga kraka. In this he was followed for a
time by several edd. (see Varr.; similarly Holt.7, with Signī and Seafelan).
1
One might therefore read [hēan On]elan cwēn (a word to head the verse, if stressed, is required
by the meter to be monosyllabic: see Appx.C §¯31), in which event the woman’s name would
alliterate on h (though not for the reasons offered by Nicholson Classica et Mediaevalia 35 [1984]
265–83). But the violation of Kuhn’s law is licensed by wæs 1109.
2
Bright shows that some of the examples available for support (PPs 117.8¯f., Ex 373, etc.) are
due to literal translation of the Latin form of a Hebraism of the Psalter. The example in Alex (ed.
Orchard 1995: 240.2–3) is likely a mistranslation, and although El 646¯ff. requires emendation, the
change is quite probable (see P. Gradon Cynewulf’s Elene [London, 1958]; and on Ex 373, Lucas
1994; OES §¯3214).
 COMMENTARY 119
of this poet: see Bately 1985: 420). Rather, ®fre in the poem always means ‘ever’ in the
sense ‘at any time.’ It thus seems preferable to assume, with Schönbach, that MS miċel
has been substituted for māre, and as a consequence, þonne was subsequently changed
to þone by a copyist. Since it is diÌcult to say, however, whether these scribal changes
are less improbable than the intentional use of the positive for the comparative degree
(given the acknowledged converse usage: see Lang. §26.2), miċel is probably best left
unemended. — yldo bearn. See Gloss.: bearn. The ending -o (see Lang. §¯19.3; §¯28,
p.¯clvi) possibly suggests association, by folk etymology, or simply scribal confusion,
with yldo ‘age’: see Kl. 1911–12: [42]. (yldo bearn also Ex 28, GenB 464; cf. Matthes
Angl. 71.2 [1953] 155: ‘men of the age.’)
73. Klaeber, regarding this line as an interpolation, glosses folcscare as ‘public land’
(cf. folcriht 2608, which he takes to mean ‘legal share of the “common” estate’), in re-
liance on the view of Kemble (1839–48: 1, civ n.¯24) that in early Germanic society
there was a common fund of land over which the king originally had no control. In this
he is followed by many. Such a view, inÏuenced by Kemble’s strong political feelings
about the continuing enclosure of commons in his day, is now rejected by most histor-
ians and legal scholars, though E. John (Orbis Britanniae [London, 1966] 118–21, Re-
assessing AS England [Manchester, 1996] 49 n.¯38) has defended a modi¢ed version of
the hypothesis. It may be that folcscaru is equivalent to folcland and designates land
that may not be given away but must be inherited (Vinogradoff EHR 8 [1893] 10¯f.,
Jurasinski 2006: 49–77). Yet the usual meaning of this poetic word is ‘nation,’ and not
impossibly the poet means that it was not Hrōðgār’s prerogative to confer the rule of
the nation upon another by his sole choice, for although Wealhþēo hints otherwise
(1177¯ff.; see also 2369¯f.; Enright 1996: 22–4), the consent of the witan and folk seems
to have been required for succession in the ancient Germanic world (see J.¯M. Hill
1995: 98, Yorke in Lapidge et al. 1999: 124, Drout 2007, Insley R.-L.2 35.719–25). See
Tacitus, Germania, cap. 7 in Appx.A §¯14.
74. Ðā iċ wīde ġefræġn . . . As to the position of wīde, see 575¯n.
76. frætwan, unless it should be considered to depend directly on ġefræġn, is to be
connected with weorc ġebannan, which was probably felt to be of the same import as
hātan. Klaeber suggests the unusual sense ‘to make a beautiful hall’ for folcstede fræt-
wan, assuming frætwan = ‘to make in beautiful fashion’ (cf. OHG ziaren, Otfrid i,
1.54). Yet it may be that the phrase does not exactly gloss weorc (74, the nature of
which was already told in 67¯ff.) but signi¢es one aspect of the preparation of the hall.
76b–7a. Him on fyrste ġelomp, / ®dre mid yldum. The work was done quickly
(®dre), considering the magnitude of the undertaking; on fyrste ‘in due time’ (see
DOE: ¢rst 2.b; not to be rendered, with Schü.Bd. 26–30, ‘speedily’; see also v.Sch.).
The rapid construction of the hall seems to be one of the folktale elements of the story:
see Panzer 1910: 257 n.¯1. — mid yldum, a formulaic cheville: cf. GenA 2288, and see
Intr. cxiv.
78. Heort. On the connection between the poet’s hall and the Iron Age and Viking
Age halls built at Gammel Lejre (the seat of the Danish Skj∂ldung kings, according to
numerous medieval authorities), see Intr. clxxx; see further Niles 2007a: 169–233 (w.
refs.) for discussion of this parallel with reference to the hall culture of Scandinavia
more generally during the period ca. A.D. 400–1000. A computer-generated graphic of
the latest of the Lejre halls (dating from the last decades of the 9th century) as it might
have looked when new is reproduced as ¢g. 4 of this edition (cf. Illus.B 4, 48, 60, and,
for an artist’s impression of the earliest hall, 84). The name of the poet’s hall, Heor(o)t,
mentioned otherwise only in Widsith, may derive from a Germanic association of the
hart (stag) with royalty; cf. the stylized stag from Mound 1 at Sutton Hoo that sur-
mounted an iron ring and a great ceremonial whetstone in an assembly that has been
construed as a very impressive emblem of royal authority (B-Mitford 2.311–77, Illus.B
92). To explain the name, it has been supposed that horns (antlers) were fastened to the
gables, although the term horn in the sense ‘gable’ (hornġēap 82 -reċed 704, hornas,
120 BEOWULF
Finn 4, horn-sæl, -sele in other poems) seems to derive merely from ‘horn-shaped
projections on the gable ends’ (BT; cf. Miller Angl. 19 [1897] 372¯f., and the recon-
structed viking hall at Trelleborg [Illus.B 130]). (Holt. GRM 34, n.s. 3 [1953] 345
regards Heorot as a metaphor for the hall conceived as ‘ship.’) On possible connections
between the building of Heorot and of Ásgarðr, see Dronke Saga-Book 17 (1969) 302–
25, Taylor TSL 11 (1966) 119–30, and Russom 2007: 225–7.
79. sē þe his wordes ġeweald wīde hæfde. The relative clause (‘he who . . .’),
containing the subject of the sentence, follows the predicate. So in 90, 138, 143, 809,
825, 1497, 1618, etc. Andrew (1948: §¯186) argues for worde: cf. 30a Varr.
80¯f. Hē bēot ne ālēh, etc., i.e., ‘he lived up to his word.’ See Intr. lxxiv & n.¯1 and,
for additional refs., Gloss. s.v. bēot on the high value set on ¢delity to the spoken word.
82–5. Allusion to the destruction of Heorot by ¢re in the course of the Heaðo-Beard
conÏict, of which Bēowulf offers a prophetic account in 2063–9a with verbal echoes of
82–5. See Intr. lv, and cf. Wid 45–8. The allusion begins the pattern of oppositions,
such as of joy and sorrow or light and darkness or good and bad, that is characteristic
of the poem’s design (see H. Wright 1957, Irving 1968: 33–6.) On the menacing effect
of the personi¢cation of the hall and on the uncertain meaning of this passage, see
Shippey 1978: 29–30. Eliason Speculum 55 (1980) 75–83 argues that the lines do not
refer to the burning of Heorot but rather to Grendel, and he emends 84 accordingly to
þæt sē [þe] secg-hete [oþ]swerian [dorste] ‘until one who dared to abjure sword-
hostility’ (80). Cf. Tripp ELN 18 (1980) 81–6. The destruction of a hall or halls at Lejre
by ¢re is usually assumed to have been part of the Scandinavian tradition connected
with the ancient royal seat, though the evidence for that supposition has been ques-
tioned (see Osborn in Niles 2007a: 252). In the Eddic Grottas∂ngr 19–20 (Appx.A
§¯7.2), King Fróði’s hall at Lejre is threatened by enemies intent on burning it; the
poem breaks off without con¢rming their success in this endeavor, though it is implied
that Fróði will die.
83b. ne wæs hit lenġe þā ġēn. There has been considerable uncertainty about
whether lenġe is an adjective or an adverb. In context, an adjective would have to mean
‘at hand,’ i.e. ‘soon’ (so Hoops 24¯f.), or ‘long’ (so Wy.); yet neither meaning for lenġe
is attested: it usually means ‘pertaining (to)’ (as shown by Dob.; see also Eliason Spec-
ulum 55 (1980) 77¯f.). And if lenġe were equivalent to ġelenġe (so Rie.Zs. 382 and most
recent edd.; Bamm. 1986a: 81–2) it would have to mean ‘belonging (to).’ As an adverb,
on the other hand (so Kl. 1905–6: 246, but not ed.1–3, where he glosses it ‘belonging, at
hand’), equivalent to lenġ (as at GuthA 20, 138, Jul 375; see OEG §¯672 n.¯6), it would
be in the compar. degree, though the positive is what seems to be required here. It is
true that the compar. appears in some other unexpected contexts in the poem (see
Lang. §26.2; Kl. 1905–6: 251; Ingersoll NM 77 [1976] 183–6). But perhaps there is an
actual comparison intended here, between the amount of time remaining before the
destruction of Heorot and that before the rise of enmity between Hrōðgār and Frōda.
That is, the future time designated by þā ġēn begins not from the burning but the
completion of the hall. Then the verse may be understood as litotes (‘not longer’ =
‘shorter’), simply indicating that the feud arose before Heorot was burned: ‘It was
sooner yet that the hostility was to arise . . .’: see Fu.2. Stylistically this is not altogether
improbable: the poet saves mention of the more meaningful turn of events for last,
characteristically moving from the speci¢c to the general, widening the scope of the
tragedy from the particular destruction of Heorot to its motivation, the greater struggle
between families and nations. For a similar allusion to future tragedy, see 1018¯f.
84b. āþumswēoran, MS aþum swerian. A copulative (or ‘dvandva’) compound, like
suhterġefæderan (see Gloss.), gisunfader (Hel.), sunufatarungo (Hildebr.), ¢rst recog-
nized by Bu.Tid. 45¯f. Though the existence of a form sweri(ġ)a showing a suÌxal
extension like that seen in suhtriġa, suhterġa is within the bounds of possibility (so
Bugge, loc. cit.), it appears more likely that a scribe blundered, having in mind āþ and
swerian. For the dat. pl. in -an, see Lang. §19.1.
 COMMENTARY 121
86–114. The introduction of Grendel. The thought of this passage, though proceed-
ing by a circuitous route, is clear. A secretive being living nearby is angered by the re-
joicing in Heorot (86–90a). One of the songs recited in the hall is mentioned (90b–8),
and, after looking back for a moment, the narrative then returns to the creature, Gren-
del, who is now spoken of as embodying distinct spiritual evil (101b) and as having
been dwelling on the moors for a long time (103b–5). This leads to an explanation of
how Grendel came to live there, that is, by his descent from Cain, whom God had
exiled for the murder of Abel (104b–14). Grendel’s ¢rst attack on Heorot is then des-
cribed. The non-linear progress of the narrative serves to heighten contrast, promote
tension, and emphasize change of fortune (Irving 1968: 34–6). On the character of
Grendel more generally, see Intr. lxxi, lxxvii.
86. elleng®st. Perhaps a corruption of ellorg®st (as in 807, 1349, 1617, 1621; see
Varr.), though the poet’s fondness for varying his formulaic language weakens the
grounds for emendation to that form.
88¯ff. The creature soon to be identi¢ed as Grendel, in accordance with the nature of
such demons (Panzer 1910: 264; Grimm D.M. 380 [459]), is angered by the noisy
conviviality in the hall. This motif is given a Christian cast (Kl. 1911–12: [23]): Grendel
is a fēond on helle (101b) and thus, like the whole tribe of devils, an instinctive enemy
of humankind.
89b. Þ®r may be a conj.: Emerson 1926: 395. — hearpan. On whether a harp or
(more likely, to judge by the archaeological evidence) a lyre is meant, see the Gloss.
for refs. On the literary functions of the instrument, see Boenig 2001 and J.M. Hill OT
17 (2002) 310–24. That small, portable instruments of this sort were prized in AS
England of the late pagan period is indicated by the inclusion of one in Mound 1 at
Sutton Hoo (B-Mitford 3: 611–731, w. discussion of a comparable instrument from
Taplow, Bucks; Illus.B 6). Little remains of the Sutton Hoo lyre but the bridge, tuning
pegs, and a pair of silver-gilt mounts. Lyres of AS and continental Germanic
manufacture were elongated, shallow, dug-out instruments of 6 strings, with a large
hand-hole and a tiny bridge: see Betz R.-L.2 14.3–9. The oval shape of the
reconstructed six-stringed lyre from Sutton Hoo has been con¢rmed by the discovery
of a lyre of that shape in a pagan burial at Trossingen, Germany, much of whose wood
has survived (Theune-Großkopf R.-L.2 31.277–81; Illus.B 140). The sounding board of
this instrument is decorated by an incised frieze of warriors — a sign of its association
with the warrior class. Bischop Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 32 (2002) 232
maps the ¢nds of the 17 or 18 lyres dating from the ¢rst millennium whose partial
remains have been found in the North Sea cultural zone. (Prittlewell, Essex,
unpublished as yet, can be added to the list.)
90–8. The Song of Creation, while obviously based on Gen. 1, bears no special re-
semblance to Cædmon’s Hymn. The theme is not infrequently touched upon in OE
poetry, and Virgil, too, has a court musician recite a cosmogony, Aeneid i 742¯ff. (see
Haber 1931: 132, A. Campbell 1962: 15 n.¯3, positing an echo here in Beowulf¯). See Kl.
1911–12: [1–3]; cf. Niles 1983: 76–7. Some have perceived the inÏuence of Eddic
cosmology (esp. V∂luspá 3–8, 64): see, e.g., Hieatt JEGP 84 (1985) 485–97, Davis
1996: 22–3, and Taylor 2000: 107–22. Indeed, Herschend (1998: 51) and Hedeager (in
Topographies of Power in the Early Middle Ages, ed. M. de Jong & F. Theuws
[Leiden, 2001] 494–7) posit that the hall-centered settlements of Iron Age Scandinavia
typically represented the whole universe in symbolic form, being deliberately construc-
ted as a sacred space based on pre-Christian concepts. Eddic cosmology would perhaps
be implied if, indeed, ll.¯180¯ff. are taken to mean that the Danes knew nothing of God,
though the reference to se ælmihtĽga 92a would seem to rule out a strict construction of
that clause: beyond question, there is biblical inÏuence here, whether or not the poet
drew on other lore. Bessinger (in Burlin and Irving 1974: 101) argues that the poet
responds here to converging secular and religious inÏuences. Cf. Bonjour 1950: 64–5,
Cherniss 1972: 137.
122 BEOWULF
90b. Sæġde, used absolutely, like sang 496, rehte 2106. See Kl. 1905–6: 245.
93b. swā wæter bebūgeð, lit. ‘as (far as) the water surrounds (it)’; for the fuller form
of the expression, cf. 1223¯f., And 333¯f., etc.; cf. also Beo 2608. (Kl. 1908a: 429; Kock
1918: 102–3; Ericson EStn. 65.3 [1931] 343¯f.) That swā should have rel. force is ques-
tionable: see OES §§¯2379–82; cf. Holt., Schü., Cha., Wn.; notes to 2573–5, 2608.
95. lēoman, in apposition to sunnan ond mōnan, recalls Gen. 1: 16 duo luminaria,
while tō lēohte landbūendum recalls Gen. 1: 17 ut lucerent super terram.
98. cynna ġehwylcum þāra ðe cwice hwyrfaþ. Cf. Gen. 1: 21: creavit . . . omnem
animam viventem atque motabilem; also Gen. 1: 26, 28.
99. ðā is probably not an adverb (Kock3 100, 1921: 13; Hoops); cf. 2144. (See Kl.
1926: 115–16, EStn. 68.1 [1933] 113). — drēamum lifdon. Cf. libban, lifġan with dat.
pl. in 2144, Wid 11, ChrB 621, etc.
100b. oð ðæt ān ongan . . . So 2210b; cf. 2280b, 2399b. ān ‘one, a certain’ is used to
introduce a person, object, or situation even if mentioned before (thus also in 2280,
2410, 2774); it looks as if the poet, after a digression, were starting afresh. A really
demonstrative function of ān in these cases should not be assumed: see P. Süsskand
Geschichte des unbestimmten Artikels im Alt- und Frühmittelenglischen (Halle, 1935)
9–18; Rissanen 1967: 208–12; OES §¯524; DOE s.v., A.3.e.ii. The clause both begins
the thematic pattern of ‘until’ in the poem, in which joy most frequently alternates with
sorrow, or good with bad (Irving 1968: 33–41), and forms part of the overarching ring
structure as it introduces the ¢rst of three antagonists. The ¢rst (Grendel) and third (the
dragon) are announced with the same clause (see Niles 1983: 157–8).
101b. fēond on helle. The phrase perhaps means ‘hellish foe’ (see Gloss.: on; Kl.
1905–6: 258; Tolkien 1936: 279–80; cf. Bamm. 2006: 21), though the literal sense
‘¢end (or enemy) in hell’ is acceptable if Grendel’s mere, introduced only later (see
note on 1357¯ff.), is regarded as a kind of hell on earth (Malone 1960: 193), a symbolic
equivalent to the Christian hell (McNamee 1960: 199–200), a fantastic representation
of hell mouth (Anlezark 2006: 322–3), or a literal entrance to hell (Russom 2007). Ball
N&Q 18 (1971) 163 (so also Schubel 1979: 138) repunctuates to render 99–101 part of
the scop’s song, ān thus referring not to Grendel but to Satan in Eden, and Swā taking
on the meaning ‘likewise.’ (See also Osborn 1978: 974–5; Godden in Godden &
Lapidge 1991: 215.) Andrew ES 62 (1981) 401–10, in an Augustinian interpretation,
takes Grendel to be, like Marlowe’s Mephostophilis, in hell wherever he goes. D.
Williams 1982: 44 invokes the learned tradition identifying Cain as sired by Satan; see
also Cox 1971: 99 n.¯29. D. Johnson 2001 traces the devilish portrayal of Grendel to a
Gregorian model.
103. m®re. Certainly not ‘incubus’ (Kiessling MP 65 [1968] 191–201; cf. Lapidge
1993: 396 n.¯11, Hall Neophil. 91 [2007] 300).
103b–4a. mōras . . . fen ond fæsten. Is this a list of three items (so Brodeur 1959:
273), or is fen ond fæsten in variation with mōras (cf. Green¢eld 1972: 67)? Blockley
MP 87.2 (1989) 115–31 offers evidence that in such constructions the latter analysis is
almost always correct. Mackie 1939: 516 regards the latter phrase as an example of
hendiadys: ‘the fastness of the fens.’ — Grendel’s dwelling in the fen districts reÏects
popular belief; cf. the Grendel names in the charters (Appx.A §5), as well as Max II
42¯f.: Þyrs sceal on fenne ġewunian / āna innan lande. There existed also, in popular
imagination, a connection between hell and morasses. See Bugge 1899: lxxiv; Kl.
1911–12: [62–8]; id. 1926: 113; Cornelius Speculum 2 (1927) 321–5; ll.¯845¯ff., 1357¯ff.
106¯ff. Grendel’s descent from Cain. The conception of the descent of monsters
(evil spirits) and giants from Cain (cf. also 1261¯ff.), and of the destruction of the giants
by the deluge (so also 1688¯ff.) is based ultimately on the biblical narrative, a causal
relation being established between Gen. 4, 6: 2, 6: 4 (gigantes) and 6: 5–7, 7: 1–24 (the
deluge). The immediate source has not been discovered in this case, though Hebrew
tradition (like that contained in the pseudepigraphical Book of Enoch), the Irish Sex
aetates mundi (see note on 111¯f.), and Christian interpretation of Scripture, have been
 COMMENTARY 123
adduced. In addition to the refs. in the notes on 107a and 112¯f., see Kl. 1911–12: [25–7];
also note on 1688 ff. Crawford MLR 23 (1928) 207 refers to Job 26: 5: gigantes gemunt
sub aquis, et qui habitant cum eis (cf. Rev. 13: 1).
106–8. siþðan him scyppen forscrifen hæfde / in Cāines cynne. Originally, of
course, it was Cain who was proscribed and exiled, but, being one of Cain’s offspring,
Grendel is included in the condemnation. Note the close correspondence of 104¯ff. and
1260¯ff. — It is tempting to begin a new sentence with in, as most edd. before Kl. do,
implicitly linking the resulting assertion that God avenged the killing ‘on Cain’s kin’
with the observation that Cain’s progeny were monsters (111¯ff.). The poet does occa-
sionally begin a sentence with a prepositional phrase (cf. 1110a, 1492a), but Dob. is
right that in such a case in (rather than on) is unexpected. — The meter of verse 107a is
unusual, and it would appear to demand the original MS reading cames, seemingly in
ref. to Cham, son of Noah, rather than the alteration caines: see Varr., Appx.C §¯35.
(The meter demands Chāmes, with a long vowel, at GenA 1615 and PPs 77.51.3, but
that does not preclude a short initial syllable here: see Siev.A.M. §¯77 n.¯2.) There is
indeed abundant evidence of confusion of Cain and Cham (Cam, Ham) in early
medieval texts, e.g. Sol I 36.2: see Bu. 82; Emerson PMLA 21 (1906) 925¯f.; Donahue
Jnl. of Celtic Stud. 1 (1949) 167–75; Carney 1955: 102–14; Lehmann NM 72 (1971) 35–
7; Melinkoff ASE 8 (1979) 143–62, 9 (1981) 183–97; J. Friedman The Monstrous Races
(Cambridge, MA, 1981) 100–7; Pulsiano 1982; D. Williams 1982: 34–6; Orchard 1995:
69–70, Anlezark 2006: 301–2. Yet in 1261 it is understood (though garbled in the
course of scribal transmission) that the killer of Abel was Cain, not Cham, and there
dissyllabic Cāin is required by the meter. Probably we have here simply vacillating
metrical treatment of a biblical name: cf. HOEM §¯91 n.¯40 in ref. to the metrical treat-
ment of Cāin in GenA. Still, the possibility cannot be positively ruled out that the poet
(assuming unity of composition: see Intr. xci) was following a particular exegetical
tradition involving Cham: according to Irish belief, as Crawford (MLR 24 [1929] 63)
points out, Cham inherited the curse of Cain and became the progenitor of monsters.
108b. þæs þe hē Ābel slōg. In the medieval exegetical tradition, Cain’s killing of
Abel was regarded as the ¢rst act of human strife, from which all others ontologically
arose; see Augustine De civitate Dei xv: 5; Max I 192–200; for discussion, B. Huppé
Doctrine and Poetry (New York, 1959) 155–9, C.D. Wright ASE 25 (1996) 13–14. —
þæs þe is probably conjunctive ‘because’ (see Gloss.: sē), though it may be an
explanation (or variation) of þone cwealm, since ġewræc may take either an acc. or a
gen. object (Kl. Beibl. 40 [1929] 25¯f.; cf. also 2794¯ff., 1627¯f., GenB 759¯f.). See Siev.
1884b: 136–7 (treating 107b–8a as a parenthesis); Bu. 8o; Kl. 1905–6: 255, 448.
109. ne ġefeah hē . . . , ‘he [Cain] had no joy . . .’ (cf. 827, 1569, also 2277); 109b.
hē, i.e. God.
111¯f. The general term unt©dras is speci¢ed by the following nouns. Carney (1955:
102–14) draws parallels between the order of the monsters here and in the Irish Sex
aetates mundi and argues that Grendel’s descent from Cain is thus attributable to Irish
traditions. But other avenues of transmission are possible. Peltola NM 73 (1972) 284–
91 observes a possible explanation in Bede’s derivation of giants from the daughters of
Cain, and Melinkoff (see 106–8¯n.) demonstrates the wide circulation of lore about gi-
ants’ having survived the deluge. On the distinction between eotenas and ġīgantas, see
the note on 1688¯f.
114b. hē him ðæs lēan forġeald. Allusion to the deluge. See 1689¯ff. The role of the
biblical myth of the Ïood in Beowulf is judiciously discussed, in its various rami¢ca-
tions, by Anlezark 2006: 291–374.
115–88. Grendel’s reign of terror.
115–25. Ġewāt ðā nēosian. First of the envelope patterns in the poem pointed out
by Bartlett 1935: 9–11, in which the repetition of the in¢nitive in 115a and 125b (and of
ġewāt in 115a and 123b) as well as the echo of h¼n hūses 116a in hām 124b and of
bēorþeġe 117a in wælfylle 125a bind the passage together. Hieatt (1975) applies the
124 BEOWULF
concept of the envelope pattern to the overall structure of Beowulf, as does Niles
(1983); Owen-Crocker (2000: 13–17) brings it to bear on ll.¯26–52. See also Tonsfeldt
Neophil. 61 (1977) 443–52 and Parks NM 89 (1988) 237–51. — 115. nēosian. The
‘visit’ implies a ‘search’ (cf. 118: Fand); this accounts for hū; cf. 977¯ff., GenA 855¯f.
See Kl. Angl. 63 (1939) 400–2. — 119. swefan æfter symble. On the theme of sleeping
after feasting, see Joanne Foley in Foley 1981: 235–61; McFadden Neophil. 84 (2000)
629–46.
120b. Wiht unh®lo, ‘creature of evil’ (Kl. 1911–12: [20]), an interpretation ¢rst
adopted by He., on a suggestion of H. Leo. Although the verse has been taken by
several scholars (Ke. ii, Tho., Holt.2–6, Schü., v.Sch.) as ‘anything of evil’ and made the
close of the preceding clause (a second variant), the adjectives of 121a would form an
uncommon opening of a sentence.
122b¯f. on ræste ġenam / þrītiġ þeġna. on (see Gloss.; Lang. §26.5) may be trans-
lated ‘from,’ but the underlying conception is not of motion, on ræste belonging with
the object of the verb (cf. 747, 1298, 1302); cf. note on 575. — Of the disposal of the
thirty men we are told in 1580¯ff.
126. Ðā . . . , 128 þā . . . A characteristic case of parataxis (see Intr. cxvii, but cf.
Andrew 1948: §¯16, MR 173). For the genuine correlative use of demonstrative and rel-
ative particles, see Gloss.: þonne, swā, ®r, also þā, þ®r.
128. þā wæs æfter wiste wōp up āhafen; i.e., there was weeping where there had
formerly been feasting. Cf. 1007¯f., 1774¯f., 1078¯ff., 119¯f., and see Kavros Neophil. 65
(1981) 120–8. — Terasawa 2002 would rehabilitate the less plausible view of ten Brink
and Heyne-Socin that wiste refers to Grendel’s consuming Hrōðgār’s men. The word
might, however, be used paronomastically to refer simultaneously to the feasting of
both the Danes and Grendel as well as to the Danes’ prosperity. Cf. Whitesell TSL 11
(1966) 145–49, Osborn Thoth 10 (1969) 18–35.
131. þolode is very likely intransitive here, as in 2499, Mald 307, Res 118, Rid 16.8,
though some (incl. Kl.) would regard þeġnsorge as the object of both þolode and
drēah in a construction ЂπЮ κοινοи. Cf. Fulk ASE 32 (2003) 4–9.
133. werġan gāstes. Sievers, guided by linguistic and metrical considerations,
strongly contends for wērġan, gen. sg. of wēriġ ‘weary,’ then ‘wretched,’ ‘evil’ (see IF
26 [1910] 225–35; so Holt., Schü., Cha. 255, Ni., Crp.). Yet it seems unnatural to
separate werġan in this well-known OE ecclesiastical formula (for occurrences of
which, see Klaeber 1911–12: [21 n.¯1]) from wearg (see Gloss.: heorowearh, werhðo),
(ā)werġan, (ā)wyrġan, ‘(ac)curse’ (se āwyrġ(e)da gāst, etc.). (Note that Grendel is for-
scrifen . . . in Cāines cynne 106b¯f.) The objections that Siev. raises to an adj. wer(i)ġ
(from *wargiz: Hart MLN 22 [1907] 220–2) or werġe (from *wargjaz: Tr. BBzA 23
[1907] 155¯f.; other refs. in Hoops 34¯f.), postulated in substantial agreement with the
older explanation (Ke. ii, Tho., Gr.Spr., et al.: weriġ), are weighty. Yet Trautmann’s
werġe accounts well for the facts if it is assumed that Southern scribes confused this
unfamiliar Anglian dialect word with wēriġ: see Fulk HS 117 (2004) 315–22.
135¯f. We are told here that Grendel attacked on two successive nights (as the troll
does on two successive Yule eves, before his ¢nal defeat, in Grettis saga (Intr.
xxxviii¯f.) and Hrólfs saga kraka (Appx.A §¯12); cf. analogous folktales, Panzer 1910:
96–108, 266). But in fact he wrought destruction ‘much more often’ (1579): see 147¯ff.,
473¯ff., 646¯ff. On māre 136 ‘additional,’ see Kl. 1905–6: 450.
137b. wæs tō fæst on þām. An allusion to the fetters of sin? See 2009; El 908: on
¢renum fæstne; etc.; Kl. 1911–12: [17].
138–40a. In regard to the separate sleeping quarters, great halls of Iron Age and
Viking Age date are known sometimes to have been part of larger settlements
involving outlying buildings, one or more of which could have served as living and
sleeping quarters for persons of rank: see, e.g., Hope-Taylor 1977: 46–169 (Yeavering,
Northum), T. Christensen in Niles 2007a: 39–54, 109–14, 117 (Lejre, Denmark),
Jørgensen R.-L.2 30.619–24 (Tissø, Denmark). Moreover, the very large buildings of
 COMMENTARY 125
this era were normally partitioned, so that the term ‘hall’ can denote either the whole
building or its largest interior space, which was normally equipped with a central
hearth and would have been used for great occasions (Herschend Tor 25 [1993] 175–
99; id. R.-L.2 13.414–25). Any būras associated with a great hall like Heorot could
therefore conceivably be thought of as chambers under a single roof, though here the
phrases elles hw®r and ġerūmlicor (138–9) would seem to indicate buildings located a
safe distance away (as reference to a grassy pathway at 924a con¢rms).
141. ġesæġd, i.e. made known (by deeds), manifested; cf. c©ðan, ©wan.
142. The compound healðeġnes is apparently coined for the occasion, like renweard
770, cwealmcuma 792, mūðbona 2079, etc. (See Brodeur 1959: 9–10.) An objective
gen. ‘hatred toward the retainer’ (Marquardt 1938: 193; Eliason 1953: 439–40; which
retainer?) seems unlikely: see Kl. Beibl. 49 (1938) 325; v.Sch.
¯143b. sē þ®m fēonde ætwand. The verse has also been treated as a sentence (Schü.,
also Sa. 131) and an independent clause (v.Sch.).
146b¯f. It may be that wæs sēo hwīl miċel is parenthetic, and twelf wintra tīd com-
pletes the clause beginning with 145b (so Siev., Hold.1, Holt.1–6), or that 146b–7a are one
thought, to be followed by a colon (so Holt.7–8). Most edd. construe as in the text; see
Kock2 103. — 147. twelf wintra tīd. Other conventional uses of typical ¢gures: 50
years, ll.¯1498, 1769, 2209; 300, l.¯2278; 1000, l.¯3050; — 5 days, l.¯545, Finn 41; 7,
l.¯517; — 15 comrades, l.¯207; 12, ll.¯2401, 3170; 8(7), ll.¯3122¯f.; 1000 warriors, l.¯1829;
15+15 victims, ll.¯1582¯f. (123); strength of 30 men, l.¯379, cf. 2361; — 12 gifts, l.¯1867;
ll.¯1027, 1035 (4+8); — 7000 hides of land (?), l.¯2195; 100,000 (sceattas): l.¯2994 (n.).
Three sons: Heorogār, Hrōðgār, Hālga; Herebeald, Hæðcyn, Hyġelāc. (Cf. Müllenhoff
1887–1900 4.115: trilogy of names in genealogies.) Two sons: Hrēðrīċ, Hrōðmund;
Ōhthere, Onela; Ēanmund, Ēadġils; Wulf, Eofor. The use of 5 in l.¯420 seems rather
accidental. On the use of 9 in l.¯575, see Müllenhoff, op. cit., 642¯f.; Gering & Sijmons
1927–31: 1.148. See 3049¯f. (n.).
150b. undyrne has sometimes been regarded as an adverb (so Schü., Sed., Cha.),
though it is unattested as such. It may be construed asyndetically with cūð: ‘manifest
and known’ (Kock2 104; see also Kl. Angl. 28 [1905] 440, Hoops 36), although it is true
that in such paratactic constructions the second element is usually heavier than the ¢rst
(see 1223¯n.).
154¯ff. feorhbealo feorran is here taken to vary the term sibbe, in accordance with
Kl. and all recent edd. See Bu. 82, Kl. 1905–6: 238, Kock3 98¯f., Hoops 37. Yet Siev.
1904: 316–17 and most earlier edd. may be right to construe sibbe as dat. (instr.) and
remove the comma after Deniġa, since willan is not given a direct object elsewhere in
the poem. (Cf. GenA 1903, 1910.) Still, Kock is right that sibbe in the sense ‘peaceably’
might be expected to have mid before it.
156b. fēa þingian. From the legal point of view, Grendel, like any killer, should have
been under obligation to settle the matter by payment; see Appx.B §¯5: Feud; Intr. cv
n.¯5. Since he stands outside human society, however, allusion to the payment of wer-
ġild is probably intended as no more than grimly ironic notice of his monstrous nature.
157. nē. Stanley 1992: 271 would render this ‘not at all’ and begin a new sentence;
cf. BT, Cl.Hall s.v.
159b. ēhtende wæs. The periphrastic form in this instance seems to signify some-
thing roughly equivalent to durative aspect in the verb: ‘continued to persecute,’ ‘kept
on harrying.’ See Nickel 1966: 238–59 (esp. 244–8), summarizing the earlier scholar-
ship; also Mossé 1938; Visser 1966–73: III, §§¯1798–1889 (esp. 1825–8); Mitchell NM
77 (1976) 478–91 (with others cited there, 478 n.¯1); OES §§¯682¯ff. (esp. 687); Ziegeler
TPS 97 (1999) 75; cf. Malak SAP 25–7 (1991–3) 123–41. Because of the inÏection,
ēhtende ought not to be an agentive noun (so MR; cf. OEG §¯633), but confusion with
the participial construction is found (Nickel 1966: 293–8; Fulk 2007a: 275–6), as in
3028 (see n.). — The devil was often represented as ‘persecuting’ men; see Kl. 1911–
12: [23].
126 BEOWULF
160. deorc dēaþscua. Satan is called dēor (for deorc? see Dobbie’s note) d®dscua in
ChristA 257. The expression combines the qualities of deadliness and darkness. See Kl.
1911–12: [22], Joyce Hill LSE 8 (1975) 5–19.
161. seomade (ond syrede), perhaps ‘lay in wait’ (and ambushed), or rather ‘lin-
gered’ (and . . .), i.e. kept on ambushing.
163. hwyder helrūnan (type C1) hwyrftum scrīþað. In this context helrūnan
implies ‘such demons.’ The nom. sg. of this form is most likely helrūne, which is
recorded in glosses (denoting ‘witch, sorceress’); cf. (Lat.) Go. haljarunae (emend.)
‘magae mulieres,’ Jordanes cap. 24; OHG hellirūna ‘necromancia.’ A masc. *helrūna
is unattested. See Bu.Zs. 194¯f.; Kauffmann BGdSL 18 (1894) 156; Förster Archiv 108
(1902) 23¯f.; Jente 1921: 166, 330; Hoops 38; Chadwick 1959: 174–5. The use of this
noun denoting primarily female evil beings is paralleled by Go. unhulþō serving to
translate δαιμόνιον: see Grimm D.M. 827 (990). — hwyrftum merely ampli¢es scrīþað
‘go’ (moving). Hill MS 33 (1971) 379–81, Mediaevalia 5 (1979) 271–81 sees here an
allusion to Ps. 11:¯9: in circuitu impii ambulant; cf. Green¢eld MP 75.1 (1977) 44–8:
‘whither [such] hellish, mysterious ones dart swiftly and imperceptibly in their
courses.’ — On the indicative mood of the verb, see OES §¯2080. The indic. is in keep-
ing with belief in demons and their insidious activities (cf. 2272–7, w. ref. to dragons).
164¯f. fela . . . oft. A similar redundant combination is that of moniġ and oft, 4¯f., 171,
857, 907¯f.
168¯f. nō hē þone ġifstōl, etc. A perplexing passage. Of the many possible interpreta-
tions, the likeliest may be that Grendel could not approach the throne, nor might he (as
one of the seed of Cain) know his (God’s) love (or perhaps: nor was he [Grendel]
permitted his desire). The diÌculties experienced in the interpretation of this passage
arise from several matters of dispute, including (1) whether ġifstōl refers to Hrōðgār’s
throne or God’s, (2) whether grētan means ‘approach’ (so most observers; cf. GD¯1 [C]
4.43.11: hī .¯.¯. ne dorston nōhte grētan þā hālgan stōwe) or ‘attack’ (so Wülcker Angl. 1
[1878] 185¯f.; Kölbing EStn. 3 [1880] 92, Hart MLN 27 [1912] 198), (3) whether mōste
means ‘was permitted to’ or ‘had to,’ (4) whether māþðum refers to the throne or some
other treasure, (5) the meaning of for, (6) whether metode refers to God or to Hrōðgār,
(7) the reference of his (God, Hrōðgār, Grendel, ġifstōl, māþðum), and (8) the force of
myne wisse. (Identi¢cation of hē with the king seems now to have been abandoned
almost entirely, because Hrōðgār has not been mentioned since l.¯152.)1 If ġifstōl is
understood as Hrōðgār’s throne, the lines might be thought to mean that Grendel was
not allowed, because he was ‘prevented by the Lord’ (cf. 706, GenB 359; Estrich JEGP
43 [1944] 384; Chaney PMLA 77 [1962] 513–20; Orchard 1995: 62), to approach the
royal throne; i.e., though making his home in the hall at night, he was unlike a dutiful
retainer, who receives gifts from the chieftain. After all, Grendel is compared to a re-
tainer (142, 154¯ff.; see esp. Kock 225¯f., 1918: 7–8; Neville 2001: 113–15). This expla-
nation, though suÌciently strange, seems less strained than the one resting on the inter-
pretation of this noun as the throne of God: thus Körner EStn. 2 (1879) 249; Gr. (in
Wülck., n.); t.Br. 20; Emerson PMLA 21 (1906) 863; Kl. JEGP 8 (1909) 254¯f. (a view
he later relinquished, 1926: 113–14); Sed.; Hamilton 1946: 321; Wn.; Eliason 1953:
440–2; Isaacs JEGP 62 (1963) 121; Goldsmith 1970: 109; Cox 1971: 56–79; Kaske LSE
16 (1985) 147; cf. Golden NM 77 (1976) 190–204, offering a typological interpretation
but perceiving a worldly throne. māþðum could also be the reward, denied to Grendel,
of a faithful retainer (Kock; Engelhardt PMLA 70 [1955] 832 n.¯20; Howren MLN 71
[1956] 317¯f.), or God’s grace (Sed.), but it is generally taken to be the ordinary
‘treasured object,’ ‘precious thing,’ used as a somewhat loose variation of ġifstōl (cf.
Max I 69). Nearly all recent edd. agree on this much, but 169 is still given widely

1
Proponents of this view include Holtzm. 489¯f.; Tr.1 135¯f. (cf. BBzA 17 [1905] 160¯f.); Siev.
1904: 319; Tinker MLN 23 (1908) 239; DuBois MLN 69 (1954) 546–9; Brodeur 1959: 200–5;
Goldsmith 1962: 74 n.¯9; Green¢eld 1974; Köberl 2002: 97.
 COMMENTARY 127
different interpretations. Klaeber’s opinion is never settled: at times (JEGP 8 [1909]
254¯f., ed.1, EStn. 68.1 [1933] 113, ed.3), comparing [mīn] mine wisse (Wan 27), he
translates ‘nor did he [God] take thought of him’ (similarly Schü.9–14, Dob.). Yet the
passage in Wan is usually emended on the basis of comparison to this one, so the light
it sheds is mostly reÏective. Accordingly, Klaeber at other times favors ‘nor did he
[Grendel] feel (regard) gratitude for it’ (ed.2 Su., ed.3 Su.), adopting Kock’s interpreta-
tion of myne (similarly Orchard 1995: 62). Alternatively, nē his myne wisse may mean
‘nor was he inclined to do so’ (Aant.) or ‘nor did he have joy of it’ (Crawford MLR 23
[1928] 336), or ‘nor could he work his will upon it’ (Crawford), or ‘nor did he care for
it’ (Storms Neophil. 61 [1977] 439¯f., though the gen. object is dubitable).1 If, on the
other hand, ‘God’ was intended to be the subject of myne wisse, the meaning might be
‘nor did he take (kind) thought of him’ (Kl., comparing the change of subject at 109
and the sense of Godes yrre bær 711) or ‘nor did he (God) know his (Grendel’s) mind’
(Kaske; similarly North 1991: 35).2 To the supposition that ne mōste should mean ‘did
not have to’ (Robinson 1992) rather than the expected ‘was not permitted to,’ cf. Ono
Poetica 41 (1994) 11–17. D. Lee 1972 perceives inspiration for these verses in Lac-
tantius, but cf. Niles 1983: 81–2. The obscurity of the passage is not, after all, so great
as to support the idea of interpolation (as hinted by Kl.; so Tolkien 1936: 284, 294
n.¯34) or misplacement of the lines (Wrenn; similarly D. Williams 1982: 45). (See also
Hoops 38¯f.) To the contrary, what has been said heretofore concerning God’s power to
protect or destroy (13b¯f., 92–8, 114b) is, on the interpretation advocated supra,
reiterated here with reference to protection of the throne as an emblem of Danish
kingship.— As for actual thrones of this period, no indubitable examples survive. An
elaborately carved 5th-century stool recovered along with other high-status objects
from a bog at Feddersen Wierde, Germany, however, would certainly have been re-
garded as a māþðum and may possibly have served as a chieftain’s throne (M. Schön,
Feddersen Wierde, Fallward, Flögeln [Bad Bederkesa, 1999] 80–3; Illus.B 10). A small
portable object, it bears little resemblance to the thrones of later eras.
171b¯f. The change of number from sæt to eahtedon is natural, given the collective
sense of moniġ. (Cf. 1511¯f., 2251¯f., 2458¯f.) Indeed, moniġ may command a plural
verb, as at El 231¯f.: see Woolf MLQ 4 (1943) 54¯f., OES §¯433.
175–88. Anlezark N&Q 53 (2006) 264–5 compares Wisdom 11: 16–17. A much-
debated question about this passage, which is remarkable for both the reference to the
heathen practice of the Danes and the author’s pointed Christian comment, is whether
the poet means to say that the Danes of this age were heathen (so, e.g., Eliason 1953;
Brodeur 1959: 198–200; Rose Jnl. of Pop. Culture 1 [1967] 158–65; Campbell NM 70
[1969] 425–35; Robinson 1985; Nicholson Studi medievali 3rd ser., 27 [1986] 656–60;
Crépin in Liturgie et espace liturgique [Paris, 1987] 49–58; Cronan 2007) or that some
or all of them reverted to idol worship under the oppressive circumstances (so, e.g., Kl.
1911–12: [16], Tolkien 1936: 287; Goldsmith 1962: 79 n.¯27; Cox 1971: 115–21; Kaske
Speculum 46 [1971] 429–30; Payne NM 80 [1979] 308–14; Russom (in press); and esp.
Wentersdorf SP 78 [1981] 91–119), as was done repeatedly in England: see Bede H.E.
iii, cap. 30; iv, cap. 27, cf. ii, cap. 15. Andersson Medievalia et Humanistica n.s. 13
(1985) 65–74 perceives the Danish court as Christian and the populace as pagan; cf.
Cox. Speaking historically, of course, the Danes of this period were undeniably hea-
then; the poet may still have wished to single out for disapproval certain ones among

1
But not likely ‘nor did he know his own mind’ (so DuBois, arguing that ġifstōl means ‘altar’
and, by synecdoche, ‘kingdom’). Cf. Pope Speculum 37 (1962) 415: ‘he feels no gratitude for gifts
(or, as I prefer to think, no affection for treasure).’ Or his may refer to God (Pepperdene 1955:
188).
2
The idea that metode could refer to Hrōðgār (Howren; Baird ES 49 [1968] 418–23) has met
with little favor. Osborn (Thoth 10 [1969] 33; see also PMLA 93 [1978] 975–7) sees the meaning of
for metode as purposely ambiguous; see also Varr. for a different interpretation.
128 BEOWULF
them (perhaps not including Hrōðgār?) who were active practitioners of the old faith.
Blackburn PMLA 12 (1897) 219–22, Tolkien 1936: 288, Whitelock 1951: 78, and T.
Hill 1994: 68–9 regard all or part of this passage as a possible interpolation, because of
its supposed inconsistency in tone or fact with other passages (assuming, e.g., that a
speci¢cally Christian hymn of creation is described in 90¯ff.). Niles 1983: 93–5, view-
ing the passage as rhetorically consistent with late OE homiletic formulas (see note on
183b), takes it rather as evidence for late composition of the poem. Cf. Eliason 1953:
442–5, and esp. Cronan 2007. For a synopsis of scholarly views on this passage, see
Cox 1971: 102–19; also Cherniss 1972: 141–5.
175b. æt hærgtrafum. To judge by place-name evidence (e.g. Harrow, Gr. London),
the AS hearh was a relatively important, perhaps public, shrine in a high, commanding
place (Wilson ASSAH 4 [1985] 179–83; cf. Wilson 1992: 5–21; also Semple Early Med.
Europe 15 [2007] 364–85), while OE træf can denote either a tent or pavilion or a more
substantial building. As to what exact cultic actions are alluded to, one guess is little
better than another, since so little is known about the actual religious practices of
northern Europe during the pre-Christian period (sacri¢cial customs, in particular).
Most of the evidence bearing on that point either derives from physical remains that are
diÌcult to construe or from Christian authors who chieÏy wished to denigrate such
rites, not explain them. At least two images that are reasonably construed as Danish
idols from about A.D. 500, however, are known. These are a small gold ¢gurine from
Slipshavn Skov (Illus.B 12, Jørgensen & Petersen 1998: 195–6) and a wood carving
from Rude Eskildstrup (ibid. 196–7); these images are human-like and are naked
except for a neck ring. See further Maier R.-L.2 12.289–93 (‘Götterbilder’) and Capelle
ibid. 15.325–30 (‘Idole und Idolotrie’). In addition, building D2 at Yeavering, located
close by the main hall, has been construed as a heathen temple that was later converted
to Christian use (Hope-Taylor 1977: 278). The interpretation of this building has been
inÏuenced by that passage in Bede’s history in which allusion is made to the killing of
oxen by the pagan Anglo-Saxons in sacri¢cio daemonum (H.E. i, cap. 30). Other AS
evidence is suggestive of pagan religious activity that sometimes involved trees, posts,
pillars, or mounds, though not necessarily separate buildings (Blair ASSAH 8 [1995] 1–
28). There is evidence now from Sweden for the presence of a cult house (hørg, harg)
near the hall building at Borg, Östergötland (Nielsen in Visions of the Past, ed. H.
Andersson et al. [Lund, 1997] 373–92) and also at Sanda, Uppland (Åqvist in Religion
från stenålder till medeltid, ed. K. Engdal & A. Akaliff [Linköping, 1996]). Certain
features of the archaeological record at Lejre, as well, have been conjecturally ascribed
a sacri¢cial function, perhaps in connection with midwinter (Yule) feasting (T.
Christensen in Niles 2007a: 122–4). This is not implausible, seeing as Thietmar of
Merseburg, in a much-quoted passage of his Chronicon, castigates the human and
animal sacri¢ces that he declares to have been practiced annually at Lejre during the
pagan period (see Intr. lviii n.¯3). The Beowulf poet, of course, need not have had any
de¢nite knowledge of Scandinavian religious practices of an earlier age, and he
mentions them here only to condemn them.
177. gāstbona most likely does not mean ‘slayer of demons (trolls)’ (Weber Neu-
philol. Monatsschrift 2 [1931] 293–5) but ‘slayer of souls’ (see Gloss.). In conjunction
with helle ġemundon 179 and sāwle bescūfan / in f©res fæþm 184–5 it thus equates
pagan deities with devils. Indeed, this is how they are routinely described by Anglo-
Saxon churchmen: see Johnson in Pagans & Christians, ed. T. Hofstra et al. (Gron-
ingen, 1995) 35–69.
178b. Swylċ wæs þēaw hyra. A conventional phrase of explanation: cf. 1246;
Gr.Spr.: þēaw; sô uas iro uuîsa than (Hel. 453, 5257, similarly 306, 2055, 2731).
179. h®þenra hyht. Stanley 1963 takes this phrase to refer categorically to the
characters depicted in the poem, seeing them all as pagans and therefore damned,
according to the terms set forth in the following ‘Christian excursus’ (180b–8). The
poet may be making a distinction, however, between those Danes who offer sacri¢ce at
 COMMENTARY 129
pagan altars and other ¢gures in the poem who, even if pagan, are more enlightened;
see 175–88 (n).
180b, 181b. Metod hīe ne cūþon, etc. A similar inverted arrangement of words in
two successive clauses (chiasmus) occurs in 301b–2, 817b–18a, 1160b–1a, 1615b–16a,
2680b–1, 3047¯f.
183b. Wā bið þ®m ðe sceal. Type E (K Q L Q | K)? So Siev.R. 267, A.M. §¯85 n.¯10,
Pope 371, Getty 2002: 225. The verse is scanned without any intermediate stress by
Bliss §¯86, Momma N&Q 36 (1989) 423–6, and Hutch. 254. But perhaps most likely
bið should receive stress, if all of þ®m ðe, treated as a unit (as in 1839, 2601, etc.), may
be regarded as clause-initial, and so unstressed (thus Russom 1987: 107–8, Kendall
1991: 98–9; see Appx.C §¯6). So 186b; cf. 603b, 272b, etc. See also Orchard 2003: 153.
A number of examples of ecclesiastical formulas of the Wā bið type are cited by
Klaeber 1911–12: [29–30] (e.g. WHom 7.124: Wā þām þe þ®r sceal wunian on wīte);
cf. the list of such phrases assembled by Momma.
184–6. þurh slīðne nīð, ‘due to dire aÑiction’? Or ‘in dire distressful wise’ (Cl.Hall
tr.; so Kl.1–3 and Archiv 115 [1905] 178); possibly ‘in stubborn (or ¢erce) enmity’ (to
God: Girvan 1954: 176, Sed., Ja.). Mackie 1939: 516–17: ‘owing to dreadful wicked-
ness.’ See Gloss: þurh. To the gnomic sentiment, compare Muspilli 25–7 (Larrington
1993: 215). — Both wihte ġewendan and frōfre depend on wēnan (variation). wihte is
used adverbially, and ġewendan is probably intrans. (as at El 617, etc.; so Dob.),
though Kl. translates ‘change it in any way’ (1905–6: 238; similarly Hoops 41, Sed.,
Wn., Le., Ni.).
189–498. Bēowulf’s voyage. His reception in Denmark.
189–93. See Intr. cxviii¯f. for discussion of the style and syntax of this passage.
189¯f. ðā m®lċeare . . . sēað; similarly 1992¯f. The unique phrase, lit. ‘he caused the
care to well up,’ i.e. ‘he was agitated by cares,’ shows an individualized application of
the metaphor of the surgings of care. The general sense of the expression is not ob-
scure, but the grammatical construction has been debated: Kock (like He.1, Tr.) regards
ðā as an adv. (so Dob.), -ċeare as instr. and sēoðan as an intrans. verb (not recorded
elsewhere): see Kock2,3 104, 100; id. 1921: 13, 1923: 187. Cf. Kl. Archiv 126 (1911) 351;
id. MLN 34 (1919) 131¯f.; id. 1926: 115–16; Gk. κήδεα πέσσειν.
194¯f. Þæt .¯.¯. Grendles d®da; see Intr. cxx. Andrew (1948: §¯101) would emend Þæt
to oððæt and regard 191b–3 as a parenthesis. — fram hām ġefræġn, practically ‘heard
at home’ (cf. 410, 2889): see Lang. §¯26.5; Siev. BGdSL 11 (1886) 361¯f., ibid. 12 [1887]
188¯ff.; Dening 1912: 18; Hoops 42¯f., id. St. 95. — Hiġelāces þeġn. His name is not
mentioned before l.¯343. Names are similarly withheld temporarily in 86, 331, 1294,
also 12; Helgakv. Hund. I 17; Nibel. 326.1. A similar practice is found in Virgil and
Homer (see Schü. 1933: 29–30). Biggs PQ 80 (2001) 95–112 argues that the name is
withheld in order to afford Hrōðgār (in 457–90) the opportunity to recall the debt of the
hero’s father, and thus to divine the purpose of Bēowulf’s arrival. At all events, the
poet’s choice of this oblique manner of introducing his hero serves to characterize him
not just as an individual of good repute and great strength, but also as someone whose
personal identity depends on his social ties. Signi¢cantly, the ¢rst of these ties to be
mentioned (which could well be considered the most important of them) binds the
hero, himself a ¢gure unknown either to history or literary tradition, to the one person
in the main narrative who can fairly be regarded as historical, and whose fame ex-
tended to AS England (see Intr. lxi).
195. mid Ġēatum is regarded by Malone (Angl. 55 [1931] 270, 1960: 193–4) as
parallel to fram hām, though most regard it as a modi¢er of gōd.
196. Alternatively, sē may be relative (OES §¯1686).
197. on þ®m dæġe þysses līfes. See Gloss.: dæġ, sē (note ad ¢n.). The metrical
stress on þ®m has been thought to create a distancing effect (Green¢eld 1972: 112–14).
No rhetorical emphasis on the demonstrative need be inferred, however, as the expres-
sion is formulaic (cf. 790, 806, also 1395, and see Kendall ASE 10 [1982] 40). It may be
130 BEOWULF
employed to express not so much historical remoteness as ‘a unique degree in some-
thing’ (Clemoes 1995: 14); cf. Stanley 1981: 206; Frank 1982a: 54; MR; Orchard 2003:
240. Cf. also El 285, etc.; Hel. 2407, 4600.
200. swanrāde. Cf. hronrāde 10, ganotes bæð 1861. The mute or tame swan (cygnus
olor) is native to Britain (and other temperate parts of Eurasia), the shores of which are
also visited in winter by the whooper, whistling, or wild swan (cygnus musicus). See
the Encyclopedia Britannica11 26.179¯f.; Hoops 44, id. Wörter und Sachen 12 (1929)
251¯f.; Kitson ASSAH 7 (1994) 79–84; Reichstein R.-L.2 28.411–13; Gloss.
202¯f. Ðone sīðfæt him snotere ċeorlas / l©thwōn lōgon. See 415¯ff. The meaning
of l©thwōn lōgon is, of course, ‘they urged him on’ (litotes); but, as shown by þēah, the
clause is to be rendered literally. Cf. 2618¯f.
204b. h®l scēawedon. Cf. Tacitus’s Germania, ‘they attend to auspices’ (Appx.A
§¯14 cap. 10). See Grimm D.M. 944¯ff. (1128¯ff.), 77¯ff. (94¯ff.), 3.324¯ff. (1639¯ff.); Rives
1999: 165–6, 167. It is understood that the omens to which the men attend are favor-
able. Sed.3 reads hæle scēawedon ‘gazed at the warrior,’ but cf. OHG heil skouwōn.
Von Schaubert interprets ‘sie hatten das Wirken der Schicksalsmacht geschaut (er-
kannt).’ To the argument of Fell (1995: 30–3) that the phrase means ‘they wished him
luck,’ cf. Robinson Multilingua 18 (1999) 173–83.
205b¯f. Ġēata lēoda belongs with cempan. The peculiar enclosing of the superl. in
the dependent clause is found in OE (cf. 2869¯f., 3161¯f.) as well as in OIcel. and Lat.:
see Wagner 1910: 98. With Wagner, probably most have regarded cēnoste as the gram-
matical antecedent of þāra: ‘the boldest of those whom . . .’; Kock (1897: 23¯ff.;
similarly Dob., OES §¯2266?) rather regards þāra as a rel. pron. agreeing with lēoda.
208¯ff. Early edd. (Tho., Gr., He.; so Dob.) regarded the lagucræftiġ mon as an un-
named pilot, but the introduction of a nonce character is unnecessary. Neither is there
suÌcient reason to assume some kind of disorder (ten Brink 32; Tr.1 137¯f.): sundwudu
sōhte means ‘went to the ship’ (not ‘on board’); the lagucræftiġ mon (i.e. Bēowulf,
who, like Sigfrit, Nibel. 367, is an experienced seaman) ‘led the way to the shore.’
(Lawrence JEGP 23 [1924] 297 and Wrenn assume the sense ‘pointed out the land-
marks of the harbor’; cf. Jelinek MLN 71 [1956] 241¯f.; Cha. n.). The characteristic
paratactic expression fyrst forð ġewāt would be, in modern usage, ‘in course of time.’
(It may be that 208b–9a is parenthetic — so Gru., Gering ZfdPh. 12 [1881] 124 — ob-
viating the need for the less common transitive use of wīsade; but such parentheses are
more convincing in the context of substantial periods.) In Klaeber’s view, Ïota wæs on
©ðum states the result of an action (Intr. xcv, cxx): i.e., the ship, which had been
ashore, was now launched. (A beached craft would of course be Ïoated before being
freighted; cf. Kolb in Meaning & Beyond, ed. U. Fries & M. Heusser [Tübingen, 1989]
237–52.) Others believe the vessel rode at anchor (Evans MÆ 32 [1963] 214–16;
Green¢eld N&Q 13 [1966] 86–90; Jack), as one might expect from comparison to
ll.¯301¯ff., 1882¯f., 1917¯f., though guman ūt scufon 215 could be taken to imply other-
wise; cf. also 1912¯f. The vessel seems to have been anchored against the tide with its
keel in the sand, perhaps with the prow ashore (so Fry MP 79.1 [1981] 61–6). — An
interesting parallel to this scene: Odyssey iv 778¯ff.
216b. wudu bundenne. Thier 2002: 76–7 argues that the reference is to planks
lashed or stitched together with ropes of bast — chieÏy a Scandinavian, not an English,
practice, and an early one that would militate against the assumption of the poem’s late
composition, according to Korhammer NOWELE 45 (2004) 100. But the reference may
be instead to the tight joinery of northern clinker-built ships: that is, ships built with
overlapping strakes, narrowing toward bow and stern, that were bound together with
metal rivets or ‘clinkers,’ in addition to the use of spikes for the gunwale and bolts for
the ribs (B-Mitford 1.361–4, etc.). The liberal use of tar (see l.¯295) helped keep a
vessel water-tight. For AS literary reÏections of the use of rivets in shipbuilding, see
GenA 1418, 1433, Rid 58.5, Brun 53. — Epithets exhibiting pride in craftsmanship are
found with some frequency in Beo: sæl timbred 307, næġled sinċ 2023; 2764, 406 (and
 COMMENTARY 131
455¯n.), 322, 551¯f., 1548, 2755, 1679, 2712, 2774; cf. næġledcnear Brun 53; perhaps
bundenstefna 1910 (n.).
217b. winde ġef©sed. The hero’s ship moves under sail (217–24, 1905–10). It carries
an anchor (303, 1883), and its ample size may be judged from 1896¯ff. Known ships of
the early Migration Age, such as the late 4th-century boats from Nydam, Schleswig
(for which see Engelhardt 1866: 29–39 and most recently Rieck in The Spoils of
Victory, ed. L. Jørgensen et al. [Copenhagen, 2003] 296–309), were propelled by oars,
but sail was in use during the Roman Iron Age and would have been available at least
optionally from an early date in Scandinavia as well as elsewhere in Europe: see A.
Brøgger & H. Shetelig Viking-Age Ships (Oslo, 1951): A. Christensen in A History of
Seafaring, ed. G. Bass (London, 1972) 159–80; Ellmers R.-L.2 27.13–20. The 7th-
century ship found in Mound 1 at Sutton Hoo, though sometimes said to have been
without a mast and sail (thus Webster in MR 192–3, based on the absence of such
features from the ¢nd), was actually capable of carrying sail despite its lack of a deep
keel, it is reasonably surmised (B-Mitford 1.420–4). Indeed, a half-scale model of that
ship, the Sæ Wyl¢ng, has been given a number of trial runs of sailing and rowing in
English coastal waters (E. & J. Gifford AS Sailing Ships, 2nd ed. [Woodbridge, 2002]).
During the Viking Age the design of lightweight ocean-going ships reached a state of
perfection in Scandinavian lands, as is represented, e.g., by the vessels from Gokstad
and Oseberg referred to supra (see 26–52¯n.). An example from Denmark is the
princely Ladby ship from Funen (for a model of which, see ¢g. 3); similar to this in
design is Skuldelev V, one of six late Viking Age ships found scuttled in Roskilde
Fjord (O. Crumlin-Pedersen & O. Olsen, edd., The Skuldelev Ships I [Roskilde, 2002]
245–78; Illus.B 14). A full-scale replica of Skuldelev V, the Helge Ask, has been found
quite seaworthy (Illus.B 128). Ships of this type were clinker-built (see 216b¯n.), had
deep keels, carried a single square sail, and were steered using an outboard steering oar
or rudder. The poet could have had in mind, however, a vessel of earlier and perhaps
more primitive construction. Cf. Appx.B §¯16.
218. Ïota fāmīheals fugle ġelīcost. The top part of the prow of AS and Scandi-
navian ships frequently had the shape of a swan-like neck ending in a ¢gurehead
carving such as that found on the Norwegian Oseberg ship (Crp. 1.431–3, Haywood
1991: 75). See 575a (n.). Chck. 293 observes that this line contains both a kenning and a
simile, which are appropriate in context (see swanrād 200a). Cf. And 497; see Falk
Wörter und Sachen 4 (1912) 38; Gloss.: wunden-hals, -stefna; cf. hrinġedstefna.
219. ymb āntīd, a disputed phrase: probably ‘after the lapse of a normal space of
time’; ōþres dōgľres ‘on the following day,’ as at 605. See Siev. 1904: 326–7, DOE,
Gloss.: āntīd. It seems possible, however, Klaeber remarks, to construe ōþres dōgľres
as dependent on āntīd; the voyage takes one day and a reasonable amount of time (as
much as is to be expected) of another day. Leonard 1923, returning to Grein’s (Spr.)
suggestion āntīd = ‘hora prima’ (cf. nōntīd ‘hora nona’), translates ‘after the risen sun
of the next day’; cf. 569¯ff.
221–3a. These lines exhibit variation but in a sequential order that suggests shifting
perspective as the ship sails toward a distant shore (land) that grows into brimclifu as
the ship draws closer, and ¢nally the land towers as beorgas stēape once the vessel has
reached shore. Cf. 210b–11a, 325b–6a, 404–6, 571–2a. See Geen¢eld N&Q 13 (1966) 86–
90. On the problem of the sea cliffs in Denmark alluded to here, see Intr. clxxxiv.
223b. sund liden. Thorpe’s emendation sundlida is prompted by the consideration
that līðan is nowhere else transitive in OE, though its cognates are sometimes used
transitively: cf. êna meri lîđan ‘to cross a sea’ (Hel. 2233), and for OIcel. líða, see Cl.-
Vig. s.v., A.ii. and Dunstan MLR 20 (1925) 317¯f. Hence Klaeber’s gloss ‘traverse.’ Yet
sund need not mean ‘sea,’ as has usually been supposed, but ‘voyage’: cf. Whale 15b:
sundes æt ende ‘at the end of the voyage.’ Then þā wæs sund liden may be not a
passive construction but a periphrastic plupf.: ‘then the journey had passed’; cf. 375b–
6a, 823b–4, 1234b, and see Fulk JEGP 104 (2005) 469.
132 BEOWULF
224. eoletes, seemingly representing an otherwise unrecorded OE word, has not
been explained satisfactorily. To be expected is the gen. sg. of a noun meaning ‘voy-
age,’ ‘sea,’ or (perhaps) ‘land’; or, if sund liden is pluperfect, so that the word may
depend on sund, ‘vessel’ or ‘crew’ (though this seems less likely). Most of the conjec-
tures offered (see Varr. and DOE for several) depend upon the assumption that it is an
obscured compound of ēa (‘stream,’ i.e.) ‘sea’ (Thorpe and most explicators); el-
‘foreign’ (Lotspeich JEGP 40 [1941] 1¯f.); *ēol, a plant name (Krogmann A. 58 [1934]
351–7); eolh ‘elk’ (Bouman Neophil. 35 [1951] 239¯f.), eoh ‘horse’ (Salus Lingua 12
[1963] 429¯f., ibid. 13 [1964] 451), or eofor ‘boar’ (Taylor ibid. 13.196¯f.). Yet all such
guesses are metrically questionable, since supposed ēoletes probably ought not to head
a verse of type A (see HOEM §§¯238¯ff., esp. 243; see also Lucas N&Q 37 [1990] 263¯f.,
whose reading ēolet, without -es, is metrically acceptable). If rather the diphthong is
short, the etymon very likely should be Gmc. *elut-, in which event comparison may
be drawn to OIcel. elta ‘pursue,’ as well as to Gk. Ґλαύνω, OIr. luid ‘went,’ and related
forms listed by Pokorny 1959: 306–7 (cf. de Vries 1962 s.v.) as reÏecting PIE *(e)lu-
‘go, set in motion’ (so Brenner EStn. 4 [1881] 139; Thomson EGS 6 [1957] 79–81). See
also Bu.Tid. 46¯f.; Tr.1 139; Sed. MLR 5 (1910) 286, ibid. 18 (1923) 471¯f.; Mackie MLR
21 (1926) 301; Furuhjelm Angl. 57 (1933) 317¯f.; Holt. EStn. 69.3 (1935) 433; Kl. 1926:
117–18; Andrew 1948: §§¯174, 187; Henry ZfvS 77 (1961) 148–50; Horgan Eng. Philol.
Stud. 8 (1963) 24–9; Fulk JEGP 104 (2005) 469.
226b. hrysedon. Though most edd. (incl. Kl.) have treated this as an intransitive
verb (cf. byrnan hringdon 327), as would seem to suit the context (the coats of mail
being naturally generative of noise as the men move), there are no certain instances of
such usage: see Mitchell LSE 20 (1989) 311–13. It is perhaps safer to regard it as trans.
(with lēode as its subject), as do Tr., Andrew 1948: §¯53, Ni., Ja., MR. This also has the
advantage of avoiding the change of unexpressed subject from the men to the armor
and back again.
230b. scolde. See Gloss.: sculan.
232b. hine fyrwyt bræc; so 1985, 2784. For analogous phrases, see Kl. 1926: 118;
Notat.Norr. §§¯254, 331.
234b. wicge rīdan. The ¢rst of many refs. to horses and riding. See n. on 864¯ff.
235b–6a. The gesture of a speaker’s brandishing a spear to command attention is par-
alleled at Mald 43a, though without the epic diction employed here. — þrymmum. The
plur. of abstract nouns is often used with sg. meaning, in many instances semi-
adverbially. So, e.g., ārum, duguðum, ēstum, fyrenum, ġeþyldum, listum, lustum, sear-
wum, orþancum, weorcum, wundrum; on s®lum, tō ġemyndum; (gp.) oferhyġda, nīða.
See Lang. §¯26.1.
237–57. Hwæt syndon ġē, etc. Here begins the ¢rst of the poem’s 40 or so
speeches, which amount to more than a third of its entirety and serve important cul-
tural, thematic, and structural purposes. See, e.g., Shaw Chaucer Rev. 13 (1978) 86–92,
arguing that the placement of Bēowulf’s ¢fteen major speeches reinforces the poem’s
two-part structure; Shippey 1993, applying discourse analysis to the speeches to deter-
mine the strategies of verbal conÏict in the poem; Bjork 1994, bringing gift theory to
bear on the speeches and showing that they function in an exchange economy as
material goods do; Orchard 2003: 203–37, charting the relationship between words and
deeds in the poem; and Intr. lxxxvi¯ff. — For the meaning of hwæt, see Gloss.
242. þē. Most early edd. emended (see Varr.; Andrew 1948: §¯172), but this is unnec-
essary. The word has been analyzed as an alternative form of þ© (see Gloss: sē), mean-
ing ‘so that’ (Dob.) or ‘by which’ (Le., Ja., MR), in the latter event referring not to
®ġwearde, which is fem., but to the entire clause (see notes on 7b, 15¯f.). There is no
parallel to the use of rel. þ¬ to express purpose (the analysis of Kl.): see OES §¯2884.
243b. sceðþan. See Gloss.; cf. Res 15¯ff.; EpGl 736: uuīċingsceadan ‘piracy.’
244–7. Nō hēr cūðlicor cuman ongunnon .¯.¯. Cf. Hel. 558¯f.: nio hêr êr sulica cum-
ana ni uurđun / êri fon ôðrun thiodun. Here ongunnon is probably a colorless auxiliary,
 COMMENTARY 133
like MnE do; but see OES §¯678. An alternative interpretation takes cuman as a noun
and assigns to onġinnan the (recorded) meaning ‘behave, act’: ‘visitors never behaved
less as strangers’ (Bu.Tid. 190, so Holt., Cha.; similarly Kl. Angl. 28 [1905] 439¯f.,
Bamm. NM 103 [2002] 399–402; see DOE: anġin B.1). The alternative reading ġelēaf-
nesword (see Varr. and Kl. loc. cit.) depends upon this interpretation, as wisson re-
quires a subject. However, the chief emphasis seems to be placed on the visitors’
having entered the country without permission, and Kl. thus ultimately regards cuman
as an inf. (Cf. V∂lsunga saga, ch. 26; Hrólfs saga kraka, ch. 12.) Holt.7 treats 245b–7a
as a question. — 246b. ġearwe may be an error for ġearo modifying lēafnesword
(predicative adj.: ‘you were not sure that permission would be readily granted,’ as Kl.
suggests), presumably ‘trivialized’ by a scribe (see note to 1118b–19a) because ġearwe
is commonly used with vbs. of knowing and perceiving as an intensi¢er meaning ‘for
certain’ or ‘at all.’ — 247. māga ġemēdu. (Cf. māga rīċe 1853.) māgas refers to those
in authority at the court: see Appx.B §¯2; similarly gūðfremmendra, according to
Brady 1983: 209. Kock5 75–7 (similarly v.Sch., Ni.) renders māga ‘compatriots,’ in ref.
to the Danes; Mal. 1960: 194 would have it refer to the kinsmen Hrōðgār and Hrōðulf.
249b. nis þæt seldguma. Bugge’s explanation (Tid. 290¯f.) of seldguma as ‘hall-
man, retainer’ (cf. healðeġn 142, 719; selesecg, Wan 34; OIcel. húskarl), being perhaps
the likeliest, is the one favored by Kl.: ‘that is not a [mere] retainer [but a chief him-
self].’ (Cf. Hill Neophil. 74 [1990] 637–9: ‘non-aristocratic member of a king’s reti-
nue.’) Two of the other meanings attributed to the word, viz. ‘stay-at-home’ (Gr.), ‘a
man who possesses only a small homestead’ (He.2, et al., similarly Förster Beibl. 13
[1902] 168 n.¯2, who thinks of equating it with cotsetla ‘cottager’), are rendered im-
probable by the observation that OE seld (sæld) denotes a (royal) hall, a palace, though
Wood PMLA 75 (1960) 481–4 argues that a stay-at-home could be one who lurks by
the ¢re in the hall while heroes are abroad. (So also Rigby N&Q 9 [1962] 246.)
Bright’s emendation is þæt [or: þæt is (?)] seldguma (cf. seldan ‘seldom’: see Varr.),
‘that is a rare, or superior, man,’ furnishes admirable sense, but the formation proposed
is open to doubt, since the other seld- compounds cited in support (seldcūð, -sīene,
-cyme, -hwanne) are of a different order, showing a more or less adverbial function of
the ¢rst element. — w®pnum ġeweorðad produces better sense when it is assumed to
modify þæt rather than seldguma: see Kl. Angl. 29 (1906) 379; Kock4 109.
250b–1a. næfne (him his wlite lēoge, etc.). Robinson (1966; see Varr.; so Mitchell
NM 70 [1969] 78, Chck.) defends MS næfre admirably with the interpretation ‘may his
beauty, his peerless countenance, never belie him!’ Still, ‘never,’ as opposed to ‘not,’
does not seem apt for such an expression (presumably ‘it is my hope that he is what he
appears to be’), and while the general sense is plausible enough, the mode of expres-
sion as a wish seems incongruous. The emended form, which is highly credible paleo-
graphically, renders palmary sense and is consistent with the watchman’s generally
cautious attitude toward the Ġēatas (see Hubert In Geardagum 19 [1998] 52).
252b¯f. ®r, ‘rather than that’ (see Gloss.; cf. El 676, Jul 255, etc.), meaning that
lēasscēaweras (type D2) is not vocative: i.e., the watchman does not say that they are
spies; rather, they would be taken for such if they attempted to proceed without an ex-
planation.
254¯f. feorbūend, merelīðende. On the inÏection and stylistic function of nouns of
agency in -end, see K. Kärre Nomina agentis in OE, I (Uppsala diss., 1915), Mossé
1938, Nickel 1966; also the notes on 159, 3028.
256b¯f. ofost is sēlest, etc. Cf. 3007¯f., Ex 293¯f., And 1565, and note Redwine SN 54
(1982) 209–16 on the pragmatics of haste in Beo.
258. se yldesta. Dob.: ‘the chief, the senior member of the party’; cf. 363, GenA
1670, And 763, etc.
259b. wordhord onlēac. So Wid 1, And 316, 601, Met 6.1. Cf. ll.¯489, 501 (also
2791¯f.); wordlocan onspēonn (And 470; similarly 671); ferðlocan onspēon (Jul 79);
þæt hē his ferðlocan fæste binde (Wan 13). On the thematic and structural equivalence
134 BEOWULF
of gold hoards and word hoards in the poem, see Stevens MLQ 39 (1978) 219–38; on
the chest as the seat of emotion and cognition in OE, see Jager Speculum 65 (1990)
845–59, Neophil. 75 (1991) 279–90.
260. gumcynnes. If this is construed as a gen. of speci¢cation, ‘as to nation’ (so Kl.,
Ja., MR; cf. Hel. 557¯f., 2985¯f.), the resulting style is of a more usual sort, since verses
tend to be syntactically self-contained. (See, e.g., Scragg in Godden & Lapidge 1991:
64.) Nearly all edd. regard the word as dependent on lēode (i.e. ‘people of the nation of
the Ġēatas’).
262, 265¯f. Wæs mīn fæder, etc. Similarly Hadubrand says of his father, chūd was
her [allēm, Holt.] chōnnēm mannum, Hildebr. 28. The emendations proposed to 262a
(see Varr.) are all metri causa, since the penultima of Sievers’s type A3 ought to be a
heavy syllable, and resolving fæder would leave the verse short of the requisite four
metrical positions. But the aberrant type appears to be genuine: see Sed. MLR 28
[1933] 226; Appx.C §¯27. — Cf. the punctuation proposed by Emerson 1926: 403. —
263. Ecgþēo. A ¢gure not otherwise known in legendary history. Concerning him little
can be inferred except what is told of him in later speeches (372–5a, 459–72). Since, as
we then learn, he was married to a king’s daughter, he presumably was of high status or
distinguished himself by high deeds, or both. If of high status, he is likely to have mar-
ried into the Geatish royal line through a diplomatic arrangement; cf. Gloss. of Proper
Names s.v. W®ġ-mundingas.
271b. sum, ‘a certain thing.’ Although there is no precise parallel to the neut. usage
(or to the use of substantive sum instead of ®niġ in a neg. clause: see Rissanen 1986:
211–12), the word is not uncommonly a masc. substantive, as in 1251, 3124, etc. See
Bamm. NM 106 (2006) 3–5, and cf. Kl.: ‘anything.’
272. þæs iċ wēne, ‘as I think.’ Cf. 383, 3000. — 272b–3. ġif, ‘if (in case)’ it is¯.¯.¯.
(Kl. EStn. 68.1 [1933] 114); or possibly ‘whether’ it is¯.¯.¯. (OES §¯3547; Blockley 2001:
129–30). In either event it is a peculiarly guarded, polite remark.
274b. sceaðona ĽŜ nāt hwylċ. Though nāthwylċ, pron. and adj., is common (cf.
2233b, etc.), the phrase iċ nāt hwylċ does not occur elsewhere in verse. Since the meter
here is unusual (see Appx.C §¯17), Bliss §¯79 may well be right that the phrase is a
scribal substitution for nāthwylċ. Magoun hyphenates the phrase.
278. (þurh) rūmne sefan, like (þurh) sīdne sefan 1726, denoting wisdom or mag-
nanimity (MR: ‘without demanding anything in return’).
280¯f. Though some edd. have analyzed edwendan (MS) as a verb, at the only other
place the verb occurs (edwendende, PsGlH 77.39) it glosses rediens ‘returning,’ which
is not its meaning here, according to those who treat the word as a verb, e.g. Schü.,
v.Sch., Ni., Crp. It seems more likely that the noun edwenden was intended, as in 2188
(predic. cwōm). The same scribal error has certainly affected the word in 1774 (where
þæs lends support to the analysis of bisigu here as gen., as well). But cf. Hoops St. 96,
Dob. These verses are to be regarded as parenthetical, since wurðaþ 282b grammatic-
ally parallels ofersw©ðeþ 279b, not scolde — though not improbably as a result of
scribal error (see Varr.; cf. Standop 1957: 112).
283¯ff. Irving (1968: 54–5) takes the hero’s prediction as a sign of sympathy, Baker
(1988: 10–11) as a threat.
286b. ð®r (‘where’) on wicge sæt. Cf. Mald 28: þ®r hē on ōfre stōd; El 70, Hel.
716. See also 356, þ®r ‘to where¯.¯.¯. ,’ etc. Or perhaps the verse is a parenthesis (i.e.,
ð®r = ‘there’: so OES §¯2307?).
287b–9. ¶ġhwæþres sceal, etc. ‘An acute shield-warrior must recognize the differ-
ence between the two — between words and deeds.’ The fundamental interpretive
question is whether ġescād witan means ‘understand,’ as it does in LWS prose (and
thus whether ġescād denotes ‘understanding,’ as in Met), or whether it retains what
must be its original sense, ‘distinguish’ (as in, probably, Vain 8, where it could also
mean ‘recognize,’ but not ‘understand’ in the sense required by the present instance;
and cf. Rim 13). Green¢eld 1982a advocates the latter view, while Baker 1988: 6–10
 COMMENTARY 135
argues that because ®ġhwæþres depends upon ġescād, the former interpretation must
be correct, and thus he sides with Klaeber, Ekwall (1954: 78), Kaske (SP 55 [1958]
430; N&Q 31 [1984] 16–18) and Shippey (1978: 12–14), supposing the sense is that one
must form judgments on the basis of words as well as deeds. (Similarly Bamm. 1986a:
84–6: ‘must know the meaning of every word and deed.’) Yet the passage can be
rendered fairly literally, taking the disputed phrase in its more original sense
‘distinguish.’ That is, the guard says literally that one must differentiate between acts
(since he interpreted the Ġēatas’ armed arrival as a hostile act, resulting in his
confronting them) and words (since Bēowulf’s words are anything but hostile). The
hero’s reply has convinced him of the visitors’ good intentions; hence he pronounces
the band a hold weorod.1 — sē þe wēl þenċeð, ‘who has a clear mind’; cf. 2601: (þām)
ðe wēl þenċeð ‘who is right-minded.’ Schü.9–14 (following a suggestion of Krauel 1908:
49) and Holt.3–5 treat these verses as an authorial parenthesis, having the speech begin
at 290. However, although the insertion of some descriptive and explanatory matter
between the announcement and the beginning of a speech is customary (Intr. lxxxvii;
Mertens-Fonck 1978: 438–44), the intercalated statement never takes the form of an
abstract maxim but relates directly to the person or event in question. On the other
hand, a maxim is placed at the beginning of a speech, 3077¯f.
293f. While the shore watch’s offer to guard the ship is presented as an act of gen-
erosity, a continuing note of caution on his part can be inferred, as well, seeing that it is
the Danes who will take custody of the Ġēatas’ sole means of returning home.
297b. lēofne mannan; 299¯f. gōdfremmendra swylcum ġifeþe bið, etc. Here
swylcum refers back to, and agrees in number with, mannan. Most likely the whole
band is referred to (‘to whichever of these doers of good deeds it will be granted’; more
precisely swylcum = ‘such a one as to whom’), the sg. of the noun and pronoun being
used in a collective sense. (See Rie.Zs. 385; Kl. 1905–6: 250; Bamm. 2006: 22–4.) It is
unlikely that swylcum is demonstrative rather than relative and the clause thus
independent (‘to such a one of these doers of good deeds it will be granted’: see Mag.,
Irving 1968: 56 n.¯8, OES §¯2376 [with other examples of swylċ as a relativizer], Ja.,
MR), since then it ought to be stressed (Ekwall 1954: 78; Appx.C §¯6). The assumption
of a relative construction also ties the clause more closely to mannan and thus explains
its sg. number more satisfactorily. (It seems unlikely that Bēowulf alone should have
been meant; cf. Wn.; O’Donnell NM 92 [1991] 434.) The demonstrative þone (hilde-
r®s) perhaps signi¢es ‘such (a battle).’
302¯f. On the anchor, see Thier 2002: 110–12, 125. See 1918 (n.). As to the MS
spelling sole, cf. Varr. 2210b (2221a, 2224b); App.C §¯8.
303b–6a. A much-discussed passage. The suggested meaning is, ‘Boar-images, gold-
adorned, resplendent and hardened by ¢re, shone over the cheek-guards; the helmeted
warrior of war-like mind (i.e., the shore watch) provided safe passage.’ Most likely MS
beran is a blunder for (hlēor-)bergan (which, however, should not be referred to a
weak fem. hlēorberge and so must be dat. pl.): cf. hēafodbeorg 1030, ċinberge, Ex 175.
These cheek-guards have been compared (by Hatto 1957) to the heavy bronze eye-
brows, terminating in boars’ heads, on the Sutton Hoo helmet (B-Mitford 2.168–71,
and similarly the Vendel helmet from Grave 14). More transparently, however (as is

1
Kl. regards the purport of the remark as ‘it was my duty to scrutinize your words and your
conduct’: the shore watch apologizes, as it were, for his previous oÌcial attitude. Mackie 1939:
517 sees this rather as the self-aggrandizing declaration of a bureaucrat, asserting that he is clever
for having interpreted the visitors’ intentions. Pepperdene (ES 47 [1966] 416), J.M. Hill (1995: 73),
and Deskis (1996: 119) take the sense to be that brave words alone will not suÌce in the present
circumstance (similarly ELN 41.2 [2003] 12–13), and the hero must act accordingly. (Thus also
Orchard 2003: 210, but proposing that the guard means that Bēowulf is as verbally dextrous as he
appears to be strong.) See further Shippey 1993: 120–1; T. Clark A Case for Irony in Beowulf
(Bern, 2003) 59–67.
136 BEOWULF
emphasized by Newton 1993: 37), the term may refer to the two plates, attached to the
main horizontal hoop of the helm, that prominently covered the wearer’s cheeks on
some (though not all) helmets of this period, thus affording added protection and the
opportunity for additional ornamental display: see B-Mitford 2.171–3 and ¢g. 136 on
p.¯182; also Illus.B 172, 190 (the Sutton Hoo helmet with its ornamented cheek-pieces)
and 176 (the York helmet, with unadorned ones).1 — It may be that ferh is a separate
word (so Gr.1, He.1–7, Wy., Sed.1–2, Holt.6–7; Hoops). It is true, doubts concerning the
fe(a)rh ‘porcellus’ are not without foundation (so Aant., Hatto), although there is no
decisive proof that fearh was a strictly prosaic word, barred from poetic usage. (The
regular terms applied to the boar-helmets are swīn and eofor; the common noun swīn
¢gures in OE poetry in both the heroic and the everyday domestic senses. Comparison
to the boar-crests on the Benty Grange and Wollaston helmets has been thought by
some to justify this reading, but cf. Webster in MR 189.) On the other hand, the com-
pound ferhweard is eminently satisfactory (see Smithers 1951–2: 67, and cf. ll.¯241,
2909; 1030¯f.), and, allowing the change of number (see note to 171¯f. and Kl. 1905–6:
250, 451), Kl.3 translates: ‘the warlike one kept life-watch over the ¢erce ones,’ as
proposed by Kock5 78¯f. Yet gūþmōd has no sg. antecedent and would not (even if it
did have one) very convincingly describe the helmet (as supposed, e.g., by Isaacs
JEGP 62 [1963] 122 and Fell 1995: 24). For that reason Imelmann EStn. 67.3 (1933)
325–31 would apply it to the coast-guard (similarly Piper PQ 35 [1956] 202–6), while
Brown PMLA 53 (1938) 910¯f. would have it describe one of the maguþeġnas men-
tioned in 293. Wrenn treats 304b–5 as a single clause, with the subject understood in
reference to eoforlīċ; similarly Girvan 1954: 178, but in reference to hlēorbergan,
which he construes as sg. (so also Collinder 1954: 16–17, but parenthesizing only
305b); yet, as noted supra, the wk. fem. -berge required by this analysis is unparalleled.
— The interpretation of Kl.3 follows the suggestion of Bright (MLN 10 [1895] 43),
improved upon by Sed.1–2 (who construes grimmon as a dat. pl. rather than an adv.), in
emending grummon to grimmon ‘the grim ones’; yet this leaves us with the peculiar
change of number in hēold and the unconvincing reference of gūþmōd to the helmet,
and so this construction of the verses does not seem suÌciently justi¢ed by the sense it
supplies. Better meaning is produced by Bugge’s reading eoforlīċ scionon¯.¯.¯.¯, ferh-
wearde hēold / gūþmōdgum men (see Varr.; also accepted by Malone JEGP 29.233)
adopted in Kl.1–2, but the awkward change of number persists, and the emendation
represents a decided alteration of the text. Retaining the MS text requires as much
speculation as the proposed emendations.2 Trautmann’s emendation grīmmon is supe-
rior to Holthausen’s gummon (cf. 1028) both paleographically and because it avoids
repetition of the morpheme gum-, and all in all it seems the most satisfactory solution,
but (without the further emendation to færwearde) it is best applied neither to anyone
left watching the boat nor to Bēowulf but to the shore watch, who is leading the visitors
to Hēorot (see 292, 316¯ff.) and who is maintaining for them safe passage (¯ferhweard)
on the way. (Cf. the restrictions on the movements, and provisions for the safety, of
foreign visitors in LawIne 20, 23.) The passage thus represents a collage of images of

1
Unlike most edd., Gr.2 does not emend but reads hlēorberan, dsf., assuming the meaning
‘visor’; similarly He.2–4, dsm. ‘cheek-covering.’ Malone (JEGP 29 [1930] 233, 1933a: 95) would
identify the second element of such a compound as the etymon of ME bĘre (cf. Chaucer’s
pilwebeer; so Dob.), though such a word is otherwise unattested in OE. Hoops (St. 27–33, so Wn.)
rather relates ME bĘre to French bure ‘fustian’ (cf. replies by Holt. Beibl. 43 [1932] 358, Malone
MÆ 2 [1933] 58¯f.). Sed.1, retaining the MS reading, would have beran depend on ġewiton 301, but
acc. hlēor after ofer is unlikely.
2
Malone would derive grummon from an unrecorded adj. grum ‘¢erce, cruel’ (so Crp.); it has
also been taken as pret. pl. of grimman ‘rage, hasten’ (?): so Gr.; Bryan JEGP 19 (1920) 84; BTS;
Patzig Angl. 47 (1923) 97; Holt.6, ii.5; Furuhjelm Angl. 57 (1933) 318–20 (‘excited’), Ekwall 1954:
78; Collinder; Wn., Crp., MR; but in its two other instantiations (GenB 793, Rid 2.5), grimman
refers rather to making a loud noise.
 COMMENTARY 137
the scene as the group moves along: the ship left behind; the shining, boar-decorated
armor of the Ġēatas as they advance; the dutiful escort, ensuring that their passage is
unopposed and orderly.
303b. eoforlīċ. A free-standing stylized ¢gure of a boar, adorned with garnets and
gold, surmounts the late 7th-century helmet from Benty Grange, Derby (Bruce-Mitford
1974: 223–52; ¢g. 7 in this edition); cf. the similar ¢gure surmounting the helmet from
Wollaston, Northants (Underwood 103–4). With less plausibility (since they would be
visible only upon close inspection), the reference could be to boar images included on
the stamped plates that were sometimes aÌxed to Germanic display-type helmets (cf.
¢g. 6 and 1453 n.). That the boar could have had talismanic signi¢cance has been
pointed out, e.g., by Hatto 1957: 155–60; see also Beck 1965; Brady 1979: 86–7;
Robinson 1985: 68–9; Glosecki 1989: 193–4; Gutiérrez Barco SELIM 9 (1999) 163–71.
Helmets and boar images are so strongly linked in Beo that the words sw©n (1111b) and
eofer (112a; eoferas 1328a) can themselves metaphorically denote the helmet.
308. goldfāh. The lavish use of gold, even on the roof of the hall (see 927, 311; cf.
777, 994), recalls analogous folktales: see Panzer 1910: 96–108, 257, and cf. the golden
hall of Sindri, the gold-thatched roof of Gimlé (V∂luspá 37, 64), the silver-thatched
roof of gold-studded Glitnir (Grímnismál 8, 15), and the roof of Valh∂ll, covered with
golden shields as shingles (Gylfaginning 2) in the Scandinavian tradition. See also
Adam of Bremen’s 11th-century description of the heathen temple at Uppsala as being
covered with gold and wrapped with a huge golden chain on its gable (Gesta Hamma-
burgensis ecclesiae ponti¢cum 4.26). Asser’s reference to King Alfred’s incomparable
buildings of silver and gold (chap. 91) is explained by Stevenson (1904: 329–30) as
either exaggeration or a possible reference to the use of these metals in sacred build-
ings; Smyth (King Alfred the Great [Oxford, 1995] 595) dismisses it as ¢ction. Cramp,
however, argues that the proven use of lead sheets on buildings in the AS period
supports the possibility of gilded sheets or shingles also being used (1957: 73, 1993:
340), while Wentersdorf SP 104 (2007) 418–23 regards the poet’s conception of a gild-
ed hall as based on precedents in Roman history and literature. See Gloss.: gold, and
cpds. (Silver is never mentioned in Beowulf.). — onġyton. See Lang. §¯19.4.
313b. him tō, i.e. tō hofe; cf. 1974.
314b. gūðbeorna sum. This use of sum (so 1312) may be compared to that of ān 100
(see n.). See Rissanen 1986: 219–21; 1988: 303–5 (‘[as] one of the warriors,’ ‘with a
group of retainers’; cf. Wn. gloss.: sum ‘notable one’).
316. M®l is mē tō fēran. The failure of the initial noun to alliterate is remarkable,
and Frank (1981: 132) argues that this unparalleled verse shows Norse inÏuence: cf.
Helgakv. Hund. II 49.1: Mál er mér at ríða. Yet the uninÏected in¢nitive marks this as
more likely an archaic idiom than a recent borrowing (see Lang. §¯25.8). Possibly m®l
came to be regarded as adverbial in the idiom, roughly equivalent to nū, and accord-
ingly destressed, like micle 2651. Cf. S. Suzuki 2004: 263.
318b. Kendall (1991: 79) would omit the comma after wille (similarly Cha., Dob.) to
avoid a breach of Kuhn’s second law (Appx.C §¯7), though the comma seems to be
demanded by the understood verb of motion.
320. Str®t wæs stānfāh. So And 1236: str®te stānfāge. The reference could be to
paving of the Roman type, with which the Anglo-Saxons were familiar (cf. the deriva-
tion of str®t from Lat. strata; cf. Brunner Beibl. 52 [1941] 53¯f.). But even in Scandi-
navia, especially in damp places, roads might be paved with small stones (see Osborn
NM 70 [1969] 246–55), as for example with the pre-Roman road leading into Borre-
mose in northern Jutland (see Jahnkuhn R.-L.2 6.110 & pl. 8).
321b–3a. Gūðbyrne scān. The men’s gleaming mail coats (or byrnies), easily visible
from afar, con¢rm their identity as members of the aristocratic warrior class (as do their
helmets, of which much is made in 303b¯ff.), and hence as visitors to be treated with
respect as well as some wariness. — Actual mail coats from Iron Age Europe are to be
found in the archaeological record only rarely, an indication not only of their perishable
138 BEOWULF
nature when left to rust in damp soil but also of their relative scarcity (at this early
date) and, hence, the prestige they conferred on wearers (Underwood 1999: 91–4). A
¢ne example of ca. 4th-century date was recovered from a bog at Vimose, Denmark
(Illus.B 102; for Vimose more generally, see Ilkjær R.-L.2 32. 402–10). It consists of
about 20,000 iron rings, each ring individually joined to four others. A badly corroded
mail coat was found in Mound 1 at Sutton Hoo (B-Mitford 2.232–9). The physical
weight of the mail on a man’s back is matched by its semiotic weight in the society
depicted in the poem (see esp. 405–6). The hero’s own coat, which has exceptional
value since it not only was owned by his grandfather King Hrēðel but also was forged
by Wēland the master smith (see 455¯n.), is adorned with gold (553a). On a previous
occasion it has defended his body against the assault of creatures of the deep (550¯ff.),
and in Denmark, too, it will prove crucial to his survival (1502–5, 1547b–53a).
322b¯f. hrinġīren scīr / song. Cf. 1521¯f., hrinġnet 1889, and the allusion in 226b to
the rustling or jingling sound made by the men’s mail coats.
323b¯f. Þā hīe tō sele furðum¯.¯.¯. The edd. (incl. Kl.) have generally regarded this
clause as subordinate to the preceding rather than the following. The present arrange-
ment is advocated by Andrew 1940: §¯89, 1948: §¯9¯, and adopted by Wn., Ni., and MR;
see also Mitchell RES 31 (1980) 401, and cf. Ekwall 1954: 79. Though it is possible that
the meaning is that the men’s gear shone and ‘sang’ just when they arrived at the hall,
it makes better sense to say that they set aside their shields just upon arrival.
325¯ff. Setton s®mēþe sīde scyldas . . . gāras stōdon . . . On AS shields and their
continental equivalents, see Underwood 1999: 77–91, Steuer R.-L.2 27.83–106; see B-
Mitford 2.1–128 on the Sutton Hoo shield in particular. A typical Germanic shield was
round and made of any of several types of hardwood (Watson ASSAH 7 [1994] 35–48);
the wood was sometimes covered by leather. An iron boss protected the hand-grip,
while on some shields the outer edge was reinforced by a metal rim. A particularly
well-preserved example is that from Thorsbjerg bog, Schleswig (see Engelhardt 1866:
48–52, w. associated plate; Illus.B 26). The animal ornaments used to adorn the Sutton
Hoo shield were, of course, exceptional. Spears, too, were part of any warrior’s equip-
ment and are often found in pagan burials, where they serve as almost a sign of male
identity, whether or not the person was a warrior (Härke Past & Present 126 [1990]
22–43). Spearheads were made in a variety of shapes and sizes, depending on their
intended use (Engelhardt 1866: 56–57, w. plates; Underwood 1999: 39–43); for exam-
ples, see Illus.B 16 (a silver-inlaid spearhead from Vimose) and 22 (an assortment of
items from Kragehul bog). Spearheads, like sword blades, were sometimes pattern-
welded (see 1459b¯n., and Peirce 2002: 151 for a handsome example). The frequent use
of ash wood for their shafts is reÏected in the terms æscholt, æscwiga (see Gloss., and
cf. lind and its compounds, though linden, or lime-wood, was just one of the woods
used for shields). — As regards s®mēþe, cf. sīþes wēriġ 579, 1794; sîđuuôrig, Hel. 660,
670, 678, 698, 2238; Kudrun 1348; Nibel. 739.
326b, 327. Perhaps a portico is implied. See ¢g. 4 for a reconstruction of one of the
Lejre halls showing a colonnade formed by external raking timbers and sheltered by
wide eaves.
328b. gāras stōdon, i.e., the spears were placed (stacked) together. See Intr. cxx.
330¯f. (æscholt) ufan gr®ġ, ‘grey (or silvery) at the top,’ in ref. to the iron point. (So
BT); more literally ‘grey (when looked at) from above’ (so Kl., and another instance of
shifting visual perspective: see 221–23a¯n.): see Sievers BGdSL 12 (1887) 199; Dob.;
Lang. §¯26.5; also Brady 1979: 131, but arguing æscholt = ‘forest of spears’ (so Ja.);
but cf. Mald 230. — The īrenþrēat may be w®pnum ġewurþad even if the Ġēatas
have just, in part, disarmed, for the remark likely pertains to the ¢neness of the wea-
pons they have put down, as well as the armor they still wear. (Cf. Eliason 1953: 445–
6). — wlonc hæleð, named Wulfgār, 348.
333¯ff. The normal equipment of warrior-thegns; cf. Appx.B §¯12. — 333. ġē. Nickel
would place this word in the off-verse, but see Appx.C §§¯34–5.
 COMMENTARY 139
334b. grīmhelmas. The mask-like appearance of some helmets was made more
prominent through use of a frontal piece to protect the eyes, nose, and sometimes the
mouth, of the wearer; this could be fashioned so as to mimic, or to distort, the features
of a human face. The Sutton Hoo helmet exempli¢es this aspect of the design espe-
cially well (B-Mitford 2.163–71, Illus.B 172, 190); cf. ¢g. 5 in this edition. On the term
grīm-helm, see also M. Keller 1906: 92, 246–7; Falk 1914: 164; Brady 1979: 87–90.
338b. for wlenċo. The next two verses make clear that the speaker (who is himself
wlonc, 331b), means nothing derogatory by this phrase. The noun wlenċu by itself
could imply arrogance, as at 508 and perhaps 1206. Cf. note on 349¯f.
342. under helme. The phrase (cf. 404, 2539; 396, etc.) has been compared to Eddic
und hjalmi / hjalmum by Mastrelli AION-SG, Studi Nederl./Nord. 22 (1979) 177–93.
343b. Bēowulf is mīn nama. Probably type E, like 1024b, with half-stress on -wulf
(so Pope, Kendall 1991: 137; see Appx.C §¯32; cf. Bliss; Hutch. 155; Suz. 501).
345b. mīn. Alliteration on a possessive pronoun in preference to a following noun is
unusual; hence Andrew 1948: §¯148 would emend to miċel. But see 2047a note.
348b. þæt. For the use of a neuter pronoun to refer to a person or persons, cf. 11b,
237a, etc. — Wendla lēod. Two possible reasons for a foreigner’s presence at Hrōð-
gār’s court are suggested by ll.¯461¯ff., 2493¯ff. But a king of this stature would naturally
be attended by high-ranking persons of various origins.
349¯f. The general term mōdsefa is followed by the more speci¢c explanatory words
wīġ ond wīsdōm. See Intr. cxviii¯f. on this aspect of the device of variation.
350b. þæs is preliminary to the exegetical phrase ymb þīnne sīð 353. See Gloss.:
friġnan.
356. Hwearf þā hrædlīċe þ®r Hrōðgār sæt. Similarly 1163¯f., etc.; see Gloss.: þ®r.
Cf. Nibel. 1408: si īlten harte balde, dā der künec saz, 470, etc. On this idiom (and that
of l.¯286), see Kl. 1929.
357. anhār. MS un hár. un- has sometimes been looked upon as a variant of an-, or
an intensive pre¢x (He., Bu.Tid. 71, 303, Bu.Zs. 197, Aant. [18]; BT; Kl. Angl. 29
[1906] 381; Roberts ES 61 [1980] 289–92), but the evidence is insuÌcient. (The par-
allels cited by M. Swanton Dream of the Rood [Manchester, 1970] 131 [after Cos.] are
pejorative rather than intensive: see Hoops.) Sed. MLR 28 (1932) 226 suggests inhār
(cf. infrōd); so his ed.2, p.¯254, and ed.3 in text. See Appx.C §¯8, and cf. Dream 117 (MS
un-), El 724, 960.
358b. for eaxlum might be rendered ‘before the face,’ ‘in front.’ See Thomas MLR
22 (1927) 70; Cook PQ 5 (1926) 229¯f.; Holt. Beibl. 40 (1929) 29¯f.
359b. cūþe hē duguðe þēaw. A choice example of the semantics of cunnan ‘to know
(how)’ (from personal experience; cf. witan). Both Wulfgār’s measured demeanor and
his speech, which is laced with c0mpliments and honori¢cs (338¯f., 350b–5), point to
his being an experienced courtier, one who, moreover, is not hesitant to offer the king
advice (366b–70).
361b¯f. cumene. Predicative, parallel to ġeferede, rather than used attributively w.
lēode. (See Kock4 110.)
366. wordum wrixlan, ‘exchange words, converse’ (cf. MRune 57: wrixlaþ spr®ċe;
also Max I 4: ġieddum wrixlan; and see Gr.Spr.), though Dobbie discounts this inter-
pretation and favors the meaning ‘make variations with words,’ i.e. ‘speak in connected
discourse,’ which is more appropriate at 874a (see n.).
374. tō hām forġeaf, ‘gave in marriage.’ Cf. hāmweorðung 2998; Kl. 1926: 120; A.
Fischer 1986: 65, 135. The idiom derives from the Germanic custom of female exo-
gamy, whereby the woman who was given in marriage took up residence in the hus-
band’s household. See Intr. cv.
377. Ðonne is infrequent with a verb in the preterite: see OES §¯2572. It may have
narrative rather than temporal signi¢cance here (perhaps ‘further,’ ‘moreover’: Kl.,
Hoops; see Gloss.), like ‘then’ in ‘then of course’ or ‘then on the other hand.’ Or it may
refer to frequent occasions, given the possible consuetudinal function of the word (cf.
140 BEOWULF
note on 3051.). Andrew (1940: §¯30; 1948: §¯18) regards the word here as a conjunction
‘since’ subordinating the clause to the following (see also RES 31 [1980] 402); causal
use of þonne, however, is unproved. — sæġdon þæt s®līþende. Cf. 411, Hildebr. 40.
378b¯f. Ġēata, objective gen.: ‘gifts for the Ġēatas’ (Kl. 1905–6: 452); cf. 1860¯ff.
Malone (MLN 68 [1953] 355; so v.Sch., Ja.) construes with tō þance, giving the sense
‘to the satisfaction of the Ġēatas,’ though constructions with þanc almost always take
the dat. rather than the gen., and the resulting word order is convoluted. Wrenn (sim-
ilarly Ni.) renders tō þance ‘as a mark of esteem.’
381b–2. Hine hāliġ God . . . ūs onsende. Cf. what is said of God’s prior mercies
shown the Danes (13b–7). That Hrōðgār, though a pagan, should be so con¢dent in the
workings of divine providence is in keeping with his character; see Intr. lxxv.
383. West-Denum, simply ‘Danes.’ See 392, 783; Intr. cxvi; Hoops 62. (In a case
like 463, 1996 a genuine geographical designation was perhaps intended: see Bryan
Kl.Misc. 124¯f.; Magoun 1949; Storms 1957; Tol. 163¯f.; cf. Niles 1983: 145.)
386b¯f. hāt in gân / sēon sibbĺġedriht samod ætgædere. sibbeġedriht probably
refers to Bēowulf and his men, as in 729; either the object of sēon is understood, viz.
mē (see 396; Bu. 86; Kl. 1905–6: 253), or sēon may be translated as a passive in¢nitive
(He.-Schü, Bamm. A. 112 [1994] 107–14, id. 2006: 24–6; cf. OES §§¯923, 927; Stewart
JEL 7 [1973] 57–68; O. Fischer in Eng. Historical Syntax, ed. D. Kastovsky [Berlin,
1991] 141–88). (Other in¢nitives to be translated in the passive voice: 38b, 199a; cf.
1365¯n.) In case the company of Danes was meant by sibbeġedriht, the object of hāt
would have to be supplied: ‘command them to go in’ (so Cha., Holt., Sed., Hoops; also
Wn., note).
389b¯f. Gerritsen Neophil. 73 (1989) 450¯f. is very likely right that the scribe’s eye
skipped from one lēodum to another, and thus probably several verses are missing
here, in which Wulfgār returns to the visiting Ġēatas. (Cf. Andrew 1948: §¯177, Stanley
PBA 70 [1984] 250; see also Handelman Neophil. 72 [1988] 475–7.) To the supposition
that the textual gap is purposeful, cf. Fulk 1997: 46, Orchard 2003: 51–4. — word inne
ābēad. Not ‘announced his message from within,’ which would require innan (see
Tripp ELN 29.4 [1992] 5), but ‘offered a word (with the king) within.’
395–8. Cf. 325–30. The visitors may not bring their shields and spears into the hall
(so Nibel. 1643, 1745¯f.), which was very likely regarded as a sanctuary, to judge from
AS laws that call for extra punishment for crimes committed while violating the king’s
peace in the hall. That the men continue to wear their mail coats and helmets, however,
suggests that, besides being of a purely defensive function, such items embodied their
high status as members of a prince’s retinue (see Intr. c–ci). Depriving such visitors of
their raiment would naturally be tantamount to dishonoring them.
398. wudu wælsceaftas. An interesting type of asyndetic parataxis, perhaps best
rendered ‘wooden battle-spears’ or ‘deadly wooden spears’ (MR). So siġla searo-
ġimma 1157, windġeard, weallas (?) 1224, ides āgl®ċwīf 1259, eard ēðelriht 2198, eard
ēðelwyn 2493. (Siev. 1884b: 137; Kl. 1905–6: 250.) Similar collocations of adjectives,
e.g., ealdum infrōdum 1874, frome fyrdhwate 1641, 2476; probably undyrne cūð 150,
410 (Kl. Angl. 28 [1905] 440). See note on 2074a; cf. 600a.
403b. [ēode hildedēor] is of course one guess among many (see Varr.) to supply a
missing verse where there is no gap in the MS. Cf. 358a, 640b, 726a, etc.; Andrew 1948:
§¯177; Stanley loc. cit. Cf. Niles OT 9 (1994) 456–7, who questions the need for the
insertion, given the pattern of alliteration on h- in three successive verses (403b–4).
404¯f. The possible semiotic value of the unusual manner of introducing this speech
is pointed out by Niles Am. Jnl. of Semiotics 9 (1992) 13–6. — 404b. heo[r]ðe. MS
heoðe ‘interior’ (?) is to all appearances spurious; the form hel-heoðo (Sat 699) which
has been cited in support is rather doubtful: see Fu.2 354–5. Against objections to on
heorðe (Bu. 86, Hoops 64), see Kl. Beibl. 54–5 (1944) 173–4 and Dob. It has been
suggested (Kl.3 Su.) that loss of r may represent phonetic spelling, though parallels are
few: see Kl. MLN 18 (1903) 244¯f., Beibl. 32 (1921) 37¯f.
 COMMENTARY 141
407. Wæs .¯.¯. hāl! A common Germanic form of salutation. So And 914; Mt (WSCp)
28.9, Lk 1.28, Laµamon’s Brut (C) 7141: lauerd king wæs hæil. See Stroebe BGdSL 37
(1912) 190, 197; OED s.v. wassail. On wæs (= wes), see Lang. §¯2.1.
408–9a. hæbbe iċ m®rða fela / ongunnen on ġeogoþe. The tone struck by the
young hero in his ¢rst words to the king may well strike the modern reader as brash or
even arrogant (Renoir in Heroic Epic & Saga, ed. F. Oinas [Bloomington, 1978], 109).
The boast, however, is not empty: the speaker’s fame is indeed such as to have pre-
ceded him to Denmark (377–81a). Still, at least one member of the Danish court ¢nds
this speech provocative (see 499¯f., with the strategic repetition of m®rða at 504a).
409b. Grendles þinġ, ‘the affair of Grendel,’ with the subaudition ‘case, dispute’ (cf.
425¯f.) or, ironically, ‘formal meeting’ (J.M. Hill 1995: 75–6).
413. (stande . . .) īdel ond unnyt. So GenA 106 (stōd . . .) īdel and unnyt. A familiar
phrase in prose as well, especially in homilies. (Also Ormulum, Dedic. 41.) See Kl.
1911–12: [43]. Condren PQ 52 (1973) 298 suggests that unnyt refers metonymically to
the Danes.
413b–14. siððan ®fenlēoht / under heofenes haðor beholen weorþeð. The plain
meaning is that Heorot is abandoned by the Danes with the approach of evening (not
necessarily ‘after the sun disappears from the ¢rmament’: see Caldwell MÆ 42 [1973]
131). The reading of MS hador as hādor ‘brightness’ (heofenes hādor = ‘the clear sky’)
is urged by Kock4 110¯f. and Mackie 1939: 517–18. Yet the meaning is then obscure,
and hādor is nowhere found as a noun, only as an adjective (in ¢ve other instances).
Neither is there a cognate noun of similar meaning in any Gmc. language, though the
adjective has cognates in several. Moreover, the verse will not scan with dissyllabic
hādor (so Pope 323; see Appx.C §¯35).1 Emendation to haðor (as in Kl.1–2) thus seems
best after all, and it produces better meaning. The misspelling d for ð occurs 1837,
2959, 3119; cf. heaðerian; Rid 21.13: (ds.) heaþore, 66.3: headre (on the basis of which
Cha., Dob., Crp. retain MS hador, in the belief that the form with d is a valid alternate
spelling). See SN 77 (2005) 146–7. We thus have a periphrasis like sweġles begong,
heofones hwealf, foldan fæþm (see Gloss.). (Generally in OE poetry the setting sun and
stars are said to pass under the earth or the sea.) — Other poetic expressions for the
coming of night: 649¯ff., 1789¯f.
420–4. Were these feats performed in the course of a single adventure or on several
occasions? If the latter, the slaying of the niceras could refer to the Breca episode,
549¯ff. (compare 557¯ff. [1428¯f.] with 423a). — fāh from fēondum, i.e. colored with
the blood of opponents, the ¢rst of many uses of a formula employing fāh, both as a
simplex and as a compounded element, with reference to blood: see Gloss. (Kock4 111:
‘a foe from foes’; cf. Hoops.) The proposed emendations of fīfe (see Varr.; also Brooks
EGS 5 [1952–3] 55 n.¯200) are by reference to niceras nigene 575. — 423b. The subject
of āhsodon is niceras. Cf. the use of sēċan 1989, 3001; see Gloss.
425b¯f. ġehēġan / ðinġ, ‘hold a meeting, settle the dispute,’ here applied ironically to
battle. Cf. And 157, 930, Max I 18; Stanley 1979; D. Green 1998: 35–7.
426b. Iċ þē nūða. Type C1. See Varr. Jambeck Style 7 (1973) 21–9 perceives the
complex syntax of this and the following lines as indicative of the hero’s tact and skill
as a petitioner.
427b¯f. (Iċ þē . . .) biddan wille . . . ānre bēne. bēn is here ‘favor’ rather than ‘peti-
tion’; cf. MnE boon, and see Kl. 1926: 121. The same expression occurs Sigurðarkv. in
skamma 64: biðja munk þik bœnar einnar.

1
Bliss (§¯47) would resolve the metrical diÌculty by reading hādľr, but if, as is generally
assumed, runic hideR on the 7th-cent. Stentoften stone (cf. Björketorp hAidR) represents the
etymon of ON heiðr ‘bright’ (reformed as an a/ō-stem), the stem of hādor cannot have been
monosyllabic (pace Antonsen 1975: 86–7, since R ≠ r), the runic form being usually regarded as an
es-stem (so Krause 1971: §¯98), an assumption corroborated by the OE variant stem h®dr-: see SB
§¯288¯n.
142 BEOWULF
430b. nū iċ þus feorran cōm: cf. 825b, 361, 1819a. Similar sentiments: Bede 60.5¯ff.
(H.E. i, cap.¯25), Mald 55¯ff.
431b–2a. mīnra eorla ġedryht, / ond þes hearda hēap. Most edd. (including Kl.)
transpose ond to the head of the preceding verse. This does render more transparent
sense, but it assumes a sort of scribal error that is uncommon. (See also W. Lehmann
1969.) To obviate the emendation and the seeming contradiction of āna with Bēowulf’s
apparent inclusion of his men, Bamm. (ES 76 [1995] 297–301; also MR) reads these
verses as vocative, addressed to the Ġēatas and the Danish court, even though the hero
has been speaking to Hrōðgar throughout, and he has just addressed him explicitly in
the previous line. No solution seems entirely satisfactory. Bammesberger may be right
that hearda hēap refers to the Danes, in which event it is not impossible that Bēowulf
means that he himself, his band, and the Danish champions will together purge Heorot.
That is, perhaps Bēowulf is offering to include the Danes in the ¢ght, out of civility —
regardless of whether any Danes do actually participate (on which see Niles N&Q 27
[1980] 99¯f., with whom this analysis originates, though he suggests inserting mid
before mīnra; but emendation is unnecessary, as the tripartite subject may leave ond
before the second element unexpressed: see OES §¯1684). This would in any event be in
keeping with the sensitivity to Danish self-respect that the hero has already shown
(260–85); see also 958¯n. For āna in the sense ‘myself,’ ‘in my own person,’ see BTS
s.v. ān xiii.
432b. f®lsian. In Christian contexts, this verb can have a quasi-liturgical sense (see
Fates 66, El 678, ChristA 144; see Kl. 1911–12: [66 n.¯2]). The notion of the ‘cleansing’
of infested places is also in accord with popular tradition (see Intr. xl: Grettis saga, ch.
67; W. Ker 1908: 196; Panzer 1910: 100–1, 266 n.¯1; Sazzazin Angl. 19 (1897) 371 sug-
gests that the verb originally had a heathen sacral meaning). Cf. the puri¢cation of
metal by ¢re in Rid 79.4. The reiteration of this verb at 825 and 1176 (w. ref. to Heorot)
and 1620 (w. ref. to Grendel’s mere) brings the theme of cleansing into special prom-
inence.
434b. w®pna ne reċċeð: more likely ‘does not care to use weapons’ than ‘does not
fear weapons’ (the latter favored by Holt., Schü., Laborde MLR 18 [1923] 202; cf.
801¯ff.), as remarked by Dobbie: cf. Dan 201, Hell 37, etc.
435¯ff. Bēowulf wishes to meet Grendel on equal terms (so 679¯ff.); that the monster
cannot be wounded by ordinary weapons, he does not yet know (791¯ff.): see Baird
N&Q 14 (1967) 6–8. No doubt, the story called for a wrestling contest, which is also
Bēowulf’s preferred method of ¢ghting (2506¯ff., 2518¯ff.; Intr. xlii & n.¯2) — though
he sometimes does use weapons, as in the combats with Grendel’s mother and the
dragon.
435b–6. swā mē Hiġelāc sīe . . . A form of asseveration: ‘as [I wish that] H. may be
.¯.¯.’ (or: ‘so may H. be¯.¯.¯.’). In the same measure as Bēowulf will acquit himself hero-
ically, Hyġelāc will feel kindly disposed toward him. Cf. Gen 42.15: swā iċ āge Phara-
ones helde. See OES §¯2857.
440. lāð wið lāþum. Polyptoton within the half-line; so 931a, 1978a, 2461a.
440b¯f. Bloom¢eld Speculum 44 (1969) 545–59 would interpret the hero’s ¢ght with
Grendel as a judicium Dei, or trial by combat; see also 685b–7 in this regard. If so,
however, this would be the earliest recorded allusion to such a method of resolving
disputes. A safer paraphrase of the verses would be ‘He who dies will have to trust in
God’s mercy on his soul,’ or perhaps ‘He who dies will know it to be the Lord’s judg-
ment upon him,’ with routine reference to God as disposer of victories.
440b. ð®r may be conj. (Andrew 1940: §¯26; Donoghue 1987: 70; cf. Bliss ASE 9
[1981] 178).
444b–5a. swā hē oft dyde. Best to construe dyde as ‘verbum vicarium’ (i.e. standing
not for the entire predicate but for the verb alone; see Gr.Spr.: dōn 9) with the object
mæġen in reference to the Danes. Most recent edd. supply a comma after dyde and
assume that 445a refers to the Ġēatas (so Kl.). Klaeber favors the latter solution,
 COMMENTARY 143
remarking that 444b has all the appearance of a complete formula: cf. 956, 1058, 1238,
etc. Indeed, in verse there are no unambiguous instances of this common phrase in
which dyde is followed by a nominal object that is not a variant of a preceding noun
phrase. Yet as Kl. points out, a comparable construction (though not precisely this
formula) occurs in 1828. And it does not make strict sense to say that Grendel will
devour the Ġēatas as he has often done. — mæġenhrēð manna, interpreted as ‘the
great glory (or Ïower) of men,’ in place of the usual reading mæġen Hrēðmanna, has
been strongly and persistently objected to by Malone (see Mal. 1923: 150¯ff., 48¯ff.;
MLR 20 [1925] 8–11; PMLA 40 [1925] 785¯ff., 812¯f.; JEGP 27 [1928] 323; APS 4
[1929–30] 84–90; 1960: 189–90; 1962: 174–5). By a noteworthy chain of arguments he
arrives at the conclusion that Hrēðmen(n) is meant as a name for the Ġēatas. Referring
to the old Scandinavian use of Reiðgotaland, i.e., the land of the Hreiðgotar, which is
found by some to denote both Jutland and the region on the south Baltic coast which
for a considerable time was inhabited by Goths (cf. Wid 120: Hr®da here, and see O.
von Friesen Rökstenen [Stockholm, 1920] 134), he holds that this national name was
originally likewise applied to the Gautar (i.e., the Ġēatas; see Bugge Antiqvarisk
Tidskrift för Sverige 5 [1873] 35–7) in their old home before it came to be used with
regard to a supposed Gautish state established in Jutland (after the Swedish conquest of
the Gautar), and hence, by extension, was understood to signify Jutland generally. That
the translator of Bede’s H.E. (i, cap.¯15) used Ġēatas with reference to Jutland is cited
as an important piece of evidence in this connection (but see Kl. Angl. 63 [1939] 403¯f.,
and cf. Malone Beibl. 51 [1940] 262–4). However, this view, though adopted by Kl.3,
demands that Hrēð- should have meant different things to the Beowulf poet and to
Cynewulf and the poet of Widsith (cf. Cha.Wid. 252¯f. on hrōð-, hrēð, ‘glory’), and
Johannson APS 7 (1932–3) 119–25 raises weighty onomastic and historical objections
(see also Schütte APS 8 [1933–4] 247–61; further refs. in Gering & Sijmons 1927: 165).
There is, moreover, an appreciable degree of metrical improbability attached to
Malone’s analysis, and even more to Wrenn’s reading hrēðmanna ‘glorious warriors’
(so MR), in reference to the Ġēatas: see Fu.2 357–8 (but cf. Kendall 1991: 194). The
reading mæġenhrēð manna is formally unexceptionable, and it furnishes sterling sense
if it is understood to mean not ‘mighty glory’ or ‘great glory of men’ but ‘glorious
host,’ like other head-initial compounds (see note on eardlufu 692). N. Davis RES 6
(1955) 300 aptly compares siġehrēð secgum 490, but see the note on that line.
445b¯ff. Nā þū mīnne þearft / hafalan h©dan, etc. The general sense of this passage
is plain: there will be no need for funeral rites (cf. 2124¯ff.). hafalan h©dan may perhaps
refer either to interment, as in Wan 84 (in eorðscræfe eorl geh©dde) but with hafalan
functioning synecdochically, or to a custom associated with interment. (Cf. Kock
Notat.Norr. §§¯1147, 2787, comparing skaldic hylja h∂fuð with the OE phrase; also
Frank 1981: 136.) Klaeber, citing Eyrbyggja saga ch. 33 (síðan sveipaði hann klæðum
at h∂fði Þóról¢ ok bjó um hann eptir siðvenju), refers to the custom of covering the
head of the dead with a cloth and argues that it may have been Christian (1911–12:
[55]). Hoops (EStn. 54 [1920] 19–23) infers from an incident related in Bede’s H.E. iv,
cap. 19 (17) that the custom obtained among the Anglo-Saxons as well as among the
Scandinavians. The existence of such a custom at this date now lacks the support of
any reliable evidence, however, since K. Gade, in a forthcoming edition of the skaldic
stanza discussed by Kock (lausavísa 5 among the anonymous 11th-century stanzas in
Finnur Jónsson’s skaldic corpus), points out that the heads covered in that passage are
almost certainly those of the mourners. See also Mezger MLN 66 (1951) 36–8, DuBois
MLN 70 (1955) 3–5; cf. v.Sch. — 448. byreð blōdiġ wæl. Kl. suggests that wæl may
have been understood in the general sense ‘booty, spoil’; cf. G. Neckel Walhall (Dort-
mund, 1913) 6¯f. The meaning ‘(single) corpse’ (wæl) inferred from this line is du-
bitable, though the plural walu (as in 1042) is well attested in this sense. — 449b.
unmurnlīċe, ‘quite happily.’ On the use of un- for stylistic effects, see Intr. cxi. —
450. mearcað, probably ‘will mark with blood,’ ‘will stain.’ Cf. Bu.Tid. 70: ‘marks
144 BEOWULF
with his footprints,’ ‘traverses’; Gr.Spr.: ‘inhabits’ (?). — 450b–1. It has plausibly been
suggested (see Le., Puhvel, Ja.) that the sense is meiotic, expressing stoic humor. Some
have thought that līċes feorme cannot mean ‘sustenance of my body,’ as this is too
trivial, and rather odd in view of Bēowulf’s brief visit. Yet the meaning ‘(taking care
of, i.e.) disposal’ proposed (by Kl., v.Sch.; similarly Gering ZfdPh. 12 [1881] 124) for
feorme as another allusion to funeral preparations is unattested (see Puhvel ELN 1
[1963–4] 161¯f.). nō . . . lenġ ‘no longer,’ i.e. after that (cf. Aant.: ‘not for a moment,’
‘by no means’).
452¯ff. The hero’s instructions concerning his coat of mail imply that he regards it as
his most treasured possession, as is not surprising considering its apparent gold orna-
ment (405b; cf. 553a), its association with royalty (454b), and its remarkable origin
(455a).
455. Wēlandes ġeweorc. In Old Germanic literature, ascription of a weapon or
armor to Wēland was conclusive proof of its superior workmanship and venerable
associations. Such references occur in the OE Waldere, Boethius (prose and verse), in
ME, OF, and Latin texts (P. Maurus Münchener Beiträge zur rom. und eng. Phil. 25
[1902]). The ¢gure of this wondrous smith, corresponding to Vulcan and Daedalus of
classical mythology and perhaps embodying at ¢rst the semi-sacred power and danger
of metallurgy as it impressed the peoples of prehistory, was made the subject of a
heroic legend, which spread from northern Germany to Scandinavia and England. Evi-
dence that the striking story of Wēland’s captivity and bloody revenge told in the Eddic
V∂lundarkviða (and in a later, expanded, and somewhat diluted form in Þiðreks saga,
chs. 57–79) was known to the Anglo-Saxons is furnished by the allusions in the ¢rst
two strophes of Deor and the carving on the front of the Franks Casket, of ca. 8th-
century date (A. Becker, Franks Casket [Regensburg, 1973], Illus.B 28). It is possible,
in fact, that V∂lundarkviða as we have it comes from Scandinavian Yorkshire
(McKinnell Saga-Book 23 [1990] 1–27). Cf. the picture stone dated ca. 750 from Ardre
(Gotland) in Historiska Museet, Stockholm, which depicts Wēland’s Ïight after be-
heading his captor’s two young sons. On the Wēland legend, see R. Wilson The Lost
Lit. of Medieval England, 2nd ed. (London, 1970) 16–17, Davidson Folklore 69 (1958)
145–59; on AS smiths and the mythology associated with them, see Hinton in Textual
& Material Culture in AS England, ed. D. Scragg (Cambridge, 2003), 261–82. Admira-
tion for the works of (unnamed) smiths crops up in passages like Beo 406, 1451¯f.,
1681. On ġīganta ġeweorc 1562 and similar expressions, see Davidson op. cit. 157–8.
455b. G®ð ā wyrd swā hīo scel. There is no discrepancy by comparison to 440b–1:
ð®r ġel©fan sceal / dryhtnes dōme sē þe hine dēað nimeð. In origin, wyrd refers only to
the passage of events, not to any personi¢ed force like the Latin Fatae: see 2420¯n.,
Intr. lxxii¯f.
457. Fore †fyhtum þū. Precisely what is intended here cannot be determined. The
MS reading fere fyhtum þu furnishes neither alliteration nor sense, and yet none of the
proposed emendations is fully satisfactory. Ke.2 and others (incl. E., Tho., Schü., Tr.1
152¯f.) would replace wine in the off-verse with frēond, but wine mīn Bēowulf is
entirely idiomatic (cf. 1704, 530), while frēond, Klaeber points out (Beibl. 24 [1913]
290), is never used in the vocative in verse. Nor, it may be added, is voc. frēond mīn
encountered even in prose. (Cf. voc. mīn se lēofesta frēond [ApT 9.14].) In a late
alteration of his position, Klaeber recommended placing þū in the off-verse (Kl.3 Su.
466; or canceling it), but this is not the sort of word that usually serves as metrical
anacrusis (see Cable 1974: 32–44; Suz. 319–22), and in any event unstressed þū would
be a notable violation of Kuhn’s ¢rst law (Appx.C §¯6; cf. Щs dōgor þū 1395a).
Stressed þū must then go into the on-verse, where it limits the range of possible emen-
dations. For(e) werefyhtum þū is metrically intractable (Appx.C §¯34), and the meaning
is problematic: ‘for ¢ghts arising from uncompensated murder’ (MR, where were- =
werġild, as in werf®hð, wertihtle; cf. Girvan 1954: 178: for wercystum ‘on account of
your own excellent qualities’) may be more convincing as legal than as poetic diction,
 COMMENTARY 145
though it is morphologically more plausible than ‘for defensive ¢ghts’ (Gru.), since
were- ‘defense’ (cf. werian) is otherwise unattested. (See also infra on purposive for.)
The simplest emendation of all, Werefyhtum þū, without the preposition, faces the
same diÌculty, with the added problem that a causal dat./instr. other than þ© is not
securely attested (see OES §¯1427), and the obvious parallel with 458 argues that MS
fere is a mistranscription of fore (Siev. 1884b: 138; Biggs PQ 80 [2001] 100), given
that WS scribes frequently replace unstressed Anglian fore with for: see HOEM
§¯353.14. This consideration adds to doubts as to the metrically improbable reading
wēre ryhtum (þū) ‘due to the obligation imposed by the covenant (between ruler and
retainer)’ (Bu. 87¯f.): see Aant. [9¯f.]. Trautmann’s reading For ġewyrhtum þū, adopted
by Kl. and others, makes good sense, and yet appealing as it may be to suppose that
Bēowulf’s journey to Denmark was motivated by his sense of obligation due to his
father’s debt (see, e.g., Seebohm 1902: 61; also supra 194¯n.), the MS reading is hard to
explain as the result of scribal corruption of this original phrasing, and Klaeber
eventually abandoned it (Kl.3 Su. 470). (Note that unpre¢xed wyrhtum ‘wrights’ does
not furnish the required sense; the rendering ‘for [good] cause’ [Sed.1–2] is
unexampled.) Fore wyhtum is plausible neither in the sense ‘for ¢ghts’ (Holt. Beibl. 45
[1934] 19; cf. Hoops EStn. 70.1 [1935] 77¯f.) nor ‘for (evil) creatures’ (Gr.1; Grienb.
BGdSL 36 [1910] 80¯f.; W. Lehmann 1969: 225–8). (Matthes 1955: 368 rather supposes
fyhtum has been substituted for a rune with the meaning ‘battles,’ standing for wīgum,
an idea that Musset [Études Anglaises 10 (1957) 147] justi¢ably regards as too
speculative.) Rather, once again, we should expect parallelism with 458, and Sievers
1910: 401–2 warns that for in verse never expresses a purposive goal, and almost never
in prose before the time of Ælfric (though van Dam 1957: 6–7, 14 offers some
Alfredian examples). Neither is it convincing in the sense ‘for something,’ i.e. ‘with
reason’ (Boer 1912: 44¯n.). Stanley (PBA 70 [1984] 262; similarly Ki.) would read fēre-
‘¢t,’ i.e. for military service, but he concedes that the word is a late one, and at all
events the additional emendation of wine to fenġel that he urges to restore alliteration
demands of the scribe an unlikely corruption. Some other solutions are suggested by
Kl. 1905–6: 452–3. As no convincing emendation has been proposed, it has been
thought best to retain the MS reading (only making the fairly certain emendation of
fere to fore), while conceding that this is unsatisfactory in regard to poetic form and
meaning, and, like all the proposed readings except werefyhtum þū, it represents a
violation of Kuhn’s second law (see Appx.C §¯7).
459–72. Ecgþēo’s former feud. The requisite meaning of the verb in Ġeslōh þīn
fæder f®hðe m®ste is not exactly paralleled elsewhere (so Gr.Spr., Dob.), but the
sense seems closest to the perfective (resultative) one ‘achieved by ¢ghting’ (or ‘by
slaying’: Hoops, v.Sch., Wn.): hence ‘your father brought about by ¢ght the greatest
feud’ (or ‘of feuds,’ since f®hðe perhaps stands for f®hða: cf. ChristB 617, Beo 78,
193, 1119, 2328, etc.). Compare þāra folca ®ġðer on ōðerum miċel wæl ġeslōgan (Or 3,
1.54.27–8), and see Müllenhoff AfdA 3 (1877) 179; Kl. MLN 16 (1901) 14¯f.; 1905–6:
262. The chief alternative renderings advocated are ‘fought the greatest ¢ght’ (see
Kock 226¯f., 1923: 187), and ‘fought out the greatest feud’ (see Lorz 1908: 64; Cha.,
Ni.; cf. W. Lehmann 1969: 225–6). The former, while not impossible (cf. 1083), strays
further from the customary perfective function of ġeslēan. The latter is unconvincing,
since the slaying of Heaþolāf by no means ¢nishes the feud. Moreover, Hrōðgār is not
interested primarily in relating a great exploit of Ecgþēo’s; rather, he means to em-
phasize that the two families are not unacquainted and that friendly relations exist
between them. A point that he presents in a modestly oblique manner is that he settled
Ecgþēo’s feud (þā f®hðe 470) through what must have been an act of great generosity.
The debt on Ecgþēo’s side would have been considerable if the feud was indeed f®hðe
m®ste, for by the social conventions of the AS era (which an original audience might
have assumed to apply in such a case), Ecgþēo, by accepting Hrōðgār’s surety or pro-
tection (in legal terms, his mundbyrd), would have become his high-ranking client. See
146 BEOWULF
Seebohm 1902: 61, G. Clark 1990: 56. J.M. Hill 1995: 21–2 speculates that the reason
Ecgþēo sought refuge in Denmark, rather than elsewhere, is that he claimed Danish
kinship on his mother’s side; the ties between the two families would then be still
closer, and Hrōðgār’s generosity would be more easily understood. Osborn PQ 78
(1999) 53–4 analyzes this scene as an example of how different characters exert subtle
control over their social relations through the manipulation of narrative. — On the
metrical treatment of fæder, see Appx.C §¯27.
461b–2. ðā. Andrew (1940: §¯112) would subordinate the clause introduced by this
conjunction to what follows; Donoghue (1987: 71–2) to what precedes and follows
(ЂπЮ κοινοи); and Blockley (2001: 137) to the clause beginning in 467b, while Emerson
1926: 398–9, Schü.Sa. 109¯n., and Lehnert would begin a principal clause here. Cf.
OES §¯2445. — Wedera. The emendation furnishes satisfactory alliteration and sense.
Malone’s unmetrical emendation Wulgara < *Wulgwara as a name for the Wyl¢ngs
(MLQ 1 [1940] 39¯f.; 1960: 196–7; similarly Farrell 1972: 18–19, Newton 1993: 117–20)
is paleographically likely, but it rests on much speculation, as the name is otherwise
unattested (see Kl. SN 15 [1942–3] 341). If Ecgþēo was a Wyl¢ng, as Malone argues,
banished by his own people for killing one of them, then Dobbie is right that here-
brōga would seem an inappropriate term for the vengeance they might have feared. Cf.
W. Lehmann 1969: 226–7; Byers PQ 46 (1967) 125–8 (winegāra; cf. Appx.C §¯34);
Kiernan 1981: 182 (wine for hine). — for herebrōgan, ‘on account of terror of [antici-
pated] war’ (Kl. Angl. 28 [1905] 440). Ecgþēo was compelled to leave the country of
the Ġēatas after the manslaughter, a sign that the feud was indeed a major one that, for
whatever reasons, his own family did not settle through the usual system of werġild.
(Was it too expensive? Or had Ecgþēo already committed suÌcient killings to make of
himself a pariah?) In any event, the theme of reversal of fortune is sharply evident in
his story. Interesting partial parallels: Odyssey xv 271¯ff.; Grettis saga, chs. 16, 24, 27;
V∂lsunga saga, ch. 1 (Sigi kills a man — ok má hann nú eigi heima vera með feðr
sínum); LawAbt 23 (ġif bana of lande ġewīteþ . . .).
465b. Deniġa. That MS deninga should be a by-form (of emotional connotation) of
Dene (cf. Þyringas: (Ermun-)Duri; so Meissner ZfdA 70 [1933] 42) seems less prob-
able than simple scribal error.
466b. ġinne, MS gimme. Scribal blunder is paralleled elsewhere in connection with
the rare poetic adj. ġin(n): see Kl. MP 2.2 (1904) 141; Brandl P.Grdr.2 iia 990. Some
sense can be derived from the MS reading (Wn.: ‘glorious kingdom’; Robinson 1985:
65–6, MR: ‘realm of jewels,’ on the basis of comparison to hordburh, with gen. pl. in
-e), but in verse the quali¢ers of rīċe are limited almost exclusively to a possessor (usu.
God), a place (heaven, earth), or an adjective meaning ‘broad’ (wīd, brād, rūm, etc.),
and ġinne rīċe is exactly paralleled at GenA 230. (Schü., v.Sch., Ni., Crp. regard ġimme
as a variant of ġinne, though this is dubitable.) Since the compositional form of ‘gem’
is ġim- rather than ġimme- (cf. gimcynn, -reċed), the supposed compound ġimmerīċe
‘jewel-rich’ (Cha.) is not to be supported (see Hoops 73, Brooks MLR 49 [1954] 488);
if -e- were a late, scribal excrescent vowel (so Wn.), it would not make position in the
meter (Ekwall 1954: 79).
467b. ðā. Andrew 1948: §¯15 regards this as a subordinator (cf. 2372), and this would
appear to be correct, since the word introduces an explanation how Hrōðgār came to
the throne, as indicated in the preceding clause: see Fulk ES 88 (2007) 627. Hence, ðā
in 465 is an adverb.
469b. sē wæs betera ðonne iċ! See Gloss.: gōd, adj. The primary sense is that Here-
gār was the elder brother and hence of higher standing, though modesty on the part of
the speaker may also be inferred.
470. Siððan could introduce a subordinate clause, should 471–2a be regarded as a
parenthesis. That 470 should be subordinate to 471–2a (so Ni.) seems unlikely: surely
the valuables sent are the settlement.
 COMMENTARY 147
472b. hē mē āþas swōr. Presumably, Ecgþēo promised Hrōðgār (who assumed
responsibility for his good behavior) that he would keep the peace. Oaths of reconcili-
ation between two warring parties are mentioned 1095¯ff. But it may be instead, or
additionally, that he vowed allegiance to the Danish king. On this assumption, Malone
MLQ 1 (1940) 37–44 maintains that Ecgþēo remained with Hrōðgār as his retainer, and
this is how the king knew Bēowulf as a boy (372).
478b. God ēaþe mæġ . . . A conventional combination; Kl. 1911–12: [6], Shippey
1977: 42.
479. þone dolscaðan. Although reference to Grendel seems straightforward enough,
Andrew (1948: §¯109; Eliason 1953: 446–7) would have this phrase refer to ‘any rash
assailant’ rather than Grendel, taking dol- to refer to the foolhardiness of the Danes, as
described in the following verses. This leaves þone unaccounted for (v.Sch.).
480¯f. Ful oft ġebēotedon bēore druncne . . . The many terms for drink in the poem
(ealo- 481, wered 496, wīn 1162, etc.) indicate its ritual importance, as do terms for the
hall that include reference to drink (bēorsele 482, medoheal 484). See Enright 1996:
17–18. On the drinking ceremony, see 607–41 (w. note); on the socially ambivalent
character of drinking, see notes on 531 and 1231a.
487b¯f. þē þā dēað fornam, ‘since death had taken those away.’ Cf. 1435¯f.; Rid
9.11¯f. Yet þ© l®s . . . þē may be correlative: ‘the fewer . . . in proportion as’ (MR; see
OES §§¯3137¯ff.; the alternative suggestion that þ© should mean ‘for that reason,’
though less likely, is also not implausible, as the word in that sense is not always
clause-initial in verse: cf. GenA 1895, GuthA 491, etc.). It is less credible that þē should
be relative, the older interpretation.
489b¯f. ons®l meoto, / siġehrēð secgum, ‘disclose your thoughts, glory of victory, to
these men.’ Körner1 ¢rst interpreted meoto (for more usual meota: see Bamm. 1986a:
88) as imp. of metgian, metian ‘meditate’; yet on s®l in the sense ‘about joy’ (so also
Ni.; or ‘about success,’ Malone MLR 56 [1961] 212) has no parallel in OE (see Kl. and
Kock for the Norse evidence), and metian is nowhere found with on, the Gothic cog-
nate mitōn taking an acc. object. Schücking’s interpretation of on s®l as ‘at the proper
time’ (see Varr.; so also Wn., Ja.; or ‘on this occasion,’ Sed. MLR 27 [1932] 448, ed.3)
is nearly as problematic, since there is no fully comparable expression in OE, and the
acc. after on seems improbable (cf. on s®lum 643, 1170, 1322, El 194, etc.; see also
Robinson ES 49 [1968] 513–16, and cf. OES §¯1172); the same objection applies to the
reading on sæl ‘in the hall’ (Du Bois MLN 50 [1935] 89¯f.; cf. Patzig Angl. 47 [1923]
97¯f., Holt. Beibl. 40 [1929] 90; cf. Irving 1989: 141: ‘[think] about the hall’). Unless
the passage is to be emended (and only a selection of the emendations proposed in the
literature cited here is given in the Varr.), the correct form must be a verb ons®l. The
apparent metrical objection to an imper. of this form (Kl. 1926: 121–2), which
prompted the reading on s®l(um), has been shown by Bright (see Varr.) to be largely
imaginary, since the occurrence of an imperative under the ¢rst metrical stress of the
off-verse is not infrequent. For such imperatives taking precedence, in alliteration, of a
following noun, see Finn 11a,b, 12a,b, GenA 1513b, (And 914a,) Res 39b; similarly WaldA
22b, GenA 1916b, And 1212b (see Siev.A.M. §¯24.3; Appx.C §¯41). For the ¢gurative
meaning of ons®lan, cf. onlūcan 259, onbindan 501; for the use of the dative, cf. And
171¯f., 315¯f. Bright’s rendering ‘do thou, victory-famous one, disclose to these men
what thou hast in mind’ (emend. mētto, found in no other place, but cf. ofermētto),
renders satisfactory sense. Yet the assumption of an adj. siġehrēð (a ‘possessive com-
pound’; so He.1–2, Tr.1 154, Tr.) is open to doubt, and instead the noun siġehrēð may be
taken to refer to the hero’s glorious deeds, which he is expected to relate. (Whitbread
MLR 37 [1942] 481 and Malone MLR 56 [1961] 212 read siġe Hrēðsecgum, parallel to

1
EStn. 2 (1879) 250¯f.; see also Kl. MLN 34 (1919) 132, Kock2,3 105, 100, id. 1923: 187; Moore
JEGP 18 (1919) 206, Holt.3–5, Cha. 255, and see Varr.; similarly Kl. 1926: 121–2, 1907: 192.
148 BEOWULF
the latter’s reading of 445a; similarly Wn. [hrēð-], but cf. Ekwall 1954: 79.) Dietrich
(see Gr.Spr., in agreement) takes meoto for a fem. noun ‘meditation, thoughts’ (cf. Go.
fem. mitōns ‘thought, consideration’; see Lang. §¯19.3); so He.4, Soc., Wy., Hold.2,
Cha., Dob., and MR; so also Hoops, who presents an admirable synopsis of views, St.
33–41, as does Imelmann EStn. 65.2 (1931) 190–6, 66.321–4. On the other hand, Gr.2,
Bu.Tid. 292, Tr.1 154 take the word for the pl. of a neut. noun met (cf. ġemet) ‘measure,
etiquette’ (Bu.: ‘courtly words,’ cf. He.1–3 [Leo]). Holt. Beibl. 42 (1931) 250 would
construe it as an adverbial genitive plural (see Lang. §¯19.3), taking the line to mean
‘proclaim with moderation the men’s victorious renown.’ Robinson, loc. cit., suggests
confusion with meodo. See also Andrew (1948: §¯184; cf. Wrenn RES 1 [1950] 356),
reading meotod (see Varr.) and sele (for secgum).
493. þ®r may be a conj. (Emerson 1926: 395; Donoghue 1987: 70–1); also in 497.
495b. hroden ealow®ġe. The drinking vessels offered to the men in Heorot are
described as ornamented and precious: cf. ful 615, medoful 624, sinċfæt 622. Archaeo-
logical evidence concerning vessels of the Germanic Iron Age, when taken together
with the superlative qualities of Heorot in general, encourages comparison to the kind
of precious glassware, of Frankish or Kentish manufacture, that has been recovered
from late pagan AS sites such as Taplow (see Stiff in Lapidge et al. 1999: 205–6, w.
refs.; Illus.B 40), though no such speci¢c identi¢cation is necessary. AS glass drinking
vessels did not necessarily stand upright, for some had rounded or conical bases — an
encouragement to those at the drinking-party to drain them before setting them down.
On Scandinavian drinking vessels, see Gjærder KLNM 3.313–22; on AS cups, see
further Williamson 1977: 324. No drinking horns are mentioned in Beowulf.
497. hādor, i.e. ‘with a clear voice’: Lang. §¯26.2. Cf. Wid 103: scīran reorde.
497b–8. duguð may have its alternate meaning ‘excellence, glory’ here (cf. 3174),
and thus, arguably, it could be used in variation with drēam (Aant.; Emerson 1926:
397), but more likely it is used as a syntactic parallel, esp. in view of the parallel of
And 1269¯f.: Ðā cōm hæleða þrēat, / . . . duguð unl©tel. See Kl. Archiv 108 (1902) 370;
1905–6: 240.
499–661. The Ūnferð Intermezzo: Account of Bēowulf’s swimming adventure
with Breca. Entertainment in the hall.
An unusually prominent capital letter (of H, given the scribe’s understanding of this
name) marks the beginning of the ¢tt division and the introduction of Ūnferð to the
action; cf. the note on 2602¯ff.
The exchange with Ūnferð represents a notable contest of narratives, pro¢tably stud-
ied with reference to ON Ïytings and the venerable practice of verbal duelling more
generally.1 Bēowulf, taunted by Ūnferð with having been bested in a swimming match
with Breca,2 corrects him by telling the true story of the incident; whereupon he makes
a spirited attack upon his critic’s character and achievements, concluding with a
con¢dent prediction of his own success against Grendel. Ūnferð represents the incident
as a swimming contest (506¯f., 517) — a dangerous one (509b–10a), based on foolish
pride (508–9a), that was undertaken against the advice of wiser heads (510b–12).
Bēowulf, on the other hand, emphasizing that he and Breca were mere youths at that

1
Clover 1980: 444–68; Renoir in Foley 1981: 426; Silber TSLL 23 (1981) 471–83; Parks
Neophil. 70 (1986) 292–306, id. Verbal Dueling in Heroic Narrative (Princeton, 1990) passim;
McNamara Southern Folklore 53 (1996) 153–69; Jucker & Taavitsainen Jnl. of Hist. Pragmatics 1
(2000) 67–95; Church Rhetorica 18 (2000) 49–78. Osborn (PQ 78 [1999] 49–76) maintains that
Bēowulf in his response to Ūnferth aims to counter the idea that in combating Grendel he is
repaying his father’s obligation to Hrōðgār rather than acting out of magnanimity. See further the
refs. in n.¯2 on p.¯150.
2
On the Breca episode, see especially Bu. 51–5; Cha.Wid. 110¯f.; Lawrence in Anniversary
Papers by Colleagues & Pupils of George L. Kittredge (Boston, 1913) 359–66; Björkman Beibl. 30
(1919) 170¯ff.; Bonjour 1950: 17–22; Brodeur 1959: 142–9; Eliason Speculum 38 (1963) 267–84;
Benson 1970.
 COMMENTARY 149
time (535b, 536b–7a), explains that the adventure was entered upon solely to ful¢ll a
boastful pledge (bēot 536). He points out that rivalry was not the chief motive (543),
although he also makes clear that he was the superior swimmer. Characterizing the
incident as a test of endurance rather than speed, he makes much of his ability to suffer
physical rigors (534a), and he tells at length about his struggles with sea-monsters — a
topic that Ūnferð has neglected to mention.
This swimming exploit, which it was once the vogue to explain on a mythological
basis,1 looks rather like a hyperbolic example of one of those sporting feats common in
the heroic literature of the North (and which naturally often took the form of contests).2
The narrative of this youthful trial of strength is appropriate at this point in the
narrative, as it seems designed to inspire con¢dence in Bēowulf’s ability to cope with
the monster Grendel. Analogues have been found in folktales3 (Panzer 1910: 272) and
in the realm of Old Irish literature (Puhvel 1979: 55–60 and 61–72), though none are
very close. That Breca was known to AS heroic legend (perhaps in connection with the
sea; see also Gloss. of Proper Names) is proved by the allusion in Wid 25: Breoca
[wēold] Brondingum. But nothing points to an old tradition involving Breca and
Bēowulf. It should be added that although the episode has been perceived as deriving
from a lay (see the note on 512b¯f.), the story of the swimming exploit is not very
promising material for that genre.
The distance covered by the two endurance swimmers is considerable. The Finna
land 580 (land of the Finns or rather Sámi?)¯4 where Bēowulf comes ashore is usually
identi¢ed with Finmarken in the north of Norway. By the land of the Heaþo-R®mas5
(519) is probably meant the region of modern Romerike (to the north of Oslo), called in
ON Raumaríki, and cited as a national name Raumaricii by Jordanes, cap. 3. In pre-
historic times it may very well have included a strip of seashore.6 However, we are by
no means compelled to believe that the poet wished to convey any clear notions of
geography.
Ūnferð, a somewhat enigmatic ¢gure, has been declared7 an example of the type of
‘the wicked counselor’ — like Bikki, for one, at J∂rmunrekr’s court — well known in

1
Thus, to Müllenhoff (1¯f.) Breca meant the stormy sea, to Möller (22) the gulf stream, to
Laistner (1879: 265) the sun; Sarrazin (St. 65¯f.) considered the story a form of the Baldr myth;
Niedner ZfdA 42 (1898) 229–58 recognized in Bēowulf-Breca the Dioscurian twins.
2
See Weinhold 1856: 311–12; Panzer 1910: 270¯f.; cf. Müllenhoff 1887–1900: 4.334–5; and the
note on 512b¯f. In particular, a somewhat similar tale of a swimming match in the romance Egils
saga einhenda ok Ásmundar berserkjabana (of the 14th century) has been cited (by Bu. 51–5), but
the parallelism noted is far from exact. — Bēowulf himself on a later occasion swims from
Friesland to his own home in Ġēatland with thirty sets of armor on his arm (2359¯ff.; but see notes
on 2361¯f., 2367).
3
See Panzer 1910: 272; but the folktale type is not distinctive. That the name of Breca,
Bēanstān’s son, is derived from a *Stānbreca (cf. Steinhauer, etc.) of some such folktales is a
rather far-fetched hypothesis of Panzer’s.
4
See Koivulehto R.-L.2 9.82–3. Beck ibid. 9.108 remarks that Tacitus, Ptolemy, Orosius, and
Jordanes treat Finnmark as peripheral and to some extent exotic.
5
Assuming that heaþo- serves as epitheton ornans: cf. Heaðo-Beardan, Heaðo-Scil¢ng(as).
6
The enormous distance separating the landing places of Bēowulf and Breca would be lessened
if we assumed either that the ‘land of the Finns’ is the district of Finnheden (Finnved) in Småland,
Sweden (see H. Schück Folknamnet Geatas i den fornengelska dikten Beowulf, Upsala universitets
årsskrift 1907, Program 2, p.¯28, and cf. the daring speculation by Osborn NM 19 [1989] 137–42
that Finna land = Wedermearc), or that the term Heaþo-R®mas refers to Romsdalen (ON Raums-
dalr) on the west coast of Norway (Boer Afnf. 19 [1902] 46; cf. Ettmüller’s ed. of Widsið [1839]
22). Nelles Neophil. 83 (1999) 299–312 supposes that Breca somehow was killed and his corpse
washed ashore. The mention of the probably ¢ctitious Brondingas (521) does not add to our
knowledge. We are not even told from what place the swimmers started. On the Finns, see also
Much R.-L.1 2.51¯ff.
7
Olrik 1903–10: [1.55–64]. Cf. Malone PMLA 42 (1927) 302¯ff., Ogilvy ibid. 79 (1964) 370–5.
150 BEOWULF
Germanic legend, although if he is actually fomenting dissensions within the Scylding
dynasty, there is only the vaguest hint of this (see 1164¯ff.). In accordance with this
interpretation, his name has often been analyzed as Un-ferð, i.e., eymologically, Un-
frið, ‘mar-peace’ (as urged by Kl. and others), and taken by some to signal a certain
allegorical status for the character. (So, e.g., M. Bloom¢eld 1949–51; but cf. Niles
1983: 82–3, who points out some of the improbabilities involved; and on the meaning
of unfrið, see Fell Saga-Book 21 [1982–5] 85–100.) The assumption of such literary
arti¢ce in the construction of the name, however, is at least unnecessary, as Ūn- (a
variant of Hūn-, probably ‘high’) and -friþ are both well attested as Germanic name
elements (including OHG Hūnfrid/Ūnfrid itself); and Bloom¢eld’s interpretation con-
Ïicts to a degree with certain aspects of the presentation of the character, especially the
trust placed in him at the Danish court and the fact that his father is named (as if we
were expected to be familiar with Ecglāf), and not in any obviously symbolic way. His
apparent improvement of character in the course of the poem, perhaps under the hero’s
inÏuence,1 also accords ill with the assumption of onomastic symbolism. The proposed
meaning ‘unintelligence, folly’ (Robinson 1970b: 43–8, 1974: 127–32) depends upon
derivation of the second element from ferhð; but see Fulk MP 85.2 (1987) 113–27, w.
refs. See also Lang. §¯26.10.
The name is consistently spelt with initial h (4×), but in the three instances in which
it is in alliterating position, vocalic alliteration is required. The Latin names Heliseus,
Holofernus, Herodes, Hebreos alliterate on a vowel in OE verse because Latin initial h
was silent; no other Germanic name with initial h does so. The ¢rst constituent of the
name apparently was altered in the course of recopying because Ūn- was not a normal
OE name element, at least in the later period. Though many scholars now prefer to
retain the initial h, citing the parallel of consistent vocalic alliteration with hondlēan,
hondslyht (1541, 2094, 2929, 2972; see the note to 1541b), of the principal edd. since
Sed., none but Crépin has been persuaded to do so; and, after all, it is not very plausi-
ble that Hūn- should alliterate only on a vowel in this name but on h in Hūnlā¢ng 1143.
What the title þyle applied to Ūnferð (1165, 1456) means, cannot be determined with
certainty. The þyle (OIcel. þulr) has been variously described as a sage, orator, poet of
note, historian, major-domo, and the king’s right-hand man. It has even been argued
that Ūnferð’s verbal assault on the hero is one of the normal duties of a þyle, and thus it
should not be taken to reÏect on his character (but cf. 501¯ff.).2 The OE noun occurs
several times as a rendering of Lat. orator, beside the compound þelcræft = rethorica
(see BT); hence the meanings ‘orator,’ ‘spokesman,’ ‘oÌcial entertainer’ suggest
themselves as applicable to the situation in Beowulf. Rosier PMLA 77 (1962) 1–7 offers
glossarial evidence that þyle could mean ‘jester’ or ‘mocker,’ but certainly the positive
senses of the word predominate in the glossaries (see Hollowell SP 73 [1976] 239–65),
and Rosier’s handling of the evidence is rather one-sided (see Bjork PLL 16 [1980]
133–41). As to the þulr, the salient characteristics of his oÌce seem to have been ‘age,

1
Woolf MLQ 10 (1949) 145–52; see also Bonjour 1950: 20. As Klaeber remarks, in noteworthy
contrast to the original conception of his character as expressed by his name, Ūnferð evinces a
spirit of generosity, courtesy, and sportsmanlike fairness toward Bēowulf when the latter has
demonstrated his superiority (1455¯ff., 1807¯ff.).
2
Clover 1980: 467 (w. refs.). Some earlier studies of ON Ïyting and senna, in addition to those
cited by Clover: Bugge 1899: 163; Harris in Edda, ed. R. Glendinning & Haraldur Bessason (1983)
219, 237, MGS 5 (1979) 65–74. See also Kabell Afnf. 95 (1980) 31–41. Comparison has also been
drawn (by Deutschbein, GRM 1 [1909] 114, with strong opposition from Olson, MP 11.3 [1914]
419¯ff.) to the free-spoken ¢lid of medieval Irish saga, though perhaps there is greater similarity to
the Ïyting over the curatmír ‘champion’s portion’ in Scéla Mucce Meic Da Thó. Ūnferð has also
been compared to Drances, Aeneid xi 336¯ff., and Bēowulf’s reply to that of Turnus, ibid. xi 376¯ff.
(Earle 1892: 126, Kl. Archiv 126 [1911] 340¯f.). Cf. also Odyssey viii 158¯ff. (Work PQ 9 [1930]
399–402). At all events, Ūnferð’s disrespectful treatment of Bēowulf contrasts markedly with the
digni¢ed courtesy reigning at Hrōðgār’s court.
 COMMENTARY 151
wisdom, extended knowledge, and a seat of honor’ (Larson 1904: 120, with a conven-
ient summary of earlier work). Ūnferð has a seat of distinction: æt fōtum sæt frēan
Scyldinga (500, 1166) — like the scop of Fort 80¯ff. — and he bears a worthy sword
(1455¯ff.). See, additionally, the discussions of Müllenhoff 1887–1900: 5.288–96.; F.
Kauffmann in Philologische Studien: Festgabe für E. Sievers (Halle, 1896) 159–62;
Stevenson 1904: 165 (‘pedisequus’); Koegel in P.Grdr.2 iia, p.¯33; Mogk ibid. 575; B.
Williams Gnomic Poetry in AS (New York, 1914) 72–8; Phillpotts 1920: 180–5;
Heusler 1923: §¯95; W. Vogt Stilgeschichte der eddischen Wissensdichtung, I: Der
Kultredner (þulr) (Kiel, 1927); Chadwick & Chadwick 1932: 619; Martin-Clarke RES
o.s. 12 (1936) 61–6; Sisam 1965: 41; Hardy Neophil. 52 (1969) 55–69; Baird MÆ 39
(1970) 1–12; Green¢eld 1972: 104–6; Feldman PLL 15 (1979) 3–16; Kabell Afnf. 94
(1979) 31–41; Brady 1983: 221–3; Daldorph [Dahlberg] Massachusetts Stud. in Eng. 10
(1985–6) 143–60; Klingenberg R.-L.2 5.378; Enright Speculum 73 (1998) 297–337. —
As a proper name, Þyle occurs Wid 24.
501. onband beadurūne, ‘unbound battle-counsel,’ i.e. ‘disclosed a hidden quarrel’
(see note on eardlufan 692), ‘began a bellicose speech.’ Cf. El 28: wælrūne ne māð,
1098: hyġerūne ne māð; Jul 609¯f.: eahtian inwitrūne; Helgakv. Hund. II 34: sakrúnar
bar. It is dubitable whether OE rūn (as opp. to rūnstæf¯) ever has the meaning ‘runic
letter’: see Fell 1991. The use of onbindan is paralleled in Beo 259, 489.
501b. Bēowulfes sīð. sīð should be understood in the general sense ‘undertaking’; cf.
Grendles þinġ 409. (Cf. sāwle sīð [Soul II 20] = sāwle þinġ [Soul I 20].)
502b. æfþunca, which has been found in just one other passage, LibScSen 176.12,
need not be changed to æfþanca (Tr.1 155), as unstressed a is known to produce u
before a nasal consonant in the second constituents of some derived forms (līcuma,
ācumba, furlung): see OEG §¯333, Hogg §¯6.4.2.
503. forþon þe hē ne ūþe þæt ®niġ ōðer man. Types A3 and B1, with stress on
ūþe, ōðer, and man. So Pope, Bliss, et al. (For unstressed ®niġ, cf. 1353, 1560, Christ
241, 989, etc.)
504b. middanġeardes. Adverbial gen. of place (in quasi-negative clause). So 751¯f.
505. ġehēdde has often been emended to ġehēġde or ġehēde and interpreted to mean
‘should perform, carry out,’ and even some who retain MS gehedde (Schü., Wn.1–2,
v.Sch., Ni.) assume that this is a variant spelling of ġehēgde. Yet ġehēġan is an ill ¢t
with m®rða, as it is elsewhere used only with the objects þinġ, seonoþ, spr®ċ, and
mæðel to mean ‘hold a meeting’ (as in 425¯f.). Emendation is unnecessary, as Pope in
P. Brown et al. 1986: 173–87 has ably explained the verb as a form of hēdan and inter-
preted the passage to mean that Ūnferð would not allow that anyone should care more
about (i.e. be more assiduous about acquiring) glory than he. Thus, mā is adverbial and
m®rða the gen. object of ġehēdde. Cf. the ironic interpretation of Robinson 1974:
128¯–9, judging Ūnferþ a character with a FalstaÌan attitude toward heroic deeds,
which he would not allow that other men should care for any more than he.
506¯ff. se Bēowulf, sē þe . . . ‘that Bēowulf who.’ See Kl. Archiv 126 (1911) 48 n.¯3.
Ūnferð is a well-informed member of the court, as would seem to be consistent with
his title þyle. — 507. on sīdne s®. Kendall (1991: 80) observes that altering Klaeber’s
punctuation to construe the on-verse with the preceding rather than the following verb
avoids one violation of Kuhn’s second law (Appx.C §¯7) but creates another in the off-
verse. Reading sundÏite as a fem. acc. noun, however, faces the diÌculty that (ġe)Ïit is
always neuter. Kuhn himself regards the subjectless construction as suÌcient explana-
tion for the anomaly (BGdSL 57 [1933] 44 n.¯94). — The rule has been proposed by
Andrew (1940: §§¯74, 78; cf. OES §¯1839–41) that n¬ should begin a primary clause
only when it immediately precedes the verb. He would end the þyle’s question with
512b, supplying the sense ‘and’ before nē (510). One could, more simply, end the ques-
tion with Ïite (so Turner 1799–1805: 4.408; Stanley 1992: 128–9, Jack, MR), and this
may be right. Yet Andrew’s rule is unattractive on stylistic grounds in some other
places (esp. 1071, 2297, also 739, 862, 2217), and the punctuation of Kl. and most edd.
152 BEOWULF
is retained here. To the contrary, Blockley (2001: 35) argues that the passage is entirely
declarative. (She also [93] would supply a semicolon after dolġilpe.)
512b¯f. on sund r½n. Nearly all editors have understood r½n here and in 539 to be a
metaphorical reference to swimming. The deployment of other language in this passage
that can plausibly be taken as metaphorical (at 513 þehton 513, m®ton 514, perhaps
brugdon 514) reinforces such a conclusion. Ūnferð would seem to be displaying his
rhetorical skills. On a different interpretation, Robinson regards the contest between
Bēowulf and Breca literally as a rowing match (1974: 126–7, but cf. 1991: 144). His
argument is pursued at much greater length by Wentersdorf SP 72 (1975) 140–66 and
Earl Neophil. 63 (1979) 285–90, who would thus obviate the emendation of MS wudu
in 581a (but cf. 546a), taking the word as a reference to a seagoing vessel (and thus
returning to the view of Thorkelín). On this depends whether sund 507, 539 means
‘sea’ or refers to swimming or rowing. Frank 1986: 158–63, SS 59 (1987) 345–7 argues
that Ūnferþ here mocks the boys with a deliberate ambiguity, belittling their feat
(which she takes to be a rowing contest) by describing it in terms equally applicable to
rowing or swimming. Yet the adversaries must not be imagined to have held swords in
their hands as they rowed (see 539¯f.), and the poet does not tell us how the hero, row-
ing, comes to be in the water later, when his coat of mail protects him from marine
predators, one of which drags him to the bottom (550¯ff.; not ‘[out of the boat and] to-
ward the bottom’: so Wentersdorf): see Green¢eld 1982b: 299–300, Biggs RES 53
(2002) 312–15; also Fulk JEGP 104 (2005) 457–74 (w. refs.). The motivation to per-
ceive this as a feat of rowing stems chieÏy from the implausibility of the distance
covered. But on similarly superhuman feats of swimming in Old Icelandic and
medieval Irish literature, see Puhvel Folklore 82 (1971) 276–80; Jorgensen ibid. 89
(1978) 52–9; Puhvel NM 99 (1998) 131–8. Wentersdorf’s dismissal of the Germanic
parallels (pp.¯147–53) seems precipitous: cf. Niles 1983: 4–6 and Orchard 2003: 125–7.
A. Campbell (1971: 284) assumes that the scribe did not modernize r½n to rēowon
because he did not recognize the word in this unusual sense, and he takes the unusu-
alness of this usage, along with þehton 513 and ford 568, as evidence that this episode
is based on an archaic lay (see also Kabell Afnf. 95 [1980] 31–41). (The contraction in
the verb is due to loss of w before u in WGmc. *rēowun: see OEG §§¯120.3, 405;
Appx.C §¯9.) — The argument of Eliason (Speculum 38 [1963] 267–84) that Ūnferð
made up the story, and the swimming adventure never happened, appears to have
gained no adherents. Biggs (op. cit. 311–28) suggests that Bēowulf has fabricated the
part of the tale dealing with sea monsters.
525b. wyrsan ġeþinġea. Partitive gen. after a compar. (as in 247¯f.), unless wyrsan
should be considered a rare, late by-form of the gen. pl. (SB §304 n.¯2, OEG §¯656;
Kock A. 43 [1919] 301, 44.101, Hoad in Godden et al. 1994: 108–29). So Prec 7: wyrs-
an ġewyrhta. Cf. Bryan JEGP 19 (1920) 85; Rudanko 1983: 19.
526. The gen. heaðor®sa is to be construed with dohte (cf. 1344) rather than with
ġehw®r.
529b. bearn Ecgþeowes. First use of epithet. On the whole-line formula used in 529
and regularly elsewhere, see Green¢eld 1972: 53.
530–606. Bēowulf’s response to Ūnferð. An example of character development
through speech. Although here the hero’s martial vigor ¢nds only verbal expression, he
is no less decisive in this preliminary verbal duel than in the physical ordeal that will
follow in due course. — Carney (1955: 87–9) argues that the hero’s story of his battle
against sea-monsters is indebted to the account in the Vita S. Columbae of the adven-
tures of Cormac the cleric on the sea.
531. bēore druncen. Probably derisory, given the tenor of the rest of the hero’s re-
marks: see 1261a (n). Robinson (1985: 79; so Orchard 2003: 250) argues that the impli-
cation is that, despite having pledged his loyalty by drinking the king’s bēor, Ūnferð
behaves unheroically. The solemn, perhaps sacred, character of accepting drink is
maintained by J.M. Hill (2000: 83, 157 n.¯15, with refs.). It is noteworthy that, although
 COMMENTARY 153
Bēowulf himself is represented as accepting the cup at the feasts, the term druncen is
never used of him.
534. eafeþo. As MS earfeþo makes an incongruous parallel to merestrenġo (Bu.: see
Varr.) and is metrically diÌcult (HOEM §¯241), emendation seems justi¢ed, especially
in view of the clearer need to emend MS earfoð to eafoð at 902a.
543b. nō iċ fram him wolde. Type C1. After nō 541b, correl. nō (rather than nē) is
unexpected: see Andrew 1948: §¯50. No rhetorical emphasis on him need be assumed,
as pronouns are commonly, though not consistently, stressed after prepositions: cf.,
e.g., 365, 523, 525, 541, 581, 879, 923, 1722, 1723, 2149, 2591, 2845, 2948. The chief
triumph of rhetoric is the contrast of magan and willan in 542–3.
545. fīfnihta fyrst. Cf. 517: seofonniht. No discrepancy need be assumed, as it may
be assumed that Bēowulf speaks only of the time before Breca and he came to be sep-
arated in the water. See Baker 1988: 14; Nelles Neophil. 83 (1999) 308¯f.; Orchard
2003: 250 n.¯47.
546b¯f. Some edd. begin a new clause with wedera (Cha., Holt., Schü.). — Kl. et al.
assume a compound norþanwind (cf. Appx.C §¯5), which Blockley (2001: 92) would
construe with tōdrāf, thus avoiding a violation of Kuhn’s second law (Appx.C §¯7).
548. ondhwearf. The usual form of this (unstressed) verbal pre¢x is on-; see Gloss.:
on-, and-. Cf. ondsendeþ 600.
552. Omitting the comma that Kl. supplies after brōden obviates a breach of Kuhn’s
second law (Kendall 1991: xv, 77; Appx.C §¯7).
553b¯f. Mē tō grunde tēah / fāh fēondscaða. This incident provides a foretaste of
the hero’s experience in his second great adventure, 1501¯ff., 1509¯ff.
561. dēoran sweorde, ‘with my good sword.’ See 1528, 2050. (Laµamon’s Brut
14000: mid deore mine sweorede.)
563b. No unusual rhetorical emphasis on mē need be assumed (cf. Stanley LSE 20
[1989] 329¯f., MR), as in a verse that comprises only particles (and clitics) and ends in a
¢nite verb, or even an in¢nitive, the last particle before the verb is in the majority of
instances stressed even when not obliged (as in 317b, 382b, etc.) to bear stress under
Kuhn’s ¢rst law (Appx.C §¯6): cf. 251b, 417b, 1482b, 2490b; 15a, 44a, 56b, etc. See also
Bliss §¯18.
565b. mēċum. 567. sweo[r]dum. A ‘generic plural,’ used for the logically correct
sg., perhaps even hardened into a kind of epic formula: cf., e.g., 583, 1074 (?), 1574,
2140 (or -um = -an), 2221, 2485, 3147; And 512. See Aant.; note on 1074a; also Heinzel
AfdA 10 (1884) 220¯f.; ten Brink 37¯n.; Möller EStn. 13 (1889) 272, 278: old instr. sg.
form. See also Lang. §¯26.1.
569¯ff. Both the approach of morning and the subsidence of the storm enable Bēo-
wulf to see the shore. Hold. and Holt. would parenthesize 570b, making only the dawn
the cause. Another description of the coming of morning: 1801¯ff. (917¯ff.). Whitbread
N&Q o.s. 189 (1945) 207 compares Aeneid iii 194–200; see also Clark JEGP 64 (1965)
653–4.
571–2a. On the traveler’s recognition of his goal (in the presence of a shining light)
as a formulaic theme, see Clark ibid. 645–59.
572b¯f. Wyrd oft nereð / unf®ġne eorl, þonne his ellen dēah. Fate does not render
manly courage unnecessary, for ‘Fortune favors the brave.’ On the history of this an-
cient proverb, see Deskis 1996: 71–7; on modern instances in English, B. Whiting
Modern Proverbs and Proverbial Sayings (Cambridge, MA, 1989) F243. Frequently
God is substituted for fate: 669¯f., 1056¯f., 1270¯ff., 1552¯ff., And 458–60. Cf. Fóst-
brœðra saga, ch. 23: hverjum bergr n∂kkut, er eigi er feigr (Shippey 1978: 55). See
further Malone in Humaniora, ed. W. Hand & G. Arlt (Locust Valley, 1960) 187–8,
McGalliard SP 75 (1978) 248–9, Donoghue 1987: 124, Weil PCP 24 (1989): 94–104,
Karkov & Farrell NM 91 (1990) 298.
574b. Note the imperfect alliteration: see Varr., Appx.C §¯42; Lehmann NM 72
(1971) 37¯f.
154 BEOWULF
575¯f. niceras nigene. See Gloss., s.v. nicor. The reference here (as earlier, 422, and
later, 1427) is to serpent-like sea monsters of an unspeci¢ed sort. The place of such
fearsome creatures in the imagination of people of the early Northern world is sug-
gested by certain wood carvings of the period, including items that could have been
ships’ ¢gureheads, though their function in some cases is in doubt. See Bruce-Mitford
1974: 175–87; Illus.B 34 (a Migration Age carving recovered from the river Scheldt
near Appels in Belgium), ibid. 98 (the 9th-century Oseberg ¢gurehead). — Nō iċ on
niht ġefræġn, etc. Prepositional phrases and adverbs of time and place modifying the
object of the verb ġefriġnan or an in¢nitive phrase dependent on it are placed before
ġefriġnan: so 74, 2484, 2694, 2752, 2773. (See Siev. BGdSL 12 [1887] 191.) Cf. 1197
(h©ran). In verses 1¯f., the case is modi¢ed and complicated by the addition of the
element of variation.
581. wadu. Some see in MS wudu a ref. to a ship. Yet the emendation seems secure,
since weallende in verse generally describes ¢re, water, and thought, rather than a solid
like wood (cf. 512b¯n.), and given the parallel at 546a; also 847b. Retention of wudu also
demands the unlikely assumption that -u in weallendu is a late spelling for -e. Cf.
Wentersdorf and Earl (supra, 512b¯n.), and see Biggs RES 53 (2002) 313.
581b–3a. Nō . . . wiht . . . swylcra searonīða . . . billa brōgan. The last word, though
construed by Kl. as acc. in variation with gen. searonīða (1905–6: 238; so also Schü.,
Sed., v.Sch.), is more likely gen. sg. (so Wy., Cha., Hoops, Dob.), less likely pl. (so
Kock3 101), both expressions then depending on wiht.
588b¯f. þæs þū in helle scealt / werhðo drēogan. Cf. El 210¯f. Robinson (1974: 129–
30; so also Orchard 2003: 252–3) argues that helle may be an error, on the part of
Thorkelín’s amanuensis, for healle, since the seriousness of helle does not accord with
his understanding of Ūnferð’s character (see 505¯n.). Cf. Intr. civ and (taking issue with
Robinson) Irving 1989: 77 n.¯7.
597b. Siġe-Scyldinga. Although arguably there is here no more than a mechanical
use of siġe- as a general commendatory word without regard to the speci¢c situation
(cf. 663¯f.), irony may well be intended, seeing how helpless the Danes have been
(Bryan Kl.Misc. 128.; Intr. cxvi).
599b–600a. ac hē lust wiġeð, / swefeð, ondsendeþ. lust wiġeð, ‘feels joy,’ ‘enjoys
himself’ (or, according to Moore JEGP 18 [1919] 208, ‘has his own way’), placed para-
tactically by the side of the two following verbs. Though some edd. read ond sendeþ,
the meaning ‘feasts’ formerly attributed to the verb sendeþ (orig. by Leo in He.1) on the
basis of the noun sand ‘dish of food,’ ‘repast’ (‘that which is sent to the table’) has
been generally given up. sendeþ has been credited with the sense ‘sends to death,’ like
forsendan 904, forð onsendan 2266 (see Schü. 1908: 103–4); cf. Lat. ‘mittere Orco,
umbris,’ etc. (e.g. Aeneid ix 785, xi 81). It has even been suspected of being a relic of
old heathen sacri¢cial terminology (Kl.2 Su. 427): cf. Hávamál 144: veiztu, hvé blóta
skal? / veiztu, hvé senda skal, veiztu, hvé sóa skal? (blóa and sóa = ‘sacri¢ce’; the
semantic development of senda [‘send’] as used in this passage is not certain: see
Gering & Sijmons 1927–31: 1.153). Willard Angl. 54 (1930) 18 furnishes evidence for
the meaning ‘offers’; Liberman JEGP 77 (1978) 473–88 provides an excellent synopsis
of scholarship. Though Kl. vacillated between sendeþ and Imelmann’s emendation
snēdeþ ‘cuts, slices’ (cf. syn-sn®d, and see Varr.; Orchard 2003: 254 n.¯55), it may after
all be best to read ondsendeþ (Fulk SP 104 [2007] 160–2; so now Chck.2 394; cf. Kem-
ble’s onsendeþ, also Mackie 1939: 518: ond [on]sendeþ). Although the verb onsendan
usually requires the object gāst to refer to sending forth the spirit (and then referring
only to dying, not killing), the Beowulf poet uses it in a nonreÏexive sense in 2266:
forð onsended ‘sent to destruction, killed.’ Presumably forð is not essential to this
meaning: compare how ġewītan may mean ‘perish, die’ either with forð (GenA 1068,
etc., Ex 41, Men 143, etc.) or without it (GenA 1236, Rim 61, PPs 126.5.3) and how forð
onsendon 45 has no destructive connotations. (Very likely the two senses signal an
etymological distinction in the pre¢x, Gmc. *ana- vs. *anda-.) The pre¢x on- takes the
 COMMENTARY 155
unusual form ond- in ondhwearf 548, as well: see Lang. §¯19.11. It is notable that if MS
ond represented a conjunction rather than a pre¢x, this would be one of just three
places in the poem where ond is not abbreviated (ℓ), while the pre¢x is unabbreviated
about half the time. At all events, snedeþ would be an unlikely form in the scribe’s ex-
emplar, since it would contain the only instance in the poem of ē for the front mutation
of ā < WGmc. ai (v.Sch. Lit.bl. 57 [1936] 28); we should expect rather snædeþ.
603. gūþe could be dat. sg.: so v.Sch., Ni., Crp., Ja., MR. But it is usually taken to
be acc. sg. and parallel to eafoð ond ellen, giving, by syllepsis, with ġebēodan, the
meaning ‘show strength and martial prowess’ (lit. ‘offer battle, strength, and [deeds of]
valor’). — G®þ eft sē þe mōt, probably Sievers’s type E1 rather than D4 (Bliss §¯80). Cf.
183b (n.).
605b. ōþres dōgľres, adv. gen., ‘on the next day’; or possibly dep. on morgenlēoht.
606b. sūþan scīneð, i.e. in full daylight. Pierce Am. Notes & Queries 4.5 (1966) 67¯f.
offers a religious interpretation, noting a medieval tradition of locating hell in the north.
607–41. This structurally well-de¢ned passage is the most detailed description we
possess of the offering of the ceremonial drinking cup to an honored guest in early
Germanic society. Enright 1996 argues that Wealhþēo conducts herself in accordance
with the ancient tradition of the Germanic comitatus that extends back at least to the
¢rst century and derives ultimately from contact with Celtic cultures. In this ceremony,
the queen represents the lord and reinforces the ties between him and his followers by
ritualistic presentation of the drinking cup in hierarchical order to those present. The
warband in turn makes oaths over the drink (38). See also Crépin in King & Stevens
1979: 45–58; Zimmermann R.-L.2 31.232–9.
610. folces hyrde. On formulaic verses of this type, see Gloss., also Kock Angl. 27
(1904) 256; Speculum 8 (1933) 273¯f.
612b¯ff. Appearance of noble women at the banquet; see 1162¯ff., 1980¯ff., 2020¯ff. A
notable parallel to Wealhþēo’s part in this passage: Max I 85–93. On Wealhþēo’s char-
acterization, see Intr. civ¯f. Her role is partly de¢ned by the precious ornaments she
wears: she is goldhroden 614, 640, bēaghroden 623; later we see her gān under gyld-
num bēage 1163. The exact nature of these ornaments is left unspeci¢ed, but luxury
items suitable for display by members of the nobility at such a feast are well known to
archaeology, e.g. brooches of various types, jeweled necklaces, and gold bracteates and
circlets (Illus.B 38, 80, 82, 136, 144). The ideological function of treasure as a sign of
rank and power in the world of Beo can scarcely be overemphasized, even if the lasting
value of wealth is left in doubt; see Intr. c–ci. Useful references to goldwork: Jørgensen
& Petersen 1998, Coatsworth & Pinder 2002. Other refs.: Martin in The Transforma-
tion of the Roman World AD 400–900, ed. L. Webster & M. Brown (London, 1997) 48–
66; Webster 2000 (who sees ‘treasure .¯.¯. as an instrument, both practical and symbolic,
of royal power’ [50]), as well as other essays in Tyler 2000. For the Migration Age,
some of the items on display in Historiska Museet, Stockholm, are of unequalled qual-
ity; there is a short guide, The Goldroom (Stockholm, 2002). — 612. wynsume. The
late analogical neut. pl. ending -e is unusual in the poem (see Lang. §¯22) and is very
likely merely scribal. Kaluza’s reading wynsum improves the meter, producing a nor-
mal type A1 rather than D*2 with an unusually heavy expansion. See Appx.C §¯30.
613b. cynna, ‘courtesies’: see Gloss., and cf. GenA 2433, PPs 138.1.1.
615. frēoliċ wīf. Use of the strong adjective need not imply inde¢nite reference: see
Andrew 1948: §¯90, Blockley 2001: 103; cf. OES §¯138.
617. bæd hine blīðne. Omission of wesan, see Gloss.: eom.
618. (lēodum) lēofne. The word could be parallel to blīðne rather than (as is usually
assumed) hine. On the latter interpretation, the sense is ‘the one dear (to his people).’
See Schü. EStn. 55 (1921) 99¯f., id. Bd. 8; so v.Sch., Ni., MR.
620. Ymbēode þā. Type B1. See Appx.C §¯7.
622. sinċfato sealde; i.e., she passed the cups. On AS cups and beakers, see D.
Wilson The Anglo-Saxons (Middlesex, 1971) 105–7; Pollington 2003: 143–6; D. Hinton
156 BEOWULF
Gold & Gilt, Pots & Pins (Oxford, 2005) passim; cf. Illus.B 40 (the Taplow glass
beakers). See 495b (n.).
627¯f. þæt hēo on ®niġne eorl ġel©fde / fyrena frōfre, i.e., she counted on help
from a hero. An instance of an unfamiliar mode of viewing direction (Lang. §26.5).
Parallel to this use of on with acc. is tō: 909, 1272¯f.
635b. on wæl crunge. Note the use of on with acc. (cf. 772, 1540, 1568, etc.). On the
other hand, 1113: sume on wæle crungon.
646b¯ff. Is it Grendel or Bēowulf who is imagined to be planning for battle? Malone
(JEGP 29 [1930] 234¯f., MÆ 2 [1933] 61¯f.) and Dob. are perhaps right that the latter
interpretation better suits the context, but for them it necessitates the emendation,
adopted by many edd., siððan hīe sunnan lēoht ġesēon [ne] meahton. That is, this
clause beginning with siððan then describes when the battle will take place. This has a
false ring: one would expect, at least, something like lenġ ġesēon ne meahton. (See also
Schuchardt 1910: 25; cf. v.Sch.) This analysis also requires acceptance of Bugge’s oþðe
= ‘and’ (i.e., a variant of the regular ‘or’: see Bu.Tid. 57, and cf. E.tr.), which Mitchell
(RES 43 [1992] 1) rightly questions. Nor need we assume a lacuna (Gr., cf. Gru.). The
siððan-clause may instead describe the period of planning for battle, and thus the
meaning of oþ ðe (or oþðe) ‘until’ (cf. PPs 139.11.4; so some earlier edd., such as Gr.,
Arn.; cf. He.1–3, and see OES §¯1751) need not be given up, for it makes ¢ne sense of
648¯ff.: ‘from the time that they could see the light of the sun, until (oþ ðe) night came,’
as in Brun 13¯ff. (siþþan . . . oþ . . .). Klaeber’s interpretation (supported by Holt. and
Hoops) thus is that the king knew that ¢ght had been in Grendel’s mind all day long:
Grendel had been waiting from morning till night to renew his attacks in the hall, just
like the dragon: hordweard onbād / earfoðlīċe, oð ðæt ®fen cwōm 2302¯f. (Parallels to
the use of tō [þ®m hēahsele] are to be found in 1990, 1207.) Yet this does not settle
the question, since Jack, with a similar interpretation of the syntax, argues that it is
Bēowulf who has been anticipating battle. The probability is in his favor, for þ®m
āhl®ċan . . . ġeþinġed is likeliest to mean ‘appointed for (rather than by) the āhl®ċa’
(s0 Dob.), since an OE dative of personal agency is questionable (see OES §§¯1371¯ff.;
cf. A. Green 1913: 98: ‘a ¢ght was contemplated by the monster’; also Mackie 1939:
518 [assuming ġeþinġed = ‘determined to come’; cf. Dob.]; and cf. Sed., who assumes
a ‘dat. used as instr.’). Yet certainty is elusive, since it is not inconceivable that in such
a passive construction the monster should be both agent and recipient of ġeþinġan
when the agent is left unexpressed, or that āhl®ċan should refer to Bēowulf (so Roberts
in Amodio & O’Brien O’Keeffe 2003: 240–51; see Gloss.: āgl®ċa). Indeed, possibly
the construction is made impersonal precisely for the sake of ambiguity, perhaps to
suggest planning by both parties; and āhl®ċan could in fact be plural (Bamm. 2006:
26–9). See also Bu. 89; ten Brink 52; Tr.1 16o; Hoops St. 100¯f.; Prokosch Kl.Misc.
198; Holt. Lit.bl. 59 (1938) 164 (reading [mid] nīpende); Traver Archiv 167 (1935)
253–6; v.Sch. (nīpende niht ofer ealle = nominative absolute); Ringler Speculum 41
(1966) 52 n.¯14.
652b. The type guma ōþerne (similarly 2484, 2908, 2985) is a counterpart of the
repetition of the noun: see note on 440a. (Kluge BGdSL 9 [1884] 427.) Cf. Max II 52:
fyrd wið fyrde, fēond wið ōðrum.
655. ®negum men, ‘any man,’ i.e. any other than a Dane (cf. 480¯ff.). (See Jellinek
& Kraus ZfdA 35 [1891] 272; Bamm. N&Q 49 [2002] 312–14 suggests āngan men ‘to
one man alone.’) Andrew’s objection (1948: §¯148) to the alliterative precedence of
®negum is unfounded: cf. 510, 1099, 2297, 2493, etc.
662–709. The watch for Grendel. 710–836. The ¢ght with Grendel.
662–5a. Hrōðgār seeks out separate quarters for the night (bed æfter būrum 140; cf.
br©dbūre 921a) while the warriors sleep in the hall. That Wealhþēo previously left the
hall, the poet has omitted to mention. As for the character of the royal bed (or beds), it
is left to one’s imagination, though the artfully carved wooden headboards included
 COMMENTARY 157
among the grave goods at Oseberg and Gokstad (Illus.B 120) give an impression of
what was deemed suitable for the Scandinavian nobility of a somewhat later era.
666b. swā guman gefrungon. Perhaps a variation on the ġefræġn type of formula
(see note on 1–3), in which event, if interpreted literally, it would indicate that this part
of the Beowulf story was already well known before the poet set out to retell it. But it
may mean nothing more than that the Danes learned the next morning that Grendel’s
attack had for once been crushed.
667¯f. Change of subject: Bēowulf (seleweard) is the subject of behēold and ābēad.
The syntax of the alternative proposed by MR (construing eotenweard as nom.), ‘the
guardian against the monster (i.e. Bēowulf) offered, performed, a special service to the
lord of the Danes,’ with a variant of the verb stranded at the end of the clause, is more
complicated, and the elision of the ¢nal vowel of eotenweard’ should not be suspect:
see Appx.C §¯37.
669–70. The hero trusts in his own heroic qualities and in God’s protection. See the
note on 572¯f., and cf. the combined factors that preserve him in his second great ¢ght
(1550–6). — mōdgan probably quali¢es mæġnes as an attrib. adj., since substantival
use normally demands employment of the demonstrative: ‘courageous strength,’ hence
‘courage and strength.’
671. Ðā hē him of dyde. Type C3.
673. īrena cyst. īrena (so 1697, 2259) stands for older īrenna (so 802, 2683, 2828):
see Lang. §20.5 rem. If the n were etymologically ungeminated (see OEG §¯647 n.¯2),
the correct form would be unmetrical īrna (cf. Sat 516, etc.), and MS irena could then
only show late scribal reformation of the stem, as with elþēodĽġe 336, ®nĺgum 842,
etc. (Appx.C §¯12.)
675¯ff. Bēowulf utters a ‘boast,’ ġylpworda sum. Baird N&Q 14 (1967) 6–8 argues
that Bēowulf’s ignorance of Grendel’s immunity to weapons of all kinds (see 801b–5a)
emphasizes his courage, Bjork 1994: 1005 that it underscores the limitations of his
knowledge and thus of his ability to control the world around him. — On how the beds
are procured, see 1239¯f. — 677¯f. an herewæsmun hnāgran .¯.¯. gūþġeweorca. Gen. of
speci¢cation. Cf. 980¯f.: swīġra . . . on ġylpspr®ċe gūðġeweorca. It is more likely that
herewæsmun means ‘battle-stature’ (in the plural form commonly associated with this
sense of wæstm) than ‘battle-fruits’ (Dob. [?]): the parallel þonne þū þīnes ġewinnes
wæstme byrġest (PPs 127.2.1) is more plainly metaphorical.
679. forþan. Mitchell (OES §¯3799; similarly Donoghue 1987: 72) treats the word as
a κοινόν, suggesting the alternative meaning ‘for this reason,’ in ref. to the motivation
offered in 681¯f.
681. nāt hē þāra gōda. Possibly a semi-partitive gen. in connection with the nega-
tion (cf. 504, 751): see BTS 656, Shipley 1903: 50; see also OES §¯1340; but the verb
may simply take a genitive object (OES §¯1092). The following þæt-clause explains
gōda. Cf. ÆCHom I, 12, 280.144: þæt folc ne cūðe ð®ra gōda þæt hī cw®don þæt hē
God w®re; also Mald 176¯f. (Kl. 1905–6: 455.)
691. N®niġ heora þōhte þæt hē þanon scolde. Types A3, C2.
692. eardlufan, ‘dear home.’ Concretion of meaning: cf. other head-initial com-
pounds (kyningwuldor, wætereġesa, glēdeġesa, ēðel-, hord-, lyft-wynn, wordriht); also
mid gryrum ecga 483, and see 501a n. (Storch Ags. Nominalcomposita [Strassburg,
1886] 17–9; Aant.; Kl. 1905–6: 263¯f.; Carr 1939: 338; MLN 75 [1960] 193¯f.)
694b. hīe and (tō) fela may be construed in ‘partitive apposition’ (‘too many of
them’), as with fēa(we) and sume (hīe sume; swīðe fēawe þā ðēawas, etc.: see OES
§§¯402, 425¯f.). So Kl., though later (EStn. 74.2 [1941] 221 & ed.3 Su. 455) he suggests
that fela may be adverbial (cf. Jul 444: tō late micles), since it is rarely used without a
partitive gen.; but see the examples in DOE, s.v. fela A.1.a.
697. wīġspēda ġewiofu. Robinson 1985: 46 remarks the pagan associations of the
phrase.
158 BEOWULF
698. frōfor ond fultum, acc. sg.; cf. 1273: frōfre ond fultum. Occasionally, in later
texts, frōfor is treated as masc. (also neut.? see Siev. BGdSL 1 [1874] 493), though such
usage seems inauthentic in a linguistically conservative composition like Beo. Has, in
this case, a spelling frofr (= frōfr’; cf. 668) been erroneously changed to frofor?
Morrison N&Q 27 (1980) 193–6 perceives the formula as based on the Psalms and
points out a parallel in Blickling hom. xvi.
698b–9. fēond is acc. sg. (not pl.), ealle nom. pl. (not acc. pl.). See 939¯ff., 705; Kl.
1911–12: [44 n.¯1].
700b–2a. ‘The truth is manifest that God has always ruled over humankind.’ The
point is undoubtedly that the Christian God controlled the affairs even of peoples who
did not yet recognize him (Robinson 1985: 46–67; Orton LSE 36 [2005] 32–3): cf.
1057¯ff., 2858¯f.
702b–36a. The method of narration in this scene of Grendel’s approach to Heorot
(along with the subsequent ¢ght), with its ironic contrasts, shifting point of view, and
ambiguous syntax, has been much commented upon as designed to promote terror. See
Brodeur 1959: 89–91, Renoir 1962 (on the cinematic qualities of the scene), Ringler
Speculum 41 (1966) 49–67, Irving 1968: 100–4, Green¢eld 1972: 122–30, Storms NM
73 (1972) 427–36, Hanning TSLL 15 (1973) 203–13, Dieterich Comitatus 14 (1983) 5–
17, Berlin Proc. of the PMR Conf. 11 (1986) 19–26, Müller Literaturwissenschaftliches
Jahrbuch 29 (1988) 9–22, Lapidge 1993: 383–4, id. 2001: 66, 82–3. Cf. O’Brien
O’Keeffe TSLL 23 (1981) 484–94, arguing that this passage serves to render ambiguous
the status of human and of monster.
702b–3a. cōm .¯.¯. scrīðan. Richardson JEGP 93 (1994) 322¯f. comments interestingly
on the use of such ‘imperfective’ constructions here and throughout to structure the
narrative.
703b. Scēotend sw®fon. On the Geatish warriors’ curious somnolence in this scene
(incredible, indeed, from a naturalistic perspective), see Intr. xciii.
705b–7. Johnson 2001 takes these verses to characterize Grendel as God’s instrument
for testing those inclined to pride. — under sceadu breġdan. under ‘down to,’ or ‘to
the inside of’: see Gloss.
708. ac hē wæċċende. The conjunction is contrastive: the hero is the only one awake.
(Cf. 703b, and see Deskis 1996: 31–2 for discussion, w. additional refs.). wrāþum com-
plements andan: ‘in enmity to foes.’ (Yet wrāþum may be sg.: so MR). See Kl. Angl.
63 (1939) 409¯f., and cf. 2314, 2307, Dan 713, El 969, GuthA 773, Wan 105.
710¯ff. Ðā cōm. After a brief digression, the poet returns to Grendel’s approach; cf.
Cōm 702 and Cōm þā 720. The threefold bell-like announcement of Grendel’s ap-
proach is a dramatic device, even though the verb is in each instance unstressed; cf.
Stanley LSE 20 (1989) 327–9.
719. heardran h®le, healðeġnas fand. A diÌcult line to construe; see Varr. h®le,
hilde, hælescipes, and the like are metrically, at all events, safer than hæle (Rosier NM
75 [1974] 46–9; Appx.C §¯27). Holthausen’s former interpretation (Angl. 24 [1901]
267) of heardran h®le (from h®l ‘omen’) as ‘in a worse plight’ (or with the modi-
¢cation of A. Daniels Kasussyntax zu den Predigten Wulfstans [Leiden diss., 1904]
162, ‘tot een rampzaliger omen,’ i.e., in effect, ‘with a more disastrous result’; similarly
Tr.) is a happy suggestion — cf. ME expressions like to wroþer hele, till illerhayle,
with il a hail (see MED s.v. heil [n.]), OIcel. illu heilli — but this use of the dat.
appears rather doubtful. The same is true of Sedge¢eld’s rendering ‘with sterner greet-
ing’ (from h®lo; so MR). We may venture to take heardran h®le as acc. sg., ‘worse
luck’ (lit. ‘more oppressive prosperity’: Rosier 43) — cf. the meaning of heards®lþ,
heards®liġ — heardran referring at the same time, but with a different meaning, to the
second object, healðeġnas. That seemingly incongruous objects may be governed by
one and the same verb, in a kind of zeugma, is demonstrated by 653¯f. The construction
is, however, admittedly less than entirely convincing.
 COMMENTARY 159
721. drēamum bed®led. A permanent characteristic (epitheton perpetuum) of
Grendel, like wons®lī 105, fēasceaft 973, earmsceapen 1351, synnum ġeswenċed 975.
Green¢eld Speculum 30 (1955) 202–3 identi¢es the phrase as a characteristic expres-
sion of deprivation, one of the standard components of the theme of exile. Osborn
(Thoth 10 [1969] 28¯f.) would have it modify duru. See also Hasenfratz LSE 21 (1990)
45–69.
721b–2. Cf. And 999b–1000a: Duru sōna onarn / þurh handhrine. Brodeur 1968 cites
this as one of many examples of the inÏuence of Beowulf on Andreas.
723. onbr®d þā, i.e., then he swung the door wide open; not a mere repetition of
duru onarn 721. However, not impossibly Grendel passes through two sets of doors:
see Cramp 1993: 340–1. — Henry 1981 would connect ġebolgen to a West European
tradition of battle furor, like that of Cú Chulainn and Norse berserkir.
724. reċedes mūþan. Although the phrase is formulaic, Green¢eld (ELH 34 [1967]
150–2) cites it in support of his view that formulism does not preclude formalist
literary analysis: ‘The ¢rst half of the sentence depicts the door as made fast with ¢re-
forged bands, an image of strength and hardness defying entrance; by the time Grendel
has ¢nished, it is reduced, as it were, to a soft mouth, an easily-forced point of entry.’
See also Nicholson SN 52 (1980) 237–49.
724b. Raþe æfter þon. Prob. type E1: see note to 603b. As to the stressed prep-
osition, see Rie.V. 31¯f., 61, HOEM §¯206; cf. Bliss §¯85.
726–7. The light shining from Grendel’s eyes, regarded as ‘two dots of ¢re against a
veil of blackness,’ has been called ‘one of the very most effective’ images in English
literature (Renoir 1962: 165). Such light characterizes the haugbúi and other monsters
in the Icelandic sagas, as well as the devil in certain Christian texts such as the life of
St. Margaret (Robinson 1985: 32). Comparing this light to that emitted from Glámr’s
eyes in Grettis saga, Goldsmith 1970: 100 suggests that the detail may simply be a
commonplace of horrifying tales. D. Williams 1982: 47 similarly argues that the light is
fully explicable in the context of the medieval monster tradition and points to the
monsters with shining eyes in the Liber monstrorum (Appx.A §¯17). Anlezark N&Q 53
(2006) 262–9 offers a parallel in Wisdom 11: 18–19.
730. On this sinister laughter, in comparison to joyous laughter (611, 3020), see
Tucker Neophil. 43 (1959) 222–6, and cf. Niles in Humour in AS Lit., ed. J. Wilcox
(Woodbridge, 2000) 11–32 on laughter, including Grendel’s laughter, as gesture.
732b. ānra ġehwylċes. ‘Of each and every one of them.’
736. ðicgean ofer þā niht. Þr©ðsw©ð behēold. Types A2b (K Q Q Q | K L), E. See
Appx.C §¯27. The idea of Schü. that the sense is ‘in the course of that night’ is
contradicted by 740¯ff. Cf. GenA 1349: ofor seofon niht = post dies vii.
738¯f. under probably denotes attending circumstances (Hoops 93): ‘set to work
with his sudden snatchings’ (Cl.Hall tr.): cf. the use of mid 2468, and ChronE 1132: hē
fēorde mid suicdōm. Possibly, though, it denotes time (‘during,’ Aant., Cha., Dob.): cf.
under þ®m ġewinne ‘in the course of the struggle’ (Or 1, 10.29.28). Jelinek MLN 71
(1956) 242 argues that the meaning is that the hero ‘watched how the evil-doer would
fare under a sudden attack’ (similarly Grinda IF 87 [1982] 333). Likewise Brodeur
(1959: 93 n.¯9; similarly Green¢eld 1976: 169–70, taking ¯āgl®ċa to refer to Bēowulf),
troubled by the suggestion that the hero should simply have studied the marauder’s
actions while one of his men was being devoured, suggests that ġefaran means ‘bear
himself,’ in reference to Grendel’s ability to withstand Bēowulf’s sudden counter-
attack. (Klaeber, comparing Grettis saga, chs. 65, 35, explains the hero’s inaction as an
original feature of the story retained by the poet; cf. Moore MLN 68 [1953] 165–9;
Cha.Intr. 64; Puhvel 1979: 98–9; Desmond OT 7 [1992] 271; Biggs Neophil. 87 [2003]
643, with the refs. there.) The meaning ‘proceed, act’ seems safest, as this sense of
ġefaran is attested in BenR 5.22 (see DOE s.v., 1.D).
740b. forman sīðe. ‘At the ¢rst opportunity’; or perhaps ‘for his ¢rst exploit’?
160 BEOWULF
743. synsn®dum. Robinson (1970a: 102–5; so Ja.) argues for the meaning ‘sinful
morsels’ (with similar meaning for syn- in syndolh 817, sinfrēa 1934, sinherġe 2936).
744b¯f. eal .¯.¯. fēt ond folma, ‘all, (even) feet and hands,’ or ‘feet, hands, and all’
(Aant.). The horri¢c effect of the lurid details given here could be said to explain, from
a narratological perspective, why the hero refrains from acting sooner. — It has been
proposed to read Forð nēar ætstōp as coordinate to the preceding clause (Andrew
1948: §¯59) or superordinate to it (Schü. 1929, supposing sōna 743 = ‘as soon as’; cf.
750¯ff. note.).
747b. Hē hi(m) r®hte onġēan. The ¢rst two words, required by both sense and
meter (cf. Kock 1918: 48–9, Kock5 187¯f., Hoops St. 12, v.Sch., et al.: see Appx.C §¯33),
have been erased in the MS. See Fu.1 194. Wrenn (similarly v.Sch.; Ringler Speculum
41 [1966] 56 n.¯19) regards r®hte (as well as nam) as imperfective: ‘was reaching.’ Cf.
1511, 2854¯nn.
748¯f. fēond, i.e. Grendel; hē onfēng .¯.¯. inwitþancum ‘he (Bēowulf) received him
(pron. object understood: see Lang. §26.4) with hostile intent’; see Kölbing EStn. 23
(1897) 306; Tr.1 166¯f., Kl. 1926: 122. Cf. Schü. 1908: 105; Hoops St. 102¯f. (see Varr.):
inwitþanclum (adj.) as obj. of onfēng. Wn.1–2 and v.Sch. take the meaning to be ‘he
perceived that plan of malice.’ — wið earm ġesæt (ingressive function), ‘sat up
supporting himself on his arm.’ Thus Sat 430¯f.: Ārās þā ānra ġehwylċ, and wið earm
ġesæt, / hleonade wið handa. (See Kl. Archiv 109 [1902] 312, 1905–6: 263; cf. Grattan
in Cha. 39; H. Dehmer Primitives Erzählungsgut in den Íslendinga-Sögur [Leipzig,
1927] 59¯ff.; Brown PMLA 55 [1940] 621–7; Splitter MLN 63 [1948] 118–21 [ġesæt as
trans.]; Fry MP 67.4 [1970] 364–6; Peters ELN 29.4 [1992] 10–12; Hodges ELN 34.3
[1997] 4–10; Eyler ELN 41.3 [2004] 1–11; Ni., MR: ‘[he quickly took (Grendel’s) arm
and] pressed against it’; so also Biggs Neophil. 87 [2003] 643.) Note the progress in
759: uplang āstōd.
750¯ff. Sōna. Schücking (Sa. 106; 1929b: 87) and MR treat as a subordinator ‘as
soon as,’ contra OES §¯2702, Bamm. Neophil. 86 (2002) 303–6 (who would have
middanġeardes, eorþan scēata depend on men rather than function adverbially; cf.
504).
756. sēċan dēoÏa ġedr®ġ. Cf. 101b, 163a, 788a, 808a, 852b. Both Grendel and his
abode are associated with the literally hellish. While the evil companions alluded to
here are never mentioned explicitly elsewhere in the narrative, the suggestion is made
that there are many devilish creatures hidden away in such secret recesses, awaiting a
chance to do mischief, as is in keeping with medieval Christian doctrine; see Kl. 1911–
12: [23–4]. Cf. Hrothgar’s ref. to scuccum ond scinnum (939a); also perhaps 1509b–12a.
— As regards sēċan, on the conditions under which an inf. may be unstressed (also in
821a), see Stanley Angl. 93 (1975) 321–34.
758. Ġemunde þā se gōda, m®ġ Hiġelāces. The alliteration is faulty (see Appx.C
§¯40), and very likely gōda is a blunder for mōdga (see Varr.; Bliss §¯20; Lucas SN 59
[1986] 158; Kendall 1991: 78; cf. Mackie JEGP 16 [1917] 258, Holt. Angl. 46 [1922]
52–4). Adj. gōda is probably substantival, given that the poets seem to have preferred
the relative syntactic independence of each verse unit: see Scragg in Godden & Lap-
idge 1991: 64.
760b. (¢ngras) burston, perh. ‘broke’ (cracked, snapped), as in burston bānlocan
818, when a more strenuous stage of the ¢ght has been reached (cf. Eliason 1953: 447–
9: ‘parted [Grendel’s] ¢ngers’). Tinker MLN 23 (1908) 240 suggests ‘bled’ (cf. 1121)
— a result brought about by gripping, Nibel. 675; cf. Salman und Morolf st. 305,
l.¯1609 (ed. W. Spiewok & A. Guillaume [Greifswald, 1996]). See likewise Ragnars
saga loðbrókar, ch. 16. Lyons MLN 46 (1931) 443¯f.: an instance from Gesta Herwardi;
Clarke MLR 29 (1934) 320 (assuming the ¢ngras are Bēowulf’s): a parallel in Wolf-
ram’s Parzifal (v, 229.11–14).
762b. (hw)®r. Though the reading þ®r adopted in most edd. on the basis of compar-
ison to 797b gives plainer sense (‘if’: see Gloss.), the space in the MS for the missing
 COMMENTARY 161
letters, anchored by the visible tail of r, seems instead to demand a slightly longer
word, hw®r (see Varr.). Inde¢nite use of hw®r is well attested (see OES §¯2055), and in
all the adverbs of place, ‘the senses of rest and movement towards tend to be confused’
(OEG §¯677), as they frequently are elsewhere in the poem (Lang. §¯26.5). Perhaps the
closest parallel is ond mē l®dde hwār ic hine byrede, though this is in a late prose text,
Nic (C) 81.27. The occasional sense of motion is in any case hardly to be denied indef.
hw®r, given how frequent it is with rel. þ®r (see Gloss.). An advantage of this analysis
is that the inde¢nite use of hw®r provides a referent for wīdre 763a, with its unexpected
neut. ending. See Gloss.: ġewindan.
764b¯f. wiste his ¢ngra ġeweald / on grames grāpum, ‘he realized, etc.’ Cf. 821;
OIcel. vita (e.g. V∂lundarkv. 11.5). Eliason (1953: 447–9) takes Bēowulf to be the sub-
ject: ‘knew (he had) control over his own ¢ngers (when) in the monster’s grip,’ though
probably few will agree.
766. þæt se hearmscaþa tō Heorute ātēah. Kock2 106–8 (supported by Cha. 255,
Hoops, and Kl.) argues for the relative character of this clause, þæt (instead of þone
with masc. sīð) being justi¢ed by þæt 765 (cf. 1455¯f.); sīð ātēon ‘make a journey’ (cf.
GuthA 301¯f., GenA 2094). This is indeed more satisfactory than to take þæt as conj.
and ātēon as intrans. (as suggested by Kl. 1905–6: 455).
769. ealuscerwen. The word has provoked endless controversy. Presumably the
element -scerwen is related to *scerwan ‘grant, allot’ (cf. bescerwan ‘deprive’: see Kl.
EStn. 66.1 [1931] 1–3, and cf. Henry ZfvS 77 [1961] 150–9, with a Celtic derivation).
‘Dispensing of ale,’ or, in a pregnant sense, of ‘bitter or fateful drink’ might have come
to be used as a ¢gurative expression for ‘distress’ (cf. 783¯f.; so Bu.Tid. 292¯ff.; Kl.
Beibl. 22 [1911] 372¯f., EStn. 66.3–5, 67.24–6, 68.114; Holt. Beibl. 34 [1923] 89¯f.;
Smithers 1951–2: 67–75; Splitter MLN 67 [1952] 255–8; Dob.; Brooks 1961: 114;
Irving TSL 11 [1966] 161–8; De Roo Eng. Stud. in Canada 5 [1979] 249–61; Ja.).
Anglo-Saxon ale, however, was probably not bitter (Cook MLN 40 [1925] 285–8; Fell
LSE 8 [1975] 76–95), so the sense may be ironic. It is to be noted that the author of
Andreas (arguably a better judge than modern scholars, despite Lumiansky JEGP 48
[1949] 116–26; cf. Kl. Archiv 191 [1955] 218, v.Sch., Brodeur 1968: 100–2) understood
the corresponding formation meoduscerwen (1526) in a sense which precludes Imel-
mann’s idea (EStn. 66.3 [1932] 331–45; also Engelhardt PMLA 70 [1955] 384 and
n.¯23; Ni.) that ‘dispensing of ale’ is a desired prospect, expected as a result of Gren-
del’s defeat. (See Kl. EStn. 67.1 [1932] 24–6.) Indeed, in the same context he refers to
biter bēorþegu (1533, and note that bēor certainly was not a bitter drink: see Gloss.; but
cf. Hoops St. 47¯f.). Neither can ealuscerwen mean ‘deprivation of ale,’ hence ‘terror’
(at the loss of ale: He.4–14), given the parallel. (The argument, however, that because
be- in bescerwan is a privative pre¢x, -scerwen cannot mean deprivation, has been
disproved by Hoops EStn. 65.2 [1931] 177–80.) Yet Heyne’s interpretation has found
much favor (so Wy., Cha., Liebermann Archiv 143 [1922] 247¯f.; Crawford MLR 21
[1926] 302¯f.; Hoops loc. cit.; Krogmann EStn. 66 [1932] 346, 67.15–23; Brodeur 1959:
59¯n.; Trahern NM 70 [1969] 62–9; R. Lehmann 1988; similarly Kock4 105¯f.: ‘thinning’
or ‘deterioration’ of ale, i.e. worse drink), even, eventually, with Kl. (EStn. 73.2 [1939]
185–9), who suggested that the poet of Andreas modeled meodoscerwen on this pas-
sage in Beowulf but misunderstood it (in agreement with Cosijn BGdSL 21 [1896] 19
and Hoops, who cites ll.¯5¯f. as a parallel; similarly North LSE 25 [1994] 69–82). Of
course, the original form as well as meaning may have been obscured; the expression
may be of proverbial origin (Kl. Beibl. 40 [1929] 28; Whitbread MLR 37 [1942] 481).
Holthausen Beibl. 54–5 (1943–4) 28 argues that ealu- = runic alu ‘luck’ and that the
Andreas poet mistook this for ‘ale’ (similarly Kl.3 Su. 466; Wn.; Hanning TSLL 15
[1973] 211; North; Bamm. RES 53 [2002] 469–74; cf. Brodeur 1959: 59¯n., Werlich
ZfdPh. 86 [1967] 359¯f., Magennis Speculum 60 [1985] 530¯f.). Klegraf (Archiv 208
[1971] 108–12; so Ni., Crp.) proposes a triple compound ealu-scer-wēn ‘hope for dis-
pensing of beer,’ but this is metrically insupportable. Brown Speculum 15 (1940) 389¯–
162 BEOWULF
99 would connect the image with a cup of death metaphor in OE, as would Heinemann
SN 55 (1983) 3–10, comparing the Eddic Baldrs draumar 6–7, where the ominous
signi¢cance of mead standing ready in the hall is the impending death of Baldr, who
will come to join the feasting in Hel’s hall. Glosecki ELN 25.1 (1987) 1–9 argues that
the poculum mortis is poured not for the Danes but for Grendel; yet the grammar of this
is troublesome: see Mitchell RES 43 (1992) 4–7. See also Rigby N&Q 9 (1962) 246,
arguing that the Danes were enjoying beer in a cowardly fashion while Bēowulf fought.
Rowland LSE 21 (1990) 1–12 cites Celtic parallels. For a synopsis of earlier views, see
Hoops 97¯f.
770b¯ff. The havoc wreaked on the building and the furniture is naturally emphasized
in encounters of this sort; cf. 997¯ff.; Grettis saga, chs. 65, 35 (Intr. xxxix, xl); Bjarka-
rímur iv 12. De Roo Eng. Stud. in Canada 5 [1979] 249–61, however, sees the havoc as
mimicking the noise of feasting in the hall. Grendel and Bēowulf thus are renweardas
(hall attendants) ironically or euphemistically dispensing ale (ealuscerwen). See 769¯n.
774b. īrenbendum. Cf. 998–9. In regard to its construction as well as its adornment,
Heorot is distinguished from ordinary buildings. Iron hardware (chieÏy in the form of
clench-bolts) have been detected in connection with some timbered buildings of AS
England and Scandinavia, though the evidence is not always conclusive: see Cramp
1993: 341–3, Herschend 1998: 42–3, Webster in MR 187. The superb ornamental met-
alwork of Scandinavian smiths working in the later Middle Ages (Karlsson in Pulsiano
1993: 325–31) is worth calling to mind in this connection.
777. golde ġereġnad. Does this imply gold-embroidered covers on the benches
(Hinz R.-L.2 2.33–34, Stigum KLNM 1.458–9.)? Or are the benches themselves, or their
more decorative parts, adorned with gold leaf? In either event, the phrase draws atten-
tion to the splendor of the royal hall that is being torn apart.
779. The neuter hit seems to refer to the hall in a general way, without grammatical
regard to the gender of any of the nouns already used in 770–3.
780. bānfāg. Some have thought that the reference is to antlers mounted on the
building’s walls (e.g. Webster in MR 186f.; Cramp 1957: 23 suggests translating
‘adorned with gables,’ on the assumption that the gables were decorated with antlers),
but the word bān is not elsewhere recorded in the sense ‘antlers.’ On the other hand, it
is used to denote ivory (DOE sense B). Ivory derived from walrus tusks or the teeth of
whales has long been available as a luxury item in northern countries (see Or 1
1.15.15¯f. on the tribute exacted by Norsemen from Laplanders: þæt gafol bið on dēora
fellum ℓ on fugela feðerum ℓ hwales bāne. The traditional use of ivory in the manu-
facture of small household items (such as precious boxes) and as an inlay in wood
furniture is well known. If (as we are told) Heorot is adorned with gold, then parts of
its interior could be decorated with ivory as well (Niles 2007a: 174), though there is
room for speculation as to just what kind of features are meant.
781b¯f. nymþe līġes fæþm / swulge. See 82¯f.
783. nīwe ġeneahhe. See Gloss.: nīwe is naturally taken as adj., but cf. Kock (1918:
8): nīwe, ġeneahhe ‘(the din arose) in manner strange and strong’ (similarly Holt., Sed.,
Hoops, Ni.).
785. þāra þe of wealle wōp ġeh©rdon. The meaning appears to be that the Danes
heard the wailing coming ‘from’ the wall(s) of their sleeping quarters, or of Heorot, i.e.
through the walls (the modern idiom being no more logical). Sievers BGdSL 12 (1887)
192 supposes that the Danes had Ïed in terror to the shore (=¯wealle; see Gloss.); less
implausibly, Lawrence JEGP 23 (1924) 297 suggests that the frightened Danes ‘may
have taken refuge on the wall surrounding the tūn’ (similarly Sed., Cha., Hoops, Dob.,
Wn., Crp., Ja.; cf. l.¯229). The expression may seem more familiar if, with Tinker MLN
23 (1908) 240, we assume that of wealle modi¢es wōp rather than ġeh©rdon, though the
word order is then less credible (see Notat.Norr. §¯486). Prep. of need not designate the
standpoint of the hearers: cf. GD¯2 (C) 15.134.13: hē hit sylf ġeh©rde of Benedictes
mūðe.
 COMMENTARY 163
786¯ff. gryrelēoð galan Godes andsacan, etc. Cries of pain and lamentation denoted
by the use of galan and similar terms: 2460 (?); And 1127, 1342, Jul 629, etc. See Siev.
A.M. §5.3, 1904: 314–16. (Numerous examples are found in Chaucer.) — The in¢n-
itive phrases are variations of the preceding noun (wōp). Cf. 221¯f., 1431¯f., 1516¯f.;
728¯f., 2756¯ff. (Kl. 1905–6: 237¯f.) The alternative is to regard wōp as obj. of galan,
parallel to gryrelēoð. — In acc. with in¢n. constructions after ġeh©ran, ġefriġnan there
is a notable tendency to give the acc. of the object the ¢rst place: so also 1027¯ff.,
2022¯f., 2773¯f. (but cf 2484¯f., 2694¯f.); so after hātan, 68¯f. (but see 2802); after for-
l®tan, 3166.
791–2. eorla hlēo, cwealmcuman. The epithets call to mind long-established roles:
see Clemoes in P. Brown et al. 1986: 9–10.
793¯f. nē his līfdagas lēoda ®ngum / nytte tealde. Litotes: cf. Intr. cx¯f.; his refers,
of course, to Grendel.
794b–5. Þ®r ġenehost bræġd / eorl Bēowulfes ealde lāfe, virtually ‘many a man
brandished his sword.’ The sg. of concrete nouns is often used in a collective sense;
thus in connection with maniġ, oft, ©þġesēne: 837¯f., 1065, 1110¯ff., 1243¯ff., 1288¯ff.,
2018¯f.; also without any such auxiliary word suggesting the collective function: 296¯ff.,
492 (?), 1067 (but see Gloss.: benċ), possibly 1284¯ff. See Kock 219, Siev. 1904: 569–
73, Kl. 1905–6: 249¯f.; cf. O’Donnell NM 92 (1991) 433–40; Mitchell & Irvine NM 97
(1996) 121¯f. Note that ġenehost stands for ġenehhost (Lang. §¯19.5; cf. GenA 2844,
HomFr I 36, Mald 269, vs. El 1064, 1157, etc.), producing a verse of type B1.
800. on healfa ġehwone hēawan, lit. ‘strike on all sides.’
804b. forsworen. The usual meaning would be ‘falsely sworn’ (Crépin: Grendel
‘s’était montré parjure’), but the sense ‘made useless by a spell’ is supported by the
gloss forsuōr on de[v]otabat ‘bewitched, cast a spell on, cursed’ (CorpGl¯2, 4.84): see
Kl. 1926: 195; BTS; Thomas MLR 22 (1927) 70. This seems preferable to the meaning
‘renounced’ (with Bēowulf as the understood subject, even less likely Grendel)
advocated by Laborde (MLR 18 [1923] 202–4; Sed.1–2; Rogers N&Q 31 [1984] 289–92;
Ja.), which is securely attested for the verb in ME but not in OE, and which demands
more than one particularly abrupt shift of focus in the passage.1 (See also MR.)
810. mōdes myrðe, in accordance with Holthausen’s explanation of myrð(u) as
‘trouble, aÑiction’ (cf. OHG merrida), based on mierran ‘disturb, mar’ (as earlier
analyzed by Gr.Spr.) is stylistically preferable to mōdes myr(h)ðe ‘joy of heart,’ wheth-
er myr(h)ðe is to be taken as dat. or as gen. (parallel with fyrene; Lawrence MLN 25
[1910] 156: ‘had accomplished much of the joy of his heart’; similarly He., Hold., Wy.,
Cha.; Ringler Speculum 41 [1966] 59 n.¯23; Bamm. 1986a: 91–2). Cf. mōdes brecða
171; 164¯ff., 474¯ff., 591¯ff., 2003¯ff., and see Kl. 1926: 195, Hoops 101¯f. Yet myrðe need
not be gen. pl. with a late, weakened inÏection (so Malone Angl. 54 [1930] 98, Kl.3,
Hoops; cf. Dob., Matthes Angl. 71.2 [1953] 151¯f.), as fela not infrequently governs the
gen. sg.: cf. 876, 883, 929, 1425 (see Gr.Spr. s.v. fela; DOE s.v. fela A.2.a). Wrenn’s
interpretation of myrðe as an adj. ‘murderous’ has not met with approval; cf. Ekwall
1954: 79, Girvan 1954: 178–9.
811b. hē [wæs] fāg wið God. For the scribal omission of wæs, cf. 1559, and see
Glossary: eom. Comparison is drawn by v.Sch. to GenA 1291: hwæt hē fāh werum

1
To be sure, if the DOE is right that the gloss aðsweredan (beside wyrġdan) on deuotabant
(ClGl¯1, 1823) is a form of oþswerian ‘abjure, deny on oath,’ then forsuōr in CorpGl 2 may have
similar meaning, and the evidence for forswerian in the sense ‘bewitch’ is notably weakened. Yet
devotare does not mean ‘abjure,’ and the sense ‘curse, bewitch’ is not inherently improbable for
the OE verb, given the usual meanings of for- and swerian. That the verb here takes a dative object
may indicate a meaning different from the usual one (see Lang. §¯26.5). Cf. Saxo vii 2,1, where a
certain Haquinus (Hákon) is called hebetandi carminibus ferri peritus; cf. MSol 161¯ff. On invul-
nerability in ON, see Beard Occasional Papers in Ling. & Lang. Learning 8 (1981) 13–31; on
charms, Taylor Jnl. of Pop. Culture 1 (1967) 276–85.
164 BEOWULF
fremman wolde; yet the Genesis passage does not lack a verb. Although omission of
the verb in other contexts is natural enough, within a parenthesis it is too awkward to
appear intentional, and Mitchell (OES §¯3865, but cf. MR) warns that ‘the existence of
parentheses with “ellipsis” of wæs/w®ron cannot be established except by circular
argument.’ Cf. Lehmann NM 72 (1971) 38; Stanley PBA 70 (1984) 271¯f.
814b–15a. wæs ġehwæþer ōðrum / li¢ġende lāð, ‘each one was hostile (or detest-
able?) to the other while living.’ Cf. 2564¯f., Mald 133, and see Kl. Archiv 126 (1911)
357 & n.¯1.
816b¯f. wearð .¯.¯. sweotol, ‘became visible.’
818. burston bānlocan. On the (esp. Celtic) parallels to the tearing off of Grendel’s
arm, see Intr. xxxvii. Allen NM 78 (1977) 233¯f. perceives indebtedness to Gregory’s
commentary on Job 31: 22, though the parallel is not close (Niles 1983: 86).
819b¯ff. Harris Scripta Islandica 24 (1973) 25–53 draws parallels between the deaths
of Grendel and Grettir Ásmundarson. (On their names, see Prop. Names: Grendel).
823b–7a. Denum eallum wearð, etc. The construction parallels that of the preceding
sentence, implying a comparison (v.Sch. Speculum 33 [1958] 536).
825. ġef®lsod. The hero’s stated intention to ‘cleanse’ Heorot (see 432¯n.) has been
precisely ful¢lled. The verb (ġe)f®lsian sometimes carries speci¢cally religious over-
tones (see DOE), as would suit the context of a demon-haunted hall or, later, a demon-
haunted mere (see 1176, 1620).
826. snotor ond sw©ðferhð. That the hero embodies the ideal of sapientia et forti-
tudo has been maintained by Kaske (1958), who moreover regards this as the poem’s
controlling theme (see Intr. cxviii, cviii n.¯6).
833b. Þæt wæs tācen sweotol, i.e. ‘that was clearly proved’ (Kl. 1905–6: 456, Angl.
25 [1902] 280), though a concrete reference to Grendel’s arm as a sign of victory could
instead be meant.
834¯ff. MR propose alternatively that hildedēor refers not to Bēowulf but to Grendel
(so earlier Johansen ES 63 [1982] 193–7), and under ġēapne hr(ōf) means simply ‘in
the hall’ (so earlier DuBois MLQ 16 [1955] 291 and Bremmer 1996: 122–3), though in
that event (as they note) we are not told who hung the arm from the roof (cf. 925¯ff.,
980¯ff.) or when. See also Sed.3 115, and cf. Kl. 1905–6: 256. — 835b–6. The text is
punctuated in agreement with Gru., Bu.Tid. 49, Cos. BGdSL 21 (1896) 20, Hoops 103,
Holt., Cha., and most recent edd. Some would treat þ®r wæs eal ġeador as a complete
clause and Grendles grāpe as a variant of hond . . . earm ond eaxle (so Soc.6–7, Schü.,
Sed., Holt.7–8). Note that grāpe is gen., dependent on eal.
¯837–924. Rejoicing of the retainers. Stories of Siġemund and Heremōd.
837–56. On Grendel’s abode, see note on 1357b¯ff.
839¯ff. This excursion to Grendel’s mere has been declared an unwarranted duplica-
tion of the trip preceding Bēowulf's second adventure, 1399¯ff.; see Panzer 1910: 276¯ff.
It might as well be called a legitimate expansion of the story. folctogan: a high-
sounding term like seler®dende 51, 1346.
841. lāstas. Hardly Grendel’s severed limb (so Thomas MLR 22 [1927] 71; Hoops
St. 103¯f.) but his track (Dob.): cf. 132, 1402. The tracks left behind by a creature of
Grendel’s great size might well have been thought a wundor 840b, especially if blood-
stained.
845b. It has been argued that mere must here have the meaning ‘sea’ that it has else-
where in poetry (cf. 1130) and must refer to an arm of the ocean, as ¢rst proposed by
Brooke (1892: 42–3). Klaeber is right that the idea should not be conceded: for refer-
ences and a rebuttal, see Fulk SN 77 (2005) 147; also Cronan 2003: 402–3. After all,
mere may refer to a pool or marsh in verse (cf. PPs 106.34.1, 113.8.1, where it renders
stagnum aquae; but cf. Russom 2007: 232), and presumably it usually means ‘sea’ in
verse because pools are so uncommon in poetry. Frank (1986: 154–8, with an excellent
summary of scholarhip) argues that the poet is purposely ambiguous; cf. Fjalldal 1998:
72–4. See Intr. ci n.¯4 and note on 1357¯ff.
 COMMENTARY 165
847¯ff. Юr may be a subordinating conjunction rather than an adverb (OES §¯2669).
— on blōde ‘bloody.’ It may be best to regard heolfre as dependent on ġemenġed,
which may be followed by the instrumental (cf. Wan 48: hagle ġemenġed; also LibSc
171.11: hlehter sāre byð ġeminċġed) and heorodrēore as dependent on wēol (cf. 1422,
etc.). Cf. Aant., Kl. MLN 16 (1901) 15–18.
850–2. dēog is perhaps plupf.; siððan, conj. Leo’s explanation of dēog (see Varr.)
as cognate with OHG pp. tougan is defended by Wardale MLR 24 (1929) 62¯f., who
cites OE dēagol, dīeġel as a related word (cf. OHG tougali). So also v.Sch., Ni., Ja.,
MR (?). Krogmann EStn. 68.2 (1933) 317 posits for dēog the sense ‘raged’ (inf. *dēan
< *dēahan); see also Flasdieck Angl. 60 (1936) 267 (*dūgan or *dēogan). Wn.1–2 re-
constructs a verb *dēagan ‘die’ on the basis of Orm’s deµenn (so MR?), but Ekwall
1954: 79–80 and Girvan 1954: 179 raise weighty objections. — Grendel’s abode is
vaguely identi¢ed with hell (cf. 756); he is even said to pass into the power of devils
(on fēonda ġeweald 808; cf. on frēan w®re 27). No conscious personi¢cation need be
assumed in the expression þ®r him hel onfēng. See Kl. 1911–12: [30–1]. (Bamm.
Neophil. 86 [2002] 467–9 proposes that him refers to Grendel’s feorh, supposing the
creature does not die before Bēowulf beheads him in l.¯1590, as is supposed also by
Lindqvist 1958: 102–3).
858b. be s®m twēonum. The comparison by R. Liuzza (Beowulf [Peterborough,
ON, 2000] 79) to the idiom ‘coast to coast’ is apt. If, as M. Rau (Germanische Alter-
tümer in der ags. Exodus [Leipzig diss., 1899] 17) supposes, the expression originally
referred to the North and Baltic Seas, it lost that meaning early: cf. Guth 266, 1359. But
be twēonum need not refer to just two things (cf. And 558, LS 20 [Blickl. hom. xiii]
143.12, HomM 11 [ScraggVerc 14] 115), and so the expression may rather denote the
seas located at the edges of the known world: cf. 1223. Indeed, the phrase may not be
Germanic in origin: cf. PPs 71.8.2, where it renders a mari usque ad mare (and
similarly Ex 563 = Ex. 22:¯31 [Trahern in Nicholson & Frese 1975: 296–7]; also in
Ecclus. 44:¯23, Zech. 9:¯10). See also Lucas 1994: 131; Tolkien 1981: 68; Howe 1989:
90–1, 151.
864¯ff. Horses are of manifest importance in the world of Beowulf. They are men-
tioned in connection with their practical use, especially to members of the court society
and those in their service (234¯ff., 1399¯ff., 2898); as gifts ¢t for a prince (1035¯ff.) or a
king or queen (2163¯ff., 2174¯f.); and in conjunction with the solemn rites of the crema-
tion ceremony (3169¯ff.). Moreover, the absence of horses from an aristocratic court is
equated with the loss of happiness in general (2264¯f.). In the present scene (which
concludes at 916¯f.), attention is drawn to impromptu horse racing as an expression of
joy and high spirits. The high value set on horses during the ¢rst millennium in
Northern lands can be inferred from archaeological evidence that includes precious bits
and bridles (see 1399b¯n.), richly ornamented saddles (see 1038¯n.), and horse burials,
which were sometimes undertaken (as at Mound 17 at Sutton Hoo) in association with
the burial of a person of high rank whose horse was evidently taken to be part of his
identity. See McClelland 1966: 177–87; Keefer Jnl. of Med. History 22 (1996) 115–34;
Carver 1998: 110–15; Reichstein R.-L.2 23.29–50 (‘Pferd’), Koch ibid. 35–50 (‘Pferd-
geschirr’), and Steuer ibid. 50–96 (‘Pferdgräber’). Northern European horses of this
period are thought to have been generally smaller than their modern counterparts (see
Illus.B 56).
867b–915. Summary of the scop’s performance (while the thegns ride slowly), the
subjects being Bēowulf, Siġemund, Heremōd. The scene wherein the poet looks back,
as it were, on one of his imagined predecessors in the old oral tradition has been lik-
ened, without any claims as to direct inÏuence, to the ones in Odyssey viii in which
Homer portrays the blind singer Demodokos performing at the Phaiakian court (Creed
in Green¢eld 1963: 44–52). Opland, too (in Niles 1981: 30–43) would see in this pas-
sage a noteworthy portrait of a singer schooled in an oral-formulaic mode of composi-
tion (see Intr. clxxxi¯ff.). Frank (Bull. of the John Rylands Univ. Libr. 75 [1993] 11–36),
166 BEOWULF
however, rightly emphasizes that nothing in this scene should be taken to reÏect upon
the poet’s own poetic practice; see also Niles 2007b: 148–50, emphasizing the nostal-
gia involved in such retrospection. Regardless, the passage has generally been regarded
as testimony to the poet’s and audience’s familiarity with the improvisation of lays in
connection with great events, as well as with the circulation of short heroic poems
comparable in scale to The Fight at Finnsburg. See, e.g., Schmid-Cadalbert ABzäG 21
(1984) 88–92, though Eliason PQ 31 (1952): 171–9 disputes the view that improvisa-
tion is involved. — It is debated whether the scop’s account of Siġemund and Heremōd
amounts to a separate song (or perhaps two), as Klaeber thought (also, e.g., McElroy
N&Q 6 [1959] 305–6), or whether comparison and contrast with these two legendary
¢gures is part of a single composition in praise of Bēowulf (so, e.g., Hoops St. 52–5,
Opland 1980: 204). J.M. Hill OT 17 (2002) 313–14 argues that the scop mixes ‘oral
composition and oral recitation,’ adding new material to songs he already knows about
Siġemund and Heremōd. Orchard 2003: 107 remarks the use of assonance and rhymed
parallel phrases as illustrating the singer’s eloquence.
867b–70a. The singer enjoys royal sponsorship (867b). He is ġilphlæden ‘well fur-
nished with words of praise,’ in keeping with his role as dispenser of praise and blame.
(See Opland 1980: 202–5 on this scene in relation to the eulogistic functions of AS
poetry). He is ġidda ġemyndiġ, or mindful of songs and sententious utterances, as suits
a poet who is a keeper of collective memory. And his repertory is immense: he remem-
bers ‘a great number of the whole stock (ealfela .¯.¯. worn) of ancient traditions.’
870b–1. word ōþer fand / sōðe ġebunden. According to the punctuation introduced
by Rieger and approved by Bugge (see Varr. and Rie.L.), these verses were understood
as a parenthetic clause, ‘one word found another rightly bound,’ with secg emended to
secgan to avoid the resulting awkward variation of secg with cyninges þeġn 867. (See
also the note of Earle 1892; Kl. 1905–6: 456.) Klaeber (along with Holt.7 and v.Sch.)
originally adopted the parenthesis (but not the emendation), then turned to the present
reading (Kl.3, in agreement with Hoops St. 49–52), remarking that it is simpler to place
a semicolon after ġebunden and to interpret word ōþer (and similarly eft) as expressing
a contrast to ealdġeseġena. (So also Eliason PQ 31 [1952] 171–9, but arguing that ōþer
may contrast with the previous praise for the hero in 856¯ff.) Ultimately he reverted
(Kl.3 Su. 466–7, 470, Archiv 188 [1951] 108), persuaded by v.Sch. (Lit.bl. 57 [1936] 31,
though ōþer need not alliterate if it contrasts with ealdġeseġena, as she suggests; cf.
GenA 973, 2619, GuthA 127, etc., unstressed hine 915, hē 1209, etc.), but the present
editors, like the 11 edd., think Hoops’s analysis best. Cf. Bamm. 2006: 29–31, constru-
ing ōþer as an adverb, to avoid the implication that innovation was valued in poetry.
For the use of fand, cf. Fates 1: iċ þysne sang sīðġeōmor fand, also Otfrid i 1.8; for the
true alliterative ‘binding,’ sōðe ġebunden (not likely ‘linked with truth,’ as supposed by
Schü., Sed.), cf. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight 35: with lel letteres loken.
874. wordum wrixlan seems here (unlike in 366: see n.) to mean ‘vary words,’
‘make variations with words,’ in the customary manner of early Germanic poetry (so,
e.g., Leyerle 1967: 4), though there is no very close parallel to this usage. Compare,
though, Rid 8.2¯f.: wrixle . . . hēafodwōþe ‘vary head-sounds,’ i.e. ‘sing’ (similarly
Phoen 127). MR suggest ‘change his words,’ i.e. ‘adapt his stories to the subject at
hand.’ Cf. Ni.: ‘sich auf verschiedenartigste Weise auszudrücken.’
875–900. Siġemund. The cursory report embodies two separate stories: (1) Siġe-
mund’s wīde sīðas of ¢erce ¢ghting, especially those undertaken in the company of
Fitela, and (2) his dragon ¢ght.
1) The former is fully illuminated by the 13th-centuryV∂lsunga saga, chs. 3–8. Sig-
mundr, we are told, is the eldest son of King V∂lsungr, a descendant of Óðinn. His twin
sister Signý is married against her will to Siggeirr, king of Gautland. While on a visit to
Siggeir’s court, V∂lsungr and his men are treacherously slain (cf. the Finnsburg leg-
end); his sons are taken prisoners, put in stocks in a forest, and are devoured one by
one by a she-wolf. Sigmundr kills the wolf and escapes, and he and Signý separately
 COMMENTARY 167
brood over revenge. Seeing that her sons by Siggeirr are not courageous enough for the
task and that only a true V∂lsung son will be able to help in the work of revenge,
Signý, impelled by a desperate resolve, disguises herself as a witch and visits her
brother in the forest. He ¢nds her attractive, sleeps with her for three nights, and when
her time comes, she gives birth to a son, who is named Sinfj∂tli. Ten years old, the boy
at his mother’s bidding joins Sigmundr (who does not know until the ¢nal catastrophe
that Sinfj∂tli is his son) and is trained by him in deeds of strength and hardship. ‘For
some summers they roved far and wide through the forest and killed people for plun-
der’; living for a time as werewolves (eating corpses and nearly killing each other
while in wolf form), they engage in ‘many daring exploits in King Siggeirr’s territory’
(Finch 1965: 10, 12). (Cf. Beo 883¯f., f®hðe ond fyrena 879 [Helgakv. Hund. I, 41: ¢rin-
verkum (?)].) Finally Sigmundr and Sinfj∂tli take revenge by setting ¢re to Siggeirr’s
hall. Signý voluntarily meets her death in the Ïames.
How far the version known to the author of Beowulf agreed with this part of V∂ls-
unga saga is impossible to determine. The reference to Fitela as Siġemund’s nefa (881)
may reÏect Siġemund’s own ignorance of their true relation, or the use here may be
euphemistic (Chck. 316). But we do not know whether the Anglo-Saxons were ac-
quainted with a story answering to the Sigmundr-Signý story. The form Fitela differs
from the established Norse compound name Sinfj∂tli (the bearer of which ¢gures in the
Eddas and in Eiríksmál) and from the High German Sintar¢zzilo (merely recorded, by
the side of Fezzilo, Fizzilo, as a man’s name). See Gloss. of Prop. Names. Also the
designation of Siġemund’s father as Wæls (897; Siġemund = Wælsing 877) differs from
his Norse name V∂lsungr, which latter is presumably the result of confusion, the patro-
nymic form being taken for a proper name (so Björk. Eig. 113¯f.). It is possible, rather,
that Wæls itself (used in Wælses eafera 897 = Wælsing) is a (secondary) back formation
inferred from Wælsing (Sievers 1900: 22; R. Boer Untersuchungen über den Ursprung
und die Entwicklung der Nibelungensage, III [Halle, 1909] 93; A. Campbell 1971: 289).
But it may be that the Norse name was changed because of the sexual association of
V∂lsi: see Björkm.Eig. 114¯f., and see V∂lsa þáttr in Flateyjarbók; Heizmann R.-L.2
33.538.
2) Siġemund’s dragon ¢ght is peculiar to Beowulf. It naturally suggests the far-
famed dragon ¢ght of his still greater son, (ON) Sigurðr, (MHG) Sigfrit, which kindled
the imagination of the Scandinavians (witness the Eddas, V∂lsunga saga, and notable
representations in Northern art; see Margeson 1980 and Düwel in Jazayery & Winter
1988: 133–56) and was not forgotten by the Germans (Nibel. 100, 899 [cf. 87¯ff.],
Seyfridslied, cf. Þiðreks saga), and which in fact — especially as part of the great
Nibelungen cycle — has been celebrated in modern Germanic epic, drama, and music.
As Siġemund is called wreċċena wīde m®rost ofer werþēode 898, Sigurðr is to be ‘the
greatest man under the sun, and the highest-born of all kings’ (Grípispá 7); and the
slaying of the dragon brings no little renown to Siġemund (æfter dēaðdæge dōm unl©tel
885) just as to his illustrious son (‘this great deed will live for as long as the world shall
last’: Finch 1965: 33). But there are differences between the two stories, quite apart
from the greater explicitness of detail to be found in the narrative of Sigurðr’s exploit.
The manner of the ¢ght itself is not, after all, the same, Siġemund’s deed appearing the
more genuinely heroic one because he faces the dragon, whereas Sigurðr ambushes it.
Other noteworthy incidents of the Beowulf version are the dissolving of the dragon in
its own heat (897) and the carrying away of the hoard in a boat (895; in Guðrúnarkv. II
16 Sigmundr is represented as a maritime king). (For points of contact with Bēowulf’s
and Frotho’s dragon ¢ghts, see Intr. xlv¯f.). It is widely held that the dragon ¢ght
belongs properly to Sigurðr and not to Siġemund, his father (e.g., Orchard 2003: 105).
Sigurðr-Sigfrit may, however, have been unknown to him, and it is possible that no
connection had yet been established between the Siġemund (Wælsing) legends and
those of Sigfrit and of the Burgundians. It is also possible that the dragon ¢ght was ori-
ginally Siġemund’s and later transferred to the son (thus already Price 1824 in Shippey
168 BEOWULF
& Haarder 1998: 175 and von Sydow Lunds Universitets Årsskrift 14, no. 16 [1918] 1–
51). It certainly seems signi¢cant that the author of Eiríksmál, a poem that antedates
V∂lsunga saga by more than three centuries, chose Sigmundr and Sinfj∂tli to represent
the greatest of legendary heroes, and that Hyndluljóð (12th century?) pairs Sigmundr
with Hermóðr (= Heremōd). (Hermóðr could be Óðinn’s son rather than the legendary
hero, but it would be odd to match a god with a mortal; but cf. E. Noreen Studier i
fornvästnordisk diktning, I [Uppsala, 1921] 57.) Such evidence does not explicitly link
Sigmundr to a dragon ¢ght, but it suggests that there is more to his legend than is to be
found in V∂lsunga saga. See H. Schneider 1962: 158–63 for opposing arguments on
this issue.
In the absence of explicit commentary by the poet, a number of scholars have tried
to determine the function of the Siġemund material in the poem. Nineteenth- and early
20th-century critics (e.g. Schrøder 1875: 81–5, Fahlbeck Antiqvarisk Tidskrift för
Sverige 8.2 [1884] 79, Bonjour 1950: 47) tend to argue that it serves to praise Bēowulf,
while late 20th- and early 21st-century scholars (e.g. GriÌth ASE 24 [1995] 11–41,
Kries GRM 52 (2002) 219–35, Orchard 2003: 105–10) tend to see considerable ambi-
guity in the comparison. See further references in GriÌth 11 n.¯3; contra GriÌth, see
Robinson 1997. See also Talbot Folklore 94 (1983) 153–62, who ¢nds an analogue for
the Siġemund story in Tacitus’s Germania.
875. Siġemunde[s]. The reluctance of some edd. to adopt this emendation (see
Varr.) is surprising, given what an awkward parallel ellend®dum 876 makes to Siġe-
munde (or analyzed as dat. of accompaniment: Malone 1933b: 150), and given how
natural it would have been for an inattentive scribe to write Siġemunde for Siġemundes
after fram, which requires a dative object. Cf. MS nacan 1903, leoman 2769. See
Mitchell LSE 20 (1989) 314¯f.; OES §¯1175.
878. þāra þe gumena bearn ġearwe ne wiston. Though ne wiston may be con-
strued with the genitive (see 681), the gen. here is perhaps more likely due to the parti-
tive idea suggested by uncūþes fela 876.
879. f®hðe ond fyrena. Dobbie construes as genitives: ‘of hostility and of crimes.’
Rejecting the scribe’s correction (see Varr.) permits some to construe both as gen. sg.
GriÌth ASE 24 (1995) 20–5 observes the opprobrious connotations of these terms in
other contexts and stresses the ill deeds of Sigmundr in V∂lsunga saga (e.g., killing his
nephews) in support of his view that the comparison of Siġemund to Bēowulf is not
consistently Ïattering. (See also Orchard 2003: 109–13.) Yet Robinson 1997 remarks
instances of fyren that express no such stigma; cf. DOE.
880. þonne hē swulċes hwæt secgan wolde. The ref. is to deeds done by Siġemund
before Fitela joined him. For swulċes, see Lang. §¯3 n.¯1.
881. nefan is of course an understatement, if the poet knew the story of Sinfj∂tli’s
birth as it is related in the much later V∂lsunga saga: see 875–900 (n.); Whitelock
1951: 57; GriÌth op. cit. 25–8; Robinson 1997: 202. It has been proposed that swā here
is causal: see Sed. (so earlier Ericson, Nader); cf. Schü.Sa. 33, v.Sch.
883b. eotena. GriÌth op. cit. 30 suggests that these may be Jutes rather than giants
(cf. the notes to 902b–4a, 1071¯f.). But the killing of giants, as well as a dragon, would
suit the character of a hero like Siġemund and would contribute more directly to his
fame. Such exploits could also be seen as aligning him on the side of humanity in the
‘Great Feud’ that is one of the poet’s recurrent themes (Intr. lxx¯ff.).
885. æfter dēaðdæġe dōm unl©tel. ‘Renown after death’ was the ideal hero’s chief
aim in life. See 1387¯ff.; Intr. lxxiii, cxxix. Note the alliterative collocation of dēaþ and
dōm. See Quirk 1963: 156–7.
886. wīġes heard. Heusler 1969 [1919]: 42–3, following early authorities (e.g. Gru.
127¯f., Jessen ZfdPh. 3 [1871] 19), argues that this (along with æþelinges bearn 888)
refers to Siġemund’s unnamed son (rather than Siġemund himself), who is the slayer of
the dragon in Norse and German traditions (Sigurðr, Sigfrit: see 875–900¯n.); so also
MR.
 COMMENTARY 169
887. hordes hyrde. The hoard motif appears here connected with the dragon ¢ght,
as seems natural. In the Nibelungenlied, the winning of the hoard is separated from Sig-
frit’s slaying of the dragon.
888b. āna genēðde . . . A single-handed ¢ght is, of course, especially glorious. Cf.
431, 2541, 2345¯ff. (Bēowulf); Saxo ii 1,3, tr. 40 (where Frotho is said to be ‘solitar-
ius,’ see Appx.A §¯10); Nibel. 88 (where Sigfrit is described as al eine ân’ alle helfe);
Historia Britonum §¯56 (Arthur: ‘ipse solus’); Plutarch, Theseus §¯29 (μηδενòs συμ-
μάχου δεηθέντα).
889b. nē wæs him Fitela mid, ‘and (even) Fitela was not with him.’
890–2. According to Norse legend, Sigmundr — one of Óðinn’s einherjar, like Her-
móðr — received a wondrous sword from the great god. See Hyndl. 2 (Appx.A §¯7.1),
V∂lsunga saga, ch. 3 (a detailed account of Sigmund’s obtaining the sword). — The
dragon is, as it were, nailed to the wall ([swurd] on wealle ætstōd¯), a variation of a typ-
ical feature: see Kl. 1926: 239 n.¯1.
893. āgl®ċa. Though this word is usually applied to Grendel and the dragon and is
frequently rendered ‘wretch, monster, demon, ¢end’ (so Kl.1–3 Gloss.), its application
here to Siġemund, as well as to Bēowulf and the dragon in 2592, and seemingly to
Bēowulf alone in 1512 and (perhaps) 646, discourages any such assumption about its
meaning; so also does Byrhtferth’s reference to Bede as se ®ġl®ċa lārēow (ByrM ii
1.175). Though the word’s etymology remains uncertain, despite much research (see
Gloss.), it seems likelier originally to have meant ‘one inspiring fear or awe’ (see Brie
EStn. 41 [1910] 24¯f.; also Robinson 1997: 205: ‘awesome opponent, ferocious ¢ghter’)
than ‘monster-warrior’ or ‘giant-warrior’ (Holt. IF 20 [1906–7] 316). See Gloss.; Kl.
1911–12: [19]; see also the note to 738¯f.
895. selfes dōme, i.e., such treasures — and as many — as he desired. Cf. 2775¯f.;
2147; Mezger MLN 67 (1952) 106–9; Biggs Speculum 80 (2005) 728–9; OIcel. sjálf-
dœmi (see Cl.-Vig. s.v.).
897b. wyrm hāt (‘being hot,’ i.e. ‘by its own heat’) ġemealt. (Cf. 3040¯f.; meltan is
always intransitive; compare mieltan.) This motif (to be found also in Seyfridslied 147,
ed. K. King 1958) has been enlarged upon (and modi¢ed) in the accounts of the dragon
¢ght of Sigurðr-Sigfrit. See L. Polak Untersuchungen über die Sigfridsagen (Berlin
diss., 1910) 47–8. — Note the w-alliteration occurring in three successive lines. (Intr.
clxi n.¯3.)
900¯f. The parenthesis in 900b was ¢rst suggested by Müllenhoff ZfdA 14 (1869) 202;
see Kl. 1905–6: 457. Several edd. begin a new sentence with siððan, taking the word
as either a conjunction (Hold., Soc., Wy., Tr.) or an adverb (Sed.). For the use of a
clause headed by siððan after a comparative or a superlative, cf. 1197¯ff., Brun 65¯ff.,
Wid 45¯ff.
901–15. This digression on Heremōd is to be interpreted in conjunction with a sim-
ilar one (occurring in Hrōðgār’s moralizing speech after the second combat), 1709–22.1
The main point of the story referred to in these two allusive passages is that Heremōd
was a strong, valiant hero, pre-eminent among his fellows, giving promise of a brilliant
career, but he subsequently proved a bad ruler, cruel and stingy, and having become a
burden to his people, he ended miserably. A minor feature, which in Beowulf itself re-
mains obscure, is connected with certain events in advance of his accession (907–13).
See Intr. lvii on this problematic issue and, in general, on the character and role of
Heremōd.
A version of the Heremōd story (transferred to Lotherus), which is apt to throw light
on the obscure meaning of ll.¯907–13, occurs in Saxo i 2,1–2. (A brief mention is made
in the Annales Ryenses, Appx.A §11.5.) Of the two sons of Dan, the mythical and

1
An indirect reference to the character of Heremōd has been detected in the praise of Bēowulf,
2177–83.
170 BEOWULF
eponymous ancestor of the Danish kings, ‘Humblus, when his father died, was made
king, but . . . captured in battle by Lotherus, he bartered his crown for his life. . . . But
Lotherus played the king no more tolerably than he had the soldier, straightway inaug-
urating his reign with insolence and crime. He held it a virtue to despoil the most illus-
trious of life or goods and to empty the realm of its good citizens, for he regarded his
peers as rivals to the throne. He did not long remain unpunished for his crimes, perish-
ing in an uprising of the nation that had bestowed on him his reign and now deprived
him of his life.’ Putting together the veiled allusion of the last clause (‘that had be-
stowed on him his reign’) and Beo 907¯ff., Sievers concluded that Lotherus gained the
throne through the support of an active minority of the people — a group that from the
beginning had been in favor of his succession and regretted (®rran m®lum 907) the
turn Danish affairs had taken under the rule of his weaker brother. A faint echo of this
narrative has been discovered by Sarrazin (Angl. 19 [1897] 392–7) in the Scondia illus-
trata of the Swedish chronicler Johannes Messenius (beginning of the 17th century).
‘Lotherus igitur Danorum rex,’ we are informed, ‘ope suorum propter nimiam destitu-
tus tyrannidem, superatusque in Jutiam profugit.’ He returns from this exile, slays the
rival king Balderus,1 and temporarily regains possession of his kingdom, but he loses
his life in a war of revenge instigated by Othinus. Sievers’s subtle interpretation of
Saxo’s wording (i 2,1–2: Lotherus, Humblus) has the merit of clearing up the otherwise
dark allusion of ll.¯9o7¯ff. It has naturally been called in question; indeed, the connec-
tion between the Beowul¢an account and Saxo’s story has been altogether denied. It
has been pointed out that the names Lotherus and Humblus have a counterpart in Hl∂ðr
and Humli of Hervarar saga. But what is told of these and of Angantýr (Wid 116:
Hlīþe, Inċġenþēow) does not add much to our understanding of Saxo’s all-too-cursory
statement.2
The coupling of Heremōd and Siġemund as heroes of greatest renown springs from a
Scandinavian tradition (which may have arisen even before Heremōd was given a place
among the Danish kings). This is proved by Hyndluljóð 2 (Appx.A §¯7.1) and, less di-
rectly, by a comparison of Eyvindr’s Hákonarmál 14 (wherein Hermóðr and Bragi are
bidden by Óðinn to welcome King Hákon to Valh∂ll) with the composition to which it
responds, the anonymous Eiríksmál 5 (wherein Óðinn sends the mortal heroes Sig-
mundr and Sinfj∂tli to greet King Eiríkr; see H. Chadwick The Cult of Othin [London,
1899] 51). In contrast to the Siġemund episode, which is introduced as a tale of the
purely heroic type, the Heremōd story is infused with a spirit of Christian moralization
(see Kl. 1911–12: [47, 50]), though the treatment is not entirely unsympathetic (cf.

1
The fact that in Gylfaginning, in the Prose Edda, Hermóðr (perhaps in origin the same ¢gure
as the mortal hero in Hyndluljóð) appears as (Óðinn’s son and) Baldr’s brother furnishes additional
evidence of the identity of Lotherus and Heremōd.
2
Cf. Malone, locc. cit. (n.¯1, p.¯169 supra). Müllenhoff looked upon Heremōd as a mere allegor-
ical personi¢cation setting forth the dangers of here-mōd ‘warlike disposition.’ (Similarly ten
Brink, Robinson 1970b.) But later studies have shown him to be a de¢nitely identi¢able ¢gure in
Danish historical-legendary tradition. Thus, Saxo tells of Olo, who was a wonderfully strong and
gifted youth, but who later showed himself a cruel and unrighteous king, so that twelve generals
(‘duces’), moved by the distress of their country, plotted against his life and induced Starcatherus
to kill the king while he was alone at the bath (viii 6,3). This Olo, as well as the ¢gure Olavus, on
whom the three goddesses of fate bestowed ‘a handsome form and abundant good-will in the eyes
of men,’ ‘copious generosity,’ but also ‘the vice of miserliness’ (Saxo vi 4,12), is identical to the
Danish king Áli inn frœkni (cf. Hyndl. 14, Appx.A §¯7.1), who after a long, vigorous reign was
killed by Starkaðr (Ynglinga saga, ch. 25; Skj∂ldunga saga, ch. 9). In view of the fact, however,
that according to Nornagests þáttr (ca. 1300) and Egils saga einhenda ok Ásmundar berserkjabana
(14th century) it is King Ármóðr who is slain by Starkaðr while bathing, there is good reason to
believe (with Bugge) that the name Heremōd applied to this saga ¢gure in Beowulf goes back to
true old Danish legend, the variation in the names Heremōd (ON Hermóðr) and Ármóðr being
insigni¢cant.
 COMMENTARY 171
904¯f., 907, 909). In both of the passages Heremōd is made to serve as a foil to the
exemplary Bēowulf.
901. siððan Heremōdes hild sweðrode. For the punctuation, see Kl. 1905–6: 457.
Siġemund’s glory survived that of Heremōd (who in Hyndluljóð is mentioned before
Sigmundr). It was unrivaled after Heremōd’s decline: sweðrode refers either to his ad-
vancing years or (probably) to his lamentable death. Cf. Grettis saga, ch. 58: En þat er
Ïestra manna ætlan að Grettir ha¢ sterkastr verit á landinu síðan þeir Ormr Stórólfs-
son ok Þórálfr Skólmsson l∂gðu af aÏraunir. Similarly two heroes, Offa and Alewīh,
are set against each other in Wid 35¯ff. A gratuitous transposition of ll.¯901–15 (861,
901–15, 862–900, 916¯ff.) was proposed by Joseph ZfdPh. 22 (1890) 385–97. (Cf. ten
Brink 6o.)
902b–4a. Ēotenum (also at 1145), for expected Ēotum, is taken by most observers to
be a reference to Jutes, though not a few scholars have taken MS eotenum to refer to
giants (and hence, according to Rie.Zs. 398¯f., ‘enemies’; cf., however, Tol. 53–63).1
Ēotenum may have been formed by analogy to genitive plural Ēotena, a rare devel-
opment found in some other (but not proper) weak nouns, for instance oxnum,
nefenum, lēonum, tānum (see Cha.Intr. 261, Tol. 61¯f.). (The metrical pattern does not
prove that Ēotum was the original reading, although this seems likely enough: see SB
§§¯276 n.¯4, 277 n.¯1; Appx.C §¯12; compare also Lang. §¯21.6). But perhaps a somewhat
likelier explanation is that a scribe unfamiliar with the proper noun confused it with the
word for ‘giants.’ Why Heremōd had particular trouble with Jutes is left unexplained,
and this is perhaps one reason for the error. (See also the quotation from Messenius
provided supra, p.¯170.) Compare how Bede’s Iutas (H.E. i, cap. 15) become Ġēatas in
the OE version of the Historia ecclesiastica (but cf. 445a¯n.). Indeed, the two scribes are
particularly prone to error in the copying of names (see Varr.: 53, 443, 461, 465, 499,
591, 1128–9, 1261, 1686, 1836, 1944, 1960, 1961, 2186, 2202, 2921, 2946, prob. 63,
519, and some others; see Prokosch Kl.Misc. 206). The Jutes in Jutland appear to have
been absorbed by the invading Danes by the early sixth century at the latest (see
Eggers R.-L.2 16.94), and thus their precise identity faded from memory early. It seems
that already by Alfred’s day there was much confusion about Scandinavia, its peoples,
and their history. — on fēonda geweald .¯.¯. forsended possibly means ‘he was sent to
hell’ (Hoops et al.). See 756a (n.), and cf. 8o8; 1721¯f. Rather, Kock4 117 (so Holt.6; also
Malone Angl. 55 [1931] 268, PMLA 69 [1954] 1296) takes on fēonda ġeweald as a
variant of mid Ēotenum.
905. Despite editors’ reluctance to emend MS lemede (see Varr.), unambiguous ex-
amples of e as a preterite plural indicative verb inÏection are so infrequent (cf. Dietrich
ZfdA 10 [1856] 332¯f., 11 [1859] 444–8; Woolf MLQ 4 [1943] 49¯f.; Kl. 1926: 202;
Hoops St. 108; H. Stoelke Die Incongruenz zwischen Subjekt und Prädikat im Eng-
lischen und verwandten Sprachen, AF 49 [Heidelberg, 1916]) that it would be spec-
ulative to assume the existence of such an alternative form on this basis, or to regard
the examples that have been found as anything other than scribal errors. Kl. agrees but
suggests that the singular of the verb may be explained syntactically, sorhwylmas being
felt equivalent to sorh. Yet the two parallels that he cites (1408, 2164) are capable of
other explanation (see OES §¯19, though Mitchell’s conclusion from the lack of
evidence is rather different), and Andrew 1948: §¯66 wonders why similar compounds
(e.g. ċearwylmas) are never treated this way.
908. sīð, either ‘lot, fate’ or, perhaps, ‘journey,’ referring to Heremōd’s exile after
his brother (Humblus in Saxo) was made king. Hoops 117 considers this an allusion to
Heremōd’s (Lotherus’s) war against his brother, by which he gained the throne.

1
Favoring the interpretation ‘giants’ are Bu. 45, Neckel 1920: 58; Philippson 1929: 172; S.
Gutenbrunner et al. Völker und Stämme Südostschleswigs im frühen Mittelalter (Schleswig, 1952)
100; de Vries ZfdPh. 72 (1953) 132; Laur ZfdA 85 (1954–5) 115; Wy., Tr., Holt.1–2, Cha., Wn.; and
some of those cited in the note to 1071¯f.
172 BEOWULF
909. sē þe him bealwa tō bōte ġel©fde. Connect tō with him. Similarly 1272, PPs
142.10.2, etc., and cf. 627¯f., 608. Thus, there appears to be no advantage to placing tō
in the off-verse (where Ki. puts it) and connecting it with bōte, especially as this cre-
ates anacrusis in a type which does not normally receive anacrusis in the off-verse
(Appx.C §¯35).
910¯f. þæt þæt þēodnes bearn ġeþēon scolde, etc. In accordance with the rule
against an article before a noun in the gen. case qualifying another noun (elsewhere
found in Beo only in 2059), Barnouw 1902: 22 would strike the second þæt, which may
very well be a late scribe’s addition (see Schü. 1905b). Klaeber suggests the expedient
of regarding ðēodnes bearn as a compound, but cf. Appx.C §¯5 and n.¯2 on p.¯323; also
2059a Varr. Of course Heremōd is meant, not his son. — To ġeþēon scolde, cf. ġeþēoh
tela 1218. — fæderæþelu ‘ancestral (nobility or) rank.’ Cf. Ex 338¯f.: frumbearnes riht
.¯.¯. ēad and æðelo.
913b–15. Hē, i.e. Bēowulf; 915 hine, i.e. Heremōd. Cf. hē .¯.¯. hē 1207¯ff. (Schü. 1908:
105). — ġefæġra is perhaps best explained as the compar. of *ġefæġ (cf. OHG gifag(o)
‘content,’ MHG gevage ‘satis¢ed, acceptable’; so Gr.2, Corrigendum; Siev. ZfdPh. 21
[1889] 356; Kl. Angl. 28 [1905] 440¯f.), though it would not be impossible to derive a
compar. ġef®ġra from *ġef®ġe ‘causing joy’ (cf. ġefēon; Bu. 42) or ‘cheerful, genial’
(BTS), ‘gracious’ (cf. meanings of glæd). It is unnecessary to emend frēondum (cf.
Andrew 1948: §¯185).
916. Hwīlum. Stanley LSE 20 (1989) 330–4 would connect this with hwīlum 864,
867, making of 864–917a what he calls a ‘sentence-monster.’
917b¯f. Ðā wæs morgenlēoht / scofen ond scynded, i.e., morning wore on (see
837). Sisam (1965: 30–2), lest Hrōðgār seem a late riser on such a momentous day,
would have these verses return us to the moment designated in 837, before the group
set out for the mere. A similar use of scūfan is found in GenA 136¯ff.: metod æfter scēaf
/ scīrum scīman . . . ®fen ®rest (EStn. 42 [1910] 326). The intrans. use of scyndan is
paralleled in the Rushworth gloss to Matt. 14:¯22 (Dob.). The function of Ðā, as adverb
or subordinating conjunction, is ambiguous (OES §§¯1686, 2536; cf. Donoghue 1987:
49, 98).
921. of br©dbūre. On separate sleeping quarters in the vicinity, see 138–40a (n.).
922b. ġetrume micle. The motif of attendance as seen here (cf. 924b, etc.) is one
that, in a more formulaic manifestation, is a noteworthy feature of the Homeric poems
(M. Nagler Spontaneity & Tradition [Berkeley, 1974] 64–111). A commonplace of ar-
chaic literatures is that important persons do not appear in public without explicit men-
tion of companions.
924. The reading medostīġ ġemæt of most of the early edd. is not impossible, since
stīġ is sometimes masc.; but it is always fem. in verse. Moreover, the meaning ‘tra-
verse’ is attested for metan but not for ġemetan (Dob.).
925–90. Speech-making by Hrōðgār and Bēowulf.
926. stōd on stapole. A phrase whose meaning is diÌcult ¢rmly to establish in the
absence of indisputable archaeological or linguistic parallels that can be tied to it. The
once-favored interpretation ‘stood by the (central) pillar’ (as in 2718; He.1, Heyne
1864: 48; Child MLN 8 [1893] 252¯f., referring to Weinhold 1856: 239; cf. Falk R.-L.1
1.382) has now been largely discarded (but cf. DuBois MLQ 16 [1955] 291–8; Bamm.
ES 83 [2002] 1–5; and see Webster in MR, 186), since Hrōðgar is supposed to stand
outside the hall (see Whitbread RES o.s. 25 [1949] 340 n.¯1), and such a use of on
would be, at least, out of the ordinary (see, however, Girvan 1954: 179); what is more,
there is no evidence for halls of this period having a central pillar. The suggestion of
Whitbread NM 70 (1969) 61¯f. that the stapol is a pillared gallery or colonnade around
the hall, built along the lines of a supposed gallery encircling a viking hall at
Trelleborg, Zealand (Illus.B 130), faces problems of a different sort, since the in situ
reconstruction of the Trelleborg hall (which dates from the 1940s) is no longer
accepted as accurate in this regard. A third suggestion, that stapol could denote ‘the
 COMMENTARY 173
steps leading up to the hall, or the landing at the top of the Ïight’ (Miller Angl. 12
[1889] 398¯f.), has been thought plausible, given the gloss stapul: patronus (i.e. petro-
nus) in Ælfric’s Glossary, as well as the archaeological evidence for such a structure on
a 7th- or 8th-century building excavated at Cowdery’s Down, Hants (see Cramp 1993:
340; Webster loc. cit.; so also Addy N&Q o.s. 152 [1927] 363–5, relying on evidence
from the Bayeux Tapestry). As a fourth possibility, J. Earle (Hand-Book to the Land-
Charters [Oxford, 1888] 467, with a still-useful survey of related words, e.g. Old
Frisian thingstapul ‘court-block’) envisages a detached structure in front of the hall
(thus also Middendorff 1902: 123–4; Bremmer 1996: 128). Similarly, Niles 2007a: 175–
6, citing evidence from the charters, observes that OE stapol seems regularly to refer to
a prominent stone (often a megalith, as at Beo 2718) and so here, accordingly, the word
more likely denotes a stone block in the form of a pedestal of some kind; cf. OED:
staple, sb.1 (ME stōpel is a different formation). Consistent with such an interpretation
is the evidence marshalled by Blair for post-like and pillar-like structures (whether of
stone or wood) erected in the vicinity of AS pagan shrines, where they probably served
as cult foci (ASSAH 8 [1995] 1–28); such shrines were sometimes associated with great
halls (see 926¯n.). Princi Braccini (in Echi di memoria, ed. G. Chiappini [Florence,
1998] 139–57) argues that standing on stapole is required for the conduct of certain
oÌcial business, as when, in the following speech, Hrōðgār adopts the hero as his son
(but cf. 946¯ff. note). See also J. Meier 1950: 57; ScaÌdi-Abbate AION-SG 18 (1975)
143–58.
932b¯ff. mē goes with wēnde. In the metrically unusual verse þæt iċ ®niġra mē,
perhaps ®niġra is a scribal alteration of ®niġe, in agreement with bōte. (See Appx.C
§¯28, HOEM §¯242; cf. 949b.) Or perhaps there is a transposition of ®niġra and mē
(Andrew 1948: §¯180).
936. wēa wīdscofen witena ġehwylcum. It is unnecessary to treat this as a loosely
joined elliptic clause, as Kl.3 recommends, if it is assumed that stōd 935 has two rather
different subjects, hūsa sēlest and wēa. Cf. the objects of scēawode 843; and for the use
of stōd with an abstract subject denoting distress, cf. 783, 2227. See also 1340–3a (n.);
and for the general thought of the passage, cf. 170¯f. The emendation ġehwylcum is sim-
pler than any of the others proposed, and the clarity of the sense that it furnishes ren-
ders it preferable to all the attempts to rescue the manuscript reading, e.g. von Schau-
bert’s idea that the verse is an absolute construction (Angl. 62 [1938] 177–9; 1954:
36¯ff.; cf. Wn.2 319 [‘very forced’], Kl. EStn. 74 [1941] 221, Dob., OES §§¯3833, 3841–
3). Cf. also Gr.2.
942¯ff. The felicity attributed to the hero’s mother is possibly a biblical reminiscence
(Luke 1: 42, 11: 27, etc.); see Kl. Angl. 28 (1905) 441¯f., Kl. 1911–12: [43]; see also Intr.
xl n.¯5; cf. Eliason 1953: 449–50, Pigg Neophil. 74 (1990) 603–4. Robinson’s doubts in
this regard (1996: 59–60), on the ground that such a sentiment is a commonplace of
heroic literature, are thought by Cavill to be unnecessary (2004: 24–5 n.¯28). Hrōðgār
here would appear to have no knowledge of the hero’s mother, though earlier he re-
vealed that he knew her to be Hrēðel’s only daughter (373¯ff.; see Mullally 2005: 229).
Drout 2007: 208 argues that Hrōðgār’s failure to name her is purposeful, as it reÏects
on the adoption about to take place.
943b. ðone magan, ‘this son,’ i.e. perhaps ‘a son such as this,’ ‘such a son’ (Kl.
Angl. 28 [1905] 442); cf. 1758.
944. æfter gumcynnum probably serves the same purpose as mid yldum 77, as
gum- is not a rigorously gendered term: cf. gumdrēam, gumrīċe, etc.
946b¯ff. Nū iċ, Bēowulf, þeċ, etc. See 1175¯f., 1479. It has generally been assumed
that the relationship entered into by Hrōðgār and Bēowulf does not signify adoption in
the strict legal sense, but it implies friendship of a fatherly sort and devoted helpfulness,
respectively, suggesting at any rate the bonds of loyal retainership (see 1479 and
Appx.B §¯2). Yet it is ¢rm enough a bond to cause Wealhþēo misgivings about the
succession (1175¯f.; see also J.M. Hill 1995: 21, arguing that Ecgþēo may have been
174 BEOWULF
Hrōðgār’s nephew). See Chadwick 1912: 374; von Amira P.Grdr.2 iii §¯60. See also
Scherer 1893 [1869]: 480–3; J. Müller Das Kulturbild des Beowulfepos, SEP 53 (Halle,
1914) 19¯f.; H. Kuhn 1969–78 [1947]: 2.410–19 and R.-L.2 1.83–5; MR.
947. As the edd. have generally thought the requirement of four syllables to the
verse suÌcient ground for emendation (see Varr.: 516a, 652a, 1129a, 1329a, 1404b, etc.;
Appx.C §¯33), bet[e]sta should be restored on the basis of comparison to betost 3007,
especially as the same metrical problem is encountered with the same word in 1759a
and 1871b. (The scribes always use the spelling -est- before a back vowel, as in 258,
363, 412, etc.; see OEG §¯385.) Despite the light initial syllable of this word, the
metrical type is both attested (cf. 2a, 372b, 1039b, etc.) and prosodically coherent (see
HOEM §276; Appx.C §¯29). The emendation adopted in Kl.1–2 is abandoned in Kl.3
(see Varr.), but Klaeber still regards the verse as corrupt, considering secga betsta the
likeliest original reading, on the basis of comparison to Hel. 3101, 5045: thegno
bezto(n). Holt.8 (but see Varr.) moves mē into the on-verse, and this avoids a prosodic
anomaly, seeing as mē ought to be stressed (Appx.C §¯6), but no such solution is pos-
sible in 1759 and 1871.
949b¯¯f. [n]®niġre gād. The meter, it has been remarked is peculiar (see Varr.;
Andrew 1948: §¯187), and most likely orig. nænig (modifying gād) has been miscopied
as ænigre (also spoiling the alliteration), seemingly in agreement with worolde, though
apparently intended to agree with masc. wilna. See Appx.C §¯28; HOEM §¯242; Fulk
2007b: 148; cf. 932.
956b. swā hē nū ġ©t dyde: ‘as he has done until now.’
957b. Ecþeowes. Though Klaeber and others have emended Ec- to Ecg-, the same
spelling occurs in Eclāfes 980, and the scribe originally wrote ec þeow 263, later
inserting g. These examples suggest a regular spelling without g in the scribe’s exem-
plar, and thus emendation to the usual form Ecg- (17×) is to be avoided, especially as
this spelling is not unlikely evidence of an archaic exemplar: cf. the frequent spelling
Ec- in names in the 8th-cent. Cotton MS of Bede’s H.E. (BL, Cott. Tib. C. ii), which is
also found occasionally in the 9th-cent. Namur MS (H. Ström OE Personal Names in
Bede’s HIstory [Lund, 1939] 134, 167; Hogg §¯2.67 n.¯1; Lang. §¯20.1 rem.). Cf. sec
2863 (n.).
958. Wē. Bēowulf generously includes his men. See 431, 1652, 1987.
961. selfne. That is, all of Grendel rather than simply his arm (Frankis NM 60 [1959]
173–5; cf. Mitchell & Robinson 2001: 109).
962. on frætewum is generally assumed to mean ‘in his trappings’ or ‘in full gear,’
even though this stereotyped expression is not particularly apposite to a ¢ghter who is
unarmed (cf. Rim 38, GenB 443): see Aant., Tr.1 176. Puhvel NM 92 (1991) 441–3
understands frætewum to refer to blood; Bjork 1994: 1003 and Bamm. NM 99 (1998)
237–9 to the ornaments of the hall; Pfrenger (see Biggs Neophil. 87 [2003] 651 n.¯38) to
Grendel’s glōf (see 2085).
964. on wælbedde wrīþan. An allusion to the fetters of death; cf. 3045, 2901, 1007.
(Kl. 1911–12: [41].) Bēowulf did not intend for Grendel to live.
966b. būtan his līċ swice seems to refer to the possibility of Grendel’s escaping (see
967¯ff.). Cf. Panzer 1910: 89, 274¯ff., P. Thomas MLR 22 (1927) 70.
968b. nō iċ him þæs ġeorne ætfealh. Kock (1918: 67, Angl. 43 [1919] 304, ibid. 46
[1922] 83¯f.) draws a comparison to nō hē þæs (MS þæm) mōdiġ wæs 1508 and nō þon
lange wæs / feorh æþelinges Ï®sce bewunden 2423¯f., and in these three clauses he
would recognize a Germanic idiom as shown in his translations ‘however eagerly I
clung to him’; ‘no matter how brave he was’; ‘however long his life had been bound in
Ïesh.’ This is an interesting observation, though it requires some quali¢cation as to
details. See Kl. Angl. 49 (1925) 368 (on GenB 832), id. 1926: 197; OES §§¯3473¯ff. The
¢rst instance is clear and shows how such an idiom could arise: ‘[I pressed him hard,
but] I did not press him so hard [that he had to stay in my power].’ See also note on
2423b.
 COMMENTARY 175
982b¯f. eorles cræfte, a phrase here regarded as instrumental in function, is analyzed
by Malone Angl. 57 (1933) 315 as an example of the supposed dative of accom-
paniment, making the phrase effectively another object of scēawedon; but Klaeber
rightly disagrees (see Archiv 188 [1951] 108); likewise Dob. compares 2219, 2360,
where no accompaniment is evident. — ofer hēanne hrōf hand scēawedon. That is,
the Danes looked over the high roof, i.e. they ‘looked up to’ or ‘in the direction of the
high roof, and beheld the hand.’ Cf. El 89: ofer wolcna hrōf. (Kl. 1905–6: 256.)
Bremmer (1996) argues that the arm hangs literally over the roof. See earlier Miller
Angl. 12 (1889) 396–400.
984b–7a. Though the passage is obscure, it is not indisputably defective in sense,
grammar, alliteration, or meter. The use of ®ġhwylċ and ġehwylċ in successive verses
has struck some as a sign of textual corruption (see Varr.), but it may be that since the
words are stressed differently, the poet regarded the diction as suÌciently varied. A
comparable juxtaposition is found in Ex 187¯f. (though there ġehwilċ and ®ġhwilcne
have different referents); similarly El 1281¯ff., Met 29.56¯ff. Note that some early edd.
(Gr., He., et al.) place wæs in 985a and begin a new clause with it, but this spoils the
meter of both verses: see Siev. 1884b: 138, R. 232, Appx.C §§¯27 (n.¯1), 36. On syn-
tactic grounds, Ries (1907: 378–9) would move wæs, placing it directly before or after
foran; cf. v.Sch. — Ettmüller’s emendation stīðra, accepted by Kl. and others, aside
from being paleographically unpersuasive (as Wn. remarks), makes for improbable
single alliteration (see Appx.C §¯30). The meaning of Campbell’s stedenæġla ‘¢rm nails’
is speculative, and none of the other emendations proposed is a marked improvement
of the text (see Varr.). That is, whether or not we emend, we must assume an unfamil-
iar idiom. The expression steda næġla ‘places of the nails’ (Schü., Cha., v.Sch.; Pope
313¯f.) may plausibly be taken to refer to the ¢ngertips (Clarke MLR 29 [1934] 320; cf.
Kl. BGdSL 72 [1950] 120) with the attached talons, though, to be sure, the word order
with ġehwylċ is unusual (Dob.). See also Aant.; Tr.1 176–8. Chambers makes of 984b–5
a parenthesis. — Regarding handsporu 986, the edd. assume that spora ‘spur,’ else-
where usually a weak masculine noun, has passed over to the feminine class (on -u as a
weak ending, see SB §¯278 n.¯1). Yet the evidence for this change of class is dubitable
(see Ball Archiv 201 [1961] 43–6), and Hutcheson JEGP 103 (2004) 305 n.¯24 would
emend to -spora (see Appx.C §¯8). Ball, building on proposals of Rieger and Holt-
hausen, argues that -sporu is an alternate spelling of -speoru ‘spears.’ It has also been
proposed to regard -sporu as the plural of neut. spor ‘spoor, vestige’ and translate
‘hand-vestiges,’ the second element referring to Grendel’s having left claws, hand, and
arm behind him. (Cf. 841a¯n.) For use of the word metaphorically, cf. w®pnes spor
‘wound’ (Jul 623, And 1180) and compare the metaphorical uses of lāst (see Gloss.),
esp. in 970¯ff.; cf. also 2098¯f. See Fulk SN 77 (2005) 148. — eġl’ unhēoru. The form
egl 987 of the MS has been taken by more than a few scholars (e.g. Ke., Gr., He., Wy.,
Sed., Cha., v.Sch., Wn.1–3; also BTS) as a noun meaning ‘spike,’ ‘talon’ (though Kem-
ble renders it ‘molestia’), but the only substantiated meanings of the noun eġl, eġle (the
latter being, it should be said, the usual form) are ‘awn’ (‘ail,’ that is, ‘beard of bar-
ley’), ‘thistle,’ ‘chaff,’ ‘mote’ (Luke [WSCp] 6.41¯f.): see DOE. As to eġl’ (for eġlu),
see Appx.C §¯37. The adj. eġle ‘horrible’ is well attested and the syntax of eġl’ unheoru
normal (see Ekwall 1954: 80; Mitchell LSE 20 [1989] 315). For such asyndetic para-
taxis of adjectives, cf. 322, 551, 1641, 1874, 1927, 2025, 2136, 2164, 2457 (?), 2476,
2950, 3041.
988¯ff. nān is assumed here to depend on īren, with absolute use of heardra (Lang.
§¯26.2; cf. Laborde MLR 18 [1923] 203, who takes heardra to be nom., though īren is
neut.) and þæt used as a conjunction: ‘everyone said that no iron (blade) of brave ones,
good from old, would touch him in such a way that (it) would weaken the adversary’s
bloody battle-hand.’ This is the analysis of most recent edd. Yet þæt is as likely to be
relative, with īren as its antecedent: ‘. . . that would weaken the bloody battle-hand of
the monster’ (Dob.).
176 BEOWULF

991–1250. Royal entertainment in Heorot.

991¯f. The emendations proposed (the Varr. present only a selection) are in reaction
to the lack of an in¢nitive after hāten. Some assume the ellipsis of bēon before ġe-
frætwod (Aant., Kl., Wn., Estival Diachronica 6 [1989] 45), comparing l.¯38 to And
360¯f., also LRid 3. Chambers (and Royster JEGP 17 [1918] 89) assumes a mixed con-
struction requiring a comma after hreþe. Visser ES 35 (1954) 116–20, to the contrary,
regards the construction as comparable to ‘the contest was declared ended,’ citing
examples of such concatenated passive participles in medieval English (see the note
infra to 1303¯f.). Mitchell (OES §¯3776; cf. Andrew 1948: §¯166) substantially agrees.
Robinson ES 49 (1968) 508¯f. (following Daunt 1959: 89 n.¯2) points out that ‘Heorot
was ordered decorated,’ though good American English, is not British, and it is this that
lies behind many of the proposed emendations. — As to MS hreþe, this is not likely to
be Hrēþe ‘for the Ġēat’ (i.e. Bēowulf: so Malone Angl. 65 [1941] 229; see note on
489¯f.), which in any event is metrically objectionable (Appx.C §¯35). See Kl. Beibl.
54–5 (1944) 227; Lang. §¯8.1. — folmum ġefrætwod. By synecdoche, folmum would
seem to mean ‘by attendants.’ It has been argued, however, that the dative speci¢es not
agent but instrument, indicating hand-shaped decorations (Byers PMLA 80 [1965]
299¯f.), or that it alludes ironically to Grendel’s arm as a decoration (Lewis PQ 54
[1975] 663¯f.); cf. Rosier 1963; but the pl. counts against that latter view. On Grendel’s
arm and its signi¢cance, see also Bremmer 1996, Day JEGP 98 (1999) 313–24, and
Lockett in O’Brien O’Keeffe & Orchard 2005: 368–88.
994b¯f. Hanging tapestries on the walls is in conformity with Scandinavian and AS
(also German) custom. That gold may have been woven into tapestries is borne out by
traces of gold brocade found in various pagan burials, including the Taplow barrow.
See Guðrúnarkv. II 14–16; Hel. 4544¯f.; Tupper 1910: 194; Geijer KLNM 1: 536–7;
Crowfoot & Hawkes, Med. Archaeology 11 (1967) 42–85; Illus.B 64. Among the best-
preserved textile fragments dating from the Germanic Iron Age are those from Ose-
berg, Norway, some of which feature pictorial designs of a mythological character (S.
Krafft Pictorial Weavings from the Viking Age [Oslo, 1956]). The largest and most
varied collection of textile goods from Britain, where soil conditions have rarely
favored their preservation, is that from Sutton Hoo (B-Mitford 3.409–79). See further
L. Jørgensen North European Textiles until AD 1000 (Copenhagen, 1991), Owen-
Crocker 2004: 272–315, and R. Netherton & G. Owen-Crocker Medieval Clothing and
Textiles, 2 vols. (Woodbridge, 2005–6).
996b. þāra þe on swylċ starað. Cf. 1485b, 2796b, 1654b.
1000b. þē. Though most edd. (including Kl.) render this ‘when,’ there are no in-
stances of this meaning in verse, and the few examples in prose are mostly debatable
(OES §§¯2594–5; cf. Neckel Pal. 5.60¯ff.; Schü.Sa. 7). The word may be a scribal
blunder for þā (see Varr.; Andrew 1948: §¯172), but possibly it should be rendered
‘because’ (see OES §¯3134 and Gloss.: sē), meaning that the only reason the roof, too,
was not pulled down was that Grendel Ïed (so Ni.; cf. Vickrey Archiv 225 [1988] 339¯–
42). Klaeber (Gloss.: þ¬¯) regards conj. þē as a form of the relative particle, but it is
probably safer to classify it as instr. sg. neut. of sē (OES §¯3133).
1002b–8a. In essence, ‘it is not easy to Ïee death,’ with general force: sē of 1003
functions as the understood subject of sceal. — Nō þæt ©ðe byð / tō beϽnne.
Emendation to supply a referent for þæt (Rie.Zs. 391: dēað; Holt. ZfdPh. 37 [1905] 116:
fyll) is unnecessary, as it anticipates 1004¯ff. (Dob.), and the construction would have
been recognized by its proverbial nature (Deskis 1996: 87). Cf. Mitchell & Irvine NM
97 (1996) 142. Why noncontraction is required in beϽnne is explained by Kendall
PQ 72 (1993) 380; see Appx.C §¯6. — 1003b. fremme sē þe wille ‘do (or try) it who
will.’ (Imperfective function of fremman.) A kind of formula: see 2766b, 1394b. —
1oo4–6. The parallel genitives sāwlberendra, niþða bearna, grundbūendra depend
on ġearwe stōwe (cf. Hel. 4451); n©de ġen©dde .¯.¯. stōwe ‘the place forced (upon him)
 COMMENTARY 177
by necessity’ (i.e., ġen©dde modi¢es stōwe; cf. ChristA 68¯f.). No ġehwylċ or ®ġhwylċ
need be inserted (with or without emendation to ġen©ded; cf. Gru., E., Gr.1, He.1, Rie.
Zs. 391; Tr.1 179; Sed. [n.]), since a pronominal subject is implied by 1003b. See Bu.
368¯f.; Kl. 1905–6: 241, 457; 1911–12: [41–2]. Holt.8 (see Varr.) assumes a gap after
sāwlberendra; Andrew 1948: §§¯66, 168 would emend extensively. — The meanings
proposed for MS gesacan ‘gain by strife,’ ‘struggle against,’ etc. (see Gr.2, Schü., BT,
Patzig Angl. 47 [1923] 99; Brett MLR 14 [1919] 7) are otherwise unattested, and the
unemended verb mars the meter: see Siev.¯R. 291.
1008. swefeþ æfter symle; i.e., sleeps after the feast of life. See 128, 119¯n.; classical
and modern parallels are cited by Cook MLN 9 (1894) 237¯f. On the literary role of the
theme in Beo, see Kavros Neophil. 65 (1981) 120–8, McFadden ibid. 84 (2000) 629–46.
1011¯f. Ne gefræġen iċ þā m®ġþe māran weorode .¯.¯. sēl ġeb®ran. A combination
of two types, viz. (a) ne h©rde iċ c©mlicor ċēol ġeġyrwan 38 (1027, 1197, 1842); (b) ðā
iċ wīde ġefræġn weorc ġebannan 74 (2484, 2694, 2752, 2773). Accordingly, þā is an
adverb. (Alternatively, if þā is regarded as a demonstrative, the verses might be taken
to evidence the poet’s sometimes ambivalent attitude toward the Danes: see Intr. xcii
n.¯3.) MS mægþe can hardly refer to so mature a woman as the queen (Malone Angl. 57
[1933] 316; Pilch IF 72 [1967] 114¯f.; cf. Schabram ibid. 73 [1968] 143–5). To
Schücking’s related idea (1933: 21 n.¯2; so v.Sch.) that ġeb®ran may mean ‘make
joyful noise,’ cf. Kl. Angl. 63 (1939) 410–13.
1013¯ff. A much-discussed passage: see Varr. The þāra of 1015b is assumed here to
refer to bl®dāgande 1013b (Wy. [n.; cf. Cha.]; Kock5 75–7; Hoops 127¯f.). For the
sense of māgas, see 247¯n. To the contrary, Bu. 91 regards bl®dāgande as referring to
Hrōðgār and Hrōþulf, and māgas þāra to the retainers, taking 1015¯f. as a parenthesis
(so Soc., Hold.2). Alternative interpretations demand emendation, e.g. placing a comma
after ġef®gon 1014, a semicolon after maniġ 1015, and changing þāra to w®ran (see
Varr.; cf. Tr.). Holt. ii5 suggests āra ‘gifts’ for þāra.
1017–19. Mention of Hrōðulf here and in 1180b–7 and allusions to him in 1162b–5a
and 1228–31, as well as Wid 45–6, have been taken by most, including Kl., to indicate
his treachery (e.g. Cha.Intr. 26, 447–50; Bonjour 1950: 31, 60; Brodeur 1959: 156;
Robinson 1984: 109). It is assumed, that is, that upon Hrōðgār’s death, Hrōðulf will
seize the throne. Sisam (1965: 34–9 and note C) argues to the contrary that Wid and the
Scandinavian analogues (see Appx.A §§¯10, 11.1, 11.2) do not support such a negative
interpretation and that the poem itself does not do so unequivocally. Translation of
fācĺnstafas 1018b as ‘treacheries,’ he argues, is tendentious, and of þenden 1019b as
‘yet’ or ‘as yet’ arbitrary. (Metrical stress on that word may have a rhetorical purpose,
but it need not, since it is required by Kuhn’s ¢rst law. Although the word is nowhere
else stressed in the poem, it is, unlike here, usually a conjunction and thus restricted to
clause openings. See Appx.C §¯6.) Authorities concurring with Sisam include Morgan
ES 53 (1972) 23–39; Niles 1983: 174–5; Damico 1984: 20; Mitchell RES 43 (1992) 10–
14; J.M. Hill 2000: 71–3; Cooke SP 104 (2007) 175–98; and Drout ibid. 219¯f. Chck.
322, on the other hand, argues that the poem gives us a double perspective, one limited
to the Danes’ present point of view and the other including the poet’s knowledge of
future events. See also Orchard 2003: 245–7.
1020¯ff. brand. Until relatively recently, nearly all edd. (incl. Kl.; also Stanley PBA
70 [1984] 265) have thought it advisable to emend to bearn in order to provide a
subject for forġeaf and to remove the oddity that the sword should be mentioned both
¢rst and last in the list of gifts (cf. māðþumsweord 1023). (Kl. Angl. 63 [1939] 413
notes that although Ke. prints brand, in his translation he adopts Gru.’s reading.) Most
of the remainder (v.Sch., Wn., Ni., following Marquardt Angl. 60 [1936] 391–3; also
Isaacs JEGP 62 [1963] 126) have interpreted brand Healfdenes as a kind of kenning for
Hrōðgār himself, or for his support in battle. Thus Sievers (1884b 139; so Holt.1–7,
Schü., Sed.) would place a semicolon after māðþumsweord rather than byrnan, to pro-
vide a reference to the sword among the gifts, though this leaves beran without an
178 BEOWULF
object (cf. Finn 5; see Aant., Kl. 1905–6: 244). Yet Kuhn (JEGP 42 [1943] 82–95; see
also ibid. 76 [1977] 231–7) cites convincing parallels to the construction with no overt
subject for forġeaf (e.g. 2152¯ff.); Hrōðgār is of course the assumed giver. The fēower
mādmas mentioned in 1027b are thus listed in 1020–2 (with seġen and hildecumbor
designating the same object), and the sword is mentioned again in 1023 because of its
particular importance (it is called m®re). We need not assume that Hrōðgār would not
give his father’s sword to the hero, since Hyġelāc does just this later in the poem
(2190¯ff., and see Sisam 1965: 42; see also Drout 2007: 210). This analysis is urged per-
suasively by Watanabe Ling. Res. (Tokyo) 3 (1985) 121–31, Chiba Rev. 9 (1987) 64–7,
and NM 101 (2000) 51–7, and by Mitchell Romanobarbarica 10 (1990) 283–92, RES 43
(1992) 7–9; it is adopted by Jack; see also Doane 2003: 70–1, Orchard 2003: 226, 244
n.¯22. — 1022. As hilt is normally a neut. i-stem (occasionally masc.; in origin an es-
stem, OEG §¯636, SB §¯288 n.¯1), a compound hiltecumbor (MS) is implausible (Siev.
1910: 420). Hence, hiltcumbor, meaning perhaps a banner fastened to a staff with a sort
of handle at its lower end (cf. the designation hæftmēċe 1457), has been adopted by
some. The change to hilde- provides a likelier meaning and explains the otherwise
peculiar e. See Holt. Beibl. 34 (1923) 355, Kl. 1926: 198, Matthes 1955: 369–70. —
M®re māðþumsweord. The physical features of the sword presented to the hero are
not described; instead, emphasis falls on its fame and its material value (and hence the
prestige it confers). Swords of the Germanic period had a broad two-edged iron blade
and were typically about a yard (ca. 90 cm) long: see in general the articles by Biborski
and Steuer in R.-L.2 27.523–97; for the early Germanic period, Engelhardt 1866: 52–4
(w. associated plates); for the AS period, Davidson 1962, Bone in Hawkes 1989: 63–
70; Underwood 1999: 47–58; and for the Viking Age, Peirce 2002. See also the notes
on 1459b and 1521 (on pattern welding and ring-hilted swords, respectively). The most
precious surviving AS sword is the one from Sutton Hoo, of which the blade was badly
corroded. Its gold-and-garnet pommel, however, is exquisite, as are the associated
scabbard-bosses and strap ¢ttings (B-Mitford 2.273–309; Illus.B 174).
1024b. ġeþāh. So Holt. Lit.bl. 59 (1938) 164. Nearly all edd. (incl. Kl.) have assumed
a short root vowel, but see Lang. §¯25.3.
1025b–6. Cf. 1048, 1901¯f., 2995¯f. A form scotenum (so Kluge BGdSL 8 [1882] 533,
Hold., Soc., Wy., in agreement with the MS), though not impossible in the later lan-
guage (SB §¯277 n.¯1), would be objectionable on metrical grounds. Besides, no in-
stance of scota seems to be recorded. (Cf. ġescota: CorpGl 2, 3.695; HlGl C1271.) As
for scōtenum, although the development of scēo- to scō- is (rarely) attested in late OE
(Luick §§¯265, 360), omission of d shows lexical confusion on the part of the scribe,
rather than phonological development. The form scōtenum, too, is unmetrical (cf.
v.Sch.), as the second syllable would not make position: see Appx.C §¯12.
1o28b. gummanna fela. Litotes: see Kl. 1905–6: 248.
1030b. hēafodbeorge. Hardly a kenning for ‘helmet’; cf. Marquardt 1938: 221,
Eliason 1953: 450–1.
1031. wīrum bewunden. When decorative features of precious objects are spoken
of, wīr can be assumed to denote gold (or perhaps silver) wire or ¢ligree. The crest of
the Sutton Hoo helmet is inlaid with silver wires.
1031b. walu. The helmet is protected by a ridge running over the top from front to
back; see ¢g. 5 in this edition; cf. the similar protective crest of the Sutton Hoo helmet,
with its gilt-bronze dragon-head terminals (B-Mitford 2.152–63; Illus.B 172, 190).
Those who ¢rst emended MS walan to wala (see Varr.) did so on the basis of the dual
assumption that the correct form, like the MS reading, must be a weak noun and that
the physical feature to which it alludes is not otherwise referred to in Old English.
There is no cause to continue to emend to wala now that the feature has been identi¢ed
as a ridge, i.e. a walu, well attested as a fem. noun. (See Bruce-Mitford 1974: 210–13;
Appx.B §¯13.) The identi¢cation shows this to be another instance of the confusion of
a(n) and u that has played such a prominent role in describing the archetype of the MS
 COMMENTARY 179
(see Appx.C §¯8). Unnecessary now also are the alternative readings of this verse by
Eliason 1953: 450–1 (walan ‘blows’) and Princi Braccini AION-SG 27 (1984) 165–205
(‘mask’), w. refs.
1032. fē[o]la lāf, ‘that which is left after the ¢les have done their work.’ A notable
kenning for ‘sword’; cf. 2829, and see Marquardt 1938: 131–2, Brady 1979: 108–9, and
Gloss.: lāf. Those who retain MS fela as an Anglian smoothed form of fēola mostly do
so on the basis of the opinion of Bülbring 1902: §§¯147, 196, 199 that this is a possible
spelling. Actually, in Anglian there should not have been lowering of ī in fīla < *fīχlōm
(OEG §¯229; cf. CorpGl 2 10.251: ¢il); the small number of Anglian spellings that seem
to contradict the rule have been attributed persuasively to scribal misapprehension
(Hogg §¯5.95 n.¯2). Though Klaeber retains fēla, he concedes the likelihood of what
must now be regarded as the only very plausible explanation: the exemplar, or some
earlier copy, had feola (=¯fēola), which a scribe took for feola ‘much’ (with Anglian
back mutation: OEG §¯210.2, Sat 159, 475, etc.) and normalized to fela. This in turn ac-
counts for the pl. meahton, here emended to meahte. — To 1032¯ff., cf. 1453¯f.
1033. scūrheard. Hoops: ‘hard in the storm of battle.’ So And 1133; cf. Jud 79:
scūrum heard. If the word is intended to mean this (for Grinda 1993: 360–1 rightly
remarks that scūr refers metaphorically to battle only when explicitly quali¢ed, as in
hilde- and īsernscūr), it is probably due to a misunderstanding of reġnheard (as at
326): see Gloss.
1036. f®tedhlēore. Webster in MR 193 compares the gilded bridle assembly from
the horse burial at Mound 17 at Sutton Hoo (for which see now Evans in Carver 2005:
230–6, w. plate 12a). Attached to the harness are two pair of gold roundels with axe-
shaped pendants, one pair set close by the ears and the other covering the cheeks.
Many earlier examples of studs and bosses that served as equestrian cheek-ornaments
(not wholly unlike decorations still used at horse shows today) are known from Iron
Age bog ¢nds in Denmark: see C. Engelhardt Om Vimose-fundet (Copenhagen, 1867)
61, w. associated plates; Carnap-Bornheim & Ilkjær Illerup Ådal 5 (1996) ¢gs. 192,
194, 197, 198; Illus.B 126. — on Ïet t½n. The horses are led directly into the hall as
part of the presentation ceremony. Daunt 1959: 90 argues that this detail forms part of
the realistic backdrop of the poem, which served instructional purposes for all the
ġeogoð, and compares it to a similar event at the funeral of Henry V. The introduction
of horses to the hall would seem to imply a Ïoor set near ground level at one of the
entrances, at least.
1038. sadol searwum fāh. On Germanic saddles, see Nawroth R.-L.2 26.527–37.
Webster (previous note) calls attention to 6th-century gold-and-garnet saddle ¢ttings
from the Rhineland and Ravenna, as well as to the more modest ornamentation of a
saddle fragment from 9th-century York. Worth comparing, though of later date, is a
pair of of gilt saddle-bows from Søllersted, Denmark, richly decorated in the late
viking style (Pedersen R.-L.2 29.201–3; Illus.B 94); cf. similar items from Mammen,
Denmark (Näsman in Mammen: Grav, Kunst, og Samfund, ed. M. Iversen [Moesgård,
1991] 217–60).
1043. Ond ðā. Blockley (2001: 90) would have ond coordinate læġ 1039 with hēt
1045, and ðā introduce a subordinate clause.
1045b. hēt hine wēl brūcan. A formula; cf. 1216, 2162, 2812; J.M. Hill 1995: 100.
1046¯ff. Possibly Kock2 108¯f. is right to call swā (1046) . . . swā (1048) correlative
‘so .¯.¯. that’ (rather than ‘thus .¯.¯. so that’). Cf. Schü.Sa. 33, Holt., Ericson 1930: 166.
1053b¯ff. Hrōðgār, who assumes responsibility for the safety of his guests, com-
pounds for the loss of the man devoured by Grendel. The plainest reference in the
poem to the social institution of werġild. See further Biggs Neophil. 87 (2003) 637.
1o56–62. him is plural. God and mōd constitute the compound subject. (Cf. Tripp
OEN 11.2 [1978] 21.) God’s will and human courage combine for a desired result (see
note on 572¯f.). The ensuing lines enjoin rational trust in the governance of the almighty
and readiness to accept whatever may be in store for us, be it good or evil. (See Kl.
180 BEOWULF
1911–12: [5].) To 1060–2 cf. Max II 11¯f.: gomol [bið] snoterost, / fyrnġēarum frōd, sē
þe ®r feala ġebīdeð. The adversative meaning ‘yet’ proposed ‘very tentatively’ for
Forþan 1059 (Daunt MLR 13 [1918] 478) does not improve the context.
1o63–1159. The Finn Episode. See the Introduction to The Fight at Finnsburg.
Many edd. treat the Finnsburg episode as a direct quotation, though there is little agree-
ment where the performance begins, at 1063a (Richman In Geardagum 21 [2000] 61–
91, arguing that the songs in 90–8 and 867b–915 are also direct quotations), 1068a (Gr.,
E., Arn., Wülck., Hold.1, Wy., Cha.; also Holt.1,7, Sed.1–2, after a lacuna proposed by
Sievers; cf. Engelhardt PMLA 70 [1955] 838 n.¯27), 1069a (He.1–7, Hold.2, Tr., Holt.2),
1069b (Holt.5–6), or 1071a (Schü., Holt.3–4). Lawrence (PMLA 30 [1915] 399–401) and
Hoops compare the subtle transition in 867¯ff.; see Green PMLA 31 (1916) 777¯f.; also
Girvan PBA 26 (1940) 334.
1o64. fore Healfdenes hildewīsan, ‘in the presence of Healfdene’s battle-leader,’
i.e. of Hrōðgār. Probably the title appertaining to Hrōðgār during his father’s reign is
here retained, in violation of chronology. It is not likely that Healfdenes should refer to
Hrōðgār himself (Malone 1943: 259–60, comparing 1792, 2105). See Kl. Angl. 28
(1905) 44o n.¯3; cf. Aant. (‘utter nonsense’); ten Brink 68; Tr.1 183: hildewīsan =
-wīsum, dat. plur. (quite possible; see Cha., Sed.). Cf. Atlakv. 14.3: Bikka (or Buðla)
greppa(r) (Bugge). For the use of fore, cf. 1215, Wid 55, 104.
1066–70. ðonne. The word cannot mean ‘then’ in this context (see notes to 1121,
1143, 3051); hence it cannot begin a sentence here (cf. Opland 1980: 196). — Finnes
eaferan. The MS reading eaferum has been construed as a dative of accompaniment
(R. Williams 1924: 19–20; Mal. Angl. 57 [1933] 313–16; Wn.; see OES §¯1412): ‘Along
with Finn’s sons when the calamity overwhelmed them.¯.¯.¯.’ (Mitchell, OES §¯3945,
declares impossible the approach of Wn.-B. along these lines; but cf. MR, offering a
similar analysis, yet regarding hæleð Healf-Dena as acc. pl. rather than nom. sg.; cf.
also Tol. 92.) This is a return to what was in essence the view of E., Gr., Wy., Cha.,
though they regarded the dative as one of personal agency (see Green PMLA 31 [1916]
759–97; Imelmann 1920; Notat.Nor. §1113; Bamm. N&Q 53 [2006] 16), meaning that
Hnæf fell at the hands of Finn’s sons. Whether or not a dat. of agency is recognizable
in OE (see OES §§¯1371¯ff.), Klaeber is right to question its use with a verb like feallan
(contra Kock2 109 and loc. cit.). Von Schaubert Lit.bl. 57 (1936) 30 would have m®nan
mean ‘direct (to), devote (to),’ but there is no parallel. The alternative of inserting [be]
before Finnes eaferum, creating a prepositional phrase dependent on healgamen ‘enter-
tainment in the hall’ 1066, resolves the chief syntactic diÌculties of this passage, and it
is thus adopted by Kl. and others (see Varr.; also Lawrence). However, it creates a
verse that is metrically improbable (Bliss §§¯46¯f., Appx.C §¯35). Supplying fram after
eaferum (so Soc. and Mackie 1939: 520) creates an alliterative anomaly (Appx.C §¯30).
The alternative of emending eaferum to eaferan (so Tr.1 183) is justi¢ed by the paleo-
graphic confusion of -ā and -ū (see Appx.C §¯8), but the resulting requirement of two
different meanings for m®nan, with both healgamen and eaferan as its objects (so
Holt.2–4, Schü.; see also Kl. Angl. 28 [1905] 443), is peculiar enough that most have
thought the interpretation without emendation to be preferred, unwieldy as the syntax is
(so Imelmann 1909: 997; Dob.). As a consequence, some have supposed that material
has been lost before 1068 (so Rie.L., Holt.1,7, Imelmann loc. cit.; Sed.; Tol. 93–4;
MR?). Yet there remains the more fundamental problem that m®nan is nowhere else
attested in the sense ‘recite, perform,’ only ‘tell of,’ implying that healgamen cannot be
its object. (Accordingly, Malone [1943: 260–2; similarly Burlin in Nicholson & Frese
1975: 49] would, rather improbably, render healgamen . . . Finnes eaferum ‘hall-sport
with Finn’s men,’ in reference to swordplay. Tol. 38 n.¯13 calls ‘absurd’ the similar,
earlier analysis of R. Williams 1924: 10–11.) Thus, it may be best to regard Healgamen
as the subject of m®nan scolde, i.e. as the scop’s name; cf. Wīdsīð (a name actually
attested in the Liber Vitae Dunelmensis), Oftfōr (H.E. iv, cap. 23), and other epithets-
turned-names: see MÆ 74 (2005) 195–7. For a synopsis of earlier interpretations, see
 COMMENTARY 181
Green PMLA 31 (1916) 759–97; see also Malone 1926: 157–72; Hoops St. 55–7. —
Klaeber, in the belief that Finnes eaferum refers to Finn’s men (or Finn and his men)
rather than to his literal sons, compares Hrēðlingas 296o, eaforum Ecgwelan 1710 (see
also Sat 63 [?]; Aant. [26]), and he expresses the opinion that this and the allusion to
Hnæf refer to different stages in the conÏict. However, the cited parallels to such a use
of eaferum are fundamentally different, and most recent editors render the word literal-
ly as ‘sons.’ (Cf. Bamm. N&Q 53 [2006] 15, regarding this as an elliptic dual, i.e. with
sg. ref.) Thus, a secondary advantage accrues to the emendation to eaferan, demanding
no unusual meaning for the word, and requiring that no more than one son of Finn have
died in the conÏict. (Cf. the notes on bearnum 1074 and sunu 1115.) Accordingly, hīe
1068 must refer not to eaferum but to hæleð 1069, which is not nom. sg. but acc.
plural. (And thus a mark of punctuation stronger than Klaeber’s comma is required
after eaferan.) The abrupt juxtaposition of the opposing ¢gures, Finn’s son and Hnæf
with his Half-Danes, is typical, and it may be that the scribe’s change of eaferan to
eaferum was inÏuenced by the seemingly incongruous plural hīe. — Some would begin
a new sentence with hæleð (so He.1–7, Hold.2, Tr., Holt.2, Sed.), yet Schü. (1908: 106;
EStn. 5 [1921] 94¯f.) objects that inf. + scolde should not be found at the close of a
principal clause (see 1106¯n.). Exceptions to this rule are rare in the poetic corpus,
being found only in formally irregular compositions (Met 9.45, 29.86, GenB 317).
1o71¯f. Nē hūru Hildeburh, etc. Litotes: cf. El 918¯f., Guth 239¯f., 421, 1356¯f., Brun
39¯f. (Kl. Angl. 63 [1939] 414¯f.) The verse is of Sievers’s type B1, since hūru is always
unstressed in the poem. For the adverbial use of unsynnum, cf. unwearnum 741. (See
Kock5 79¯f. Bamm. N&Q 53 [2006] 16–17 would instead have it modify bearnum ond
brōðrum and mean ‘not able to be avenged.’)
1072. Ēotena. Leo (1839: 67) seems to have been the ¢rst to take MS eotena here
(and similar forms in 1088, 1141, 1145; see also 902b note) to refer to giants (it is the
proper gen. pl. of both Ēotan ‘Jutes’ and eoten ‘giant’), hence (he supposes) ‘enemies.’
(Similarly Rie.Zs., here and in 1145, but in ref. to Danes. Cha.Intr. 261 n.¯1 lists other
early advocates of Leo’s view; see also Mö. 96–9, with a synopsis of early views).
More recently quite a few have defended the meaning ‘giants’ (here or in l.¯1145).1
Similarly, North 1997: 67, and J.M. Hill 2000: 60–1 see here a possible play on words
on ‘giants’ (so Crp. ¯685, re 902b, Stuhmiller NM 100 [1999] 7–14 re 1145a). Such word-
play would be inappropriate in line 1088. Most commentators instead regard MS dp.
eotenum ‘giants’ (902, 1145) as a late or miscopied form of Ēotum ‘Jutes’ (see 902b
note). These Jutes are generally assumed to be of the Frisian party (or identical to the
Frisians), though Girvan PBA 26 (1940) 327–60, reviving an older view, argues that
they ¢ght on the Danish side, and some others that there are Jutes in both camps (so
Wn. in Cha.Intr. 544; Tol. 100–4; North LSE 21 [1990] 17–21, id. 1997: 65; Ja.; MR;
Orchard 2003: 183). Yet Ēotena bearn 1088 and Frēsena cyn 1093 seem to be used
interchangeably. (Wadstein 1925 proposes that the Ēote, ªte are distinct from the Jutes,
who are the same as the Ġēatas; similarly Kier 1915. Cf. Mal. APS 4 [1929–30] 84–90.)
1074. bearnum ond brōðrum. Perhaps generic plural: ‘son and brother’ (see
565¯n.); so Kl. and all recent edd., even those who do not accept Klaeber’s argument
about (MS) eaferum 1068 and instead gloss it ‘sons.’ The assumption of a generic
plural seems to be based primarily on mention of what is presumed to be just one son
in 1115, unreliable as that evidence is as to the number killed (see note). To be sure,
such a generic plural would be different from others in the poem, which refer almost
exclusively to weapons. Yet there is, rightly, no support among the poem’s critics for

1
These include Wrenn (in Cl.Hall tr.2 189¯n., but not ed.1–2), Blake JEGP 61 (1962) 281–4,
Kaske in Creed 1967: 285–310, Leyerle 1967, H. Kuhn 1969–78 [1969]: 2.186–7, Wn.-B., Fry
1974: 15–16, Chck., Moore JEGP 75 (1976) 318, Wilts Nordfriesisches Jahrbuch n.s. 15 (1979)
139–42, D. Williams 1982: 76–82, Russchen 1984, Köberl Neophil. 71 (1987) 120–8, Vickrey SN
65 (1993) 19–27, J.M. Hill 1995: 90, and Niles 2007b: 127–9.
182 BEOWULF
the rather improbable supposition that Hildeburh lost more than one brother; and if
brōðrum can have singular reference, obviously so can bearnum. Orchard 2003: 182
n.¯67 suggests that brōðrum refers to the sons as brothers; it is just possible, alterna-
tively, that the sons and brothers slaughtered are not all Hildeburh’s, and she in a sense
is made to stand for many bereft women on both sides. Mö. 59 thinks the combination
bearnum ond brōðrum an archaic idiom derived from the (elliptic) ‘dvandva dual’ (so
Campbell 1971: 287 n.¯1; Tol. 96; see note on 2002; but cf. Osthoff IF 20 [1906–7]
204¯f.). Gehse (1938: 91) perceives grammatical contamination from lēofum 1073. Tol.
96 regards the question of the number of sons killed as irresolvable.
1074b. hīe on ġebyrd hruron. The signi¢cance of on ġebyrd, lit. ‘on birth,’ is dis-
puted. It may mean ‘in order of birth,’ i.e. ‘in succession,’ ‘one after another’ (Aant.
[18]; cf. BTS). All recent edd. (also BTSA), however, favor the view of Kl. that the
phrase refers to fate (‘to their fate’; Wn.: ‘to what is predestined at birth’; cf. Ni.: ‘as
had been determined for them by fate’). Dob. cites the gloss ġescæp ġewyrd ġescæft
ġebyrd on condicio (HlGl C1776) in support of the latter view. The meaning of the
only other instance of the phrase (MSol 386) is ambiguous.
1077b. syþðan morgen cōm. This may or may not mean the ¢rst morning after the
night attack; see Finn 41.
1079b. hē[o]. The emendation seems to be required because it is Hildeburh whose
sorrow is emphasized (1075). Unemended, MS he would have to refer forward to Finn
(see Varr.; so also Fry 1974: 38, Stanley 1992: 279–80); yet the following clauses do
not pertain to his mental state but to the reason for the unusual arrangements between
him and the Danes. It should be noted that this immediate passage does not necessarily
offer any contradiction to the account of Finn 41 that after ¢ve days of combat there
were still no casualties on the Danish side. See Tol. 27–8; cf. Dob. VI, xvii.
1083. Henġeste. He has often been identi¢ed with the leader of the ¢fth-century
Germanic invaders of Britain and founder of the Jutish kingdom of Kent (Bede H.E. i,
capp. 14–15).1 The chief diÌculty raised by this identi¢cation is that if Henġest was
regarded as a Jute, he would appear to be ¢ghting on the wrong side (but see the note
on 1072a). Accordingly, that they are different ¢gures is the position of Grein 1862: 270
and many others.2 Bliss (in Tol. 168–80) argues that the two Henġests must be one and
the same ¢gure, since no other Henġest is known to heroic legend, and he maintains
that although Bede identi¢es Kent as a Jutish kingdom and the kings of Kent as
descendants of Henġest, he did not mean us to understand Henġest himself to be a Jute.
(Bede’s source Gildas does not indicate Henġest’s ethnic connections and makes no
mention of Jutes. Interestingly, but implausibly, the Kentish genealogies make the in-
vader Henġest a descendant of Finn Folcwalding, at a remove of seven generations: see
Appx.A §¯3.) The questions whether Henġest in Beo and in Bede (and other early
sources) are the same ¢gure, and whether the poem refers to Jutes or giants in con-
nection with the events at Finnsburg, are not entirely independent of each other, for if
the Henġest of the poem later invaded Britain, it is diÌcult to imagine the circum-

1
E.g. by Chadwick 1907: 52, Clarke 1911: 185¯ff., Meyer 1912, Kier 1915: 25¯ff., Schütte Afnf.
36 (1919–20) 4–8, Imelmann 1920, N. Aurner Hengest: A Study in Early Eng. Hero Legend (Iowa
City, 1921), de Vries ZfdPh. 72 (1953) 125–43 (esp. 137–8), Wrenn 1967: 90, D. Ward The Divine
Twins (Berkeley, 1968) 72, Samuels in Edinburgh Studies in Eng. & Scots, ed. A. Aitken et al.,
(London, 1971) 16 n.¯21, Tol. 66–76, Joseph Papers in Comp. Stud. 2 (1982–3) 177–86, id. Man-
kind Qtrly. 24 (1983) 105–15, Russchen 1984, Stanley 1990: 60, Frank 1991: 96, 101, Niles 1993:
98 & 2007b: 36–7, North 1997: 65–77, Meaney 2003 [1989]: 65; see also Honegger R.-L.2 14.389¯f.
On archaeological evidence supporting Bede’s claim, see Myres PBA 56 (1972) 145–74; S. Suzuki
The Quoit Brooch Style and AS Settlement (Woodbridge, 200) 103–21.
2
E.g., van Hamel Kl.Misc. 159–71, Girvan PBA 26 (1940) 328, Malone 1943: 283–4, Sisam
1953: 136, Turville-Petre Saga-Book 14 (1953–7) 287–90, Hawkes in Dark-Age Britain, ed. D.
Harden (London, 1956) 91–111, H. Uecker Germanische Heldensage (Stuttgart, 1972) 119, Mitchell
1988a: 338. Aurner (previous note) provides a conspectus of earlier views.
 COMMENTARY 183
stances under which he could have led Jutes to Britain if Jutes had earlier attacked his
party at Finnsburg. — Note the repetition of wīġ in the next verse, and see Andrew
1948: §¯169.
1083b. ġefeohtan, not ‘obtain by ¢ghting,’ the usual, perfective meaning (cf. Baird
MP 69 [1971] 133–5), but perhaps ‘¢ght’ (Kl. JEGP 14 [1915] 548) or ‘¢ght out’
(Malone 1926: 157).
1084–5a. Klaeber (1926: 226; BGdSL 72 [1950] 120¯f.) and nearly all edd. before him
assign the meaning ‘rescue’ to forþringan, though in its one other occurrence (BenR
63, 115.6–7) it is thought to mean ‘crowd out, dislodge’ (so DOE), taking an acc.
object: see R. Williams 1924: 166–8; Tol. 98–100. (Cf. Orm’s himm þatt i cwarrterrne
liþ, / Forrbundenn & forrþrungenn 6168¯f.). All subsequent edd. (following Brown
MLN 34 [1919] 181–3) assume the latter meaning, taking wēalāfe to refer to the Danish
party (as in 1098). (So also Williams 41–3; Malone 1926: 115, 157; JEGP 28 [1929]
416; 1943: 266; Hoops St. 57¯f.; Baird loc. cit.) þēodnes ðeġne as appositive to Hen-
ġeste 1083 (Moore JEGP 18 [1919] 2o8¯f.) is oddly delayed, but its explanatory purpose
is plain, since this is the ¢rst mention of Henġest. (So Wn., Ni., MR, A. Campbell
1962: 22 n.¯1; cf. Malone 1933b: 150: dat. of accompaniment; Hoops St. 58: dat. of
interest.) It is thus unnecessary to emend to ðeġna (Brown MLN 34 [1919] 115).
1o85b. hiġ most likely refers to the Frisians, because it is their plight, described in
the preceding verses, that prompts the offer of terms. Tolkien (101) argues rather that
the antecedent must be the last word that is plural in reference, which is wēalāfe
(similarly Wn., Fry, Gray 1989, Ja.); but change of reference is common in OE
pronouns (see Intr. cxx & n.¯4), and because the argument is based on strict agreement
of number, Tol. would emend hīe and ger©mdon in 1o86 to sg. forms.
1086¯ff. him, prob. pl., but cf. Gray 1989. — ōðer Ïet is rarely now taken to imply
that the Danes and Frisians occupied separate halls (so Bu. 29; Lawrence 1928: 116;
Sed.3 & MLR 28 [1933] 374; Wn.; Gray 1989; MR; DOE), for healfre is fem. and must
mean ‘half (of one),’ referring to healle (see Varr.). (That healle should be gen., paired
w. acc. hēahsetl [so Heusler AfdA 41 (1922) 32, Malone 1926: 116] seems improbable
because unparalleled: see Williams MLR 22 [1927] 311.) For a Norse analogue, cf. the
arrangement made by King Granmarr to share a hall with his guest King Hj∂rvarðr in
Ynglinga saga, ch. 37. Cf. also V∂lsunga saga, ch. 11: skipa báðir konungar eina h∂ll.
Heusler suggests that ōðer Ïet means ‘one of two bench-Ïoors,’ citing the lengthwise
division of Norse halls into two bekkir (see the plan in Pollington 2003: 66–7; also
Brady 1983: 219–20), though Kl. 1926: 230 and others object that the variation healle
ond hēahsetl with Ïet suggests otherwise. Yet Kl. grants the possibility, suggested by
Hoops St. 58–60, that healle = ‘hall-space.’ The supposition that there are Jutes in both
the Danish and the Frisian parties (see note to 1071¯f.) is prompted in large part by the
idea that it would be unthinkable for two groups that have just been ¢ghting to share a
hall: hence it is the Jutes of their own party with whom the Danes are to share (so, e.g.,
Bliss in Tol. 168). Yet we may take the living arrangement to be a sign of the desper-
ateness of both sides’ circumstances, and surely the poet’s purpose in detailing the
terms of the agreement at length, which is otherwise unnecessary, is to suggest the
tension between the opposing hosts, housed in the same hall all winter. (See Shippey
1972: 22; J.M. Hill 1995: 27.) At all events, that Finn is to dispense treasure daily to
both Frisians and Danes (1089–94), the latter thus in effect accepting him as their lord,
would hardly be a likely arrangement if the hostilities were assumed to be wholly
implacable. As for the poet’s use of twā 1095 rather than bā, on which Tolkien lays
emphasis, this may be simply an alliterative variant (cf. El 1179), or the point may be
that the pledge was not the same on each side.
1o97. unÏitme is a Єπαξ λεγόμενον that has not been accounted for conclusively. If it
is not an error, the termination -me is best explained as dat. sg. of an abstract-forming
noun suÌx, as in hlytme 3126, derived from hlēotan (cf. *-mi- in wylm, ċyrm, gl®m,
swilm: Kluge 1926: §¯152 n.¯2). In that event the word is best connected with Ïītan
184 BEOWULF
‘contend’ and should mean ‘without dispute’ (cf. unhlitme 1129, prob. ‘without casting
of lots,’ i.e. ‘gladly, willingly’). Hence Kock2 109 regards elne and unÏitme as adverbs:
‘strongly and indisputably.’ (Grienb. 748 would translate the latter ‘¢rmly’ or ‘inviol-
ably,’ deriving the word from Ïēotan ‘Ïoat.’) Alternatively, the m in unÏitme could be
an error for in, an archaic spelling in the presumptive archetype (cf. EpGl 606:
forsleginum, etc.; Appx.C §¯8). Instr. (elne) unÏitine might accordingly be a participle
of Ïītan and be taken to mean ‘with undisputed (zeal),’ i.e. ‘earnestly and sincerely’
(Mackie 1939: 521; MR). It has been suggested that the instr. elne may have the force
of an intensive adverb, ‘much,’ ‘very’ (so Schü.), but as ellen normally refers to noble
deeds, perhaps the sense of the phrase is ‘magnanimously and without quibbling.’
Emendation to unhlitme (Rosier [see Varr.]: ‘without choice’; Bliss, in Tol. 120 n.¯63:
‘with ill-fated courage’ [so Orchard 2003: 186]; Vickrey JEGP 87 [1988] 315–28:
‘willingly’) on the basis of comparison to 1129 is diÌcult to justify paleographically
(though v.Sch. notes fæste and frioðu above the word in the MS), and uncertainty about
the meaning of unhlitme (see 1128b–9a note) makes the change unattractive. See also
Boenig Neophil. 76 (1992) 278.
1098b. weotena dōme. A noteworthy allusion to the authority of the king’s advisory
council. Cf. Jul 98: ofer witena dōm. King Ælfred undertook the codi¢cation of the
laws mid mīnra witena ġeðeahte (LawAfEl 49.9). Cf. F. Purlitz König u. Witenagemot
bei den Angelsachsen (Leipzig diss., 1892); F. Liebermann The National Assembly in
the Anglo-Saxon Period (Halle, 1913); Yorke in Lapidge et al. 1999: 124–5; Insley
R.-L.2 35.719–25.
1099b–1101. Which of the two parties is meant? According to R. Williams 1924: 65–
6 (also Malone 1926: 158, 163, Hoops St. 6o, Flasdieck Lit.bl. 47 [1926] 159; Schü.,
Dob., Ni., Ja.), the reference is to the Frisians, who are by this provision enjoined not to
provoke the Danes. Thus the two þæt-clauses beginning in 1098a and 1099b represent
separate commitments on the part of Finn, not commitments by Finn and the Danes,
respectively. Klaeber objects, how could Finn solemnly declare that nobody would
break the treaty? (Angl. 28 [1905] 444); but it is not improbable that the meaning
should be, ‘He pledged that none of his men should taunt the Danes, and if one did, a
sword should settle it.’ If instead the Danes are meant, and they are here sworn not to
complain about their situation, þæt 1099 denotes ‘upon condition that’ (Kl. BGdSL 72
[1950] 121¯f., Archiv 191 [1955] 218; Wn.; OES §¯3660), and þonne 1104 perhaps ‘on
the other hand.’ Either way, ġem®nden may mean ‘complain’: cf. m®ndon 1149, æt-
witon 1150. The pret. subjunctives br®ce and ġem®nden are normal under either inter-
pretation (OES §§¯2003, 3660); the alternation in number is grammatical rather than
conceptual.
1102. ðēah hīe hira bēagġyfan banan folgedon. Whether Finn himself slew Hnæf
we do not know; see 1968 (n.). — Making peace with the slayers of one’s lord was
dishonorable. Cf. ChronA 755.33 (‘Cynewulf and Cyneheard’): þā cuĘdon hīe þæt him
n®niġ m®ġ lēofra n®re þonne hiera hlāford, ℓ hīe n®fre his banan folgian noldon.
1105b. myndgiend ought to be a noun, since it lacks an adj. inÏection, but confusion
of an agentive noun and a part. is found in 3028 (see note), and so the probable
meaning of myndgiend w®re is ‘should continually call to mind’ (see 159¯n.).
1106b. The verse remains problematic, since MS scolde lacks an accompanying
in¢nitive. The earlier edd. generally assumed a verb syððan (seððan) ‘avenge’ (e.g.
He.1–7, Hold., Wy., Schü.8), but this now appears to be a ghost word, as the one other
possible instance (GenA 1525) most likely requires emendation (so Dob., following
Krapp). Kock2 109 (similarly Malone 1943: 266) argues for the existence of a wk. verb
syððan (rel. to sēoðan) ‘atone,’ ‘clear.’ Some would retain syððan as an adverb. Thus,
Schü. (EStn. 42 [1910] 109¯f.) thinks the sense myndgiend wesan may be supplied from
the previous clause, and so Schü.9–14, v.Sch., Hoops St. 60¯f.; cf. Kl. Beibl. 24 (1913)
290, EStn. 67.3 (1933) 402, Angl. 63 (1939) 416. Moore (Kl.Misc. 208–10) also as-
sumes ellipsis of a verb (similarly Wn.; Robinson 1993a: 111, MR; Orchard 2003: 185
 COMMENTARY 185
n.¯81), though with the sense ‘deal with’ or (in Wrenn’s case) ‘be.’ Most edd. now alter
syððan, though no single emendation has gained broad acceptance (see Varr.). The
most widely credited is Klaeber’s sēðan ‘settle,’ based on a presumed series of scribal
changes of Northumbr. s¹ðan to seoððan to syððan. (Cf. Ni., reading s©ðan as a
Kentish hypercorrection of sēðan.) Yet the semantics of this are not quite right, since
sēðan elsewhere means ‘declare true, aÌrm, attest, prove’ (cf. sōð). Possibly a verse
pair has been lost after MS scolde (so Siev. 1884b: 139, Holt.1,2,6). Yet, to take a new
approach, the change of MS scolde to pret. sj. scēde ‘decide, settle’ provides the right
sense and is also a stylistic improvement, obviating the shift to the periphrasis with
sculan after the series of pret. subjunctives hēolde, br®ce, ġem®nden, folgedon, w®re
in 1099–1105. The scribal error perhaps points to an alternate pret. *scēode (like swēop
to swāpan in the same class: see OEG §¯745[a]), easily confused with sceolde, for
which the ¢rst scribe of the MS consistently writes scolde, -on, the second sceolde, -on.
This solution also avoids creating an exception to Schücking’s rule that if in¢nitive +
scolde ends a clause, the clause must be subordinate (see 1070 note). For the use of the
pret. subjunctive in the apodosis of an open condition, see OES §¯3544. See MÆ 74
(2005) 197–8.
1107–8a. Ād (MS að) wæs ġeæfned ond icge gold / āhæfen of horde. Some (incl.
Cha., v.Sch., Holt.8, Wn.-B., Ni., Ja.) would retain MS að on the assumption that there
was a formal ceremony in which Finn declared the oaths described in 1096b–1106, and
gold was fetched in order to pay werġild for Hnæf, as proposed by Whitelock 1951: 18
(see also North LSE 21 [1990] 33, id. 1997: 70–2); or as a reward for Finn’s men, as
proposed by Lawrence PMLA 30 (1915) 4o6; or for Henġest upon his accepting Finn’s
lordship (Fry 1974: 41; Owen-Crocker 2000: 45). This renders the passage rather tele-
graphic, and Kl. objects that one might in that case have expected āðas (cf. 1097).
Certainly ġeæfnan may take an object like ād (it takes the object b®r in 3105¯f.), while
there is no parallel to āð ġeæfnan: rather, with acc. āð the verb should be swerian or
sellan (cf. Stanley ANQ 15.2 [2002] 65; see also the note on 1142–4 on the supposed
implacability of the sacred duty to vengeance). Precious objects from the hoard are
presumably to be placed on the pyre for burning with the dead: cf. 1111¯f., 3138¯ff.,
perhaps 3134¯f.; 3163¯ff.; 36¯ff.; also Appx.A §¯10: Saxo viii 5,1, tr. 243, which points to
ād as the proper reading; cf. as well 1110: Æt þ®m āde. Dob. suggests that the scribe
wrote að because of Finn’s oaths just described. — icge remains obscure, despite many
guesses. Some would connect it with, or emend it to, inċġe (cf. 2577). We cannot even
be certain that it is an adjective, though that seems likeliest. Ke. ii reads īcge ‘vegetus’
(?); Holt.3 īcge (‘eagerly,’ like īdġe, Phoen 407). Many emendations have been
proposed: see Varr. See also BT; Hempl PMLA 18 (1903) 95–8 & Kl. JEGP 8 (1909)
256 (corruption of ®ċe ‘one’s own’ [?]); Brett MLR 14 (1919) 2; Zachrisson SN 1
(1928) 75 (woman’s name); Du Bois EStn. 69.3 (1935) 321–8 (connected w. Ing);
Malone 1943: 266–7 (a form of īeġ); Ball Angl. 78 (1960) 408 (Ing; similarly North);
Rosier PMLA 81 (1966) 342–6 (i[n]-ġe- ‘native’; cf. inġesteald 1155; so Chck.);
Cassidy 1972 (to *ecgiġ ‘angular’); ES 59 (1978) 255¯f. (‘shining’); and see Varr.
1108b. Here-Scyldinga. For metrico-syntactic reasons, GriÌth (N&Q 53 [2006] 256)
would have this compound belong to the previous period, modifying horde.
1109. betst beadorinca, i.e. Hnæf. — 1109b. wæs on b®l gearu ‘was ready to be
placed on the funeral pile.’
1111b. sw©n eal gylden. The reference is probably to the helmet as a whole (referred
to in synecdochic fashion) rather than to a free-standing boar ¢gure on its crest, as on
the Benty Grange and Wollaston examples; see 303b¯(n.). (The latter interpretation is
assumed by Webster in MR 189). See also l.¯1286.
1113b. sume. Litotes: ‘a good many’ (Kl. Angl. 28 [1905] 444¯f., 1905–6: 248; Wn.1–3
‘notable men’; cf. OES §¯401, Rissanen 1986: 207).
1115–17a. sunu may be either sg. or pl. (SB §§¯270, 271 n.¯2; cf. bordwudu 1243; so
Cos. viii 569, Cha., Holt.; see also Varr., and cf. Hoops). The other two references to
186 BEOWULF
Finn and Hildeburh’s lost child(ren) (MS eaferum 1068, bearnum 1074) are plural, but
see the notes on these lines. Pl. bānfatu is ambiguous: cf. pl. bānhūs 3147, with singu-
lar meaning. Malone (1926: 158, 1943: 270) would have it refer to the corpses of all the
slain (cf. Schü.Bd. 87¯f., n.), Hoops to sinews. Certainly ēame is singular, but this does
not prove, as Hoops thought, that brōðrum 1074 is a generic plural: while use of the
generic plural is generally restricted to weapons, rarely persons (see 1074¯n.), the col-
lective singular is most commonly used of persons (see the note to 794b–5). Still,
although it is impossible to be certain how many sons of Hildeburh may have been
killed, most scholars assume just one. Cf. Orchard 2003: 181–2, countered by Bamm.
N&Q 53 (2006) 14–17. — Those who retain MS earme for ēame 1117 usually regard it
as either an adj. modifying ides (v.Sch., Wn., Crp.; Collinder 1954: 20) or an adv. (Fry
1974, Lester SN 58 [1986] 159–63; cf. Tol. 110–11) to be construed with the following
rather than the preceding clause. Stjerna (1912: 170–1), however, treats it as a dative,
‘arm on shoulder,’ in reference to two sons placed on the pyre; similarly Ni., but in ref.
to Hildeburh, ‘with her arm on her shoulder’ (see also Owen-Crocker 2000: 50); cf.
earlier R. Williams 1924: 76: ‘lying on her dead son’s shoulder’ (so also Malone;
Flasdieck Lit.bl. 47 [1926] 156). — bānfatu bærnan, ond on b®l dôn. The same hys-
teron proteron in 2126. Evidently the purpose, or the result, of the action was upper-
most in the poet’s mind.
1118. ġeōmrode ġiddum. Klaeber sees her as voicing songs of lament, in accord
with ancient custom; cf. 3150¯ff., 2446¯f., as well as Schücking EStn. 39.1 (1908) 1–13.
The term ġidd is non-speci¢c enough, however, to encompass lamentation of practic-
ally any kind.
1118b–19a. Gūðrēċ āstāh. Retaining the MS reading, all recent editors, including
Kl., treat Gūðrinċ āstāh as a period unto itself, referring to placing a warrior (presum-
ably Hnæf [so Holt., Hoops], or perhaps Hildeburh’s son [Flasdieck, Malone, Kl.3 Su.
467, Dob.]) on the funeral pile. The expression has been compared brilliantly to the
Eddic áðr á bál stigi, in reference to placing Baldr on the pyre, Vafþrúð. 54.5 (Bu.Tid.
50¯f.; Sarrazin BGdSL 11 [1886] 530). (J. Grimm 1865–90 [1849]: 2.262 had earlier
suggested ‘the warrior’s spirit rose into the air’; so Hoffman JEGP 64 [1965] 660–7.)
Yet OE stīgan is nowhere used in this sense, and in fact it has now been pointed out
that áðr á bál stigi almost certainly refers not to Baldr but to Óðinn, probably imagined
to mount the pyre in order to set ¢re to it: see Cooke MÆ 72 (2003) 297¯f., arguing
either for the present reading or that gūðrinċ refers to a Ïame-bearer. That the rather
abrupt gūðrinċ āstāh really could have been intended as a metaphor is in any case
diÌcult to credit, and an additional problem is that, on the commonest interpretation,
the verse would describe something that must actually have happened earlier, if ēame
on eaxle 1117 is correct. The general clumsiness and improbable character of the verse
are cleared up by Grundtvig’s emendation, making it analogous to wudurēċ āstāh 3144
in another funerary scene. As in that passage, the combination of rēċ and stīgan repre-
sents a formula: cf. El 794: rēċ āstīgan; Rid 1.6: rēċas stīgað. In addition, wand tō
wolcnum makes better sense applied to smoke than to ¢re (and certainly better than to
Hnæf’s spirit, as urged by Hoffman op. cit., Osborn Folklore 81 [1970] 185–94; see
also Orton NM 86 [1985] 145¯f.), since smoke and the heavens are conventionally
linked in verse (cf. 3155, El 803), while ¢re and the heavens are not. ‘Trivialization’ is
the term for the very common scribal habit of misreading an unusual word like gūðrēċ
and substituting a more familiar one (so Tol. 112; see also Orchard 2003: 181 n.¯63). For
other examples, see MS deore 447, syn 707, fela 1032, hroden 1151, etc. Cf. also MS
hreþrinc for Hrēþrīċ 1836 and, conversely, hereric for hererinċ 1176, with a similar
error at 2466 corrected in a different ink. As the emendation gūðhrinġ is unpersuasive
on semantic grounds (see Varr.), more so is the idea that MS guð rinc is simply an
unusual spelling of this (so Bliss in Tol. 11 n.¯54; Crp.).
 COMMENTARY 187
112o. hlynode for hlāwe. Emendation is unncessary, since hlāwe may denote either
the place where the mound is to be built or an old mound which is to be used again (so
Cha.): see 2241¯ff., 2802¯ff., 3156¯ff. See also Kl. 1908b: 463.
1121¯f. benġeato burston ðonne blōd ætspranc, / lāðbite līċes. Recent research
suggests that although this is not a technically accurate description of the effects of
burning, there is a factual basis for it: see Owen-Crocker 2000: 54–5; see also Kl.
JEGP 14 (1915) 549. lāðbite is best regarded as parallel to benġeato, though some edd.
(incl. Sed., prob. Cha., Holt.7–8) have taken it to be the dat. object of ætspranc (or instr.:
Flasdieck Lit.bl. 47 [1926] 158). Likewise (despite Schü. EStn. 42 [1910] 110), R.
Williams (1924: 77–8) and Möllmer (1937: 24–5) regard ðonne as an adverb ‘then.’
This may not be impossible (OES §¯2572), but it is unusual for ðonne to be used to
mean ‘then’ with a pret. verb: see Gloss.
1124. bēġa folces. The disagreement in number is suÌciently explained by Cha. (‘of
the folk of both [peoples]’) and need not imply Jutes in both camps, despite the objec-
tion of Tol. (112). (Bamm. NM 105 [2004] 21–3 argues that bēġa refers to Hnæf and his
nephew.) Partitive folces may depend on þāra ðe: cf. þā dēadan . . . þe heora folces
ofslagen w®ron (Or 3, 1.55.25–6), and see OES §¯1301.
1125¯ff. The Frisians (or some number of them) return to their homes in the country,
while Henġest remains with Finn in Finnes burh (where the latter is afterward slain: æt
his selfes hām 1147). Some have inferred that Finnes burh (see Finn 36) lies outside
Frisia proper (see, e.g., Cha.Intr. 258¯f.; cf. Tol. 35). Klaeber remarks that hēaburh is a
high-sounding epic term that should not be pressed: see Kl. 1907: 193; 1926: 229. To
dispose of the problem, Fry ELN 8.1 (1970) 1–3 (so also Muir 1989: 61) would begin a
new sentence with hāmas. This seems possible but unnecessary, as hāmas ond
hēaburh may be conceived simply as a descriptive phrase applied to Fr©sland rather
than speci¢cally as object of ġesēon (which Malone MP 43.1 [1945] 84, 1959: 2 takes
to mean ‘see the last of’ [cf. 1875]; but see Kl. BGdSL 72 [1950] 122¯f.). Leslie (in
Calder 1979: 118–19) objects to Fry’s analysis on stylistic grounds. Bamm. N&Q 50
(2003) 156–8 brilliantly construes the passage to mean that the warriors returned to ‘a
Friesland deprived of friends’ (thus accounting also for the uninÏected participle: cf.
48¯n.). Yet this does have rather a modern ring, and Mitchell NM 105 (2004) 187–9
raises weighty syntactic objections. — It may be noted that excavations in the region of
Westergo, Friesland, prompted speculation in the press in 1991 that Finn’s burh might
have been located there. But the ¢nds, though important and of immense interest, do
not lend themselves to any so speci¢c an identi¢cation: see J. Besteman et al., The
Excavations at Wijnaldum (Rotterdam, 1999). — wīġend cannot refer to the Danes (cf.
R. Williams 1924: 80–2; Flasdieck Lit.bl. 47 [1926] 159; Malone 1926: 158, MP 43.1
[1949] 83–5, 1959: 1–2; v.Sch.), since wīca nēosian and similar unquali¢ed expres-
sions always mean ‘go home’ (Hoops 141; Tol. 115–17). Girvan PBA 26 (1940) 344
and Malone 1943: 274 would have it refer to both Frisians and Danes.
1128. wælfāgne wintĺr. The unique epithet of winter has been surmised to mean
‘slaughter-stained’ or ‘deadly hostile,’ ‘forbidding,’ or (reading w®lfāgne) ‘hostile to
moving waters’ (Gr.Spr.; cf. 161o, 1132¯f.). Could w®lfāg mean ‘marked by battling
waters’? (Cf. Prog 5.1, 3 & 12: scūrfāh winter ‘stormy winter’). Berendsohn (1935:
176) suggests ‘deadly-colored’; Wn. ‘adorned [i.e. covered] with water,’ i.e. ‘frozen.’
Possibly wælfāg is a back-formation from wælf®hð.
1128b–9a. Of the many emendations proposed for MS ¢nnel un / hlitme, which is
defective in sense and meter, the one most widely adopted now is Klaeber’s Finne eal
unhlitme, completing the clause, under the assumption that the Єπαξ λεγόμενον
unhlitme means ‘involuntarily.’ (Cf. Grienb. 749: unhlytm ‘ill-sharing,’ ‘misfortune’;
BT: ‘and his lot was not a happy one.’) This is surely wrong: the verses Næs ðā on
hlytme hwā þæt hord strude 3126 mean ‘it was not then decided by lot who would
plunder the hoard,’ i.e., all the men were eager to do so. In that event unhlitme ought
to mean ‘not reluctantly,’ ‘eagerly,’ ‘fondly’ (Fry 1974: 22; similarly Vickrey ASE 6
188 BEOWULF
[1977] 91–103, JEGP 87 [1988] 315–28; cf. Boenig Neophil. 76 [1992] 278¯f., Köberl
2002: 141–2). Presumably as an adverb it had become suÌciently ¢xed to have lost its
association with the literal casting of lots, which is admittedly irrelevant to the present
context. (Cf. HomM 11 [ScraggVerc 14] 44: þ®r bið ælċ man tō his yldrum hlytmed;
Gloss.: hlēotan.) Fry’s argument that Henġest was in fact eager to stay with Finn over
the winter, so that he might ultimately accomplish vengeance, renders opaque the pur-
pose of the following verses about winter. Placing [ea]l unhlitme in the next clause
resolves the problem, producing the sense that Henġest yearned for home, and yet he
could not sail there. Yet instead of eal, another possible restoration is hē, assuming that
the scribe’s exemplar was damaged, and of he only the ¢rst upright was legible and
was thus mistaken for l (cf. h retouched as l in ġehwylcne 2250). See MÆ 74 (2005)
199–200. Bliss’s interpretation (see Tol. 120–2 n.¯63) of Kemble’s emendation elne
unhlitme as ‘with ill-fated courage,’ requiring the assumption of two separate scribal
errors, is morphologically impeccable, but the concept seems uncharacteristically ab-
stract and rather too modern, and Bliss concedes that the expression is not as apt here
as in 1097.
1129b–3o. eard ġemunde, / þēah þe ne (MS he) meahte, etc. Some, following the
suggestion of Kl. Beibl. 22 (1911) 373¯f. (later abandoned), see no need for a negative
particle, construing ġemunde þēah as ‘considered whether,’ equivalent to þōhte . . . ġif
1139¯f. (So v.Sch.; Ni.; Fry 1974: 20–1; Boenig ELN 24.4 [1987] 1–9; Vickrey ASE 6
[1977] 95–9; Taylor NM 82 [1981] 357¯f.; North LSE 21 [1990] 26.) The construction is
dubitable (Hoops St. 63; OES §¯3416¯n.), and in any case without the emendation the
following description of winter seems ill integrated with what precedes (Dob., Ja.).
1134b–6a. swā nū ġ©t dêð. Cf. 1o58. dêð refers to ōþer ġēar, i.e. spring; weder, with
its preceding relative clause (1135), is amplifying variation of the implied subject of
dêð. The bright spring ‘weathers’ always observe (hold to) the proper season; so Cha.
and all recent edd.; cf. 161o¯f. (Hoops 143 rather assumes incongruence of subject and
verb.) Boer ZfdA 47 (1903–4) 138 and Schü. 1908: 1o6 understand 1134b with reference
to 1129¯ff.: ‘as those people do (or, as is the case with those) who watch for the coming
of spring’; similarly Tho., Gr., Arn., Sed. Altering dêð to dôð (see Varr.) would, to be
sure, simplify the syntax admirably.
1137b¯ff. fundode, ‘he was anxious to go.’ Cf. Lawrence PMLA 30 (1915) 421 n.¯2:
‘he hastened.’ That Henġest actually sailed, even if for the sake of furthering his plans
for revenge, is extremely doubtful.
1140. tornġemōt. Fry maintains that the reference is to a meeting of Danes rather
than conÏict between Danes and Frisians.
1141. Kock (1897: 35; retracted 1923: 187–8) would render þæt . . . inne ‘in which’
(so also Schü., Cha., Malone 1926: 158–9, 1943: 274, v.Sch., Dob.), though one cannot
help sharing the reservations of Mitchell (1968: 292–7) about both this and Wrenn’s
rendering ‘in as much as’ for þæt. More likely the line means ‘so that he might remem-
ber inwardly (cf. 2113; less prob. ‘in it,’ in ref. to the tornġemōt) the Ēotena bearn.’ Cf.
North LSE 21 (1990) 18¯f.: ‘in this country.’ Tr.’s emendation of inne to īrne ‘with iron’
(advocated by Hoops St. 64, Kl.3, Holt.8) is not after all impossible (see OEG §¯647
n.¯2), but elsewhere in the poem, inÏected forms of īren are never demonstrably dissyl-
labic, while they are plainly trisyllabic in 673, 802, 1697, 2259. — Ēotena bearn,
‘sons of Jutes.’¯ R. Williams (1924: 91–2) and Girvan PBA 26 (1940) 352¯f. construe
bearn as (sg.) appos. to hē, in ref. to Henġest, making him and his men Jutes (as ¢rst
proposed by Mö. 94¯f.). Cf. 1086¯ff. note; Dob. xlix¯f.
1142–4. Malone (1926: 157–72; also 1923: 19–23, MLN 43 [1928] 300–4 [cf. Kl.
Angl. 56 (1932) 421–3], 1943: 276–81; so also Schü., v.Sch.) would begin a dependent
clause here: ‘since he did not prevent his lord when he (Hnæf) laid in his (Henġest’s)
lap Hūnlā¢ng, the battle-gleamer, etc.’ The reply of Brodeur (1943a) effectively coun-
ters Malone’s objections to the usual interpretation, but it does not succeed in proving
Malone’s interpretation wrong. Although it is true that adverbial swā rarely introduces
 COMMENTARY 189
negative clauses, the claim of Ericson (1930: 164–5, 175) that it never does so is
untenable: see Dob. and OES §¯3270. Thus Malone’s rendering ‘since’ is possible (at
least theoretically) but not inevitable. Friend MLN 69 (1954) 385–7, adopting much of
Malone’s interpretation, takes swā to be correlative with swylċe 1146: ‘as . . . in like
manner.’ Brady 1979: 100 interprets swā . . . ne forwyrnde to mean ‘without rejecting’
and compares Finn 41b. This is quite possible. — Malone’s rendering of ne forwyrnde
as ‘did not prevent’ cannot be discounted, but the construction would be unique
(Brodeur 1943a: 301–13; see also Kl. loc. cit.). The verb, it should be noted, takes a dat.
of person and gen. of thing refused. — 1142b. woroldr®denne has been variously ex-
plained as law, way, rule, or custom, of the world, implying such diverse ideas as
death, fate, revenge, duty, sanctity of oath, and universal (or religious) obligation, most
commonly in connection with critical belief in a ‘sacred duty to vengeance’ that
perhaps no longer commands the credence it once did (see J.M. Hill 1995: 29–37,
2000: 74–92; Jurasinski 2006: 79–111). Since worold- is often a more or less empty
intensi¢er (cf., e.g., GenA 2179: woruldmāgas; Rid 84.33: worldbearna), and r®den
may mean ‘stipulation,’ the sense of 1142 could be ‘without renouncing the stipu-
lation,’ i.e. without renouncing his oath to Finn (so Schü.), or (more likely, since
forwyrnan is not otherwise attested to mean ‘renounce’) ‘under these circumstances
(or, in this frame of mind) he did not refuse [him, i.e. Hūnlā¢ng] the condition,’ i.e. that
the vengeance should be carried out, when Hūnlā¢ng gave him the sword (so Kl. JEGP
14 [1915] 547). Emendation to worod- or weorodr®denne (see Varr.) has licensed the
interpretation ‘thus he did not frustrate the will of the war-troop’ (so Mö., Soc.) and the
sense ‘he did not refuse allegiance to Finn’ (in ref. to 1095¯ff.: Bu.); also ‘he did not
refuse the fealty (of the Danish band)’ (Tol. 135, 155, Henġest being a Jute in his
view). Malone (1923: 22; 1926: 159) emends to dat. woroldr®dende ‘earthly ruler’
(also Sanderlin MLN 53 [1938] 501–3) and interprets the line to mean that Henġest did
not prevent Hnæf when the latter gave him the sword, though later (Angl. 53 [1929]
335¯f.) he assumes the same meaning without emendation; similarly v.Sch., but with the
word referring to Finn, whom Henġest thus ‘did not renounce.’ However, Brodeur
(1943a: 313–23) is right that -enne is not a plausible alternate spelling of -ende, and
Malone’s interpretation is not to be admitted without emendation. Kl.3 emends to
w[e]orodr®dende and translates, ‘So, then, he did not refuse [it, i.e. tornġemōtes] to the
ruler of the host (i.e., Finn), when Hūnla¢ng placed, etc.’ Yet the case for emendation
is weak (see Aant.), and it is probably best to accept whatever sense can be made of the
text as it stands. Tol. 133 rightly remarks that with the bestowal of the sword we should
expect Henġest is being offered leadership; this is not an unlikely meaning for
woroldr®den. R®den(n) can be either a suÌx used to form abstract nouns (campr®den
‘warfare,’ ġefērr®den ‘companionship,’ etc.) or a fem. noun meaning ‘condition, stipu-
lation’ or ‘rule, government, direction’ (e.g. þæt hī on hyra r®denne bēon woldon,
ChronC 918). (Malone’s insistence that -r®den can only be a suÌx [1943: 279–80] is
founded on the unwarranted dismissal of the evidence of compounds like folc-, þinġ-,
medo-r®den.) Here it may have the latter meaning, and worold-, though it usually
means ‘worldly, secular’ in religious contexts, may be relatively meaningless, particu-
larly in verse, as noted supra. For a thorough consideration of the word, with a differ-
ent conclusion, see Brodeur. Cf. North 1997: 75–7, with a mythological interpretation.
— 1143. þonne ought not to have simple past reference (‘when Hūnlā¢ng placed’), as
nearly all have assumed, since then we should expect þā. (Cf. 1121¯n.) Exceptionally,
Andrew 1948: §¯19 and OES §¯2568 render it ‘whenever’ (cf. Möllmer 1937: 24–5: adv.
‘then’); but frequentitive meaning for dyde is diÌcult to credit, given the seeming
ceremonial status of the bestowal of the sword (see infra). (Brady 1979: 100, following
Girvan PBA 26 [1940] 350, imagines Henġest placing the sword in his own lap on
numerous occasions.) With a pret. sj. verb, þonne may refer to a past event that is in the
future from the perspective of another moment in the past (OES §¯2565). Since
ġemunde 1141 also expresses such a future-in-the-past, it may be best to attach this
190 BEOWULF
þonne-clause to that verb, with an intervening parenthesis: ‘so that he might remember
the sons of the Jutes — since he had not refused the (position of) leadership — when
Hūnlā¢ng should place in his lap, etc.’ Another possibility is to begin a new sentence
with ġif 1140 and treat 1142 as the apodosis, with the þonne-clause subordinate to this:
‘If he could provoke hostilities, so that he might inwardly recall the sons of the Jutes,
he would, thus, not refuse the (position of) leadership when Hūnlā¢ng would place,
etc.’ But certainly he already has the leadership (cf. 1083, 1091, 1096), and forwyrnan,
as remarked supra, is not attested in the sense ‘renounce.’ — Hūnlā¢ng. To whom (or
to what) the name refers, there is no consensus. Probably most commentators assume
that this is the name of an otherwise unknown Dane (cf. Bu. 33, Gutenbrunner 1949:
Hūn, son of Lāf, places in Henġest’s lap an unnamed sword; cf. Cha.Intr. 252 n.¯2). It is
less likely that this is the name of the sword (Thorpe, Olrik 1903–10: [1.145–6],
Chadwick 1907: 52 n.¯1, Malone MLN 43 [1928] 300–4, Brady 1979: 99, Tol. 132),
though the counterarguments of Brodeur 1943a are not decisive. (It may be that
hildelēoma is the sword’s name [see Holt., Cha., Wr., v.Sch., Tol.]; but cf. 2583a,
1523a.) Girvan (op. cit. 350) thinks Hūnlā¢ng is Henġest. — on bearm dyde. The
signi¢cance of this action has been disputed. Heinzel (AfdA 10 [1884] 226–7) and
Friend (MLN 69 [1954] 385–7) suppose the meaning is that Henġest was stabbed with
the sword, though this does not seem likely. Anderson (ES 61 [1980] 293–301), Miller
(Law & Hist. Rev. 1 [1983] 195–9), and Van Meter (JEGP 95 [1996] 185) view it more
plausibly as an incitement to vengeance, perhaps as part of a formal ceremony. It is
quite possible that there is something ceremonial about placing a sword in someone’s
lap (or on his breast: so Collinder 1954: 20–1, since that is the height at which swords
were hung; cf. Max II 25: sweord sċeal on bearme; but cf. also R.-L.2 27.586; on the
ambiguity, see DOE: bearm). Some ceremonial signi¢cance pertaining to investiture
perhaps attaches to the act in 2194 (see note). In Old Norse literature a sword repeat-
edly plays a role in a ceremony of swearing fealty: see Tol. 132–5, who argues that
Hūnlā¢ng swears fealty to Henġest (so Cha.Intr. 253), though he is not certain that this
is not instead a ceremony of lordship for Henġest. But regardless of whether a speci¢c
rite is implied, the act of conveying the sword is apparently, in this instance, related to
the violation of the peace and the accomplishment of vengeance. — Some earlier
studies: Rie Zs. 396¯ff.; Bu. 32¯ff.; Aant.; Shipley 1903: 32; Tr.F. 25–6, Trautmann
1905; Boer ZfdA 47 (1904) 139; Schü.Sa. 11; R. Huchon Revue germanique 3 (1907)
626¯n.; Imelmann 1909: 997; Clark Hall MLN 25 (1910) 113–14; Lawrence PMLA 30
(1915) 417–21; R. Williams 1924: 93–100.
1145. þæs w®ron mid Ēotenum ecge cūðe. The same idea is brought out more
de¢nitely in Gylfaginning, ch. 21, in regard to Þórr’s hammer: Einn þeira er hamarrinn
Mj∂llnir er hrímþursar ok bergrisar kenna þá er hann kemr á loft, ok er þat eigi
undarligt: hann he¢r lamit margan haus á feðrum eða frændum þeira.
1146¯f. The force is, just as the Frisian side had already come to know the virtue of
the sword (a probable allusion to the initial battle at Finnsburg), so in his turn would
Finn. Alternatively, Bugge would have swylċe refer to the desire for revenge described
in 1138b–45 (similarly R. Williams 1924: 101; v.Sch.; Wn.), though the word does not
otherwise have the meaning ‘thus,’ ‘solchermaßen’ in the poem. — Some have taken
ferhðfrecan for a substantive dependent on sweordbealo and referring to Henġest: so
Williams, Wn., Flasdieck Lit.bl. 47 (1926) 157; see also Girvan PBA 26 (1940) 359
n.¯37, and cf. Hoops. Emendation to ferhðfrēcen ‘mortal peril’ (Brown PMLA 53 [1938]
912¯f.), though perhaps a pleasing suggestion (Kl. Angl. 63 [1939] 416), is unnecessary.
1148¯ff. siþðan grimne gripe, etc. Perhaps, as Klaeber supposed, an attack on the
Frisians was being planned by Henġest. At all events, the ¢ght broke out prematurely
when Gūðlāf and Ōslāf, unable to restrain their sense of wounded honor (1150b–1a),
upbraided the Frisians for the treacherous onset (grimne gripe 1148, i.e. the Finnsburg
Fight) and their resultant humiliation. (See Bu. 36.) Both sorge and grimne gripe are
 COMMENTARY 191
the objects of m®ndon; to æfter s®sīðe sorge may be compared æfter dēaðdæġe dōm
885.
1149. æfter s®sīðe. It has sometimes been inferred from this expression that Gūðlāf
and Ōslāf (or even Henġest himself, taking fundode 1137 to mean ‘departed’) had
sailed home and then returned to Friesland with fresh troops. (So, e.g., Bugge, Law-
rence PMLA 30 [1915] 428¯f., R. Williams 1924: 101, 128, Malone 1926: 169–70, 1943:
282–3, etc., Brodeur 1943b: 26¯ff., de Vries ZfdPh. 72 [1953] 135¯f., Wn., Tol. 138, Ja.;
so also at ¢rst Kl., a view he later renounced.) If, rather, s®sīð refers to the original
journey of the Danes to Friesland, the purpose of the reference at this point in the
narrative is to make clear that it is the ¢rst attack that is meant, soon after the Danes’
arrival, now that the topic has shifted to the counterattack. North LSE 21 (1990) 30¯f.
supposes rather that Gūþlāf and Ōslāf rouse their comrades to vengeance by perform-
ing a plaintive song that begins with their wanderings at sea before their arrival in
Frisia. Girvan argues that the counterattack is mounted by Gūðlāf and Ōslāf without the
assistance of Henġest, whom he imagines to have been put to death by Finn for dis-
loyalty.
1150b. w®fre mōd. The expression is usually thought to refer to Gūðlāf and Ōslāf,
though Malone (1926: 169–70) applies it to the Danes supposedly visited at home by
the two, others to Finn (Aant., Cha., R. Williams 1924: 102, Brown PMLA 53 [1938]
913, Wn., with various interpretations of forhabban). Ayres JEGP 16 (1917) 293¯f.
would have it refer to Henġest.
1151b. roden. MS hroden is another example of trivialization, showing scribal
substitution of a familiar, expected term for an unusual one (see note on gūðrēċ 1118,
and cf. 495, 614, 623, 640, 1022, 1948, 2025). (Forms of rēodan occur just three times
elsewhere in OE.) The alliteration demands roden, which also furnishes more plausible
sense, though it lacks the savage irony inherent in the notion of a hall ‘adorned’ with
corpses (so v.Sch. Lit.bl. 57 [1936] 27¯f.). Cf. also MS hnægde 1318. See Appx.C §¯42.
1156. swylċe need not be emended to agree with inġesteald, as it may be regarded as
a second object of feredon (OES §¯2376).
1159–1250. Further entertainment, Wealhþēo taking a leading part.
1162. wīn. On the viticulture of the Anglo-Saxons, see E. Hyams The Grape Vine in
England (London, 1949), 35–9; Hagen 2006: 213–26. See also R.-L.2 33.398–406.
1163¯ff. The ¢rst set of hypermetric verses: see Intr. clx¯f. — 1163. gān under gyld-
num bēage. Frequently taken to indicate that Wealhþēo wears a crown or diadem, as is
possible if the poet had AS culture in mind. In Scandinavia, on the other hand, the
earliest known crowns come from the late 12th century in Norway and Denmark and
the early 13th in Sweden (KLNM 9.403). Late Iron Age grave ¢nds that archaeologists
once regarded as diadems have proved to be collars (note as well the absence of head
ornaments in the registration of grave goods in F. Svanberg Death Rituals in South-
East Scandinavia AD 800–1000 [Stockholm, 2003]). Archaeologists currently believe
that gold collars, such as the Öland collar seen in ¢g. 8, served a function similar to that
of a crown but are uncertain who wore them. See Holmqvist Guld halskragarna (1980)
99–100. — It is not clear whether the ring referred to here is the healsbēag mentioned
in 1195. Klaeber himself wondered, Damico 1984: 170 ¢nds it possible as well, but
Magoun (APS 20 [1949] 287) does not associate the two. He equates the healsbēag
with a stallahringr or altar ring on which the Germanic peoples swore oaths and which
thus served an extraornamental purpose. See also Fee NM 97 (1996) 287.
1164b¯f. Þā ġ©t wæs hiera sib ætgædere, etc. Perhaps a hint at Hrōðulf’s future
disloyalty, but see 1017–19 (n.).
1165b¯ff. Is Ūnferð’s presence mentioned here because he was regarded as Wealh-
þēo’s antagonist, who incited Hrōðulf to treachery (Olrik 1903–10: [1.63–4], Brodeur
1959: 153, the latter arguing that the narrator’s continued dislike for Ūnferð supports
this interpretation; see also Scherer 1893 [1869]: 482)? Or did the poet merely wish to
complete the picture of the scene in the hall?
192 BEOWULF
1166. æt fōtum sæt frēan Scyldinga. This seems more like a combination of two
normal verses than one hypermetric (Pope 150, Bliss §¯102, Suz. 363–4; cf. Siev.R.
467, A.M. §¯95.14). Stress is required on sæt (see Appx.C §¯6), but cf. Russom 1998:
133 n.¯80. The þyle evidently occupies a place of honor.
1167b¯f. þēah þe hē his māgum n®re / ārfæst, etc. Litotes; see 587¯f. But cf.
Lawrence MLN 25 (1910) 157, arguing that Ūnferð was not treacherous to his kin;
similarly Eliason Speculum 38 (1963) 273–5, with an implausible syntactic analysis.
1169¯ff. Most readers interpret Wealhþēo’s speech as sincere advice to Hrōðgār on a
matter of state, in accordance with the prescription of Max I 90–2 that a wife should
forman fulle tō frēan hond / ricene ġer®ċan, ond him r®d witan / boldāgendum b®m
ætsomne. (On the high regard in which women’s advice was held, see Crépin in King
& Stevens 1979: 51–2, Damico 1984: 21–3, F. Robinson The Editing of OE [Oxford,
1994] 124–7, Enright 1996: 6; A. Olsen 1997: 318.) The speech is, nonetheless, laden
with irony if, as many suppose, the poet alludes frequently to future treachery on the
part of Hrōðulf (see 1017–19¯n.). But there is hardly unanimity of opinion. Chance
(1986: 100), like many earlier readers, sees Wealhþēo’s concerns as primarily maternal
rather than political. Damico (123–30) argues that she is advocating that the throne
should pass to Hrōðulf. Davis 1996: 126–8 sees Wealhþēo in this speech as meddling
in state affairs, prematurely promoting her own children’s prospects. Horner 2001: 79–
80 argues that Wealhþēo undermines Hrōðgār’s authority by this speech, and that the
poem exempli¢es the societal limitations placed upon women of the later AS period.
J.M. Hill (1995: 97–104) supposes that Hrōðgār has actually offered the throne to
Bēowulf, so that the speech takes on greater urgency; cf. Biggs RES 53 (2002) 325. See
also Overing 1990: 88–101.
1169b. frēodrihten. The ¢rst constituent (also in 2627) is prob. poetic for frēa-, as in
796: see OEG §¯275.
1171b. spræc. See Lang. §¯2.1.
1172. The objection to rendering mildum as ‘kind’ (Bloom¢eld JEGP 93 [1994]
190–2 w. n.¯26) is unfounded: see Gloss. The primary sense is probably ‘benevolent,’
though the word also often renders ‘mansuetus’ and ‘mitis’ (see 3181¯n.). It is not to be
denied, however, that this passages emphasizes Wealhþēo’s diplomacy rather than any
maternal tenderness. See Klein 2006: 119–20 on Wealhþēo’s advocacy of mildness.
1172b. swā may be an adv. (Holt., Sed., Donoghue 1987: 88), as in 1534, 2166.
1174. nēan ond feorran [þā] þū nū hafast. The MS reading, without þā, is not a
very satisfactory construction: ‘You have (them, i.e. gifts) now from near and far’ (cf.
2869¯f.). Kock5 8o suggests that the unstated object ‘people’ may be supplied in trans-
lation, but Klaeber ¢nds this inadequate and agrees with Schü., Bu., Siev., and Holt.
that at least one line has likely dropped out before or after 1174. Most of the sur-
prisingly varied emendations proposed are not paleographically very plausible (see
Varr.), but for a scribe to have omitted þa before a similar word is a common sort of
error. (See OES §¯2311. For this reason þā is a better choice of relativizer than þē: given
the frequent confusion of a and u [Appx.C §¯8], þa þu may have looked to the scribe
like a dittograph. For the separation of rel. þā from its antecedent, cf. 704, 1428, 2257;
2022.) Some who decline to emend suppose that þū nū hafast may be a relative clause
even without an explicit relativizer (so Holt.2–3,8, Cha., v.Sch., Dob., Wn., Ni., Crp.),
but the evidence for such a construction is both limited and disputed (OES §§¯2304–
12). (Hoops also takes it for a relative clause, but he would have it refer to Ġēatas
1173.) There is in any case no parallel in this poem. Extraposition of nēan ond feorran
from the rel. clause is loosely paralleled in 74a, etc. (see 575b¯n.). Alternatively, the
phrase may depend directly on ġeofena rather than hafast (Holt.; cf. GenA 225). Plac-
ing [þā] before nēan would incur a breach of Kuhn’s ¢rst law (Appx.C §¯6).
1175. Mē man sæġde. The remark may seem surprising, since the queen did not
need to be told about the adoption of Bēowulf (946¯ff.), having been present at the
king's speech. Perhaps the expression is intended as a variety of the gefræġn formula,
 COMMENTARY 193
employed here for stylistic reasons (Kl. 1905–6: 244). Or does the queen, ever politic,
wish to deÏect any impression that she is questioning her husband’s judgment or
authority?
1177b¯f. brūc . . . maniġra mēdo, ‘make use of many rewards,’ i.e. ‘dispense many
gifts.’ Cf. mêdgeİo, Hel. (M) 1200.
1187. umbľrwesendum ®r. Metrically suspicious: see Appx.C §¯29; Kuhn BGdSL
63 (1939) 193.
1193b¯ff. wunden gold (distinguished from brād gold 3105, f®ted gold, f®tgold)
probably refers to earmrēade twā, the term hringas 1195a probably being another
variation of it (see Kl. 1905–6: 242¯f.), though some have seen hræġl ond hringas as
referring, by hendiadys, to a ringed coat of mail (Mackie 1939: 516, Schü.; cf. Hoops).
The hræġl is called brēostġew®du 1211. The great collar, healsbēaga m®st, is called
hrinġ 1202, bēag 1211. Speculations as to the signi¢cance of these gifts: Mizuno ES 80
(1999) 377–97.
1197–12o1. The allusion to Hāma and Eormenrīċ, though much discussed, is imper-
fectly understood. (See Jiriczek 1898, F. Panzer Deutsche Heldensage im Breisgau
[Heidelberg, 1904] 89–90, R. Boer Die Sagen von Ermanarich und Dietrich von Bern
[Halle, 1910], Brady 1943, G. Zink Les légendes héroiques de Dietrich et d’Ermanrich
dans les littératures germaniques [Lyon, 1950], Haymes & Samples 1996. See also
Müllenhoff ZfdA 12 [1865] 302¯ff., 30 [1886] 217¯ff.; Bugge 6o¯ff.; Cha.Wid. 15¯ff.,
48¯ff.; Wolfram R.-L.2 7.510–12). A more or less complete knowledge of these legends
among the Anglo-Saxons may be inferred from allusions and mention of names (Deor
21¯ff., Wid 7¯ff, 18, 88¯ff., 111¯ff.). (A reference to Hāma [Widia, Hrōðulf, etc.] dating
from the ME period was brought to light by Imelmann 1909: 999: see Intr. lv n.3. See
also Schröder ZfdA 41 [1897] 24–32.)
Ermanaric, the great and powerful king of the East Goths, who died by his own hand
(ca. A.D. 375) after the invasion of the Huns, became in heroic poetry the type for the
ferocious, covetous, and treacherous tyrant. (Thus Deor 23: grim cyning, 22: wylfenne
ġeþōht, Wid 9: wrāþes w®rlogan.) He has the beautiful Swanhild trampled to death by
horses, and his son (cf. Wid 124: Freoþerīċ?) hanged at the instigation of his evil coun-
selor, (ON) Bikki (Wid 115: Becca?); he slays his nephews, the (German) Harlunge
(Wid 112: Herelingas); and — in the singularly unhistorical fashion of the later tradition
— wars upon and oppresses Theodoric, king of the East Goths, the celebrated Dietrich
von Bern of German legend. The fame of his immense treasure is great (see, e.g., Saxo
viii 10,7, tr. 256), which in the MHG epic Dietrichs Flucht (ca. 1300), l.¯7857, is said to
include the Harlungs’ gold.
Hāma (MHG Heime), usually met with in the company of Widia (or Wudga, MHG
Witege), plays a somewhat complex part in the MHG epics of the Theodoric cycle as a
follower now of Theodoric (Dietrich) and then again of the latter’s enemy Ermanaric
(Ermenrich). Whether his character was originally conceived as that of a traitor or of an
exile, adventurer, and outlaw is debatable. (Cf. Wid 129: wræċċan þ®r wēoldan wund-
nan golde, . . . Wudga ond Hāma. See Cha.Wid. 52¯ff. Boer, op. cit. 195, surmises that
Hāma joined Theodoric in his exile.)
The wonderfully precious Brōsinga mene (cf. the archeological illustration of the
collar from Färjestaden, Öland, ¢g. 8) may well be the same as the ON Brísinga men,
which ¢gures as the necklace of Freyja in Þrymskviþa and elsewhere. Reading between
the lines of the Beowulf passage, we surmise that Hāma had robbed Eormenrīċ of the
famous collar. As Ermenrich had come into possession of the Harlungs’ gold (see
supra), it has been concluded that the Brísinga men originally belonged to the Harlung
brothers, whom (late) tradition localized in Breisach on the Rhine (‘castellum vocabulo
Brisahc,’ not far from Freiburg; see the quotation from Ekkehardi chronicon universale
[ca. A.D. 1100], W. Grimm Die deutsche Heldensage, 3rd ed. [Gütersloh, 1889] 42, F.
Panzer Deutsche Heldensage im Breisgau [Heidelberg, 1904] 86). In other words, the
Harlungs, OE Herelingas, are the Brísingar. (Bugge 72¯f. found a reminiscence of
194 BEOWULF
Hāma in the god Heimdallr, who recovers the Brísinga men. Cf. Damico SS 55 [1983]
226–8, Orchard 2003: 116.)
The closest parallel to the Beowulf allusion has been found in Þiðreks saga, com-
piled from Low German sources in Norway about 1250 (ed. Bertelsen 19o5–11; tr.
Haymes 1988; see Haymes & Samples 1996: 68–75, S. Kramarz-Bein Die Þiðreks saga
im Kontext der altnorwegischen Literatur [Tübingen, 2002]). The saga relates that
Heimir was forced to Ïee from Erminríkr’s wrath (ch. 288), and that later he entered a
monastery, bringing with him his armor and weapons as well as ten pounds in gold,
silver, and costly things (ch. 429). The latter feature may be a further step in the Chris-
tianization of the legend, which is possibly seen in its initial stage in Beowulf 1201.
There is no scholarly consensus regarding the aesthetic function of the Hāma and
Eormenrīċ allusion. Clearly, by setting the poem’s action against the background of a
more ancient legendary past, it serves to accent the Scyldings’ stunning wealth, the
queen’s great generosity, and the magnitude of the hero’s merits and accomplishments.
In addition, Kaske PMLA 74 (1959) 489–94 sees it as an expression of sapientia in that
Hāma wisely preserves both life and property; Stanley 1963: 146–7 argues that it con-
stitutes a warning against avarice; Hanning 1974: 94–5 that it is meant to emphasize
Bēowulf’s loyalty by contrasting it with Hāma’s treachery against Eormenrīċ. See also
Bonjour 1950: 23–4, Chck. 331–4, Damico SS 55 (1983) 222–35, Mizuno ES 80 (1999)
377–97.
1200. Neither ‘jewel’ nor ‘ornamental casket’ seems to be the proper rendering of
sinċfæt. It is more likely to signify ‘precious setting’: cf. Phoen 303. (Kl. 1907: 194;
see also Schü.Bd. 88; Coatsworth & Pinder 2002: 256.)
1200b–1a. searonīðas Ïēah / Eormenrīċes. Cf Hildebr. 18: Ïōh her Ōtachres nīd,
i.e., Hiltibrant ‘Ïed from the enmity of Odoacer’ (Cos. viii 569, Bu. 69–77). Some
would retain MS fealh (esp. Malone 1933b: 150; Hintz JEGP 33 [1934] 98–102: ‘in-
curred’; MR gloss.: ‘endured’), but fēolan, which actually means ‘enter, penetrate,’ is
elsewhere only intrans.
1201b. ġeċēas ēċne r®d. It has often been suggested that this means that Hāma
entered a monastery, as is told of Heimir in Þiðreks saga: see Bu. 70, Kl. 1911–12:
[34], Cha., Whitelock 1951: 56; Frank 1991: 104. Cf. 1759¯f., Ex 516; Kaske PMLA 74
(1959) 491 n.¯3. The phrase could also simply mean ‘he died’ (Malone 1933b, 1962:
151¯f.; cf. l.¯2469b), ‘he chose eternal [or long-lasting] bene¢ts’ (Wn.-B), or ‘he ob-
tained immense bene¢t’ (Damico SS 55 [1983] 229).
1202–14. Hyġelāc’s death in the Rhineland. The ¢rst of four allusions to the fateful
(and foolhardy) expedition in which the king lost his life; see Intr. lx. The other
references come at 2354b¯ff., where Bēowulf’s valor in the Frisian campaign is shown;
at 2426–2509, as part of a speech in which the aged hero recalls Hyġelāc’s death in the
context of dynastic history and speaks with pride of having served him; and at 2913b–
21, where Hyġelāc’s death in Frisia, together with his warfare against the Swedes, is
seen as a prelude to the renewed conÏict soon to face the Ġēatas. The role of this event
in the narrative texture of Beowulf is so signi¢cant as to have been called (by Brodeur
1960: 78–87) a leitmotif that takes the speci¢c form of ‘the interwoven harmony of
Hyġelāc’s death and Bēowulf’s love for him’ (79). See Lapidge 2001: 70–2.
1202. þone hrinġ hæfde Hiġelāc, etc. The apparent discrepancy between this state-
ment and a later passage, 2172¯ff., in which Bēowulf presents to Hyġd the necklace be-
stowed upon him by Wealhþēo, may be explained by the assumption that Hyġd gave
the necklace to her husband before he set out on his raid. But perhaps the poet simply
forgot his earlier account (1202¯ff.) when he came to tell of the presentation to Hyġd
(2172¯ff.). See Kl. JEGP 6 (1907) 194.
1204. siðþan would appear to mean ‘at the time when’ only here and in 2356, and
not in prose (OES §¯2674). Yet Cronan NOWELE 31–2 (1997) 60¯f. defends the mean-
ing ‘after,’ suggesting the ironic point is that Hyġelāc’s last moment of possession of
the neck ornament was at his death. See note to 1688¯f.
 COMMENTARY 195
1210¯f. Possibly Frankish possession of the healsbēah was brief, as MR believe the
hero retrieved it from Dæġhrefn (2503¯f.).
1212. wyrsan, ‘inferior,’ though not because foreign or hostile (so Kl. Gloss., Dob.,
et al.) but because of lesser social rank than the king whose corpse is here plundered.
Cf. LawCn 1020 10: þonne wille iċ . . . þæt hē hine . . . ūt of earde ādr®fe, s© hē betera
s© hē wyrsa; also Met 25.29; Gloss.: gōd (betera).
1213b–14a. Ġēata lēode / hrēawīċ hēoldon. Their bodies covered the battle¢eld: cf.
hlimbed healdan 3034; also Jud 321: hīe on swaðe reston; Ex 589¯f.: weriġend lāgon /
on dēaðstede. See Kl. 1926: 198–9. By an alternative interpretation, lēode is a variant
of wæl 1212 and hēoldon of rēafeden 1212: so E.Sc., Gru., E., Schü., Sed., Dob. That is,
hrēawīċ hēoldon is thus thought to mean ‘they (the Franks) had the victory.’ This ana-
lysis is defended by Kock5, who compares wælstōwe wealdan 2051, 2984; similarly
Malone ES 21 (1939) 116.
1214b. Cosijn’s brilliant emendation healsbēġe (=¯-bēage; cf. bēġ 3163, Lang. §¯8.5)
onfēng (or Sedge¢eld’s tentatively mentioned improvement, heals bēġe onfēng; so also
Andrew 1948: §¯173) ameliorates the sense and uni¢es the passage admirably. Yet the
MS reading, though abrupt and somewhat awkwardly expressed (‘the hall received the
sound,’ i.e., the sounds of conviviality were heard again) cannot be ruled out. Klaeber
and most edd. assume that swēġ signi¢es the applause that accompanies the bestowal
of the gifts. Cf. Holt. Lit.bl. 59 (1938) 165.
1219b–20, 1226b–7. The queen, anticipating trouble after Hrōðgar’s death, entreats
Bēowulf to act as protector of her sons, especially of Hrēðrīċ, the elder one and heir
presumptive. Damico (1984: 131), maintaining that Wealhþēo advises the king to leave
the throne not to Hrēðrīċ but to Hrōðulf, argues that sg. suna refers to the latter. Cf.
Varr. and Intr. liii.
1220b. ġeman, ‘I shall remember.’
1223. efne swā sīde. Type A3; cf. 1249a, 1283a.
1223b¯f. . . . swā s® bebūgeð, / windġeard, weallas. Probably windġeard is a variant
of s®; the object of bebūgeð is then weallas: cf. windiġe weallas 572, windiġe næssas
1358. A similar metaphorical usage in Old Icelandic is mentioned by Kock2 110. That
windġeard, weallas should be a case of asyndetic parataxis of variants like wudu
wælsceaftas (Kl. Beibl. 24 [1913] 290, a view recanted in Kl. 1926: 199; see l.¯398¯n.)
seems less likely: in such instances the compound is generally placed second. See also
Krackow Archiv 111 (1903) 171¯f. A triple compound windġeardweallas ‘coasts’ (Prok-
osch Kl.Misc. 200) is not impossible: cf. anwīġġearwe 1247, ġeōsceaftgāsta 1266, etc.
1225. æþeling, ēadiġ. Rather than treating the noun as a vocative, Cha. and Sed.
regard the phrase as a complement, omitting the comma.
1225b–6a. In the light of the preceding imperative clause, Kl. takes the general sense
of Iċ þē an tela / sincġestrēona to be ‘I shall rejoice in your prosperity.’ Others have
interpreted the clause as an allusion to the gifts just bestowed on Bēowulf, or to future
rewards (cf. 1220).
1231. druncne has been rendered ‘Ïushed with wine’ (Malone MLN¯41¯[1926] 466¯f.)
and ‘mellowed with their drinking’ or ‘having drunk’ (Dob., Wn., MR), though Kl.
regards the usage as attributive and Hoops as ironic. Shippey (1978: 9) and Magennis
NM 86 (1985) 159–64 (and id., AS Appetites [Dublin, 1999] 21–8) see no disapproval in
the word but nonetheless perceive a cultural divide between the poet and the poem’s
setting; Gould (N&Q 44 [1997] 443–50; similarly Hough Neophil. 88 [2004] 303–5)
argues that the rendering ‘drunken’ more forcefully confronts a cultural difference be-
tween AS and modern attitudes toward inebriation. Irving (1989: 40–1) argues instead
that here and elsewhere the poet blames the Danes for drunkenness (see also Fajardo-
Acosta ES 73 [1992] 205–10). Possibly Robinson (1985: 77–9) is right that the meaning
is ‘having drunk [the royal mead],’ implying a debt of loyalty (similarly 531: see n.);
but the dat.-instr. case of bēore 480, 531 and wīne 1467 makes it easier to understand
druncen in the more passive sense ‘intoxicated (by wine, etc.),’ and the description of
196 BEOWULF
Ūnferð in 1467 as having been wīne druncen is unmistakably derisory. Cf. Stanley
1998a: 93–5.
1231b. dōð swā iċ bidde. The early edd. regarded dōð as imperative; so also Hold.,
Soc., Wy., Schü., Bamm. NM 91 (1990) 207¯f. Cf. Kock5 246¯f., Kl. 1926: 199. Sievers’s
emendation dō, initially favored by Klaeber, would make this a command to Bēowulf
alone. (dō swā iċ bidde is a formula: cf. GenA 2227b, 2325b, 2467b, Hel. 1399b.) All the
12 edd. but Schü. regard dōð as indicative, however, and this probably explains what is
meant by eal ġearo 1230. See Damico 1984: 144–5; cf. Overing 1990: 99.
1235b¯ff. Some edd. (thus Schü., Sed.; see Schü.Sa. xxiv, 119) begin a fresh period at
syþðan and have it end with ræste 1237a; Wy., Cha., Ni. include in that sentence
1235b–8. Cf. 2103b–4, 1784b, 2124b, 2303b. Kock5 81 points out that a clause with initial
adv. syþðan is not elsewhere in the poem followed by one with initial ond, while conj.
syþðan is not so restricted.
1238. unrīm eorla, i.e. Danes. The Ġēatas are assigned other quarters: see 1300¯f.
1239. Benċþelu. The assigned meaning ‘Ïoor on which benches are placed’ (rather
than ‘benches’; cf. Finn 30: buruhðelu) depends in part on the meaning of beredon,
which, being a causative verb related to bær ‘bare,’ more likely means that the Danes
‘made bare’ the Ïoor than that they ‘cleared away’ (so DOE) the benches.
1240b. Bēorscealca sum. Possibly collective in sense, ‘many a one of the bēor-
drinkers’; cf. the plural verb in 1242. (See note on 795; Kock 219 n.¯3; Kl. 1905–6: 457;
cf. Lawrence JEGP 10 [1911] 638 [‘a certain one,’ i.e. Æschere]; Brady 1983: 217; also
Wn.) It is true, just one man is actually killed, but the fate was, so to speak, hanging
over them all. Such a use of sum is found elsewhere only in 713.
1247b. anwīġġearwe. The reading an wīġ ġearwe (an = on, as in 677, 1935) adopted
by Kl. (1905–6: 458; Angl. 63 [1939] 418) and most recent edd. is attractive, as it
makes good sense and is paralleled by on b®l ġearu 1109 (cf. also Gifts 90, GuthB
1175, El 222¯f.); so also Hoops 155. Yet this arrangement is objectionable, as it de-
mands that wīġ alliterate, while in all other instances in OE verse, when oft is the last
of a string of particles before a verse-¢nal verb, it bears stress and thus alliteration (cf.
444, 907, 1252, etc., and see 563b note). The reading anwīġġearwe (cf. GuthA 176b:
ondwīġes heard; also Ex 145 [?]; not *ānwīġ ‘single combat’: see Varr.) is favored by
Siev.¯R. 222, Pope 234, 329, and Kendall 1991: xv; on the other hand, Bliss §¯27 and
Suz. 512 retain the reading of Kl. Some have questioned the validity of the triple
compound as a lexical type (see Rie.¯Zs. 405; Kl. 1905–6: 458), but even Kl. resorts to
this analysis in regard to ġeōsceaftgāsta 1266; see also note on 2152b. It is true that adj.
ġearo does not commonly serve as the latter constituent of a true compound (see Kl.
BGdSL 72 [1950] 123¯f.; Appx.C §¯29), but cf. Instr 163: sīðġeare.
1248b. (ġē æt hām ġē on herġe,) ġē ġehwæþer þāra, ‘and each of them,’ i.e. ‘in
either case.’ The third ġē (‘and that’) is no more objectionable than the third nē in
WPol 2.1.1 83: nē æt hām nē on sīðe nē on ®niġre stōwe. (Kl. 1907: 194–5.) Cf. also
Beo 584.
1251–132o. Attack by Grendel’s mother. On her character, see Intr. lxxvii¯f.; on her
place in the poem’s structure, Intr. lxxx¯f. As a monstrous descendant of Cain, Gren-
del’s mother scarcely belongs to the category of the human, and so the surprise is less
when, in violation of AS gender norms, the female ¢gure attacks the (male-dominated)
mead hall, and the hero arms himself in order to seek her out and kill her. In folktales
of type 301, the second of the hero’s two terrible opponents is often of female sex (see
Intr. xxxvii¯ff.; she is sometimes the mother of the wounded troll or giant), so that this
narrative element may be an inherited one.
1251b. Sum sāre anġeald. Type B2: sum is unstressed, as in 2940, 3124. There is
grim humor in the remark.
1257b. lange þrāġe. The story does not bear out this remark. That the phrase may be
connected with wīdcūð 1256 (so Malone 1933b: 151) may be doubted. Andrew 1948:
§¯186 would emend æfter to īecte and have the phrase modify this, though emendation
 COMMENTARY 197
seems unnecessary. To solve the problem, Bamm. (N&Q 53 [2006] 398–401) suggests
that lāþum refers to Grendel’s father. Kl. EStn. 74.2 (1941) 221 explains his use of the
comma after lāþum as expressing the infelicity of the formula in this context.
1260¯f. sē þe, instead of sēo þe, is applied to Grendel’s mother, just as in 1497, like
hē, instead of hēo, in 1392, 1394. Relative sē (þe) also has a fem. antecedent in 1344
(hand), 1887 (yldo), 2421 (wyrd), 2685 (hond). That sē should refer to Grendel in this
instance (Holt.) is diÌcult to credit. Bamm. (see 1257¯n.) argues that the antecedent is
lāþum 1257a, after a substantial parenthesis. Andrew 1948: §¯67 would read þe for sē
(þe) in each instance, but see OES §¯2358. That the masc. pronoun here is not simply a
scribal error is also suggested by the poet’s description of Grendel’s mother as sinniġne
secg 1379 (cf. Rid 4.5: secg oðþe mēowle); cf. also mihtiġ mānscaða 1339, gryrelicne
grundhyrde 2136. Did the poet think of her as ¢rst and foremost a deadly warrior, a
category that is customarily gendered male? Or might sē be a dialectal variant? (See
Lang. §¯23 & n.¯3) — Cāin. Kiernan (1981: 183–4; see also D. Williams 1982: 34–6)
defends unmetrical MS camp, taking siþðan camp wearð to mean ‘when strife arose’
and hē (1263) to refer to Grendel’s mother. On the descent of Grendel’s race from
Cain, see note on 106¯ff.
1270¯ff. Bēowulf’s trust in God here sounds decidedly Christian, and thus it reÏects
on the question whether the characters in the poem are to be conceived as Christians or
as pagans (some of whom may have an intuitive knowledge of some points of Christian
belief): see Intr. lxix n.¯1 and notes on 175–88, 1657b–8; cf. Russom (in press).
1280b–1a. edhwyrft, ‘return,’ may refer to a return to the state of affairs under Gren-
del’s reign of terror, or to a change of fortune (so Gr.Spr., Cl.Hall; cf. Max I 42), and so
emendation of sōna (see Varr.) is unnecessary.
1282b¯ff. If the gryre that she inspires is less, the danger that Grendel’s mother pre-
sents is nonetheless greater, for the ¢ght with her is more diÌcult for Bēowulf than the
¢ght with Grendel. See Puhvel 1979: 14–23; Bamm. N&Q 53 (2006) 400 n.¯11; Acker
PMLA 121 (2006) 705.
1284. wīġgryre wīfes. Perhaps used in a collective sense (see 795¯n.) as appos. to
mæġþa cræft, but more likely appos. to gryre 1282, wīfes referring to Grendel’s mother
(O’Donnell NM 92 [1991] 434). On the syntax of this sentence, see Gehse 1938: 35;
OES §¯3256.
1285b. ġeþrūen. The majority of recent edd. retain MS geþuren (see Varr.), yet this
creates metrical and semantic problems. It is true that the metrical type, though quite
rare, is not unparalleled in the poem (see Appx.C §¯27), but as ġeþuren produces the
same metrical anomaly in Rid 91.1, as well as in Met 20.134 (where MS ge þruen is
altered by the scribe), the coincidence suggests that ġeþuren is a scribal substitution
here. Moreover, ġeþuren is of itself suspect, both because the passive participle of ġe-
þweran in prose is ġeþworen and because the verb always means ‘churn,’ while
ġeþuren elsewhere in verse means ‘forged, made’ (Siev. 1884a: 282, 294). The best
solution remains Grein’s, assuming the MS form at Met 20.134 was correct before it
was altered, and reconstructing a reduplicating verb *þrūan with an origin like that of
būan (SB §§¯390 n.¯2, 396 n.¯8; OEG §¯745[g]), probably from the same root as þr©ð; cf.
also ðr©n ‘press, bind, repress.’ See Flasdieck Angl. 60 (1936) 345, Smithers 1951–2:
74¯n.
1287b. andweard goes with swīn.
1290b¯f. helm ne ġemunde, etc. An inde¢nite subject, ‘any one,’ ‘the one in ques-
tion,’ is to be understood (cf. Isaacs JEGP 62 [1963] 123–5; see MCharm 2.25¯f., Lang.
§¯26.4), and thus emendation of þā (see Varr.) is uncalled for. (Pogatscher Angl. 23
[1900] 296¯f.) Bamm. 2006: 32–4 instead takes Hrōðgār’s man to be the understood
subject of ġemunde. anġeat is probably a thoughtless substitution for beġeat (see
Gloss., and cf. Elder N&Q 49 [2002] 315¯f.; Lang. §¯6).
1294. æþelinga ānne. First named Æschere in 1323. See Biggs Neophil. 87 (2003)
635–52.
198 BEOWULF
1302b–3a. under heolfre . . . folme, ‘the hand covered with blood’ (blōdġe beadu-
folme 990). Cf. note on 122¯f.; Aant. [14], Hoops 159. Anderson Neophil. 67 (1983)
126–30 (similarly Bamm. Neophil. 89 [2005] 625–7) argues that the hand is not
Grendel’s but Æschere’s (cf. 1343b), taken in exchange for Grendel’s; cf. note to 1343¯f.
1303b–4a. The addition of ġeworden emphasizes the point that a change has taken
place (cearu wæs ġenīwod). Alternatively, Visser would treat wæs ġenīwod ġeworden
as a single verb phrase: see note to 991¯f.
1304b–6a. frēonda fēorum refers primarily to Grendel and Æschere; the two parties
involved (cf. on bā healfa) are the Grendel race and the Danes with their guests.
1306b–9. Þā wæs . . . cyning . . . on hrēon mōde, / syðþan, etc. On the stylistic
features of this passage, see Intr. xcv. Cf. the Old Saxon Gen. 84¯f.: Thes uuarđ Âdamas
hugi . . . an sorogun, thuo hê uuissa is sunu dôdan.
1312. eorla sum. Probably not ‘the notable warrior’ (Wn.; Robinson ES 49 [1968]
510¯f.; OES §¯401): see 314.
1314. alwalda. Defense of MS alf walda (construed as ‘elf ruler’) as referring to God
(Taylor & Salus Neophil. 66 [1982] 440–2) or Bēowulf (Tripp ibid. 70 [1986] 630–2)
or Freyr (Taylor 2000: 99–101) or the devil (A. Hall [?] in Elves in AS England [Wood-
bridge, 2007] 69–70 n.¯77) demands of the poet uncharacteristic diction and of Hrōðgār
uncharacteristic religious sentiments. — wille. Deskis (1996: 47 n.¯29) explains the
change of tense as a sign of gnomic expression; cf. Lang. §¯26.6.
1317. handscale. The unique scalu possibly owes its existence to a scribal blunder.
Cf. hondscole 1963. On the interchange of a and o, see Kluge ZvS 26 (1883) 101¯n.,
Pogatscher AfdA 25 (1899) 14. — healwudu dynede. The hall (Structure C12) exca-
vated at Cowdery’s Down, Hants, seems to have had a raised wooden Ïoor that would
have resounded when trodden upon: see Millet & James Archaeological Jnl. 140 (1983)
215–17, 233–46. This feature would have been exceptional, whether in AS England or
Iron Age Denmark, for ordinary buildings had Ïoors of compacted earth.
1320. nēodlaðu[m]. The meaning is debated (see Gloss.), but -laðu is unlikely to
signify ‘summons’ or ‘invitation’: wordlaðu (ChristB 664, And 635) seems to mean
‘eloquence’; hence -laðu more likely means something like ‘that which is conducive/
agreeable to’ (as with frēondlaþu 1192); cf. Go. laþaleikō ‘gladly, willingly.’ On both
the meaning and the need for the emendation, see SN 77 (2005) 149–50. As to the
courtliness of the question the hero poses, cf. Lauerd, hu hauest þu iuaren toniht?
(Laµamon 13980).
1321–98. Conversation between Hrōðgār and Bēowulf.
1322¯ff. To these lines Kl. 1926: 200 compares Aeneid vi 867¯ff., though the parallel
is less than precise.
1323b. dēad is Æschere. Perhaps type D*, but see Appx.C §¯31. Child (MLN 21
[1906] 199) suggested the possibility of an original Scand. half-line dauðr es Askar(r).
(?) A notable stylistic parallel is Hildebr. 42a: tōt ist Hiltibrant.
1325. rūnwita ond . . . r®dbora. It is of interest that each of the named retainers at
Hrōðgār’s court is assigned a special oÌce. Æschere’s role as ‘privy counselor’ is de-
¢ned here; Wulfgār is the king’s ār ond ombiht (336a); Ūnferð his þyle; Healgamen,
apparently, his scop (see 1066–70¯n.).
1327b¯f. In the view of Cosijn (Aant.) and Holt., þonne hniton fēþan may be re-
garded as parenthetical and wē thus understood as the subject of cnysedan. Most take
fēþan to be the subject.
1328b–9. Swy(lċ) scolde eorl wesan, etc. It is ambiguous whether the expression
means that a man should be as Æschere was or that Æschere was everything a man
ought to be: see Shippey 1977: 41. On Hrōðgār’s lament for Æschere, see Hill Haskins
Soc. Jnl. 12 (2002) 71–82. Biggs (Neophil. 87 [2003] 635–52) compares Bēowulf’s
apparent unconcern for Hondscīoh (see note on 378¯f.).
1331b. iċ ne wāt hwæder (atol ®se wlanc eftsīðas tēah). It might be urged, in de-
fense of the literal interpretation ‘I know not whither,’ that Hrōðgār did not know the
 COMMENTARY 199
lair of Grendel’s mother quite accurately (cf. 1357–64). Yet the phrase is suggestive of
formula-like expressions, and a statement of this kind is not altogether unsuited, since
the allusion is to the ‘uncanny’ residence of the mysterious ellorg®stas; cf. 162¯f. (Kl.
1905–6: 246; cf. Mö. 136, t.Br. 96, Heinzel AfdA 15 [1889] 173, 19o, who prefer the
reading hwæþer ‘which one of the two’; on the other hand, see, e.g., Bu. 93, Aant.:
‘whither.’) The supposition that Hrōðgār does not know whether Grendel’s mother was
yet fylle ġefæġnod 1333 (as read by Kl.1–3) when she eftsīðas tēah, or whether she
returned there at all (see Eliason 1953: 453; Green¢eld 1976: 170¯f.; Romano Neophil.
66 [1982] 609–13; Ja.; MR), and thus that MS hwæþer ought to be retained, raises some
improbabilities: conj. hwæþer is never stressed in verse (at GenA 2231 it belongs in the
off-verse), and although a sj. verb is apparently not an absolute requirement after
hwæþer (cf. wæs 1356), the indic. is most unusual (OES §¯1872, and cf. all of Romano’s
examples of hwæþer-clauses). Even very conservative v.Sch. and Ni. emend.
1333. ġefrēcnod. Nearly all recent edd. (incl. Kl.) adopt Kemble’s emendation of
MS gefrægnod to ġefæġnod ‘made glad’ (cf. 562, 1014). This is excessively improb-
able, since fæġnian ‘rejoice’ is elsewhere intransitive, as pointed out by Bamm. (1986b:
194), who also observes that since fæġnian is an exclusively WS word (Wenisch in
Bamm. 1985: 393–426), emending to such a form when there is so much evidence for
Anglian origins for the poem is diÌcult to justify. (See Lang. §¯29.) A verb ġefr®ġnian
(see Varr., and cf. ġefr®ġe ‘famous’) is unattested and gives inferior sense. Bamm.
would identify the word in the MS with (chieÏy Northumbr.) ġefræġnian ‘ask,’ as-
sumed to have replaced the poet’s own strong verb form ġefreġen or ġefriġen (195),
though the metrical form would then be unusual (see Appx.C §¯27). A case might be
made for a weak verb ġefræġnian older than the tenth century (so SB §¯398 n.3, but cf.
Vleeskruyer 1953: 146 and OEG §¯327), yet even if the probability could be estab-
lished, the syntax would remain intractable, since fræġnian is not known to take a
direct object other than a clause. The emendation adopted here is that of the DOE,
following Gru.; see also Stanley NM 72 (1971) 405.
1340–3a. feor, i.e. (going) far (in accomplishing her purpose). The phrase f®hðe
st®lan (cf. GenA 1351¯f.) in all probability denotes ‘avenge hostility,’ ‘retaliate’ (in the
prosecution of a feud): see Kock 229–33. There appears to be no warrant for the
meaning ‘institute,’ ‘carry on’ attributed to st®lan (thus, e.g., Aant.). — hreþerbealo
hearde is here regarded as acc., parallel to f®hðe (so Schü., Sed.2–3, v.Sch., Dob.,
Frank 2003: 250 n.¯5), though Kl. objects that this analysis produces too heavy an inter-
ruption between 1340 and 1343. (It is certainly not dat. [cf. 2826], as seems to be as-
sumed by some, e.g. Ni., Green¢eld 1976, the latter arguing that sinċġyfan is a self-
reference; cf. the DOE s.v. æfter II.B.2.). Kl. (so also Hoops 162, Ja., MR) treats the
verse as an anacoluthon and compares 936, 2035; yet these parallels are probably not
to be analyzed this way (see the notes on these). The remaining parallels to such dis-
continuous syntax are few (see OES §¯3841¯ff.). Also the construction of grēoteþ with
hreþerbealo hearde as object (parallel to æfter sinċġyfan) is questionable, though it is
claimed to be the correct one by Kock5 82 (cf. Notat.Norr. §¯1099), who furnishes no
close OE parallel to transitive grēotan (‘deplore’?) with an object like this one. Cham-
bers sees it as nom. with þinċean mæġ: ‘as it may seem heavy heart-woe to many a
thegn.’ Improbably enough, Holt. supposes that -ġyfan may be dat. sg. of -ġyfu (cf.
And 1509). On Æschere’s role as sinċġyfa, see Hill Haskins Soc. Jnl. 12 (2002) 74¯f.
1343b¯f. nū sēo hand liġeð, / sē þe ēow wēlhwylcra wilna dohte, ‘that which was
good (liberal) to you as regards all things desirable’: sē þe, instead of sēo þe, might be
justi¢ed as referring to the man, i.e. as a parallel rather than an appositive. Cf. 2684¯f.;
see also 126o¯n. (Nader Angl. 11 [1889] 471; OES §¯2178; cf. Andrew 1948: §¯67.) Whit-
bread RES o.s. 25 (1949) 339–42 speculates that Hrōðgār has Æschere’s hand before
him, left in exchange for Grendel’s.
1345–6. Iċ þæt . . . secgan h©rde. Hrōðgār again expresses his lack of ¢rm know-
ledge about the creature and her whereabouts or abode. This may help to explain why,
200 BEOWULF
previously, he had told the hero nothing about her, and why her attack had taken him
by surprise.
1349b. Юra may be rel.; also þone 1354: RES 31 (1980) 404.
1351b. ōðer earmsceapen. Type C3: G G K | P G, as required by Krackow’s and
Kaluza’s laws (Appx.C §¯39, also 31; Intr. clx; cf. v.Sch. Lit.bl. 57 [1936] 27). ōðer is
otherwise always stressed in the poem, but cf. GenA 2617, 2619, GuthA 127, Max I 102,
MSol 369, 453, etc. See Kl. Angl. 63 (1939) 418¯f.
1355b–7a. nō hīe fæder cunnon, ‘they have no knowledge of a father.’ The meaning
of hwæþer him ®niġ wæs ®r ācenned / dyrnra gāsta is most likely ‘whether any
mysterious creatures had been engendered before him,’ i.e. whether Grendel had any
elder siblings (a worrisome prospect): postposed ®r governs him, which is prob. sg.
(v.Sch.) rather than pl. (Kl., following the rendering of Earle 1892: ‘whether they had
any in pedigree before them of mysterious goblins’). Eliason 1953: 451–2 would have
him refer to the unknown father (w. ®r as adv., as Kl. analyzes it), with similar import,
though it is dubitable whether agency can be expressed by the dative alone, without a
preposition (OES §§¯1371¯ff.). MR analyze ®niġ as referring to the father (similarly
Stanley 2001: 81) and dyrnra gāsta as agentive, or indicating source. See also Pilch
Lang. & Style 3 (1970) 54.
1357b¯ff. Description of Grendel’s abode. Grendel’s mere, mentioned here and in
837–56 and 1408–41, has attracted a good deal of commentary, chieÏy regarding
sources and analogues for it and regarding its symbolic value. In corresponding folk-
tales, the hero and his companions must seek out one or more terrifying adversaries in a
remote or wild locale (Intr. xxxvii¯ff; Appx.A §¯20), though there is great variety as
regards just what kind of place this is. The corresponding scene in Grettis saga ch. 66
(Intr. xxxix, cf. xxxviii n.¯4) has offered one of the most appealing parallels: sheer cliffs
over which tumbles a waterfall with a cave behind it (see 1359–61¯n.). Grendel’s pool,
however, is situated in a dreary fen-district (mōras, fen ond fæsten 1o3¯f. [n.], etc.), a
more English landscape, and a localization that Lawrence (PMLA 27 [1912] 229–30)
connects with Grendel’s descent from the exiled kin of Cain; cf. 1265. Some have seen
the lake in Aeneid vi 131¯f., 237–42, as well as the landscape at Aen. xi 524¯f., as ana-
logues.1 Perhaps the most striking analogue, however, is found in the homiletic tradi-
tion. Conceptions of the Christian hell have manifestly entered the picture as drawn by
the poet. The moors and wastes, mists and darkness, the cliffs, the bottomless deep (cf.
1366¯f.), the loathsome wyrmas 1430, can all be traced in early accounts of hell, in-
cluding AS religious literature. (See also notes on 1365¯f., 850–2.) Especially close is
the relation between this Beowul¢an scenery and that described in the last portion of
Blickling hom. xvi (LS 25; Appx.A §¯6), which is based on a Visio S. Pauli. A matter of
debate is whether the poem inÏuenced the homily (see Brown PMLA 53 [1938] 905–
16, Brunner Études Anglaises 7 [1954] 3–4, Niles 1983: 17–9), the homily the poem
(see Collins 1983: 61–9), or whether the two depend on a single source, or two closely
related ones (see Malone 1958, Tristram NM 79 [1978] 102–13, C.D. Wright 1993:
120–4, Clemoes 1995: 25). See Intr. clxxviii. A recurrent matter of debate is whether
the mere is presented as an inland pool, the sea, or a body of water connected with the
sea (see, e.g., Malone ES 14 [1932] 191¯f., Mackie JEGP 37 [1938] 455–61, Butts ES 68
[1987] 113–21; note on 845b; see also notes on 1359–61, 1428¯f.) Such disputes are dif-
¢cult to resolve, given the poet’s interest in the mood evoked by the eerie landscape
rather than in crisp naturalistic detail.
The possible symbolic import of the mere has precipitated considerable discussion.
Though presented as a real place located not far from Heorot, it is clearly also

1
See T. Haber A Comparative Study of the Beowulf and the Aeneid (Princeton, 1931) 92–6,
Renoir in The Learned and the Lewed, ed. L. Benson (Cambridge, MA, 1974) 147–60, T.M.
Andersson Early Epic Scenery (Ithaca, 1976) 145–59, Magennis 1996: 133–8, North 2007: 91–2;
see also 1368–72¯n.
 COMMENTARY 201
associated with the Christian hell: see, e.g., Malone 1958: 298 and A. Lee Guest-Hall
of Eden [New Haven, 1972] 207–9; also Magennis 1996: 133–5 and Neville 1999: 60
n.¯27, who offer ¢ne summaries. Anlezark 2006: 315–23, citing parallels not just to the
Blickling homily but also to MSol and Sat, concludes that the mere is not just associ-
ated with hell, ‘it may be imagined as an entrance to it’ (322–3). Additional religious
associations have been suggested, e.g., the garden of evil associated with the Fall in
scripture (Robertson 1951), post-lapsarian nature that is hostile to humans (Huppé in
Approaches to Nature in the Middle Ages, ed. G. Economou [Binghamton, 1982] 9–
12), and an analogue to the Red Sea (Wieland 1988). Those pursuing other parallels
have described it in terms of an inverted locus amœnus (Magennis 1996: 138–43) or a
sacred pagan and thus evil grove from the classical tradition (Schrader Florilegium 5
[1983] 76–84). At a greater level of mythic abstraction, the mere has been identi¢ed
with the primeval chaos of an ancient Eurasian combat myth (J. Fontenrose Python
[Berkeley, 1959] 525–7), the evil potential in all humans (Calder SP 69 [1972] 34), the
unconscious (Vaught Allegorica 5 [1980] 134, Nagler in Niles 1980: 155–6, Pollock
OEN 13.2 [1980] 26), the reader’s mind (Butts ES 68 [1987] 113–21), and a locus of
shamanic descent into a hostile dream-world (Glosecki 1989: 162–74).1
1359b–61a. ð®r fyrġenstrēam / under næssa ġenipu niþer ġewīteð, / Ïōd under
foldan. Lawrence PMLA 27 (1912) 212 argues that fyrġenstrēam signi¢es a waterfall
under which the hero later dives (1494¯ff.), as in Grettis saga, and that næssa ġenipu
may be ‘the ¢ne spray thrown out by the fall in its descent, and blown about over the
windy nesses.’ But næssa ġenipu may as well denote the shadow of cliffs with over-
hanging trees darkening the water, while foldan may also refer to the rocky ground or
to cliffs. See Gloss.: under, I, 2. (Cf. Lawrence 213.) Though it is still occasionally
maintained (see, e.g., Robinson 1991: 145), the meaning ‘waterfall’ (which is, to be
sure, tempting) has been objected to strenuously (see Mackie JEGP 37 [1938] 457,
Fjalldal 1998: 68–70), not least of all because the hero, upon returning, dives up
through the water (1619). The word fyrġenstrēam means nothing like this elsewhere;
the usual meaning ‘ocean’ has been thought to apply here: see Russom 2007: 228–9. R.
Derolez (in Album Prof. Dr. Frank Baur, I [Antwerp, 1948] 182–91) envisages a stag-
nant pool, in accordance with Lawrence’s idea that f©r on Ïōda 1366 refers to will-o’-
the-wisp; but cf. Max II 48: Ïōwan ¢rġenstrēamas. See also notes on 845b, 1357¯ff.
1363. hrinde (bearwas). The descriptor is suitable symbolically, or as a wonder; cf.
hrīmiġe bearwas (of the Northern region) and on ð®m īsġean bearwum in Blickl. hom.
xvi. (See Appx.A §¯6.) It is not to be imagined that Bēowulf sailed for Denmark in
winter (see 1130¯ff.). An exegetical approach to the word is ventured by Robertson
1951: 33.
1365–6a. Þ®r mæġ nihta ġehw®m nīðwundor sēon, / f©r on Ïōde. The burning
lake or river, it should be noted, is a common feature of European and Asian descrip-
tions of hell. See E. Becker The Medieval Visions of Heaven and Hell (Johns Hopkins
diss., 1899) 37; cf. Kl. 1911–12: [62–3], and see 1516 (n.). It may be assumed either that
sēon, as so often with OE in¢nitives, is best translated in the passive voice (see note to
386¯f.; Bamm. 2006: 26; cf. OES §§¯3762¯ff.) or that a subject should be supplied (see
Varr.), just as in 1367b. (See Lang. §¯25.4.)
1366b–7. þæs frōd . . . þæt, ‘so wise . . . that’; the subjects [one] and [he] must be
supplied. Cf. OES §¯2878, MR.
1368–72. Kl. Archiv 126 (1911) 341¯f. compares Aeneid vi 239¯ff. Rigg remarks an
early 13th-century analogue to the motif of the reluctant hart (N&Q 29 [1982] 101¯f.).
Higley sees the hart as emblematic of Heorot and the uncourageous Danes (NM 87

1
See also Hulbert Kl.Misc. 189–95, Brodeur 1959: 88–106, Storms in Green¢eld 1963: 171–86,
Evans SN 40 (1968) 148–54, Frank 1986, Higley NM 87 (1986) 342–53, Pigg Neophil. 74 (1990)
601–7, T.M. Andersson 1997: 130–1, Orchard 1995: 37–47, 2003: 155–8, Siewers Viator 34 [2003]
1–39, Osborn in Myth in Early Northwest Europe, ed. S. Glosecki (Tempe, 2007) 197–224.
202 BEOWULF
[1986] 342–53). For an exegetical approach to sources, see Faraci Romanobarbarica 14
(1998) 375–420. — ®r . . . ®r, ‘rather . . . than’ (adv. + conj.: see Gloss.; Stanley N&Q
39 [1992] 11–13).
1374b¯f. þonne wind styreþ / lāð ġewidru. Kock4 118 takes lāð ġewidru for a variant
of wind, placing a comma after styreþ (intrans.). Cf. Kl. 1926: 201–2; Hoops 165.
1377. eft æt þē ānum. Siev. type A1, with stress on eft and ānum. See Appx.C §¯6.
1377b. Eard ġīt ne const. Need this imply that Bēowulf was not at the mere the
preceding day? See Eliason 1953: 452–3.
1379. sinniġne secg. The MS reading fela sinnigne, though treated by some as a
compound, is unmetrical and incompatible with regular alliterative practice (see Siev.
A.M. §¯23.2), and thus emendation is justi¢ed. Klaeber (Su. 456; cf. Malone MLR 25
[1930] 191, Hoops) notes that compounds in fela- always alliterate on f (and, it may be
added, they always participate in alliteration, in accordance with Krackow’s law: see
Appx.C §¯39). Dobbie’s objection that scribal omissions are likelier than insertions is
now countered by the evidence for scribal recomposition of poetic texts (see O’Brien
O’Keeffe 1990, Moffat Speculum 67 [1992] 805–27). A scribe who mistook 1378b and
1379a for a verse pair might well have inserted fela in a misguided attempt to furnish
proper alliteration. Cf. Lehmann NM 72 (1971) 38¯f.
1382. wundnan. The four ¢nal minims of MS wundini (read by some as -mi) have
been interpreted by many to represent an archaic (or archaizing) dative singular that
has then been used to date the poem early (or late: Rose Peritia 11 [1997] 171–87).
Even Kl.3 (Su. 467, 470, Archiv 188 [1951] 109; also Willard JEGP 53 [1954] 618¯f.,
Timmer RES 5 [1954] 276) ¢nally opted for this reading, perhaps out of reverence for
Grimm (see Varr.). But the form is problematic (see Sisam 1953: 36 n.¯1, Kiernan 1981:
31–7, Bamm. Angl. 108 [1990] 314–26), and more recently the reading wundnū (i.e.
wundnum) has been favored, assuming an omitted tittle and misanalysis of the minims.
Yet this, too, would be unusual, since -um, a dat. ending, is used just once in the poem
with the instr. sg. (2168, cf. 2290), the ending usually being -an or -on (14×, Pope 1981:
190). Thus -ini (for -nū) may be analyzed as another instance of scribal confusion,
somewhere in the course of transmission, of u and a (i.e. wundnā; see Appx.C §¯8). The
verse wundnan golde is exactly paralleled at Wid 129. See Fu.1.
1384b¯f. Sēlre bið ®ġhw®m / þæt hē his frēond wrece þonne hē fela murne. The
hero’s forthright invocation of the ideal of vengeance might seem to put him on a
moral par with Grendel’s mother, who was prompt in exacting revenge for the death of
her son (see Intr. lxxvi¯f. on the hero’s possible moral failings, and Intr. cxxix on skep-
tical modern attitudes toward the ethic of the feud). And yet the context speaks of ¢ner
motives on his part. Hrōðgār, while directly entreating Bēowulf’s assistance, takes care
to depict the terrors of the monsters’ lair and raises the prospect that the hero might not
survive (1382b). Both courage and selÏessness are thus evident in his unhesitating re-
sponse, which is posed ¢rst of all in the mode of gnomic wisdom: namely, that it is
better to redress one’s wrongs (wrecan) than to remain passively dejected (¯fela mur-
nan). Also, not to be forgotten, from the audience’s superior vantage point, is the
cosmic feud that sets God and God’s champions against satanic malice (Intr. lxx¯ff.).
1386¯ff. A Virgilian parallel (Aeneid x 467¯ff.; cf. also vi 95) has been cited (Kl.
Archiv 126 [1911] 43; Cha.Intr. 330). Of course, a hero’s striving for fame would seem
to be in no need of explanation or comment. Numerous examples in early literature of
similar declarations on the theme of death and fame are discussed by Deskis 1996: 96–
7, 125–6.
1387b–8a. wyrċe sē þe mōte / dōmes ®r dēaþe. Mitchell (1993: 147–8) rightly ob-
serves that the clause is more likely independent and jussive than dependent (on the
preceding) and ‘concessive-equivalent,’ though it is not plain why the latter view
should be ascribed to Kl.
1392b¯ff. nō hē on helm losaþ, etc. Biblical and Virgilian parallels have been sug-
gested, viz. Ps. 68: 22; 139: 7¯ff.; Amos 9: 2¯f.; Aeneid xii 889¯ff., x 675¯ff. (Notes of
 COMMENTARY 203
Earle 1892 and Holt.; Kl. Archiv 126 [1907] 344¯f.) Cf. Otfrid i 5.53¯ff. — The ¢gure of
polysyndeton suggested to Klaeber Latin inÏuence (ibid. 358).
1392. Bammesberger (N&Q 47 [2000] 403–5) would have hē refer to gang 1391.
See 1260 (n.). Taylor NM 86 (1985) 62–9 argues that the hero has misunderstood Hrōð-
gār and believes Grendel may still be alive; Megginson ANQ 7 (1994) 6–13 replies,
arguing that hē here is a phonological variant of hēo.
1395. Щs. Von Schaubert and Nickel read Ðys (acc. of extent? cf. 1797, and see
OES §§¯1387¯f.). See Lang. §¯21.4 and refs. in 1797 Varr.
1399–1491. Preparations for the second combat. 1492–159o. The ¢ght with
Grendel's mother. 1591–165o. Triumphal return to Heorot.
1399b. ġeb®ted. Equestrian trappings (including bits and bridles) ornamented in a
typically Germanic fashion have been recovered in some numbers from Denmark’s
bogs and, more rarely, from Britain. See Engelhardt 1866: 59–62 (w. associated plates);
Koch R.-L.2 23.35–50; Illus.B 126; and cf. Carver 1998: 113 & color plate 5b.
1404b. [þ®r] ġeġnum fōr. The subject may be supplied indirectly from lāstas 1402,
gang 1404a (nouns used with reference to Grendel’s mother). Whitman ELN 15.3
(1978) 161–3 remarks a tendency for an initial conjunction to be followed by an un-
stressed syllable, but the rule is Ïexible.
1407b. eahtode. Though Thorpe’s suggested emendation to ealgode ‘defended’ has
not been widely adopted, it is certainly true that none of the recorded senses of eahtian
suits the present context.
14o8b. bearn has been taken by many obserevers (including Cony., Tho., Holt.,
Schü., Kl.) to be plural (with the same referent as gumfēþa 1401), as in 3170, pre-
sumably because of the plural æþelinga. This requires assumption of a lack of con-
gruence with the singular verb, as in 904¯f. (MS lemede). See Kl. 1905–6: 259¯f., 1926:
202; Hoops 169; Woolf MLQ 4 (1943) 49¯f.; Ni. (n.); Ja.; but cf. OES §¯19. Yet hē 1412,
if it refers to Hrōðgār, seems rather a more mysterious pronoun reference than usual
(compare hē 748) if bearn is not singular, linking hē to the earlier reference to the king
in 1399¯ff. (and only obliquely in 1407). The reference of hē would be even more
puzzling if Bēowulf is intended (so Cha. [?], Kee MLN 75 [1960] 385–9, MR). See
Lawrence JEGP 23 (1924) 298; Cha. 167; Sed.3; Brodeur 1959: 164–5; cf. Andrew
1948: §§¯55, 66.
1409b¯f. stīġe nearwe, / enġe ānpaðas, uncūð ġelād. Cf. Ex 58: enġe ānpaðas,
uncūð ġelād. The correspondence between the Beowul¢an passage and Aeneid xi
524¯f., tenuis quo semita ducit, / angustaeque ferunt fauces aditusque maligni, was
pointed out by Imelmann 1920: 419. Cf. Schü.Bd. 38¯ff., Kl.Misc. 213–16; Kl. MLN 33
(1918) 219, id. 1926: 202–3, id. Archiv 187 (1950) 71–2.
1413b. wong scēawian. Probably ‘to scout out the land,’ but perhaps ‘to look out for
the place’ (Mackie 1939: 522): cf. 204, GenA 2595.
¯1415. hārne stān. Cooke MÆ 72 (2003) 298¯f. would identify this as a boundary
marker. Interestingly, the same phrase occurs in Blickling hom. xvi with ref. to hell
mouth (Appx.A §6).
1418. winum Scyldinga. wine, a frequent term for a lord, is applied to retainers here
and in 2567. Similarly, MHG goltwine is sometimes used of vassals, and in Old French
the retainer is often called the amis of his lord. See Kl. 1907: 195; Stowell PMLA 28
(1913) 39o–9; Kock2 111¯f. (See also Saxo ii 7,4, Appx.A §¯10.)
1421b. hafelan mētton. On the artfulness of delaying the gruesome discovery until
the end of the period, see Intr. xcv.
1422b. folc tō s®gon. Type D1, like 1650b; cf. 1654b, 2796b.
1423b¯f. Horn stundum song / fūsliċ (fyrd)lēoð. Possibly a signal for the company
to gather or to stop (so Kl., Kee MLN 75 [1960] 388). Braswell NM 74 (1973) 466–72
takes it for a hunting maneuver, rousing the s®dracan; but ġesæt seems odd at the start
of a hunt, and ġeseah (from which the scribe corrected ġesæt) is hard to credit directly
before ġesāwon. Stern EStn. 68.2 (1933) 172¯f. thinks of a ‘death-song’ (or ‘terrifying
204 BEOWULF
notes of the war horn’); similarly Taylor in Creed 1967: 265, as a commemoration of
Æschere. Cf. Cooke MÆ 72 (2003) 298¯f.
1428¯f. ðā on undernm®l oft bewitiġað¯. . . , i.e., water-monsters ‘such as’ (of the
same kind as those which . . .); these nicras do not ply the sea (seġlrād; cf. Wn.). See
Lawrence PMLA 27 (1912) 219; Schü.Bd. 66. All recent edd., in agreement with Hoops
170 (so also Kl. Angl. 63 [1939] 420), assume that bewitiġað here has an otherwise
unattested meaning ‘perform, undertake’ rather than the usual ‘observe,’ so that the sīð
is the monsters’. It may be assumed, rather, that the creatures are described as watching
the passage of a vessel on a voyage that is sorhful, by prolepsis, because of the attack
that they will mount (cf. 567¯ff.). The foreboding understatement of this is character-
istic, and the vulturine quality of the creatures says more about their nature than any
physical description could. Cf. Sedge¢eld’s more passive analysis: ‘which in the fore-
noon often watch a sorrow-fraught journey on the sea, i.e., a shipwreck’ (JEGP 35
[1936] 163, ed.3).
1432b¯ff. The ¢rst of several references to literal use of the bow and arrow; the other
leading allusions are at 2437–40 (the accidental killing of Herebeald) and 3117–19 (the
storm of arrows in warfare); cf. metaphorical reference to the devil’s archery at 1743b–
7. While granted only a subordinate place in the aristocratic world of Beowulf (where
precious metals command attention), this weapon had a time-honored role in both
hunting and warfare (G. Rausing The Bow [Lund, 1967]) and can be assumed to have
formed part of any AS or Germanic warrior’s arsenal. The remains of bows, arrows,
and quivers, dating from the 3rd or 4th century, found in Thorsbjerg and Nydam bogs
(Engelhardt 1866: 57–9 w. associated plates; Illus.B 204) have been used to help
reconstruct the type of longbow and the various types of arrowheads used on the
Continent and in AS England. See further Cook 1900: 147–8 (n. on ChristB 765);
Underwood 1999: 26–35.
1435b¯f. ‘We can explain þe .¯.¯. ðe as instrumentals expressing proportion [so Holt.,
Cha., v.Sch., Ni., Crp., Ja.; hence, the watery creature ‘was the weaker at swimming in
proportion as death was taking it away’], can take ðe hyne as relative “whom” [so
Hoops, Sed., Dob.], or can translate ðe as “because” or even “when” [so Kl., Small
PMLA 45 (1930) 369¯n.] with þe as an instrumental of cause “on that (account), for that
(reason)” [so MR]’ (OES §¯2106).
1441b–6. The most elaborate arming scene in the poem naturally precedes an episode
in which the hero is challenged to the uttermost. Parallels in classical epic are readily
discoverable (e.g. Iliad xv 130–54), but no direct inÏuence need be supposed, since
what is involved is a commonplace of the epic style; cf., for example, A. Međedović,
The Wedding of Smailagić Meho, tr. A. Lord (Cambridge, MA, 1974), 105–6. The
scene provides the poet with an opportunity for a stylistic tour de force (Niles 1983:
58–62).
1446¯f. him . . . hreþre . . . aldre ġesceþðan ‘injure . . . his breast, his life’; cf.
2570¯ff.; Lang. §¯26.4.
1451¯ff. þæt should be construed with swā, which in turn introduces a clause elabor-
ating the reference to decoration in the preceding clause; but cf. OES §¯2851¯n. — 1451.
befongen frēawrāsnum. The phrase probably alludes to a curtain of mail, as on the
York helmet (Tweddle 1992: 999–1011, 1115–19) and certain helmets from Sweden,
e.g. the ones from Valsgärde, Graves 6 and 8, with chain mail hanging all around from
a solid cap (Illus.B 166); see Herben MLN 52 (1937) 34–6, Cramp 1957: 61–2, Crépin’s
note; also Beck 1965: 4–6.
1453. besette swīnlīcum. Since the noun is in the pl., the allusion would seem to be
to boar images (or, more likely, ¢gures of boar-helmeted warriors) stamped onto small
metal plates aÌxed to the circumference of the helmet proper, rather than to a free-
standing image surmounting its top. The helmet from Grave 14 at Vendel, Uppland, in-
cludes such ¢gures, executed in a fantastic manner that may have had mythological
associations (Stjerna 1912: 10–11; Illus.B 158); cf. the comparable plates that were
 COMMENTARY 205
mounted on the ill-preserved Sutton Hoo helmet, including its cheek guards (B-Mitford
2.181–97, with outstanding photos of the modern reconstruction of that helmet, for
which see also Illus.B 190). Dies that were used in the production of such plates (from
Torslunda, Öland, for which see Bruce-Mitford 1974: 214–22) are shown in ¢g. 6 in the
present edition.
1454. brond nē beadomēċas. Practically a tautological combination; cf. 266oa, 398
(n.). Cosijn’s emendation (see Varr.) is advocated by Andrew 1948: §¯173, Bliss §¯44,
and Pope xxxiii¯f.
1455. Næs þæt þonne m®tost. Transition by means of negation; cf., e.g., 2354;
þonne ‘further.’
1457. wæs þ®m hæftmēċe Hrunting nama. On the syntax, see Hahn Language 37
(1961) 476–83. On the nature of the sword, see Hatto 1957: 147–51. A tried and trusty
sword could be assumed more effective against the monster (cf. Mald 46¯ff.); Murray
N&Q 17 (1970) 83¯f. argues by reference to law codes that the loan commits Ūnferð to
share responsibility in the feud if Grendel’s mother is killed. — To the hæftmēċe cor-
responds the heptisax in Grettis saga (Intr. xxxix). It appears that in the original story,
much was made of a sword with a wonderful haft, which latter, as a result of the ¢ght,
was detached from the blade. Bēowulf brings back from the underwater lair a hilt with
a runic inscription on it; cf. the runic verses composed by Grettir relating to the hepti-
sax. The unique sword-names Hornhjalti (Gullþóris saga), Gullinhjalti (Hrólfs saga
kraka, Appx.A §¯12), together with the Beowul¢an gylden hilt 1677 (Gyldenhilt?)
should also be noted. It was a role of such a marvelous sword, it may be imagined, to
bring about the hero’s victory. This feature is not to be found in Grettis saga; in
Beowulf the term hæftmēċe refers to a different sword. See the thorough discussion,
Cha.Intr. 468¯ff.; also Jorgensen Afnf. 94 (1979) 82–90, Liberman 1986; and Mastrelli
AION-SG 28–9 (1985–6) 405–20 (compared to myths of Indra); see Gloss.
1459b. ātĺrtānum fāh. Davidson (1962: 129–35) suggests that the sword may have
been etched with acid (i.e. ‘poison’). With greater likelihood (see Coatsworth & Pinder
2002: 254¯n.), she connects the phrase to the design found on pattern-welded blades,
which is often herringbone-like or rippling in its visual effect and thus reminiscent of
intertwined serpents (cf. wyrmfāh 1698, also w®ġsweord 1489): see Gloss.: scēaden-
m®l. See A. Lorange Den Yngre Jernalders Sværd (Bergen, 1889) for detailed images
of such blades and, for accounts of how they were (and are) forged, Engstrom 1989,
Underwood 1999: 47–50, and L. Jones in Peirce 2002: 145–51; cf. Lang & Ager in
Hawkes 1989: 85–112 and, for images, Illus.B 74, 78. The serpentine imagery suggests
the deadliness of the weapon; hence, by contrast, ®tren ord (Mald 47, 146) may be
purely metaphorical (‘deadly points’). (Taylor 2000: 87, with similar views offered by
Cooke MÆ 72 [2003] 302¯f., supposes the reference is to ‘twig-runes’ and compares
Sigrdrífumál 6; cf. MSol 158¯ff.; Reichert 1998: 67 would read ātertācnum, in reference
to runes.) Several ON passages have been cited as parallels; thus Brot af Sigurðarkv. 19
(interpreted in different ways), Helgakv. Hj∂rv. 9, Helgakv. Hund. I 8. Cf. Bu.Tid. 65¯f.;
Grienb. 754; von See et al. 1997–: 4.464; Ypey R.-L.2 5.195–213; Falk 1914: 3–4. (Cook
1900: note on ChristB 768.)
1460. āhyrded heaþoswāte. The sword was believed to be hardened by the blood of
battle; cf. Njáls saga, ch. 130; wundum heard, Beo 2687a (? n.). It has also been
suggested that the reference is to some kind of a Ïuid employed for the hardening (see
Scheinert [Sievers] BGdSL 30 [1905] 378), in which event 1460a could be regarded as,
practically, a variation of 1459b. Swords hardened by poison (eitr) are mentioned in st.
2 of Hjálmarr’s Death Song in Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks konungs (ed. C. Tolkien
[London, 1960], pp.¯8–9), V∂lsunga saga (ch. 31), and elsewhere. According to Neckel
Edda 13 (1920) 208¯ff., the ultimate source of the motif of ‘poisoned’ weapons in Ger-
manic heroic legend is the notion of the dragon ¢ght in which the hero’s sword receives
its poisonous quality by the act of piercing the dragon. Thus, swords and coats of mail
are called ‘hardened in dragon’s blood.’
206 BEOWULF
1461b. mid mundum. Presumably generic plural. However, it has been observed
that in the OIcel. sagas and Saxo both hands could be used alternately by particularly
adroit ¢ghters. Simultaneous use of both hands is also recorded but rare because the
warrior cannot then use his shield to parry blows. See Davidson 1962: 201–3.
1467b–8a. Brown PMLA 53 (1938) 915 and others would subordinate this clause to
the following. On usage ЂπЮ κοινοи (so OES §¯2536), see Fulk ASE 32 (2003) 4–9.
1474. se m®ra. The demonstrative retained in the vocative; similarly ChristB 441,
El 511, Dream 78, 95, GuthB 1076, GenB 578; cf. Varr.: 947, 1759.
1476. hwæt wit ġeō spr®con. See 946¯ff. (Hrōðgār’s quasi-adoption of the hero),
and cf. 1707.
1478b–80. fæder. Bammesberger 2006: 34–6 urges a ¢gurative interpretation ‘pro-
tector’ (of Bēowulf’s men), a meaning made more explicit by mundbora, with mē¯.¯.¯.
forðġewitenum as an absolute construction ‘after my death.’ Rather, the usual assump-
tion is that mē depends on st®le.
1484¯ff. Mæġ þonne on þ®m golde onġitan, etc. A notable parallel: Hildebr. 44¯f.
1488b. ealde lāfe. Bēowulf’s own sword (cf. 1023?).
1495b¯ff. hwīl dæġes, ‘a good part of the day’ (not ‘the space of a day’ [Cha.Intr.
465]; cf. 16oo), or perhaps ‘a brief space of time’ (GriÌth N&Q 41 [1994] 144–6.). A
long time is required for the same purpose in several corresponding folktales: see
Panzer 1910: 119; Puhvel 1979: 73–81. Andrew (1948: §¯114) and Robinson (1974: 121–
4) point out that dæġes hwīl means ‘daytime, broad daylight’ (as in 2320), and thus MR
translate, ‘As it was daytime before he (Beowulf) could discover the bottom, the grim
and ravenous one . . . immediately perceived that some man, etc.’ Yet Ðā in the sense
‘as,’ ‘because’ is uncommon, and if instead it means ‘then,’ as usual, the construction
with ®r seems to demand that hwīl dæġes should denote the extent of time required to
reach the bottom (Green¢eld 1982b: 295–7). Bamm. NM 96 (1995) 225–7, treating
1495b as a parenthesis, attaches 1496 to the clause in 1494b–5a, producing the sense
‘Bēowulf had to dive into the water before he could see the bottom of the lake.’ Nickel
makes of 1495b a period unto itself, and he has 1496 depend on the following clause,
the sense being ‘Before he could see the bottom, at once she perceived, etc.’ This is
possible, though the scribe, at least, did not understand the construction this way, since
he capitalizes Sōna 1497 (Grinda IF 87 [1982] 335). But capitalization, esp. that of the
¢rst scribe, is not an infallible guide: see Dob. xxvii n.¯2.
1497b. sē for sēo: see 1260¯n. Emended by Holt.
15o6b¯ff. þā hēo tō botme cōm. Grendel’s mother, aroused by a stranger’s appear-
ance in the water, goes to the bottom of the mere and drags him to her abode. — 1507.
hringa þenġel. Marquardt Angl. 60 (1936) 394¯f. (similarly Brady 1983: 239) suggests
this is a kenning meaning ‘mail shirt owner,’ i.e. warrior; similarly hringa fenġel 2345;
but Kl. Beibl. 49 (1938) 325 points out that pl. hringas is almost never used to refer to
chain-mail. — 15o8. swā hē ne mihte — nō hē þæs (MS þæm) mōdiġ wæs. Without
harm to the meter, nō might be included in either the on- or the off-verse. But the sense
(‘no matter how brave he was’: see 968¯n.) is decisive for the latter. A caveat: OES
§¯3474. (In Kl.1, hē þ®m mōdiġ wæs was explained as ‘he was angry at them,’ þ®m
referring both to the hero’s captor and, by prolepsis, to the wundra fela. Crépin sees in
þæs an anticipation of w®pna 1509.)
1511b. Mitchell ASE 4 (1975) 16 objects to Klaeber’s characterization of bræċ as
imperfective, ‘was in the act of breaking,’ ‘tried to pierce,’ like wehte 2854. Cf. Stanley
Archiv 214 (1977) 136; note to 747b, 2854. Even if it is translated ‘broke,’ the implica-
tion is not that the armor was rendered useless: cf. 1547¯ff.
1512. Is āgl®ċan subject (nom. pl.: so Kl., Hoops, v.Sch., Crp., Ja.; cf. 556) or
object (gen. or acc. sg., in ref. to Bēowulf: so Schü., Sed., Dob., Ni., MR; Andrew
1948: §¯65)? The latter seems preferable, as otherwise an object for trans. ēhton must
be supplied. For the change of number in the verb, cf. 171¯f., 2251¯f., 2458¯f. Blockley
2001: 141–2 would subordinate the clause beginning with Ðā to the preceding one.
 COMMENTARY 207
1516b. f©rlēoht ġeseah. A light such as shines in the ‘hall’ (which enables Bēowulf
to see his adversary, 1518) is met with in analogous folktales and in Grettis saga (see
Panzer 1910: 286, Intr. xxxix), likewise in hell (see Sat 128¯f.). Russom, however (see
101¯n.), regards f©rlēoht as a reference to hell¢re, thus explaining f©r on Ïōde 1366 as
‘¢re in the water.’ Cf. 2767¯ff. Campbell RUO 45 (1975) 382–91 suggests that this light
is transformed from sinister to good (cf. 1570–2) after Bēowulf has killed Grendel’s
mother and decapitated Grendel.
1518. Beginning of the real combat. There are three distinct phases to it; the second
begins at 1529, the third at 1557.
1519b¯f. mæġenr®s forġeaf / hildebille, ‘he gave a powerful impetus to his battle-
sword’ (Kl. 1905–6: 458).
1521b. hrinġm®l. By synecdoche, a term that denotes the hilt of the sword is used
for the whole weapon. Ring-hilted swords are well known in the archaeological record
of AS England (Evison Archaeologia 101 [1967] 63–118; Illus.B 100) as well as the
Continent (Steuer R.-L.2 25.22–4). They are of several types. A noteworthy example
from Snartemo, Norway (see Stylegar R.-L.2 29.164–5) is featured on the cover of this
edition (in soft covers). Although some such rings could have had a practical function
if used to secure a chain or cord, others were no more than stylized knob-like decora-
tions. The suggestion has been made that, in either event, they would have had symbol-
ic signi¢cance, serving as a visual reminder of the oaths that bound the warrior to his
lord (the ring-giver): see Cramp 1957: 64, Underwood 1999: 56–8, Webster in MR 191.
1523. þæt se beadolēoma bītan nolde. Grendel’s mother could not be wounded by
any weapon (cf. 804) except her own (1557¯ff.). See Beard Occasional Papers in Lin-
guistics and Lang. Learning 8 (1981) 13–31 (ON parallels, Tacitus, Saxo), Panzer 1910:
155. Robinson 1979: 132–4 argues that the line involves a double metaphor prepared
for in 1121–4, where devouring ¢re is joined with the metaphor of a biting sword.
1533. The reading stīð- ond st©l-ecg is proposed by Stanley (1994: 152).
1537. eaxle. Very likely corrupted from feaxe ‘hair’: see Varr., Appx.C §¯40. Cf.
758¯n., with the refs. there. Grasping the shoulder is unlikely, as this affords little lever-
age (Rie.V.; Stanley N&Q 23 [1976] 339¯f.; Bamm. ibid. 48 [2001] 3¯f.; cf. Hodges ELN
34.3 [1997] 10). AS law penalizes the pulling of hair: see Holt. Beibl. 53 (1942) 272¯f.
1541. Hēo him eft hraðe, etc. We must supply the connecting link, viz., she got up.
Only the result of the action is stated. (Intr. cxx.) The metrical type is C3, hence with
vocalic alliteration (cf. 2117b, GenA 2727a, etc.; cf. Bevis ELN 2.3 [1965] 165–8). Thus,
emendation of MS hond in 2929, 2972 (so MR; cf. 2094) entails emendation here. The
error seems to derive from incorrect expansion of ℓ, due to the consideration that it is
sometimes used to represent hand-/hond-, as at Rid 5.8.
1544. fēþecempa necessarily refers to Bēowulf, not to his adversary (cf. 2853). The
exceptional intransitive function of oferweorpan need not raise doubts, as it is paral-
leled in Middle Eng. (Kl. 1926: 203–4; Ashdown MLR 25 [1930] 78). See Schü. 1908:
98; Brett MLR 14 (1919) 7; Logeman Leuvense Bijdragen 17 (1925) 3¯ff.
1545¯f. Ofsæt, ‘beset.’ Although the edd. (incl. Kl.) have taken ofsittan to mean ‘sit
upon’ (and thus some infer sexual overtones; cf. Chance 1986: 103), Robinson 1994 has
shown the improbability of this otherwise unattested meaning. — hyre seax (MS
seaxe) ġetēah / brād [ond] brūnecg. The lack of concord resulting from the retention
of seaxe need not indicate textual corruption (cf. 2703¯f.; note on 48), but ġetēon,
unlike ġebreġdan, does not take a dat. (instr.) object (cf. 2610, MSol 166). The scribal
error was perhaps caused by the preceding hyre. — The AS and Germanic seax was a
single-edged knife, useful for many purposes, that varied in length, though ca. 30 cm
was a standard length; longer weapons of this type, extending up to 76 cm in length,
are referred to as short swords or long knives, and the term scramasax is sometimes
used of such a weapon. See Gale in Hawkes 1989: 71–83, Underwood 1999: 68–70,
Tiefenbach R.-L.2 26.540–6. Since the knife wielded by Grendel’s mother is brād, a
shape like that of several broad ones in the British Museum’s collection might be
208 BEOWULF
called to mind (see D. Wilson AS Ornamental Metalwork [London, 1964] 172–4 and
plates XXX¯f.). — The meaning of brūnecg is possibly related to that of OIcel. brýna
‘whet’ (so Dal Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 9 [1938] 219–30, et al.), although it
has also been proposed that the allusion is either to the color attained by steel at the
optimal temperature for tempering (Walker MLN 67 [1952] 516–20) or to a surface that
has been ‘browned’ by rusting and burnishing (Tremaine PQ 48 [1969] 145–50). Yet
the OE system of color classi¢cation was likely based at least as much on surface
reÏectivity as on hue (see Lerner MLR 46 [1951] 247: ‘brilliant’; Barley 1974: 15–28,
esp. 24; cf. Wyler 1984, Stanley 1994: 171–5), and brūn may have encompassed hues
that modern speakers of English would classify as grey or silvery.
1549. Though Kl. construes wið ord ond wið ecge with the following verb, the pres-
ent arrangement avoids a breach of Kuhn’s second law (Kendall 1991: 79–80; Orton
RES 50 [1999] 298; Appx.C §¯7).
1550¯f. Hæfde is sj.; ġynne grund like eormengrund 859: ‘earth.’
1552b. ġefremede. Kock4 115¯f. would identify this verb as indic., on the basis of
comparison to næfne hē wæs māra 1353. So Hoops St. 109, Dob. Yet that construction
is different, as nemne 1552 introduces an imaginary condition, and Mitchell is probably
right that we should expect a sj. verb in such constructions when Latin inÏuence is not
involved: see OES §§¯3654, 3658. Certainly a sj. verb is to be expected in the protasis
after (presumably) sj. Hæfde 1550 in the apodosis (but cf. 1657¯n.).
1553b¯ff. All the 12 edd., along with Kl., treat 1553b–4a as a single clause, with God
as the subject of ġewēold. Yet ġewēold probably cannot parallel ġefremede 1552 and,
like it, be governed by nemne, since it is not subjunctive (see the preceding note). Then
if ġewēold does not parallel ġefremede, the purpose of ond at the beginning of the clause
is obscure. (Cf. Mitchell’s expedient of assuming a suppressed protasis ond hāliġ God
ġewēolde wīġsigor after 1553a [OES §¯3654; 1997: 133], a more elaborate device to
solve the problem of the indic. verb; cf. 1657¯n.) It is simplest to assume that ond func-
tions to render hāliġ God parallel to heaðobyrne; cf. 1056¯f. Technically, then, Ġewēold
wīġsigor could be a complete clause with Bēowulf as the understood subject, but the
divine epithet sigora wealdend (Dream 67, PPs 70.21.2, Met 11.71) suggests otherwise.
Cf. Blockley 2001: 89–90. (The breach of Kuhn’s second law [Appx.C §¯7] in 1554a
seems unavoidable, unless perhaps the verb is unstressed; cf. Kendall 1991: xv.) E.,
Holt., Kl., Hoops, Dob., Mag., Ja. supply a semicolon after wīġsigor. — 1555¯f. The
punctuation is that of Cos. (Aant.; see Kl. 1908a: 431) and Kl., except that a new clause
begins with the off-verse rather than the on-verse in 1555, to avoid an anomaly of stress
(Appx.C §¯6). Several edd. (Gr., He., Wülck., Schü., cf. Schü.Sa. 119) have placed a
semicolon or comma after ġescēd, making ©ðelīċe, syþðan hē eft āstōd one indepen-
dent clause (cf. 478; Kl. loc. cit., 1911–12: [6], Kock3 248); likewise E.Sc., Siev. 1884b:
140, Hold.1, Wy., Kock3 248, Holt.7–8, while punctuating after ©ðelīċe, consider syþðan
an adverb. In addition to demanding an unlikely stress pattern (Appx.C §¯6), such an
arrangement is less logical because God’s help seems to consist only in showing Bēo-
wulf the marvelous sword (see 1661¯ff.) after he has found his feet again. (The latter fact,
though important, is conveyed in a subordinate clause, allowing it to be delayed until
the end of the period, for dramatic effect [cf. 1417¯ff.]. See Intr. xcv, note on 1541. Cf.
also 2092.) Sed. begins a new sentence with syþðan (conjunct.), with a comma after āstōd.
1557. Ġeseah ðā on searwum siġeēadiġ bil. Several translations of on searwum
seem possible. Most favored is ‘among [other] arms’ (Gr.Spr., Holt., Schü., Sed., Cha.,
Wn., Crp., Ja.; see 1613); alternatives are ‘in battle’ (‘during the ¢ght’: cf. 419; so
Hoops, v.Sch.), ‘[he] in his armor’ (cf. 249, 2568, etc.; so Dob., Ni.), and (construing
the prep. phrase with bil) perhaps even ‘fully equipped,’ ‘ready’ (a possibility men-
tioned by Kl.; cf. fūsliċ, ġeatoliċ). — On this marvelous sword, see Hatto 1957: 145–7,
Davidson 1962: 135–42. Signi¢cantly, it is God who directs the hero to the victorious
sword, whereas in numerous folktale analogues this role falls to the persons (generally
the ‘stolen princesses’) whom the hero eventually rescues from the lower region where
 COMMENTARY 209
the ¢ght takes place (cf. Panzer 1910: 154, 288). Moreover, in conformity with the ge-
nealogy ascribed to the Grendel creatures, the good sword of folkloric tradition is rep-
resented as ġīganta ġeweorc 1562 (cf. 1588, 1679), in a thematic development that
would seem to rest on Gen. 4: 22; cf. Emerson PMLA 21 (1906) 915–16, 929, Klaeber
1911–12: [25–6].
1558. ealdsweord eotenisc. The same formula is used in 2616a and 2979a. Hart
ABzäG 2 (1972) 29–31 considers the formula part of the tectonic design of the poem
(cf. Nicholson in Nicholson & Frese 1975: 50–61), and Cronan Neophil. 77 (1993)
472–7 views it as reÏecting the theme of kin-strife, in which weapons emblematic of
conÏict between kinsmen can nonetheless be brought to the aid of kinsmen, as well.
See also Köberl Neophil. 71 (1987) 120–8.
1563. þā fetelhilt. It is debated whether the reference is to a hilt furnished with a
ring or chain (M. Keller 1906: 43, 163–4; see Bone in Hawkes 1989: 65, cf. 68–9;
Underwood 1999: 56–8), or one with a fastener securing the sword in its scabbard
(Davidson 1962: 142), or one with a belt (Swaen Neophil. 28.1 [1942] 43; Webster in
MR 191). Cf. the note on hrinġm®l 1521. Dob. avoids the problem of the noun’s gender
(see Gloss.: hilt; Lang. §¯22) by assuming that þā is an adverb. Unless the verb is
unstressed, however, Kuhn’s ¢rst law is thus violated (Appx.C §¯6).
1566. wið halse. The hero decapitates Grendel’s mother (see 2138¯ff.) Smithers
(1961: 9) supposes that he does so as a variety of exorcism. Cf. Grettis saga, ch. 35.
1570. Līxte se lēoma; i.e., it is usually thought, the light mentioned in 1516 (see n.).
Goldsmith 1970: 257–68, arguing that the Vita S. Antonii was a source for Beowulf,
points to the analogous heavenly light that shines down on Anthony after he has re-
sisted demons in the desert (263–4); Puhvel Folklore 83 (1972) 210–19 takes se lēoma
to be the giant sword (1558a), which is luminescent (cf. Orchard 1995: 84); Glosecki
1989: 172 states that the light suggests the ¢res of hell or of the forge of the smith who
made the giant sword and other weapons on the wall of the underwater lair. Nagler in
Niles 1980: 147–51 cites mythic parallels. To wlāt 1572, cf. Onġeat 1518.
1579b. on ®nne sīð, probably ‘on one occasion,’ but perhaps ‘on that one occasion’
(in ref. to 122¯ff.). — 1583. ōðer swylċ, ‘another such [number].’ ūt offerede, viz., in
his glōf, 2o85¯ff.
1584b¯ff. Klaeber analyzes forġeald as plupf. (so Earle 1892, Hoops) and renders MS
to ðæs þe ‘to the point that, until, so that.’ In this he is followed by most recent edd.;
also Hoops 180, Mitchell ASE 4 (1975) 23; hence Bēowulf ‘had given him his reward
for that, so that he [now] saw Grendel lying,’ etc. Yet nowhere does tō ðæs þe really
mean ‘so that’: in both verse and prose, though it is rare, it always has spatial signi¢-
cance, ‘to the place where’ (as in 714, 1967, 2410; so v.Sch.: ‘wo’), and Dobbie rightly
observes that this is an implausible meaning here, as a consequence of which he sus-
pects a loss before 1585b. The interpretation which would make tō ðæs þe (‘until’) con-
tinue the narrative from 1573, after a remarkably lengthy parenthesis (Sed., similarly
Cha.), is not very tempting, and Trautmann’s emendation (see Varr.) is too intrusive.
Under the present analysis, canceling MS to, the sense is that Bēowulf took vengeance
on Grendel after (ðæs þe; or ‘as’; see Gloss: sē; OES §§¯2681, 3113¯ff.) he saw him
lying there: he beheaded the corpse (assuming Grendel was dead, as aldorlēasne and
æfter dēaðe indicate; cf. 850–2¯n., and see Orchard 2003: 199). On the advantages of
this analysis, see Fulk SP 104 (2007) 164–7. (Comparing 2707, Kl. would render ond
. . . þā 1590 ‘and thus [so]’; Hoops ‘damit’; Schü. and Cha. end 1590a with a semi-
colon.) Treating 1588b–90a as a parenthesis (so Mitchell RES 31 [1980] 406, OES
§¯1514; Ball in Bamm. 1985: 41–2; MR) is independently justi¢ed, since the passage’s
relationship to 1590b is one of hysteron proteron no matter how one punctuates. The
device of delaying fully revealing a dramatic action till the close of a period is
paralleled in 834¯ff., 1417¯ff., 1556, etc. — 1588b–90. hrā wīde sprong, etc. Why does
the torso spring some distance away? Is there life in the monster yet? See 850–2 (n.).
On the beheading of Grendel, see Intr. xli, lxxxix, cvi; Panzer 1910: 288–9; note on
210 BEOWULF
1566. One feature of the ancient Eurasian combat myth identi¢ed by J. Fontenrose
(Python [Berkeley, 1959] theme 10A, pp.¯11, 582–3) is that a terrible enemy is not just
killed; his corpse is also mutilated, cut up, or exposed. In Beowulf, this age-old theme
is lent a Northern cast: Grendel’s decapitation may serve as compensation for the de-
capitation of Æschere (1420–1), but it may also be necessary as the only safe way to
eradicate Grendel if he was considered a draugr (ghost) or haugbúi (mound-dweller)
(see Orchard Dictionary of Norse Myth and Legend [London, 1997] 34; cf. Owen-
Crocker 1981: 73–4). Horowitz Studies in Medieval Culture 12 (1978) 17–23 points out
twelve parallels between the Bēowulf and Grendel story and that of David and Goliath
in the Old Testament, including David’s beheading of Goliath. Orchard 2003: 142–7
explores the parallels further and points out the similarity between the beheading of
Grendel and that of Nicanor, the persecutor of the Jews who was despatched by Judas
Maccabaeus (145–6). Owen-Crocker 2002: 94–5 observes that decapitation was a
recognized punishment for criminals and that Grendel therefore receives just punish-
ment. See also Rosier MÆ 37 (1968) 137–41, Viswanathan PQ 58 (1979) 360–3, Princi
Braccini in Lettura di Beowulf, ed. V. Dolcetti Corazza & R. Gendre (Alessandria,
2005) 148–55.
1596¯f. hiġ þæs æðelinges eft ne wēndon, / þæt hē . . . sēċean cōme. Proleptic use
of a noun that is preliminary to a clause of an exegetical character, with eft (accounted
for by the verbal idea vaguely suggested by the phrase of 1596) partaking of the pro-
leptic function: see Kl. 1905–6: 254; so Hoops, MR. For use of the þæt-clause as a
second object of wēndon, cf. 2239¯f.
1600b¯ff. Lumiansky JEGP 51 (1952) 547¯f. argues that the Danes’ departure is tact-
ful, allowing the Ġēatas ‘to mourn their supposedly lost leader in private.’ On the other
hand, Niles 1983: 163–4 ¢nds some unÏattering elements in the portrayal of the Danes,
this scene being an instance of their lack of faith compared with the Ġēatas’ trust-
worthiness. See Intr. xcii n.¯3, cxvi.
1604. Cf. Paradise Lost ix 422: ‘He wish’d, but not with hope.’ wīston is not neces-
sarily a scribal error, as this is apparently a late WS spelling for w©scton: see Bu.Tid.
51¯f.; Cos. viii 571; Pogatscher EStn. 27 (1900) 218; SB §¯405 n.¯8; OEG §¯751.2;
Bülbring 1902: §¯507; Schlemilch 1914: 52; Jordan 1974: §¯183 n., etc. The reading
wiston ‘they knew’ has been advocated (Bush MLN 36 [1921] 251; Thomas MLR 17
[1922] 63; Wy.) and opposed (Kl. 1926: 204).
1605b¯ff. The singular incident of the sword blade dissolving in the hot blood recalls
the melting of Siġemund’s dragon (897; cf. 3040¯f.). It has a Virgilian parallel, Aen. xii,
740¯f., 734; cf. Kl. Archiv 126 (1911) 348; Berendsohn 1935: 69–70. Puhvel ELN 7.2
(1969) 81–4 remarks parallels to corrosive blood in Irish tradition, and Whitman
Neophil. 61 (1977) 276 in Pliny. See also Brady 1979: 102–3; and Orchard 1995: 111–
12 w. ref. to a passage in the Liber monstrorum (Appx.A §¯17).
1612¯ff. The rich treasures found in the ‘hall’ belong, of course, to the folktale tradi-
tion; see Panzer 1910: 174, Intr. xxxix. (That Bēowulf took Ūnferð’s sword back with
him, we learn from 1807¯ff.)
1616b¯f. wæs þæt blōd tō þæs hāt, / ®ttren ellorg®st. Perhaps ®ttren ellorg®st is
parallel to blōd (logical adjunct and headword forming the terms of variation; so Kl.,
Holt., Hoops), though ®ttren could be (and usually is) construed as a predicative adj.,
parallel to hāt (cf. 49¯f., 2209¯f.). See Kl. 1905–6: 239, and cf. MR, who suppose that
®ttren ellorg®st refers to ‘the identi¢cation of the spirit or soul with blood’ (see
Robinson 1970a: 103–4). The reference, in any case, presumably is to Grendel, just as
in 1614 Grendel’s head is meant.
1624b¯f. The emendation s®lāca (in accordance with the plurals found in 1652,
3091¯f.) provides a clear antecedent for þāra þe. The scribe seems to have supposed
that the word was governed by the following verb, and thus it was parallel to mæġen-
byrþenne rather than dependent on it. Klaeber, retaining MS sælaca, regards þāra
(þ®ra) as a late or dialectal by-form of þ®re (see Lang. §¯23; Bu. 95; Malone Angl. 54
 COMMENTARY 211
[1930] 98), though this assumption demands that the scribe have been singularly in-
attentive. Hoops analyzes þāra þe as an idiom so stereotyped that it may refer to a
singular antecedent; Crépin would have it refer to dat. s®lāce and mæġenbyrþenne
collectively; the construction is rendered ‘the mighty burden of those things he had
with him’ by MR.
1636¯f. earfoðlīċe heora ®ġhwæþrum, probably ‘with diÌculty for each of two of
them,’ i.e. each pair of bearers (cf. ®ġhwylċ; so Hoops, Sed.), though Andrew (1948:
§¯115) believes the reference is to ‘either of two,’ i.e. either pair, and thinks this is
meant to explain why four men were required. Crépin plausibly construes felamōdiġra
as dependent on fēower.
1649. þ®re idese, dat. sg., i.e. Wealhþēo; not gen. sg. referring to (the head of)
Grendel’s mother, as sometimes explained (so Boer 1912: 66, who brands the passage
an interpolation). Cf. Malone Angl. 55 (1931) 271. As to mid, cf., e.g., 1642, 923.
1651–1784. Speeches by Bēowulf and Hrōðgār.
1655¯ff. Iċ þæt unsōfte . . . ‘I hardly survived it (the contest) with my life through
warfare.’ See Hoops St. 110, v.Sch., MR. The construction would, admittedly, be sim-
pler if wiġġe were emended (see Varr.) to form the acc. object of ġedīġde; the verb
may, however, be intrans. (cf. Rid 38.6). The meaning ‘achieve’ has been postulated
for ġenēþan in this passage (Lorz 1908: 6o), but this is unnecessary: cf. 2350. Cham-
bers attaches 1656a to the following rather than the preceding clause.
1657b–8. ætrihte wæs / gūð ġetw®fed, nymðe meċ God scylde. Mitchell (OES
§¯3654; 1997: 132) assumes that scylde is sj. and explains the indic. verb of the main
clause by the assumption of a suppressed apodosis (ond w®re ġetw®fed) before nymðe
(cf. 1553b–4a note), though Klaeber sees it as an expression of vividness. The alterna-
tive analysis of Kock4 115–17, ‘a stop was almost put to my encounter, but God pro-
tected me,’ with indic. scylde, is predicated on the assumption that ætrihte may mean
‘almost,’ as advised by BT and Cl.Hall (so Holt., Schü., Cha., v.Sch., Sed., Ni., MR).
Yet adjectival instances (only GuthB 997, 1152) mean ‘near at hand,’ ‘immediate’ and
the more recently noticed sole other adverbial example (LS 17.2 224) plainly cannot
mean ‘almost’ but only ‘immediately,’ ‘right away’ (so Kl. 1926: 204–5; DOE). Thus,
despite the indic. verb, the sense must be that the contest would have ended immedi-
ately but for God’s intervention (so Dob., Crp., Ja., Louden OT 11 [1996] 353). —
Remarkably, here and in 1661¯ff. the hero acknowledges God’s help in terms not unlike
the narrator’s own similar acknowledgment in other places (e.g. 1553¯ff.; see Russom in
press). Cf. notes on 175–88, 1270¯ff.
1663b–4a. ofost wīsode / winiġea lēasum. Nearly all edd. have understood waldend
1661 to be the subject and, accepting MS oftost, therefore set these verses off as a
parenthesis. Yet the subjectless verb makes the clause awkwardly telegraphic, and the
perfect sense required of the simple pret. verb by oftost seems suspect. In addition,
oftost spoils the meter (see Varr., Appx.C §¯31), and thus because several different
irregularities are detectable, emendation is justi¢ed. See Fulk SP 104 (2007) 167–8, but
cf. Intr.¯cxc n.¯2.
1666. hūses hyrdas. Klaeber defends the plurals here and in 1619 (wīġhryre wrāðra;
cf. fēondum 1669), which he regards as inconsistent with the facts, as generic (see
1074¯n., 565¯n.). MR explain that in this instance, at least, there is no inconsistency, as
ofslōh may mean ‘destroyed’ rather than ‘killed.’ Cf. 850–2 (n.). (In 1619, wrāðra may
include ref. to s®dēor moniġ 1510.)
1674b–6a. him is explained by eorlum (cf. WaldA 19); on þā healfe ‘from that quar-
ter’ (Cha.; see Lang. §¯26.5).
1681b¯ff. ond þā þās worold ofġeaf, etc. Kl. (so v.Sch., Wn.) punctuates this as an
indep. clause (w. semicolon after ēac 1683, rendering ofġeaf as pluperf.), though the
train of thought is more apparent if it is subordinated to the following (so the 9 edd.).
1688¯–98. On the wonderful sword, see note on 1555¯f.; on Grendel’s descent and the
destruction of giants by the deluge, see note on 106¯ff. A number of points relating to
212 BEOWULF
the curious sword-hilt have been debated. 1688b¯f. On ð®m wæs ōr writen / fyrn-
ġewinnes signi¢es either a graphic illustration (Girvan 1935: 39, Cramp 1957: 66,
Evison MÆ 32 [1963] 138–9, Webster in MR 192) or a runic inscription (Davidson
1962: 137–8). The poet’s reference to rūnstafas later in the passage (at 1695) need not
rule out the ¢rst possibility. The second explanation, however, seems more likely in the
light of abundant archaeological evidence for the use of runes on Anglo-Saxon swords
and other weapons (Hawkes & Page Antiquaries Journal 47 [1967] 1–26), a practice
that conforms to ancient Germanic custom (E. Moltke Runes and Their Origin [Copen-
hagen, 1985] 95–107; Düwel in Wörter & Sache, ed. R. Schmidt-Wiegand [Berlin,
1981] 128–67). Most surviving examples of runic inscriptions on weapons take the
form of inscribed letters or letter-like characters (Illus.B 114: note the sword pommel
from Guilton, Kent, in particular), while silver inlay is used on occasion, as with an
impressive long knife (scramasax) recovered from the Thames (D. Wilson AS Orna-
mental Metalwork [London, 1964] 69–73, 144–6; Illus.B 180). The Beowulf poet may
have wanted to call to mind letters inlaid in gold, though the phrase scīran goldes used
at 1694 could be taken to refer to the part of the weapon on which the runes are in-
scribed rather than to metal inlay.
1688¯f. ð®m is usually regarded as rel. (so Kl.; cf. Wn., Donoghue 1987: 88). — ōr
. . . fyrnġewinnes has given interpreters some diÌculty, on the assumption that syðþan is
a conjunction rather than an adverb, in which event a comma would be required after
fyrnġewinnes. Kock (1918: 2, Kock5 84, Hoops, v.Sch.; cf. Kl. 1926: 205–7) supposes
ōr . . . fyrnġewinnes has the meaning ‘all about the ancient strife,’ ‘an exposition of the
ancient strife,’ but ōr is unattested in such a sense. Klaeber speculates that the allusion
is to the ungodly acts of the giants which preceded the deluge (cf. 113¯f.); alternatively,
since the phrase is so imprecise, it is not inconceivable that even the rebellion of
Lucifer and his band of angels could be encompassed by the notion of the origin of
ancient strife. Yet in either instance the meaning required of syðþan would appear to be
not ‘after’ (conj., as Kl. supposes, with a comma before) but ‘before’ (adv., beginning
an independent clause), though this is not a plausible meaning for the word, as pointed
out by Cronan NOWELE 31–2 (1997) 57–68. He construes ōr as referring to Cain’s
primal crime, and he takes the verses on the destruction of the giants to represent a
minor digression, just as the earlier allusion to Cain’s crime prompts a similar excursus
on the destruction of the giants in 108–14. On this interpretation it is unnecessary to
assume that there is engraved on the hilt, either in runes or pictorial carving, the de-
struction of the giants, rather an allusion to Cain (and his crime?) and the name of the
sword’s original owner — if they are not the same, as might be inferred from swā 1694,
which cannot mean ‘also’ (so Kl.) and thus not improbably refers to 1688b–9a. (Köberl
Neophil. 71 [1987] 120–8 argues that the name on the hilt is Heremōd’s.) See also
Schrader NM 94 (1993) 141–7, suggesting that the inscription is in Hebrew letters. Re-
gardless of what precisely is inscribed on the hilt, this is the sole reference in the poem
to writing and reading, and as such it has attracted repeated notice as a site of tension
between encroaching literacy and the historically oral genre of the poem: see Frantzen
1990: 184–7; Lerer 1991: 158–94 & in Bjork & Niles 1997: 337–8; Near PMLA 108
(1993) 320–32 (cf. 1177–9); McNelis in Stud. in Eng. Lang. & Lit., ed. M. Toswell &
E. Tyler (London, 1996) 175–85; Pasternack in O’Brien O’Keeffe 1997: 182–9; Waugh
CL 49 (1997) 289–315. See also Overing 1990: 57–67. — Supposing the sword’s hilt
does describe the drowning of the giants, how can it do so if the sword is itself ġīganta
ġeweorc 1562? Clemoes (1995: 28 n.¯59) argues that enta ®rġeweorc refers to the hilt
only, and the poet distinguished between biblical ġīgantas and native entas (as argued
earlier by Bandy PLL 9 [1973] 240; see also Melinkoff ASE 9 [1980] 184; Robinson
1985: 31–3; Cronan op. cit. 65). Or could the sword have been made by giants some-
how living after the Ïood, like Goliath? — Taylor 2000: 123–37 revives the old idea
that the Ïood described is not biblical but is the deluge caused by the death of Ymir (as
in the Eddas); cf. Chambers’s note.
 COMMENTARY 213
1691. frēcne ġefērdon, ‘they fared terribly’: cf. Sat 61¯f., and see Kl. 1905–6: 262;
Crawford MLR 23 (1928) 208. Possibly ġefērdon means ‘behaved’ (so Lawrence JEGP
10 [1911] 638; Kock5 86), but this sense is otherwise restricted to forms of the simplex
fēran (see DOE).
1696b. hwām. ‘For whom,’ probably not ‘by whom,’ since evidence for a dative of
personal agency in OE is weak (see OES §§¯1371¯ff.). It is diÌcult to determine, how-
ever, whether names in runes on AS and Gmc. weapons designate the owner or the
maker: see, e.g., Davidson 1962: 82, 135–6; R. Elliott Runes, rev. ed. (Manchester,
1989) 43; R. Page An Intr. to Eng. Runes, rev. ed. (Woodbridge, 1999) 113.
1700–84. Hrōðgār’s long admonitory address to the hero (his ‘sermon,’ so called
¢rst by E. 136), falls into four readily discernible divisions, viz. (1) 1700–9a (praise for
the hero); (2) 1709b–24a (the second Heremōd digression; cf. 901–15); (3) 1724b–68
(direct moral instruction); (4) 1769–84 (personal application of the theme). (For other
analyses of the structure, see Cox 1971: 132, Kaske OEN 10.1 [1976] 6–7, Hansen ASE
10 [1982] 62, Orchard 2003: 159.) The structure of the passage thus to some extent
resembles that of certain homiletic lyrics, including The Wanderer, The Seafarer, and
Dream of the Rood, which ¢rst tell of bitter personal experience, then offer moral
maxims as evidence of the wisdom afforded by that experience, and ¢nally relate that
wisdom more directly to the life of the speaker and his audience. Since the third divi-
sion incorporates some few phrases with fairly close parallels in AS homiletic literature
(see the notes on 1724¯ff., 1741b–2a, 1743¯ff., 1759¯f.), this has inclined some to perceive
the address as the moral center of the poem and the most forthright expression of its
Christian theme. Speci¢cally, the warnings against pride (oferhyġda d®l 1740) and
miserly avarice (1748–52) have been perceived by many to represent the poet’s judg-
ment of the hero’s moral state when Bēowulf later faces the dragon and wins the wealth
that it has hoarded, or of the heroic code by which he has lived. (See particularly
Goldsmith 1960, 1962, 1970: 183–209; Bandy Neophil. 56 [1972] 86–92; Locherbie-
Cameron Poetica 10 [1978] 1–11; Bliss 1979; Orchard 1995: 47–53; cf. Bonjour 1950:
48–53; Green¢eld 1985: 401; Ushigaki Stud. in Eng. Lit., Eng. no. [1985] 7). But when
the quadripartite structure is given due consideration, it appears remarkable that the
moral that Hrōðgār himself takes from the address, illustrating it from his own life
(1769–84), is not one of pride or avarice, which are common homiletic themes, but of
the error of not being prepared for edwenden. Such a sin might best be called compla-
cency — a ‘secular’ fault, inasmuch as it is not treated (at least, in terms like these) in
AS homilies, and though it is reminiscent of Boethian attitudes, preparation for muta-
bility is so much commoner a theme in verse than in prose (one thinks especially of
Deor, but also The Wanderer and others; see also Ringler Speculum 41 [1966] 49–67)
that it can hardly have been introduced to AS England by the Consolatio philosophiae.
Indeed, the nouns edwenden and edwend are found only in verse, and just twice outside
of Beowulf. Hrōðgār’s admonition thus offers another striking example of the amalga-
mation of different cultural inÏuences, representing what appears to be a native heroic
theme imbued with Christian precepts and sentiments. See especially Shippey 1972:
42–3; also Cherniss 1972: 148–9, Earl So. Atlantic Bull. 44 (1979) 81–98, Robinson
1985: 33, Kindrick Medievalia et Humanistica n.s. 10 (1981) 3–4, Kroll MP 84.2 (1986)
120; cf. Osborn 1978: 977–8, Bosse & Wyatt PLL 23 (1987) 269–70. — The earlier
scholarship on Hrōðgār’s address (and particularly its third division) was chieÏy con-
cerned with the question whether it should be viewed as integral to the poem’s moral
outlook or whether it is best regarded as a later interpolation, the latter view now
having been almost entirely abandoned (but see note on 1763¯ff.). See esp. Müllenhoff
130¯f., Earle 1892: lxxxviii, 166¯f., Kl. 1911–12: [47–51, 61–2], Bonjour 1950: 48–53,
Clemoes in Chase 1981: 180; Intr. xc & n.¯2; Cook 1925. Portions of the admonition
have also been compared by Kl. to passages in Daniel (107, 113–15, 489–94, 563–6,
589–92, 598, 604–7, 614, 668–72, 677, 751), and on the basis of parallels to Christ II
(esp. 659–90 and 756–78) it has been asserted that Cynewulf was responsible for this
214 BEOWULF
passage. (See Sarrazin Angl. 14 [1892] 409¯ff., EStn. 38 [1907] 187, id. 1913: 155–6, at
¢rst supported by Kl., who was later dissuaded by Cook 1925; see also Chadwick &
Chadwick 1932: 559; and cf. G. Grau Quellen & Verwandtschaften der älteren germ.
Darstellungen des Jüngsten Gerichtes, SEP 31 [Halle, 1908], arguing for Cynewulf’s
authorship of the entire poem.)
1705b¯f. Eal .¯.¯. hit may be explained as antecedent to mæġen mid mōdes snyttrum,
i.e. ‘strength and wisdom’: cf. 2461¯f., 287¯ff., 1043¯ff.; see Kl. 1911–12: [35]. Alterna-
tively, Kock5 86¯f. and Malone Angl. 55 (1931) 271 (the latter treating eal as an adverb),
followed by Holt.6–8 and Dob., regard mid mōdes snyttrum as a variant of ġeþyldum,
for the meaning of which (‘steadfastly’), cf. Gifts 79¯f.; Otfrid, Ad Ludowicum 14: thaz
duit er al mit ebin. On the theme of conjoined sapientia et fortitudo, see Kaske 1958.
1707b–9a. Ðū scealt tō frōfre weorþan (etc.) seems reminiscent of Luke 2: 32, 34.
Cf. Brandl in P.Grdr.2 iia 1002, Kl. 1911–12: [35].
1709b¯f. Ne wearð Heremōd swā (namely, tō frōfre, tō helpe) eaforum Ecgwelan.
Kl. justi¢es this reference to the Danes as Ecgwela’s sons by comparison to the earlier
reference to the Frisians as Finn’s sons, but that interpretation depends upon a metric-
ally unacceptable emendation (see 1068¯ff. note). It does seem peculiar that the Danes
should be called the sons of obscure Ecgwela, who is mentioned nowhere else (see Intr.
lvii n.¯5); hence the speculation that eaforum has been written for eafora (see Varr.),
making Heremōd the son of Ecgwela; if so, this would be another instance of confusion
of a and ū (Appx.C §¯8). Malone’s interpretation (Angl. 56 [1932] 436¯f.) of Ecgwela as
‘sword-vexer,’ a kenning for ‘shield’ (i.e. Scyld), is ingenious.
1711. ne ġewēox hē him tō willan. Von Schaubert, comparing 635, supposes the
meaning is ‘he did not show good will toward them,’ but the plain meaning is ‘he did
not mature as they wished’; see Gloss.: willa.
1714¯f. āna hwearf, etc., refers to Heremōd’s exile and death; see 902–4a, Intr. lvii.
1716b¯ff. Ðēah þe hine¯.¯.¯. This clause is subordinated to the foregoing by Schü.Sa.
23, Kl.3 (not Kl.1–2), Holt.7–8, v.Sch., Wn., MR, also Hoops, who begin a new sentence
with hwæþere 1718, pointing up the contrast between āna hwearf 1714 and ofer ealle
men forð ġefremede. Yet the antithesis between the two clauses introduced by Ðēah
and hwæþere seems more integral to Hrōðgār’s theme: despite all that God has given
him, the heedless man (here represented by Heremōd) grows mean of spirit. For paral-
lels to the ðēah . . . hwæþere construction (‘although . . . yet’), see Dan 232¯f., Phoen
638¯ff., Jul 515¯ff, etc.; cf. Quirk 1954: 28; Mitchell NM 70 (1969) 81; OES §¯3797;
Crépin. Also, although Kl. construes ofer ealle men with the following verb, the pres-
ent arrangement avoids a breach of Kuhn’s second law (Kendall 1991: 80; Orton RES
50 [1999] 298; Appx.C §¯7).
1720. (bēagas ġeaf¯.¯.¯.) æfter dōme, ‘in pursuit of glory,’ ‘in order to obtain glory.’
(Cf., e.g., MRune 2¯f.) Similarly, drēah æfter dōme 2179. See Kock2 113; Kl. 1926: 213.
(The older view: ‘according to his judgment’; cf. Ni.: ‘according to their deserts’; MR:
‘according to custom [or honor].’)
1721¯f. þæt hē þæs ġewinnes weorc þrōwade, / lēodbealo longsum. He suffered
everlasting punishment in hell, according to Bu. 38; Kl. 1911–12: [30]; Blake JEGP 61
(1962) 278–87. Cf. GenB 295¯f. Von Schaubert perceives lēod- as ‘man’ rather than
‘people,’ comparing 1946; cf. Kl. MLN 34 (1919) 129¯f.
1724b¯ff. The section of Hrōðgār’s monologue offering direct moral instruction
makes use of some frequently encountered theological motifs, including God’s dispen-
sing of various gifts, the sins of pride and avarice, and the shafts of the devil. See Kl.
1911–12: [12–16, 47–51] for parallels and detailed comment. A particular inÏuence is
the concluding portion of a homily of Gregory the Great (Homiliae in evangelia 29,
Migne 76.1218–19; see Cook 1900: 115–16). It has been observed, too, that the homi-
letic tone of the ‘sermon’ is reinforced by the pairing of alliterating ¢nite verbs (1741a,
1751a, 1767a), a typical rhetorical pattern in vernacular homilies (Clemoes in Chase
1981: 180–1).
 COMMENTARY 215
1725–7. The meaning is, ‘To some men God allots wisdom, to others wealth and
rank.’ On ealra, see Lang. §¯26.9. (It is not likely that ealra refers to manna cynne.)
According to Kock (1921: 1–2; also Kock5 87, Holt.6–7; cf. Kl. 1926: 207), snyttru is
rather instr. sg., parallel to þurh sīdne sefan.
1728. Hwīlum hē on lufan l®teð hworfan. For the scansion, see Appx.C §§¯27, 41.
The meaning ‘wander (i.e. live: cf. 2888) in delight’ (lufu: concretion of meaning) pro-
posed (and later rejected) by Kl. 1908b: 464, EStn. 41 (1910) 112, is adopted by Cha.;
cf. MR: ‘turn toward his desires.’ Connection with eardlufu (692, cf. eard 1727) was
the ¢nal judgment of Kl. 1926: 2o8; so Hoops St. 110–12: ‘dear home.’ It is possible
that lufan has been altered from a form of lufen (cf. 2884¯ff.), though the meaning ‘ten-
ancy,’ accordingly proposed by Kock5 88–9 and favored by Holt.7–8 and Dob., fails to
convince. Cf. Schü. EStn. 67.1 (1932) 7: lufu = amor sui (Augustine).
1730b¯f. It may be that wynne and hlēoburh are both objects of tō healdanne, as Kl.
and others suppose.
1733b¯f. hē his selfa ne mæġ . . . ende ġeþenċean, ‘he himself cannot imagine an
end of it’ (his = ‘of it’), i.e. an end to his good fortune. See Kl. Archiv 155 (1905) 18o¯f.;
1911–12: [43].
1735b. wiht is possibly nom. rather than (adverbial) acc. (so Schü., Holt.).
1737b¯f. nē ġesacu . . . / ecghete eoweð, taken by Kl. (1926: 208, comparing 84¯f.)
and most edd. to mean, virtually, ‘nor does enmity bring about war.’ Yet this requires
an otherwise unattested meaning for eoweð. Kock5 90 is thus most likely right to take
eoweð intransitively and treat ġesacu and ecghete as parallel terms (‘nor does enmity,
sword-hatred, appear’); so Cha., v.Sch. That the uncompounded verb is always trans. is
now shown to be untrue by the DOE (s.v. ēowan). Note that analogical eoweð spoils
the meter, which requires older ©weð or non-WS ēaweð: see Appx.C §¯19, Lang. §¯10.2
n.¯1. It may be that ōhw®r stands for ōwer (as in 2870, ChristA 199, etc.; see Varr.), as
any sort of stress on the ¢nal syllable in a verse of Type C would be unusual.
1739b. hē þæt wyrse ne con. Dob. may be right to treat this as a parenthesis. Cf.
1746b.
174o. To avoid beginning a ¢tt mid-sentence with a subordinating conjunction, some
(e.g. v.Sch., Mag., Stanley 1974: 141, and MR, following Schü.Sa. 12–15; also Mar-
quardt Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 1940, p.¯539) regard oð þæt as an adverb or ad-
verbial phrase meaning ‘and then’ or ‘at length’: see Mitchell N&Q 25 (1978) 390–4,
with references and synopsis; also Robinson 2005: 365–6. Cf. Fulk SP 104 (2007) 168–
71; and see Intr. xxxv. — þonne (1741) may be a conjunction (so the 9 edd., excl. Cha.,
Dob., Ni.; cf. Grinda IF 87 [1982] 335).
1741b–2a. þonne se weard swefeð, / sāwele hyrde. By the keeper of the soul (cf.
Middle Eng. Sawles Warde) is meant either ‘conscience’ or (more likely) ‘intellect,
reason.’ See Kl. 1911–12: [14–15]; Orchard 1995: 51. (Cook 1925: 394 n.¯12 compares
custos animae, Prov. 16: 17, 22: 5.)
1742b. bið se sl®p tō fæst, treated as a parenthesis (so Sed., Cha.; cf. Wn.), is less
than fully satisfactory, given that the verb for 1743b must then be supplied from the
parenthesis rather than from the last non-parenthetical clause. Yet the alternative of
applying ġebunden 1743a to the sleep rather than to the sleeper (so Kl., 8 edd., as here)
also fails to inspire con¢dence, since the binding of persons by cares is common in OE
(cf. 2111¯f., And 1395¯f., Deor 24, etc.), while the binding of an abstraction like sleep
with aÑictions is not. It may be that the two clauses are intertwined in an unexampled
manner.
1743b¯ff. bona; cf. gāstbona 177. The devil’s mysterious biddings (sinister sugges-
tions, wōm wundľrbebodum 1747) are equated with his sharp arrows, 1746; see Kl.
Archiv 108 (1902) 368¯f. On the arrows of the devil (deriving ultimatately from Ephes.
6: 11–16), see Kl. 1911–12: [12–14], id. Angl. 56 (1932) 423¯f.; Crawford, RES o.s. 7
(1931) 448–50; Atherton Neophil. 77 (1993) 653–7; also Vercelli hom. iv (HomU 9)
308–10, 337–42.
216 BEOWULF
1745¯ff. The older practice was to treat Þonne as a subordinating conjunction, in-
troducing a clause dependent on him bebeorgan ne con; so also Tr., Sed.1–2, Holt.7.
Yet the thing guarded against should be in the accusative case after bebeorgan (as
noted by Dob.).
1751b. þæs þe may mean ‘because’ or ‘after’ (see Gloss.: sē), but it may also mean
‘that which’ or ‘what,’ as gen. object of forġ©með (Mitchell 1988b: 5–6).
1756. unmurnlīċe and undyrne 2oooa, along with unlēofe 2863b, are the only sure
instances of unstressed pre¢x un- in the poem, though unġyfeðe 2921 is most likely
another (see HOEM §¯226). Kendall ASE 10 (1982) 39–52 argues for many more exam-
ples. On the rhetorical uses of un-, see Intr. cxi.
1757b. eġesan ne ġ©með ampli¢es the idea of unmurnlīċe. See Aant.; Kl. Angl. 28
(1905) 455. Kock2 144: ‘does not keep anxiously (eġesan, dat.-instr.) [the hoard]’ (?);
cf. Kl. 1926: 2o8, Hoops. Vickrey MP 71.3 (1974) 295–300: ‘he does not fear (to dis-
tribute the hoard)’ (and unmurnlīċe = ‘generously’); similarly MR.
1759b¯f. þæt sēlre ġeċēos, / ēċe r®das. Kl. 1911–12: [35–6] points out parallels to
this phrasing in devotional literature, e.g. Lk (WSCp) 10.42: ġeċēs þæne sēlestan d®l).
See also Dahlberg 1985; Galloway PMLA 105 (1990) 202; cf. Hel. 1201¯f.: feng im
uuôðera thing, / langsamoron râd; ChristB 757. — (oferh©da) ne ġ©m, i.e. ‘shun’
(litotes).
1763¯ff. The enumeration of the different kinds of death (cf. 1846¯ff.) recalls passages
in classical and ecclesiastical literature; see Kl. Archiv 126 (1911) 359. The polysyn-
deton effected by the repetition of oððe in this passage is another rhetorical device of
vernacular homilies: see J. Cross Vetenskaps-Societeten i Lund Årsbok 1958–9, pp.¯75–
110. For this reason, Lapidge (ASE 29 [2000] 38–9) regards this passage as a late inter-
polation. The homiletic effect is heightened by the repetition of the pre¢x in forsiteð
ond forsworceð (similarly forġyteð ond forġ©með 1751).
1769. Swā introduces an individual exempli¢cation of the preceding general ob-
servation; cf. 3o66, Wan 19. Possibly, though, it should be construed with þæt 1772
(OES §¯2850¯n.).
1770b–2a. Although wiġġe could be regarded as parallel to manigum m®ġþa (as Kl.
at ¢rst supposed, 1908b: 464; also Schü.), it is more natural to construe it in an instru-
mental sense, ‘by war’ (also implying, perhaps, by readiness for war). See Kock2 114.
But the chief emphasis is laid on the peaceful character of Hrōðgār’s long reign, just as
in the case of Bēowulf, 2732¯ff.; cf. also Otfrid i 1.75¯ff. Heyne ¢rst pointed out the
remarkable parallel in the Benedictine OÌce, Psalm 34: 3: (mē¯.¯.¯.) wīġe belūc wrāðum
fēondum (conclude adversus eos qui persequuntur me). Cf. Kl. EStn. 39 (1908) 464,
Angl. 35 (1912) 469; Kock2 14¯f.
1777¯f. þ®re sōcne. For the gen. dependent on mōdċeare, cf. ðæs mōdċeare 1992
(Hoops). An alternative view holds it for dat.: ‘from that persecution’ (Schü., Cha.,
Sed., Ni.).
1783. wīġġeweorþad, i.e. wīġ-ġeweorþad. The reading wiġġe weorþad (see Varr.) is
unlikely because although ġeweorðod occurs 22 times in verse, weorðod would occur
only here and in wiġġe weorðod (El 1195a). The relative improbability of weorþad is
not affected by wiġġe ġeweorðod (El 150a), nor by the MS spacing (cf. Hoops). Cf.
lyftġeswenċed 1913, handġewriþene 1937.
1785–1887. The parting of Hrōðgār and his guest.
1792b. uniġmetes, along with unġemete 2420, 2721, 2728, and other forms of
unġemet in verse, is a metrical oddity in that one would expect -mete to receive a
degree of stress: see Momma Med. Engl. Stud. Newsletter 23 (1990) 10¯f. Rather, here
and everywhere, it appears that only the ¢rst syllable of the word is fully stressed (cf.
HOEM §¯80 n.¯14; Hildebr. 25: ummett[i]), producing here a verse of type D (Siev.¯R.
260, Momma) or E (Suz. 21–2, 519, etc.; cf. 1743b, etc.). Pope 331, Russom 1987: 120–
1, Kendall ASE 10 [1982] 48, and Hutch. 265 would de-stress un-, though it is debat-
able whether the ¢nal word of the verse can properly form a drop in type A (a problem
 COMMENTARY 217
recognized by Hutch.; cf. Appx.C §¯27). The word need not be proclitic, as supposed
by Bliss §¯86: cf. GenB 313, Met 7.28, MRune 29, etc.
1794. sōna probably cannot be a conjunction: see Mitchell RES 31 (1980) 403.
1796. andrysnum has been understood by all edd. for more than a century (incl. Kl.)
to mean ‘courtesies,’ assuming a connection w. ġerysne (q.v. in Gloss.). Yet the word
is unattested with such a meaning and has no close parallel in Germanic. To avoid such
speculative etymologizing it must be connected with adj. ondrysne 1932. In nominal
form, as here, it is attested in both the senses ‘terror’ and ‘reverence,’ as observed by
Moore JEGP 18 (1919) 209¯f., returning to the view of Thorpe and BT. See also Bamm.
BGdSL 99 (1977) 206–12. It is not implausible that the hero’s attendant should serve
him out of reverence, esp. considering what he has accomplished this day. No fear need
be implied: cf. St. Martin, described in LS 17.1 (Blickl. hom. xvii) as lēof ℓ weorð ℓ
ondrysne for his pious works.
1797. Does þeġnes have a collective sense here (so Holt., Sed., Hoops 194, v.Sch.,
Dob., Crp., Ja., MR; see Thomas MLR 22 [1927] 72), or does it refer speci¢cally to
Bēowulf? If the former, þ© dōgor (see Varr.) must be meant in a generic sense, ‘in
those days’; cf. 197, 79o. Hoops: ‘on that day,’ ‘on such a day.’ If, however, andrys-
num means ‘reverence,’ probably þeġnes refers to Bēowulf.
1801. The raven in the peculiar role as herald of the morning recalls the proper name
Dæġhrefn 2501. Cf. Helgakv. Hund. II 42 (Óðinn’s hawks rejoicing at the coming of
morning). The raven, though unexpected, has generally been regarded as a cheerful
sign in this context (e.g. by Puhvel ELN 10 [1973] 243–7, Hume MP 67.1 [1969] 60–3).
Horowitz JEGP 80 (1981) 502–11 and Lapidge 2001: 66–7 would regard it as an omen
of death; Osborn (in Damico & Leyerle 1993: 313–30) as a token of the restoration of
Heorot. See also Damon Work in Progress (Dept. of English, Univ. of Arizona) 1
(1990) 60–70 (reading blāca ‘brilliant’ and perceiving an allusion to the white raven of
classical tradition), Chck. 344–7.
18o2b–3a. Though there is no gap in the MS, something is plainly wanting, probably
no more than the equivalent of a verse. Klaeber’s [scīma ofer sceadwa] ‘brightness
over shadows,’ with scacan in 1802b, is offered as a slight improvement on Sievers’s
[scīma æfter sceadwe] (see Varr.); cf. Phoen 209¯f.: sunne hātost / ofer sceadu scīneð.
Yet because ¯scacan alliterates in 1803, the textual loss more likely precedes it.
18o5¯f. Klaeber and the edd. place no punctuation after collenferhð, and he inter-
prets feor þanon to mean that the hero wanted to go to the ship ‘for a voyage far away’
(Earle 1892). The syntax may seem more familiar if with wolde is supplied (mentally)
a verb of motion (as in 318, 543, etc.) with which nēosan is in variation.
18o7–12. Heht þā se hearda Hrunting beran, etc. Because þæs lēanes ought to
mean ‘for that reward’ rather than ‘for that loan,’ to make sense of this passage Klaeber
would have Ūnferð as the subject: ‘Then the brave son of Ecglāf had Hrunting brought
(cf. 1023¯f.), bade [him] take his sword, the precious weapon; he [i.e. Bēowulf] thanked
him for that gift, said he considered the war-friend [cf. hildefrōfor, WaldB 12] good,’
etc. (See Kl. 1905–6: 460; similarly Cha., Holt.1–6, Sed., Ja.) Yet the interpretation of
lēanes still does not seem quite right (is it Ūnferð’s oÌce to reward the hero?), and it
has not been mentioned that Hrunting was earlier returned to Ūnferð. Kl.3 concedes
that the usual interpretation is simpler: Bēowulf had Hrunting brought to Ūnferð and
bade him take it back. (The idea that sunu, in ref. to Ūnferð, is acc. [so Cha., Kock5 90,
Crp.] faces the objection that the repetition of heht in 1807¯f. is diÌcult to accept if the
verbs do not indicate commands to different persons. For beran with dat., see 1192,
2281, 2988; cf. 1023¯f.) It may be that lēanes is an inverted spelling for l®nes (see
Varr.; Lang. §§¯7.1, 21.1): l®n ‘loan’ is elsewhere always feminine, but the word is in
origin neuter, the gender of its Germanic cognates (SB §¯288¯n.), and if neuter l®nes
was an unfamiliar archaism, this would account for the scribal change. (The same error
is to be found in Ex 150: see Kock loc. cit.) Yet Kl. points out (Su. 468) that l®n is
most likely unpoetic, in verse found only as a loan from Old Saxon in GenB. The
218 BEOWULF
problem seems intractable, and Klaeber himself ultimately left the question open (see
Kl. 1926: 209, Archiv 191 [1955] 219). Still, whether lēanes is a scribal error, an
archaism, a pun (so Crp.), or the result of a dialectal, or even an idiolectal, confusion
with l®n (so Hoops), the passage makes best sense if the word is assumed to mean
‘loan.’ See further the Varr.; Schröer Angl. 13 (1891) 337–40; Jellinek & Kraus ZfdA 35
(1891) 279–81.
1813–16. It might be preferable to regard the ¢rst clause here as subordinate (so
Wülck., Hold., Tr., Schü., Cha., Ni., MR, with most of the earlier edd.), but the scribe,
at least, seems to have thought otherwise, as he has placed a point after w®ron and
given ēode a small capital. See Kl. 1926: 209. Many edd. (e.g. Wülck., Wy., Holt.,
Sed., Cha., Ni.) begin a new clause with hæle hildedēor, but Kock5 90¯f., citing the
similar construction in 1644¯ff., regards this as appositive to æþeling, and Hrōðgār
grētte as parallel to ēode. Klaeber (ibid.) agrees, but he advises against the expected
comma after hildedēor because it might give the impression that the word refers to
Hrōðgār (which it ought not: see Ries 1907: 379–80). His punctuation is adopted by
most recent edd.
1820b¯f. Mackie 1939: 523, comparing 1091, would not have willum vary tela, but it
would mean ‘with desirable gifts.’
1822b. ōwihte. Kock5 91¯f. notes that ōwihte with compar. means ‘aught,’ ‘any,’
‘anything,’ ‘at all’ (greater, etc.), not ‘in any way,’ as the edd. (excl. Dob.) have it.
(That ōwihte is not elsewhere separated from the comparative by another word, out of
six examples, does not seem signi¢cant: see Hoops.) The latter function is served
always by wihte, appearing in neg. and interrog. constructions (cf. note to 2432¯ff.).
Hence ōwihte is most likely not an adverbial dat. but the gen. object of tilian, modi¢ed
by māran, with dependent þīnre mōdlufan, i.e. ‘any(thing) more of your affection’:
see HOEM §¯140 n.¯8.
1825. Klaeber supplies the comma after gūðġeweorca, remarking that iċ bēo ġearo
sōna gives the impression of a complete clause (similarly Dob., Ja.). He would con-
strue gūðġeweorca with instrumental force, like nīða 845, 1439, 22o6; see Aant. [37].
Others construe it with tilian, forming a (vague) parallel to mōdlufan māran. Sed.
would connect it with ōwihte; so Hoops, v.Sch., Ni., MR (cf. Rudanko 1983: 47). ġearo
is known elsewhere to take a complement in the genitive (cf. Jul 49¯f.: iċ bēo ġearo
sōna .¯.¯. willan þīnes ‘ready for [i.e. to do] your will’), and to some that has seemed the
least complicated analysis (so Gr.1, He., Wy, Tr., Cha.), despite Klaeber’s objection
that in such instances the gen. never precedes ġearo (1926: 210; verses 1004¯ff. are
probably an exception). Yet if þīnre mōdlufan is dependent on ōwihte (as supra), gūð-
ġeweorca may be parallel (but not appositive) to it: i.e., ‘achieve any more of your
affection or of martial deeds.’ Thus Klaeber’s objection (to Sedge¢eld’s analysis) that
ōwihte and gūðġeweorca are rather widely separated loses force, because of the inter-
vening parallel construction.
1828. swā þeċ hetende. Type C1. The degemination of tt in hetende is analogical
and (prob.) merely orthographic (Lang. §¯20.5).
183ob–1a. Iċ on Hiġelāc wāt, / Ġēata dryhten. Klaeber (unlike Hoops) declines to
emend MS higelace, remarking that congruence is not necessary in the case of apposi-
tion (1905–6: 259; Lang. §¯26.6; note on 48; Hel. 49¯f.) and citing the metrical parallel
of 501b. (The lack of concord can be remedied by reading either Hiġelāc or dryhtne:
see Varr.) Yet the metrical type of the unemended verse is rare and improbable (see
HOEM §¯238), and as the similar construction in 2650b has acc. meċ after on, emenda-
tion is justi¢ed on more than one basis. Since the acc. is unanticipated, it may be that
the scribe mechanically wrote the dat. form that he expected. MR do not emend but
translate brilliantly, ‘As for Hygelac, I know that the lord of the Geats, the people’s
protector, though he is young, will want to support me with words and deeds’ (sim-
ilarly Ja.). The parallel constructions cited in OES §¯1441 are weighty evidence, yet the
syntax required of the verses to produce this meaning seems too unusual to save the
 COMMENTARY 219
MS reading, the proleptic use of Ġēata dryhten outside of its clause being particularly
suspect.
1831b. þēah ðe hē ġeong sŷ. There is an inconsistency in representing Hyġelāc here
as still young (also in 1969), whereas several years before he had given his daughter in
marriage to Eofor. (See Intr. lix.) That a young person is not ordinarily credited with
wisdom may be seen from 1927¯f., 1842¯f.; also Wan 64¯f.
1833. wordum ond worcum, a formulaic phrase (see Gloss.: word; Hel. 1737, 1768,
etc.), one with an ancient ring to it: cf. Homeric Ґπέων Еδẁ καі Ẁργων. Correction of MS
weordum hardly entails emendation of worcum (see Varr.): cf. 289, 1100. — þæt iċ þē
wēl heriġe; the verb herian ‘praise’ perhaps assumes the sense ‘show one’s esteem by
deeds’; cf. weorðian 2o96. (Hel. 81: uuaruhtun lof goda, 83: diuridon ûsan drohtin,
etc.) See Aant.; Kl. 1905–6: 261; Cha.; Kock5 92¯f., Hoops 199: ‘help’; cf. Kl. 1926:
210; Stanley NM 72 (1971) 407. Compare the different meanings of ār. Perhaps instead
neriġe is meant (see Varr.).
1836¯f. Ġif him þonne Hrēþrīċ tō hofum Ġēata / ġeþinġeð, ‘.¯.¯.¯determines [to go]
to¯.¯.¯.’ Parallels to this function of (reÏ.) ġeþinġan occur JDay I 5, Sat 597, Nic(D) 56,
HomS 40.2 (Blickl. hom. ix) 1–3 (see Aant.). For the omission of the verb of motion,
see Gloss.: willan, sculan; ÆLS (Oswald) 213: þider hē ġemynt hæfde; also Laµamon’s
Brut (C) 14029: þa þu to Rome þohtest; etc. The meaning ‘(arrange to) take service’
has been conjectured for ġeþinġan (NHG sich verdingen; see Schü., Lorz 1908: 68),
but this is not well attested. Kock5 93: ‘make arrangements for oneself to go’; MR: ‘(if
Hrēðrīċ) lodges a plea for himself’ (i.e., MS geþinged = ġeþingað).
1838b¯f. feorc©þðe bēoð / sēlran ġesōhte þ®m þe him selfa dēah, ‘far countries
when visited (i.e. travels to far countries) are good (see Lang. §¯26.2) for him who will
do right for himself.’ Perhaps the intended sense is more precisely ‘who will improve
himself’: so Shippey 1977: 32, who aptly compares Hávamál 18: Sá einn veit, / er víða
ratar / ok he¢r fj∂lð um farið, / hverju geði stýrir / gumna hverr, / sá er vitandi er vits.
In the sagas, those who have traveled abroad are commonly said to be improved, e.g.,
Hrafnkels saga, ch. 8: Eyvindr . . . hafði útan verit sjau vetr. Eyvindr hafði mikit við
gengizk um menntir ok var orðinn inn vaskasti maðr. (Sed., reading selfan for sēlran,
offers the translation ‘far countries are visited by a man in person when he is himself
noble’; J.M. Hill 1995: 90: selfa dēah = ‘honors himself’; Dobbie makes out the gen-
eral sense to be that ‘one who is worthy [such as Hrēðrīċ] will be better treated in a
foreign country.’) Yet because of the possibility of treachery in connection with the
succession of Hrēðrīċ to the Danish throne (see 1017–19¯n.), conceivably Bēowulf is
not so much suggesting the bene¢ts of travel as offering a safe haven in exile (see
Orchard 2003: 217, Earl in Joy & Ramsey 2006: 695). Thayer ELN 41.2 (2003) 1–18
perceives an allusion to Frēawaru’s projected marriage to Inġeld. See also Deskis 1996:
126–8. The participial construction accords with Latin syntax (Kl. Archiv 126 [1911]
355), yet it gives an idiomatic impression.
1840b. him on andsware, with alliteration on h, is metrically out of the ordinary (see
Rie.V. 311; Mö. 141; Holt.Zs. 125; cf. Kock5 93¯f., Hoops St. 115¯f.), as type D* normal-
ly demands double alliteration and thus does not occur in the off-verse: see Appx.C
§¯31. Here, however, the formula does conform to Kuhn’s ¢rst law (Appx.C §¯6), with
stress on the pronoun in mid-clause (hence, Holthausen’s insertion [see Varr.] resolves
one diÌculty but raises another), while at El 642 it does not.
1843b. þingian, ‘make arrangements,’ i.e. conduct diplomacy.
1844–5a. Bēowulf is declared perfect in thought, words, and action. Distinct reli-
gious overtones have been observed: see Kl. 1911–12: [35], with refs. to parallels in de-
votional literature. (Cf. 1705¯f.)
1846b. ðe. Mitchell (1988b: 6) takes this to mean ‘from you’ (ðē, dat. of interest), as
does v.Sch.; cf. OES §¯1956.
1850. þæt þe S®-Ġēatas sēlran næbben. Several edd. (He., Soc., Wy., Tr., Schü.,
Sed.1–2, Cha., v.Sch., Wn., Mag.) adopt þē; but the construction of the dat. (instr.) with
220 BEOWULF
a compar. (‘better than you’) is found nowhere else in the poem. The corresponding
passage at 858¯ff. supports þæt þe (= þætte); cf. 1846. (Kl. Archiv 126 [1911] 356 n.¯1.)
Small (1929: 38–40) also argues for þē, citing parallels in verse (El 505¯f., 565, 1109,
ChristC 1188, 1241, 1651, etc.); see also Mitchell 1988b: 6. The question cannot be
settled conclusively, but at all events the dat. of comparison must not be excluded on
chronological grounds, since ChristC shows metrical signs of antiquity (see HOEM,
p.¯399). Indeed, it has been claimed that the dat. of comparison is itself an archaism
(Breivik FLH 12 [1992] 24¯f.), and this is likely, as the construction is commoner in
verse than in prose (OES §¯1362; see Small 1929: 97–100), and the dative (ablative) of
comparison is widespread among the IE languages, though Kl. sees it as a Latinism in
Beo (Beibl. 48 [1937] 162).
1852b¯f. ġyf þū healdan wylt / māga rīċe. Perhaps a hint at Bēowulf’s future refusal
to accept the throne, 2373¯ff.
1854. līcað lenġ swā wēl. Unless wēl is a mere scribal blunder for sēl, the positive
may be due to a fusion of two constructions, viz., līcað wēl, and līcað lenġ swā sēl
(bet); cf. 2423, 69¯f. (n.). See BT: swā, iv 5; Kl. Angl. 27 (1904) 426; Ericson 1932: 55–
6; Hoops; OES §¯3289; cf. Sisam RES o.s. 22 (1946) 265 & n.¯2. The metrical type is
D*4: see Appx.C §¯6.
1859–61. wesan . . . ġegrētan. It is easy to lose track of the syntax of this passage.
Both in¢nitives go with sceal (1855), which is so far removed from ġegrētan that ap-
parently this or an earlier copyist took it for a preterite plural (agreeing with the
reference, if not the grammatical number, of maniġ 1860) and altered the spelling to
MS gegrettan. Holt. construes both verbs as pret. sj.; for sg. maniġ w. pl. vb., cf. El
231¯f., ChristB 795.
1862b. The risky, if tempting, interpretation of heaþu, or hēaþu (from hēah) as ‘sea’
(also in heaþolīðende: see Gloss.) has for the most part been abandoned in favor of the
emendation heafu, which is sustained here by the variant in 1861b, and by the occur-
rence of ofer heafo in 2477. The rendering of ofer heaþu as ‘after the war’ (Sarr.St. 27,
MR; cf. 1781) is by no means impossible (if less apposite), though otherwise heaþu
‘war’ is known in West Germanic only as the ¢rst element of compounds. (Cf. the very
rare use of the noun heoru by the side of numerous compounds.)
1865b. ealde wīsan. See Gloss.: wīse. Adopting a different view, Kock5 94 proposes
the meaning ‘the aged leaders’; so Hoops 2o1, taking wīsan to refer not to the kings
(note l.¯1831) but the leading retainers, seler®dende, ealdġesīðas, snotere ċeorlas; cf.
Kl. 1926: 21o. Sed.3: ‘I know the old custom (i.e. long-established friendship) to be in
every respect blameless.’
1866b. inne, ‘within’; cf. 390, 1037, 2152, 219o. Bēowulf was still inside the hall.
The word was apparently still on the scribe’s mind when he wrote it again in 1868,
where it spoils the alliteration and puts the verb into anacrusis, which is metrically
most unlikely (Appx.C §¯34).
1873b. Him wæs bēġa wēn, etc. That is, Hrōðgār anticipated two things, both that
they would and would not meet again, though of the two, one expectation was greater
(so Dob.; see also Earl in Joy & Ramsey 2006: 699–700). Cf. 1604¯f., 2895¯f. If wēn
means ‘hope’ (so Taylor NM 82 [1981] 358¯f.), it is not clear what Hrōðgār’s other hope
is. Wright’s rendering ‘it was the expectation of both’ (MP 65.1 [1967] 41; so Schubel
1979: 164), i.e. both men, is untenable, as then we should expect bām for bēġa; cf.
2910¯f., Phoen 567.
1875. The text yields more transparent sense with the assumption of a lost negative
adverb. After seoðða, Thorkelín’s amanuensis leaves a lengthy space, implying the loss
of more text than a single n, and indeed the manuscript line, before the end was
damaged, would have been unusually short if it had ended with seoððan (Cha.); and
although there are many formulaic parallels to the emended verse (cf. 1453b, El 504a,
GuthB 839a, Phoen 385b, etc.), in the formally most regular poems, siððan is never the
sole stressed element in the verse (but cf. Met 24.27a, 30a, Husb 24a). It is unnecessary
 COMMENTARY 221
to assume a reÏexive or otherwise unusual meaning for ġesēon (so Klu. ix 190, Kl.
Gloss.; Malone 1959: 2; cf. 1126¯n.), since hīe may be the object, with an unexpressed
subject (Pogatscher Angl. 23 [1901] 273, 299).
1880. born. Kl. originally emended MS beorn (see Varr.), and probably rightly so,
since the breaking of Gmc. a is nowhere else eo in the poem (see Lang. §¯12.2.), and
scribal confusion with beorn ‘man’ is likely.1 The argument of Wright MP 65.1 (1967)
42–3 and Dockray-Miller Exemplaria 10 (1998) 22–3 that MS beorn is a noun and
langað a verb makes for a strained interpretation of wið blōde; cf. Earl in Joy &
Ramsey 2006: 698–9. (In that event dyrne 1879 would be an adverb; so the DOE).
1884¯f. Þā wæs on gange ġifu Hrōðgāres, etc. Cf. 862¯f.
1887b. (yldo . . .) sē þe. Remembering the use of the masc. designations of Grendel’s
mother (see 126o¯n.), we need not be surprised to ¢nd the hostile powers of old age and
fate (2421) treated in a similar way. That sē þe should refer to Hrōðgār is dubitable.
1888–1931. Bēowulf’s return.
1892b. nōsan, a weak noun, is clearly not the same word as strong fem. nosu ‘nose,’
as the root vowel is long (see note to 2803b, and see Gloss.). That the root vowel of hlið
was ever long (see Varr.) is dubitable: see Fu.1 203–4 n.¯33.
1894¯f. cwæð þæt wilcuman Wedera lēodum, etc. That is, ‘your people will give
you a hearty welcome’ (cf. 1915¯f.). Malone 1933b: 151 supposes lēodum is dat. of
accompaniment (putting scaþan into variation), and the guard ‘makes no prophecy
about their reception overseas.’
19oo. Hē, i.e. Bēowulf, who has not been mentioned since 1880 (1883); cf. 192o. —
Is the bātweard the same as the landweard 1890?
1903b. Ġewāt him on naca. Type C3, with stress on adverbial on (cf. And 1334, PPs
65.5.5, etc.). A copyist seems to have mistaken naca for the object of on and altered it
to nacan.
1909b. ofer ©ðe. Andrew 1948: §¯168 ascribes the near-repetition of 1907b to the
copyist.
1910. bundenstefna. Thier (2002: 77) takes the word to refer to the way the ends of
planks were lashed to the stem on pre-viking vessels such as the early (ca. A.D. 335)
boat excavated at Halsnøy, Norway (see 216b n.). The older view is that bunden- means
merely ‘properly joined.’
1912b–13. ċēol up ġeþrang, lyftġeswenċed on lande stōd. The edd. (so Kl.)
generally attach lyftġeswenċed to the preceding cause and render ‘the ship rushed
forward, driven by the wind; it rested on shore.’ Yet lyftġeswenċed ought to mean
‘weather-beaten’ (so BT; Kendall 1991: 40, 79; Ja.; cf. Gr.Spr.), and this requires the
present punctuation, which better explains up. This arrangement also avoids an in-
fraction of Kuhn’s second law (Appx.C §¯7).
1918. oncĺrbendum is illustrated by a quotation from Alfred’s Soliloquies (ed.
Carnicelli 1969: 61–2): scipes ancerstrenġ byð āþenæd on ġerihte fram þām scype tō
þām ancre¯.¯.¯.¯, se ancer byd ġefastnod on ð®re eorðan. þēah þæt scyp sī ūte on ð®re s®
on þām ©dum, hyt byð ġesund [and] untōsleġen ġyf se strenġ āþolað; forðām hys byd
se ōðer ende fast on þ®re eorðan and se ōðer on ðām scype. Cf. also Whale 13¯ff.
(oncyrrāpum, which likewise a copyist seems not to have recognized, confusing it w.
onċierran vb.). hym is dat. of personal interest (cf. ‘her resources failed her’), some-
times (imprecisely) called ‘ethic dative’: see OES §§¯1352¯f.
1923b. wunað. The historical present is not a usual feature of OE, but the preterite
would be metrically unusual here (see Appx.C §¯38). Cf. Siev. 1884b: 141.

1
The supposed parallel at ChristB 540 lends exiguous support to the MS form here, as there the
scribe wrote biorn or beorn before erasing the second letter, and then e inserted above appears to
be in a different hand. If the original scribe had intended beorn, surely he would have added a top
to i to form an eo ligature, as the second scribe of Beowulf occasionally did (see Kiernan 19812:
xxvi¯f.).
222 BEOWULF
1926. hēa[h on] healle. The reading h¼ healle, in conformity to the MS, is accepted
by Wy., Tr., Cha., Kl.1–2, v.Sch. The unique pl. of heal would be strange, however, esp.
after the sg. of 1925a, and an emendation like hēah healreċed (Holt.1; cf. Zs. 118) or
hēah *healsele could represent the original reading. If 1926a is considered parallel to
1925b rather than to 1925a, Kock’s conjecture hēah on healle offers a reasonable paleo-
graphical explanation, assuming heahon was written together, mistaken for an un-
contracted weak plural, and altered by a copyist to a contracted strong one. See also
Malone MLN 56 (1941) 356 (dat. of accompaniment; cf. Kl. Beibl. 54–5 [1944] 277);
Leake 1967: 178 n.¯81; cf. Smithers Durham U. Jnl. n.s. 32 (1971) 101. Cf., e.g., the
sequence of half-line units, Phoen 9¯f.
1927b¯f. þēah ðe wintra l©t / under burhlocan ġebiden hæbbe. ‘In spite of her
youth,’ Hyġd shows the virtues of a discreet woman and a gracious, open-handed
queen, differing therein from Fremu before her marriage to Offa. under burhlocan,
‘within the fortress’ (i.e., of Hæreð? or is this a cheville? See Malone MLN 56 [1941]
356.). — þēah may begin a new period (so Tr., Malone ibid., Matthes 1961: 20;
similarly Sed.).
1930. ġifa. Regarded by Holt. not as gen. pl. but nom. sg. ‘giver’ (cf. bēag-, gold-,
sinċ-, will-ġifa).
1931b–62. Digression on Fremu and Offa.1
There remain some obscure points in the cursory allusion to Offa’s queen, who is
ostensibly introduced as a foil to the discreet, decorous, and generous queen Hyġd (see
note on 1931¯f.). In all probability this remarkable woman is meant to represent a
haughty, violent princess who cruelly arranges the death of any man bold enough to
gaze upon her attractive (®nlicu 1941) face, but who, after being wedded to the right
man, becomes an admirable wife (and a kind, generous [1952] queen). In short, her
story exempli¢es the ‘Taming of the Shrew’ motif. This interpretation of her as an
unapproachable, ¢erce type — which would place her in the company of Saxo’s
Hermutruda (iv 1,12¯ff.2, tr. 97¯f.) and Aluilda (vii 6,1¯ff., tr. 210¯ff.), Brünhild of the
Nibelungenlied, and queen Ól∂f of Hrólfs saga kraka (ch. 7) — derives support from
ll.¯1933–5, 1954. What part the father played in the story, and under what circumstances
the daughter left her home, we are left to guess; see 1934¯n.
Offa, who while still young (1948) married the noble (1949), strong-minded woman,
is extolled (1955¯ff.) as the most excellent hero,3 famed for his valor, wisdom, and
liberality. The son of Gārmund4 and the father of Ēom®r (Ēomēr), he corresponds to

1
In addition to the studies cited on the following pages, see Bachlechner Germ. 1 (1856) 297–
303, 455–61; Suchier BGdSL 4 (1877) 500–21; Müll. 71¯ff., 131¯f.; ten Brink 115¯ff., 221¯f., 229¯ff.;
Olrik Afnf. 8 (1892) 368–75 & Kilderne til Sakses Oldhistorie II (1894) 177¯f., 182¯ff.; A. Gough
The Constance Saga (Pal. 23); Gerould MLN 17 (1902) 201–3; Boer Handelingen van het 3de
Nederlandsche Philologen-Congres (1903) 84–94; Chadwick 1907: ch. 6; Stefanović A. 35 (1911)
483–525 & EStn. 69 (1934) 15–31; Cha.Wid. 84¯ff., 202¯ff.; Kier 1915: 65¯ff.; Patzig A. 46 (1922)
282–5; Hoops St. 64–71; Schütte APS 19 (1947) 179–96; Ebenauer in Heldensage und Helden-
dichtung im Germanischen, ed. H. Beck (Berlin, 1988) 17–19; Howe 1989: 156–8; Sprenger 1995;
Honegger R.-L.2 22.17–22.
2
‘Sciebat namque eam non modo pudicitia cęlibem, sed etiam insolentia atrocem, proprios
semper exosam procos amatoribus suis ultimum irrogasse supplicium, adeo ut ne unus quidem e
multis extaret, qui procationis eius poenas capite non luisset.’
3
Similar, though more moderate, is the praise of Onela, 2382¯ff.
4
Elsewhere his name is W®rmund, as in the Mercian genealogy, the Codex Runicus, and the
Annales Ryenses (Appx.A §§¯2, 11.4, 11.5). Saxo (Book iv) has the series Uiglecus — Wermundus
— Uffo. Such spelling variation is matched by similar cases in Scand. tradition: see Intr. liii n.7.
Sarrazin (EStn. 42 [1910] 17, id. 1913: 70) thinks the Gār- form due to Celtic inÏuence; see also
Atherton in Æthelbald & Offa, ed. D. Hill & M. Worthington (Oxford, 2005), 68 n.¯44 re the form
Guerdmund in the version of the Mercian genealogy in the Historia Brittonum, and note that W- >
British Gw-. Cf. Malone Gmc. Rev. 14 (1939) 235–6 n.¯1. The somewhat suspicious Angelþēow is
not mentioned in Beowulf: see Newton 1993: 68, w. refs. (See, besides, Intr. lxi n.¯6.)
 COMMENTARY 223
the legendary, prehistoric Angle king Offa (I) of the Mercian genealogies (see Appx.A
§¯2). Being removed twelve generations from the historical Offa II, the old Angle Offa
has generally been assigned to the latter half of the fourth century — though this
supposition, hazardous enough in its estimation of a generation’s allotment of years,
rests on the unlikely assumption that the Mercian genealogy, unlike the West Saxon
pedigrees, is dependable history. (Sisam PBA 39 [1953] 322¯ff. points out that in oral
tradition, on which most of the Mercian genealogy must be assumed to depend, the
normal limit of chronology extends only to great-grandfathers.) His great exploit is the
single combat by the river Eider which is alluded to in Widsith 35–44. The details of
this ¢ght, by which he saved the kingdom, and the dramatic scene leading up to it, in
particular the sudden awakening from his long continued dumbness and torpor,1 are set
forth in one of the most engaging stories of Saxo Grammaticus (iv 3,1 & 4,1–11, tr. 101,
106–9) and in Sven Aggesen’s Chronicle (Appx.A §¯11.3). A brief reference is found
also in the Annales Ryenses (Appx.A §¯11.5). The Offa tradition plainly lived on for
centuries among the Danes.
Stories of Offa, as well as of his queen, were incorporated into the Vitae duorum
Offarum, a Latin work written about the year 1200 by a monk of St. Albans.2 Here Offa
I miraculously gains the power of speech and defeats the Mercian nobles who had
rebelled against his old father Warmundus. The story related of his wife, however, is
the popular legend of the innocently suffering, patient heroine, who [Ïees from an
unnatural father,] marries a foreign prince, is banished with her child (or children), but
in the end happily rejoins her husband.3 In the Life of Offa II, i.e. the great historical
Mercian king (who reigned from 757 to 796), the prince is similarly cured of his dumb-
ness and, after defeating the rebel Beormredus, is elected king. But the account given
of the wife of this Offa recalls, in the view of many, that of the woman introduced here
in Beowulf. The relevant portions of the tale may be outlined as follows:

A beautiful but wicked young woman of noble descent, a relative of Charlemagne, is on

account of some disgraceful crime condemned to exposure on the sea in a small boat with-
out rudder and sail. She drifts to the shore of Britain. Led before King Offa, she gives her
name as Drida and slyly charges her singular banishment to the intrigues of certain men of
ignoble blood whose offers of marriage she had proudly rejected. Offa, deceived by her
beauty, marries her. From that time she is called Quendrida,4 ‘id est regina Drida.’ Now she
shows herself a haughty, avaricious, scheming woman who plots against the king, his
councilors, and his kingdom, and she treacherously causes the death of St. Æðelberht, king
of East Anglia, a suitor of Offa’s third daughter. A few years later she meets a violent death.

It has generally been assumed that the story of Offa’s bride told in Beowulf was in
the St. Albans narrative transferred from the ¢rst to the second Offa, just as the ¢rst
king’s dumbness was extended to his namesake, although how a legend of the Con-
stance type became attached to the ¢rst king’s wife has not been explained. The point
upon which this interpretation rests is the queen’s maiden name, Drida, corresponding
to the name Þr©ð(o) or Mōdþr©ð(o) that most have perceived in l.¯1931 (see infra). But

1
This widely known motif of a hero’s sluggish, unpromising youth (cf. Grimm D.M. 322 [388])
is applied to Bēowulf, 2183¯ff. The parallel of the early Irish hero Labraid Móen (‘Móen speaks!’)
in Orgain Denna Ríg is mentioned by Gerould MLN 17 (1902) 201–3.
2
For the Vita Offae I and extracts from the Vita Offae II, see Cha.Intr. 217¯ff., the latter tr. L.
Jacobs Angl. 122 (2004) 631–9. There is a complete (but unreliable) edition by Wats, London,
1640. On pictorial representations, see n. on 1948.
3
I.e., the so-called Constance legend, which is represented by a number of medieval versions
(in several languages) and which is best known to students of English literature from Chaucer’s
Man of Law’s Tale. Possibly the OE Wife's Lament belongs to this group: see esp. Rickert MP 2.1
(1904) 365¯ff., Lawrence MP 5.4 (1908) 387¯ff. Cf. Schick in Britannica: Max Förster zum sech-
zigsten Geburtstage (Leipzig, 1929) 31–56.
4
OE cwēn + Þr©ð.
224 BEOWULF
the name Drida is in fact unremarkable, since the wife of Offa II really was named
Cyneþr©ð (whence the name Quendrida), as attested by her charters and coinage.
Moreover, villainous qualities seem to have been attached to the name Cyneþr©ð in
legend before the vitae of the two Offas were composed, and so this feature did not nec-
essarily result from transferral of the legend from the ¢rst Offa’s wife to the second.1 If
it is thus unsurprising that she should be called Quendrida in the legend, the perceived
connection between the two accounts must depend solely on other resemblances —
which, however, seem thin when the evidence of the names is excluded. For (Quen-)
Drida does not contrive the death of any suitor of her own, nor is she reformed by her
marriage to Offa, though these are the salient points of the account in Beowulf. Were it
not for the resemblance of names, it seems unlikely that anyone should have connected
the two tales, as the later account is not of the Taming of the Shrew type. And if they
are unrelated, the St. Albans narrative cannot be said to lend support to the supposition
that the woman’s name in Beowulf must be some form of Þr©ð.
The insertion of this episode into the narrative has struck most as peculiar, so abrupt
is the comparison of Hyġd to Offa’s bride, and so inconsequential the praise for Offa.
Allusions to Cyneþr©ð, wife of Offa II, or to Queen Ōsþr©ð (d. 697; see ten Brink
229¯ff.) have been detected in it and charged to the account of an interpolator. The
passage has been imagined to be a sort of allegory revealing a high moral and educa-
tional purpose in its praise of Offa (= Offa II), its rebuke to Þr©ð (= Cyneþr©ð), its
(hidden) admonition to Ēomēr (= Prince Ecgfrið).2 Indeed, the passage in praise of the
legendary Offa has been read not infrequently as an oblique compliment to his histor-
ical Mercian namesake.3 But the only conclusion to be drawn from it with reasonable
certainty is that the poet was interested in the old Anglian traditions — the only leg-
ends in Beowulf that are concerned with persons unmistakably acknowledged in the
pedigrees to be ancestral to Anglo-Saxon royalty (but see 1083a¯n.). That these enjoyed
an especial popularity in the Mercian district is con¢rmed by the testimony of the
proper names (see Binz 169¯ff.). The narrator’s strong disapproval of Þr©ð’s behavior
(1940¯ff.) is in keeping with the moralizing, didactic propensities shown in some other
passages (e.g. 1722b–4a).
1931b¯f. The introduction of this episode has provoked a great deal of comment, since
the text presents several uncertainties. Is MS mod þryðo one word or two? Klaeber
(ed.3), following Grein (1862: 281) et al., analyzes it as a dithematic name, Mōdþr©ðo,
but he concedes (Su. 469; Archiv 188 [1951] 109) that a personal name need not be the
alliterator: cf. 1323b, 1441b. Accordingly, many have preferred the name Þr©ð(o) (so
Kl.1–2), as ¢rst proposed by Gru. The impulse to see a woman’s name in MS mod þryðo
stems in large part from comparison with the tale told of (Quen-)Drida in the St.

1
Thus, Quendrida (Cw¹nþr©ð), the sister of St. Kenelm (a close successor of Offa to the
Mercian throne) is portrayed as murderous already in the 11th-cent. Vita et miracula S. Kenelmi et
S. Rumwoldi, ed. R. Love, in Three 11th-Cent. Anglo-Latin Saints’ Lives (Oxford, 1996). A better-
known version appears in the South English Legendary (13th cent.). Given the similarity of names,
it may be that the portrayal of the wife of Offa II in the St. Albans Vita was inÏuenced by the
characterization of Quendrida in the Vita S. Kenelmi. In a familiar pattern of gendered derogation,
it is not uncommon to ¢nd queens made wicked in legend, as with Gunnhildr konungamóðir in Old
Norse, and more particularly Offa II’s daughter Ēadburh, who is said by Asser (cap. 14) to have
behaved in much the same manner as is related of the wife of Offa II by the St. Albans biographer.
Indeed, in view of Ēadburg’s plainly ¢ctionalized later dealings with Charlemagne (cap. 15), it is
not unlikely that the St. Albans narrative is indebted to Asser’s account of Ēadburg, or a similar
legendary source, for its characterization of Quendrida.
2
Earle 1892: lxxxiv–lxxxvi.
3
Whitelock (1951: 63) supposes the praise of Offa is intended to compliment his descendant
and namesake; see also Wrenn in Cha.Intr. 540–3; Stanley in Continuations & Beginnings (1966)
133–5; Howe 1989: 157 n.¯23; Wormald in The Anglo-Saxons, ed. J. Campbell (Ithaca, 1982) 128,
and the discussion at Intr. clxxii, with added refs. Newton 1993: 64–71 offers counterarguments.
 COMMENTARY 225
Albans narrative recounted supra, p. 223. Yet the wife of Offa II actually was named
Cyneþr©þ, a name of which Quendrida is obviously either a corruption or a calque,
whence Drida was derived by transparent etymological back-formation (see Sisam
1965: 84). Thus, the coincidence of the names does not have any bearing on the ques-
tion whether the tale told of Drida is a genetic analogue (see Matthes 1961: 22; Eliason
in Bessinger & Creed 1965: 128–9), and once the evidence of the name is discarded,
the parallels between the two texts are not very striking. Accordingly, the necessity of
¢nding the woman’s name in MS mod þryðo is not as pressing as was once thought,
and in fact a reading Mōdþr©ð(o) or Þr©ð(o) is hardly free of problems. Most partic-
ularly it has been objected (by Hart MLN 18 [1903] 117¯f., Holt. ZfdPh. 37 [1905] 118)
that the form cannot be the subject of the clause, since the name-element -þr©ð never
bears a vocalic ending in the nominative. A hypocorism like Ēadu for Ēadburg, Ēad-
ġifu (in the Liber Vitae Dunelmensis: so Kl. Angl. 28 [1905] 452, Holt. Beibl. 42 [1931]
341) seems out of place in the present context. Malone accordingly offers a brilliant
solution, translating ‘the good folk-queen [i.e. Hyġd] had weighed the arrogance and
terrible wickedness of Thryth’ (MLN 56 [1941] 356; so Rob. 53–5, MR). Yet Klaeber
and Dobbie are surely right that this has too modern a Ïavor: the problem is not that
Hyġd should have pondered Þr©ðo’s behavior and learned by it to be generous but that
so much meaning should be expressed by a single verb, wæġ, especially when wæġ is
used quite differently in the parallel passages cited infra. At all events, this interpreta-
tion must be ruled unlikely on linguistic grounds: although wegan can mean ‘ponder,’
it assumes this meaning only in late prose texts, probably as a Latinism. There is also
the problem of taking mōd to mean ‘arrogance.’ This is not impossible, since the word
does have this meaning in some religious verse, but not in any of the 22 other instances
of the word in this poem, and that raises suspicions. What is more, -o would not be the
proper ending in the gen. sg., or in fact in any case-form of such a fem. i-stem noun.
Imelmann (1920: 456–63, followed by Hoops St. 64–71; so also Matthes, Eliason, K.
Schneider 1986: 60) would dispose of the problem by separating the ending and
treating it as an adverb ō ‘always.’ Yet it is doubtful whether ‘always’ is congruent
with the facts of the story (see 1945¯n.), and there is no close parallel to the syntax of
this. Most damaging to the assumption of a name (Mōd-)Þr©ð(o), however, are the for-
mulaic parallels to mōdþr©ðo wæġ: the closest of these is hiġeþr©ðe wæġ ‘acted
arrogantly’ (lit. ‘bore arrogance,’ GenA 2240b); cf. also hetenīðas wæġ (Beo 152b),
līġeġesan wæġ (2780b), mōdsorge wæġ (El 61b, GuthB 1051b), hyġesorge wæġ (GuthB
1009b), gnornsorge wæġ (GuthB 1335b), lust wiġeð (Beo 599b), etc. Then ¢ren’
ondrysne would form an acceptable parallel object of wæġ. If the woman’s name is not
contained in MS mod þryðo, especially given the abruptness of the contrast with Hyġd,
some have reasoned, there must be a textual gap: so ¢rst Gru.tr., also Craigie Philo-
logica 2 (1923–4) 16–18 (who goes so far as to maintain that the entire passage is the
result of the insertion of a stray leaf from another poem); Kl. op. cit. 451, 1926: 238;
Sisam RES o.s. 22 (1946) 266 n.; Whitelock 1951: 58–9; Wrenn in Cha.Intr. 541¯f.;
Magoun. Yet there is no defect of form or (if -o is correct) syntax in the passage, and
the assumption of textual corruption thus requires us to credit some unlikely coinci-
dences (see Smithers 1966: 423). Others have supposed, with Malone, that no name is
given at all because the woman is Hyġd herself, imagined to have married ¢rst Offa
and then (implausibly, while still swīðe ġeong 1926b) Hyġelāc: so Holt. ZfdPh. 37
(1905) 118, Sed., Matthes, Eliason, and J. Gardner (1975: 19), returning, in effect, to the
early view of Ke., Leo, and others (see Kl. op. cit. 450–1; Orchard 2003: 223). There
remains, then, the suggestion of Kock3 103 that the woman’s name is Fremu. The idea
seems not to have been taken very serously by anyone, including Kock himself;
Klaeber calls it ‘startling’ (1926: 235). Yet now that the need to ¢nd a name in MS mod
þryðo is not so pressing, the name Fremu can be seen to offer several advantages,
avoiding most of the problems mentioned supra, as well as doing away with the
supposed i-stem adj. freme that stalks our dictionaries, a word of uncertain meaning
226 BEOWULF
(Mackie 1939: 523–4: ‘imperious’; Hoops 213: ‘haughty, arrogant, proud’; Kl.: ‘good,
excellent’) that is unsupported by other secure attestations or by cognates and is surely
inappropriately applied to Hyġd’s arrogant opposite in this context (see Cos. viii 572,
Schü. 1908: 109, et al.; cf. Kock, v.Sch., Dob., et al.). This analysis also renders the
comparison slightly less irrational, since the sentence now begins with a reference to
Fremu’s arrogance, which is what is being contrasted with Hyġd’s generosity. Cf. the
precipitous change of subject from Siġemund to Heremōd 900¯f., and the caroming
changes of pronoun reference between Heremōd and Bēowulf 913¯ff. (and see Intr. cxx
& n.¯4), which are based in the understanding that the audience expected unannounced
antitheses (see Moore Neophil. 64 [1980] 127). The sudden introduction of Heremōd in
1709 is just as abrupt a contrast. For full discussion of this analysis, see Fulk Angl. 122
(2004) 614–39; cf. Bamm. ibid. 124 (2006) 584.
1932b. ¢ren’ ondrysne. Gr.1, followed by Suchier BGdSL 4 (1877) 502 and Heusler
AfdA 41 (1922) 33, assumes an adjective compound ¢ren-ondrysne ‘nimis terribilis,’
but ¢ren- is not otherwise used as the ¢rst element of an adjective compound as an
intensi¢er. Von Schaubert Angl. 62 (1938) 175¯f. assumes rather a noun compound
meaning ‘cruel practices, customs,’ on the basis of andrysnum 1796; but see the note
on that verse.
1934. sw®sra ġesīða, i.e. the retainers at the court. — sinfr¼, either ‘father’
(Stefanović EStn. 69.1 [1934] 19) or ‘husband’ (Sed., Schü., Björkman Beibl. 30 [1919]
122; cf. hlāford ‘male head of household’; in which event nefne sinfr¼ would mean
‘except as husband’), though Smithers (1966: 426) would have it refer to a suitor. All
the unsuccessful suitors were to be executed, a familiar theme in folktales.
1935. þæt hire an dæġes ēagum starede. Postpositive an requires stress, as in
2523; cf. 671. Perhaps starian on + dat. (elsewhere acc. in verse) represents a blending
of the absolute (adv.) use of on, as in weras on sāwon 1650, with the dat. of interest, as
in him āsetton seġen .¯.¯. hēah ofer hēafod 47¯f.; cf. 2596¯f.: him .¯.¯. ymbe ġestōdon; see
Kl. Archiv 123 (1909) 417¯n.; 1926: 237 n.¯2.; EStn. 68.1 (1933) 114. — dæġes ‘by day,’
i.e. ‘openly.’
1936. him . . . weotode tealde, ‘considered (appointed, or) in store for him,’ an
idiom; cf. Jul 357: iċ þæt wēnde ond witod tealde, also 685¯f.; Hel. 1878¯f.; HomU
27.258, HomU 37.246.
1938. æfter mundgripe, ‘after being seized (arrested)’ (?): Bu.Zs. 207, Suchier
BGdSL 4 (1877) 501¯f. It has been argued that the woman’s arrest of the suitors is not
vicarious: see Stefanović EStn. 69.1 [1934] 23–6; Dockray-Miller Women & Lang. 21.2
[1998] 31–8).
1944. onhōhsnod[e], an unparalleled term, is taken by Bugge (Tid. 302¯f.) to mean
‘restrained, weakened,’ assuming semantic development in a verb *onhōhsnian ‘to
hamstring,’ from the noun compound hōhseonu ‘sinew of the heel or hamstring.’ (See
also Rosier 1963: 13–14.) This is the analysis most widely accepted. There are reasons
enough for doubt: the verb seems too much a neologism in both meaning and
derivation to be appropriate to verse, and Sed. MLR 28 (1933) 227¯f. reasonably objects
that the inf. ought to be *onhōhsinewian, i.e. we should not expect such severe phono-
logical reduction of the second component. Yet there is a rather certain cognate, OHG
hāhsinōn ‘to hamstring’ (also pre¢xed untar-, er-; the ¢rst constituent is from Gmc.
*χanχ-, giving Eng. hock, hough and, via French, haunch), showing the same phono-
logical simpli¢cation in some forms of the preterite (hāhsnēta, erhāhsnōta; see also SB
§¯43 n.¯4), and so Bugge’s analysis is fairly plausible, after all. It is more credible, in
any event, than the alternative proposals. Kock5 95 sees the verb as related to hyġe,
hogian, hohmōd and proposes the meaning ‘considered, took to heart.’ Yet no such
verb or any close cognate is attested. Earlier, a connection with hūsc ‘scorn’ (cf. OS
hosc) was suggested (see Dietrich ZfdA 11 [1859] 413–15, Sed.3), but again there is no
parallel. Kiernan (1981: 210–11) posits a verb of the sixth class with the meaning ‘cut
in anxiety’; to Crépin’s idea that -e is elided, cf. note to 2032¯f. — Hemminges m®ġ =
 COMMENTARY 227
Offa; in 1961 = Ēomēr. Was Hemming a brother of Gārmund? Or Gārmund’s (or
Offa’s) father-in-law? (Cf. Nīðhādes m®ġ, WaldB 8.) The name occurs in OE, ON, and
OHG. See Suchier BGdSL 4 (1879) 511¯f.; Sievers ibid. 10 (1885) 5o1¯f.; Binz 172;
Björkman 1910: 167–8. There is a village named Hemmingstedt in the southwestern
part of Schleswig.
1945. ealodrincende ōðer s®dan. This remark, an individualized variation of the
ġefræġn formula, used as a phrase of transition, supplies a connecting link between the
¢rst part of the story and its continuation: ‘beer-drinking men related further,’ or ‘they
set forth another aspect of her character.’ It stands in close relation to the straight-
forward statement of the preceding line; cf. the stylistic parallel, Mald 116¯f. (Cf. ōþer
870, and see Aant.; Kl. 1905–6: 244, Angl. 28 [1905] 449; Hoops.) It is also possible
that the statement means ‘they told a different story,’ i.e. of the woman’s reform (so
Suchier BGdSL 4 [1877] 502, Dob., Ja, MR; Andrew 1948: §¯116), though this is no
longer generally taken to refer to a different version of the story, by which
interpretation the preceding account (1931–43) has sometimes been supposed to furnish
an especially close parallel to the tale of Drida.
1946b. l®s, ‘nothing’ (by litotes).
1948. ġeongum cempan. Offa’s youth at the time of his heroic exploit is made much
of in the Widsith allusion. According to later traditions, curiously both Scandinavian
(Sven Aggesen’s history and Annales Ryenses: Appx.A §§¯11.3, 11.5) and English ones
(Vita Offae I¯), he had reached his thirtieth year before he revealed his valor. Still, one
of a set of drawings made at St. Albans (in one of the MSS of the Vitae; reproduced in
Cha.Intr.1–2) represents him as a youth.
1950. ofer fealone Ïōd. The epithet fealu applied to the sea — a frequent, somewhat
conventional usage in OE poetry — was formerly thought to denote a particular hue
(e.g. ‘perhaps yellowish green, a common color in the English and Irish Channels,’
Mead PMLA 14 [1899] 199). Now OE color terms are thought to refer primarily to
brightness rather than hue (see note to 1545¯f.). The word also describes fallow ¢elds;
McClelland 1966: 181–2 suggests ‘dark, dusky’; Barley 1974: 21–5 ‘glossy.’
1953. līfġesceafta li¢ġende brēac. Similarly, worolde brūceð 1062; 2097. The
combination is to some extent tautological (cf., e.g., cwice lifdon, And 129, OS Gen.
83), though līfġesceaft perhaps refers to one’s condition in life, and use of the pl. may
even imply semi-concretion of meaning, i.e. the things granted one in life: see BTS s.v.
ġesceaft.
1954b¯ff. It has been suggested that brego is genitive, and thus emendation of MS
þæs to þone is unnecessary (Rob. 51¯f., so MR). Yet wið generally takes a gen. object
only in constructions denoting motion, and none of the few exceptions (mostly in late
prose: see BT: wiþ i, 1c, 2, 3) resembles the present context. The poets give wið an acc.
object to express the notion of a state of hostility or accord ‘with’ someone (155, etc.:
see Gloss.). It seems likelier that þone has been altered to þæs by attraction to ealles
moncynnes.
1960¯f. On the name Ēomēr (which the scribe seems not to have understood), see
Proper Names. Rickert MP 2.1 (1904) 54¯f. would read [ġeong] ēðel sīnne, þonon
ġeōmor wōc, taking this for an allusion to Offa’s singular ‘awakening’ in the Drida
saga. Malone (see Varr.) would read þon onġeōmor ‘then very sad’ (cf. Appx.C §¯34;
on þon, see Fu.1 193¯f.), in ref. to Offa, so that nefa 1962 should mean ‘nephew.’ So
also Newton 1993: 66–8; cf. Kiernan 1981: 184–5 (and cf. 188–9): þonon [on]ġeōmor.
All of these proposals are metrically improbable. Sed. parenthesizes 1960b–1a, thus
identifying Hem[m]inges m®ġ as Offa, as in 1944.
1963–2151. Bēowulf, arriving home, tells of his adventures.
1967b–70a. tō ðæs ðe, etc., ‘to the place where, as they had heard, the king . . .
distributed rings.’ Cf. 714, 2410; note to 1585b. The familiar gefræġn formula (1969:
gefrūnon) is put to a different use here. bonan Ongĺnþeoes 1968 is not meant in its
literal sense, since Hyġelāc had performed the deed only by proxy: see Intr. lix;
228 BEOWULF
Appx.A §¯10: Tacitus, Germania cap. 14. The term is suggestive of the ON surnames
Hundingsbani, Fáfnisbani (cf. Ísungs bani, Helgakv. Hund. I 20.2).
1970b¯ff. A much abridged form of the ceremonies described in 331¯ff.
1977¯f. wið sylfne . . . wið m®ġe. For the shifting case after wið, cf. 424¯ff.
1978b¯f. holdne may describe either a lord (cf. 376, Deor 39) or a thegn (2170), and
thus it is not certain whether the subject of grētte is mandryhten or (understood)
Bēowulf. Klaeber (1905–6: 461) argues for the latter, since it is Bēowulf’s part to greet
the king in a solemn address (see 407¯ff.); so Tr., Schü., Hoops, v.Sch.; not so Sed., Ni.,
Crp., MR.
1983. It has been suggested that the MS form hæ(ð)num (see Varr.) pertains to the
ethnic name H®ðnas (OIcel. Heiðnir), which occurs Wid 81 (if it is not a common noun
there). But why a term denoting the inhabitants of Hedemarken in Norway (according
to Bugge, also the dwellers on the Jutish ‘heath’) should have been introduced here has
not been explained satisfactorily. See Bu. 9–11; Cha. note. (Cf. Svensson Namn och
Bygd 5 [1917] 125¯ff.) Kiernan 1981: 209 supposes corrected MS hænum is for hēanum,
proposing the meaning ‘those of inferior rank.’ T. Hill JEGP 101 (2002) 438 argues
that ‘heathens’ cannot be the intended meaning (see Varr.) because the Ġēatas are
monotheists (cf. 1997).
1985b¯f. Holt. and Sed. parenthesize 1985b; Dob. 1985b–6.
1994b¯ff. It has not been mentioned before that Hyġelāc tried to dissuade Bēowulf
from his undertaking. (See, to the contrary, 202¯ff., 415¯ff.). The same motif, equally
unprepared for, appears in the dragon episode, 3079¯ff. On perceived discrepancies
between Bēowulf’s own abridged version (2000¯ff.) and the original account of his
adventures in Denmark, see Intr. lxxxix.
1996¯f. lēte Sūð-Dene sylfe ġeweorðan / gūðe wið Grendel may be translated ‘that
you should let the Danes themselves settle the war with Grendel.’ (Cf. 424¯ff.) For the
interesting construction, see Gloss.: ġeweorðan, wið. (See Bu. 97; Kl. JEGP 18 [1919]
264¯f.; cf. Aant.; Hubbard JEGP 17 [1918] 120–4). Gode Ľċ þanc secge, type D: see
Appx.C §¯31. On the seeming discrepancy with the hero’s assertion in ll.¯415¯ff. (as
opposed to 202¯ff.), see Sisam 1965: 46–7; on such discrepancies as a feature of works
performed aloud, Cherniss Genre 3 (1970) 214–28; as an endemic aspect of the poet’s
style, Niles 1983: 163–76.
2002b. uncer Grendles, ‘of us two, Grendel [and me]’: an instance of the archaic
‘elliptic dual’ construction common in Old Icelandic. See Siev. BGdSL 9 (1884) 271;
Kl. Angl. 27 (1904) 402; also Edgerton ZfvS 43 (1909–10) 110–20, 44.23–5; Neckel
GRM 1 (1909) 393. Mirarchi AION-SG 23 (1980) 27–39 would have uncer modify
ġemēting and Grendles modify wange.
2003b–5a. Since fela can govern the gen. sg. (see note to 810; Lang. §¯19.3 rem.),
sorge is here taken as such; likewise yrmðe. Klaeber (ed.3, following Malone Angl. 54
[1930] 97¯f.) regards both words as gen. plur. The acc. sg. would then remain a possi-
bility for yrmðe: cf. 2028¯f., 2o67¯ff. See Kock2 105; Hoops St. 117.
2006. swā has been thought by some to begin a new period (Tr., Schü., Hoops St.
117, Holt.7–8). ne was omitted by the scribe perhaps because it was mistakenly regarded
as attached to the preceding in¢nitive (see Appx.C §¯21).
2009. f®r(e) bifongen. Although the parallel at Jul 350 has persuaded most recent
edd. (including Kl.) to restore fācne, the Thorkelín transcripts favor f®re or f®r- (less
likely fenne: see Varr.; O’Laughlin MÆ 23 [1954] 64). Given the poet’s versatility with
this formula (with befongen are used nearwe 976, fæste 1295, frēawrāsnum 1451, f©re
2274, 2595, līġe 2321), the Thorkelín transcripts seem a better guide than formulaic
precedents.
2018. b®dde. The proposed emendation bælde would be elucidated by 1094. How-
ever, b®dde byre ġeonge ‘she urged the young men’ (viz. ‘to accept what was offered,’
Kock5 96) may be retained. (Cf. also Kl. 1926: 210–11; Cl.Hall tr.1: ‘she kept the young
servers [?] going.’) MR render byre ‘sons’ because it is not elsewhere attested in the
 COMMENTARY 229
sense ‘young men,’ plausible as such a metaphorical usage may be: see Bäck 1934: 66,
and cf. Gloss.: scealc.
2021. The most credible meaning that has been ascribed to on ende is ‘consec-
utively,’ ‘continuously,’ ‘from end to end’ (lit.: [from beginning] to end), i.e. ‘to all in
succession’ (so DOE: ende, B.9.d) or ‘without pause’ (Pepperdene ES 47 [1966] 444).
The rendering ‘at the end of the hall (or tables)’ is dubitable. Cf. Malone MP 27.3
(1930) 257–76.
2022. Frēaware. That Hrōðgār’s daughter has not been mentioned previously
should raise no suspicion regarding interpolation (see Sisam 1965: 48–9); neither is
there suÌcient reason to doubt the authenticity of the name (cf. Malone op. cit. 258;
Kl.Misc. 150¯f.).
2023b¯f. (næ)ġled sinċ, presumably ‘studded vessel’ (Cl.Hall tr.); see 495, 2253¯f.,
2282, and note on 216. sinċ . . . sealde, a variant expression for sinċfato sealde, 622.
2024b–69a The Inġeld or Heaðo-Beard Episode. See Intr. lv¯ff. This episode
closely resembles the story of Inġeld told by Saxo (vi 4,13–9,20, tr. 169–95; Olrik
1903–10: [1.15–16]). The following is a summary of the narrative.
Frotho, who succeeded to the Danish throne at the age of twelve, defeated and
subjugated the Saxon kings Sverting and Hanef. He proved an excellent ruler, strong in
war, generous, virtuous, and honorable. Meanwhile Sverting, anxious to free his land
from Danish rule, treacherously resolved to kill Frotho, who slew him though slain by
him simultaneously. Frotho was succeeded by his son Ingel, who, it turned out, was not
honorable. He rejected the example of his forefathers and became utterly debauched.
He married Sverting’s daughter, given him by her brothers, who wanted to ensure
themselves against the vengeance of the Danish king. When Starkather, the old-time
guardian of Frotho’s son, heard that Ingel was perversely minded and bestowed kind-
ness and friendship on his father’s murderers instead of punishing them, he was ¢lled
with rage.1 He returned from his wanderings in foreign lands, where he had been
¢ghting, and, dressed in lowly garments, went to the royal hall and waited for the king.
In the evening, Ingel took his meal with the sons of Sverting and enjoyed a magni¢cent
feast. The stern guest, soon recognized by the king, violently spurned the queen’s
efforts to please him, and when he saw that Frotho’s killers were in high favor with the
king, he could not keep from attacking Ingel’s character and poured out bitter re-
proaches on him, adding this song: ‘Why, Ingel, buried in vice, do you delay the
avenging stroke for your father? Can you bear the destruction of a devoted father with
an indifferent heart? Why, lazy and weaker than harlots, do you worship lazy feasting
and let your belly sag? Or does revenge for a murdered father matter little to you?’
(9,5). — ‘I crossed vast spaces returning from Sweden, con¢dent in rewards to come if
I could ¢nd the companionship of the offspring of my dear Frotho. But, seeking an
upright man, I found a gluttonous king subject to his sinful appetite, whose foul self-
indulgence has made him overÏow with attachment to excess’ (9,7). — ‘Thus, when
kings’ honors are sung and poets recall the triumphs of generals, I, shamefaced and
sick at heart, conceal my countenance in my cloak’ (9,13). ‘I could desire no greater
thing, Frotho, if I could see those guilty of your murder suffer the punishment owed for
such a crime’ (9,16). This reproach (delivered in seventy Latin stanzas) was so success-
ful that Ingel jumped up, drew his sword, and slew the sons of Sverting.
Scholarly commentary on the Beowulf episode has focused primarily on its thematic
and structural function. Klaeber (ed.3 xxxvi) states that it reÏects the theme of implac-
able enmity between two peoples and the idea of revenge which no human bonds of
affection can restrain (see also Bonjour 1950: 56–63 on the theme of the precarious
peace). Brodeur (1959: 177–81) agrees with Olrik (1903–10: [1.15–21]) and Malone

1
In Helgakv. Hund. II 27 Starkaðr is called grimmúðgastr; cf. Beo 2043b. On Starkaðr, see
Ciklamini SS 43 (1971) 169–88, Skovgaard-Petersen in History & the Heroic Tale, ed. T. Nyberg
(Odense, 1985) 207–21, and Davidson and Fisher 1979–80: 2.98–9.
230 BEOWULF
(JEGP 39 [1940] 84–5) that it is not prophetic, as many scholars have maintained (e.g.,
Hoops 222–3, Cha.Intr. 20–2, but see Harris Neophil. 74 [1990] 591–600), but rather
displays Bēowulf’s political wisdom in his ability to assess probable outcomes
rationally (see further Malone MP 27.3 [1930] 257–76). And J.M. Hill (2000: 47–60)
argues that the episode does not critique the ethic of vengeance but regards revenge
juridically and countenances it as the Heaðo-Beardan reclaim their group identity.
Structurally, the episode has been considered part of the tectonic design of the poem,
2024b–69a corresponding in length and diction to 1114–59a in the Finn episode, which
lines start 1113 lines from the beginning of the poem while those in the Inġeld episode
¢nish 1113 lines from the end (Hart ABzäG 2 [1972] 1–61); Hume (1975: 16) views the
episode as providing a transition between the poem’s second and third movements; and
E. Anderson (ES 61 [1980] 293–301) regards the episode as a type-scene of the ‘tragic
court Ïyting’ variety that one also ¢nds in the Finn episode and in Nibel. (see also
Horowitz NM 85 [1984] 295–304). See further Standop Archiv 197 (1961) 298–301,
Irving 1968: 169–79, Liggins NM 74 (1973) 193–213, Ebenhauer in Festgabe für Otto
HöÏer, ed. H. Birkhan & O. Gschwantler (Vienna, 1976) 128–81, D. Williams 1982:
85–6, and Hanning in Vernacular Poetics in the Middle Ages, ed. L. Ebin (Kalamazoo,
1984) 8. — 2024b. Sīo, here regarded as a pers. pron., may instead be rel. (Andrew
1948: §§¯35¯f., Donoghue 1987: 69 [also þā 2022]; cf. Bliss ASE 9 [1981] 178).
2029b–31. Oft seldan hw®r / æfter lēodhryre l©tle hwīle / bongār būgeð, þēah
sēo br©d duge. The general sense of these lines, which do not stand in need of
alteration, is ‘As a rule, the murderous spear will rest idle only for a short time under
such circumstances.’ There has been a blending of two conceptions, viz. (1) ‘often
(always, as a rule, by litotes) the spear will rest idle only a short time’; (2) ‘it seldom
happens that the spear rests (for any length of time).’ Kock’s interpretation (Angl. 27
[1904] 233–5), ‘As a rule, it seldom happens that (seldan hw®r, cf. wundur hwār 3o62)
the spear rests when some time has elapsed¯.¯.¯.¯,’ does not take into consideration the
natural meaning of l©tle hwīle (cf. 2097, 2240, GuthA 423, 481, etc.), which he ana-
lyzes as instr. + gen. (so v.Sch.); the combination seldan hw®r is simply ‘seldom any-
where’ (see Girvan MLR 28 [1933] 245). Hoops’s rendering (St. 72¯f.) of l©tle hwīle as
‘even a short time’ (so Dob., Wn., Ni., MR; Deskis 1996: 134) and Malone’s ‘a con-
siderable period of time’ (JEGP 28 [1929] 416) are without parallel. (See Kl. 1926: 211,
EStn. 68.1 [1933] 115.) Deskis plausibly argues that the unwieldiness of the construc-
tion stems from the poet’s addition of oft and hw®r to render the expression gnomic. —
On the ¢gurative use of ‘spear’ for ‘(blood) feud,’ see Liebermann Archiv 143 (1922)
248. — sēo br©d, the bride in question: cf. 943, 1758, Hel. 31o; no direct reference to
Frēawaru (cf. Barnouw 1902: 26).
2032¯f. Most edd. (incl. Kl.) emend þēodĺn to þēodne, to provide agreement with
dat. ġehwām. Yet this creates a metrical anomaly, as type D* does not normally occur
in the off-verse; indeed, if Heaðo-Beardna bears secondary stress, it ought to be used
only in positions where it may alliterate (see Appx.C §§¯31, 39; see also Kendall 1991:
194, but cf. Fu.2 357¯f.). And so the emendation, tempting as it is, must not be allowed.
The notion that there could be elision before H- in a stressed syllable seems improb-
able (see Bliss §¯64; cf. Hutch. 143 n.¯8; note on 698a). ofþynċan is usually construed
with the dat., but a nom. in the same function is occasionally met with (see BTS s.v.,
i.b), and the joining of different cases (ðēoden, ġehwām) in itself is perhaps not an
insurmountable obstacle (Kl. 1905–6: 259). Malone’s assumption (Angl. 63 [1939] 106)
that the MS form stands for ðēodan, gen. sg. of *þēoda ‘military leader, lord’ (a sup-
posed noun he also perceives in Wid 11) does not remedy the metrical diÌculty.
2034¯f. þonne hē mid f®mnan on Ïett g±ð, / dryhtbearn Dena, duguða
biwenede. The larger sense of the passage is plain: the betrothal will lead to bloodshed
because Inġeld (on the pronunciation, see Prop. Names) and his men will be displeased
when they see Frēawaru’s Danish companions in possession of treasures won from the
kin of the Heaðo-Beardan in a former battle. As to the meaning of these speci¢c verses,
 COMMENTARY 231
a tentative construction is ‘when he, son in a group of Danes (or, lordly son of Danes?),
walks onto the Ïoor with the woman, (who is) splendidly attended.’ The man in ques-
tion, who is evidently of the queen’s retinue, is in possession, we are told (2637–9), of
a fateful sword that once belonged to the Heaðo-Beardan. Adopting a different view,
most have taken hē to refer to Inġeld, with the consequence that dryhtbearn must be
regarded as plural (so Kl. Beibl. 50 [1939] 224). Thus Kock5 173¯f. considers Ïett,
dryhtbearn, duguða three parallel terms to be connected with gān on, and Malone
(MLR 24 [1929] 322¯f.; MP 27.3 [1930] 257–76; Angl. 55 [1931] 270, ibid. 63 [1939]
107¯f., JEGP 39 [1940] 76–92) adds f®mnan, taking mid to mean ‘to’ and assuming that
the present-tense verbs throughout the passage are consuetudinal. That is, according to
Malone, the hero is not prophesying, nor envisaging ‘a hypothetical situation in future
time’ (Dob.), but he describes repeated events which he has witnessed and which
continue to take place while Inġeld is, as Malone imagines, visiting the Danish court.
(Cf. Bonjour 1950: 61 n.¯3; Brodeur 1959: 161–81; Standop Archiv 197 [1961] 298–301;
cf. Malone 1960: 197–8; also earlier Olrik 1903–10: 2.38¯n., supposing the narration is
in the historical present tense, and the wedding and conÏict have already taken place, to
which cf. Lawrence PMLA 30 [1915] 380 n.¯11, Cha.Intr. 21 n.¯3, Steadman MLN 45
[1930] 522–5.). Kl.3 rather adopts the punctuation recommended by Hoops St. 73¯f.,
regarding dryhtbearn Dena, duguða biwenede as a loosely joined elliptic clause indi-
cating the cause of the king’s displeasure (cf. ed.1) or, simply, a descriptive phrase ex-
planatory of þæs 2032 (to the criticisms of Brodeur 1959: 166, cf. Mitchell 1968: 297),
and duguða may then be nom. plural (though not as an absolute construction, as v.Sch.
argues). Alternatively, hē has been thought to refer to Frēawaru (Tr., Sed.). Yet it may
be best to connect hē with dryhtbearn Dena, i.e. f®mnan þeġn (so once Kl. 1905–6:
255; see Girvan MLR 28 [1933] 246 and v.Sch. Angl. 62 [1938] 179–82, the latter
offering a full synopsis of earlier interpretations of this passage), especially as Smithers
(1966: 427–30) points out that the scene is paraphrased in 2053–6. (The idea of v.Sch.
that -bearn, along with cempan 2044 and þeġn 2059, should be collective fails to
convince.) Smithers also argues that glosses like ‘noble child’ for dryhtbearn are im-
probable, for dryht- always forms compounds relating to feasts, particularly weddings
(see Enright 1996: 71–4), and he suggests the meaning ‘wedding attendant’ (see DOE,
and cf. earlier Klu.: ‘bridesman’ [see Varr.]). This is possible, but Brady 1983: 230–1 is
right to be cautious, and her alternative suggestion, that -bearn emphasizes the point
made more forcefully by byre 2053, justi¢es the interpretation of dryhtbearn Dena as
‘son in a troop of Danes,’ which seems safer. (It is not at all unlikely, though, that
-bearn is an error for -beorn, as Klu. argues.) Note that duguða may then be semi-
adverbial (instr.) gen. pl. ‘with gifts,’ ‘splendidly’ (so Dob., OES §¯1394: cf. nīða 845,
1439, 2206), and biwenede need not be emended (cf. Girvan, Schü.; Varr.), as it may
modify f®mnan if it is acc. after mid. Or perhaps duguða may be a variety of the gen.
of means: ‘attended by hosts,’ i.e. of Danes and Heaðo-Beardan. If we insist on the
rigid interpretation of f®mne as ‘virgo’ (see also Malone ES 17 [1935] 226¯f.), its use
here and in 2059 might well be held to indicate that Bēowulf, who is foretelling a
future event, applies to Frēawaru an epithet suitable to her at the time of his report to
Hyġelāc, since he knows her only as a f®mne. — As to the bride’s accompaniment,
compare how Kriemhilt is escorted to her new home in Etzel’s land by a trusty retainer,
Eckewart, and his men (¯fünf hundert mîner man), Nibel. 1283¯f., 1398 (Kl. Beibl. 50
[1939] 223); also the ref. to comes copulae carnalis in Bede H.E. ii, cap. 9. — Reichart
1998: 75 raises the possibility that the runic ikultika on the Swedish Rök stone means
‘Ingualdinga,’ the family of the same Inġeld of this episode; cf. Prop. Names.
2039¯f. On oð ðæt, see 1740 (n.). The meaning assumed here is ‘until their own
companions (i.e., the weapons’ owners, the Heaðo-Beardan) led to ruin in battle both
them (the weapons) and their own lives.’ The assumption of semi-personi¢cation of the
weapons (on which see 2261¯n.) accounts for the otherwise seemingly irrelevant
reference to ġesīðas. Klaeber instead understands hīe to be the subject, referring to the
232 BEOWULF
Heaðo-Beard leaders (so Ni., MR), though he would not, with Hoops St. 70, explain
sw®se ġesīðas speci¢cally as ‘swords.’ Regardless of the case of hīe and sw®se ġe-
sīðas, Dobbie, who calls these verses ‘inept,’ is certainly right that the sense is that the
Heaðo-Beardan wielded the weapons ‘until they lost both their lives and their treasure
in battle.’
2041b. bēah. Kl.1–3 (also Hoops St. 75¯f.), believing that a reference to mēċe (2047)
is meant, traces a semantic development to explain how bēah could come to describe a
sword (see also Davidson 1962: 125), though the objection of Malone (1960: 198–9) is
valid. Alternatively, Kl. would identify the item as a hilt-ring (see 1521¯n.) by which the
eald æscwiga recognizes the sword (Beibl. 51 [1940] 206¯f., Su. 457, comparing Aen.
xii 940¯ff., Nibel. 1783, V∂lundarkv. 18.1–6; see also Enright 1996: 85, w. refs.; Härke
in Rituals of Power, ed. F. Theuws & J. Nelson [Leiden, 2000] 380), or perhaps as an
example of synecdoche. Though Malone’s objection is weighty, there seems little alter-
native to assuming that bēah should be a collective noun referring to treasures (see note
to 794b–5, and cf. bēagas ‘things of value’ 80, 523, 2635), and that the æscwiga should
remark just one of these. The various attempts of Malone to explain bēah as a verb
(and ġesyhð as ġē seġð ‘and says’), and to retain MS genam (JEGP 39 [1940] 80¯f.,
Angl. 65 [1941] 227–9, Beibl. 52 [1941] 179¯f.; 1960: 199; cf. Dob.), fail to command
assent.
2044b¯f. ġeong(um) cempan . . . hiġes cunnian, ‘test (tempt) the mind of a young
warrior’: see Lang. §¯26.4. The somewhat redundant þurh hreðra ġehyġd (see Kl. 1911–
12: [44]) appears to emphasize the intensity of the searching (see Kl. 1926: 212). Kock5
174, on the other hand, regards the phrase as parallel to ġeōmormōd; so Hoops 228¯f.,
v.Sch., Holt.6 Or perhaps the import of the phrase is roughly equivalent to that of
dyrnum cræfte 2168. In Saxo’s account it is Inġeld himself who is addressed.
2047. Meaht ðū, mīn wine. Probably type C3: see Russom 1998: 181 n.¯61; Appx.C
§¯40; cf. 345b note.
2049b. hindeman sīðe. Type A1, like weardode hwīle 105b; also 560a, 1105b, etc.
See Appx.C §¯32.
2050. Von Schaubert would end the period and place the question mark after slōgon
(after Schü. EStn. 53.3 [1920] 469¯f.), which is entirely plausible.
2051b. syððan Wiðerġyld læġ. Cf. 2201b, 2388b, 2978b. We may imagine that the
battle turned after Wiðerġyld, a leader, was slain. (It has been conjectured that he was
the father of the young warrior, 2044: see Mead MLN 32 [1917] 435¯f., Schü. EStn. 53.3
[1920] 468–70.) The same name, though apparently not applied to a Bardish warrior
(cf. Malone 1962: 211), occurs Wid 124. A common noun wiðerġyld ‘requital’ is no-
where found.
2053. þāra banena byre nāthwylċes. A new generation has grown up in the mean-
time.
2056. þone þe agrees with þone māðþum, as r®dan normally takes a dat. (instr.) ob-
ject. As in this instance, relative sē þe much more commonly agrees with its antecedent
than takes the case of its function within the relative clause: see Mitchell RES 15 (1964)
138–40; but þe here may be the equivalent of a dat. (Mitchell 1988b: 6–7).
2057. Manað swā ond myndgað. The present-tense verbs have prophetic future
import. Standop Archiv 197 (1961) 298–301 sees here rather a moralizing generaliza-
tion about what happens to such marriage arrangements.
2059. Barnouw (1902: 23, foll. by Malone MP 27.3 [1930] 259, JEGP 39 [1940] 88)
would read f®mnanþeġn ‘maiden-thegn, inexperienced warrior,’ referring to a rival
suitor for the hand of Frēawaru. Cf. Kl. Angl. 63 (1939) 422¯f., Beibl. 54–5 (1944)
175¯f.; Dob.; Appx.C §¯5; and n. to 910¯f.
2061b. se ōðer, the slayer, is no doubt identical with the ġeong cempa, 2044.
2062b. con him land ġeare. That this needs to be explained proves, according to
Malone, that the setting is Denmark rather than Inġeld’s court (see n. to 2034¯f.). Dob.
lxiii offers convincing counterarguments.
 COMMENTARY 233
2063¯f. Þonne bīoð (āb)rocene on bā healfe / āðsweord eorla. This implies that a
Dane kills a man of the Heaðo-Beardan in retaliation, moving Inġeld to action. —
ābrocene. While brocene is plainly too short for the space available in the MS, ge-
brocene is almost certainly too long. (Cf. Rob. 57.)
2065b¯f. him wīÏufan . . . cōlran weorðað may imply by litotes that he will send her
away.
2072. hondr®s hæleða. Note the conventional use of this gen. pl.; cf. 120a, 1198a,
(2120a,) Finn 37b. On the thematic importance of hond, see Rosier 1963: 11–12.
2074. eatol ®fengrom. In such constructions it is generally assumed that the second
adjective is substantivized, though some assume asyndetic parataxis of parallel ele-
ments (Mackie 1941: 96–7, v.Sch., Dob., Ni.; also Kl.: see 398¯n.). The latter view is
not at all improbable, since nouns are similarly used paratactically (see 398¯n.); yet the
fact that the second element is almost always compounded speaks for the former view.
Cf. note to 2164¯f.
2o76. Þ®r wæs Hondsciō (older *-sceōhe: see Lang. §¯18.3). Either type A3 (with
contraction) or, more likely, C1 (i.e. -sciô; cf., e.g., 64a, 2194a, 2207a, 2324a). Why
Hondsciōh’s name is given here, though it was not mentioned earlier, is explained by
Sisam (1965: 47) as verisimilitude: ‘For Beowulf, back in Hyġelāc’s hall where his
small company were all well known, “one of my men” would not do.’ Some have
supposed that the name, calling to mind Grendel’s glōf 2085, is a witticism (Rosier
1963: 11–12; A. Harris NM 83 [1982] 415¯f.; Lerer 1991: 183–5, ELH 61 [1994] 721–51)
or a poetic blunder (Davis 1996: 137–8). Cf. Kim MP 103.1 (2005) 15–24. — hild
ons®ġe. Type D1. Malone defends MS hilde as dat. of accompaniment (Angl. 57
[1933] 315), but cf. (wearð) gūð ons®ġe 2483b ‘assailed’ (him); see also Appx.C §¯31;
Matthes 1955: 372; and Gloss.
2o85b. Does glōf appear here in the unique sense ‘bag’ (so Whitbread NM 68 [1967]
28–31)? Or is a gigantic glove meant? Laborde (MLR 18 [1923] 202) notes that trolls
are said to carry a large glove; cf. also the glove of Útgarða-Loki in Snorra Edda. In
any case, mention of the glōf at this point, but not earlier, evidences narrative embel-
lishment rather than inconsistency: see Sisam 1965: 47. A proposed Latin parallel: E.
Anderson Mediaevalia 8 (1985) 1–8.
2088. fellum. P. Grimm (1912: 161–2) would explain the peculiar plural as due to
attraction to cræftum. If dracan is not sg. but a late gen. pl. (OES §¯75), it is not likely
to be the poet’s own form, and such a gen. pl. as he might have used would be unmet-
rical (see Appx.C §¯35).
2091b. hyt ne mihte swā. The in¢n. wesan is understood (see Gloss.: eom), not ġe-
dōn of 2o9o, as the phrase is a formula: cf. And 1393, GuthA 576, Rid 29.6, etc. (See
Sievers Angl. 13 [1891] 2.)
2095¯f. þ®r, though prob. an adv., could be a conj. (so Holt.7–8, v.Sch., Ni., Ja., MR).
Kock5 92¯f. proposes that weorðode should mean ‘helped.’
2105¯ff. Verbal and instrumental performances in Heorot. It would be futile to try
to determine what exact relation there is between verbal arts (ġidd) and harp playing
(glēo) in this recollected scene. The introductory phrase feorran rehte would seem to
be a general one encompassing all that follows. The more speci¢c terms that are then
introduced may refer to separate performance genres. If so, sequential reference is
made to elegiac song of a gnomic nature (ġyd .¯.¯. sōð ond sārliċ), fantastic narratives
whether in verse or prose (sylliċ spell), and one or more personal laments for lost youth
and martial vigor (2111a). The singer’s emotions (2112–14), though particularly aroused
in the context of lament, might be mentioned with the whole set of performances in
mind (with worn gemunde 2114b then echoing feorran rehte eight lines supra). What
relation there is among this ġyd .¯.¯. sōð ond sārliċ 2108¯f., the sylliċ spell, and the harp
playing, cannot be determined. Brodeur 1959: 237–8 would identify these utterances
with Hrōðgār’s lecture over the sword hilt (1700–84). — 2105b. gomela Scilding is
thought by most to refer to Hrōðgār (cf. 2110b), since the king’s scop is not mentioned
234 BEOWULF
after l.¯1066; but some have supposed otherwise (Kock5 175¯f., Hoops, Dob.). Whether
hildedēor 2107 also refers to Hrōðgār, or gomel gūðwiga 2112, is also controversial,
though both propositions seem probable. To the views of Creed CL 14 (1962) 48 n.¯6,
Opland 1980: 199–201, and Lerer 1991: 190, cf., e.g., Crépin; also Riley Jnl. of Narra-
tive Technique 10 (1980) 189. The practice of the art of minstrelsy by nobles and kings
in the heroic age is attested by Scandinavian (also Middle High German) and, indeed,
Homeric parallels; a celebrated historic example is that of Gelimer, the last king of the
Vandals (Procopius, Histories: Vandal War II, 6, 33). Moreover, these refs. to Hrōð-
gār’s skills as a singer and musician have a thematic signi¢cance, in that they complete
the portrait of him as warlord (64¯f.), commander and builder (65b–79), magnanimous
host (throughout much of Part I), spokesman for timeless wisdom (particularly at
1700–84), and (as we now learn) not just a patron of music and song, as we have seen
before several times, but also a practitioner of those arts himself. — felafricgende.
Kock5 175¯f. would rehabilitate fela fricgende 21o6 (= ‘asking many questions’) on the
basis of poetic colloquies and Germanic references to dialogue as normal etiquette,
though Kl. Angl. 63 (1939) 424 (cf. 1926: 213) points 0ut that fela is hardly ever used
without a partitive genitive. Alternatively, v.Sch. Angl. 62 (1938) 186 sees this as an
absolute construction, ‘[since] many [were] asking’ (or, according to Wn., ‘after asking
many questions’). But see Kl. 1905–6: 262, Hoops St. 119¯f. — 2111¯ff. The lament over
the passing of youth and the misery of old age (cf. 1886¯f., 1766¯f.) ¢nds many parallels
in early Germanic literature. Thus, e.g., Saxo viii 8,3–11 (tr. 248–51), Hel. 148–58,
GenB 484¯f. (Also Aeneid viii 508¯f., 560¯ff.)
2131¯f. Þā se ðēoden meċ ðīne līfe / healsode, ‘then the king implored me by your
life.’ (Cf. 435¯f.) A free use of the instrum.; cf. the prepositional phrase, Jul 446: iċ þeċ
hālsiġe þurh þæs h©hstan meaht; LS 32 (Blickl. hom. xv) 189.7–12, etc. (There may
have been confusion between hālsian and healsian.) See Kress 1864:¯24¯n.; Bu. 369¯f.;
B. Delbrück Synkretismus (Strassburg, 1907) 43, 41.
2137. þ®r unc hwīle wæs hand ġem®ne, i.e. battle was joined (Sed.). Cf. 2473;
WHom 20.3, 103¯f.: þæt w®penġewrixl weorðe ġem®ne þeġene and þr®le. NHG hand-
gemein (werden) furnishes a semantic, though not a syntactic, parallel.
2138. holm heolfre wēoll, ond iċ hēafde beċearf¯.¯.¯. A hysteron proteron. Regarding
the decapitation of Grendel’s mother, see 1566¯ff. and note on 1994¯ff.
2147b. on (mīn)ne sylfes dōm. Understood literally, this is at least an exaggeration.
But the expression is formulaic (see, e.g., 895, 2776; Mald 38¯f.: syllan s®mannum on
hyra sylfra dōm / feoh), and it thus may have come to mean little more than ‘to my
heart’s desire.’ See Mezger MLN 67 (1952) 109.
2148. ðā may instead be rel. (Wülck., Andrew 1948: §¯37, Donoghue 1987: 70).
2150. lissa ġelong. The meter seems to be defective (see Appx.C §¯33), but none of
the proposed emendations is convincing. See Varr.; Pope 320¯f.; Bliss §¯84; HOEM
§¯209; Hutch. 31 n.¯113; Suz. 33–4. Perhaps ġelong has been substituted for a dialect
form, given that the word creates the same metrical diÌculty at GuthA 313. The elegant
solution of Russom (1987: 117–18), reading liss ā ġelong (ā = ‘as always’) is attractive,
though it leaves the parallel unexplained. See also the note on 1931¯f.
2152–99. Bēowulf and Hyġelāc.
2152b. eaforhēafodseġn. Klaeber, regarding triple compounds as improbable, reads
eafor hēafodseġn in asyndetic parataxis (see 398¯n. and Rie.Zs. 405; Kl. 1905–6: 462;
Robinson 1985: 69–70; DOE; cf. Bliss §¯63, Pope xxxiii); but see 1247¯n.; also Rid
55.12: wulfhēafedtrēo; Mackie 1939: 524 (cf. N. D[avis] RES 6 [1955] 300); Carr 1939:
199–200; Wollmann 1990: 296. There is no other attestation of eofor in the sense ‘boar
banner.’ (Von Schaubert agrees with Kl. but observes that this would be the only
instance of such substantive parataxis in the off-verse.) The triple compound also obvi-
ates a breach of Krackow’s law (Appx.C §¯39; similarly Kendall 1991: xvi). The ex-
pression undoubtedly denotes a banner, the ¢rst of the four gifts that are enumerated
here in the same order as in 1020¯ff.
 COMMENTARY 235
2157¯ff. þæt iċ his ®rest ðē ēst ġesæġde, etc. The usual meaning of ēst is ‘good
will’ (occasionally ‘luxuries’), yet the rendering ‘that I should ¢rst declare to you his
good will’ (Schröer Angl. 13 (1891) 342¯f., Sed., Cl.Hall tr.1), while sensible enough in
itself, has seemed to most observers out of place separating two clauses about the
armor. Kl. (1905–6: 264, 462; so Hoops, Ja.) proposes that ēst may mean ‘bequest,
bequeathing,’ and his .¯.¯. ēst may thus express ‘its transmission,’ i.e. the mail coat’s
history. Similarly taking his to refer to the hildesceorp, Andrew (1948: §¯117) makes
out the sense of the passage to be that Hrōðgār asked Bēowulf to mention the mail coat
¢rst because Heorogār once owned it (so Dob.). Alternatively, Klaeber would adopt the
rendering ‘that I should describe to thee his gracious gift’ (BTS; cf. 2165). Yet it may
be possible to interpret ēst in a sense closer to its attested ones if the description of the
armor’s heritage in 2158–62 is understood as a gloss on ēst: the fact that Heorogār
prized the mail coat so highly that he would not give it to his own well-loved son, and
yet Hrōðgār is giving it to Hyġelāc, is a measure of the Danish king’s good will (ēst)
toward the king of the Ġēatas, to be expressed ¢rst (®rest), i.e. before the gift’s
presentation, by Bēowulf. Collinder (1954: 22) argues that Hrōðgār, though wishing
friendship with Hyġelāc, has no reason to send him gifts, and it is Bēowulf’s own
diplomatic sense that leads him to bestow them thus. For discussion of alternative
interpretations, see Iglesias-Rábade SELIM 2 (1992) 10–16.
2164¯f. lungre, ġelīċe, ‘swift and all alike’ (Kock2 117). It is not an insuperable ob-
stacle that the two adjectives in asyndetic parataxis are not synonymous and that
neither of the two is a compound (so Kl. MLN 34 [1919] 133; cf. 2074¯n.): Klaeber
reports from a private communication with Kock the uncompounded parallels beald
ġeblētsod (Glor I 12) and forhte, āf®rde (And 1340); and, as to the disparity of meaning
between the two adjectives, an exception to the rule may be admitted in view of the
fairly analogous cases of the type īsiġ ond ūtfūs (see Kl. Angl. 29 [1906] 381). An adj.
lungor does not seem to be recorded in OE, except in the compound ċēaslunger
‘contentiosus,’ ChrodR 1, 19.12, but lungar ‘quick, strong’ occurs in Hel. and in OHG.
(See Kock 1918: 43–4; Cook 1900: 98 n.¯167.) That lungre here could be the adverb
‘straightway’ (so Grattan in Cha. 256; Crp.) seems unlikely on syntactic grounds. (Cf.
Sed.: ‘strongly alike’; Schü.: ‘equally swift.’) — Only in this passage does lāst (swaðe)
weardode mean ‘followed’ rather than ‘remained behind’; see Gr.Spr.: weardian. The
form weardode is plural: see Lang. §¯20.3, and cf. Varr., Andrew 1948: §¯66. — æppel-
fealĿwe; see Lüning 1889: 2o8–9. In older German, apfelgrau is a favorite epithet of
horses. Similarly, OIcel. apalgrár is used of horses (e.g. Njáls saga, ch. 157). Cf. also
Cook 1926: 6 n.¯21. As to the meaning, cf. the DOE: ‘the colour of a horse, variously
interpreted as “reddish-yellow,” “glossy bay.” “dappled dun.”’ Barnes (PQ 39 [1960]
510–12) and Grinda (1993: 385–6, with full refs.) are probably right that the ¢rst
element refers to dappling rather than to a particular shade. See 1545¯f. (n.).
2166b–9a. These verses have sententious form, but Deskis (1996: 135–8) does not
classify them as proverbial. Instead, they constitute a moral judgment that invites the
reader or listener to contrast the positive example of Bēowulf with negative examples
offered in the poem such as Heoroweard, Hrōðulf, and Onela. They also serve to con-
nect Bēowulf’s report and the Inġeld episode set within it. See also Malone in Humani-
ora, ed. W. Hand and G. Arlt (Locust Valley, 1960) 180–94, Chck. 355, McGalliard SP
75 (1978) 243–70, and Riley Jnl. Narrative Technique 10 (1980) 186–97.
2168. dyrnum cræfte may belong as well with the following as with the preceding
verb.
2172. Here Bēowulf gives to Hyġd the healsbēah that Hyġelāc was to wear when he
fell on the Frisian battle¢eld (see 1195¯ff., 2503¯f.). Such neck-ornaments are found in
both male and female English graves of the ¢fth and sixth centuries (Owen-Crocker
2004: 89; see also note on 1163).
2173. wr®tlicne wundurmāððum. Perhaps hypermetric: see Siev.¯R. 313¯f., Richter
1910: 10, Bliss §§¯3¯f., 106; cf. Pope 309, Suz. 111. Certainly māððĿm- is to be assumed
236 BEOWULF
(see Appx.C §¯14), and perhaps wundĿr-, though even on that condition the verse
would make an unusual normal verse, given the heavy second syllable: see Appx.C
§¯30.
2174. ðēodnes dohtor. Maintaining that Wealhþēo’s name literally identi¢es her as
a ‘foreign slave,’ Robinson ES 45 (1964) 36–9 argues that this verse instead describes
Hyġd (taking dohtor as an unmutated dat. sg.). See Intr. liv n.¯1, and cf. Lang. §¯26.10.
2174b. These three horses, when aded to the four mentioned in 2163b, yield a total of
seven that the hero gives over to his king and queen (out of a total of eight he received;
see 1035¯f.). No mention is made of Hrōðgār’s ornamented saddle; does Bēowulf keep
this to use with his remaining steed?
2179b–80a. druncne has not infrequently been misconstrued, as if it were nom.;
rather, it describes the heorðġenēatas as companions in drink.
2181b. Does m®ste cræfte imply ‘with the greatest self-control’? (Cf. ġeþyldum
healdan 1705.) Alternatively, Hoops St. 76–8 conjectures that cræft is used here as a
fem. (as in OHG and, partly, in OS), m®ste cræfte being parallel to ġinfæstan ġife (cf.
1270¯f.) and ac bearing the sense ‘and yet’ (or ‘although’). (Another instance of the
fem. gender, 418 [MS]? So Wn., v.Sch., W. Fischer 1934: 431¯n.; cf. Kl. EStn. 68.1
[1933] 115; Girvan MLR 28 [1933] 245.)
2183b¯ff. Hēan wæs lange, etc. The theme of the hero’s sluggish youth, though per-
haps not very convincing in this context (Kl., comparing 408¯f.; cf. Engelhardt MLN 68
(1953) 91–5, Momma in Harbus & Poole 2005: 168–70), is a commonplace of folk
literature known as the ‘Ash Lad’ or ‘Cinderellus’ motif. Malone JEGP 36 (1937) 21–3
explains it as a traditional narrative element that the poet, ‘conscientious monk that he
was, found himself unwilling to cast aside.’ Brodeur 1959: 237–9 terms it a poor artis-
tic choice. Eliason SP 76 (1979) 101–8 thinks the passage describes Hyġelāc rather than
Bēowulf, since he treats the Єπαξ λεγόμενον bealdode as a transitive verb. By contrast,
Bonjour 1950: 24–7 and Rosier ES 54 (1973) 2 ¢nd the motif a simple and incisive
example of edwenden; similarly Huppé 1984: 84, but cf. Biggs Speculum 80 (2005)
724–5. Malone Angl. 69 (1950) 295–300 maintains that the period referred to is not the
hero’s youth but his young manhood; similarly Tripp SN 61 (1989) 129–43. Rather, the
motif is most likely motivated by the principle of contrast (see Intr. xcii¯ff.), which
trumps narrative consistency (cf. 2428¯ff., and see Niles 1983: 171). See Intr. xxxviii
n.¯4, l n.9; note on 1931–62 (Offa). To the argument of Magoun (1963: 135–7) that the
discrepancy with 2428¯ff. evidences the composite origin of the poem, cf. Bonjour in
Creed 1967: 182–3, Brodeur 1970: 20–4, and see Intr. xci. — nē hyne on medobenċe
micles wyrðne / (dry)hten We¯dera ġedōn wolde. The adj. wyrðe ‘having a right to’
assumes, especially in legal language, the pregnant sense ‘possessed of’: see BT,
p.¯1200, viii; Liebermann 1903–16: 2.1, gloss.: wierðe; Kl. MLN 18 (1903) 246; hence
micles wyrðne ġedōn, ‘put in possession of much,’ i.e. ‘bestow large gifts (on him).’
That wereda of the MS is a corruption of Wedera seems all the more natural, as weroda
Dryhten is invariably applied to the ‘Lord of Hosts’ (Rankin JEGP 8 [1909] 405; cf.
Robinson 1993a, regarding the expression as pre-Christian).
2187b¯f. Some would supply a comma after æðeling, making unfrom parallel to
slēac: so Tr., Kock5 176, Holt.6, Hoops, v.Sch.
2194. þæt hē on Bīowulfes bearm āleġde. Possibly the meaning is simply that
Hyġelāc gave Bēowulf the sword as a gift; related expressions perhaps mean no more
than this in 2404 and Sat 151, 670. But some more formal, ceremonial signi¢cance is
suggested by the unusual expression (see 1142–4¯n.), which is not employed in other in-
stances of gift-giving (1020¯ff., 1192¯ff., 1866¯ff., 1900¯ff., 2152¯ff., 2989¯ff.), and by the
immediate context of the conveyance of a very signi¢cant tract of land, along with re-
marks about a bregostōl and the two men’s shared right to realm and rule (2195–9).
Some rite of investiture may be involved; Biggs Speculum 80 (2005) 719¯ff. argues that
Bēowulf is here made a king and the successor to Hyġelāc.
 COMMENTARY 237
2195b. seofan þūsendo. þūsend is sometimes used ‘of value without expressing the
unit’ (BT). In this instance, as also, e.g., repeatedly in Bede, the hīd ‘familia’ is evi-
dently understood (as ¢rst explained by Klu. ix 191¯f., following a suggestion of Leo
1839: 101 n.¯2; see also C. Plummer & J. Earle Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel
[Oxford, 1892–9] II, 23; Kl. Angl. 27 [1904] 411¯f.). The amount of land given to
Bēowulf would therefore be equivalent to that of North Mercia (2300 sq. km, though it
is the number of families the land can support that the unit refers to, so that the area
may actually be more or less: see Hunter Blair 2003: 267–70); cf. Bede 3, 240.2: Norð-
merċum, þāra londes is seofon þūsendo (H.E. iii, cap. 24: familiarum vii milium). See
note on 2994–5a.
2198b¯f. ōðrum, i.e. Hyġelāc; þām = þām þe (so 2779; cf. Varr.; OES §¯2122); sēlra
‘higher in rank’ (see 1212¯n.). Cf. 862¯f.
2200–3182. The narrative of the Second Part is much broken up by digressions. The
main story is contained in ll.¯2200–31a, 2278–2349a, 2397–2424; 2510–2910a; 3007b–
50, (3058–68), 3076–3182; the previous history of the dragon hoard, in ll.¯2231b–77,
3051(or 49b)–57, 3069–75; episodes of Geatish history, in ll.¯2354b(49b)–96, 2425–
2509, (2611–25a), 2910b–3007a.
2200–2323. The robbing of the hoard and the ravages of the dragon.
2202¯ff. On the historical allusions, see Intr. lx, ll.¯2378¯ff.
2207. syððan. Dob. and MR recommend supplying a conjunction ‘that’ in sense
before the word; cf. OES §¯1989. Berkhout ANQ 15.2 (2002) 51–8 assumes an omission
of several verses before. It may be that syððan is a type of anacoluthon: the expected
þæt-clause has been so long delayed that a change of syntax was felt to be required to
explain the temporal relation of 2207¯f. to the preceding (Hoops 241). This was ap-
parently Klaeber’s belief, to judge by his mark of punctuation ‘—:’ at the end of 2206
and the remark that syððan is used, in a way, correlatively with syððan 2201 (Hoops:
‘als .¯.¯. da’).
2207b–52a. The text of these verses is particularly uncertain, due to the regrettable
state of fol. 179 of the MS. See Intr. xxviii¯f., Varr.
2209b. wæs ðā frōd cyning, ‘the king was then old.’
2213¯f. Tr. begins a new period with stānbeorh, treating this as the object of under;
similarly Andrew 1948: §¯81, but construing þ®r as relative.
2215b¯ff. (sē ðe nē)h ġ(eþ[r]on)g / h®ðnum horde, ‘who pressed forward near to
the heathen hoard’; cf. 1912, 2222, 229o.
2217b. Nē hē þæt syððan (bemāð), ‘nor did he [the dragon] afterward conceal it,’
i.e., he showed it plainly. For the use of þēah 2218, cf. 1102.
2221b. wyrmhorda. The unexpected plural, if not due to the late retoucher (see Intr.
xxxviii¯f.), may be explained as generic (see 565¯n.): in stealing the cup, the thief tested
the protections not just on this dragon’s hoard but on dragons’ hoards in general.
2222b. sē ðe him sāre ġesceōd. him refers not to the thief (Schü., Cha.) but to the
dragon. Cf. 2295.
2223b¯ff. While the sequence of events surrounding the dragon’s attack is subject to
several different interpretations as regards its details, the gist of the matter is plain
enough. In the view adopted here, the slave of an unknown person attached to the
Geatish court (þēo nāthwylċes), driven by sore aÑiction (for þrēanēdlan), steals a
costly vessel from the dragon’s hoard, presenting it to his master to obtain his pardon
(2281¯ff.). The vessel is eventually relayed to Bēowulf himself (2404¯f.), apparently
after the master makes the theft known (thus becoming the melda ‘informer’ of 2405).
In the meantime, however, the dragon has commenced his reign of terror. (For defenses
of the reading þēow [though þēo ¢ts the MS space better], see Bu.Zs. 210; Hubbard
1920; Kl. 1926: 213–14; Hoops.) According to Lawrence’s alternative view (PMLA 33
[1918] 551; see also id. JEGP 23 [1924] 296, 298¯f., Cherniss 1972: 89), the man who
stole the cup was a þeġn (not a slave) trying to pay compensation for a crime, or else
238 BEOWULF
hoping to settle a feud in which he had been found the guilty party.1 Andersson Specu-
lum 59 [1984] 493–508 (similarly Ki.; see Varr.) would cut through the terms of this
debate by restoring þēof and translating, ‘the thief of some object Ïed the hostile blows
of the children of men.’ This is possible, though the uses of nāthwylċ(es) in verse favor
the assumption that it refers here to a person rather than an object (see Fu.1). Re-
gardless of the man’s social standing and the exact circumstances of his deed, his theft
of the vessel is discovered when the reasons for the dragon’s wrath are investigated.
Now put under physical restraint (he becomes a hæft ‘prisoner’ 2408), he is forced to
guide Bēowulf and a band of eleven warriors to the barrow. The reason the man had
been so foolhardy as to venture into the barrow in the ¢rst place, we are told, is that he
sought to avoid ‘hostile blows’ (heteswenġeas Ïēah 2224b). Some light on his motives
may be cast by AS laws, for a person found guilty of certain crimes could avoid a
beating by paying a ¢ne (see Liebermann 1903–16: 2.621–2, though De Roo MP 79.3
[1982] 297–304 rightly points out that swenġeas need not denote scourging, as has
been thought). According to Biggs ASE 32 (2003) 61¯ff., following Cherniss op. cit., the
thief gives the cup directly to Bēowulf without any intermediary; hence the king is
morally implicated in this unfortunate chain of events from the start. (As Andersson
points out, op. cit. 494, it would then have to be assumed that the thief himself is the
‘informer.’)
2231b¯ff. In response to the charge of Stjerna (1912: 37–9, 136–68) and Lawrence
(PMLA 33 [1918] 547–83) that the account of the treasure here is inconsistent with that
given in 3049¯ff., Klaeber offers a synthesis: Long, long ago (3050) the hoard had been
placed in the earth by illustrious chieftains (3070). A curse had been laid on it. After a
time, it was discovered and seized by certain warriors (2248¯f.), who made good use of
it. The last survivor of this race returned the treasures to the earth, placing them in a
barrow or cave. There the dragon found them2 and kept watch over them for three
hundred years (2278), until the theft of a cup aroused his anger and brought on the
tragic ¢ght, in which both Bēowulf and the dragon lost their lives. The hoard was
¢nally buried in the ground with the ashes of the hero. Klaeber concedes, however, that
the history of the hoard is thus somewhat complicated, and now it is the commoner
view that the poet valued narrative effect over factual consistency: see Brodeur 1959:
238–9; Niles 1983: 3–30. See also Owen-Crocker (2000: 61–84), who argues that these
lines describe the third of four funerals in the poem. — The lair of the dragon is
generally conceived as one of those ancient, imposing megalithic graves covered with a
mound which by later generations were regarded as enta ġeweorc (2717; cf. Saxo,
Praefatio 2,5, tr. 9; cf. also the mod. Dan. term jættestue ‘giants’ chamber’ used to de-
note such tombs). See Grimm D.M. 442 [534¯f.]; D. Müller R.-L.2 19.492–5, w. refs.;
Illus.B 148. Chambered tombs (or passage graves) of this type are found in Scandi-
navia as well as Britain and much of the rest of Europe, two noteworthy examples
being Newgrange, Ireland, and West Kennett long barrow, Wiltshire. A smaller but

1
But why should a þeġn be called a ‘captive,’ as Lawrence translates hæft 24o8, a problem that
is not well explained by the following sentence, which refers to the ¢rst visit to the dragon’s lair
(cf. Biggs ASE 32 [2003] 61 n.¯29)? Moreover, in the laws, beating is the typical punishment of
slaves. And as Dobbie observes, unlike a þeġn, the slave is so lowly that he is not counted among
the twelve, including Bēowulf, who go to face the dragon (2401), though he is the thirteenth man
(2406). It is also dubitable whether the miscreant would have been an ‘informer’ in regard to his
own theft (see 2405¯n.).
2
Regarding the story of the Last Survivor, it has been suggested that, according to the original
notion, the man provided in the cave a burial place for himself as well as for his treasures, and was
then was transformed into a dragon (cf. the story of Fáfnir in the Eddas); see E.tr. 177; Simrock
1859: 201; Bu. 370; Bugge & Olrik Dania 1 (1891) 233–45; J. Grimm 1865–90 (1823): 4.184;
Smithers 1961: 11–12. Trp. ix argues that the elegist, whom he would identify as Heremōd, not in
some earlier version of the story but in the present text itself becomes the dragon, though this
requires some ingenious reinterpretation of the text. Cf. Neville 2001: 118.
 COMMENTARY 239
still impressive example is that at Øm near Lejre, Zealand (¢g. 9). The Beowulf poet
characterizes his dragon’s barrow as a cave (eorðsele 2232) that is built up of stones (it
is a stānbeorh 2213; cf. stānbogan 2545 and the reference to stapulum 2718 n.). It can
be entered by a narrow hidden passageway (stīġ .¯.¯. eldum uncūð 2213–14), and the size
of its central chamber (which is roofed, 2755) can be judged by what later is said about
the wyrm’s length (3042–3), as well as by details relating to the very considerable
treasure hoard and its retrieval. The fascination and potential fear inspired by such
monuments, which in different eras may be so overgrown or eroded as to seem like
natural swellings of the earth, is perennial, particularly seeing that such places may be
associated with taboos regarding the dead (see Semple World Archaeology 30 [1998]
109–26). — 2232. eorðse(le). Dobbie’s objection that this reading ‘ignores the
evidence of transcript B that the next to last letter of this word was -s-’ is a misreading
of B, which actually indicates that the second constituent began with se-, with a loss of
letters after this (Ki.; J.R. Hall 2006).
2239b–41a. (wēn)de þæs yl(c)an, / þæt hē l©tel fæc longġestrēona / brūcan mōste,
‘he expected the same [fate as had overtaken all his relatives], viz. that he would be
permitted to enjoy the ancient treasures only a short time.’
2241b. eallġearo. 2243. nīwe. The burial place was specially prepared, not used
before, as sometimes occurs in the Northern literary tradition. The adjective nīwe, it has
been proposed, may have been suggested by the OE Gospel of Matthew, where it is
used to describe Christ’s sepulcher (Owen-Crocker 2000: 61, 77¯n.). That the Last
Survivor’s sepulcher becomes the dragon’s lair and a locus of evil may have
rami¢cations for the interpretation of Bēowulf’s burial mound (see note on 2802¯¯ff.).
2247–66. On this impressive speech and its similarity to so-called elegies such as
The Wanderer and The Ruin, see esp. Schü. EStn. 39 (1908) 1–13; E. Sieper Die ae.
Elegie (Strassburg, 1915); A. O’Neill Elegiac Elements in Beowulf (Washington, 1932);
Bonjour 1950: 68–9; Goldman Res Publica Litterarum 2 (1979) 69–80; Pope 1982.
2248b. on ðē. Probably not ‘in you’ (Mackie 1941: 95; Dob.; cf. v.Sch.) but ‘from
you.’ Cf. similar uses of on with verbs of taking, ll.¯122, 747, etc. (see Gloss.: on; Lang.
§¯26.5).
2251b. [līf] ofġeaf. Holt., inserting [lēoht], compares OS thit lioht ageİan in Hel.
(470, 771, etc.), but there lioht may in fact mean ‘life’ (as in some OE homiletic prose).
Cf. līf forġeaf (GenA 2844, Dream 147, ChristB 776), līf ālētan (Jul 483), etc. On the
punctuation, and the subsequent change of number in the verbs, see Mitchelll LSE 20
[1989] 316.
2252. ġesāwon, perhaps ‘had seen the last of’ (Kock2 118; cf. 1875¯n.); cf. 2725¯ff.
Rather, Penttilä 1956 suggests ‘had experienced, enjoyed’; Collinder (1954: 23) pro-
poses ‘got to see,’ in reference to the joys of the (pagan) afterlife.
2255–6a. Sceal se hearda helm, etc. The inf. wesan is understood; cf. 3021. The
compound hyrstedgolde, parallel to f®tum, is posited by Kock on the basis of com-
parison to w®pnedmen 1284 (cf. also hrinġedstefna 32, etc.) and f®tedsinċes at And
478. Cf. GenA 2156. It is, after all, more dissonant to call the helmet both ‘ornamented
with gold’ and ‘deprived of (gold) plates.’
2259. ofer borda ġebræc, ‘over the crashing shields’; cf. 2980. See Kl. 1926: 220.
2261. æfter wīġfruman, lit. ‘behind, following,’ hence ‘along with’ (Kl. JEGP 6
[1906–7] 197), varying hæleðum be healfe. Cf. Kock5 179¯f., Ni., MR (æfter as tempor-
al); Kl. 1926: 214–15. The striking personi¢cation of the mail shirt traveling far, by the
side of heroes (see Isaacs JEGP 62 [1963] 127¯f.), is matched by WaldB 18: standeð mē
hēr on eaxelum Ælfheres lāf (cf. eaxlġestealla). Note also Beo 1443¯ff.; Mald 284¯f. (On
the interpretation of hrinġ as ‘sound,’ see Gloss.)
2262b. Næs (adv.) hearpan wyn. The verb ‘is’ is understood: ‘there is not . . .’ See
811¯n.; also 2297?
2263b–4a. nē gōd hafoc / ġeond sæl swingeð. Hunting birds were tamed in Sweden
at least from the ¢fth century, as witnessed by bones found in a number of graves,
240 BEOWULF
including cremation graves and the boat graves of Vendel and Valsgärde (Vretemark in
Sachsen Symposion Skara 1983, ed. U. Hagberg & O. Jacobzon [Skara, 1984] 46–52).
In England, one of the earliest references to trained hawks is in the Penitential of
Theodore, compiled 690 or soon after (Oggins 2004: 38). See Metcalf NM 64 (1963)
378–89; Intr. clxix. Owen-Crocker (2000: 69–76) reads the hawk, the harp (2262b), and
the horse (2264b) in this passage as grave-goods. Regardless of that question, they
stand for the good life as lived by people of rank, and their absence, in a manner cor-
responding to synecdoche, connotes a comprehensive loss of felicity.
2272¯ff. sē ðe byrnende / biorgas sēċeð, probably ‘he who, burning, seeks out
barrows,’ rather than ‘he who seeks out burning barrows,’ though a reference to smol-
dering cremation mounds is conceivable. The present tense of the verbs in this passage
(to the end of 2277) implies — or, at least, encourages — belief in such creatures as
inhabitants of the natural world. See Max II 26¯f.: draca sceal on hl®we, / frōd, fræt-
wum wlanc. See also Marv 16, with its reference to 150-foot-long dragons living in
abundance beyond the river Brixontes, and the prologue to the Liber monstrorum, with
its reference to the most dreadful kinds of dragons and serpents inhabiting the secret
parts of the world, though with no insistence on the truth-value of these claims
(Orchard 1995: 254–5; for one huge serpent from this latter source [iii, cap. 9] see
Appx.A §¯17). Davidson (1964: 161) points out that ¢ery dragons are not common in
Scandinavian mythology and may have emerged in OE literature ‘as a result of ritual at
the grave.’ Indeed, neither the Wonders nor the Liber monstrorum makes speci¢c men-
tion of ¢re in connection with dragons, nor are Ïying dragons described in either
source, though they are mentioned in the AS Chronicle (see 2315¯n.).
2278b¯f. þrēo hund wintra, etc. See note on 3049¯f., and cf. 1497¯f. Calder (SP 69
[1972] 29–37) argues that this expanse of time is beyond human comprehension, one
detail making the dragon represent an eternally negative force in the universe as op-
posed to the limited evil for the world of humans represented by Grendel.
2283b–4a. Robinson 1979: 138–43 defends the repetition of hord; cf. Andrew 1948:
§¯168.
2284b. bēne ġetīðad. As tīðian commands a genitive object, in effect the subject of
this passive construction is gen. — though, to be more precise, the verb is impersonal
and retains its gen. object: cf. 1103b, Deor 7, 13, etc.; see Kl. 1908b: 466¯f.; OES
§§¯848–54.
2286. fīra fyrnġeweorc; i.e., the f®ted w®ġe 2282, drinċfæt d©re 23o6.
2287b. wrōht wæs ġenīwad. If this really refers to the renewal of strife, it perhaps
alludes to 2227¯ff.; but more likely ġenīwad is to be understood in a less speci¢c sense,
‘made new, raised up,’ as at Ex 35. See Kl. 1905–6: 463.
2288b. stonc ðā æfter stāne. The meaning ‘sniffed, followed the scent,’ favored by
most of the earlier edd., is rejected by nearly all the more recent ones (excl. Wn., MR),
who would instead connect the word with Go. stigqan and OIcel. støkkva and assign
the meaning ‘moved rapidly.’ (Cf. Sed.: stonc = stong ‘snapped, stabbed’). Yet the
sense ‘snuÑed, smelled’ has now been shown to be attested in OE in the Vespasian and
Junius Psalters (Ps. 113: 14): see Schabram in Festgabe für Hans Pinsker, ed. R.
Acobian (Vienna, 1979) 144–56, who cites also convincing WGmc. parallels. The most
proximate evidence thus favors the older analysis. (Kl., too, cites a partial MHG par-
allel, Ortnit 570: als des wurmes houbet vernam des mannes smac.)
2289. Klaeber Archiv 115 (1905) 181 de¢nes tō as an adverb of direction (so also
Mag., Ja., MR), but in Kl.1–3 he calls it an intensi¢er ‘too’ (like Hoops and most edd.).
Dobbie compares þæt sē tō forð ġewāt, describing a spear at Mald 150, where, he ob-
jects, ‘the meaning “too far forward” is quite inappropriate, since it would have been
unreasonable to expect the spear to stop before it reached its target.’ Yet this misses the
grim meiosis of the construction. Decisive is the observation that tō as a directional
adverb is always stressed (cf. 1422, 1755, 1785, 2648), while the intensi¢er, as here, is
not (cf. 133, 137, etc.). — ġestōp, pluperf.
 COMMENTARY 241
2292b¯f. sē ðe (‘he whom’) waldendes / hyldo ġehealdeþ (cf. 572¯f.), according to
Kock2 118¯f., Kl., and v.Sch., though ‘he who’ is also possible: cf. GenB 473¯f., 567,
625 (Dob., Ni.; OES §¯2158; see also Hoops).
2295. þone þe him on sweofote sāre ġetēode. Klaeber (1926: 215; cf. Cha., v.Sch.)
construes sāre as an adverb (cf. 2222), not object of the verb, the fem. gender of the
noun sār being unexpected (see 2468¯n.). Yet ġetēon is a transitive verb, and Kl. is thus
obliged to suggest an unparalleled sense ‘deal with.’ (On Dobbie’s claim that it is used
absolutely also in swā unc wyrd ġetēoð 2526, see the note on that verse. Even if wyrd
were to be regarded as the subject in that clause, swā, if not actually a relative pronoun
[see Schleburg 2002: 55–60; note to ll.¯93, 2608], would in any event imply an object
for the verb [cf. Dob. 246 ad ¢n.].)
2296–7. hāt ond hrēohmōd may belong to the preceding clause (so Holt., Schü.,
Sed.) The meter of ¯ealne ūtanweardne has given the edd. much trouble: see Varr.
Perhaps it is hypermetric (Bliss §¯106, Suz. 363; cf. Pope xxxi, 323¯f., Kendall 1991: 86,
Hutch. 151). hl®w is normally masc. (one instance of the neut.: Siev. 1884a: 237) and
appears as such in some other passages of the poem in which the gender can be de-
termined (2803, 2804, 3157; 2412?). Hence, changing ealne to eal is too speculative.
Yet hl®w was originally an es-stem and hence neuter (OEG §¯636). Thus, Russom
(1987: 130–1) may be right that an alternative neut. hl®w was an archaism in the poet’s
(poetic) dialect (see 2806¯n.), and a copyist has added the masculine endings in this
verse.
2297b–8. nē ð®r ®niġ mon / on þ(ām) wēstenne. Perhaps a verb wæs is to be
understood: cf. 2262 (Hoops); or perhaps nē should be emended to næs (so Cos. et al.).
And perhaps a scribe has simply replaced one word for ‘war’ with another in the next
verse. Yet given the incompleteness of the thought and the failure of alliteration in
2298 (see Varr.), it may be that two or more verses have been inadvertently omitted
after wēstenne (so Sed., Sisam 1958: 135), perhaps something like wearð ġemēted, / sē
ðe þone hearh onwōd. Bamm. ES 61 (1980) 481¯f., following Lehmann (see Varr.),
defends the lack of a verb in the MS, translating ‘nobody in the desert, however, re-
joiced in ¢ghting, in the battle deed’ (similarly Miyabe Poetica 2 [1974] 34¯f., Mitchell
ibid. 15–16 [1983] 10, MR); but unstressed clause-internal hwæðre should not be al-
lowed (Appx.C §¯6). Andrew (1948: §¯187) would emend MS hilde to hē wīde; but put-
ting hwīlum into the on-verse would disrupt the meter: see Bliss §¯4. — wīġes ġefeh,
that is to say, by anticipation.
2299. bea(dwe). To judge by the amount of space required for ealne utan- (2297),
two lines supra in the MS, there may have been enough room for beadwe here (cf.
1539), but not beaduwe. Perhaps more likely, though, the text involves a haplography
of we: for the opposite error at line-end, cf. 752, 986, 1282, 2383.
2307b¯f. læ[n]ġ. Those who would read læġ (see Varr.; also Moore Kl.Misc. 211–12,
Malone 1933b: 151) assume that bīdan wolde is in variation with on wealle læġ. Yet nē
would then seem to be required before bīdan: cf. 168¯f., 244¯ff., 1735¯ff., 2347¯f. For
lenġ bīdan, cf. And 1042, GuthA 236.
2310b–11. The ¢rst of several anticipations of the hero’s death. See Intr. xciii¯ff.
2315. lyftÏoga (see also 2346b, 2528a, 2760a, and 2830a; cf. 2373b; compare also
Finn 3 (n.). The dragons featured in hagiographical and legendary parallels to the last
episode of Beowulf are earth dragons which show no capability of Ïight: see Rauer
2000; Appx.A §§¯10 and 11.4 (Frotho), §¯19 (St. Samson). Siġemund’s dragon (886–97)
is not said to Ïy, and even Cadmus’s dragon raises no more than half its length into the
air (Rauer 2000: 144). The Ïying dragon in Beo therefore stands out as an extraordinary
conception. The idea may have come to Britain from the East with the Roman legions,
who carried the beast (as if flying) on their banners (Davidson Folklore 61 (1950) 180;
id. 1964: 161–2); in addition, Christian inÏuence from the Book of Revelation may be
assumed (see Intr. lxxviii). The entry in ChronD, E s.a. 793 concerning ¢ery dragons
Ïying in the air, mentioned alongside whirlwinds and Ïashes of lightning and in a
242 BEOWULF
manner suggestive of portents of doom, suggests that Ïying dragons were associated
with the most awful powers of the storm (though Brown Neophil. 64 [1980] 439–60
views the annalist’s dragons as mere metaphors for lightning). Davidson (locc. cit.) and
Keller (Aevum 55 [1981] 220) liken the winged dragon in Beo to that on the Sutton Hoo
shield, whose wings are, however, furled (B-Mitford 2.62–5; Illus.B 154). Lecouteux
(ZfdA 108 [1979] 22–3) suggests that the poet depicts primarily an earth dragon,
although he knew legends about Ïying dragons, as well.
2324–2537. Preparation for the dragon ¢ght.
2324¯ff. Klaeber (xxii) remarks Bēowulf’s method of learning about the dragon as
one of several parallels to Saxo’s account of Frotho and the dragon (ii 1,3, tr. 40),
whose existence is made known to Frotho by the song of a countryman. See Appx.A
§¯10.
2329–31. Bēowulf did not yet know the real cause of the dragon’s ravages: see
2403¯ff. Christian signi¢cance, with speci¢c reference to pre-Mosaic law, has been
attributed to the phrase ofer ealde riht ‘contrary to old law’; see Bloom¢eld CL 14
(1962) 39–41, but cf. Moorman MLQ 28 (1967) 15. The phrase is perhaps indeter-
minate enough to be taken to refer to any ancient precepts or taboos (cf. LawHl 12: an
eald riht). Baird (N&Q 14 [1967] 7¯f.) argues that such self-blame is intended to depict
the hero’s humility.
2334. ēalond. Cf. Intr. xlv, lxv & n.¯4. This has been identi¢ed as Saxo’s island
(Siev.) or the island of Zealand (Boer 1912) or Öland (Stjerna 1912: 91–2), but most
edd. have (often reluctantly, for lack of unambiguous parallels) accepted the interpreta-
tion ‘land bordering on water’ (Bu.Tid. 68, Bu. 5). Krapp (MP 2.3 [1905] 403¯f.; see
also OED: island) identi¢es analogous uses of īġland, ēalond (And 15, Phoen 9, 287,
MSol 1); Cronan ELN 27.3 [1990] 6–9 ¢nds a parallel in the gloss on the Rushworth
Gospels; and Siebs points out that insula is found in medieval Latin in this wider sense
(see BGdSL 35 [1909] 541, but cf. Cronan). (See Aant.) Yet even in this sense the word
seems suspicious. The reading eal ond ūtan is tempting (see Varr.), but the syntax of
this is unconvincing, as adv. eal is never used in a coordinate construction like this, and
the signi¢cance of ūtan becomes less clear. Possibly the scribe has miswritten ealdlond
(Cl.Hall tr.1: ‘ancestral land’), a common sort of error (haplography). This would be
synonymous with eorðweard, parallel, but not appositive, to fæsten. But emendation,
though it would improve the sense, is not strictly necessary.
2336b. wræce leornode. The hero’s most immediate concerns would appear to be
the defense of the country and the desirability of revenge, though the winning of the
hoard (2535¯f., 2747¯ff., 2794¯ff.), which is the sole object in Frotho’s dragon ¢ght (Intr.
xxi¯f.), is perceived by some to be his more immediate aim. (See Kl. 1911–12: [66 &
n.¯3]; Kaske in Critical Approaches to Six Major Eng. Works, ed. R. Lumiansky & H.
Baker (Philadelphia, 1968) 23; Silber AnMed. 18 [1977] 5–19; cf., e.g., Goldsmith
1960, Crook Am. Benedictine Rev. 25 [1974] 218–34, Dahlberg 1985.) The secondary
nature of the motif of the hoard in the last part of the Nibelungenlied may be recalled.
2338¯f. eall īrenne, ‘all of iron.’ Klaeber 1908b: 465 initially explained eallīrenne
(regarded as one word) as acc. masc., on the supposition that the poet at ¢rst intended
to use masc. scyld but instead adopted neut. wīġbord in the next line. He later sup-
ported the suggestion of Hoops St. 121¯f. that the word is weak acc. neut. modifying
wīġbord (similarly, earlier, Grattan in Cha. [n.], but regarding the adjective as an abso-
lute usage: ‘that thing all of iron’; similarly Sed.).
2341b¯f. (lī)þend is parallel to æþeling; daga depends on ende. A compound līþend-
daga (see Varr.; similarly Orchard 2003: 216 but līþen-) is less plausible on the basis of
semantics (see Gloss.: līðan) and morphology (Appx.C §¯15). Pope xxxiii prefers the
usual emendation l®n- on syntactic and semantic grounds, and indeed, none of these
solutions is entirely compelling. Yet for paleographic reasons the scribal corruption of
læn to þend seems, on balance, far less likely than the loss of two letters before þend
(see Rob.).
 COMMENTARY 243
2353b–4a. Grendeles m®gum, i.e. the ‘Grendel family,’ meaning, of course, Gren-
del and his mother; lāðan cynnes ‘of (or ‘belonging to’) a hateful kin’; cf. 1729. Or
perhaps ‘the kin of the hateful family of Grendel.’
2354b¯ff. Nō þæt l®sest wæs / hondġemōt(a). There follows here the second of the
allusions to Hyġelāc’s last adventure; see Intr. lxxxi. Very possibly this clause refers
ahead to Bēowulf’s combat with the Hetware, alluded to in 2363–6, rather than to
Hyġelāc’s death. Otherwise, syððan must mean ‘at the time when,’ and this seems
dubitable: see Cronan NOWELE 31–2 (1997) 61–2, and cf. notes to 1204a, 1688¯f.
2358b. hiorodrynċum swealt, ‘died by sword-drinks,’ i.e. by the sword’s drinking
his blood. So Krüger BGdSL 9 (1884) 574; Rickert MP 2.1 (1904) 66¯f.; Kl. Archiv 126
(1911) 349 & n.¯2. The nearest semantic parallel to the unique compound is gryrum
ecga 483. Dobbie, however, argues that the victim may be the drinker, on the basis of
comparison to māndrinċ ‘poison’ Rid 23.13.
2361b¯f. Andrew 1948: §¯96 objects to Grein’s restoration āna on the ground that the
pronoun ān should be expected rather than the adj. āna in such a construction without
an expressed subject, but he is obliged to emend away the counterexample in 145. Rob-
inson (see Varr.) objects that hildeġeatwa should not be genitive plural because
ġeatwa and its compounds are probably non-count nouns; but cf. MRune 86: fyrd-
ġeatewa sum. His idea that xxx in the MS stands for a gen. form of the numeral faces a
metrical diÌculty: see Appx.C §¯31. His larger argument (developing an idea of
Malone’s, 1933b: 151; opposed by Stanley 1994: 47) is that some other restorations of
2361b (e.g. elne þrītiġra) would not require us to understand that the hero swam home
with the war-gear of thirty, and that 2362b means only that the hero took the armor in
the direction of the sea (as a circumlocution for ‘left the battle¢eld’; so also Ja.), not
that he swam with it. (Cf. Wentersdorf SP 68 [1971] 399, arguing that the hero used a
boat; but cf. note on 2367 infra.) Cf. Cha., rightly observing that there is space for
some three letters before the numeral in the MS: ana ¢ts the space very well, while
elne, eorla, ealra, etc., are too long. — As for (þron)g, the usual restorations (stā)g and
(bēa)g are both too short for the space available (and bēag ‘turned, Ïed’ may be too
unheroic: Kl. Beibl. 50 [1939] 332; compare, however, Dob.), though Kiernan’s
(ġīon)g is possible: see Fu.1.
2363b¯ff. hrēmġe þorfton. ‘Be’ is understood (but see OES §¯3863, MR). þē refers to
Hetware; Holt. supposes that him (obj. of foran onġēan: see DOE s.v. foran I.B.3)
and hildfrecan are dat. pl., in ref. to the Hetware.
2367. Oferswam. Magoun ES 25 (1954) 197 and Wentersdorf SP 68 (1971) 399
argue that the word may mean ‘sailed (over),’ but Green¢eld 1982b: 298 and Ja. rightly
observe that a boat is always mentioned in contexts in which swimman refers to sailing,
the unmarked meaning of swimman being ‘swim.’
2369¯ff. For Germanic parallels to a queen’s deciding the succession upon her hus-
band’s death, see Wph. 300¯f., w. refs.
2372b. ðā wæs Hyġelāc dēad. Perhaps ðā means ‘now that’: see n. to 201b. Cf.
Hoops, seemingly regarding the clause as causal (cf. v.Sch.); also Holt.7–8, regarding it
as independent. See as well Kl. Archiv 188 (1951) 109.
2377. hwæðre hē him on folce frēondlārum hēold, ‘yet he served him in public
with friendly counsel.’ healdan may take two dative objects, of person and thing, to
denote an action suggested by the thing (BTS: healdan iv), and so emendation to hine
is not required. (Mackie 1941: 95; v.Sch.; Dob.; Mitchell 1988b: 7.)
2379b–96. On these Swedish wars, see Intr. lx, lxii¯f.
2385–6a. MS orfeorme, which Brett attempts to vindicate (MLR 14 [1919] 2: ‘with-
out support’ [?]), is precluded by considerations of alliteration and sense. Andrew
(1948: §¯173) may be right that we should read þā for for þ®r [f¯]or, supposing the
scribe mistook f for r, since they are written similarly. — feorhwunde hlēat, /
sweordes swenġum. This is the punctuation of Kock 1918: 9. The verb hlēotan takes
the gen., acc., or instr. (see ChristB 783), and so -wunde, here regarded as dat.-instr.,
244 BEOWULF
may alternatively be gen. or acc.: ‘he obtained his life-wound through blows of the
sword’ (Dob.; so Holt., Sed., Cha., v.Sch., Ni.).
2389¯f. Most observers assume that the subject of lēt is Ongenðioes bearn (i.e.
Onela); Tripp (164–5; so Crp.) argues that it is Heardrēd. Green¢eld (1985: 399)
suggests that þæt wæs gōd cyning refers to Bēowulf, signaling approval for the
vengeance described in the following verses.
2392b¯f. Ēadġilse wearð . . . frēond, i.e., Bēowulf supported Ēadġils. Cf. the preg-
nant meaning of lu¢an 1982, hatian 2466, etc.
2394. s® in fem. usage is unusual in Anglian texts (see HOEM §¯355.2). Technically,
however, under the commonest assumption about the geography of the scene (see Intr.
lxii), here and in 2380 the word ought to refer to a lake (Väner; but cf. heafo 2477), and
if that is so, Malone 1958: 302 is likely right that the poem preserves an archaic seman-
tic distinction based on gender. See Fulk 2007a: 276, but cf. Niles 2007b: 134–5, with
an opposing view as regards what may have been AS assumptions about the location of
the Gēatas’ homeland.
2395b¯f. hē almost certainly refers to Ēadġils (Müll. ZfdA 14 [1869] 228); cf. Farrell
1972: 7–8, arguing that Bēowulf undertook the expedition himself. — ġewræc . . . /
ċealdum ċearsīðum. An object must be supplied for normally trans. ġewrecan (see
Varr.): ‘he avenged [it, viz. the previous hostile acts] by means of expeditions fraught
with harm and distress’ (cf. sorhfullne sīð 512, 1278, 1429). As the battle between
Aðils and Áli is located on the ice of Lake Väner (Appx.A §¯9, ch.¯29; see also Intr. lxiii
n.¯3), Bugge (13) thought of taking ċealdum non-metaphorically.
2405b. meldan probably refers to the thief’s lord (see note on 2223¯f.), who is an
‘informer’ in the sense that by giving the cup to Bēowulf he reveals the cause of the
dragon’s ire. (See the note on 2223¯f.) E. Anderson Mediaevalia 3 (1978) 154¯f. argues
that the informer more speci¢cally indicts the thief of having concealed a treasure trove
belonging, by law, to the king; but surely the cause of the dragon’s wrath would be
uppermost in mind.
2418. h®lo ābēad bears no reference to good luck required on this particular
occasion (as in 653), but means, quite in general, ‘saluted.’
2419b–23a. The expression of gloomy foreboding might recall Mark 14: 33¯f. (Matt.
26: 37¯f.).
2420b. wyrd. Although the original sense of the word is ‘course of events, what
comes to pass’ (see esp. 3030, and see Gloss.; Intr. lxxii¯f.), here it seems to have as-
sumed the meaning ‘destiny’ (also 734, 1233?), and at one place wyrd seems even to be
personi¢ed (2574).
2422. sēċean sāwle hord is roughly synonymous with sāwle sēċan 801.
2423b. nō þon lange presents, perhaps, a fusion of nō þon lenġ (the normal compar.
in connection with þon) and nō . . . lange. Kock argues that the construction means
‘however long,’ ‘no matter how long’: see note to 968, but cf. Quirk 1954: 95¯n. and
OES §¯3474¯n.¯ MR: ‘not for long after that (?).’
2425–2537. Bēowulf speaks. De Looze TSLL 26 (1984) 145–56 argues that in this
speech Bēowulf is weighing the consequences of acting or not acting in response to the
dragon’s threat, ¢rst by contemplating how inaction, in the case of Hrēðel’s response to
the killing of Herebeald and of the father’s lament for his hanged son, leads to despair;
then by comparing active responses to danger, in the course of the wars with the
Swedes and Franks. Remembering his own accomplishment of killing Dæġhrefn, he
ends on a note of resolve (2497–2509). Thus, the hero himself may be understood to be
considering the very issue that has exercised many modern readers of the poem,
beginning with Tolkien (1953: 14–15, 17): is it the right course of action for him to
¢ght the dragon, seeing as his death would leave his people unprotected? See also
Georgianna 1987; cf. 3077–83, and see Intr. cxxiv. J. Harris Speculum 67 (1992) 1–32
illuminates the hero’s ¢nal speeches within the context of other heroes’ last words in
Germanic literature. See also Hieatt in Damico & Leyerle 1993: 403–24.
 COMMENTARY 245
2428¯ff. Iċ wæs syfanwintre, etc. In monastic culture, a child could be removed
from the care of his parents at the age of seven, when the education of oblates normally
began. In the case of Bede we have his own testimony: Mid þ© iċ wæs seofanwintre, þā
wæs iċ mid ġīmene mīnra māga seald tō fēdanne ond tō l®renne þām ārwyrþan abbude
Benedicte ond Ċēolferþe after þon (Bede 5 48o.25–8). Secular customs were perhaps
similar. See N. Orme Medieval Children (New Haven, 2001) 68; S. Crawford Child-
hood in AS England (Stroud, 1999) 47–56. On the common practice of fosterage in
Scandinavia, mentioned often in the OIcel. sagas, see Magnús Már Lárusson KLNM
4.544–5.
2430b. Hrēðel cyning. Perhaps type A2k: see Appx.C §¯27.
2432¯ff. næs iċ him . . . lāðra, etc. Litotes. ōwihte is shown by the meter to be a
scribal substitution for dat. (adverbial) wihte, the form consistently used in neg. and
interrog. constructions. See Gloss.: wiht; Appx.C §¯31. Cf. Soul I: āwiht(e) 65, 74, cor-
responding to II: wiht 60, 69.
2435¯ff. On the slaying of Herebeald by Hæðcyn and its possible relation to the
Baldr story, see Intr. xlvii¯f. It was long the view of scholars, beginning with Thorpe
(164), that in the ancient Germanic world, even accidental homicide demanded ven-
geance. Hrēðel was thus held to be obliged to avenge the death of Herebeald but was
unable to do so because he must not lift his hand against his own kin. It has recently
been shown rather that the accidental nature of the killing is even likelier than the bond
of kinship to have prevented vengeance for Herebeald: see Jurasinski 2006: 113–48;
see earlier Win¢eld Law Qtrly. Rev. 42 (1926) 42; cf. Georgianna 1987. — 2435b.
unġedēfelīċe. Given the irregular meter, Sievers (followed by many, incl. Cha., Kl.1–2,
and Hoops) is almost certainly right that a scribe has added -lice to the word (cf. adv.
ġedēfe at PPs 118.39.3, 124.4.4). Kl.3 reverted to the MS reading but ultimately
returned to the emendation (Su. 469, 470), though only the meter is disrupted by the
scribal form. To the supposition that we should read -lĭċe (Siev.A.M. §¯85 n.¯8, Pope
373), cf. HOEM §¯227.
2436b. morþľrbed strêd. The type is A2k: see Appx.C §§¯9, 14. The MS form stred
cannot be pp. of streġdan (so Dob.; cf. Varr.), as this spoils the meter, unless Anglian
streġded is substituted. Rather, we have contraction after loss of w in *strewid, pp. of
Angl. strēġan < *straujan: see Siev.A.M. §¯84 n.¯5; SB §¯129 nn.¯2, 5; OEG §§¯237.1(b),
406. The corresponding (hildbedd) styred (And 1092) is likely an error for stre(i)d
(Cosijn BGdSL 21 [1896] 15). The phrase recalls Lat. lectum sternere: see Kl. Archiv
126 (1911) 353.
2438. frēawine is not inappropriate (see Varr.), since Herebeald is the elder brother
and heir presumptive.
2441. feohlēas ġefeoht. The killing was inexpiable, not in the sense that it demanded
vengeance but that no werġeld could be paid. See Jurasinski 2006: 113–48.
2444. Swā bið ġeōmorlīċ gomelum ċeorle. Swā introduces an example or illustra-
tion (see 1769¯n.), in this instance the imaginary case of an old man sorrowing for his
son who has been hanged (2444–62a; cf. Stanley 2001: 86, supposing more than one
son is meant). The basis for comparison is that in neither case may retribution be ex-
acted (see Whitelock MÆ 8 [1939] 198–204, building on Imelmann 1920: 268–71; cf.
Sed.). Taylor (LSE o.s. 7–8 [1952] 5–13; similarly Chiusaroli 1995: 73) advocates a
return to the older view, whereby the passage was viewed not as a simile but as refer-
ring to Hrēðel himself, who, according to Brunner 1890, was obliged by law to hang
his son Hæðcyn for the killing of Herebeald; cf. Jurasinski loc. cit. MR see here a
reference to a ritual hanging in connection with the cult of Woden: cf. the note on
2939–41a. More persuasively, J. Harris (1994: 56–7) notes resemblances between the
old ċeorl and the Norse Óðinn as portrayed in connection with Baldr’s death. See also
Hauck Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesforschung 14 (1954) 23. On AS executions, see
in particular Reynolds Brit. Archaeology 31 (1998) 8¯f.; Carver 1998: 137–43; id. 2005:
315–59.
246 BEOWULF
2446b¯ff. Þonne hē ġyd wrece could be in variation with (þæt) his byre rīde (see
Bu.Tid. 56). This would account for the sj. form, which has occasioned some per-
plexity. Dob. regards the phrase as equivalent to þæt he þonne ġyd wrece. It may well
be that wreceð is the correct reading, though perhaps it is just as likely that the scribe
has written þonne for þæt, in anticipation of þonne in the next line. Wülcker and MR
treat wrece as hortative (‘then may he sing’), and this is most likely what Kl. intended.
Yet probably the best solution is Mitchell’s (OES §¯2559), supplying a comma rather
than the usual full stop after ġefremman. This accounts admirably for the mood
distinction after þonne 2446 (‘whenever’) and þonne 2447 (‘when,’ i.e. ‘seeing that’).
— helpe. The scribe who penned helpan expected the in¢n. of the verb before ne
mæġ. (Cf. v.Sch., supposing the mechanical inÏuence of ġefremman 2449.) The noun
is demanded by ®niġe 2449b (cf. Kock 221, Schü., Cha., Crp., retaining helpan). A wk.
fem. helpe (so Gr.Spr.¯[?], He.1–7, Wy., Kock 1923: 188) is unknown in OE poetry. See
Kl. 1905–6: 463; Hoops.
2451b–2a. ōðres ne ġ©með / tō ġebīdanne. On the cultural and aphoristic signi-
¢cance of this remark, see Harris 1994 & OT 15 (2000) 165–6.
2454b. (hafað) d®da ġefondad. Perhaps ‘(has) experienced [evil] deeds’: so Kl.
Archiv 115 (1905) 181; similarly Cha. 189, Hoops. But perhaps the sense is ‘(has) had
his ¢ll of deeds’ (see Wn., Harris 1994: 54 n.¯16).
2455–9. Ġesyhð sorhċeariġ on his suna būre / wīnsele wēstne, etc. Neither the
syntax nor the imagined scene is subject to de¢nitive interpretation, but a household
involving people of at least two generations is called to mind. The father, it would
seem, looks about in his son’s empty chamber or apartment (in his būre, dat.); he also
gazes on the wīnsele (acc., the dir. obj. of ġesyhð), that is, the dining room or hall once
used for meals and festive occasions, but now desolate; he also sees the son’s wind-
swept bed or bedchamber (his ræst, acc. like wīnsele). It is unlikely, given the normal
sense of būr (see 140¯n.), that the wine-hall is thought to form part of it; if so, then būr
must be construed here in the unprecedented sense ‘residence’ or ‘mansion.’ Conceiv-
ably, būr (which appears as a gloss on Lat. triclinium: DOE sense 2.c) could denote the
dining room itself, but there are no examples of that usage in prose or verse. J. Harris
(building on the analysis of Kl.; cf. Schü. EStn. 39 [1908] 10) brilliantly obviates the
diÌculty of these lines by arguing that on a visit to his son’s room, the man ‘ex-
periences a vision (gesyhð) of traditional elegiac scenery, and the passage modulates
into generalized elegiac wording suggestive of the actual sorhleoð to be mentioned a
few lines later’ (1994: 50). — windġe reste, / rēot[ġ]e berofene, ‘the windswept rest-
ing place, dreary, emptied.’ The hall was used for sleeping as well as social occasions,
as the doings in Heorot show, but a young man of an aristocratic household (the pro-
spective heir?) would have had a separate bed or chamber. A fem. windġerest (see
Varr.) is problematic: see BT(S): ġerest, ġeresta, and cf. Sat 135. MS reote de¢es
convincing explanation: the proposals for emendation (see Varr.) do not produce any
attested words, and the remaining analyses are mere guesses as to the meaning of a
presumed Єπαξ λεγόμενον. Kock5 178¯f. suggests *rōte on the basis of the OIcel. noun
rót ‘inner part of the roof of a house,’ but see Hoops St. 6, 124. The peculiar placement
of the macron in Klaeber’s rŢte is meant to express the assumption of a Kentish
spelling for Anglian *r¹te ‘joy’ (WS *rēte, as ¢rst proposed by Holt.2–8; so also
Bamm. N&Q 47 [2000] 158¯f.; and see Varr.), an īn-stem (or jō-stem?) derivative of rōt
‘glad,’ though no such word is attested in any Gmc. language, and a Kentish line of
descent for the MS is speculative (see Lang. §§¯28¯f.). (Similarly MR, but with the
meaning ‘rote, musical instrument,’ as proposed by Tho. and advocated by Osborn
Neophil. 62 [1978] 442–6 and Boenig Speculum 71 [1996] 316¯f. & 2001: 6, an inter-
pretation rejected by Stanley [1998b: 33; N&Q 46 (1999) 169] on the ground that the
correct form would be hrōte, demanding alliteration on h). All the proposed analyses
seem improbable, though no impeccable solution presents itself. It may be best to
emend to rēotġe, assuming the generalized meaning ‘dreary,’ though the more speci¢c
 COMMENTARY 247
‘lamenting’ (cf. Wulf 10; Gloss.: rēotan; and see Baker SP 78.5 [1981] 47) not implaus-
ibly could serve as a variety of the ‘pathetic fallacy’: cf. þēos ġeōmre lyft (Ex 431),
cearian clomme (JDay I 67), etc. For the use of berofen without complement, cf. Ruin
4. — rīdend need not be sg., in reference to ‘the one hanging on the gallows’ (requir-
ing alteration of swefað to swefeð, a reading advocated, but not adopted, by Kl.: see
Angl. 28 (1905) 446; so Sed. 1928; cf. Hoops St. 125). Rather, mention of the desola-
tion invites contrast with an imagined time when the hall was full of life (a typical
motif of elegiac poetry: see Schü. EStn. 39 [1908] 10). Cf. Kock5 179. On the change of
number from nis to w®ron, see OES §¯77 n.¯10.
246o. Ġewīteð þonne on sealman. The old man goes to his own chamber. — sorh-
lēoð gæleð. Perhaps merely a circumlocution for ‘he laments’: see note on 786¯ff.
2461. ān æfter ānum. Nearly all edd. and commentators have regarded the phrase as
referring to father and son, being strikingly expressive of the father’s solitary state, in
the words of Klaeber, who compares 1342, 2268, 2463¯f. (and see Kl. EStn. 67.3 [1933]
402, Hoops). Yet Rissanen NM 68 (1967) 276 has shown that the phrase in OE and ME
always means ‘one after another,’ i.e. ‘in sequence’ (so Ke. ii, Tr., Ja.) and must here
refer to sorhlēoð. — þūhte. The pret. is justi¢ed by the assumption that after a survey
of the grounds and buildings, the lonely father has retired.
2468b. þē him, ‘to whom’ (MR; see OES §¯2185, Mitchell 1988b: 10–11). Most com-
monly sīo is emended (so Kl.; see Varr.), usually to swā, and sār treated as an adj. The
odd syntax of this (one might have expected rather adv. sāre) is paralleled in hē þ©
wyrs meahte / þolian þā þrāge, þā hīo swā þearl becōm (Met 1.76¯f.; see Kl. EStn. 42
[1910] 325 n.¯1, Angl. 63 [1939] 424). Yet all the proposed emendations are predicated
on the assumption that sār must be neuter, as elsewhere in OE, and as with its Ger-
manic cognates, none of which are fem. (Timmer ES 40 [1959] 51¯f.). On the other
hand, there is no way to prove that fem. sār might not have been a development
peculiar to the poet’s dialect. Cf. the other nouns of more than one gender in the poem
(Lang. §¯21.1). The assumption of fem. sār (so most of the early edd., as well as Cha.,
v.Sch., Ni., MR) also clari¢es the syntax in 2295 (see the note on that line). Dubitable
as fem. sār may be, it is not so unambiguously wrong as to demand emendation.
2469b. Godes lēoht ġeċēas. Can salvation be implied in the present context? See
Tolkien 1936: 286, Cronan 2007: 175–8, w. refs. Robinson 1985: 51–2 argues for the
pre-Christian signi¢cance of the phrase. Godes lēoht is mentioned in GD (2) 14 & 25
and ÆCHom II, 11, 107.537 in connection with the death of St. Germanus. Cf. also Bo
35.103.15 and Nic (C) 196. See Intr. clxxv n.¯4 on parallels in GenA; Kl. 1911–12: [34]
for additional examples of ‘God’s light’ in reference to heaven or the afterlife.
2472–89. On this ¢rst series of Swedish wars, see Intr. lix¯f.
2475. oð ðe is usually read as one word here and rendered ‘and’ (so Bu. 57, Kl.,
most edd.), an unusual meaning (cf. 649¯n., 3006¯n.; see OES §¯1751). Yet it may be best
to render it ‘until’ (as in 649; so already Thk.) and regard the construction as like that
in 56 and 219, where oð þæt marks ‘a transition in the narrative with no implication
that the action of the main clause is completed’ (OES §¯2754). That is, oð ðe here mere-
ly marks a signi¢cant development in the hostilities between Swedes and Ġēatas, the
battle at Hrēosna Beorh. (Similarly Andrew 1948: §¯102; cf. OES §¯1751 n.¯9). — him,
reÏexive dat. plur. Under the older analysis (so also Cha., Sed., Crp., MR), it refers to
the Ġēatas (dat. of personal interest: see OES §§¯1352¯f.).
2481. þēah ðe ōðer his ealdre ġebohte. ōðer, viz. one of the two m®ġwine 2479
(Hæðcyn and Hyġelāc). Does his belong in the on-verse or the off-verse? The former
analysis is defended by Kock 1923: 188–9; Pope xxix retracts his earlier defense of the
latter (though it is adopted by Ni.; similarly Heusler 1925: §¯254 on Finn 47: hū ðā
wīġend / hyra wunda ġen®son); cf. Kl. 1926: 215, BGdSL 72 (1950) 124. The present
division is supported by the consideration that anacrusis in the off-verse does not occur
in Beowulf with verses of this type (see Appx.C §¯35). That his should bear stress and
be divided by the caesura from ealdre, which it modi¢es (the chief objection to this
248 BEOWULF
analysis) is not an obstacle: cf. GenA 1183, 2624, 2628, El 480, etc. The object (hit)
need not be expressed: cf. 2395b.
2484¯f. Þā ic .¯.¯. ġefræġn mæġ ōðerne .¯.¯. on bonan st®lan, ‘then, as I have heard,
one kinsman [Hyġelāc] avenged the other [Hæðcyn] on the slayer [Ongenþēo]’; cf.
Aant. [23]; Kock 232¯f., Kock5 18o¯f., explaining þā as a pronoun with gūð as its ante-
cedent; but cf. 74, 2694, 2752, and see Kl. 1926: 215–16. Hyġelāc did not perform the
act personally (see note on 1968). A detailed narrative of these encounters is given in
2924¯ff., 2961¯ff. J. Gardner (1975: 14–22) argues with some inventiveness that similar-
ities between Ongenþēo and the dragon imply that although Bēowulf was not directly
responsible for the former’s death, he was complicit in it. The parallel between the
dragon and the Swedish king ‘suggests that in some way it is Ongenþēo’s ghost’ that
kills Bēowulf (22).
249o. him, i.e. Hyġelāc (an abrupt change of topic).
2494. The Ġifðas (Lat. Gepidae), a population that migrated from southern Sweden
to the southern Baltic coast near the mouth of the Vistula, where they lived in the ¢rst
century. In the second century, they migrated once more and settled in the Hungarian
plain west of the lower Danube. In concert with other Germanic groups, they defeated
the Huns in 454 but were defeated by the Lombards in the latter half of the 6th century
and disappeared shortly thereafter. According to this passage, tradition still associated
them with their ancient home in Sweden. See Bóna The Dawn of the Dark Ages (Buda-
pest, 1976), Christie The Lombards (Oxford, 1995) esp. 58–64, Wolfram The Roman
Empire and its Germanic Peoples (Berkeley, 1997) esp. 139–40, 284–5.
2495b. þurfe. Given the change of tense and the tautology (cf. þearf 2493), it is not
improbable that þurfe has been miscopied for another auxiliary, e.g. scolde (see Varr.,
Andrew 1948: §¯169).
2497¯f. symle iċ him on fēðan beforan wolde, / āna on orde. The true heroic note.
Cf., e.g., Iliad vi 444¯f.; Hildebr. 27 (Her was e0 folches at ente . . .); WaldA 18¯ff.
2501¯ff. Another allusion to Hyġelāc’s Frankish expedition. Dæġhrefn, seemingly
the slayer of Hyġelāc (so, e.g., Kaske in Creed 1967: 302, J. Gardner 1975: 22, Lapidge
2001: 71; cf. McNamara Expl. 32 [1974] item 62, Cavill Neophil. 67 [1983] 599–604),
was killed by Bēowulf, who, in the view of some, took from him his sword (Næġling
268o; see Brady 1979: 106–7), or perhaps Hyġelāc’s (Davidson 1962: 143–4). This,
then, would explain the point of this ref. to Dæġhrefn. (So Rie.Zs. 414; Kl. Archiv 115
[1905] 181; Cha. et al.) Others begin a new sentence with syððan (so Gr., E., Arn.,
Schü. [and Sa. 119], Sed., Holt.7, Dob.). It is of note that Dæġhrefn is a Frankish,
non-AS name (Dag-hraban): see Schröder AfdA 12 (1886) 181, id. 1907: 9. — It is not
quite certain that for dugeðum means ‘in the presence of the hosts’; duguð may have
been used in the abstract sense (see Gloss.; Siev. ZfdPh. 21 [1889] 365; Lawrence
JEGP 23 [1924] 298; Hoops; v.Sch.; Ni.; Rynell 1991: 126). — ðā frætwe .¯.¯. brēost-
weorðunge presumably refers to the healsbēag given by Wealhþēo to Bēowulf
(1195¯ff.) and by him to Hyġd (2172¯ff.; cf. brēost ġeweorðod 2176), taken from Hyġe-
lāc by Dæġhrefn. (But cf. Cavill loc. cit.; Biggs Speculum 80 [2005] 738–9). There are
no letters lost to damage after MS frescyning; cf. Cooke MÆ 72 (2003) 304–6, who
would read Frēscying(es), though the use of bringan without an indirect object is
diÌcult to credit.
2505. in campe (MS cempan). As cempa nowhere has the function of a collective
noun (see Gloss.: on), and in (on) is never found in the sense ‘among’ with a pl.
denoting ‘men,’ cempan is unacceptable as either dat. sg. or dat. pl. See Siev. 1910:
409–10. The scribe evidently had in mind cempan of 2502. It may be that the meaning
of camp here is ‘battle¢eld’ rather than ‘battle,’ as otherwise the preposition used with
words for ‘battle’ (gūð, hild, etc.) is æt (v.Sch. note); but this sense is not attested in
verse, and in (rather than on) then seems wrong.
2514. Though m®rðum ‘gloriously’ is not an impossible reading (see Cha.), the
emendation m®rðu is suÌciently probable: cf. 2134, 2645, Sea 84, Rid 73.11. See Bu.
 COMMENTARY 249
103¯f. There are no reliable examples of intrans. fremman in verse (as shown by Dob.).
The MS form has also been analyzed as a dat. of accompaniment (Malone 1933b: 151)
or means (Mackie 1941: 96).
2520¯f. If ġylpe is interpreted as ‘proudly, gloriously’ (cf. 1749, 868), no change of
the MS reading is required. (Sievers’s emendation [see Varr.] depends on taking ġylpe
as obj. of wið.)
2523. [o]reðes ond āttres. Cook (MLN 40 [1925] 137–42) proposes the inÏuence of
Aldhelm’s prose De virginitate, with its expression virus et Ïatus (as hendiadys, ‘ven-
omous breath’). Cf. Kl. 1926: 241–2.
2525. (Nelle iċ beorges weard) oferÏēon fōtes trem, ac unc [feohte] sceal¯.¯.¯.
Proposed emendations of oferÏēon (see Varr.) are motivated by the uniqueness of the
verb, by the seeming misapplication of the pre¢x ofer- (as argued by Dob.), and by
comparison to Mald 247: (þæt iċ heonon nelle) Ïēon fōtes trym, ac wille furðor gān.
The pre¢x ofer- frequently transitivizes verbs (cf. ofercuman, ofersittan, etc.), and
while this is hardly necessary with Ïēon, which may or may not take a dir. obj., redun-
dancy of meaning is not suÌcient objection to the MS form. It may be that the transi-
tivizing pre¢x was favored in this construction to highlight the difference in function
between the two accusative nouns weard and trem. The form is read as oferϽn by
Klaeber, Bliss, and MR, but noncontraction is not a necessary assumption, for the verse
will scan as either type D4 or D*4, with anacrusis: see Appx.C §¯9, & n.¯4 on p. 326. As
for [feohte], cf. Niles OT 9 (1994) 456–7, arguing that no insertion is necessary.
2526b¯f. Nearly all the edd. (incl. Kl.) have regarded wyrd as nom. (parallel to
metod), but since the intransitive use of ġetēon is not reliably attested (Timmer ES 40
[1959] 51), it should be assumed acc. (so Gr.1,2, BTS; v.Sch., Wn., Ja.), producing the
meaning ‘as the Lord of all allots destiny to us.’ (Von Schaubert would have metod
refer to Fate [as at Wald I 19; see also Trahern in Godden & Lapidge 1991: 161], but
elsewhere in the poem it always refers to God.) This analysis renders Klaeber’s
insertion [furður] in 2525 improbable (see SP 104 [2007] 171–2).
2527b–8. The hero’s forgoing a vow before the battle has occasioned some surprise
(see Varr.). Since the point of the ġylp is to commit one to a course of action requiring
resolve (so, e.g., the men at Maldon), perhaps his decision is intended as a sign of the
strength of his determination, which then requires no such device.
2533. ‘Nor is it the ability of a person but of me alone,’ i.e., ‘no one else has the
ability.’ The edd. agree, ġemet is not likely to be the adj. meaning ‘proper,’ which does
not take a genitive complement. Cf. Sat 489: Næs ðā monna ġemet, ne mæġen engla;
also OrW 27¯ff.
2538–2711. The dragon ¢ght. On the ¢ght and on the dragon, see Intr. xlv¯ff.,
lxxviii; Appx.A §¯10: Saxo ii 1,3. There are three distinct phases of this combat (just as
of the ¢ght with Grendel’s mother); the second begins at 2591b (or, a long digression
intervening, at 2669), the third at 2688. See Orchard 1995: 29.
2538. Ārās ðā bī ronde. The analogy of expressions like under helme (see Gloss.:
under) lends some support to the view that bī ronde means ‘with the shield (by his
side).’ Yet the prepositional phrase may be connected directly to the verb (cf. 749),
‘leaning on the shield.’ Cf. Hákonarmál 10.1–2: G∂ndul .¯.¯. studdisk geirskapti.
2545b¯f. strēam, burnan wælm have been thought by some (incl. Hoops St. 127,
and Kl.) to denote the dracan lēġ 2549, though this is contradicted by 2556b–7. Cf.
Schü.Bd., Sisam 1958: 131–2, positing a hot spring, which von Sydow (Göteborgs
handels- och sjöfarts tidning, Aug. 20, 1912) would locate in Derbyshire. Regarded as
referring to an actual spring, these words could support the contention of Schü. and
Sisam that the dragon’s lair is not a barrow but a natural formation, such as a cavern,
and that stānbogan refers to curvature in the rock. (See also Henel Angl. 55 [1931]
273–81, taking that word to refer to the dragon.) But Niles (in press) shows that the
poet, by no means a realist, can very plausibly have imagined a brook, issuing from a
barrow, that blazes from the dragon’s heat.
250 BEOWULF
2547b¯ff. ne meahte, either ‘he’ or ‘anyone’ (man) has usually been understood as
the subject (see Lang. §¯26.4; OES §¯374), with dēop as a noun ‘deep’ or ‘hollow pas-
sage,’ the sense then being that the hero could not enter without being burned. Perhaps
more likely the stream is the subject: ‘it could not endure for any amount of time with-
out Ïaming, deep inside near the hoard’ (Niles in press), though the use of ġed©ġan
with an inanimate subject is unparalleled.
2550¯ff. Von Schaubert compares Wolfdietrich B 663, where the cry is hêr wurm, sît
ir hie heime? — Holt. treats l.¯2552 as parenthetical, after Heinzel AfdA 15 (1889) 191.
2556b. From ®rest cwōm. Type D4 (Siev.R. 257, Pope, Kendall) or E (Bliss, Suz.).
2558¯f. Sed. (see Varr.) takes biorn (emended to vb. born ‘burned’) under beorge
for a variant of the preceding verse. Brown (PMLA 53 [1938] 916; so Holt.8) also takes
biorn for a verb, to which hāt hildeswāt is the subject, with hrūse dynede as a paren-
thesis. — 2558b. hrūse dynede. In V∂lsunga saga, ch. 18, at the approach of the
dragon, varð svá mikill landskjálfti, svá at ∂ll j∂rð skalf í nánd; cf. Seyfridslied 21 (ed.
K. King 1958); Beues of Hamtoun (ed. Kölbing, EETS OS 46, 48, 65) 2737¯f.; Gottfried
von Strassburg’s Tristan 9052¯ff. (Also Hel. 5799: thiu erða dunida [=¯Matt. 28:¯2]. Cf.
Cook 1900, notes on 826, 881.)
2564¯f. ecgum unslāw. See Varr. Klaeber initially advocated the MS reading unglāw
(or anglāw) ‘very sharp’ (see note to 357; Angl. 29 [1906] 38o, 1908b: 466, ed.1; Henry
ZfvS 77 [1961] 140–5; Boenig Neophil. 76 [1992] 279¯f.), taking glāw to be a variant
form of glēaw ‘clever’ (cf. And 143: glāwne; Bede 5, 402.29 [Ca.]: unglāunesse;
HomU 19 [Blickl. hom. viii] 99.31: glāunes: see Lang. §¯15.3 rem.), although the phys-
ical sense ‘sharp’ is unattested for this word. (Cf. Grienb. 751: ‘dull in color.’) Less
risky is the emendation unslāw, since the meaning ‘blunt’ for slāw may be inferred
from occasional ME and MnE instances and from the cognate Gmc. languages. (Hoops
St. 128; cf. Girvan MLR 28 [1933] 245.) The two words are also confused at ÆGl 303.8
(IF 87 [1982] 336). Kiernan (1981: 207) would have ecgum unglēaw mean ‘unskilful
(or imprudent) with swords’ and describe the hero; MR and Orchard 2003: 235 take the
phrase to mean ‘dull of edge,’ though this seems rather to undercut the logic of brōga.
2567b. ðā sē wyrm ġebēah. Nickel would begin a new sentence here.
2573–5. ð®r hē þ© fyrste forman dōgľre / wealdan mōste swā him wyrd ne
ġescrāf / hrēð æt hilde. A perplexing passage: ð®r may be adv. or conj., mōste
‘might,’ i.e. ‘was allowed to,’ or ‘must’ (‘had to’; but cf. Standop 1957: 77–8); also
wealdan may be construed with þ© fyrste or forman dōgore or be used absolutely, and
its meaning is debatable. Taking mōste as ‘might’ and ð®r as conj. ‘if,’ Kl.3 gives the
general sense as ‘if he might have controlled events (with particular reference to the
length of time his shield would protect him) for the ¢rst time (in his life) — but fate
decreed otherwise’ (see Kl. 1905–6: 464, 1926: 216¯f.; so Wn.). In Kl.3 Su. 469, though,
he offers a ¢nal decision (inÏuenced by Schü., Cha.): ‘There he had to spend the (allot-
ted) time (his time) for the ¢rst time (¯forman dōgore) in such a way that fate did not
assign to him glory in battle.’ (Cf. Sisam 1958: 136–7, objecting that wealdan is not
attested in the sense ‘spend [time]’; similarly Dob.) Kock5 181 takes swā to introduce
the equivalent of a relative clause (a construction doubted by many: see notes to 93,
2295, 2608; Mitchell MÆ 25 [1957] 37; v.Sch. Speculum 33 [1958] 537; see also Quirk
1954: 109), translating ‘now that he lived to see the ¢rst days when Fate assigned to
him no triumph in his frays’ (similarly Hoops St. 128¯f.), though wealdan is unlikely to
mean ‘live to see.’ Others treat swā similarly: thus Malone 1933a: 96 takes forman
dōgľre wealdan to mean ‘rule the ¢rst day,’ i.e. ‘conquer in the ¢rst ¢ght.’ Dob.
improves on these interpretations by identifying the meaning of þ®r as ‘if’ (like Kl.3,
supra, and Meroney JEGP 41 [1942] 208¯f.; cf. Standop). He also assumes that in the
word order of prose, 2574a would precede 2573b: ‘if he were to be permitted to prevail
on that occasion (þ© fyrste), on the ¢rst day (¯forman dōgore) on which fate did not
decree glory in battle.’ This interpretation makes excellent sense and does perhaps the
least violence to the lexical semantics of the passage. (Similarly Isaacs N&Q 4 [1957]
 COMMENTARY 251
140, but with swā introducing a primary clause and the pronouns referring to the shield
[so earlier Meroney], by way of personi¢cation.) But the relative treatment of swā is an
uncertainty, and in that respect the interpretation of MR, virtually identical to the ear-
lier view of Schü., is perhaps safer: ‘there on that occasion for the ¢rst time he had to
manage without fate having granted him triumph in battle,’ assuming swā . . . ne
‘without,’ as in Finn 41: Hiġ fuhton fīf dagas, swā hyra nān ne fēol (see note to 1142¯f.).
Yet ‘manage’ (i.e. ‘get along’) for wealdan appears doubtful, and ð®r seems likelier to
mean ‘if.’ Jack accordingly suggests either (and this seems all in all the best solution)
‘if on that occasion he were for the ¢rst time to be permitted to prevail without fate
having decreed triumph for him in battle’ or (less likely, one should say) ‘when (or
where) on that occasion he would for the ¢rst time have to prevail without fate having
decreed, etc.’ (Cf. v.Sch.: ð®r = ‘als.’)
2577. inċġelāfe. Or is it two words? (Klaeber shows his uncertainty by hyphenating
it.) In that event inċġe could not be an adjective, as some have supposed, since lāfe,
which is surely instrum., is fem.; it would have to be a noun in the gen. case. The word
is as obscure as iċġe 1107, with which (as well as with īsiġ 33) it has been conjecturally
connected. (Note also Ex 19o: inġemen, 142: inġefolc.) For various guesses, see the
studies by Brett (‘mighty’; so Wn.), Ball (‘immense’), Rosier (‘native’; similarly
Cooke MÆ 72 [2003] 305¯f.; cf. Brady 1979: 107 n.¯1), and Cassidy (‘with hostile
intent’) cited in connection with icge 1107; also Henry ZfvS 77 (1961) 145–8 (‘[battle-]
straits’). Holthausen’s Inges or Ingwines (like all the proposed emendations: see Varr.)
is a desperate remedy for a desperate case, in the view of Klaeber, who suggests a
connection with ē(a)cnan, īcnan, or īcnen, comparing 1663, 2140, 1104 (MS).
2579. his . . . þearfe hæfde, ‘had need of it.’
2586b–8. There is scholarly disagreement about the meaning of grundwong. It could
refer to the area of the dragon’s cave (cf. 2770) and the ground in front of it (so Bu.Tid.
298, Mackie 1941: 96, MR, many edd.) or to the earth in general, as do eormengrund,
ġinne grund (see He.1, Müll. 234, Aant. [ambig.]; Kl. 1908b: 466, MLN 24 [1909] 94¯f.;
Hoops; Sisam 1958: 137 n.¯1; v.Sch., Dob., Wn., Ni.). In the latter event, these lines and
the following ones would express nearly the same idea, the former negatively, the latter
positively. In support of the latter interpretation is the contrast between wolde ‘should
have been willing’ 2588 and sceolde [ofer] willan ‘had to, against his will’ 2589. Not
impossibly the ambiguity is intended, much as, apparently, in Sea 64¯ff. Yet against the
notion that the hero retreated, v.Sch. cites 2524¯f.
2590b. swā may be an adv. (Donoghue 1987: 88).
2592b. h© ought to be stressed (Appx.C §¯6), yet it then raises metrical improba-
bilities whether included in the on-verse (so Dob.; cf. Appx.C §¯34) or the off-verse
(Kl., edd.); and unstressed it is an improbable example of anacrusis (Appx.C §¯34).
Very possibly it is a scribal addition, since the intrans., reciprocal meaning of ġemētan
is well attested. Cf. Varr.
2595b. sē ðe ®r folce wēold, ‘he who had (long) ruled his nation’ (so Bu.Zs. 216; cf.
Aeneid ii 554¯ff.), w. ®r as an aspectual marker (see OES §¯637). Cf. Aant. 36: ‘who
was at that time left by his people.’
2596¯ff. The disloyalty of the ten cowardly followers of Bēowulf, who Ïee for their
lives, has reminded some of the defection of the disciples of Christ: see Mark 14: 5o,
Matt. 26: 56. (Also the injunction to the companions in 2529 may recall Mark 14: 34,
Matt. 26: 38.) Likewise, Wīġlāf’s heroic assistance is matched by the Ђριστεία of Peter
(Matt. 26: 51, John 18: 10) glori¢ed in the Heliand (4865¯ff .). See also P. Jones MLN
45 (1930) 300¯f.
2599b. Hiora in ānum. See note on 100b. Does Wīġlāf at ¢rst Ïee with the rest? So
Lumiansky JEGP 51 (1952) 549, but Niles 1983: 164–5 ¢nds no need for such a sup-
position.
2600b¯f. sibb’ ®fre ne mæġ / wiht onwendan. As the intrans. use of onwendan (i.e.
‘change’) is not authenticated, MS sibb is now commonly taken as acc., and wiht as
252 BEOWULF
nom. (Elision of the ¢nal of sibbe seems likelier than the assumption of an i-stem
variant of the word: cf. OES §¯1609; Wn.-B.?) Klaeber, though, suggests the possibility
of construing sibb as the subject of the clause: ‘kinship can never change anything,’
i.e., ‘will always prevent a change (of heart).’ The sense ‘bon sang ne peut mentir!’
(Bonjour 1950: 37) accords better with the context, though the sentiment is more affec-
tive than accurate: cf. 2616¯ff., and see Shippey 1977: 42. As to þām ðe wēl þenċeð,
see note on 287¯ff.
2602¯ff. On Wīġlāf and Wēohstān, see Intr. lxiii; on Wīġlāf’s character, Lumiansky
College Eng. 14 (1953) 202–6 and additional refs. infra; on the mode of introducing
Wīġlāf, Intr. xxxv. As with the prior entry of Ūnferð to the action (at 499), a prominent
capital letter (now chieÏy lost, at fol. 187v) calls attention to Wīġlāf’s signi¢cant role in
this part of the narrative. In every way a suitable counterpart to the aged king of the
Ġēatas, the young retainer Wīġlāf also cannot fail to remind one of the youthful Bēo-
wulf as portrayed in the Grendel episodes, though there are differences in the respec-
tive portraits as well. Wīġlāf’s act of selÏess heroism, for example, springs from per-
sonal devotion to his own king rather than from an altruistic desire to help a neigh-
boring people. His ¢delity to his lord satis¢es both the demands of blood kinship (for
both Wīġlāf and Bēowulf are W®ġmundingas, 2813–4a) and the duties of reciprocal
social obligation (for, like his comrades in the warband, he has received gifts, including
his weapons and armor [the heriot], from the hand of his goldġyfa, 2652). Perhaps most
signi¢cantly, his action is undertaken spontaneously in the midst of circumstances of
the most harrowing kind — ones that, he feels, demand his immediate intervention in
disregard of the king’s express order that he and the others remain behind (2529–35a).
Farrell 1972: 9–16 and J.M. Hill 2000: 18–46 offers close discussion of Wīġlāf’s role in
this battle scene. On the signi¢cance of Wīġlāf’s sword, see 2623¯n. — Eliason ASE 7
(1978) 95–105, followed by Bremmer ABzäG 15 (1980) 21–38, speculates that Wīġlāf
is Bēowulf’s sister’s son (though no such sister is explicitly mentioned); this would
make the bonds of kinship between the two men close indeed (see Appx.B §¯3).
2608. folcrihta. Klaeber glosses this ‘legal share of the “common” estate,’ following
Kemble’s politically charged reconstruction of early Germanic land tenure (see 73¯n.).
It may be that it refers to inherited property (so Schü.Bd. 46; BTSA; Farrell 1972: 15
n.¯33; DOE¯), but in prose, where it occurs only in legal documents, it designates cus-
tomary law and its bene¢ts and authority. An interpretation closer in meaning to this,
‘legitimate power over people,’ is possible at the only other occurrence in verse (Ex 22;
so Lucas 1994); and the similar lēodriht (And 679) also seems best interpreted as ‘legal
authority.’ — As Mitchell rejects any relativizing function for swā (see 93¯n.), MR
would render the word here ‘as far as.’ Yet it is not diÌcult to see how swā could have
come to be used the way rel. pronouns are, given its function in phrases like swā hwā
swā, swā hwæt swā, etc. Perhaps ġehwylċ swā here is functionally equivalent to swā
hwylċ swā. At all events, āhte is not securely attested here in absolute use (cf. notes on
30¯ff., 2295).
2614b. his māgum. his probably denotes Ēanmund (cf. Holt., Sed., MR: Wēohstān),
as seems to be implied by the ref. to Onela in 2616b, to whom the generic term māgum,
by implication, thus refers.
2616. ealdsweord etonisc. See 1558a¯n.; Overing 1990: 52, 54; Cronan SN 65 (1993)
129–39.
2618b¯f. nō ymbe ðā f®hðe spræc, / þēah ðe hē [i.e. Wēohstān] his brōðor bearn
ābredwade. his refers to Onela, the subject of spræc. A meiotic observation, no mere
negative statement: the king not only did not reproach Wēohstān for that act of vio-
lence but rewarded him.
2623b. gūðġew®da could stand for acc. pl. -ġew®du (Lang. §¯19.2; so Kl. 1905–6:
464), given the parallel at 3134¯f., the only close parallel in OE (but see 2028¯f., 2o67f.).
Mention of Wīġlāf’s receipt of Ēanmund’s war-gear adumbrates a source of danger for
the Ġēatas upon the death of Bēowulf, since Ēanmund’s brother Ēadġils now sits on
 COMMENTARY 253
the Swedish throne: see, from various perspectives, Bonjour 1950: 35–9, Kaske MLN
75 (1960) 465–8, Leyerle 1965, Irving 1968: 154–69, Shippey 1972: 46–51, Osborn
1978: 977, Cronan SN 65 (1993) 129–39, Chck. 368–70, Biggs ASE 32 (2003) 71–3.
2628. m®ġes. A general term, instead of ‘father.’
2633–60. On this noble comitatus speech or ON hv∂t (incitement) and certain close
parallels, see Intr. lvi, lxii; Appx.A §¯10: Saxo ii 7,4¯ff., tr. 56¯ff., §¯12: Hrólfs saga, chs.
32¯f. Cf. Bugge 45¯ff.; Phillpotts MLR 24 (1929) 183–90 (assuming an ultimate Danish
source for the Beo, Maldon, and Bjarkamál passages). See Brodeur 1959: 67. Cf. Frey
Recovering Literature 14 (1986) 57–8, Orchard 2003: 261–2.
2638b. Ðē hē ūsiċ on herġe ġeċēas, ‘on this account he chose us (from) among the
host.’ This function of on is parallel to that found in combination with niman; see
Gloss.: on; cf. LS 10 (Guth) 1.7: him þā āne ġeċēas on þ®re m®dena hēape. Ðē is used
correlatively with þē 2641 (Rie.Zs. 410); see Gloss.: sē, þē.
2640. onmunde ūsiċ m®rða. onmunan (with or without the adj. wyrþe) ‘consider
worthy of.’ Less likely Kock5 70 (cf. Gr.Spr.): lit. ‘think on someone in connection
with something,’ ‘remember one with something.’ There is no basis for the meaning
‘remind’ very generally ascribed to the verb on the basis of this passage. (Moore JEGP
18 [1919] 211.)
2640b. mē implies ‘to me as well as to the rest of us.’
2646. dollicra has provoked some controversy (see Gloss.), since the word might be
expected to bear negative connotations. When used in variation with m®rða, however,
it must allude to audacious acts on the part of the hero that in fact turned out well (viz.,
the Breca contest, the ¢ghts against Grendel and his mother). But as we later learn
(3077–84a), Wīġlāf does question the wisdom of Bēowulf’s decision to ¢ght the
dragon. That, despite such reservations, the young thegn risks his life in support of his
king says much about his character.
2647¯f. According to the older view, gūðrinca was analyzed as dependent on
mæġenes, rather than in variation with it. (So Schü., Cha., Sed.; also Ja.?)
2649b. þenden hyt sŷ. See Varr. The assumption of a noun hit(t) ‘heat,’ as ¢rst
de¢nitely proposed by Gr.1, has been approved by the edd., excluding Sed. and MR.
Klaeber’s analysis is probably right and is retained here, though the need to assume
such a noun is not so plain as it once was: that hyt should be a proleptic pronoun is
neither metrically unlikely (see 563b¯n.) nor syntactically impossible (see Sørensen
1983, Mitchell 1988b: 7–10), though stylistically it does seem questionable.
2651–2. lēofre. See Lang. §¯26.2. Siev. 1884b: 141 and Holt. assume the loss of a
line after 2652, but the comparison hardly requires completion.
2657. þæt n®ron ealdġewyrht, ‘he has never deserved it’ (He.). See Gloss.: eald-
ġewyrht (two words, according to Cha.). þæt is not indisputably a pronoun.
2658. duguðe, partit. gen. with hē āna 2657.
2659b¯f. ūrum .¯.¯. bām, instead of unc bām or *ūre bām (cf. 2532, 596), is due to
attraction. Similar examples of attraction with possessive pronouns are cited by Cos.
viii 573 and Cha.; cf. Behaghel P.Grdr.2 i 775. For the confusion of dual and plural, cf.
GenB 745¯f. The general sense is of course ‘I will join him in the ¢ght.’ byrne and
beaduscrūd are synonymous; cf. 1454a; 2321¯f. — Rather than emending MS byrdu
(no doubt inÏuenced by byrne), it has been proposed to insert two verses after 2660a
(so Bu.Tid. 58¯f. & Zs. 216¯f., Rie.Zs. 411) or to posit a noun *byrdu equivalent to
borda ‘embroidery’ (Grienb. BGdSL 36 [1910] 83).
2664¯ff. Possibly the subordinate clause beginning with swā should depend not on
the preceding clause but on that beginning in 2666b.
2672b¯f. It is a question whether rond refers to the boss or the border. Hoops, like
Cook MLN 41 (1926) 362, prefers the latter; similarly Sed. (n.), v.Sch., Ni. Very likely
the word referred originally to the border of either the shield or the boss, and then by
extension to the shield or the boss itself: see Gloss. — It has been suggested that born
stands for an earlier participle, burnen (v.Sch.).
254 BEOWULF
2678b. Rie.V. 34¯n. and Holt.1–6 supply a comma after slōh, but cf. 235¯f., 1519¯f.
2680b. Næġling. Is this Hrēðel’s sword, given to Bēowulf by Hyġelāc (2190¯ff.)? See
Mullally 2005: 237–8.
2683–6. A sword in Bēowulf’s hand was likely to break because of his excessive
strength, a typical feature of old Germanic literature (e.g. Uffo in Saxo iv 4,6, tr. 108;
Sigurðr in V∂lsunga saga, ch. 15). Davidson (1962: 144) points out that Óðinn shatters
Sigmundr’s sword on the battle¢eld as well. Cf. Panzer 1910: 35, 41–2, 52–3, 281¯n;
Klein in Heldensage und Heldendichtung im Germanischen, ed. H. Beck (Berlin, 1988)
116–17. As to Bēowulf’s use of swords, see 435¯ff., 679¯ff., etc. (Müll. ZfdA 14 [1869]
229; Jellinek & Kraus ZfdA 35 [1891] 268¯f.) See also Culbert JEGP 59 (1960) 13–20,
Garbáty JAF 75 (1962) 58–9. — 2684b. wæs sīo hond tō strong. The verse is paren-
thesized by Schü. (cf. Sa. 139), Holt., Cha. See note on 1343¯f.
2687. wundum heard. The emendation wundrum adopted by many, including Kl.,
gives a smoother reading, as wundrum is not infrequently used as an intensi¢er with
adjs. (cf. Phoen 85, 232, 468, etc.). But as pointed out by Schü., the idea of hardening
of a weapon in blood is paralleled in the poem: cf. āhyrded heaþoswāte 1460 (n.). The
phrase may perhaps be thought of as a metaphorical expression of the commonplace
that old weapons are best (cf. ealdsweord 1663, etc., gomel swyrd 2610, ealde lāfe 795,
etc., gomele lāfe 2563) because they have been proved in battle. Hoops objects that
wundum heard probably cannot mean ‘hardened in blood.’ Yet for heard = ‘hardened,’
cf. f©rheard 305, and see 1033¯n. (Cf. v.Sch. Lit.bl. 57 [1936] 28¯f., proposing the sense
‘sharpened through having inÏicted many wounds.’) To the objection that the formula
with heard elsewhere takes the genitive, as with wīġes 886, nīða (Finn 21), etc., it must
be said that the gen. construction probably has a different logical structure: wīġes heard
= ‘hard in battle’ (Hoops) or, more likely, ‘hard of (i.e. as regards) valor’ (like mæġnes
rōf 2084; see Gloss.: wīġ). A locative meaning for wundum (‘hard in wounds’) is
unlikely (see OES §¯1420). Malone 1933a: 96 would have the phrase refer to Bēowulf.
2697¯ff. The meaning is probably not ‘he did not care for his (own) head, i.e. life’
(Aant.; so Gr.Spr., BT, and most edd. before Kl.) but ‘he did not pay heed to (i.e. did
not aim at) the head [of the dragon],’ since he had already seen that the head was
impervious to Bēowulf’s blows (Kl.1–3, Hoops, Wn., v.Sch., Dob., Ni. [?], following
Bu. 105). Klaeber takes the ensuing verses to mean ‘but his hand was burnt in striking
the monster a little lower down.’ Baird MP 66.4 (1969) 328¯f. rather proposes that Wīġ-
lāf was not cowed (ne hēdde) by [the ¢re emanating from] the dragon’s head, with the
result that his hand was burnt, so that (þæt) he [learned by the mistake and] struck
lower. The slightly earlier conception of Schabram (in Fachliteratur des Mittelalters,
ed. Gundolf Keil et al. [Stuttgart, 1968] 481–4, followed by Ja.) is quite similar. MR
(similarly Rudanko 1983: 15) also suppose that Wīġlāf’s hand was burnt striking at the
head, with a different analysis of the syntax (ac = ‘for’). (Cf. OES §¯2827: ‘he helped
his kinsman by striking, etc.’) Dragons are vulnerable in their lower parts: see espe-
cially Appx.A §¯10: Saxo ii 1,3 (Frotho’s dragon ¢ght). — Cha. (so Sisam 1958: 138–9)
parenthesizes 2697b–8.
2703b. wællseaxe. Emendation to acc. wællseax is tempting (see Varr.), but ġe-
breġdan may take an instr. object (cf. 1664), and Dobbie points out that postpos.
adjectives are sometimes uninÏected (see 48¯n.). Cf. Andrew 1948: §¯68.
2705. The context leaves it somewhat undecided whether Bēowulf or Wīġlāf is the
chief victor in the combat with the dragon; rather, emphasis is on their cooperative
effort (see 2707). But Bēowulf is granted the honor of the ¢nal blow. Cf. 2835, 2876.
27o6b. ferh ellen wræc, ‘strength drove out life’ (like 2119b, Ex 463b). Cf. GenA
1385¯f.: ©ða wr®con ārlēasra feorh / of Ï®schoman. Heyne takes ferh to be the subject.
Hoops St. 130¯f.: ferh ellor wræc (intr.; similarly Malone 1933a: 96), see Varr.; but cf.
Kl. EStn. 67.3 (1933) 400.
2710. sīðas[t] siġehwīla. Andrew 1948: §¯180 would emend to sīðest, assuming
scribal metathesis of e with a in -hwīla. Yet sīðest- is found in OE only when a back
 COMMENTARY 255
vowel follows, for the reason given in OEG §¯385. That hwile (MS) should be gen. sg.
(cf. weorces 2711; so Bu.Zs. 217, Mackie 1941: 96, v.Sch.) seems unlikely, given the
regular use of the pl. in similar superl. constructions (cf. 146, 206, 285, 309¯f., 454, 546,
658, 789, 898, etc.; cf. the generic sg. in 196), and given that weorces more likely
parallels sylfes.
2711b–2820. Bēowulf’s death.
2717b. The metrical type of seah on enta ġeweorc ought not to occur in the off-
verse (see Appx.C §¯31), though the verse is closely paralleled by Ruin 2b: brosnað enta
ġeweorc. Donoghue (1987: 36–40) brilliantly analyzes seah on as a misapprehension of
uncontracted *seohan = sēon, dependent on ġīong 2715, and this may be the best solu-
tion, though the combination of elements remains unusual (cf. Kendall 1991: 173 n.¯34).
Another possibility is that on is a scribal insertion. Much has been made of the allitera-
tion on the verb rather than on enta (see, e.g., Stanley Angl. 93 [1975] 307–21), but this
is not especially troubling: cf. 2863b, and see Siev.A.M. §¯24.3 and Appx.C §¯421. Cf.
Orton NM 86 (1985) 155¯f.; Russom 1987: 91–2. Emending ¯sesse to eorðsesse, making
the alliteration vocalic, faces the diÌculty that ġesæt should alliterate, being stressed
(Appx.C §¯6). — With regard to this enta ġeweorc, cf. Saxo’s notice of immense stones
in connection with barrows and caves in Denmark, understood by him to be the work
of giants, perhaps living after the deluge (Praefatio 3,1, tr. 9).
2718¯f. hū ðā stānbogan stapulum fæste / ēċe eorðreċed innan healde. See note
on 2231¯ff. stānbogan very likely refers to the kind of vaulting used in megalithic
chambered tombs (rather than Roman arches); the capstone of such a structure would
rest on stapolas, or upright megaliths. See also the note on 2545¯f. The chief grammat-
ical question in regard to this passage is whether the subject is eorðreċed (so Ke., 11
edd., Hoops) or stānbogan (He.4–10, Tr., Holt.1–4,7–8). The current near consensus favor-
ing the former analysis is no doubt motivated by the avoidance of emending MS healde
to make it plural, though this is a weak motive, since it is by no means impossible that
the MS should originally have had a plural verb healden (see Varr.) — though ad-
mittedly MS healde already makes the line extend farther to the right than any other on
the page. The pres. sj. verb form is explicable on the basis of the hypothetical aspect of
examining implied by seah on (see OES §¯626), though it may simply be an error for
hēolde (which could be sg. or pl.: see OEG §¯473, and cf. fēa for fēo 156 [Lang.
§¯15.1]). Schü.10–14 regards stānbogan and eorðreċed as parallel subjects, with enta
ġeweorc, in ref. to the treasure rather than to the eorðreċed (cf. 2774), as the object
(hence his proposed meaning ‘looked in the direction of’ for seah on [Bd. 80]; see
Penttilä 1956); similarly Kock4, construing ġeweorc as the plural antecedent of ðā, and
taking all of enta ġeweorc .¯.¯. innan healde as the object of seah on, in an attempt to
dispose of the problem that Bēowulf does not actually see the treasure from where he
sits (see 2747¯ff.). Stanley op. cit. would revise this passage heavily. See also the note
to 2545¯f.
2723. hilde sædne (commonly treated as a compound) is paralleled by Brun 2o:
(wēriġ,) wīġes sæd, Rid 5.2: beadoweorca sæd.
2724b. hē ofer benne spræc. The original, local sense of ofer, ‘over the wound,’
easily passes into the modal one, ‘wounded as he was’: see Aant.; Kl. Archiv 104
(1900) 287–92. Cf. Corson MLN 3 (1888) 97 (similarly Quirk 1954: 122): ‘in spite of’
or ‘concerning things other than.’
2729–51, 2794–2808, 2813–16. On Bēowulf’s last words, see especially Harris
(Speculum 67 [1992]: 1–32), who places this speech in the early Germanic tradition of
the death song (see further Deskis MÆ 63 [1994]: 301–5; but cf. Lönnroth Speculum 46
[1971] 1–20, Hieatt in Damico and Leyerle 1993: 403–24). See also Bjork 1997: 1013–
16.
2730b¯f. þ®r mē ġifeðe swā / ®niġ yrfeweard æfter wurde. A blending of two
constructions, viz. (a) þ®r mē swā ġifeðe (neuter) wurde and (b) þ®r mē yrfeweard
ġifeðe (ġifen) wurde. (Cf. GenA 1726¯ff.)
256 BEOWULF
2733b¯ff. Cf. ChronE s.a. 975 on the peaceful reign of Ēadgār. — gūðwinum seems
here to refer to a king’s men, though a sword is meant in 1810 (Brady 1983: 203–4).
2737. m®lġesceafta. Rynell (1991: 128) suggests m®l ġesceafta. Note the ambigu-
ity: either ‘I awaited my destiny’ (gen.: so most edd.) or ‘I lived out my allotted time’
(acc.: v.Sch., Ni.).
2738b¯f. nē mē swōr fela / āða on unriht. Dat. of personal interest (mē: see 1918¯n.)
and a conspicuous example of litotes.
2741. forðām. Andrew 1948: §¯26 and Donoghue 1987: 72–3 regard the word as a
subordinating conj.
2748b. ġearo, meant to be adv. in the text, may be an error for ġeare. As in 2070,
ġearwe would be unmetrical (see Appx.C §¯31; cf. Aant. [40]; OEG §¯670).
2766. The unique oferhīgian has been hypothetically connected with hycgan (E.Sc.,
Rie.L., He., Kern 1877), (ofer)hyġd (Kluge), hēah (Bu.Tid. 59¯f.; Kl. 1908b: 466), and
hīw (see Varr. & Irving 1989: 115). Though ‘overreach, deceive’ makes ¢ne sense (BT,
Holt.), no likely derivation squares with this meaning, nor with ‘make someone an
outcast’ (Mediaevalia 3 [1978] 156–7). The best guess was made by Ettmüller (1851:
464; so Gr.Spr., Holt.), who lists it as a compound of (higjan, i.e.) hīgian ‘strive,’ ‘hie.’
As Klaeber supposes, the meaning of this oferhīgian could be ‘overtake’ (correspond-
ing exactly to overhye of Northern dialects: see Wright 1898–1905), ‘get the better of,’
‘overmatch’ (E.: ‘superare’; so Huppé 1984: 50; Deskis 1996: 128), but perhaps more
likely it means ‘pass away from, escape from.’ Similarly Pope 1982: 352: ‘outstrip,’
and Niles 1983: 299: ‘outsmart’ (similarly Green¢eld 1985: 398).
2766b. h©de sē ðe wylle, ‘let him hide it who will,’ i.e. ‘despite anyone’s efforts to
keep it.’ According to Holt. (ZfdPh. 37 [1905] 122), this h©de stands for hēde: ‘let him
guard himself who will’; similarly Kock5 182: ‘let him heed it who will.’ Phonological
evidence has been adduced by Malone Jesp.Misc. 45–54 (cf. Beibl. 42 [1931] 134¯f.,
43.284–7, 44.26¯f.). But cf. 3058¯ff., and see Kl. 1926: 219; Hoops St. 134¯f.
2773¯f. Ðā ic on hl®we ġefræġn hord rēa¢an, / eald enta ġeweorc ānne mannan.
Following upon a passage of description and reÏection, a new and important event is
introduced by means of the ġefræġn-formula (cf. 2694, 2752). That the ‘man’ is well
known is of no consequence: see 100¯n. (ān). By enta ġeweorc is most likely meant the
stone chamber (cf. note on 2718¯f.) rather than the hoard itself.
2778b. ealdhlāfordes modi¢es bill.
2781. hātne for horde. Tripp MP 78.2 (1980) 153–8 would read hāt ne forhogode
‘who had never despised heat,’ but the alteration of MS hogode to horde seems to be
the scribe’s own work (so Ki.) and is the sort of change one would expect to have been
made immediately, by reference to the exemplar, rather than at a later date.
2784. frætwum ġefyrðred, i.e., on account of the precious spoils, he is anxious to
return to Bēowulf. Cf. And 983; also Bo 3.9.28: mid ġifum and mid ġestrēonum ġe-
fyrðrode; so Aant.
2788. mid þām māðmum, i.e. with the treasures in his hands.
2791. wæteres weorpan. Generally regarded as an instr. gen. (so Bu.Zs. 218; Aant.
[37]; cf. 1825¯n.), though truly comparable examples are rare (see OES §§¯1393–4).
Rieger and Bamm. (see Varr.) may well be right that the text is corrupt.
2792b. [Biorncyning spræc]. Schücking’s restoration [þā se beorn ġespræc] faces
the diÌculty that ġesprecan is regularly transitive in the poem. (maðelode never occurs
in the off-verse in OE: see Heusler ZfdA 46 [1902] 261; m®lde is always accompanied
by wordum.) Cf. also 3094¯f. The letters ræc closing both on- and off-verse likely occa-
sioned the haplography (Schü. EStn. 39 [1908] 10; Andrew 1948: §¯177). It has been
argued that nothing has been lost, and what we have instead is a dramatic pause (Niles
OT 9 [1994] 455¯f.); cf. Orchard 2003: 50.
2793. ġiohðe. That the scribe mistook the word for a form of ġioguð (see Varr.) is
explained by its poetic status. See Brandl P.Grdr.2 iia 990.
2794b. ealles depends on ðanc, not on frēan: cf. Jul 593, GenB 238¯f.
 COMMENTARY 257
2800b. fremmað. Probably imperative, but since only Wīġlāf is present, Donahue
(1975: 32 n.¯9; also OES §¯253, MR) construes as indic. pl. agreeing w. māðma (cf.
Irving 1989: 131 n.¯15; Bamm. ES 77 [1996] 305–10); so also hātað 2802, agreeing with
heaðom®re. Taken as imp., perhaps the pl. implies that Bēowulf does not expect the
responsibility for his injunctions to fall to Wīġlāf alone (so Bamm. 1986a: 100–1,
Irving 117); or it may be that the entire speech is ironically misdirected (Bjork 1994:
1002). Andrew (1948: §¯176) would read ġē ġēna (cf. Varr.), assuming haplography. Cf.
ēower 596.
2802¯ff. The building of burial mounds on elevated places near the sea is a common-
place of ON literature and is well attested for AS England (Orchard 2003: 37–8). Kirk
(see Mayr-Harting 1991: 24) suggests that proximity to water may have been important
to the cremation rite or to allow easy transport of bodies to the funeral pyre. The
remark that this mound was made entirely new may be intended to differentiate it from
prehistoric mounds, which were associated with evil in AS England (see Semple World
Archaeol. 30 [1998]: 109–26; cf. Owen-Crocker 1981: 78–9). On the parallel between
this description and the end of Alex in the Nowell Codex and between it and a passage
in the Liber monstrorum, see Orchard 2003: 36–9. Cf. Odyssey xxiv 8o¯ff.; cf. xi 75¯ff.;
Iliad vii 85¯ff.; Aeneid vi 232¯ff. On late Iron Age burial practices in southern Scandi-
navia, see Herschend 2001: 61–94. — 2803b. The question whether the root vowel of
nōsan is long or short (see Gloss.) is settled here on metrical grounds (Siev.R. 248;
Appx.C §¯38). Cf. 1892b Varr.
28o6. hit is used loosely without regard to the gender of hl®w. Cf. 779; but see
2296¯n.
2817–20. Bēowulf’s soul departs. Reference to ‘choosing the pyre’ (2818b¯f.), in
conjunction with the preceding allusion to the workings of wyrd (2814) and the theme
of joining one’s ancestors (2815¯f.), might seem to place the hero’s death within a
¢rmly pagan, heroic context; and yet in keeping with Christian belief, the hero’s soul is
said to depart from his breast at the time of death, and hence some while before his
body is cremated (at 3137–55). The old pagan belief (as is noted by Wn.-B 199) seems
to have been that the sāwol (conceived as something closer to the life itself, and more
closely conjoined with the body) was released through the cremation ceremony. —
¯2819b. It has been proposed to retain MS hwæðre and regard of as postpositive
(Hoffman JEGP 64 [1965] 664¯f.; Wn.-B.; Bamm. N&Q 49 [2002] 314¯f.); but then the
latter would require stress, spoiling the alliteration: cf. 689, 2523, 2866; 1355b–7a¯n.,
etc. — 2820b. sōðfæstra dōm most likely refers to God’s judgment of the righteous
(objective gen.) or, possibly, eternal heavenly glory (subjective; so Hoops). (The
objection of Bliss 1979: 49–50 that a genitive with dōm is always subjective rather than
objective is mistaken: see DOE sense 4.d.iii.) See Intr. lxx; also Tolkien 1936: 283–4,
Hamilton 1946: 328, P. Campbell 1974. Interpreting the phrase within a Christian
frame of reference, Stanley (1963) does not ¢nd it possible that the pagan hero could be
saved; see, however, Green¢eld 1985. While accepting that the poet’s phrase is a
calculated ambiguity, Cavill (2004: 20–2) still aÌrms its Christian character, citing a
number of New Testament references to judgment and suggesting that, in regard to the
righteous, the concept of dōm encompasses both ‘judgment’ and ‘glory.’ The phrase
probably does not refer to enduring fame, given the weighty objections raised by
Mitchell (Poetica 13 [1982] 19¯f.) to the assumptions required by Bliss to support this
interpretation.
2821–3030. The spread of the sad tidings; the ‘Messenger’s Prophecy.’
2829. heaðoscearpe. See Varr.; heaðosceard would mean ‘notched (hacked) in
battle’ (cf. MnE shard, sherd, NHG Scharte), which seems inappropriate in connection
with hearde (Hoops 297¯f.). Cf. beaduscearp 2704; also Rid 5.8: heardecg heoro-
scearp. MS -earde may have been written under the inÏuence of the preceding word.
2836. Hūru þæt on lande l©t manna ðāh. The choice is between (1) taking l©t as
dat. with impers. ðāh, ‘that has prospered with few men’ (the accusative would be
258 BEOWULF
exceedingly questionable), i.e., by meiosis, ‘no one else has succeeded,’ and (2) con-
struing l©t as subject and þæt as object, assigning to the verb the sense ‘attain, achieve’
(see Kl. 1905–6: 465). In the latter case, it is true, ġeðāh would be expected. Cf. 3058¯f.
Andrew (1948: §¯175) would construe l©t as adv. and alter manna to mannan (? dat. pl.).
2854. Klaeber (1905–6: 261) assigns imperfective function to wehte, perhaps ‘tried
to rouse (him)’ (more literally ‘was rousing’); Stanley NM 72 (1971) 416 assigns dura-
tive function; cf. 747b¯n., 1511¯n. The best solution may be Bammesberger’s (ANQ 19.1
[2006] 5–6), assuming a pret. sj. with the meaning ‘wished to rouse’ or ‘would have
roused.’
2857. ðæs wealdendes wiht, ‘anything of the ruler,’ i.e. anything ordained by God.
(Generalized, semi-adjectival function of wealdend.) Cf. Hel. 1058: forûtar mancunnies
uuiht.
2858¯f. wolde dōm Godes d®dum r®dan / gumena ġehwylcum. Cf. 1057¯f. It is
debatable whether d®dum projects instr. sense (so Kl., Hoops) or parallels ġehwylcum
(Deskis 1996: 19–20). Cf. Cl.Hall tr.: ‘For men of all degrees God’s judgment ruled
their deeds.’
2863. sec sāriġferð. The spelling c for cg is found elsewhere in the poem (see Lang.
§¯20.1 rem.), and sec for secg also occurs at And 1225 and WaldA 5. This spelling might
be regarded as evidence for an archaic exemplar: see 957b (n.). Mackie’s interpretation
of MS sec as an Anglian, smoothed form of sēoc (see Varr.) is tempting and quite pos-
sible, but the poet never uses sēoc without a quali¢er, and it is dubitable whether the
word could mean for him ‘sick at heart’ without a modi¢er like mōdes (unlike for the
less conservative poet of Sat: cf. 274, and see Cronan 2003: 425). Although there is no
precise parallel to this verse as construed here, it seems to ¢t a formulaic pattern (cf.
2226, ChristA 220), while sēc, sāriġferð has no close parallel.
2869b¯f. swylċe hē þr©dlicost / ōwer feor oððe nēah ¢ndan meahte. þr©dlīcost is
left uninÏected. Klaeber would have it agree, theoretically, with an inde¢nite object
‘it’; Dob. rather compares uninÏected, non-attributive biter ond beaduscearp 2704 (see
48¯n.). Only partial parallels are 3161¯f., Jul 571¯ff. The change of ð (þr©ð) to d is
paralleled by þr©dlīċe (ByrM 1, 1.2.85); see OEG §¯424. (Hoops St. 7, 136; Malone
1933a: 94; further instances Hr®dles, Hr®dlan: Hrēðel.)
2871. þæt hē pleonastically reintroduces the syntactic function of þæt se mondryhten
2865 after the intervening subordinate clauses. The confused syntax has been thought
to express Wīġlāf’s impotent rage (Bjork 1994: 1015–16).
2880¯f. symle wæs þ© s®mra þonne iċ sweorde drep / ferhðġenīðlan. The use of
þ© s®mra suggests a variant construction, viz. symle wæs þ© s®mra, þ© iċ swīðor
drep¯.¯.¯.¯; cf. GenA 1325¯f., Or 1, 1.15.26. In the sense ‘ever, regularly,’ symle goes
naturally with þonne, but the latter (instead of ðā) would seem to imply that Wīġlāf
dealt the dragon several blows. (Cf. Schü.Sa. 89¯n.) Hence Cos. (Aant.) would place
288oa in parenthesis with Bēowulf as subject. See Varr.
2884¯ff. On the announcement of punishment to the faithless retainers, see Appx.B
§¯6; Appx.A §¯10: Tacitus, Germania, capp. 6, 14; cf. Liebermann 1903–16: 2.500, 507.
Scherer 1893 [1869]: 490 saw in 2890¯f. a hint to the cowards to end their own lives, as
Tacitus says that such men sometimes do. (An analogue to Wīġlāf’s denunciation has
been detected in Aldhelm’s letter to the clergy of Bishop Wilfrið: see P. Jones MLN 47
[1932] 378.)
2884. Nū. MS hu, if supposed to introduce an exclamation, gives adequate sense
(see Varr.), and syntactically it is not impossible (cf. And 63, Christ 130, 216, 1459,
etc.), even though hū sceal/sculon is elsewhere used only in interrog. clauses. Yet the
logical relationship between the thegns’ failure and the nation’s future misery (for this
is the point of the passage: see 2886b–90) is made clearer by temporal Nū, connecting
past actions with their consequences.
2888. īdel hweorfan. It is doubtful whether the idea of ‘going, wandering’ was still
present in the phrase. Cf. MnE go without, NHG verlustig gehen. Also HomU 19
 COMMENTARY 259
(Blickling hom. viii) 97.24: þæt hē sceole þæs ealles īdel hweorfan; Jul 381. See Kl.
1926: 219.
2890b–1. Dēað bið sēlla . . . þonne edwītlīf! A succinct statement of the chief
counterpart to a desire for fame (cf. 1386–9). Those two motives together — love of
fame and fear of shame — serve as the chief grounds for heroic action in what is
sometimes referred to as a ‘shame culture,’ with reference, e.g., to the mores of Greece
of the Homeric era (E.R. Dodds The Greeks and the Irrational [Berkeley, 1951]) or
feudal and modern Japan (R. Benedict The Chrysanthemum and the Sword [London,
1967]). See also the note on 2884¯ff. with its ref. to Tacitus.
2897b–3030a. The long speech uttered by the unnamed horseman who rides the
bluffs has been termed ‘The Messenger’s Prophecy’ by those who see its stark mood as
a key element in the poem’s design. Its closing parts may call to mind ‘The Lament of
the Last Survivor,’ 2247–66, and ‘The Father’s Lament,’ 2444–62a (cf. Green JEGP 74
[1975] 502–18). On the structural and thematic role of the messenger’s speech, see
Carnicelli SP 72 (1975) 246–57, Locherbie-Cameron Poetica 10 (1978) 1–11, and A.
Harris Neoph. 74 (1990) 591–600.
2899b. (sæġde) ofer ealle. ‘In the hearing of all’: cf. Finn 22.
2909¯f. healdeð hiġem®ðum hēafodwearde / lēofes ond lāðes. lēofes ond lāðes,
i.e., Bēowulf and the dragon. Grein identi¢es the compound hiġem®ð as a noun mean-
ing ‘reverence, diligence’ (Spr.), the second constituent being identical to m®ð ‘mea-
sure’ (Gr.2; so Wy., Schü., Cha.; cf. Sed.3 & MLR 28 [1933] 229: ‘with balance of
mind,’ i.e. impartially). Rieger, however, points out that m®ð in this sense is probably
unpoetic, never occurring in a compound, nor as a simplex earlier than Mald 195. He
would recognize a dat. pl. adj. ‘weary of mind’ referring to Bēowulf and the dragon
(Zs. 413; so v.Sch.). (Dob. objects that hyġemēðe 2442 means rather ‘wearying the
mind,’ but it should be remembered that many poetic compounds are nonce construc-
tions rather than ¢xed terms, and thus they need not have the same meaning in all
contexts; cf. gūðwine 1810, 2735. Rather, ‘weary of mind’ is the expected meaning and
‘wearying the mind’ the unusual one, to judge by the 32 other compounds in hyġe- in
verse.) Kock5 78 similarly construes hiġem®ðum as parallel to lēofes ond lāðes.
Klaeber regards the difference in case as stylistically admissible, and though he ¢nds it
hard to believe that the dead dragon (lāð) should have been described as weary of
mind, v.Sch. compares gūðwēriġ 1586, applied to the dead Grendel. And it may, after
all, describe Bēowulf alone, just as unli¢ġendum does in the preceding verse. To be
sure, the term does seem more appropriately applied to Wīġlāf’s state of mind (cf.
2408, 3148, as at 2442), and so Kl. adopts Bugge’s suggestion (106) of a fem. noun
hiġem®ðu meaning ‘weariness of mind, distress of soul’; so also Holt.3–8, Hoops St.
137¯f., Dob., Ni., Crp., Ja., MR. Yet this is speculative, since such a noun is otherwise
unattested, and there are no Gmc. cognates. It seems safer to assume a compound of the
well-attested adj. mēðe, with the expected meaning ‘(for the sake of the one) weary of
heart.’ It is hardly implausible that the word should be applied to Bēowulf, given that
sēoc describes the dragon a few lines above (2904). Cf. also limwēriġ (Dream 63),
applied to the dead Christ.
2911b¯ff. Prediction of an outbreak of hostilities upon the death of the king; cf. 2474;
ÆLS (Oswald) 11¯f.: Ċeadwalla slōh and tō sceame tūcode þā Norðhymbran lēode
æfter heora hlāfordes fylle. The same prediction is made at Roland’s death, Chanson
de Roland 2921¯ff.
2912¯ff. Last allusion to the Frankish war.
2919b–20a. dugoðe is dat. singular; the sense is most likely meiotic (Bu. 106),
though MR take frætwe to refer literally to the healsbēah given by Wealhþēo (see note
to 1210¯f.).
2920b–1. Schücking EStn. 55 (1921) 95¯f., reviving in improved form Grundtvig’s
conjecture, would read gen. sg. merewīċingas (instead of Merewīoingas) in ref. to
Hyġelāc, which term could be supported by s®wīċingas, Ex 333. (Thus also Hecht
260 BEOWULF
AfdA 43 [1924] 49.) But why should the messenger express such a sentimental regret (ā
syððan) more than ¢fty years after Hyġelāc’s death — disregarding, it seems,
Bēowulf’s own bene¢cent reign? More plausible is the reading of v.Sch.17–18,
merewīċingan (dat. pl. = ūs), disregarding the scribal correction (see Varr.). Yet this
requires emendation of MS nilts as well as -wio-, while the scribe’s corrected reading
demands no emendation if the allusion is to ‘the Merovingian.’ This reading also
provides a ¢tting transition to the second source of danger, the hostility of the Swedes.
Cf. Brandl 1929a & Kl.Misc. 182–8.
2922–98. The (¢rst) Swedish war; battle at Ravenswood; cf. 2472–89. Intr. lix¯f.,
lxi¯f.; Appx.A §¯9: Ynglinga saga, ch. 27. The only detailed account in Beowulf of a real
battle; also the third (along with the Finnsburg and Inġeld episodes) and most negative
image of feud presented in the poem. Irving (1968: 179–91) regarded the concreteness
of detail as essential to the immediacy of the scene, but he expressed a more neutral
view in 1989 (27–8). Cronan, following Irving’s initial impulse, ¢nds that it ‘exposes
the heroic world in all its horri¢c glory’ (SN 65 [1993] 136). Jacobs (Cambridge Med.
Celtic Stud. 2 [1981] 9–20) regards this passage and the Finnsburg episode as the only
parts of the poem that celebrate pure heroic values. See also A. Harris ES 63 (1982)
97–108, Whitelock 1951: 54. — An interesting parallel to the ¢ght between Ongenþēo
and the two brothers occurs in Saxo’s account (iv 3,15–18, tr. 105–6; cf. also Annales
Ryenses, Appx.A §¯11.5) of the slaying of Athisl II by the two Danish brothers Keti and
Vigi. (Weyhe ESt. 39 [1908] 21¯ff.) There is a striking similarity in the detailed ¢ghting
scene. Cf. Cha.Wid. 92–4; Malone 1923: 136–9, PMLA 40 (1925) 78o¯f. — On some
traces of the inÏuence of GenA 1960–2163, see Kl. EStn. 42 (1910) 329¯f.
2922–3. Bonjour (1950: 41 n.¯1) regards this statement as litotes, but J.M. Hill (1995:
33–4) argues that the Ġēatas and Swedes had been in a state of amity while Bēowulf
was king, and that peaceful relations will now end.
2926¯f. That the Swedes had started the hostilities (see 2475¯ff.) is disregarded here.
2928. him, probably dat. sg. (i.e. Hæðcyn).
2931. gomela[n] iōmeowlan. The suggested emendations (see Varr.) are prompted
by the consideration that the weak adj. used substantively (in ref. to Ongenþēo) ought
to be preceded by sē. The editors’ reluctance to emend has been inÏuenced by the sup-
posed resulting tautology of ‘old old-woman’; but Pope MLN 70 (1955) 84–7 is right
that the proper meaning of iōmeowlan is ‘woman of old,’ as recognized already by Ke.
(Cf. iūmonna 3052, and see Wph. 295–7.) Omission of a nasal consonant due to an
unnoticed titulus is a common scribal error.
2939–41. Ongenþēo threatens bloody retaliation. Robinson (1985: 86 n.¯27) proposes
that he refers to pagan sacri¢ce rather than to retributive action through warfare. On the
early Germanic practice of victors sacri¢cing the vanquished to the war gods Woden or
Tiw, see Davidson 1964: 54–7, and cf. H. Kuhn 1969–78 [1954]: 2.364–77; Donahue
1975: 37; Owen-Crocker 1981: 15–16; Rives 1999: 158–9, 173. Adam of Bremen de-
scribes the nine-day sacri¢cial feast held every nine years at the heathen temple in
Uppsala, during which time (so he aÌrms) humans and animals were drained of blood
and hung in trees (Turville-Petre 1964: 244). Cf. Laµamon, Brut 254–7. — 2940b¯f. Bu.
(107, 372; also Tid. 60¯f.), Holt.2–3 (n.), and Mackie 1941: 97 reconstruct supposedly
lost verses here. Klaeber’s own conjecture (not adopted in his text) is sumon (dat. plur.)
galgtr¬owu / ġifan tō gamene (cf. GenA 2o69¯f., Mald 46), ġēoc eft gelamp, assuming
that a scribe disturbed the alliteration by substituting frōfor for ġēoc.
2943b–4a. horn ond b©man, / ġealdor. Cf. 94b–5a.
2946b. Sw[ē]ona. It has been suggested that the MS form swona may be due to the
shifting of the accent to the second element of the diphthong (Förster Archiv 146 [1923]
136), though this development is common only after palatal consonants and is virtually
restricted to the North Midlands and the North: see Jordan 1974: §¯84.
2950. frōd felageōmor. Cf. GenA 2226: ġeōmorfrōd.
 COMMENTARY 261
2951b. ufor is either ‘farther away’ (Kock 236, Kl. Angl. 63 [1939] 425) or ‘to higher
ground’ (Kl. EStn. 42 [1910] 329¯f.). Etymology favors the latter.
2956. bearn ond br©de (acc. pl.). Ongenþēo was afraid that women and children
would be carried off. Cf. GenA 1969¯ff., 2009¯ff., 2o89¯ff., etc. (Kl. EStn. 42 [1910]
329).
2957. eorðweall. On earth-walls used as forti¢cations, see Roesdahl in Pulsiano
1993: 209–16. On a possible parallel here to the dragon, see Chck. 373; cf. note on
2484¯f.
2957b–9. Taking ®ht (= ¹ht, ēht, Lang. §¯7.3) as an analogical formation in place of
the normal ōht (cf. ēhtan; Kl. 1908b: 467, 1926: 220), and construing seġn as the sub-
ject of oferēodon (so Cl.Hall tr., Holt., Child MLN 21 [1906] 200, Hoops, all recent edd.),
satisfactory sense is obtained by the slight alteration Hiġelāce[s] (rejected by He.1–14,
Malone Angl. 57 [1933] 315, the latter assuming a dat. of accompaniment w. seġn).
Earlier edd. construe seġn with the preceding clause: see Varr., Bu.Tid. 61. Some other
interpretations: Schröer Angl. 13 (1891) 346–8, altering MS leodum to lēoda (and
supposing ®ht = ‘property,’ hence ‘treasure’): ‘the treasure of the Swedes and a banner
were offered (as ransom) to Hyġelāc’; similarly Sed.1–2, without the emendation: ‘were
offered by the people of the Swedes to H.’; Cha. and Schü. (after Aant.): ‘Pursuit was
offered to the Swedes and a captured banner [was] offered to H.’; A. Green 1913: 1o1,
MLR 12 (1917) 340–3: ‘then was (the) treasure offered (yielded) by the folk of the
Swedes, their banner to H.’; Sed.3 supposes that Hyġelāc ‘wanted to settle accounts
with Ongentheow alone, and offered honourable terms of capitulation and a safe-
conduct to the Swedish king’s followers if they would leave Ongentheow to ¢ght it out
with Wulf, the champion appointed by the Geats,’ and thus he translates, ‘then was a
parley (»ht = eaht, cf. eahtian) offered to the Swedes, and a banner presented (by
them) to Hyġelāc. They (the Swedes) issued forth over the terrain, now safe for them
(¯freoðowong), when (or, and then) the Hrēðlingas pressed forward to the stockade (to
deal with Ongenþēo).’
296ob. tō hagan seems to refer to the eorðweall at the edge of the protected area
(¯freoðowong). Cos. (Aant.) equates haga with wīhaga ‘shield wall, phalanx’ (Mald
102); also bordhaga (El 652).
2963b¯f. ða¢an sceolde / Eafores ānne dōm, ‘he had to submit to Eofor’s decision
alone,’ i.e., he was completely at the mercy of Eofor. Cf. Mald 38: on hyra sylfra dōm;
OIcel. sjálfdœmi; and see Kock2 235¯f.; Kl. 1926: 220; Mezger MLN 67 (1952) 106–9.
2973. hē, i.e. Ongenþēo; him, i.e. Wulf. Eofor returns to the narrative in 2977.
2979. ealdsweord etonisc. See 1558a¯n.
2982b. his m®ġ = his brōðor 2978.
2985b. rinċ (i.e. Eofor) is the subject.
2990. lēana. This appears to be the only place where ġehātan takes a gen. object.
Kock4 121 would read lēana, lēodum, the latter word varying him (rather colorlessly) in
ref. to Wulf and Eofor. But something must be lost between the two words, to judge by
the MS spacing.
2993b. ofermāðmum. A. Hall (SN 78 [2006] 81–7) argues that the meaning is
‘excessive treasures,’ in reference to Hyġelāc’s giving his only daughter in marriage to
Eofor instead of arranging a more pro¢table diplomatic marriage (ll.¯2297¯f.).
2994–5a. sealde hiora ġehwæðrum hund þūsenda / landes ond locenra bēaga.
See 2195 (n.). In this instance, the unit of value represented by the land and rings to-
gether is presumably the sceat(t): see Rie.Zs. 415; Stevenson 1904: 154 n.¯6. Chambers
points out that 100,000 hides would have included the entire land of the Ġēatas. (Of a
valuable ring [bēag] given him by Eormenrīċ, the Gothic king, Wīdsīð says, on þām
siex hund wæs sm®tes goldes, / ġescyred sceatta scillingrīme [Wid 91¯f.].); see
Chambers’s notes.) Mackie 1941: 97, on the other hand, suggests that hund þūsenda
means no more than ‘a very large amount’ (cf. 1498, note to 3049¯f.).
262 BEOWULF
2995b–6. ne ðorfte him ðā lēan oðwītan, etc. him, dat. sg. (Hyġelāc), the meiotic
import being that the reward was generous (cf. 1048, 1884¯f.). MR believe the passage
may more literally defend Wulf and Eofor for accepting the reward. Bugge 108
(followed by Kock4 122, Hoops, v.Sch., Dob., Wn.1–3, Ni.) would have the parenthesis
end with middanġearde, thus having syðða[n] hīe ðā m®rða ġeslōgon depend on
sealde 2994 rather than on ðorfte. The present arrangement (that of Gru., E., Wülck.,
Hold.1, and the 6 edd.; Holt.8 is ambiguous) perhaps better explains the import of the
ref. to m®rða; also of ond as connecting 2997 with 2995a, with a shared subject. (Wn.
also assumes concretized meaning: ‘since they had gained those glorious things by
¢ghting.’)
2998. hāmweorðunge. Mezger JEGP 50 (1951) 243–5 would divide this into two
words. So also v.Sch., having weorðunge, in the sense ‘esteem,’ parallel to hyldo. Yet
hām is used adverbially only after verbs of motion; cf. 374¯f.
3000b¯f. ðæs ðe is probably conj. ‘as’ rather than rel. ‘of which’ in ref. to fēondscipe
or wælnīð (cf. 383), and þē is probably acc. obj. of sēċeað (see Gloss.) rather than instr.
‘according to which.’ See Mitchell 1988b: 11–12 (but cf. MR: ‘of which’ and ‘for
which’).
3005. æfter hæleða hryre, hwate Scil¢ngas. The MS reading scildingas has occa-
sioned much puzzlement. It has been defended as a stray allusion to an ancient story of
the Danish king Bēow(ulf), the hero of a dragon ¢ght (cf. Intr. xlviii¯f.), or to a possible
tradition assigning to Bēowulf overlordship of the Danes after the fall of Hrōðgār’s
dynasty (Tho., n.; Sarrazin EStn. 23 [1897] 245; Cha., with reference to Saxo iii 3,1, tr.
73; Brett MLR 14 [1919] 1¯f.). Müllenhoff ZfdA 14 (1869) 239 denounces the line as a
thoughtless repetition of 2052. Most recent edd. retain hwate Scildingas as a variation
of hord ond rīċe, assuming a reference to the battles with Grendel and his mother in
Bēowulf’s youth and analyzing the passage as a summation of the hero’s career (as
urged by v.Sch.). To similar effect are the emendations suggested by Klaeber (hwate
[adv.] Scildinga / folcrēd fremede) and Moore (JEGP 18 [1919] 212: hwate[s]
Scildingas folcrēd fremede ‘accomplished the relief of the brave Scylding,’ i.e. of
Hrōðgār.) Yet such an allusion would be so vague and so irrelevant to the messenger’s
overall point that it is diÌcult to credit; likewise Klaeber rightly objects to the
obscurity of Malone’s elaborate explanation of the passage (1923: 93–9; Angl. 54
[1930] 1–5; MÆ 2 [1933] 59–61; so Stanley ANQ 15.2 [2002] 68) as alluding to later
exploits of the hero in Denmark. Klaeber ultimately adopted Hoops’s emendation
scildwigan (so also Whitelock: see PBA 70 [1984] 61; Hübener Lit.bl. 56 [1935] 242;
see also Andrew 1948: §¯187), but this is metrically improbable, as a true compound
ought to alliterate (see Russom 1987: 96; Appx.C §¯39). Probably the least disturbing
emendation is Scil¢ngas. As a variant, this is more than usually far removed from the
last prior reference to the Swedes (hīe 3002), but A. Campbell (1962: 22 n.¯1) defends
the construction persuasively, and since the import of the sentence is that aggression is
to be expected from the Swedes, it is not implausible that a variant of the subject
Swēona lēoda should appear later in the sentence, to reinforce the messenger’s point.
Nor, of course, is it improbable that a scribe should thoughtlessly have written
scildingas for scil¢ngas in a poem in which the former are mentioned so often and the
latter, by comparison, so rarely.
3006b. oððe. Klaeber glosses this exceptionally as ‘and,’ which is possible (OES
§¯1751) but unnecessary, as furður ġēn implies a contrast, perhaps to the effect that the
hero ‘acted for the people’s bene¢t, or yet more (to the point), he performed
heroically.’ Andrew (1948: §¯99), OES §¯1751, and Jack suggest it may be another
instance of ‘until’ (see Gloss.: oð).
3010b¯ff. The burying of the treasure with Bēowulf is in accordance with Wīġlāf’s
assertion (2884¯ff.) that there will be no more gift-giving. See Niles 1983: 244, Green-
¢eld 1985: 402 n.¯31. — ānes hwæt. See Gloss.: ān, and cf. CP 46.347.4¯ff., Bo
18.43.28¯ff., Solil 1 15.11¯ff.
 COMMENTARY 263
3014. (ġeboh)te, past part. Alternatively, the word may be 3 sg. pret., as Holt. sup-
poses. — þā sceall brond fretan. Here, as in 3011, the messenger refers to cremation.
In reality, the treasures are buried in the mound (3163¯ff.), or at least many of them are:
we cannot be quite sure whether or not the arms with which the pyre is hung (3139¯f.)
have been taken from the dragon’s hoard. Stjerna (1912: 200–1) assumes here an
imperfect combination of duplicate lays describing different modes of funeral rites.
Owen-Crocker 2000: 97 suggests that the treasure may have been burned and the
melted remains buried. See note on 3137¯ff.
3018¯f. ac sceal ġeōmormōd, golde berēafod . . . elland tredan. Cf. Iliad xxiv
730¯ff. (lamentation of Andromache); GenA 1969¯ff.: Sceolde forht moniġ / blāchlēor
ides bi¢ende gān / on fremdes fæðm. — The messenger predicts a time of war for his
people; only elland tredan (and h©nðo ond hæftn©d 3155) might suggest a dire pro-
phecy about the result of the coming wars. The anxiety about the future that permeates
the dragon episode would indeed be more compelling if the poem’s audience knew the
Ġēatas to have been subsequently annihilated, and that is the assumption of many
readers (e.g. Earl 1994: 47; Zimmermann The Four OE Poetic MSS [AF 230] 270–3).
Yet there seems to be no reliable evidence for their destruction in the sixth century,
while there is evidence of their survival as a separate nation past that time. (See, e.g.,
Weibull Historisk Tidskrift för Skåneland 7 [1917–21] 301–60; Sisam 1965: 51–9;
Farrell 1972: 28–43.) Indeed, some have seen a bright future for the nation (e.g. M.
Brown in Manuscript, Narrative, Lexicon, ed. R. Boenig and K. Davis [Lewisburg,
2000], 189). The question is complicated by the possibility that the Ġēatas, at least as
the poet conceived them, are not identical to the Gautar (as all these observers but
Weibull assume): see Intr. lxiv¯ff. — oft nalles ®ne. So El 1252, ChristC 1194; ibid.
1170: monġe, nales fēa (see Cook’s note on Greek parallels); cf. Jul 356.
3022. (gār) morgenċeald. Battle begins in the morning. See Kl. EStn. 42 (1910) 335.
3024b–7. Of the numerous occasions on which the beasts of battle are introduced in
OE poetry (GenA,B, Ex, Brun, Mald, El, Jud, Finn), this is the only one in which raven
and eagle hold a conversation. Bonjour (PMLA 72 [1957] 563–73) observes that the
theme is artfully withheld until this moment rather than being deployed mechanically at
one or more earlier points in the narrative. The bold and brilliant picture reminds us not
only of ‘The Twa Corbies’ but of ON literature (e.g., Brot af Sigurðarkv. 13, Helgakv.
Hund. I 5, Hornklo¢’s Haraldskv.). The theme is here divorced from its usual context
of imminent battle (Amodio 2004: 52–3). On the beasts of battle typescene in OE lit-
erature, see Magoun NM 56 (1955) 81–90, GriÌth ASE 22 (1993) 179–99; in OE and
ON literature, see J. Jesch in The Scandinavians from the Vendel Period to the 10th
Century (Woodbridge, 2002) 251–80.
3027. þenden hē wið wulf wæl rēafode. The meaning ‘contending with’ has been
postulated for this wið. So Sed., n.; Cook 1922: 343 & n.¯3 (‘he wrenched away the
slain from the wolf’); Wyatt 1926: 88. Yet in all the other instances, the animals of prey
act in concert. If the nonce meaning is accepted, it might be regarded as another way in
which the poet has individualized the topos (see the preceding note). Emendation to
wulfe (see Varr.), approved by Siev.R. 289, Pope 321, and others metri causa, is not
improbable, but the metrical type of the on-verse, though rare, cannot be ruled out
conclusively (see Appx.C §¯28).
3028¯f. Swā se secg hwata secggende wæs, / lāðra spella. The edd. (including Kl.)
have regarded hwata as a weak adjective (see Gloss.: hwæt adj., and cf. 2675a), but it
seems an improvement to analyze it, with Tanke 2002: 360–1, as gen. pl. of hwatu,
dependent (like spella) on secggende (hence ‘speaker of predictions’). The gen.
indicates the substantival function of the participle (Shipley 1903: 65–6; cf. Visser
1966–73: III, §¯1813), despite inÏection as an adj. (cf. myndgiend w®re 1105), due to a
confusion best explained by Nickel IF 72 (1967) 272¯f.
3030b–3136. Preliminaries of the closing scene.
3034. hlimbed healdan. See 2901¯f.; 964¯n.
264 BEOWULF
3038. ¶r hī þ®r ġesēgan. The text requires no alteration (see Varr.; Kl. 1908a:
427). Even before they came upon Bēowulf, the warriors noticed from a distance the
enormously long dragon. (Cf. Bu. 372¯f., positing loss of more than a line.) For the
comparative syllicran used absolutely, cf. Dream 4: syllicre trēow (Kl. 1905–6: 251¯f.;
Ingersoll NM 77 [1976] 186). Yet possibly Mitchell (Poetica 13 [1982] 22 n.¯11) is right
that there is an intended comparison to the hero.
3041. gry(refāh). Cha. rightly notes that gryregæst (see Varr.) is too long for the
space left by the characters missing from the MS.
3044. nihtes hwīlum. Hoops suggests ‘at the time of night’ (cf. 2320; LS 25 [Blickl.
hom. xvi] 207.34: nihtes tīdum); so Gr., He., Aant., Tr., Dob., Ni., MR. It would be the
only instance in poetry of the non-adverbial use of hwīlum.
3046. hæfde eorðscrafa ende ġenyttod, ‘had made use of the last of his earth-caves’
(Donaldson’s tr. [New York, 1966]). See Siev. 1910: 411.
3049b¯f. swā hīe wið eorðan fæðm / þūsend wintra þ®r eardodon. Much has been
made of the discrepancy with 2278: þrēohund wintra. Holt. Beibl. 44 (1933) 227, e.g.,
conjectures that .ccc. was misread as .m. Klaeber warns that the passage does not nec-
essarily mean that the treasures had remained all that time in the same burial cave,
rather that they had lain ‘a thousand years’ in the earth. Krüger BGdSL 9 (1884) 576¯f.
disposes of the problem by rendering swā ‘as if’ and regarding eardodon as subjunc-
tive, and in this he is followed by Dob., v.Sch., Crp., MR; also Bazelmans 1999: 144
n.¯145. It may be best, however, to construe swā in the sense ‘in proportion as,
inasmuch as, since’ (cf. 2184), taking eardodon as indic. plupf. This has the advantage
of linking the clause more ¢rmly to the preceding verses, explaining why the treasure is
rusty, and to the following (see the following note). The discrepancy with 2278 is
probably of no force, since þūsend wintra as well as þrēohund wintra may not desig-
nate any exact period but simply an immense expanse of time (so Hoops; cf. 1498,
notes on 2994–5a, 147; cf. Andrew 1948: §¯173). See 147 (n.); also the note on 2231¯ff.
regarding the history of the hoard.
3051¯ff. The curse laid on the gold is ¢rst mentioned in a substantially heathen
fashion, though with a saving clause of Christian tenor (3054b–7); later it is clothed in a
Christian formula (3071–3). (Note the expression h®ðen gold 2276; cf. 2216.) Cf. Kl.
1911–12: [31, 53–4]. The general signi¢cance of the passage is perhaps best taken to be
that the hero was unaware of the curse as the cause of his death (see the note on
3074¯f.), though the curse has also been seen as a truncated motif (a motif without
consequences) of the kind sometimes found in folk literature (Niles 1983: 174). — The
curse resting on the Niblung gold in ON and MHG literary tradition is a well-known
parallel of the motif. That the circumstantial history of the Niblung hoard could be
traced in Beowulf was an erroneous view of Heinzel’s (AfdA 15 [1889] 169¯f.).
3051. þonne, ‘further, moreover,’ according to Kl., Hoops, v.Sch., Dob., Ni., MR. In
the view of Bu. 374, þonne denotes the time when the treasures were placed in the
ground (Aant.: ‘ante tot annos’; similarly Holt., Schü., Cha., Sed., Wn.); but in that
event we should expect þā. Either way, the word seems out of place and would appear
to introduce a non sequitur. Yet it is possible to perceive a more usual meaning for
þonne, regarding it as causal ‘when, since, seeing that’ (BT, p.¯1038 under B.ii), or
perhaps consuetudinal ‘for that period of time’ or (rel.) ‘during which period of time’:
see Fu.2. This improves the sense of the passage by drawing a logical connection to the
preceding: the clause beginning with þonne, describing the curse, thus explains how
the treasure was able to remain undisturbed so long. Thus, ēacencræftiġ is best con-
strued attributively, and bewunden predicatively; so Hoops, v.Sch., Dob., Ni. But ēa-
cencræftiġ may then still be predicated of wæs (i.e. parallel with galdre bewunden; so
Kl., Wn., Crp.), since the meaning ‘of great power’ may imply ‘powerfully protected.’
3055b¯f. The inf. openian after sealde (Aant.: cf. sellan ēow ġīet mioloc drincan, CP
63.459.18) seems to be in part due to the preceding þām ðe hē wolde. (Cf. 1730¯f.) hē is
manna ġehyld is probably corrupt (see Varr.), as manna is repeated in the next line,
 COMMENTARY 265
the alliteration is faulty, and the metrical type is rare and questionable (see Appx.C
§¯28; cf. S. Suzuki 2004: 280–4).
3058–60a. These verses are usually thought to refer to the dragon. That they should
refer to the thief (see Varr.) is an idea rightly rejected by Dob. It is possible, though,
and perhaps preferable, that they should refer to him who cursed the gold (the elegist of
ll.¯2231¯ff.?), as the curse is the topic of the larger context of 3051–75, and thus the
point of the present passage is best understood to be that the curse was pronounced in
vain. And ġeh©dde does better describe the man’s actions than the dragon’s: assuming
reference to the dragon, Kl. is obliged to assign a separate meaning ‘keep secretly’ to
this instance of the verb (see Fu.2). (To be sure, the present analysis raises a contradic-
tion in number between ġeh©dde and dydon 3070, but the latter verb remains problem-
atic regardless, since it conÏicts with the testimony of ġeh©dde 2235. We must simply
accept the inconsistency.) Von Schaubert would retain MS wræce, proposing the mean-
ing ‘. . . him, inside under the wall, who performed vengeance.’ Yet this requires pecul-
iar use of inne and the assumption that ġeh©dde is like ġehēdde 505 (see n.), which, on
her analysis, is a form of Angl. ġehēġan ‘perform.’ Cf. Kl. EStn. 74 (1941) 222.
3060b–2a. Weard ®r ofslōh / fēara sumne, i.e., the dragon had slain Bēowulf: fēara
sumne ‘one and few others’ (cf. 1412), by litotes, means ‘one’ only (Aant.; cf. Andrew
1948: §¯171, suggesting fāra or fēora). Bliss 1979: 42 treats this clause as a parenthesis,
taking þā to be correl. to Þā 3058. The point then would be that it was the vengeance
taken on the dragon that proved the futility of hiding the treasure. That may be what is
intended (cf. supra), but the supposed parenthesis, which seems beside the point when
not punctuated as an antithesis to the following clause, is not required to produce that
meaning. And if the passage is not about the futility of the curse rather than of the
dragon’s protection of the hoard, verses 3062¯ff. seem a non sequitur. Some have sup-
posed that weard refers to the last human possessor of the hoard (Sed., Engelhardt
PMLA 70 [1955] 848 n.¯32). See also Mal. A. 54 (1930) 5, MÆ 2 (1933) 62–4. — And-
rew (1948: §¯174) would supply a comma after ġewearð and alter ġewrecen to ġewræc.
3062b–5. WundĿr hwār, etc., ‘it is a mystery where (on what occasion, or from
what cause?) a man meets death’: see Siev. 1884b: 143; Aant.; Kock 233. Cf. Max I
29¯f.: Meotud āna wāt / hw®r se cwealm cymeþ.
3067b–8. He did not know the ultimate cause of his death (þurh hwæt ‘because of
what,’ not ‘by what means’; cf. El 400), i.e., he was ignorant of the ancient spell (Kl.
1908a: 432). In making the curse the cause, the poet absolves the hero of any failure of
his own. That the Christian poet should have believed in the eÌcacy of a curse is to be
expected: see MSol 158¯ff.; Fulk and Cain 2003: 42–3. Alternatively, it has been argued
that the curse has no such consequences: see Helder NM 78 (1977) 322–3, Doig ELN 19
(1981) 3–6, Niles 1983: 174, and Irving 1989: 123.
3069¯ff. swā. Klaeber begins a new sentence with this word. Holt., and more expan-
sively Bliss 1979: 43–9 (but cf. Myerov Angl. 118 [2000] 545), Andrew MÆ 8 [1939]
207, and Ni. regard the word as correlative to swā 3066, i.e. ‘So it was for Bēowulf .¯.¯.
just as the chieftains who had put it there had decreed it. . . .’ Von Schaubert rather
treats swā as a complementizer, i.e., ‘he himself did not know . . . how the chieftains
had declared¯.¯.¯.’ (cf. 1233¯ff.; or ‘how deeply the chieftains had declared¯.¯.¯.’?), though
Bliss objects that swā cannot mean ‘how.’ Certainly þæt 3071 introduces the clause
that is, actually or in effect, the object of benemdon, despite the objection of Doig
(ELN 19.1 [1981] 3–6; see also Tripp ibid. 23.2 [1985] 1–8), as benemnan is not other-
wise recorded in the sense ‘speak solemn words over.’ (Cf. PPs 88.43 dēope āðe be-
nemdest [¯=¯jurasti], 88.3, 94.11, 131.11, Husb 50.) Neither does it ever have the speci¢c
meaning ‘lay a curse on’ suggested by Kl.; yet this is the effect of Kl.’s interpretation
(adopted here) if we translate more literally, ‘So deeply did the chieftains who placed it
there declare it to the end of time, that the man would be guilty, etc.’ That is, þæt need
not be anticipated by hit 3069 (so Ja., MR, DOE s.v. benemnan, demanding that swā be
a conj. adverb ‘thus’), but it may be correlative to swā, which modi¢es dēope (‘so
266 BEOWULF
deeply .¯.¯¯. that’). There is at all events no need to regard 3069–73 as an interpolation
(so Sisam 1958: 130–1, following Sievers; cf. Jurasinski 2006: 39–47). To Bliss’s
objection that on this interpretation sj. w®re 3071 ought to be indic., cf. OES §§¯2001¯ff.
3071–3. Klaeber 1911–12: [32] understands these lines to mean that the curse pre-
scribed damnation to hell. He thus assumes that Bēowulf was shielded from the curse
by God (so Irving 1989: 123; see note on the following verses), though Stanley 1963:
146–51 and Bliss 1979: 47–51 argue that the hero was in fact damned. This assumption
is diÌcult to reconcile with the likeliest meaning of sōðfæstra dōm 2820: see the note
on that line. Tanke (2002: 370) rightly observes that a ‘curse that promises punishment
oð dōmes dæġ does not, and cannot, prescribe Christian damnation.’ These lines may
then refer to punishments in this world. For this more secular meaning of hellbendum
fæst, cf. 101, 788, 1274, and see Tolkien 1936: 279–80. That is, hergum and hell-
bendum are used synonymously: as heathen deities were understood to be devils (cf.
gāstbona 177), their places of worship, being their dwelling places, were identi¢ed
with hell. To hærgtrafum 175, cf. helltrafum, And 1691. Cf. Brett MLR 14 (1919) 5¯f.:
ġeheaðerod = ‘fenced out from’ (?).
3074¯f. Næs hē goldhwæte, ġearwor hæfde / āgendes ēst ®r ġescēawod. This
passage remains, in the words of Bugge 373, a locus desperatus. The interpretation rec-
ommended here is, ‘He had not by any means sought out (or expected?) a curse on
gold, rather the owner’s favor.’ Dob. identi¢es four problems: ‘(1) Do ll.¯3074¯f. form a
new main clause, or are they a continuation of the sense of ll.¯3069–3073? (2) Does he
refer to Beowulf, or to se secg, l.¯3071? (3) What does goldhwæte mean? (4) Does agen-
des refer to God, or does it refer to an earthly possessor of the treasure, either the
dragon or the man who buried it (ll.¯2244¯ff.)?’ In addition it may be asked whether næs
is a verb or an adverb, what the force of ġearwor is, which of the attested meanings of
ēst and ġescēawod are to be assumed, and whether ®r has adverbial force or merely
marks pluperfect aspect in the verb (see OES §¯1115). It is often supposed that the gen-
eral sense is that Bēowulf either had never beheld such a splendid treasure or had not
seen this particular treasure clearly before this (so Aant., Cha., Kock2 123¯f., Ni., MR),
but this requires assigning ēst an unexampled meaning. Some suppose the sense is that
Bēowulf had never looked on treasure more willingly (Sed.1–2, Donahue 1975: 36) or,
to the contrary, more ruefully (Andrew MÆ 8 [1939] 206¯f., id. 1948: §¯110; cf. Schü.
EStn. 55 [1921] 96¯f.). Furuhjelm (NM 32 [1931] 107–9) regards goldhwæte as adv. and
supplies the sense of strude from 3073: ‘not at all did he plunder [it] avariciously,’
beginning a new period with ġearwor. Sed. (MLR 27 [1932] 451) would have this
passage refer to the thief, explaining why he was not affected by the curse; but this
requires an emendation (see Varr.). According to Imelmann EStn. 67.3 (1933) 331–9,
these verses form part of the preceding description of the curse: the intruder would be
punished ‘before he had beheld the owner’s inheritance rich in gold’; or possibly the
verses originally belong after 3068: Bēowulf did not know how he would die, ‘and he
had not formerly beheld completely, etc.’ (Kl. EStn. 68.1 [1933] 1–5). Hoops offers a
rendering similar to the latter, assuming these verses somehow exempt Bēowulf from
the effects of the curse. Many subsequent analyses resemble Hoops’s, e.g. those of
Wn., Jones MLN 49 (1934) 115, and v.Sch. In a similar vein, Kl.3 (see Kl.2 435), in
agreement with Patzig Angl. 47 (1923) 104, also assumes this purpose for the verses,
but he regards them as forming a subordinate clause meaning ‘unless God’s grace (or,
kindness) had before (or, ¢rst) more readily (or, thoroughly) favored those (or, the one)
eager for gold.’ This interpretation rests on an emendation (næfne for MS næshe;
similarly Lawrence PMLA 33 [1918] 561; Flasdieck Angl. 69 [1950] 136; Mitchell
1982; Wetzel 1993; see Varr.), and it demands a questionable rendering of goldhwæte.1

1
Klaeber’s understanding of the word as ‘greedy for gold’ follows similar interpretations by
Müll. ZfdA 14 (1869) 241; He.; Siev. 1884b: 143; Malone MÆ 2 (1933) 63¯f.; Moore JEGP 18
(1919) 213¯f.; Hamilton 1946: 327. Hoops’s argument is that -hwæt in other adj. compounds means
 COMMENTARY 267
Kock2 123 had earlier derived goldhwæte from *goldhwatu, ‘readiness about gold,’
‘liberality’ (so also Furuhjelm Angl. 57 [1933] 320); Mal. Angl. 54 (1930) 5–7 similarly
translates, ‘By no means more readily had he observed the owner’s [i.e. the dragon’s]
liberality, by no means sooner had he observed the owner’s bounty,’ explaining this as
litotes. The analysis of Smithers (1951–2: 75–84), linking -hw®te *‘-bestowing’ with
āhwettan (so Ja.), faces objections on etymological grounds (see Tanke 2002: 357).
Wrenn (gloss.) suggests and then rejects a connection with hwatung ‘augury,’ and
Tanke pursues this idea, identifying the word as acc. sg. of goldhwatu, which he de-
¢nes as ‘gold-luck.’ He translates, ‘He had by no means more readily foreseen good
luck with the gold, the Owner’s favor,’ i.e., Bēowulf (correctly) had not expected to
have good luck in acquiring the gold. (That āgendes should refer to God [as proposed
by Bu.Tid. 62¯f.; so Cha., Moore op. cit., He.4, Bliss, Myerov, et al.] is by no means
incredible, despite the doubts of some [e.g. Mal. loc. cit.; Stanley 1963: 143–4]: cf.
āgend at Ex 295, with the same meaning, and Tanke [364] compares the frequent gen.
phrases wuldres/sigores āgend, as well as the common formula ofer Godes/metodes ēst
‘against God’s will.’) Yet following Tanke’s lead it may be possible to ¢nd more trans-
parent sense in the passage. The meaning of hwatu is not actually ‘luck’ but ‘augury,
prediction,’ and thus it is not implausible that goldhwæte should refer to the curse on
the gold, which has just been stated in the form of a prognostication — which, in a
sense, is what a curse is. (Cf. 3028; OS forhuâtan ‘to curse’; hwatu is sometimes paired
with galdor ‘spell, enchantment’, as at Whom 8c 165¯f.) The comparative ġearwor,
which is perhaps the chief culprit in rendering awkward the many proposed transla-
tions of this passage — Imelmann and Kl. wonder whether the comparative stands for
the positive — is here interpreted to mean ‘rather’ (cf. swīðor, tylġ and, indeed, rather
itself: see Fu.2), hence the sense ‘He had not by any means sought out (or expected?) a
curse on gold, rather the owner’s favor.’ As we should anticipate in regard to this ¢nal,
summarizing statement, the meaning is thus in accordance with the overall point of
3051–75, suggested above, that Bēowulf did not even know the cause of his death, an
ancient curse; but cf. Niles 1983: 174, in disagreement. (On the sense ‘sought out’ for
ġescēawod, see BT: ġescēawian v.; on the sense ‘expected, anticipated, looked out for,’
see Tanke 366, and cf. GD 2 (C) 122.21: tō scēawienne = expectanda.) For a thorough
summary of the scholarship on this passage, see Wetzel 1993. Besides those listed
supra and in the Varr., some who emend are Rie.Zs. 416; t.Br. 145 (foll. by Wy.); Brett
MLR 14 (1919) 6; Holt. Beibl. 43 (1932) 157, ibid. 54–5 (1943–4) 29 (cf. 279); Kl.
BGdSL 72 (1950) 125; Collinder 1954: 24 (-hwæt þe for -hwæte, spoiling the meter).
Note that Siev. BGdSL 55 (1931) 376 and Sisam 1958: 130–1 perceive the confusion as
the result of an interpolation; similarly Holt.4–5,7. Embarras de richesse.
3077b. ānes willan, probably not ‘for the sake of one (man)’ (so Kl. Gloss: willa,
and many edd.), but ‘owing to the will of one man’ (Mackie 1941: 97–8); cf. 2222,
2639. MR suggest that the one may not be Bēowulf but the dragon, the man who ¢rst
plundered the hoard, or wyrd (but cf. Orchard 2003: 263 n.¯83); yet the following lines
point to Bēowulf. Bolton (1978: 138) compares Alcuin’s comment on Eccl. 9:¯18:
crebro evenit, quod per unius insipientiam opes magnæ atque divitiæ pereunt. The

‘rich, abounding in,’ demanding here the meaning ‘gold-rich,’ as supposed by Gr.Spr., Bu.Tid.
62¯f., Lawrence loc. cit.; cf. Biggs ASE 32 (2003) 68, taking hē to refer to þone wong and trans-
lating, ‘not at all had it [i.e. the place] previously granted the gold-incited gift of the possessor
more entirely.’ Probably not all will agree with Hoops’s interpretation of the second constituent of
compounds like fyrdhwæt (see Gloss.) and d®dhwæt as ‘abounding in’ or ‘powerful in’ rather than
‘bold in’ (see DOE), but his point is nonetheless valid that there is no persuasive parallel to sup-
port the meaning ‘greedy for’ or ‘eager for,’ particularly in connection with a substance like gold.
In accordance with the interpretation of Klaeber and others, Bliss, assuming damnation for the
hero, supposes Bēowulf only now perceives God’s disfavor, and he translates, ‘In the past he
[Bēowulf] had seen and understood the gold-bestowing favour of God much less clearly than he
did now’ (1979: 57; so Crp., but cf. Mitchell Poetica 13 [1982] 15–26).
268 BEOWULF
contexts, however, seem different: Bēowulf was scarcely the one through whom a great
enterprise came to naught, for without him there would have been no enterprise at all.
3079¯ff. Ne meahton wē ġel®ran, etc. Cf. 1994¯ff. MR suppose the passage may
mean not that they could not dissuade Bēowulf from ¢ghting the dragon but that they
could not advise him not to do so, since they had no other source of protection. This is
possible, though in that event one would expect the reason to have been made explicit.
3084. The reading hēold on hēahġesceap ‘he held (on)to his high fate’ (see Varr.;
similarly Kock5 183, Hoops) has been generally adopted, though the idiomatic charac-
ter of the phrase has not been substantiated. To the hitherto meager support derived
from ME examples, Kock has added a reference to the OIcel. use of halda á. Kl.3
begins a new sentence with this verse. (The older reading with hēoldon in Kl.1–2 was
thought to signify ‘we met a hard fate.’ Wolf 1919, reading healdan hēah ġesceap,
takes the reference to be to guarding the treasure.)
3094. wīs ond ġewittig, ‘sound in mind and conscious’; cf. 2703. Though no exact
parallel to this use of wīs has been adduced, this translation seems more apposite than
‘the wise and prudent one’ (Scheinert BGdSL 30 [1905] 381¯n.); see Kl. Angl. 29 (1906)
382. (Hel. 238¯f.: habda im eft is sprâca giuuald, / giuuitteas endi uuîsun.)
3104. þæt ġē .¯.¯. scēawiað, ‘so that (= ‘and then’) you will see.’ Contrast with
2747¯f. For the dependence of the þæt-clause on wīsiġe, which has been objected to
(see Varr.), cf. 312¯ff.
3108b¯f. þ®r hē longe sceal / on ðæs waldendes w®re ġeþolian. This expression
would be ¢tting in connection with the Christian mode of interment. See Kl. 1911–12:
[27–8]. — on ðæs waldendes w®re recalls on frēan w®re 27. In fact, a number of gen-
eral phrasal analogies connect the obsequies of Bēowulf (and preparations for them)
with Scyld’s sea-burial; thus 3135¯f., 28; 3137¯ff., 38¯ff.; 3140, 29; 3141¯f., 34¯ff.; 3166,
3132, 48; also 3112¯f., 36¯f.
3111. To remove the repetition with hæleða, Andrew 1948: §¯171 would emend hæle
to holdra.
3114. gōdum tōġēnes, i.e., to the place where the good one lay (and for his service).
3115. weaxan wonna lēġ. To avoid analyzing the verse as a parenthesis, Gr.Spr. (see
further Cos. viii 574; Holt. Archiv 121 [1908] 293¯f.; Krogmann Angl. 63 [1939] 398;
Dob. [?]) posits a verb *weaxan ‘consume,’ on the basis of the (somewhat inconclu-
sive) gloss waxġeorn ‘edax,’ ÆColl 290, the Go. verbs wizōn, frawisan, etc. (The
identi¢cation of the verb with wascan ‘wash, bathe, envelop’ suggested by Earle 1892,
Sed.1–2, and MR seems desperate.) Holthausen’s emendation (Beibl. 40 [1929] 90¯f.)
*weasan (¯= *weosan, *wesan, ‘consume’), approved by Hoops, relies upon an unat-
tested verb and a dialect spelling mistaken by the scribe. Emended weaxen could be
either attributive (Sed., Ni.) or absolute (v.Sch., Brotanek Archiv 179 [1941] 53: ‘the
wan Ïame being grown [great]’). Kock 1921: 11 would emend to weaxeð. Andrew
(1948: §¯175) suggests weaxwonna, which he would interpret to mean ‘dull or murky
yellow.’ See also Holt. Beibl. 34 (1923) 355. The parenthesis, awkward as it is (since
weaxan depends on an auxiliary outside the parenthesis), seems preferable to emenda-
tion or assumption of an unattested verb or color-word.
3121¯f. āċīġde of corðre cyniges þeġnas / syfone (tō)somne. If the idea of direction
is considered negligible in this context, (æt)somne may be admitted (cf. 2847, 2568).
But þā sēlestan seems stylistically more satisfying if, instead of concluding a series of
three variants with identical reference, it is separated from cyniges þeġnas, which it
varies, by an adverb dependent on āċīġde.
3124. Andrew 1948: §¯176 plausibly argues that hrōr has been omitted before MS
hilde rinc, by haplography. If it were restored, the meter would require no other emen-
dation of the verse.
3126. Næs ðā on hlytme, ‘it was not decided by lot,’ i.e., they were all eager. See
Kl. 1908a: 432; 1926: 223. J.M. Hill (2000: 43), postulating literal lots, supposes that
they are for portions of the treasure. Cf. Trp. 338–9 and Crépin.
 COMMENTARY 269
3127¯ff. Klaeber analyzes orwearde as asn. adj. (i.e. wk.? cf. Bamm. ES 61 [1980]
483), referring to hord; ®niġne d®l then is coordinate to the understood object hit: see
note on 694b. So most edd., e.g. Sed., Dob., Wn., MR; also Hoops. It simpli¢es the
syntax to regard the word rather as an adv. (so Cl.Hall tr.1) dependent on wunian. Cf.
83, 2092b Varr.; and cf. Bamm. 1986a: 103–4: siððan orwearde ‘from then on without
a guardian’ (applied to hord, emending to l®n[n]e ).
3137–82. Bēowulf’s funeral obsequies.
3137¯ff. On the funeral practices of the Anglo-Saxons, see in particular Owen-
Crocker 1981: 67–125; S. Lacy The AS Way of Death (Stroud, 2000); Härke Past &
Present 126 [1990] 22–43; and Webster in Sutton Hoo: Fifty Years After, ed. R. Farrell
& C. Neumann de Vegvar (Oxford, OH, 1992), 75–81. On those of the Scandinavians,
see Roesdahl in Voyage to the Other World, ed. C. Kendall & P. Wells (Minneapolis,
1992), 155–70; Müller-Wille in Pulsiano 1993: 58–60, 237–40; Herschend 2001: 61–94.
We know from Tacitus that the Germans of his time burned their dead (see Germania
27, Appx.A §¯14, and Rives’s commentary [1999: 225]). Snorri Sturluson in his pro-
logue to Heimskringla relates that in Scandinavia there was ¢rst an age of burning the
dead and then one of burying them in mounds, beginning in Denmark and moving later
to Sweden and Norway (ed. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson [1979] 4–5). Indeed, in Scandina-
via, the custom of burning was common from the latter half of the Bronze Age. Though
temporarily interrupted, more or less, by a period of inhumation, it was common in
both Norway and Sweden until the 10th century or later. Splendid examples of this
method of disposing of the dead are found in ON literature, such as the burning of
Brynhildr and Sigurðr (Sigurðarkv. in skamma 64¯ff.) and that of Haraldus Hyldetan in
Saxo (viii 5,1, tr. 243, Appx.A §¯10). Taylor (Archiv 201 [1964] 349–51) argues for an
analogue for Bēowulf’s funeral in Ynglinga saga, in which Óðinn gives instructions for
cremation and then is cremated himself; Frank 1982b, likewise associating cremation
with Óðinn, maintains that the ending of Beo may have been constructed on the model
of the ON er¢drápa or memorial eulogy. Owen-Crocker (2000: 96) observes that in AS
England, cremations were not accompanied by mound-building, but in Denmark and
Sweden, there is precedent for piling a mound over the ashes. Similarly, while the
burning of weapons with the body was unusual in AS England, it was not in
Scandinavia, and unburnt grave-goods too could be included in the actual burial, as is
the case at Sutton Hoo (Owen-Crocker 2000: 88–9, 97–8). The pagan Anglo-Saxons
practiced both cremation and interment (Mayr-Harting 1991: 23–4), the latter mode
apparently prevailing in the southern districts (Owen-Crocker 1981: 68), but after their
conversion to Christianity cremation was entirely given up. Nevertheless, we ¢nd the
heathen and heroic practice described here in all its impressive splendor. (On some
veiled allusions to Christian burial [445¯f., 1004¯ff., 3107¯ff.], see Kl. 1911–12: 27–8, 41–
2, 55–6. The very ancient form of burial in passage graves is suggested by the barrow
or mound of the dragon: see note on 2231¯ff.)
The obsequies of Bēowulf seem reminiscent in several respects of the famous funer-
al ceremonies of the classical epics (Iliad xxiii 138¯ff., xxiv 785¯ff.; Odyssey xxiv 43¯ff.;
Aeneid vi 176¯ff., xi 59¯ff.). See Cook 1922: 339–43. Schrader (CL 24 [1972] 237–59),
in comparing Bēowulf’s funeral with that of Opheltes in Statius’s Thebaid, argues that
the OE account has closer aÌnities to the Roman than to the Germanic tradition.
Certain important features, however, ¢nd parallels in the funeral of Attila (Jordanes,
cap. 49, Appx.A §¯16) — the main points of difference being that Attila’s body is not
burned but buried, and that the mourning horsemen’s songs of praise do not accom-
pany the ¢nal ceremony but represent an initial, separate aspect of the funeral rites. See
Kl. PMLA 42 (1927) 255–67 on all these parallels. See also Puhvel (Folklore 94 [1983]
108–12), who ¢nds that the parallels are not close enough to substantiate inÏuence.
One peculiarity of the Beowul¢an account is that it contains two discrete funeral
ceremonies, each of which is related in detail: ¢rst the burning of the body, and then
the consigning of the ashes to the monumental mound. Greater emphasis is laid on the
270 BEOWULF
closing stage, which is made an occasion for rehearsing solemn and inspiring songs
sounding an almost Christian note. (Only the former ceremony takes place in the case
of the less pompous obsequies of Hnæf and the other fallen warriors of the Finn tale,
1108¯ff.). Robinson (1993b) maintains that the second funeral of Bēowulf represents his
apotheosis into the pantheon of pagan gods.
3146b. windblond ġelæġ. The emendations proposed (see Varr.) are motivated by
doubts about the strength of the Ïame in the absence of wind. See Kl. 1907: 196; Aant.;
Lüning 1889: 75; Girvan 1935: 37. (On the auspicious role of wind in Scandinavian
funeral obsequies, see Ibn FaŹlān’s account of a cremation among the Rūs: Smyser
1965: 100–1.) Klaeber’s ultimate judgment (Beibl. 50 [1939] 332; ed.3 Su. 459) was
that wōpe bewunden perhaps helps to explain the verse: the wind ‘subsided’ when the
lamentation set in (3146a, 3148b¯ff.), so the wailing could be plainly heard. Thus,
windblond ġelæġ would virtually serve the same purpose as swīgedon ealle 1699. (Note
El 1272¯ff.) See 3155b¯n.
3150¯ff. That the song of lament should be uttered by a woman is what we expect:
see also 3016¯ff., and Tacitus, Germania, cap. 27 (Appx.A §¯14). The supposition that
the mourning woman is Bēowulf’s widow, an idea embraced by many, was ¢rst plainly
expressed by Heyne in his translation of 1863; and that Bēowulf’s widow is Hyġd (as
argued by Bu. 111; cf. ll.¯2369¯ff.) is an even more speculative possibility that has not
infrequently been entertained (see the refs. in Wph. 304¯ff. and Mustanoja NM 68
[1967] 1–27; Stanley PBA 70 [1984] 259¯f. supports this view; cf. Drout 2007: 211
n.¯34). Some others have thought that the mourner is Hyġd but that she is not Bēowulf’s
widow (Engelhardt MLN 68 [1953] 535–8, Pope ibid. 70 [1955] 80¯f., also citing
Wrenn’s support). All such views are discounted by Bennett Exemplaria 4 (1992) 35–
50 on the ground that women in Northern literature, whether named or not, are fre-
quently represented as mourners, and that this socially sanctioned role is one of their
strengths; see also Smyser 1965: 110; Sisam 1965: 56 n.¯2; also Lendinara NM 74
(1973) 214–16; cf. Biggs ASE (2003) 69¯f. In the absence of other information provided
by the poet, Mustanoja’s discussion of the traditional role of mourners at European
funerals (op. cit. 13–26) would seem to render unnecessary any speci¢c suggestions
about the identity of the Geatish woman. — bundenheorde. Bugge (110¯f.; so Kl.
Gloss., F. Kauffmann Deutsche Altertumskunde, I (Munich, 1913) 451, MR; see also
Pogatscher Beibl. 12 [1901] 198, 13.233¯f.; Smyser 1965: 110) argues that a contrast is
implied with the Ïowing hair of an unmarried woman, but there is no ¢rm evidence for
this view (Pope xxvi; Wph. 297¯f.). From the seventh century, both women and girls
usually covered their heads (Owen-Crocker 2004: 157). Clover’s support of the reading
wunden- (see Varr.) stems from the observation that the hair of mourners is conven-
tionally disheveled.
3155b. Heofon rēċe swealg. Taylor (PQ 42 [1963] 258) calls our attention to Snorri
Sturluson’s Ynglinga saga, ch. 9: Þat var trúa þeira, at því hæra sem reykinn lagði í
loptit upp, at því háleitari væri sá í himninum, er brennuna átti. (Cf. Hoffman JEGP 64
[1965] 660–7, Owen-Crocker 2000: 94). Positive though the clause in 3155b may be,
however, it is perhaps best read in juxtaposition with what precedes it, the lamentation
of the old woman over the impending humiliation and captivity of the Ġēatas. As in
Max II 13 (Wēa bið wundrum clibbor. Wolcnu scrīðað.), the juxtaposition of human
suffering with a matter-of-fact observation on natural, though personi¢ed, phenomena
expresses the indifference of the universe to that suffering. Cf. Chck. 378. See Osborn
Thoth 10 (1969) 34.
3159. beti(m)bredon. The elaborately constructed barrow may have included a
wooden chamber grave beneath it (Owen-Crocker 2000: 96; 78 n.¯10; cf. Whitbread
NM 68 [1967] 30–5), though OE timbran ‘build’ does not necessarily imply carpentry.
Irving (1989: 164) likens the barrow to a hall. On the relationship between hall and
grave in the Late Iron Age, see Herschend 2001: 61–8. Cf. Lindkvist Uppsala högar
och Ottarshögen (1936) 253–9.
 COMMENTARY 271
3161b–2. swā hyt weorðlicost, etc. Klaeber’s interpretation, retained here, is ap-
parently ‘as worthily as very prudent people could devise it.’ Mitchell (OES §¯3310)
argues that weorðlicost is an adj.: he seems to mean that the sense is ‘so that very
prudent people could ¢nd it most worthy’; yet this seems a more abstract sense of
¢ndan than is usual (see the DOE¯), and in any event mihton (rather than sceoldon)
then is unanticipated.
3166–8. The gold is returned to the earth, þ®r hit nū ġēn lifað / eldum swā unnyt, swā
hit ®ror wæs. In part this could be explained as a corollary of the motif of the curse
resting on the gold. But cf., e.g., Grettis saga, ch. 18: Þat fé er illa komit, er fólgit er í
j∂rðu eða í hauga borit. Smithers (1961: 17–19) observes that the burial of treasure
with a great king may be more a point of historical accuracy than of anything else; see
also Niles 1983: 216. More speci¢cally, Tarzia (Jnl. of Folklore Research [1989] 99–
121) analyzes the lines in the context of Bronze Age hoarding ritual, which would have
required the hoard to be returned to the earth (cf. Condren PQ 52 [1972] 296–99, Creed
in Med. Archaeology, ed. Redman [1989] 155–67). Davis (1996: 162), to the contrary,
regards the reburial as a sign of ‘purely pagan despair.’ On the range of different and
often contradictory signi¢cations of the dragon’s treasure, see Green¢eld 1974. See
also Rosier ES 54 (1973) 1–6, Silber AnMed 18 (1977) 5–19.
3173–6a. Of the lines setting forth the praise of Bēowulf by his thegns, parallels have
been perceived in the divine service and in GenA 1¯ff., 15¯ff.: see Kl. EStn. 42 (1910)
327, id. 1911–12: [10–11].
3174. duguðum. Malone 1933b: 151 perceives yet another dat. of accompaniment,
as a variant of ellenweorc.
3180b¯f. wyruldcyning[a] / manna mildust ond mon(ðw)®rust. manna, which
seems to strengthen the superl. idea (‘the mildest of all’), is fundamentally an am-
plifying (partit.) element. Cf. the OHG Wessobrunner Gebet 7¯f. (ed. Braune 1994):
almahtico cot, / manno miltisto; Beo 3098¯f., 2645, also 155, 1108¯f., 2250¯f., 2887, etc.
manna mildost occurs also Ex 550. Cf. Num. 12:¯3: erat enim Moses vir mitissimus
super omnes homines qui morabantur in terra (see Wright N&Q 31 [1984] 440–3;
Wieland 1988); cf. Bede, Sē wæs milde wer and monþw®re ‘omnium mansuetissimus
ac simplicissimus’ (H.E. iv, cap. 27). Richards ELN 10.3 (1973) 163–7 collects im-
pressive evidence for a homiletic formula mildost ond monðw®rost, from which she
concludes that the hero is here celebrated for his Christian qualities. See also Kl. 1926:
224. — As to wyruldcyning[a], cf. 1684¯f. Malone in Mandel & Rosenberg 1970: 35–8
interprets Conybeare’s -cyningnes as -cyning his (placing the latter word in the next
verse) and adopting his mannum (i.e. mannū: see Varr.). Although mannum mildust is
thoroughly idiomatic (see Richards, op. cit.; Orchard 2003: 66 n.¯47), Malone’s reading
makes 3180b unmetrical and 3181a metrically unlikely (see Appx.C §¯35). In any event,
nonsensical cyningnes in Conybeare’s Illustrations is a misreading of his collation, in
which he underscores ing in Thorkelín’s cyning and writes nes after the word, followed
by uti vid[etur]. That is, for cyning he meant to read, tentatively, cynnes.
3182b. lofġeornost. The reference is either to glory earned by deeds of valor (cf.
1387¯ff., 1534¯ff., Bede 1, 18.92.4: se ġylpġeornesta [cyning] = ‘gloriae cupidissimus’ i,
cap. 34) or to the king’s liberality toward his men (see 1719¯f., cf. lofġeorn, BenR
31.54.9, 31.55.3 = ‘prodigus,’ also lofd®dum, Beo 24), or both. The meaning ‘vainglor-
ious’ is ascribed to the word by Stanley 1963: 136, 150–1, an interpretation approved
by Robinson 1985: 81–2, both scholars assuming damnation for the hero, following a
hint of Tolkien 1936: 281–3, 1953: 16. Goldsmith 1970: 224–8, K. Schneider 1986: 48,
Dahlberg 1988: 52, R. Schrader (OE Poetry & the Genealogy of Events [East Lansing,
1993] 146), Carroll Mediaevalia 27.2 (2006) 24, and others also ¢nd the hero’s pursuit
of glory an un-Christian quality; Orchard 1995: 54–5, 171 and Köberl 2002: 142–4 see
it as ambiguous. Negative analyses are shown by Mitchell Poetica 13 (1982) 15–26
(see also ASE 4 [1975] 12 and RES 43 [1992] 16¯f.) to be questionable. G. Clark (1990:
136–42, and in OE & New, ed. J. Hall et al. [New York, 1992] 15–30) and Cronan NM
272 BEOWULF
92 (1991) 187–94 see cause in prose examples for assuming a positive meaning for the
word, a view that accords with the arguments of many others, including Earle 1892:
196; Richards op. cit.; Green¢eld ASE 5 (1976) 51–62; Horgan 1970: 10–11; Donahue
1975: 39; Shippey 1978: 19; Frank 1981: 135, 1982b; Niles 1983: 235–47; Riley Expli-
cator 40 (1982) 2¯f.; Morey JEGP 95 (1996) 493–6; Crépin 1998: 395–6; Cavill 1999:
101; Owen-Crocker 2000: 104–5; and Bately 2003: 280–1.
 THE FIGHT AT FINNSBURG
INTRODUCTION
I. THE FINN LEGEND1

1. THE STORY

Comparison of the so-called Finn Episode (Beowulf 1063–1159) and the Fragment (The
Fight at [or The Battle of¯] Finnsburg) sheds a degree of light on the perplexing obscur-
ities of each, though our understanding of the events narrated is still far from complete.
Of the two ¢ghts alluded to in the Episode (Beo 1069¯f.; 1151¯f.), it is plainly the
former that the fragmentary poem describes, so that the events of the Fragment must
precede those of the Episode.2 A brief outline of the story as it is understood by the
majority of scholars (following Bu. 20–8) is subjoined.
[The antecedents of the conÏict conÏict are unknown. Evidently Hildeburh is in
some way connected with the hostility between her brother and her husband. Possibly
there existed an old feud between the two peoples, and the Danish princess had been
given in marriage to the Frisian chief in the hope of securing permanent peace, but with
the same grievous result as in the case of Frēawaru (see Beo Intr. lv). Or the ill feeling
may have dated from the wedding feast (as in V∂lsunga saga, ch. 3). It is possible also
— though far from probable — that Hildeburh had been abducted like Hildr, H∂gni’s
daughter, in Snorra Edda (Skáldsk., ch. 50) and Hilde, Hagene’s daughter (and, under
different circumstances, Kūdrūn) in the MHG Kudrun (so Möller). In any case, at least
¢fteen or twenty years must have elapsed after the marriage, since Hildeburh’s son (or
sons?) falls in the battle (Beo 1074, 1115).]
(The Fragment:) A band of sixty Danes under their chief Hnæf ¢nd themselves
attacked before daybreak in the hall of the Frisian king Finn, whom they have come to
visit. Five days they defend themselves without loss, but (here the Episode com-
mences:) in the end Hnæf and, presumably, some number of his men (cf. wēalāfe 1084)
as well as of the attackers are counted among the dead. The ranks of Finn’s retainers
are so depleted that he is unable further to sustain the attack; for their part, the Danes
face great peril, deprived of their king and unable to provide for themselves so far from
home. In this state of exhaustion, Finn concludes a treaty with Henġest, who has as-
sumed command of the Danes. The fallen warriors of both parties are burned together
amid appropriate ceremonies. Henġest with his men stays in Friesland during the win-
ter. But in his heart burns the thought of revenge. The day of reckoning comes when

1
See especially Grein 1862: 269–71; Mö. 46–100, 151–6; Bugge 20–37; Tr.F., Trautmann 1905;
Boer ZfdA 47 (1903) 125–60; Brandl P.Grdr.2 iia 983–6; Lawrence PMLA 30 (1915) 372–431;
Imelmann 1920: 342–81; R. Williams 1924; Malone JEGP 25 (1926) 157–72; Cha.Intr. 245–89;
Kl. 1926: 224–33; Schneider P.Grdr.2 xc 52–66; Girvan PBA 26 (1940) 327–60; Brodeur 1943a, b;
Laur ZfdA 85 (1954–5) 107–36; Fry 1974; Tol.; North LSE 21 (1990) 13–43.
2
Möller (followed by some others) attempts to prove that the Fragment is concerned with still
another battle, one in which Henġest fell and which, if related in the Beowulf Episode, would have
found its place between ll.¯1145 and 1146. Weighty objections to this analysis are raised by
Cha.Intr. 254–7. That the heaþoġeong cyning (2) of the Fragment is Henġest is also the view of
Brandl (1929b: 23; cf. Clarke 1911: 180), who assumes, however, that after Hnæf’s fall, his succes-
sor Henġest continued the ¢ght until the treaty was arranged. (Grundtvig in his edition inserts the
Fragment between ll.¯1106 and 1107 of Beowulf.) Herschend Tor 29 (1997) 315–19 maintains that
the Fragment is primary and the Episode secondary because the latter has shifted emphasis to the
retainers, an indication of a later stage in the establishment of royal power. Together, the texts
describe the struggle for royal power in Late Iron Age Jutland, ca. 400 to 600.
274 THE FIGHT AT FINNSBURG
the Danes Gūðlāf and Ōslāf, unable to keep any longer the silence imposed upon them
by the terms of the treaty, openly rebuke their old foes. Finn is set upon (Beo 1151¯ff.)
and slain, and Hildeburh together with the royal treasure of the Frisians carried home to
the land of the Danes.

2. THE CONTENDING PARTIES

On one side we ¢nd the Half-Danes (Beo 1069), or Danes (1090, 1158), also loosely
called Scyldingas (1069, 1108, 1154),1 with their king Hnæf, Hōc’s son,2 and his chief
thegn Henġest. Other Danish warriors mentioned by name are Gūðlāf (1148, Finn 16),
Ōslāf (1148; in the Fragment, l.¯16: Ordlāf), Siġeferð of the people of the Secgan (Finn
15, 24), Eaha3 (Finn 15), and (probably) Hūnlā¢ng (Beo 1143). Their enemies are the
Frisians (1093, 1104), usually assumed to be identical to the Ēotan ‘Jutes’ (1072, 1088,
1141, 1145; but see infra), under King Finn, Folcwalda’s son, among whose retainers
two only receive individual mention, namely Gārulf, son of Gūðlāf (Finn 18, 31, 33),
and Gūðere (Finn 18). Between the two parties stands Hildeburh, the wife of Finn (Beo
1153), and — as we gather from l.¯1074 (and 1114, 1117) — sister of Hnæf.
The scene is in Friesland, at the residence of Finn.4
It thus appears that the battle is fought between a minor branch of the Danish nation,
the one which is referred to in Widsith by the term Hōcingas,5 and which seems to have
been associated with the nation of the Secgan,6 and the Frisians, i.e., according to the
current view, the East (or Greater) Frisians, situated between the Zuider Zee and the
river Ems (and on the neighboring islands). On the disputed role of the Jutes, see infra.
However, none of these peoples, Frisians, Jutes, or Danes, is mentioned in the Frag-
ment. It has even been argued that the Danish nationality of Hnæf and Henġest is a
Beowul¢an innovation,7 and that the enemies of the Frisians (in history and legend)
were really the Chauci, their eastern neighbors, or some other Ingvaeonic people. But
the names Gūðlāf, Ordlāf (Hūnlā¢ng) are suggestive of Danish tradition.8
The point of view is distinctly Danish. The valor and loyalty of Hnæf’s retainers (in
the Fragment), Hildeburh’s sorrow, and Henġest’s longing for vengeance (in the Epi-
sode) are central features of the narratives. It is not without signi¢cance, perhaps, that
all the direct speech (in the Fragment) has been assigned to the Danes, whereas the
utterances of the Frisians are reported as indirect discourse only. So, too, no conceal-
ment is made of the bad faith shown by those on the Frisian side of the conÏict (Beo
1071¯f.). The ¢nal attack on Finn and his men, culminating in the complete victory of
the Danes, may be the salient point of the story in Beowulf (1068, 1146¯ff.), though the

1
Cf. the inaccurate use of Scyldingas in the Heremōd episodes (Beo 913, 1710): see note on
901–15 (p.¯170); cf. Tol. 42, 54.
2
Cf. Beo 1076 (1074, 1114, 1117).
3
A late spelling for Eahha (see Dkns., Imelmann 1920: 350; Lang. §¯20.5), or perhaps likelier
Eohha: see OEG §¯227, but cf. aehcha in a Kentish charter of A.D. 700 or 715 (Sawyer 1968, no.
21). Klaeber rather assumes a long diphthong (Ēaha), as do Wn., Fry, Ni., Hi., Muir, and Ja., and
this has (by emendation: Ēawa) been connected with the ‘Ingvaeonic’ Aviones (Tacitus, Germa-
nia, cap. 40; see Appx.A §¯14) or the Ēowan of Wid 26. An Ēawa ¢gures in the Mercian genealogy:
see Appx.A §¯2. Emendation to Ēawa is recommended by Tol. 31, even though it was originally
proposed (by Möller 86) only on the mistaken notion that Eaha is an impossible form.
4
But cf. note on Beo 1125¯ff. Further, Herschend Tor 29 (1997) 319–24 argues that Finnsburg
stood on the west coast of Jutland and is reminiscent of the halls found at Dankirke and Dejbjerg.
5
Wid 29: Hnæf [wēold] Hōcingum.
6
Or Sycgan; Wid 31: S®ferð [wēold] Sycgum; cf. Finn 24. Probably Secg- is the earlier form:
see Luick §¯282, Tol. 30 n.¯2.
7
See below, p.¯276 & n.¯1.
8
In Arngrímur Jónsson’s Skj∂ldunga saga, ch. 4, the brothers Gunnleifus, Oddleifus, Hunleifus
appear in the Danish royal line. (Appx.A §¯11.6.) It is true, Gūðlāf is the name of a Frisian warrior
also (Finn 33, an error for Ġefwulf [a Jute: Wid 26], according to Tol. 33¯f.).
 INTRODUCTION 275
duplicity they show in breaking the treaty with Finn renders the victory less than
glorious. Finn himself, the husband of Hildeburh, plays such a subordinate role1 that
the term ‘Finn legend’ is rather a misnomer, though The Fight at Finnsburg is an ap-
propriate title for the fragmentary poem as we know it.2

3. SOME UNRESOLVED ISSUES

The identity of Henġest (Henġest sylf, 17) is a matter of much conjecture; see note on
Beowulf 1083a.
The name Gūþlāf in lines 16 and 33 is generally taken to refer to two different
persons, since the ¢rst Gūþlāf is obviously a Dane, while in 33 Gūþlāf’s son is among
those slain ¢ghting on the Frisian side. If these two persons are the same, however,
then we see here an instance of the tragic situation in which father and son ¢ght on
opposite sides of a conÏict, as in the Hildebrandslied.3
The terms for Frisians and Jutes seem to be used interchangeably in the Episode (see
Beo 1088 and 1093), but it is impossible to be certain, given the fragmentary and al-
lusive nature of the evidence and the alternate ways of construing the term eotenas that
has been thought to designate Jutes. Historically, scholarship has favored the assump-
tion that MS eotena and eotenum refer to Jutes (i.e., Ēotena and Ēotenum, proper
names not generally being capitalized in Anglo-Saxon MSS), though quite a few schol-
ars, especially in recent years, have seen here common nouns referring to giants (see
the note to Beo 1072a). The latter view has in its favor that Ēotenum is not the etymo-
logically correct form for the meaning ‘Jutes’; but this is not particularly weighty evi-
dence (see the note to Beo 902b). Certainly, references to literal giants would be out of
place in the Episode, with its theme of human conÏict. The notion that ‘giants’ might
be an alternative name for the Frisians would be more attractive if convincing parallels
could be found.
Intimately connected to this indeterminacy concerning the Jutes and whether or not
they are identical with the Frisians is the question of Finn’s culpability. That the assault
was premeditated by him is possibly to be inferred from the opening lines of the
Fragment and from Beo 1125¯ff., where it may be that the Frisians who return to their
homes after the battle had previously been summoned by Finn in preparation for his
encounter with the Danes (so Kl.). Chambers (Intr. 245¯ff.) offers a rather different
perspective. Jutish subjects of Finn, he argues, start the trouble by attacking the Danes
under King Hnæf in the hall without warning. As the ¢ghting continues for several
days, Finn is eventually forced to intervene, i.e. to join in the battle. Thus, Finn himself
is exonerated of all blame in the tragic happenings. The reconstruction of Tolkien
(159¯f.) is similar; and with comparable consequences for our understanding of Finn’s
role, Sed. MLR 28 (1933) 481¯f. offers the hypothesis that Hnæf began the struggle by
attacking Finn’s sons, and Finn responded in kind. Yet Shippey 1972: 25–6 rightly
objects to Chambers’s reconstruction that if Finn is cleared of blame, Henġest is there-
by made culpable in his death. See also Kl. 1926: 226–7.
If the Frisians and Jutes are discrete groups, they would, at least, both seem to be
under the direction of Finn, though even this assumption has been disputed (see the
note to Beo 1071¯f.). Doubts have been raised because of the supposed unlikelihood that
the Danes would agree to share a hall with the Jutes who attacked them rather than with

1
Much like Siggeirr, the husband of Signý (V∂lsunga saga), and Etzel, the husband of Kriem-
hilt (Nibel.), in somewhat similar situations. — It deserves to be noted that Hildeburh herself
seems to direct the funeral rites (Beo 1114¯ff.)
2
On Tolkien’s objection to the name Finnsburg (p.¯9, n.¯1), see MÆ 74 (2005) 201 n.¯1.
3
On this question, see esp. Cha.Intr. 247¯f.; cf. JEGP 30 (1931) 498–505. In favor of this latter
assumption is that the name Gūðlāf is not otherwise attested in OE. It is for this reason that Tol.
31–3 assumes scribal corruption in line 33 (so Cha.?).
276 THE FIGHT AT FINNSBURG
Jutes of their own party (but see the note to Beo 1086¯ff.), and also because of the
conviction of some scholars that Henġest is to be identi¢ed with the invader of Britain
and the legendary founder of the Jutish kingdom of Kent.1 It is not impossible that
there should have been Jutes in both camps (see the note to Beo 1071¯f.), as it is now
not an uncommon hypothesis that the emigration of Jutes from Jutland brought one
portion of them to Frisia and the mouths of the Rhine, while those who remained at
home were absorbed by the invading Danes, the Danish conquest of Jutland having
been completed by the early sixth century at the latest (see Eggers R.-L.2 16.94). Yet
the resulting complications to the legend seem hazardous, and the amount of detail that
the audience of Beowulf was expected to know about the story and its backgrounds
would appear formidable.
The identity of the folces hyrde 46 has also been disputed: see the note on 43¯ff.
Green¢eld (NM 73 [1972] 97–102; so Hi., Reichl; earlier Bu. 28, Tr.F. 61–2) supposes
he is Hnæf, but despite his arguments, it seems likelier that the wund hæleð who de-
parts on weġ gangan (43) is outside the hall, which is where also one would expect to
¢nd any leader who needs to enquire about the men’s wounds. Supporting Green¢eld’s
position, a more recent attempt to identify Siġeferð and Eaha as Frisians, and the rest of
the characters in the Fragment as Danes (see Östman and Wårvik NM 95 [1994] 207–
27), faces some additional improbabilities, such as that the men who move to the doors
in lines 14¯ff. should not all be of one party, and that the doors of the hall should be
held from the outside if the attackers’ purpose is to get at the Danes.
On the unconvincing suggestion that æfter s®sīðe (Beo 1149) demands the assump-
tion of the return of some Danes to Denmark and their subsequent return to Friesland
with reinforcements, see the note on that line. The circumstances of the ¢nal assault on
Finn, however, are obscure, especially the part played by Henġest in that action.

4. POSSIBLE PARALLELS AND GENESIS OF THE LEGEND

The popularity of the legend is attested not only by the preservation of two versions
that are, in a measure, parallel, but also by the mention of certain of its names in
Widsith (27: Finn Folcwalding [wēold] Frēsna cynne, 29: Hnæf Hōcingum, 31: S®ferð
Sycgum)2 and by the allusion to Hnæf, Hōc’s son, which is implied in the use of the
names Huochingus [father] and Nebi (Hnabi) [son] occurring in the Alemannic ducal
line of the eighth century.3 The memory of the Frisian king Finn crops up in a genea-
logy of the Historia Brittonum, where Finn the son of Folcwald has been introduced in
place of Finn the son of God(w)ulf as known from WS and Northumbrian (also ON)
genealogies (cf. Appx.A §§¯1, 3, 8, 11.1).

1
See Beo 1083a note. It is worth noting that Kl., who rejects this hypothesis, proposes that
confusion about which party the Jutes support might be explained on the supposition that the AS
version embodies two distinct strata of early legend reflecting different phases of the history of the
Jutes. The settlement of the group in Jutland, on this view, might have linked them to the Danes
(hence Henġest’s position); on the other hand, the sojourn of the Jutes in proximity to the Frisians
was apt to suggest an especially close relation between these two peoples (hence Ēotan = Fr©san).
2
Of doubtful value is the allusion to Hūn (cf. Beo 1143?), l.¯33: Hūn Hætwerum. — The number
of names introduced into the Finnsburg tale is surprisingly large. (Chambers conjectured that a
meeting of minor chieftains had been called by Finn; see also Gutenbrunner 1949: 52, 56.)
3
Theganus’s Gesta Hludowici imperatoris (ed. E. Tremp, Hannover, 1995) cap.¯2: ‘Gotefridus
dux genuit Huochingum, Huochingus genuit Nebi, Nebi autem genuit Immam, Imma vero genuit
Hiltigardam, beatissimam reginam.’ (Müllenhoff ZfdA 11 [1859] 282, 12.285. Note that Jänichen
Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte 112 [1976] 30–40 argues rather implausibly that these two
dukes served as the model for the ¢gures in the poem.) On the testimony relating to the names
Gūþlāf, Ordlāf, Hūnlā¢ng, see supra, p.¯274 n.86. That the ‘Finn legend’ remained popular in at
least Essex, Hampshire, and adjoining districts, has been inferred from the frequent use en-
countered there of proper names pertaining to it (Binz 179–86). For the latest allusion to Hūnlāf,
see Intr. lv n.¯3.
 INTRODUCTION 277
But no clear trace of any version of the story itself besides the Anglo-Saxon speci-
mens has been recovered. The noteworthy points of agreement between the Fight at
Finnsburg and the second part of the Nibelungenlied — as regards the general situa-
tion, the relation between the principal persons, the night watch of the two warriors,1
the mighty hall ¢ght2 — are no proof that the Finnsburg Fight is an old variant of a
continuation of the Sigfrit legend3 as it was before it became connected with the legend
of the Burgundians (Boer ZfdA 47 [1903] 125–60). Nor should the analogies of the
great battle in which Hrólfr kraki fell (Hrólfs saga, chs. 31–4; Saxo ii 7,4 to 8,5; tr. 56–
64),4 viz. the Danish nationality of the party suffering the treacherous attack, the family
connection between the two kings (brothers-in-law), the attack at night, the rousing of
the sleepers, their glorious defense (although outside the hall), the stirring words of ex-
hortation with an appeal to gratitude and loyalty, be construed as evidence of a genetic
relation. It is more reasonable to hold that chance similarity in the basic elements of the
material (reÏecting, in the last analysis, actual conditions of life) naturally resulted in a
parallelism of exposition and treatment.
It is commonly supposed that the Finn tale originated among the Ingvaeonic (North
Sea) peoples and was carried from Friesland and the Frisian Islands both to Upper Ger-
many (as far as the Lake of Constance)5 and to the new home of the Anglo-Saxons.6 If
so, the surprisingly thorough Dani¢cation of the story in England must have occa-
sioned alterations of considerable importance.
There may well have been a historical foundation for this recital of warlike encoun-
ters among Germanic coastal groups. But no de¢nite event is known to us that could
have served as the immediate model. Taking the Beowul¢an version at its full value, an
actual parallel of a war between Danes (Ġēatas) and Frisians (and Franks) is supplied
by the expedition of Chlochilaicus (Hyġelāc): see Intr lx. Mythological interpretations7
may be safely disregarded (see Girvan PBA 26 [1940] 327¯f.), though links have contin-
ually been drawn to the Scandinavian myth of the giant mason called, in Swedish,
Finn-far, often (unconvincingly) as a source for the heroic legend.8

II. COMPARISON AND CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE TWO

ANGLO-SAXON TEXTS
It has often been said that the poem of which there remains only the fragmentary Fight
at Finnsburg possibly covered as much narrative ground as the Episode and numbered

1
Hagen(e) and Volkēr, Nibel. 1818–48. This night watch, however, is not followed immediately
by the battle.
2
Extending over two days, Nibel. 1951–2008. Also the speci¢c motif of the sister’s son (see
note on Finn 18¯ff.) deserves mention.
3
Uhland Germ. 2 (1857) 357–63 argues for the identity of Siġeferð (15, 24) and the celebrated
Sigfrit (OIcel. Sigurðr). — An ancient connection between the elements of the Finn (Hildeburh)
and the Hilde-Kūdrūn legends was claimed by Mone 1836: 134–6; Möller 70¯ff.; Much Archiv 108
(1902) 4o6–16; cf. Müllenhoff 106¯f.
4
Cf. Bugge 24.
5
Cf. the Alemannic genealogy, above, p.¯276, n.¯3.
6
See, e.g., Laur ZfdA 85 (1954–5) 107–36. Russchen 1984 argues rather that the tale is an
English fabrication of about A.D. 600. Tol. 11–12 regards this debate as pertaining to a distinction
of no practical value.
7
Grimm D.M. 181 (219); Kemble ii, pp.¯xlvii¯f.; Möller 70¯ff.; ten Brink P.Grdr.1 iia 535; Much
Archiv 108 (1902) 4o6–16.
8
See, e.g., von Sydow Fataburen 1907, pp.¯65–78, 199–218 & 1908, pp.¯19–27; Gutenbrunner
1949: 59–63; Laur ZfdA 85 (1954–5) 124–36; H. Kuhn 1969–72 (1969): 2.183–8; von See Ger-
manische Heldensage (Frankfurt, 1971) 50–1; Wilts Nordfriesisches Jahrbuch n.s. 15 (1979)
139–42; H. Halbertsma Frieslands Oudheid (Utrecht, 2000) 302. Though the name is presum-
ably Scand. in origin, it is found in WGmc. place-names: see Kaufmann 1968: 116.
278 THE FIGHT AT FINNSBURG
some three hundred lines. The Fragment shows, in the view of most observers, the
manner of an independent poem, and it is widely regarded as being, apart from the
OHG Hildebrandslied, the only specimen in West Gmc. literature of the short heroic
epic lay.1 It certainly displays features expected of a heroic lay: colorful dialogue (ll.¯1,
3–12, 24–7); abrupt transitions, passing over much time, introduced by Ðā (11, 13, 14,
18, 28, 43, 46); and a narrative focus ¢xed upon heroic action. It is direct, energetic,
and dramatic, and its continual deployment of conventionally ¢erce battle diction
attests to the centrality of weaponed conÏict to the poet’s interests. Many of these
features it shares with the Hildebrandslied. And yet, although there are in evidence no
veri¢able discrepancies in subject matter between the two versions,2 the Episode is of a
different character altogether. It evinces few clues as to the form in which the tale was
known to the Beowulf poet, since the matter of ¢ghting, both at the beginning and at
the end, is passed over in a cursory fashion. It has discarded direct discourse, and it all
but limits its range of characters to the two outstanding ¢gures of Hildeburh and Hen-
ġest.3 But it depicts their state of mind as the chief point of interest, and it highlights
both the tragic element of the situation and the mixture of shame and seething rage
presumably felt by the Danes, an aim accomplished in large part by the seemingly
dispassionate device of ticking off in succession the terms of their treaty with Finn.4
The Episode is thus widely regarded as more ‘literary’;5 certainly, the style of the Epi-
sode has more in common with that of the Íslendinga s∂gur than of a heroic poem like
Maldon. Yet the Fragment, by comparison, is no crude piece of workmanship. The way
the action is advanced by vivid speeches, the poet’s deployment of grim battle-
kennings, the apparent repetition of the question6 in the answer (1, 4) and the (orig-
inally) unassigned speech (24¯ff., see note; both of these being common ballad prac-
tices), the expressiveness of asyndetic, parallel half-lines (5, 6, 11, 12) following upon
one another and the rhetorical repetition and parallelism (37–40), as well as the apt use
of expressive epithets and poetic compounds, often in variation — all these bespeak a
poet skilled in the native poetic tradition.
The nature of the Episode, so unlike the Fragment, thus discourages the supposition
that it is in origin a lay inserted into Beowulf.7 Entirely in the manner of Beowulf is the
litotes in ll.¯1071¯f., 1076¯f., and so are summarizing, retrospective, or semi-explanatory
clauses like sume on wæle crungon 1113, wæs hira bl®d scacen 1124, ne meahte w®fre
mōd / forhabban in hreþre 1150¯f., þæt wæs ġeōmuru ides 1075 (cf. 814¯f., 2564¯f., 2981,
1727, 11, 1812, 1250, 1372; Kl. Angl. 28 [1905] 444¯f., Intr. xcviii). On the ¢gurative
use of (¯foldan) bearm, see Kl. Archiv 126 (1911) 353. Most striking is the use in the
Episode of ¢ve verses like morþľrbealo māga (1079a; cf 1116a, 1121a, 1122a, 1147a) in

1
Some reasons to doubt this characterization are offered by Fry 25–6, Stanley 1987, and Frank
1991: 95–6. Certainly, that it is a lay cannot be proved; yet if it is an extract from a much longer
work, it requires some appeal to happenstance to explain why it does not appear to be such. And
certainly there were lays performed in early Germanic times, so that it should not strain plausibility
if Finn happens to be one: see, e.g., A. Campbell 1962; Fuss ZfdPh. 82 (1963) 303; Reichl 2000:
93–100 (and R.-L.2 9.111); Harris OT 15 (2000) 162–3.
2
The variation of names, Ordlāf (cf. Arngrímur Jónsson’s Oddleifus): Ōslaf is negligible. Cf.
Siġeferð (Finn 15, 24): S®ferð (Wid 31; see Möller 86¯f.); Heregār: Heorogār, see Intr. liii n.¯7. See
Tol. 31 for other parallels. — See also note on Beo 1077: syþðan morgen cōm.
3
Thus, Möller reckons with two underlying lays, a ‘Hildeburh’ and a ‘Henġest’ lay — in addi-
tion to the lay of the Finnsburg Fight (or an epic poem of which the Fragment is a scant remnant).
4
See Shippey 1972: 22.
5
So Kl., Bonjour 1950: 58; see also Malone JEGP 25 (1926) 161. The Episode is most likely
not to be regarded as the exact version of the scop’s recital, though in some editions it is placed
within quotation marks.
6
The opening words have been taken by some scholars as the close of a question. See the note
on 1¯f., and see Hart 1907: 198 n.¯4, 50, 144.
7
This was the view of early dissectors, as well as of A. Campbell 1962. On Liedertheorie, see
Intr. lxxxiv¯f.
 INTRODUCTION 279
conformity to Kaluza’s law (Intr. clx), whereas such verses are exceedingly rare outside
of Beowulf. Also metrically characteristic of Beowulf are 1112b and 1158a (see Appx.C
§§¯27, 32); likewise the nonparasiting in 1082, 1105, 1128, 1132, 1136 (§§¯14, 16). On
the other hand, remarkable nonce words of the Episode — some of them still obscure
— are unÏitme 1097, unhlitme 1129, icge 1107, benġeat 1121, lāðbite 1122, wælfāg
1128, tornġemōt 1140, woroldr®den 1142 (n.), ferhðfrec 1146, sweordbealo 1147,
inġesteald 1155, unsynnum 1072; see also 1106 and note. Words (aside from proper
names) recorded in the Fragment only are numerous relative to the brevity of the text.1
An interesting lexical agreement between the two versions is seen in the use of
eorðcyning 1155, eorðbūend, Finn 32; hildelēoma 1143 (cf. 2583, 1523), swurdlēoma,
Finn 35.

III. THE FIGHT AT FINNSBURG

1. MANUSCRIPT AND TEXT

The MS leaf of the Fragment is lost. The text is therefore based on the transcript pub-
lished by George Hickes (1703–5: 1.192–3, reproduced below, p.¯281), which is pre-
ceded by the notice, ‘Eodem metro conditurn forte reperi fragmenti poetici singulare
folium in codice MS. homiliarum Semi-Saxonicarum qui extat in Bibliotheca Lam-
bethana. Fragmentum autem subsequitur.’ The MS referred to is probably London,
Lambeth Palace MS. 487 (13th cent.). The leaf was already missing by the time H.
Wanley compiled his Catalogus for pt. 2, vol. 3 of Hickes’s work, since he makes note
(p.¯269) only of a ‘Fragmentum Poeticum proelium quoddam describens in oppido
Finnisburgh nuncupato innitum, quod exhibuit D. Hickesius, Gramm. Anglo-Sax.
p.¯192.’2 Since notable misapprehensions are demonstrable in the transcripts of Hickes
and the work of his printer (see Cha.Intr. 245 n.¯1, Girvan PBA 26 [1940] 329; cf. Fry
1974: xi, 2), no very great reverence is due the particulars of Hickes’s printed text.

2. LANGUAGE

The language of the text, which unfortunately is transmitted in bad condition, shows
various late forms, such as buruh- 30, Finnsburuh 36 (for Finnes-: see Weyhe BGdSL
30 [1905] 86 n.¯1; quite exceptional, if not Hickes’s error), hlynneð 6 (required by the
meter, for hlyneð: see SB §¯400 nn.¯1[a], 4), mæniġ 13 (cf. Lang. §¯2.5 rem.¯1), sceft 7
(§¯3.4), sc©neð 7 (§¯10.1), sword 15 (§¯3.6; cf. 13, 35: swurd), nēfre 39 (a Kentish and
general late spelling but also found in the Mercian-derived LS 3 [Chad]; but 1, 37:
n®fre); also non-WS forms: cweþ 24 (Lang. §¯3.1, SB §¯391 n.¯6), wæġ 43 (Lang. §¯2.1),
fæla3 25, 33; confusion of ea and eo in Hickes’s heordra 26 and (possibly) hwearÏatra
34 (see nn.) need not be regarded as a Northumbrianism: see Lang. §¯29 n.¯2 (p.¯clvii).
(The analogical duru 42, instead of dura, is in line with similar forms in Beowulf, 344,
1278; see Lang. §¯19.2 rem.) Very probably Mercian is oncwyð 7 (see Lang. §¯25.1);
wesað 12 may be Anglian rather than distinctively late (see SB §¯427 n.¯10). There are

1
These are bānhelm, buruhðelu, drihtġesīð, goldhladen, gr®ġhama, gūðwudu, heresceorp,
hwearflata, sealobrūn, siġebeorn, swurdlēoma, and waðol. See Gloss.
2
Thus, that Wanley should have been the transcriber of the poem (see Barrett in Orchard 2003:
174 n.¯44) seems unlikely, given his departure from his normal practices, in this case failing to
describe or date the fragment. For information about the state of MS. 487 in Hickes’s day, see B.
Hill Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Soc. 14 (1972) 271–3.
3
fæla occurs 26 times in the late MS. A (Cambr., Univ. Lib. Ii.2.11) of the WS Gospels (see
Trilsbach 1905: 115), and in Nic (A) and VSal 1 in the same MS. It is also not uncommon in the
main MS of ÆLS (London, BL, Cott. Jul. E.vii, early 11th cent.) and in the post-Conquest PsGlK
(Salisbury, Cathedral MS. 150), and it occurs sporadically in other late MSS.
280 THE FIGHT AT FINNSBURG
other of the usual LWS spellings found in verse, which are presumably scribal.1 But
de¢nite localization and dating (both of the Lambeth MS and of its prototype) are
impossible.2

3. FORM AND STYLE

Given its brevity, the fragment exhibits a surprising number of metrical peculiarities.
Though Bliss ¢nds just eight examples of anacrusis in the off-verse in Beowulf, all
monosyllabic, there are two instances in the fragment (3, 7), the former dissyllabic,
unless rather we assume Southern composition and substitute Ï©hð for Ïēogeð. (Con-
cerning oncwyð 7, see Lang. §¯25.1.) Probably 13a and 39a are corrupt (see nn.). The
heavy drop in type B brought on by a weak verb of the second class is unusual in 10a,
but cf. 24b. The alliteration is oddly delayed in 28b and 41b, and particles are abnor-
mally unstressed in 22a (¯frægn) and 46a (sōna, cf. ChristA 233a, Beo 74a, 743b, 2300b,
2713b, etc., and see 563b note), producing verses of the unusual type B3 (see Appx.C
§¯28). Conversely, the stress on hēr 26b in preference to witod is unexpected; but cf.
Beo 1820b. (Regarding the alliterating imperatives in 11–12, see the note on Beo 489¯f.;
alliterative precedence is also violated in 7b, 13b, 17b, but see Appx.C §¯41.) Verses like
2a are rare in Beo and Cædmonian verse (see Appx.C §¯32); cf. 14b, 18b, 36b. (Note that
Eaha 15 stands for Eahha: see Lang. §¯20.5 rem.) On the other hand, the fragment also
shows some metrically conservative features. Stress like that on the second constituents
of dithematic names in 24a and 31b is chieÏy characteristic of Beo, though it is found
occasionally elsewhere, even in the unconservative Met (see HOEM §§¯210¯f.). Most
striking are the verses gūðwudu hlynneð 6b and buruhðelu dynede 30b, both conforming
to Kaluza’s law (see Intr. clx) — a rare occurrence outside of Beo, though there the
type is con¢ned almost exclusively to the on-verse. Yet if 13a is not to be rejected as
corrupt, resolution of -hladen must be accounted an exception to the law.
The comparative frequency of end-stopped lines is partly accounted for by the use of
direct discourse and by the number of distinct divisions of the narrative (introduced by
Ðā). Several groups of 4 lines could be easily arranged as stanzas of a kind (sense-
units): 14–17, 18–21, 24–7, 37–40; similarly groups of 3 lines could be made out: 10–
12, 43–5, 46–8.3
Some verses of a conventional character are common to Beowulf and Finnsburg.
They evidence the formulaic nature of the poetic tradition rather than direct inÏuence:
Finn 19b = Beo 740b, 2286b, Finn 38b = Beo 1012b, Finn 46b = Beo 610a, 1832a, 2981a;
more extensively, to Finn 37¯f., cf. Beo 1011¯f. (also 1027¯ff., 38). Identity or similarity

1
These include ‰ in byrnað 1, ġylleð 6, scyld 7, oncwyð 7, hyra 15, 41, 47, sylf 17, 27, ġ©t 18,
26, hyt 21, ānyman 21, wylle 27, hyne 33, swylċe 36, forġyldan 39, hyrde 46; i in hicgeaþ 11, driht-
14, 42, -slihta 28, sixtiġ 38; u in swurd- 13, 35; also the forms fugelas 5, hiġ 41, s®de 44. See
Girvan PBA 26 (1940) 354. That such spellings should reflect a late date of composition (so Hi. 24)
is a perilous supposition (see Dob. xix), or that Єπαξ λεγόμενα and words of unusual meaning (see
Gloss.) should do so.
2
Ten Brink (P.Grdr.1, iia 549¯f.) advances the theory that the poem was popular among the East
Saxons and was written down in Essex in the latter half of the 1oth century. See also Binz 185. —
Instructive syntactic features are lacking. The repeated use of the pronoun ‘this’ (and of the adverb
‘here’) is fully warranted by the occasion. (See also Kl. Archiv 115 [1905] 182.) Some instances of
the personal (and possessive) pronouns are possibly due to the scribe(s) (13, 25, 42); hyra in 15b is
metrically necessary. — The metrical laxity and the occurrence of indirect discourse (ll.¯18–23, 46–
8a) do not afford suÌcient evidence of a late date. Nor can the use of swān 39 be considered
decisive in this connection, since it is merely a guess that its meaning has been influenced by ON
sveinn (cf. Mackie JEGP 16 [1917] 267), and at all events there is independent reason to think that
the word may be an interpolation (see n.). Estimates of the age of the fragment range widely from
‘ca. 700’ (Laur ZfdA 85 [1954–5] 107; similarly Fry; see also Reichl R.-L.2 9.112) to late in the AS
period (e.g. Dob.[?], Hi.).
3
Möller’s violent reconstruction is found in his Altengl. Volksepos, II,¯vii–ix.
 INTRODUCTION 281
of phrases is further to be noted in Finn 9b = Beo 1832b, Finn 15b = Beo 2610b, Finn 17b
= Beo 2945b, Finn 21a = Beo 2170a, Finn 22a = Beo 2899b, Finn 24a = Beo 343b, Finn
24b = Beo 348b, Finn 25a = Beo 2135b, 2923b, Finn 27b = Beo 200b, 645b, Finn 33b =
Beo 399b, Finn 35b = Beo 2313b, Finn 37b = Beo 2947a, 3000a. The recurrence of Finn
11 in similar form in Ex 218: habban heora hlenċan, hycgan on ellen, and used in a
somewhat similar context, also need not be construed as imitative one way or the other.
(Cf. Mald 4, 128.)

______________________

The edition of Hickes (1703–5: 1.192–3), based on the lost manuscript.

This page intentionally left blank
 THE FIGHT AT FINNSBURG

* * * [hor]nas byrnað n®fre.’

Hlēoþrode ðā heaþoġeong cyning:
‘Nē ðis ne dagað ēastan, nē hēr draca ne Ïēogeð,
nē hēr ðisse healle hornas ne byrnað;
5 ac hēr forþ berað, fugelas singað,
ġylleð gr®ġhama, gūðwudu hlynneð,
scyld scefte oncwyð. Nū sc©neð þes mōna
waðol under wolcnum; nū ārīsað wēad®da
ðe ðisne folces nīð fremman willað.
10 Ac onwacniġeað nū, wīġend mīne,
habbað ēowre linda, hicgeaþ on ellen,
winnað on orde, wesað on mōde!’
Ðā ārās mæniġ goldhladen ðeġn, gyrde hine his swurde;

NOTE. Crg. = Craigie 1930; Dkns. = Dickins 1915: 64–9; Fry = Fry 1974; Hi. = Joyce Hill 1983 (&
19942); Mack. = Mackie JEGP 16 (1917) 250–73; Msdn. = Marsden 2004: 286–91; Muir = Muir
1989: 56–63; Naum. = Naumann 1931: 70–2; Pqn. = Pierquin 1912: 624–8; Reichl = Reichl 2000:
87–90 (cited only where the text departs from its source [Dob.].). The texts in Tr. and Tr.F. are
identical except in ll.¯10a, 27a (his 28a), and 48 (50). See also Table of Abbreviations, pp.¯xvii¯ff.
1 Rie.L. (?), Gr. Germ. x 422, nearly all Edd. (hor)nas; Gr. l.c. inserts before it (beorhtre), Bu.
Tid. 304 (beorhtor). Tho., Edd., Pqn., Kl.1–2, Sed., Crg., Naum., v.Sch., Wn., Fry, Ni., Hi., Muir,
Msdn. byrnað n®fre. — 2a Tr. Hnæf þā (¯for n®fre, taken as beginning of 2, see Hickes’s text)
hlēoþrode; Holt. Ðā hlēoþrode (metri causa); Heusler 1925: §¯234, Kl.3, Dob., Crp., Ja., MR Hnæf
hlēoþrode ðā; so Tol., but canceling ðā. — 2b Gru.tr, most Edd. heaþogeong; Ke.2, E.Sc.
heorogeong; Tr. heaþogeorn; Pqn., Dkns., Fry, Hi., Muir, Msdn. hearogeong (=¯heoru-). — 3a
Gru.tr., Edd. ēastan. — 5a Gr.1, Schü., v.Sch. fēr (=¯f®r) for hēr; Gru.tr. (?), Holt.2–3, Mack. forþ
fērað; E.tr., E.Sc. fyrd berað; Pqn. forþberað; Holt.4 forþ brecað. Before 5b Rie.L. inserts
[fyrdsearu rincas, / f©nd ofer foldan], Gr.2, Holt.1 [feorhgenīðlan / fyrdsearu fūslicu] (so Tol., but
-lic), Bu. 23 [fyrdsearu rincas, / flacre flānbogan], Rie. ZfdA xlviii 9 [fyrdsearu rincas. / Nalles hēr
on flyhte]; Holt.8 [feorhgenīðlan / f®tte scildas]. — 5b Tr. swinsað (‘noise’). — 6b Klu. 1902 (?),
Holt. hlyneð. — 7b Tr., Holt.1 þēr (= þ®r, for þes, and canceling Nū); Boer ZfdA xlvii 143 cancels.
— 9a ten Brink in P.Grdr.1 iia 545 [þām] ðe. — Boer ZfdA xlvii 143¯f. þisses (so Gru. 138) and 9b
wille. — 10a Tr., Holt.4–8 onw®cnað (metri causa). — 11a Gr.1 (?), He., Tr., Sed.2–3, Crg., Holt.8
(see Beibl. xxxii 82; cf. Lit.bl. lix 166) hebbað. — Sisam 1953: 38 n.¯1 (h)eore-. — Gr., He.,
Wülck., Sed., Crg., Holt.8 handa (cf. E.Sc.: handa geweald); Bu.Tid. 305, 9 Edd., Mack., Holt.6–7,
Fry, Hi., Muir, Msdn. linda; Bu. 23 (?), Tr., Holt.1–3, Cha., Dkns., Tol. hlencan (cf. Ex 218; Sisam);
Rie. ZfdA xlviii 10 randas (cf. Mald 20); Pqn. landa [æht] (but cf. tr.). — 11b Gru.tr., Edd. hicgeaþ.
— 12a Gru.tr., et al., Sed., Pqn., Dkns., Crg., Wn., Fry, Hi., Muir, Crp., Msdn. windað; Rie. l.c., et
al., Tr., Kl.1–2, Tol. þindað (see n.); Tho. (cf. E.tr.), 8 Edd., Naum. winnað; Tr. standað. — 12b
Gru.tr., et al., Sed., v.Sch., Ni., Crp., Ja. on mōde; Tr., Holt., Schü., Pqn., Cha., Mack., Kl.1–2,
Crg., Naum., Dob., Fry, Tol., Hi., Muir, MR, Msdn. onmōde; Wn. ānmōde. — 13a made into 2
verses by Rie.L., Gr.2, Wūlck., Crg. (all w. a preceding lacuna), Pqn.; Tr.: Ð. ā [of reste
rondwīgend] m., / g. ð.; Holt.1–3,5–8 Ð. ā. [of ræste rūmheort] m. / g. [gum]ðegn (si. Tol., but
without [gum]; si Holt.4 but [hraðe] for [of ræste]). — Tho. goldhroden.
284 THE FIGHT AT FINNSBURG

ðā tō dura ēodon drihtliċe cempan,

15 Siġeferð and Eaha, hyra sword ġetugon,
and æt ōþrum durum Ordlāf and Gūþlāf
and Henġest sylf, hwearf him on lāste.
Ðā ġ©t Gārulf[e] Gūðere st©rde,
ðæt hē swā frēoliċ feorh forman sīþe
20 tō ð®re healle durum hyrsta ne b®re,
nū hyt nīþa heard ānyman wolde;
ac hē fræġn ofer eal undearninga,
dēormōd hæleþ, hwā ðā duru hēolde.
‘Siġeferþ is mīn nama,’ cweþ hē; ‘iċ eom Secgena lēod,
25 wreċċea wīde cūð; fæla iċ wēana ġebād,
heordra hilda; ðē is ġ©t hēr witod
swæþer ðū sylf tō mē sēċean wylle.’
Ðā wæs on healle wælslihta ġehlyn,
sceolde celæs bord cēnum on handa,
30 bānhelm berstan, — buruhðelu dynede —
oð æt ð®re gūðe Gārulf ġecrang
ealra ®rest eorðbūendra,
Gūðlāfes sunu, ymbe hyne gōdra fæla,
hwearÏatra hr®w. Hræfen wandrode
35 sweart and sealobrūn. Swurdlēoma stōd,
swylċe eal Finn[e]s Buruh f©renu w®re.
Ne ġefræġn iċ n®fre wurþlicor æt wera hilde

15a Mö. 86 (cf. Müll. ZfdA xi 281, Bu. 25, Dkns.), Tr., Holt.1–6 Ēawa; Holt.8 Eah[h]a. — 18a Tr.,
Cha., Holt.6–8, Tol., Reichl Gārulf[e]. — 18b Bu. 25, Jellinek BGdSL xv 428¯f. Gūð-Dene. — E.Sc.
(?), Tr., Holt., Sed., Cha., Crg., Dob., Tol., Ja., MR st©rde. — 19a Gr., Schü. h[ī]e. — 20b Ke., 11
Edd. (excl. Schü.), Crg., Fry, Tol., Hi., Muir, Msdn. b®re. — 22a Tr., Holt. eal[le] (metri causa).
— 24a Rie.L., Tr., Holt., Sed. cancel cweð hē. — 25a Gru.tr. wreccen, Tho. wrecca, Gr.2 wreccea.
(Pqn. retains wrecten.) — 25b W.D. Conybeare (in Cony.) wēana. — 26a Ke., most Edd. (excl. Kl.,
Fry, Hi., Muir, Crp., Msdn.) heardra. — 28a E.tr., most early Edd. (also Schü., Cha., Crg.; not so
10 Edd., Pqn., Dkns., Mack., Naum., Fry, Tol., Hi., Muir, Msdn.) wealle. — 29a Gr.1 cēlod; Rie.L.,
Tr., 10 Edd., Dkns., Mack., Crg., Naum. cellod; Jellinek op. cit. 431 cēled (‘cooled’); Holt.1,8 (see
Zs. 123) ceorlæs; Holt.3 cl®ne; Holt.6–7 celced; Sed. celod (= cellod). — Ke., Edd. (excl. Msdn.
[error?]) bord. — 29b Gr., Edd. cēnum. — 30a Bu. 26 bārhelm (‘boar-helmet’). — 33a Mö., Tol.
Gūðulfes, Tr. Gūðheres. — 34a Gru.tr., Gr.2, Kluge 1902, Sed., Mack., Kl., most subseq. Edd.
hwearflicra hr®w (si Holt.1, beginning a new sentence, and weardode in 34b; see ZfdPh. xxxvii
124); Bu. 27¯f., Schü.10, Cha. Hwearf (‘moved about,’ w. acc.) flacra hr®w (34b Bu. hræfen fram
ōðrum); Jellinek l.c. Hwearf (‘crowd’) lāðra hrēas; Tr. Hrēawblācra hwearf (and 34b wundrode);
Holt.2–5 Hwearf blācra hrēas (so Wn., but w. hr®s [= hrēas]); Sed. MLR xvi 59 hrēas wlancra hr®w;
Crawford MLR xix 105, Hi., Msdn. hwearflicra hr®s; Kock4 126, Holt.6, Kl.3 Su. 459 Hwearf flacra
earn (si. Holt.7–8, Kl.3 Su. 470, but hlacra; see A. xliii 256); Lawrence, Schü.12 Hwearf flacra hræfn
(34b hungrig wandrode); Fry hwearflicra, hw®r. — 36a Hickes, Cony., Edd., Kl. Finnsburuh; Tr.,
Holt.1,8, Sed., Mal. MP xliii 83 Finn[e]s buruh, Dkns., Tol. Finn[e]sburuh, Magoun ZfdA lxxvii
65¯f. Finns buruh, MR Finn[i]sburuh. See Appx.C §¯5.
 THE FIGHT AT FINNSBURG 285

sixtiġ siġebeorna sēl ġeb®ran,

nē nēfre swānas hwītne medo sēl forġyldan,
40 ðonne Hnæfe guldan his hæġstealdas.
Hiġ fuhton fīfdagas, swā hyra nān ne fēol,
drihtġesīða, ac hiġ ðā duru hēoldon.
Ðā ġewāt him wund hæleð on wæġ gangan,
s®de þæt his byrne ābrocen w®re,
45 heresceorp unhrōr, and ēac wæs his helm ð©r[e]l.
Ðā hine sōna fræġn folces hyrde
hū ðā wīġend hyra wunda ġen®son,
oððe hwæþer ð®ra hyssa * * * * *

38b Ke., Edd. geb®ran. — 39a Gr., Schü., Cha., Dkns., Mack., Naum., Crg., v.Sch., Wn., Fry, Ni.,
Hi., Muir, Ja., Reichl, Msdn. swānas; canceled by Rie. L., Tr., Holt.5, Sed.3, Dob., MR. — E.tr.,
many Edd. (incl. Tr., Holt.1, Sed.3, Dob., MR) swētne (¯for swānas hwītne; Schü., Cha., Crg.,
Naum., Crp.: for hwītne). — Gru. sylfres hwītne mēde. — Holt.6 swānas swētne medo[drinc] / sēl
forgyldan [.¯.¯.¯.¯.] (¯for ellipsis, ed.4,7 [hira sincgifan], ed.8 [hira sigedryhtne]); Tol. swānas sēl
forgyldan / hwītne medo [heardgesteallan,]. —41a Holt.7 nigon dagas (see Lit.bl. lix 166; cf.
ZfdPh. xxxvii 124: niht fīfe); Edd. fīf dagas. See Appx.C §¯5, HOEM §¯199. — 41b Holt.3–6,8 swā ne
fēol hira nān (so Kock3 97; cf. Appx.C §¯6). Before it lacuna assumed and missing words supplied
by Rie.L., Gr.2, Mö., Tr. — 42b Ke., E.Sc., Tr., Cha. (?) dura. See Lang. §¯19.2. — 45a Ke., Holt.2–5,
Sed., Pqn., Dkns., Mack., Naum., Wn., Fry, Hi., Muir, Crp., Msdn. heresceorpum hrōr; Tho., 8
Edd., Crg., Tol. heresceorp unhrōr; Tr. h. āhroren. — 45b Tr., Holt., Sed.2–3, Dob., Wn., Tol., Ja.,
MR, Msdn. þ©r[e]l (or þyr[e]l: see Appx.C §¯11.) — 46a Holt.1 Ðā hine frægn sōna, Holt.2–8 Ðā
frægn hine sōna (metri causa).
 COMMENTARY
1–12. Hnæf announces the approach of enemies and rouses his men. The situa-
tion may be imagined as follows. One of the Danes (possibly Henġest, in the view of
Cha., Kl., and Dob.), who are distrustful of the Frisians, has been watching outside and
reports to the king a suspicious gleam of light, which he mistakes for an early dawn,
the passage of a ¢ery dragon, or ¢re in the gables. Hnæf replies, ‘These are signs of
nothing else but armed men marching against us.’ Then Hnæf describes the anticipated
battle in the terms of heroic convention. The misinterpretation of the signs of an
advancing host by one observer, corrected by another, is a commonplace of Middle
Irish saga, and it is found in many other oral traditions: see Henry 1966: 216–21, Sims-
Williams 1978; cf. Waugh Eng. Stud. in Canada 23 (1997) 252–3. There are parallels
also in the Kalevala (Magoun in Iser & Schabram 1960: 180–91) and in South Slavic
oral poetry (whence the folklore term ‘Slavic antithesis’: see Reichl 2000: 95–6).
Klaeber supposes rather that the exchange of remarks about an alarming light could
have suggested itself to the poet by the belief that an approaching battle was signaled
by a reddening of the sky: cf. Helgakv. Hund. II 22: verpr vígroða um víkinga, and
Heusler’s note in Thule 1 (1912) 149. Compare also the motif of gleaming helmets
during the night attack on the hall, Nibel. 1837¯ff. (see Reichl 2000: 95). Fry’s percep-
tion of the ‘hero on the beach’ topos in these lines (NM 67 [1966] 27–31) is disputed
by Dane Neophil. 66 (1982) 443–9 and Richardson ibid. 71 (1987), 114–19.
1¯f. [hor]nas byrnað n®fre. / Hlēoþrode ðā. Some regard n®fre as the end of a
question (e.g. Cha., Imelmann 1920: 346–8, Brandl 1929b). Trautmann’s emendation
of n®fre to Hnæf (placed in 2a), adopted by Kl.3 and others, is tempting, but it demands
the assumption of corruption in the lost MS, since it is not very plausible that Hickes
should have changed his source to this extent. And while Trautmann’s more extensive
emendation is metrically admissible, Klaeber’s reading Hnæf hlēoþrode ðā, though
comparable to Uuerod sîðode thô (4824) in the metrically less exact Heliand (Heusler
1925: §¯234), is unparalleled in OE (cf. Appx.C §¯32). To the objection of Dobbie and
Tolkien (83) that sentence-¢nal byrnað n®fre is unlikely, cf. MCharm 9.13, Met 6.17,
Rid 84.5, El 403, etc. It is not dif¢cult to imagine a context for byrnað n®fre if it is
supposed that the speaker is not the warrior who has seen the light outdoors and
mistaken its source but someone (Henġest?) responding to him that the gables will
never burn (perhaps: if he can prevent it). See MÆ 74 (2005) 191–3. — heaþoġeong
cyning, i.e. Hnæf, who evidently was thought to be much younger than his sister (but
cf. Tol. 51, 83).
3. ðis ne dagað, ‘this is not the dawn.’ — nē hēr draca ne Ïēogeð; i.e. a ¢re-
breathing dragon. See Beo 2312, 2522, 2582; ChronD, E s.a. 793; Seyfridslied 18 (ed.
K. King 1958): Die Burg die ward erleuchtet, / Als ob sie wer entprant (as a result of
the Ïying of a dragon).
5¯f. forþ berað of the MS can be justi¢ed, in Klaeber’s opinion, on the assumption
that the war equipments speci¢ed afterward are the object of berað (see, e.g., Beo 291,
Ex 219, Mald 12) which the poet had in mind but did not take the time to express. A
frankly intrans. use of forþ beran in the sense ‘press forward’ (Schilling MLN 1 [1886]
116¯f., Dkns., Holt. ZfdPh. 48 [1919] 129) can hardly be recognized: the supposedly
parallel cases of beran ūt, El 45, And 1221, were misunderstood by Gr.Spr. (See also
Kl. Angl. 27 [1904] 407¯f.) Kökeritz SN 14 (1942) 277–9 would regard hornas as the
subject of berað: ‘continue to support [the roof],’ though the object is missing and the
style questionable (see Kl. SN 15 [1943] 341, Beibl. 54–5 [1944] 279). Although the
poetic form is impeccable, the sense is decidedly elliptical, and it is likely that some
verses have been omitted, as many have supposed (see Varr.; some others propose no
restoration of the supposed loss, e.g. Sed., Cha., Crg., Holt.6–7, Msdn.; cf. also Imel-
mann 1920: 348). It has also been proposed that the syntax is left incomplete for
 COMMENTARY 287
dramatic effect (Berry N&Q 1 [1954] 186¯f.). Orchard 2003: 176 n.¯50 suggests that the
phrase conceals a reference to noise, as in the following verses. — The fugelas seem to
be the birds of prey (see 34) which gather in expectation of slaughter, as in GenA
1983¯ff., Ex 162¯ff., El 27¯ff., Jud 206¯ff. (On the ‘beasts of battle’ topos, see the note on
Beo 3024b–7.) For other interpretations proposed, such as ‘arrows,’ ‘morning birds,’
see Bu.Tid. 304¯f., Bu. 22¯f., Möller 47; Kl. Angl. 28 (1905) 447; Boer ZfdA 47 (1903)
140–3; Rieger ZfdA 48 (1905–6) 9. Meyer Beibl. 54–5 (1943–4) proposes that the
sounds alluded to at this place are the cries of the attackers, imitative of beasts of
battle; cf. Kl. ibid. 279. — gr®ġhama, ‘the grey-coated one,’ i.e. either ‘wolf’ — the
familiar animal of prey, beside raven and eagle, in the regular epic trio: cf., e.g., Brun
64, Wan 82 — or ‘coat of mail’ (cf. Beo 334; Boer loc. cit., Imelmann 1920: 349).
ġyllan suits both meanings (Rid 24.3; And 127), though the former is by all means to
be preferred.
7b–9. Now the moon lights up the scene: the tragic fate is inevitable, nū ārīsað
wēad®da. Thus Hildebrand exclaims: welaga nū . . . wēwurt skihit, Hildebr. 47. þes
(mōna) is thoroughly idiomatic: cf. ðēos lyft (Rid 57.1), þēos beorhte sunne (GenB
811), etc. (Kl. Archiv 115 [1905] 182). — under wolcnum; the moon is passing
‘under,’ i.e. ‘behind,’ the clouds, though not really hidden by them. The stereotyped
expression here produces an original effect. — Rieger ZfdA 48 (1905–6) 10 would
regard wēad®da as instr. gen. pl., giving the sense ‘Now arise by means of deeds of
woe those who wish, etc.’
9. ðisne folces nīð fremman, ‘carry out this enmity of the people.’ To the sg. folces,
cf. Beo 1124¯n.
10. Ac onwacniġeað nū, wīġend mīne. Cf. Bjarkamál 1: Vaki ok æ vaki / vina
h∂fuð, / allir enir œztu / Aðils of sinnar.
11b. hicgeaþ. The idea of R. Wülcker Kleinere ags. Dichtungen (Halle, 1879) 1, that
Hickes’s hie geaþ could be a form of hīgian ‘hasten’ is invalidated by the velar nature
of g in the latter: see Bliss in Fry 1974: 32.
12. Hickes’s printer uses Þ and capital wynn indifferently for W (and Ð for Þ) in this
and other OE texts. (Cf. Bliss in Tol. 86 n.¯9, and see Dob. xiv.) Hence the initial of
Hickes’s windað has sometimes been taken for þ (as in Kl.1–2); so wrecten 25 (see
Dkns.). (þindað ‘show your temper, swell [with courage]’ [Rie., Mack., Tol. 86];
windað ‘wheel round, brandish, hurl’ [Sed.], ‘dash to the van’ [Dkns., Brandl 1929b],
‘hasten on’ [Kock4 126]; cf. Kl. 1926: 233; wendaþ is a possibility.) — Uncertainty
about whether on mōde is one word or two (see Varr.; GenA 1650, Ex 203, etc.)
correlates to whether or not the imperatives in 11¯f. are to be stressed (as they are here
assumed to be) and are to bear the alliteration: see the note on Beo 489¯f.; Kl. 1926:
233, Archiv 191 (1955) 220. To be sure, on mōde is not otherwise attested in the sense
‘in high spirits, courageous’; cf. Beo 1307, 2581; 1057; Mald 313, etc.
13–27. The warriors on both sides make ready for the ¢ght.
13. Ðā. That the word should be a subordinator here is implausible: see OES §¯2558.
— goldhladen may be meant with reference to helmets, swords, corselets, or (Bu. 24)
bracelets such as Hrólfr’s warriors are to use in the last ¢ght for their king: ‘Thicken
your upper arms with gold: let your right arms receive bracelets, so that they may be
able to swing blows more heavily and inÏict a bitter wound’ (Saxo ii 7,17; Appx.A
§10) Cf. Olrik 1903–10: [1.121¯f.]. Note Ruin 32¯ff.: beorn moniġ / glædmōd and gold-
beorht .¯.¯. wīġhyrstum scān. — 13a is metrically doubtful (see Varr.), but it cannot be
ruled out altogether. Even if mæniġ may, very exceptionally, be unstressed (cf. Hell 62,
Dur 20), any sort of stress in the second thesis of type B is exceptional (see Siev.A.M.
§¯81; HOEM §§¯238¯ff.), though we ¢nd tertiary stress in the same position in 10a. (On
24b, see Appx.C §¯12.)
16. æt ōþrum durum, scil. ‘stood’ or ‘drew their swords.’ The plural durum has
singular meaning, as in many related langs.; cf. 20. It is unnecessary to assume double
doors (so Fry).
288 THE FIGHT AT FINNSBURG
17. and Henġest sylf. Henġest now takes his place inside the hall with the others.
(The use of sylf presumably indicates that he is of special importance, though his exact
status is not speci¢ed.) Jellinek BGdSL 15 (1891) 428 would make one clause of 17b–
18a, though the resulting stress on ġ©t demanded by Kuhn’s ¢rst law of sentence par-
ticles (see Appx.C §¯6) seems questionable. Omitting the comma after sylf (supposing
him refers to Ordlāf and Gūþlāf and not to Siġeferþ and Eaha: so Tol. 86¯f. and all
recent edd. excl. Holt.3–8 [colon], v.Sch. [semicolon], and Wn.1–3) makes unstressed
him a violation of the law.
18¯ff. Ðā ġ©t marks the progress of the narrative (which now introduces another
¢ghter): ‘further,’ ‘then.’ (Or does ġ©t denote ‘as yet’ in conjunction with [and partly
anticipating] the negative meaning of the sentence [st©rde, ne]? That Hickes’s styrode
should be retained in the sense ‘exhorted’ [so Mack. et al.] would be semantically
unexampled; the supposed parallel at Beo 872 hardly justi¢es the sense ‘told Gūðere
that he should not bear, etc.’ [so Fry; cf. Tol. 87].) The Frisian Gūðere (treated as a
common noun in the acc. by Gr.2, Boer ZfdA 47 [1903] 144–6; see also Dkns.) tries to
restrain the impetuous youth, Gārulf — perhaps his nephew, cf. Nibel. 2271¯ff., Wal-
tharius 846¯ff. — from risking his life ‘at the ¢rst onset’ (19b, cf. Beo 740; or ‘in his
¢rst battle’?); but Gārulf, heedless of danger, rushes to one of the doors, encounters the
veteran Siġeferþ, and meets a hero’s death. (It has sometimes been supposed, to the
contrary, that Gārulf is the subject of the verb: so Sed., Naumann 1926: 59, Brandl
1929b, Gutenbrunner 1949: 56; Dobbie is uncertain. Cf. l.¯31) That Gārulf’s father has
the same name, Gūðlāf (33), as one of the Danish warriors (see Beo 1148) has occa-
sioned much speculation. Yet it need not be assumed that father and son ¢ght on
opposite sides. (In Maldon occur two persons named Godrīċ, 187¯:¯321, and two named
Wulfm®r, 113¯:¯155. See Kl. EStn. 39 [1908] 308.) It has also been proposed that Gārulf
is Finn’s son and Gūðlāf actually an ancestor of Finn’s father: see Schneider P.Grdr.2
xc 57–60; Beaty PMLA 49 (1934) 372¯f.; Laur ZfdA 85 (1954–5) 110; see further JEGP
30 (1931) 498–505, and cf. Kl. EStn. 70.3 (1936) 334–6. — Cha.Intr. 283¯ff. suggests
that Gārulf (possibly miswritten as, or identical to, Gefwulf, Wid 26; similarly
Gutenbrunner 1949: 53, Tol. 33¯f.) may have been the chief of the Jutes.
19. Holt. ZfdPh. 37 (1905) 123 suggests emending feorh to feoh; cf. Beo 1210. —
forman sīþe. ‘At the ¢rst opportunity’; Muir: ‘to start with.’
20b. As to hyrsta (parallel with feorh) beran, see Beo 291, and note on Finn 5¯f. (Kl.
Angl. 28 [1905] 456.)
21. nīþa heard, scil. Siġeferþ.
22. hē, scil. Gārulf. — ofer eal. The neuter eal (in contrast with ealle, Beo 2899,
GenA 2464, Dan 527, Sat 615, etc.; see Kl. Archiv 104 [1900] 291) includes both the
¢ghters and the scene (and tumult) of ¢ghting. Cf. Mald 256: ofer eall clypode; also
ÆCHom I, 26, 392.117, Gen 45.16, ÆLS (Agnes) 203, etc.
24. cweþ hē is such an unmetrical addition as is found in MSol (before ll.¯1, 21, 36,
39, etc.), GenB 278 (see also And 1316), and many Eddic poems, as well as Hildebr.
(30, 49, 58) and Hel. (141, 222, 226, 259, etc.). See Rie.V. 58¯n.; Heusler ZfdA 46
(1902) 245¯ff.
26. heordra. Cha.Intr. 245¯n. calls attention to the fact that, among numerous un-
questionable inaccuracies of the transcripts of Old English specimens in Hickes’s
Thesaurus, there is not lacking an erroneous eo for ea (Men 121: MS bearn). Thus it
may not be necessary here to ¢nd a linguistic explanation for such an orthographic
irregularity. — Possibly ðē = þ© rather than belonging to þū.
27. swæþer, ‘which one of two things,’ i.e. victory or death (Cha.: good or evil). Cf.
Hildebr. 60¯ff.
28–4o. The battle rages.
28. on (healle), ‘in (the hall)’ (cf. 30b), or ‘at,’ ‘around’ (cf. Beo 2529, 926[?]). —
wealle would furnish more regular alliteration (see Varr.; so also Naumann 1926: 60,
Brandl).
 COMMENTARY 289
29. No fully satisfactory explanation or emendation of celæs has been found. The
conjecture cellod rests on Mald 283: cellod bord, but the meaning of this nonce word is
unknown. (Rie.L.: ‘concave, curved’; Kluge 1902: from Lat. celatus; Tr.F. 46: cyllod
‘covered with leather’; Gr. Spr.: ċēlod ‘keel-shaped, oval’ (so Brandl, Pqn.); BTS:
ċelod ‘having a boss or beak’; Holt. i6–7, ii5: ċelċed ‘white’ (from ċealc ‘chalk,’ com-
paring Ex 301, Hildebr. 66 [but see note to 39¯f. infra]; si. Breeze N&Q 39 [1992] 267–
9; cf. Holt. ZfdPh. 37 [1905] 123, 48 [1904] 129, Beibl. 34 [1923] 355); Fry in Damico
& Leyerle 1993: 47–76, Hi.2: ‘decorated in low relief.’) Cf. Watson JEGP 101 (2002)
497–519: ref. to Cele’s (i.e. Woden’s) shield. See also Varr. — cēnum. Dat. of posses-
sion. Supply the sense ‘be.’
30. bānhelm. The plates that once covered the Benty Grange helmet (fg. 7) were of
bone (see Cramp 1957: 61 n.¯17), but perhaps the meaning is instead ‘helmet protecting
the skull.’ Whitbread MLR 37 (1942) 483¯f: ‘skull, cranium.’ Klaeber (Gloss.)
tentatively suggested ‘shield.’ To the idea ‘helmet decorated w. horns’ of Dickins
(1915), cf. Frank in Internatl. Scand. & Med. Stud. in Mem. of Gerd Wolfgang Weber,
ed. M. Dallapiazza et al. (Trieste, 2000) 199–208.
30b. buruhðelu dynede. Cf. Beo 770. First treated as a parenthesis by Schü.; so Mack.,
some edd., excl. Sed., Pqn., Kl., Crg., Naum., Fry, Tol., Hi., Muir, Crp., Ja., Msdn.
34. hwearÏatra. The usual emendation of Hickes’s hwearÏacra to hwearÏicra (so
Kl. et al.) is not wholly satisfying. The latter adj., in the form hwerÏiċe, is attested in
the Bodleian MS of the OE Boethius (Sedge¢eld 1899: 25.10¯n.), where it plainly
requires a substantially different meaning (‘mutable, Ïeeting’), as does the late North-
umbr. adverb huoerÏīċe (another Єπαξ λεγόμενον), rendering vicissim. Assuming this
connection, the spelling with ea must be supposed either a North Northumbrianism or
Hickes’s error. Moreover, a and i are not easily confused in insular scripts (Hickes’s
landa 7a looks like lexical rather than palaeographic confusion), and Hickes had no
reason purposely to alter whatever the MS said to the nonsense form that he gives. On
the other hand, he confuses c and t elsewhere (see 25), as indeed AS scribes them-
selves not infrequently did (cf. Beo 1602, 1830 [Varr.], 2771, 3060, etc.). The meaning
of hwearÏata may be presumed ‘slow to turn (from battle),’ i.e. ‘resolute’ (cf. hildlata,
d®dlata); for the meiotic sense of this, cf. Mald 81¯f., 246¯f., Beo 2524¯ff. To be sure,
the rare abstract noun hwearf is not attested in precisely the required sense, but it is a
sense we should expect on the basis of etymology: in reference to retreat and abandon-
ment, cf. the use of hweorfan in ChristB 476, PPs 55.8.1, Dan 221, etc.; cf. also
hweorf- in the sense ‘vertebra.’ (See MÆ 74 [2005] 193¯f.) This seems simpler than the
explanations offered for hwearÏicra: Kl. tentatively suggests the meaning ‘agile,
active’ or ‘obedient, trusty,’ comparing Gifts 68: þeġn ġehweorf, and Go. gahwairbs
‘pliant, obedient.’ According to Mack. 266 (comparing the word in Boethius), the
sense is ‘mortal,’ ‘dead’; cf. ON hverfr ‘shifting.’ (Cf. Watson JEGP 101 [2002] 507–
19, reading Hwearf hlacra hr®s ‘Hlacor’s [a valkyrie’s] storm [i.e. battle] turned’; see
also Osborn Folklore 81 [1970] 185–94 [raven as psychopomp], supported by Muir.)
See further Maynard MLR 44 (1949) 228; Lehmann Univ. of Texas Stud. in Eng. 34
(1955) 1–5. — hr®w, ‘bodies,’ not necessarily ‘corpses’; cf. And 1031: ®r þan hrā
crunge (though also walu fēollon, Beo 1042). The construction with ymbe hyne does
not strictly require a verb (to Ex 180, cf. Beo 399), and so hr®s is not preferable to
hr®w (though r, s, and w are readily confused in insular scripts), since it requires the
further assumption of late replacement of ēa by ® (see Lang. §¯7.1). — Numerous
corrections of this passage have been proposed: see Varr. Also Hwearfade (or
Hwearf¯[t]lade) ærn (= earn, see OEG §¯329.2 & n.¯2) would make sense. Kock4 126¯f.:
hwearf Ïacra earn; Holt. Beibl. 43 (1932) 256: hwearf hlacra earn (*hlacor
‘screaming,’ cf. hlacerian ‘to mock, deride’). The eagle is certainly an agreeable new-
comer, to whom the raven is not likely to object. — Some other guesses: MLR 16
(1921) 59 (Sed.); ibid. 19 (1924) 105 (Crawford: ymb hine gōdra fæla / hwearÏicra
hr®s [= hrēas]).] — Hræfen wandrode. Cf. Mald 106: hremmas wundon.
290 THE FIGHT AT FINNSBURG
36. swylċe eal Finn[e]s Buruh f©renu w®re. (Cf. 1¯ff.) See the parallels: Uhland
Germ. 2 (1857) 356, Lüning 1889: 73–4, 31; also Iliad ii 455¯ff.
37¯f. On the double comparative (used similarly in the corresponding passage, Beo
1011¯f.), see Kl. 1905–6: 252.
39¯f. See Beo 2633¯ff. and note. For a defense of the ‘white mead,’ see Mack. (ref. to
an 18th-cent. quotation in the OED). (Mead is not white, but OE hwīt need not refer to
hue: see Beo 1448; 1546a note.) On warriors’ paying for their mead through armed
service in Welsh tradition, see Henry ZfvS 77 (1961) 154–6. Given the impossible
meter, it is not surprising that some (Heusler ZfdA 57 [1919–20] 28, Holt.5, Mackie
MLR 17 [1922] 288; see also Varr.) should feel strongly tempted to relieve the heavy
line (39) by reading (with Tr.) nē n®fre swētne medo sēl forġyldan. Indeed, swān
‘herdsman’ is a prosaic word not found elsewhere in verse, and ON sveinn cannot have
inÏuenced the meaning, since it means ‘boy, servant’ (cf. Kl. BGdSL 72 [1950] 127;
Tol. 89). Malone’s ingenious reading swaton wīcne .¯.¯. forġyldan ‘retainers paying for
their beer’ (RES o.s. 21 [1945] 126¯f.) requires vocabulary choices unexampled in
verse. Robinson 1985: 75–6 argues that drinking the mead con¢rms the oath: cf. Beo
1231a note.
41. As to fīfdagas, see Beo 545 and note on 146¯f. — swā hyra nān ne fēol, ‘without
any of them falling’ (Brady 1979: 100; OES §¯2861).
43¯ff. The Frisians, weakened and unable to make headway, [seem on the point
of preparing for a new move¯.¯.¯.]. It appears probable that the wounded man who
‘goes away’ is a Frisian, and folces hyrde Finn. See Rieger ZfdA 48 (1905–6) 12; for
arguments to the contrary, see Bu. 28, Tr. 62, Boer ZfdA 47 (1903) 147, Cha.; also the
Intr. to the poem, p.¯276. We may imagine a disabled Frisian leaving the front of the
battle line and being questioned by his chief as to how the [Danish?] warriors were
bearing (or could bear) their wounds. For the complaint about damaged weapons, cf.
Hialti’s speech in Saxo’s rendering of Bjarkamál: ‘Hard blades and darts have sliced
up my shield bit by bit and the ravenous iron has gradually devoured pieces plucked
off in battle. . . . Only the strap of the shattered shield remains, and the tough boss cut
around in a circle is left me’ (ii 7,23).
45. The emendation heresceorp unhrōr was at ¢rst motivated by the belief that MS
heresceorpum hrōr cannot be applied to the wund hæleð (43) himself in the course of
his complaint about damage to his war-gear. The phrase is undeniably incongruous in
this sense but by no means impossible if used thoughtlessly by the poet as a stereo-
typed expression for ‘warrior’: cf. the similarly incongrous fēond on frætewum, Beo
962 (n.), and the unintentionally (?) ironic hwate Scyldingas 1601. The emended read-
ing demands stress on the root of unhrōr, and this is not unlikely: cf. Beo 1756 (n.),
2000. The meaning of unhrōr is diÌcult: elsewhere it means ‘without motion’ (Bo
41.146.26). Yet hrōr is attested in the sense ‘powerful’ (PPs 126.5.2, 132.2.2), and the
meaning ‘powerless, weak’ suits the present context admirably if the word describes
the armor rather than the man: ‘(the man said that his) war-gear (was) weak.’ (Cf. Cha.
162: unhrōr = ‘¢rm,’ orig. ‘not stirring.’) See MÆ 74 (2005) 194¯f.
47. Dickens and Heusler 1925–9: i, §¯254 would put hyra into the off-verse; also,
ultimately, Klaeber (ed.3 Su. 470). See the note on Beo 2481.
48. Bugge (28), taking hwæþer as ‘whether,’ would supply [hild sweðrode]. If
hwæþer means ‘which one,’ the missing words could be [hilde ġedīġde]; the names of
the two young ¢ghters would then have been contained in the following line.
The rest is silence. But the outcome is revealed in the Beowulf Episode. It has been
surmised by Rieger (loc. cit.) that Finn, anxious to break down the resistance of the
besieged, at last orders the hall to be set ablaze (as is done, V∂lsunga saga, ch. 8 and
Nibel. 2111¯ff.), whereupon the Danes, forced into the open, have to meet the Frisians
on equal ground. Dobbie (p.¯xvii) notes, however, that this raises diÌculties in regard
to how the outcome should have been a stalemate.
 APPENDIX A

PARALLELS
(ANALOGUES AND ILLUSTRATIVE PASSAGES)
Note: Names of particular relevance to Beowulf have been marked by the use of small capitals or
(when the possible correspondence is not very direct) italics.

I. ANGLO-SAXON ROYAL GENEALOGIES1

§¯1. WEST SAXON GENEALOGY

§¯1.1. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (late 9th century in this portion; ed. from the
facsimile of London, BL Cott. Tib. B.i, MSS Containing the AS Chronicle, ed. K.
O’Brien O’Keeffe, AS MSS in Micro¢che Facsimile 10 [Tempe, 2003] fol. 129v), sub
anno 856. (MS. C; 855 in MSS A, B, D.) (The genealogy of King Alfred’s father,
Æþelwulf.)
Aþelwulf . . . ġefōr . . . Se Aþelwulf wæs Ecgbrihting. Ecgbriht . . . Inġeld (14 more
names) . . . Brand — B®ldæġ — Wōden — Frēalāf — Finn — Gōd(w)ulf — Ġēatt (A,
D: Ġēat, B: Ġēata) — Tætwa — BĒAW — SCEALDWA (A: Sceldwea, B: Scyldwa) —
HEREMŌD — Itermon — Hāþra — Hwala — Bedwīġ2 SCĒAFING (id est ¢lius Nōe), sē
wæs ġeboren on þ®re earce Nōes. Lāmech. Matusālem . . . Seth. Ādam (primus homo;
et pater noster, id est Christus).

§¯1.2. Asser, Vita Alfredi regis Angul Saxonum (A.D. 893; ed. W. Stevenson, Asser’s
Life of King Alfred [Oxford, 1904] 2–3), cap. 1.
Genealogia: Ælfred rex, ¢lius Æthelwul¢ regis; qui fuit Ecgberhti . . . Ingild . . .
Brond — Beldeag — Uuoden — Frithowald — Frealaf — Frithuwulf — Finn —
Godwulf — Geata, quem Getam iamdudum pagani pro deo venerabantur — Tætuua —
BEAUU — SCELDWEA — HEREMOD — Itermod — Hathra — Huala — Beduuig —
Seth3 — Noe — Lamech — Mathusalem — Enoch — Malaleel — Cainan — Enos —
Seth — Adam.

§¯1.3. Æthelweard, Chronicon (late 10th century, based on an early MS of the AS

Chronicle; ed. A. Campbell, The Chronicle of Æthelweard [London, 1962]), lib. iii,
cap. 4 (pp.¯32–3).
Athulf rex . . . ¢lius Ecgbyrhti regis . . . Ingild . . . Brond — Balder — Vuothen —
Frithouuald — Frealaf — Frithouulf — Fin — Goduulfe — Geat — Tetuua — BEO
1
On the numerous AS genealogies, see particularly Cha.Intr. 195¯ff., 311¯ff.; E. Hackenberg Die
Stammtafeln der ags. Königreiche (Berlin diss., 1918); Sisam PBA 39 (1953) 287–348; Dumville
ASE 5 (1976) 23–50; id. in Early Med. Kingship, ed. P. Sawyer & I. Wood (Leeds, 1977) 72–104;
Davis ASE 21 (1992) 23–36.
2
According to E. Björkman, EStn. 52 (1918) 170, Beibl. 30 (1919) 23–5, the d is a scribal error
for o (in a form based on a Latinized *Beowius). MS D has Beowi. See also Anglo-Saxon 1 (2007)
126–8.
3
Stevenson’s note: ‘legendum tamen Sceaf.’
—————————————
[Translations:] §¯1.1. Æþelwulf died. This Æþelwulf was son of Ecgbriht. [27 more names] . . .
Bedwīġ son of Scēaf (that is, son of Noah), who was born on Noah’s ark. Lamech. Mathusaleh. . . .
Seth. Adam (the ¢rst human; and our father, that is, Christ).
§¯1.2. King Alfred, son of King Æþelwulf, who was son of Ecgberht . . . which same Geta the
pagans once worshiped for a god. . . .
292 APPENDIX A
— SCYLD — SCEF. Ipse Scef cum uno dromone aduectus est in insula oceani que
dicitur Scani,1 armis circundatus, eratque ualde recens puer, et ab incolis illius terræ
ignotus. Attamen ab eis suscipitur, et ut familiarem diligenti animo eum custodierunt,
et post in regem eligunt; de cuius prosapia ordinem trahit Aðulf rex.

§¯1.4. William of Malmesbury, Gesta regum Anglorum (ca. 1142; vol. 1, ed. R.
Mynors et al. [Oxford, 1998]), lib. ii, §¯116 (p.¯176).
Ethelwulfus fuit ¢lius Egbirhti . . . Ingild[us] . . . Brondius — Beldegius —
Wodenius — Fridewaldus — Frela¢us — Finnus — Godulfus — Getius — Tettius —
BEOWIUS — SCELDIUS — SCEAF. Iste, ut ferunt, in quandam insulam Germaniae
Scandzam, de qua Iordanes historiographus Gothorum loquitur, appulsus naui sine
remige puerulus, posito ad caput frumenti manipulo dormiens, ideoque Scēaf
nuncupatus, ab hominibus regionis illius pro miraculo exceptus et sedulo nutritus;
adulta aetate regnauit in oppido quod tunc Slaswic, nunc uero Haithebi appellatur. Est
autem regio illa Anglia Vetus dicta, unde Angli uenerunt in Britanniam, inter Saxones
et Gothos constituta. Sceaf fuit ¢lius HEREMODII. . . .

§¯2. MERCIAN GENEALOGY

The Parker Chronicle (MS A, ed. from the facsimile, ed. R. Fowler & H. Smith, EETS
208 [London, 1941]), sub anno 755. (Cf. MSS. B, C; and ibid., s.a. 626; also Dumville
ASE 5 [1976] 23–50).
. . . OFFA fēng tō rīċe ond hēold xxxix. wintra; ond his sunu Ecgferþ hēold xli. daga
ond c. daga. Se Offa wæs Þinċġferþing. Þinċġferþ Ēanwul¢ng. Ēanwulf — Ōsmōd —
Ēawa — Pybba — Crēoda — Cynewald — Cnebba — Iċel — ĒOMĈR2 — Angelþēow
— OFFA — WĈRMUND — Wihtl®ġ — Wōdening.

§¯3. KENTISH GENEALOGY

Historia Brittonum (¢rst compilation ca. A.D. 820; ed. D. Dumville [Cambridge, 1985]
82–3.), §¯20. Cf. Cha.Intr. 199.
Interea tres ceolae, a Germania in exilium expulsae, Bryttanniam aduenerunt: in
quibus dominabantur Hors et Hencgest, qui et ipsi fratres erant, ¢lii Guictglis;

1
See Intr. lviii, lix n.¯1; Glossary of Proper Names: Sceden-īġ.
2
So the Mercian royal genealogy in CCCC 183; that in Cott. Tib. B.v. has Ēomēr; that in Cott.
Vesp. B.vi. has Ēamēr: see Dumville ASE 5 (1976) 30, 33, 36.
—————————————
§¯1.3. King Æþelwulf . . . son of King Ecgberht. . . . This Scef, surrounded by arms, was cast up
in a boat onto an island in the ocean which is called Scani, and he was a very young boy, and
unknown to the inhabitants of that country. Nonetheless, he was taken up by them, and they cared
for him assiduously, as if he were one of their own, and afterward they made him king. From his
stock King Æþelwulf traced his descent.
§¯1.4. Æthelwulf was the son of Ecgberht . . . Scēaf. He, they say, as a very young boy was cast
up in a ship without oars upon a certain island in the Germanic realms, Scandia, spoken of by
Jordanes, the historian of the Goths. A sheaf of grain stood at the head of the sleeping child, as a
result of which he was called Scēaf. He was taken up by the inhabitants of that region as a wonder
and diligently raised. When he reached adulthood, he reigned in the town that was then called
Slaswic [Schleswig], now Haithabi [Hedeby]. And this region, from which the Angles came to
Britain, is called ‘Old Anglia,’ located between the Saxons and the Goths. Scēaf was the son of
Heremōd. . . .
§¯2. Offa came to power and ruled 39 years; and his son Ecgferþ ruled 141 days. This Offa was
the son of Þinġferþ. . . .
§¯3. Meanwhile, three warships, driven into exile from Germany, came to Britain. Their masters
were Horsa and Henġest, who were also brothers, sons of Wihtġils, son of Wihta, son of Wehta,
 PARALLELS 293
Guictglis ¢lius Guicta; Guicta ¢lius Guechta; Guechta ¢lius Uuoden; Uuoden ¢lius
Frealof; Frealof ¢lius Fredulf; Fredulf ¢lius FINN; Finn ¢lius FOLEGUALD; Foleguald
¢lius Geta qui, ut aiunt, ¢lius fuit dei, non ueri nec omnipotentis Dei . . . sed alicuius ex
idolis eorum quem, ab ipso daemone caecati, more gentili pro deo colebant.1

II. OTHER ANGLO-SAXON PARALLELS

§¯4. ALCUIN, EPISTOLA CXXIV (A.D. 797; Epistolae Karolini Aevi, II, ed. E. Dümmler,
Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolae 4 [Berlin, 1895] 183). See Bullough ASE
22 (1993) 93–125. (On clerical discipline.)
Verba Dei legantur in sacerdotali convivio. Ibi decet lectorem audiri, non cithar-
istam; sermones patrum, non carmina gentilium. Quid HINIELDUS cum Christo?
Angusta est domus: utrosque tenere non poterit. Non vult rex cęlestis cum paganis et
perditis nominetenus regibus communionem habere; quia rex ille aeternus regnat in
caelis, ille paganus perditus plangit in inferno. Voces legentium audire in domibus tuis,
non ridentium turbam in plateis.

§¯5. ANGLO-SAXON CHARTERS (from Cartularium Saxonicum, ed. W. de Gray Birch, 3

vols. [London, 1885–93].2 (‘Grendel’ in English place-names.)
Ch 78 (Birch 120, dated 708, for land in Worcs): Ærest of GRINDELES pytt on
wiðimære . . . of þam mersce ³ æft on GRINDELES pytt. — Ch 255 (Birch 1331–3, dated
739, for land in Devon): Of doddan hrycge on GRENDELES pyt . of GRENDELES pytte
on i¢gbearo. — Ch 416 (Birch 677, dated 931, for land in Wilts): On BEOWAN hammes
hecgan . on bremeles sceagan easteweardne; ðonne on ða blacan græfan . ðonne norð
be ðem ℓ heafdan . to ðære scortan dic. butan anan æcre, ðonne to fugel mere to ðan
wege; ondlong weges . to ottes forda; ðonon to wudumere; ðonne to ðære ruwan
hecgan; ðæt on langan hangran; ðonne on GRENDLES mere; ðonon on dyrnan geat;
ðonne eft on lin leage geat. — Ch 645 (Birch 994, dated 957, for land in Surrey): Fram
gætenesheale № to GRYNDELES syllen . fram GRYNDELES sylle № to russemere. —

1
Cf. what Bede (H.E. i, cap. 15) has to say about the arrival of the ¢rst Germanic mercenaries in
Britain: Aduenerant autem de tribus Germaniae populis fortioribus, id est Saxonibus, Angliis,
Iutis. . . . Duces fuisse perhibentur eorum primi duo fratres Hengist et Horsa. .¯. . Erant autem ¢lii
Uictgisli, cuius pater Uitta, cuius pater Uecta, cuius pater Uoden, de cuius stirpe multarum
prouinciarum regium genus originem duxit. ‘They came from three very powerful Germanic tribes,
the Saxons, Angles, and Jutes. . . . Their ¢rst leaders are said to have been two brothers, Hengist
and Horsa. . . . They were the sons of Wihtgisl, son of Witta, son Wecta, son of Woden, from
whose stock the royal families of many kingdoms claimed their descent’ (ed. & tr. Colgrave &
Mynors).
2
Nos. assigned by DOE. The bounds of charters trace the perimeter of the property conveyed
by the document, proceeding from landmark to landmark. On the relative trustworthiness of each
charter (for many were forged or altered), see Sawyer 1968; and on these charters in particular,
Lapidge 1982: 179–81, and Intr. clxxxi.
—————————————
Wehta, son of Wōden, son of Frēalāf, son of Friðulf, son of Finn, son of Folcwald, son of Ġēta,
who, they say, was son of a god, not of the true God almighty . . . but of a certain one of their
idols, which, blinded by that same demon, they worshiped as a god, after the pagan manner.
§¯4. Let the words of God be read at the clerical dinner-table. It is ¢tting for the lector to be
heard there, not the harpist; the sermons of the Fathers, not the songs of heathens. What does
Inġeld have to do with Christ? The house is narrow: it cannot contain both. The celestial king
wishes to have nothing in common with lost and pagan kings whose names are rattled off; for the
eternal king rules in heaven, while the lost pagan king howls in hell. The voices of readers should
be heard in your houses, not a crowd of revelers in the streets.
§¯5. [The relevant landmarks in these charters are the following: grindeles pytt ‘Grindel’s pit’
(Chs 78, 255); bēowan hammes hecga ‘the hedge of Bēowa’s enclosed ¢eld’ (Ch 416); grendles
294 APPENDIX A
Ch 579 (Birch 1023, dated 951 × 955, for land in Worcs): ℓlong dices in
GRENDELSMERE . of grendelsmere in stancofan. — Ch 786 (Birch 1282, dated 972, for
land in Worcs): Of ðam seaðan in temedel of temedel on þa lytlan becas þanan . . .1 e of
GRINDLES bece swa ³ gemære ligð in temedan. — Ch 1451 (Birch 1290, dated 972 ×
978, for land in Middx): ℓlang hagan to GRENDELES gatan æfter kincges mearce innan
brægentan.

§¯6. BLICKLING HOMILY XVI (formerly numbered xvii; LS 25 [MichaelMor]; ed. from
the MS facsimile, The Blickling Homilies, ed. R. Willard [Copenhagen, 1960], fols.
126v–7r). (A parallel to Grendel’s mere.)
Sanctus Paulus wæs ġesēonde on norðanweardne þisne middanġeard, þ®r ealle
wætero niðer ġewītað, ℓ hē þ®r ġeseah ofer ð®m wætere sumne hārne stān; ℓ w®ron
norð of ð®m stāne āwexene swīðe hrīmiġe bearwas, ℓ ð®r wæron þystro ġenipo, ℓ
under þ®m stāne wæs niccra eardung ℓ wearga; ℓ hē ġeseah þæt on ð®m clife
hangodan on ð®m īsġean bearwum maniġe swearte sāula be heora handum ġebundne;
ℓ þā f©nd þāra on nicra onlīċnesse heora grīpende w®ron, swā swā gr®diġ wulf; ℓ þæt
wæter wæs sweart under þæm clife neoðan; ℓ betuh þ®m clife on[d] ð®m wætre w®ron
swylċe twelf mīla; ℓ ðonne ðā twigo forburston, þonne ġewitan þā sāula niðer, þā þe on
ð®m twigum hangodan, ℓ him onfēngon ðā nicras. Ðis ðonne w®ron ðā sāula, þā ðe
hēr on worlde mid unrihte ġefyrenode w®ron, ℓ ðæs noldan ġeswīcan ®r heora līfes
ende.

III. SCANDINAVIAN DOCUMENTS2

§¯7. TWO EXCERPTS FROM THE POETIC EDDA

§¯7.1. Hyndluljóð (‘The Lay of Hyndla,’ probably 12th century). (The names of heroes
of old.) [Translation:]
2. Let us pray to the Father of Armies to keep us in mind. He yields and grants gold
to the worthy; he gave to Hermóðr helm and mail-coat, and to Sigmundr a sword to
keep.
9. They have wagered with Gaulish ore [i.e., gold], young ÓTTARR [OE Ōhthere]
and ANGANTÝR [OE Ongenþēo]; it is a duty to help, so that the young man should
have his paternal inheritance in succession to his kinsmen.
11. Now you must have the men of old reckoned, and the races of humans explained.
Who is of the SKJŮLDUNGAR [OE Scyldingas], who is of the SKILFINGAR [Scyl¢ngas],
who is of the ¤ðlungar, who is of the YLFINGAR [Wyl¢ngas], who is free-born, who is
nobly born, the most select of people on earth?

1
The document is defective in this place.
2
In vernacular texts, the spelling has been normalized, except as noted.
—————————————
mere ‘Grendel’s mere’ (Ch 416); gryndeles sylle ‘Gryndel’s bog’ (Ch 645); Grindles bec
‘Grindel’s brook’ (Ch 786); Grendeles gata ‘Grendel’s gate’ (Ch 1451).]
§¯6. Thus, Saint Paul was looking toward the northern regions of the world, where all waters
descend, and there over the water he saw a certain hoary stone; and north of the stone there had
grown very frosty groves, and there were gloomy mists, and under the stone was the habitation of
sea-monsters and vile things; and he saw that on the cliff, in the icy groves many black souls hung
by their bound wrists; and their tormentors in the shape of sea-monsters were grasping at them like
ravenous wolves. And the water was black below the cliff, and it was some twelve miles between
the [top of] the cliff and the water; and when the branches broke, the souls that hung on them went
down, and the sea-monsters took hold of them. These, then, were the souls [of those] who were
de¢led with unrighteousness here on earth and would not desist from it before their lives’ end.
 PARALLELS 295
14. ÁLI [OE Onela] was of old the strongest of men, HÁLFDAN [Healf-Dene] once
the most glorious of the Skj∂ldungar; renowned were the battles which the valiant
waged; his deeds seemed to echo to the corners of the sky. 15. He [Hálfdan] married
into the family of of Eymundr [OE Ēanmund], best of men, and he [Hálfdan] killed
Sigtryggr with a cool blade; he came to marry Álmveig, best of women, and they
produced and raised eighteen sons.

§¯7.2. Grottas∂ngr (‘Mill Song,’ 12th century?). (Warfare at Lejre fortress is foreseen.)1
[Translation:]
19. I see a ¢re burning east of the fortress, tidings of war awakening; it must be
considered a sign; surely an army will hasten here and burn the stronghold with the
king inside. 20. You will not hold the throne of Hleiðr [i.e., Lejre], the red [i.e., gold]
rings, or the holy stones [i.e., altars]. Let’s pull harder on the handle, sister! We are not
warm [yet] in the blood of the slain.
22. Let’s grind more! The son of Yrsa [i.e., HRÓLFR KRAKI] will avenge HÁLFDAN
on FRÓÐI. He will be called her son and brother; we both know it.

§¯8. THE PROSE EDDA OF SNORRI STURLUSON (ed. A Faulkes, 3 vols. in 4 parts
[Oxford & London, 1982–98]).
Prologue. Ch. 9. (The origin of the Skj∂ldungar.) Í norðrhálfu heims fann hann
spákonu þá er Sibil hét, er vér k∂llum Sif, ok fekk hennar. Engi kann at segja ætt Sifjar.
Hon var allra kvenna fegurst, hár hennar var sem gull. Þeira son var Loriði, er líkr var
feðr sínum, hans son var Einriði, hans son Vingeþórr, hans son Vingenir, hans son
Móða, hans son Magi, hans son SESCEF,2 hans son Beðvig, hans son Athra, er vér
k∂llum Annan, hans son Ítrmann, hans son HEREMÓÐ, hans son Skjaldun, er vér
k∂llum SKJŮLD, hans son Biaf, er vér k∂llum BJÁR, hans son Jat, hans son Guðólfr,
hans son FINN, hans son Friallaf, er vér k∂llum Friðleif. Hann átti þann son er nefndr er
Voden, þann k∂llum vér Óðin. Hann var ágætr maðr af speki ok allri atgervi. Kona
hans hét Frigida, er vér k∂llum Frigg. — Ch. 11. Þar setr Óðinn til lands gæzlu þrjá
sonu sína; er einn nefndr Veggdegg, var hann ríkr konungr ok réð fyrir Austr
Saxalandi; hans sonr var Vitrgils, hans synir váru þeir Vitta, faðir Heingests, ok Sigarr,
faðir Svebdegg, er vér k∂llum Svipdag. Annarr son Óðins hét Beldegg, er vér k∂llum
Baldr; hann átti þat land er nú heitir Vestfal. Hans son var Brandr, hans son Frioðigar,
er vér k∂llum Fróða, hans son var Freovin, hans son Wigg, hans son Gevis, er vér
k∂llum Gavi. Inn þriði son Óðins er nefndr Siggi, hans son Rerir. Þeir langfeðgar réðu
þar fyrir er nú er kallat Frakland, ok er þaðan sú ætt komin er k∂lluð er VŮLSUNGAR.
Frá ∂llum þessum eru stórar ættir komnar ok margar. Þá byrjaði Óðinn ferð sína

1
The speaker is one of two prescient giantesses who are being kept captive by Fróði, the
Skj∂ldung king, at Lejre stronghold, where they are forced to labor at a magical mill. They foresee
Fróði’s doom. Cf. the Beo poet’s apparent allusion, at 82b–5, to a future burning of Heorot.
2
I.e., OE se Scē(a)f. See below §¯11.1 and Intr. xlviii.
—————————————
§¯8. Prol. Ch. 9. In the northern regions of the world he [i.e. Tror, or Þórr] met a prophetess who
was called Sibil, whom we call Sif, and he married her. Her ancestry is unknown. She was the
most beautiful of all women; her hair was like gold. Their son was Loriði, who was like his father;
his son was Einriði, his son Vingeþórr, . . . his son Sescef . . . his son Heremóð, his son Skjaldun,
whom we call Skj∂ld, his son Biaf, whom we call Bjárr. . . . He had that son who is named Voden,
whom we call Óðinn. He was an excellent man as regards wisdom and accomplishment. His wife
was named Frigida, whom we call Frigg. — Ch. 11. Óðinn installed his three sons to look after the
country; one was named Veggdegg, and he was a powerful king and ruled over East Saxony; his
son was Vitrgils, his sons were Vitta, the father of Heingestr, and Sigarr, the father of Svebdegg,
whom we call Svipdagr. . . . This dynasty governed the country that is now called Francia, and it is
from there that the family came which is called V∂lsungar. From all these are descended great
296 APPENDIX A
norðr ok kom í þat land er þeir k∂lluðu Reiðgotaland ok eignaðisk í því landi allt þat er
hann vildi. Hann setti þar til landa son sinn er SKJŮLDR hét, hans son hét Friðleifr,
þaðan er sú ætt komin er SKJŮLDUNGAR heita, þat eru Danakonungar, ok þat heitir nú
Jótland er þá var kallat Reiðgotaland.
Gylfaginning. Ch. 49. (The death of Baldr.) Þá mælir Frigg: ‘Eigi munu vápn eða
viðir granda BALDRI. Eiða he¢ ek þegit af ∂llum þeim.’ Þá spyrr konan: ‘Hafa allir
hlutir eiða unnit at eira Baldri?’ Þá svarar Frigg: ‘Vex viðarteinungr einn fyrir vestan
Valh∂ll. Sá er mistilteinn kallaðr. Sá þótti mér ungr at krefja eiðsins.’
Því næst hvarf konan á brut. En Loki tók mistiltein ok sleit upp ok gekk til þings. En
HŮÐR stóð útarliga í mannhringinum þvíat hann var blindr. Þá mælir Loki við hann:
‘Hví skýtr þú ekki at Baldri?’ Hann svarar: ‘Þvíat ek sé eigi hvar Baldr er, ok þat annat
at ek em vápnlauss.’ Þá mælir Loki: ‘Gerðu þó í líking annarra manna ok veit Baldri
sœmð sem aðrir menn. Ek mun vísa þér til hvar hann stendr. Skjót at honum vendi
þessum.’
H∂ðr tók mistiltein ok skaut at Baldri at tilvísun Loka. Flaug skotit í g∂gnum hann
ok fell hann dauðr til jarðar, ok he¢r þat mest óhapp verit unnit með goðum ok
m∂nnum. Þá er Baldr var fallinn þá fellusk ∂llum Ásum orðt∂k ok svá hendr at taka til
hans, ok sá hverr til annars, ok váru allir með einum hug til þess er unnit hafði verkit.
En engi mátti hefna, þar var svá mikill griðastaðr. . . . En er goðin vitkuðusk þá mælir
Frigg og spurði hverr sá væri með Ásum er eignask vildi allar ástir hennar ok hylli ok
vili hann ríða á Helveg ok freista ef hann fái fundit Baldr ok bjóða Helju útlausn ef hon
vill láta fara Baldr heim í Ásgarð. En sá er nefndr Hermóðr in hvati, sveinn Óðins, er til
þeirar farar varð. Þá var tekinn Sleipnir, hestr Óðins, ok leiddr fram, ok steig Hermóðr
á þann hest ok hleypti braut. En Æsirnir tóku lík Baldrs ok Ïuttu til sævar. Hringhorni
hét skip Baldrs. Hann var allra skipa mestr. Hann vildu goðin fram setja ok gera þar á
bálf∂r Baldrs. . . . Þá var borit út á skipit lík Baldrs, ok er þat sá kona hans Nanna
Nepsdóttir, þá sprakk hon af harmi ok dó. Var hon borin á bálit ok slegit í eld. . . . Því
næst sendu Æsir um allan heim ørindreka at biðja at Baldr væri grátinn ór Helju. En

—————————————
and large families. Then Óðinn began his journey north and came to that country which they called
Reiðgotaland, and in that country he took possession of all that he desired. He set over that country
his son who was called Skj∂ldr, whose son was called Friðleifr, from whom are descended the
family called Skj∂ldungar, that is, the kings of Denmark, and that is now called Jutland which was
then called Reiðgotaland. — Gylf. Then Frigg said, ‘Neither weapons nor wood will do harm to
Baldr. I have taken oaths from them all.’ Then the woman asked, ‘Have all things given their oath
to spare Baldr?’ Then Frigg answered, ‘A certain shoot grows west of Valh∂ll. It is called
mistletoe. It seemed to me too young to demand an oath of it.’ Thereupon the woman vanished.
And Loki took the mistletoe and pulled it up and went to the assembly. And H∂ðr stood on the
edge of the crowd because he was blind. Then Loki said to him, ‘Why aren’t you casting anything
at Baldr?’ He answered, ‘Because I can’t see where Baldr is, and in addition, I have no weapon.’
Then Loki said, ‘Still, do as everyone else does and show Baldr honor the way others do. I will
show you where he is standing. Throw this stick at him.’ H∂ðr took the mistletoe and cast it at
Baldr at Loki’s direction. The shot Ïew through him and he fell dead on the ground, and that has
been considered the greatest misfortune among gods and men. When Baldr had fallen, words failed
all the Æsir and their hands were useless to take him up, and each looked at the other, and all were
of one mind as regards the one who had done the deed. But no one dared take vengeance, that
place was so great a sanctuary. . . . And when the gods came to their senses, then Frigg spoke and
asked who there might be among the Æsir who would like to earn himself all her affection and
favor by riding the Road to Hel to see whether he could manage to ¢nd Baldr and offer Hel a
ransom if she would let Baldr come home to Ásgarðr. And it was the one named Hermóðr the
keen, Óðinn’s boy, to whom this trip fell. Then Óðinn’s horse Sleipnir was fetched and brought
forth, and Hermóðr climbed onto the horse and raced off. And the Æsir took Baldr’s body and
transported it to the sea. Baldr’s ship was named Hringhorni. It was the largest of all ships. The
gods wanted to launch it and build Baldr’s pyre on it. . . . Then Baldr’s body was borne out onto
the ship, and when his wife Nanna Nepsdóttir saw that, her heart burst of grief and she died. She
was borne onto the pyre and it was set ablaze. . . . Thereupon the Æsir sent messengers through the
 PARALLELS 297
allir gerðu þat, menninir ok kykvendin ok j∂rðin ok steinarnir ok tré ok allr málmr, svá
sem þú munt sét hafa at þessir hlutir gráta þá er þeir koma ór frosti ok í hita.
Skáldskaparmál. Ch. 43. (Skj∂ldr and his descendants.) SKJŮLDR hét sonr Óðins er
Skj∂ldungar eru frá komnir. Hann hafði atsetu ok réð l∂ndum þar sem nú er k∂lluð
Danm∂rk en þá var kallat Gotland.1 Skj∂ldr átti þann son er Friðleifr hét er l∂ndum réð
eptir hann. Sonr Friðleifs hét Fróði [‘Frið-Fróði’]. [There follows the story of Fróði’s
mill (of happiness, peace, and gold) and Grottas∂ngr (see §¯7.2 supra).]
Ch. 44. (Hrólfr kraki, Aðils, and Áli.) Konungr einn í Danm∂rk er nefndr HRÓLFR
KRAKI. Hann er ágætastr fornkonunga fyrst af mildi ok frœknleik ok lítillæti. . . . [One
day he is visited by a boy named V∂ggr.] Þá gekk V∂ggr fyrir hann ok sá upp á hann.
Þá mælir konungrinn: ‘Hvat viltu mæla, sveinn, er þér sér á mik?’ V∂ggr segir: ‘Þá er
ek var heima, heyrðak sagt at Hrólfr konungr at Hleiðru var mestr maðr á Norðr-
l∂ndum, en nú sitr hér í hásæti kraki einn lítill ok kallið þér hann konung sinn.’ Þá
svarar konungrinn: ‘Þú, sveinn, he¢r ge¢t mér nafn, at ek skal heita Hrólfr kraki, en þat
er títt at gj∂f skal fylgja nafnfesti. Nú sé ek þik enga gj∂f hafa til at gefa mér at
nafnfesti þá er mér sé þægilig. Nú skal sá gefa ∂ðrum er til he¢r,’ tók gullhring af hendi
sér ok gaf honum. . . . Sá konungr réð fyrir Upps∂lum, er AÐILS hét. Hann átti Yrsu,
móður Hrólfs kraka. Hann hafði ósætt við þann konung er réð fyrir Nóregi, er ÁLI hét.
Þeir stefndu orrostu milli sín á ísi vatns þess er Væni heitir. [King Aðils had asked
Hrólfr for assistance; the latter, being engaged in another war, sent him his twelve
champions, among whom were BŮÐVARR BJARKI, HJALTI hug-prúði, V∂ttr, Véseti.] Í
þeiri orrostu fell Áli konungr ok mikill hluti liðs hans. Þá tók Aðils konungr af honum
dauðum hjálminn Hildisvín ok hest hans Hrafn. . . . [There follows the story of Hrólfr’s
famous expedition to Uppsala.]
Ch. 58. (Aðils.) Þessir [hestar] ró talðir í Alvinnsmálum:2 VÉSTEINN [reið] Vali / en
Vi¢ll Stú¢, / Meinþjófr Mói / en Morginn Vakri, / ÁLI Hrafni, / til íss riðu / en annarr
austr / und AÐILSI, / grár hvarfaði / ge[i]ri undaðr.

1
For Jótland ‘Jutland’? Cf. Prologue ch. ¯11 supra, and see Heimskringla, ed. Bjarni Aðal-
bjarnarson (Reykjavík, 1941), I, 35 n.¯2; II, 109. Cf. the reference by the Norwegian sailor Ōhthere
(Óttarr) to the peninsula of Jutland as Gƒtland in the OE Orosius; for discussion, see Townend
2002: 102–3, Niles 2007b: 44–6.
2
See Intr. lxiii n.¯3.
————————————
entire world to request that Baldr be wept out of Hel. And all did that, people and animals and soil
and stones and wood and metal, just as you will probably have seen that these things weep when
they come out of the cold and into warmth. — Skáldsk. Ch. 43. A son of Óðinn was called Skj∂ldr,
from whom the Skj∂ldungar [OE Scyldingas] are descended. He had his residence in, and ruled
over lands from, what is now called Denmark but which was then called Gotland. Skj∂ldr had a
son named Friðleifr, who ruled the lands after him. The son of Friðleifr was called [Frið-]Fróði. —
Ch. 44. There was a certain king in Denmark who was named Hrólfr kraki. He was the most
excellent of kings of old, primarily for his liberality and his courage and his humility. . . . Then
V∂ggr went before him and looked up at him. Then the king said, ‘What is it that you want to say,
boy, looking at me that way?’ V∂ggr said, ‘When I was at home, I heard it said that King Hrólfr at
Hleiðra [Lejre] was the greatest man in Scandinavia, but now there sits here a certain small pole-
ladder, and they call him their king.’ Then the king answered, ‘You, boy, have given me a name,
so that I shall be called Hrólfr kraki, and it’s customary that a gift should accompany a naming.
Now I see you have no gift to give me at this naming which would be acceptable to me. Now the
one who has ought to give to the other,’ and he took a gold band off his arm and gave it to him. . . .
A king by the name of Aðils ruled at Uppsala. He was married to Yrsa, the mother of Hrólfr kraki.
He had a dispute with that king of Norway who was called Áli. They arranged a battle between
them on the ice of that lake that is called Vänern. . . . In that battle fell King Áli and a large part of
his army. Then King Aðils took from his corpse the helmet Hildisvín [‘War-Swine’] and his horse
Hrafn [‘Raven’]. — Ch. 58. These horses are mentioned in Alvinnsmál: Vésteinn rode Valr . . . Áli
[rode] Hrafn, [who together] rode to the ice, and another east under Aðils, a grey one that roamed
wounded by a spear.
298 APPENDIX A
§¯9. SNORRI STURLUSON, YNGLINGA SAGA (ca. 1220–30; from Heimskringla, I, ed.
Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson [Reykjavík, 1941]). [Translation:]
Ch. 5. SKJŮLD, the son of Óðinn, wedded her [Gefjon]. They lived at Hleiðra. —
Ch. 23. (The sea-burial of King Haki.) King Haki received such great wounds that he
saw that the days of his life would probably not last much longer. Then he had them
take a warship that he owned, and he had it freighted with corpses and weapons, and
then he had them convey it out to the sea and ship the rudder and hoist sail, and set ¢re
to the resinous wood and make a funeral pile on board. The wind blew from the
landward side. Haki was then dead or all but dead when he was laid on the pyre.
Afterward the ship sailed ablaze out to sea, and this was much spoken of for a long
time after. — Ch. 27. (The fall of King Óttarr vendilkráka.) [ÓTTARR (son of Egill),
king of the Swedes, in retaliation for a Danish invasion made in the preceding year
(because Óttarr refused to pay the tribute promised by Egill), went with his warships to
the land of the Danes while their king Fróði was warring in the Baltic, and he harried
there and encountered no resistance.] He learned that there was a great muster of men
in Zealand. He headed west then into Øresund; and he then headed south to Jutland and
laid up in Limfjorden, and he harried then around Vendsyssel, and he burned
everything there and laid everything waste. Fróði’s lieutenants were named V∂ttr and
Fasti. Fróði had appointed them to defend Denmark while he was out of the country.
And when the lieutenants learned that the king of Sweden was raiding in Denmark,
they gathered a force and raced aboard ship and sailed south to Limfjorden, and there
they came upon King Óttarr entirely unawares, and they joined battle immediately. The
Swedes put up a good resistance. Troops fell on both sides, but in proportion as troops
of Danes fell, others arrived from the district, and likewise all the ships in the vicinity
were brought to bear. The battle turned out in such a way that King Óttarr fell along
with the greater part of his troops. The Danes took his body and moved it ashore and
laid it up on a hill and let beasts and birds tear at the carrion. They made a certain
wooden crow and sent it to Sweden with the message that their king Óttarr was of no
greater worth than that. After that they called him Óttarr vendilkráka (‘crow of Vend-
syssel’). So says Þjóðolfr [ór Hvini, in Ynglingatal]: ‘Valiant Óttarr fell into the
clutches of eagles before the weapons of Danes; in Vendsyssel1 the battle-vulture [i.e.,
eagle or crow], come from afar, trod him with carrion foot. I have heard that those
deeds of V∂ttr and Fasti became tales for the Swedish people, that Fróði’s lieutenants
of the island (i.e., sea-commanders) had slain the war-promoter.’ — Ch. 29 (The birth
and career of Hrólfr kraki.) At that time King Helgi Hálfdanarson ruled from Hleiðra
[Lejre]. He attacked the Swedes with such a great army that King Aðils saw no
alternative but to Ïee. Helgi invaded the country and plundered, seizing considerable
spoils. He took in hand Queen Yrsa and brought her with him to Hleiðra and entered
into marriage with her. Their son was Hrólfr kraki. And when Hrólfr was three years
old, Queen Álof came to Denmark. At that time she told Yrsa that King Helgi, her
husband, was her father, and Álof was her mother. Then Yrsa went back to Aðils in
Sweden and was queen there as long as she lived. King Helgi fell in the course of
waging war. At the time, Hrólfr kraki was eight years old and was declared king at
Hleiðra. King Aðils had mighty dealings with that king who was called Áli the Opp-
lander.2 He was from Norway. They joined battle on the ice of Lake Väner. There King
Áli fell, and Aðils won the day. This battle is described extensively in Skj∂ldunga saga,
and also how Hrólfr kraki attacked Aðils in Uppsala. At that time Hrólfr sowed the
Plains of Fýrir with gold.

1
As Þjóðólfr uses the expression á Vendli, it is ambiguous whether he is referring to Vendill (in
Sweden) or Vendsyssel (in Jutland). The origin of the epithet Vendilkráka offered by Snorri, in
either event, appears to be spurious: Óttarr is probably named after Vendill (mod. Vendel, north-
west of Uppsala), whose inhabitants appear to have been referred to in fun as krákur already at an
early date: see Bjarni’s note, p.¯55.
2
Hence Aðils was called Ála dólgr ‘enemy of Áli,’ Ynglingatal 22.
 PARALLELS 299

§¯10. SAXO GRAMMATICUS, GESTA DANORUM (ca. 1190–1220; ed. K. Friis-Jensen, 2

vols. [Copenhagen, 2005].).1
Lib. ii, cap. 1,1–4 (pp.¯136–8). (Dragon ¢ght of Frotho, father of Haldanus.) A local
man came to him [Frotho] and incited him with the following song:2 ‘Not far away is
an island elevated by very gentle slopes, concealing coins in its hills and keeping secret
its rich plunder. Here an exceptional heap is held by the keeper of the mound, a serpent
wrapped in spirals and curled in endless coils and leading the sinuous weight of its tail
and, while stirring its manifold loops, spewing venom. Whoever wishes to overcome it
with a shield ¢t to be used must wrap the shield in bulls’ hides and cover his body with
the skins of cattle, and not leave his limbs bare to the bitter venom: whatever it is spat
upon, the poison burns up. Though the three-forked tongue may be thrust Ïickering
from the gaping mouth, and it may threaten dismal wounds with its horrible maw,
remember to maintain a stalwart frame of mind, and do not let the sharp point of the
thorny tooth daunt you, nor its hardness, nor the venom cast from the rapid gullet.
Though the power of his scales may spurn your weapons, know that there is a place
under the very bottom of its belly where it is just right to plunge a blade: by attacking
this with a sword, you will tear up the very middle of the serpent. From there, approach
the hill, and when you’ve pressed into the mound, explore the passages dug through it,
¢ll your bag with treasure, and when your boat is full, row it back to shore.’
Believing, Frotho crossed alone to the island, for he would not attack the beast with
more support than champions were accustomed to having in an assault. When it had
drunk water and was returning to the cave, its hide, with its harsh roughness, spurned
Frotho’s attacking blade. But also the spears that were cast at it sprang back, useless in
the foiled attempt of the attacker. But when the hardness of the back did not yield at all,
he took note of the belly carefully, and its softness yielded to the blade. Attempting to
be avenged with a bite, the serpent pinned no more with its thorny fang than the shield.
Then, Ïicking its tongue repeatedly, it poured out both its venom and its life.3
The money that he had discovered made him a wealthy king.
Lib. ii, cap. 5,1–2 (p.¯158). (Haldanus, Roe, Helgo.) HALDANUS ROE et Scato
fratribus interfectis naturam scelere polluit, regnum parricidio carpsit. Et, ne ullum
crudelitatis exemplum omitteret, compręhensos eorum fautores prius uinculorum poena
coercuit, mox suspendio consumpsit. Cuius ex eo maxime fortuna ammirabilis fuit,
quod, licet omnia temporum momenta ad exercenda atrocitatis oÌcia contulisset,
senectute uitam, non ferro ¢nierit. Huius ¢lii ROE et HELGO fuere. A Roe Roskildia
condita memoratur, quam postmodum Sueno furcatę barbę cognomento clarus ciuibus
auxit, amplitudine propagauit. Hic breui angustoque corpore fuit, Helgonem habitus
procerior cepit. Qui diuiso cum fratre regno maris possessionem sortitus regem Sclauię
Scalcum maritimis copiis lacessitum oppressit.

1
See also the extracts in the notes on ll.¯4¯f. 18b, 20¯ff., 901¯ff., 2024b¯ff.
2
In Latin hexameters.
3
There is a similar, more condensed account of the dragon ¢ght of Fridleuus, lib. vi, cap. 4,10.
—————————————
§¯10. ii, 5,1–2. Haldanus de¢led his inborn qualities by the crime of killing his brothers Roe and
Scatus, and by parricide he laid hands on the throne. Moreover, to miss no opportunity for
viciousness, having captured his brothers’ supporters, he clapped them into chains and thereupon
had them hanged. Thenceforth his unrivaled success was astonishing, since, despite his having
devoted every hour of the day to committing atrocities, it was old age, not iron, that ended his life.
His sons were Roe and Helgo. Roe is remembered for having founded Roskildia, which later
Suenus, nicknamed ‘Fork-Beard,’ augmented in size and populace. He was short and slender of
build; Helgo was blessed with a taller stature. When he divided the kingdom with his brother, he
took possession of the sea and subjugated King Scalcus of Sclauia with a naval force.
ii, 5,5–6. Not content with his victory in the east, he attacked Denmark and, having summoned
its king Roe to three military encounters, killed him. When he learned this, Helgo sealed up Roluo
300 APPENDIX A
Lib. ii, cap. 5,5–6 (pp.¯160–2). (Helgo sequesters Roluo.) [HOTHBRODUS succeeds
his father as King of Sweden and launches a campaign in the East. He begets two sons,
ATHISLUS and Hotherus.] Nec Orientis uictoria contentus Daniam petit eiusque regem
ROE tribus pręliis prouocatum occidit. His cognitis HELGO ¢lium ROLUONEM Lethrica
arce conclusit, hęredis saluti consulturus, utcumque suam fortuna tractasset. Deinde
pręsides ab Hothbrodo immissos, ut externo patriam dominio liberaret, missis per
oppida satellitibus cęde subegit. Ipsum quoque Hothbrodum cum omnibus copiis
nauali pugna deleuit nec solum fratris, sed etiam patrię iniuriam plenis ultionis armis
pensauit. Quo euenit ut, cui nuper ob Hundingi cędem agnomen incesserat, nunc
HOTHBRODI strages cognomentum inferret.
Lib. ii, cap. 6,1 (p.¯162). (Roluo becomes king.) Huic ¢lius ROLUO succedit, uir
corporis animique dotibus uenustus, qui staturę magnitudinem pari uirtutis habitu
commendaret.
Lib. ii, cap. 6,11 (p.¯168). (Biarco kills a beast.) [BIARCO, one of ROLVO’S men, after
protecting HIALTO from the insults of wedding guests throwing bones at him, kills the
bridegroom, a man named Agnerus.] Talibus operum meritis exultanti nouam de se
siluestris fera uictoriam prębuit. Ursum quippe eximię magnitudinis obuium sibi inter
dumeta factum iaculo confecit comitemque suum Hialtonem, quo uiribus maior
euaderet, applicato ore egestum belluę cruorem haurire iussit. Creditum nanque [sic]
erat hoc potionis genere corporei roboris incrementa pręstari.
Lib. ii, cap. 7,1 (p.¯170). (Lejre is attacked.) [HIARWARTHUS, whom ROLVO had
made governor of Sweden, lays a plot to attack Rolvo by sailing ships to Lethra (Lejre)
under the guise of delivering tribute.] Refertis itaque falsa uectigalium mole nauigiis
Lethram pergitur, quod oppidum a Roluone constructum eximiisque regni opibus
illustratum cęteris con¢nium prouinciarum urbibus regię fundationis et sedis auctoritate
pręstabat.
Lib. ii, cap. 7,4 to cap. 8,1 (pp.¯170¯ff.). (Bjarkamál.) [As Lethra is attacked in a
treacherous nighttime assault, HIALTO rouses his comrade BIARCO to ¢ght for their
king. Saxo’s rewriting of a lost Danish poem on this theme begins as follows.] P.¯170.
Ocius euigilet, quisquis se regis amicum / Aut meritis probat aut sola pietate fatetur.
. . . P.¯172. Dulce est nos domino percepta rependere dona, / Acceptare enses famęque
impendere ferrum. / En uirtus sua quenque monet meritum bene regem / Rite sequi
dignaque ducem grauitate tueri. / Enses Theutonici, galeę armillęque nitentes, / Loricę

—————————————
in the stronghold of Lethra (Lejre), with an eye to the safety of his heir, no matter what fate should
prescribe regarding his own safety. Thereupon, in order to free his native land from external rule,
he subdued through slaughter the viceroys installed by Hothbrodus by sending his followers
through the towns. This same Hothbrodus, too, he annihilated in a naval battle with his entire Ïeet
and thus not only the offense to his brother, but more to say to his entire country, he requited at the
full with the vengeance of arms. As a result of this it came to pass that, although a nickname had
recently been attached to him on account of the killing of Hundingus, now the felling of
Hothbrodus brought him an additional name. — ii, 6,1. His son Rolvo succeeded him, a man
pleasing in the endowments of both body and mind, who rendered the greatness of his stature
agreeable by the like character of his bravery. — ii, 6,11. While he was exulting in such deserts for
his deeds, a beast of the forest furnished him a new triumph. With a javelin he killed a bear of truly
exceptional size which he came upon among the thickets, and he ordered his companion Hjalto, for
the purpose of producing more strength in him, to apply his mouth and draw out the blood
expelled from the brute. For this sort of drink was believed to effect an increase in ¢rmness of the
body. — ii, 7,1. With vessels ¢lled with a feigned mass of tribute he came to Lethra, which town
had been built by Rolvo and ennobled with the exceeding riches of the realm, so that it stood
before the other cities of adjoining provinces by the prestige of its royal foundation and residence.
— ii, 7,4¯ff. Let him rise very promptly, whoever would prove himself a friend of the king either
by his deserts or solely by his loyalty. . . . It is sweet for us to repay gifts received from our lord, to
accept swords and to trade iron for glory. Look, each is urged on by his bravery properly to follow
his deserving king and to protect his leader with due and worthy diligence. Teutonic swords,
 PARALLELS 301
talo immissę, quas contulit olim / Roluo suis, memores acuant in pręlia mentes. — [At
the end of the poem, Saxo comments on its inspiration.] P.¯188. Hanc maxime
exhortationum seriem idcirco metrica ratione compegerim, quod earundem sententi-
arum intellectus Danici cuiusdam carminis [i.e., Bjarkamál] compendio digestus a
compluribus antiquitatis peritis memoriter usurpatur.
Lib. viii, cap. 5,1 (p.¯522). (Funeral of Haraldus Hildetanus.) [When Haraldus
Hildetanus, king of Denmark, had been slain in the battle of Bravalla, Ringo, king of
Sweden,] after tying the horse which he rode to the royal chariot [of Haraldus] and
furnishing it worthily with a golden saddle, dedicated it in his honor. Thereupon he
pronounced vows and added a prayer that Haraldus, using this conveyance, should
reach Tartarus before his fellow travelers, and in the presence of Pluto, protector of
Orcus, he should ask for a peaceful sojourn for friends and enemies. Next he built up a
funeral pile and commanded the Danes to cast the gilded chariot of their king in with
the kindling. And while the ¢re consumed the corpse placed in it, he began to move
among the mourning nobles and to exhort them all very vehemently to commit liberally
to the nourishment of the pyre arms, gold, and anything valuable, in honor of a king so
great and so deserving of it from all of them. He ordered also that the ashes of the
corpse, when it was burnt to cinders, once consigned to an urn, should be conveyed to
Lethra [Lejre] and there be given a funeral in royal fashion with his horse and arms.

§¯11. CHRONICLES

§¯11.1. Langfeðgatal (‘Dynastic Roll,’ 12th century) in Reykjavík, Stofnun Árna

Magnússonar MS. 415 4º (dated shortly after 1300; ed. K. Kålund in Alfræði íslenzk, III
[Copenhagen, 1917–18], 57–8).1
Japhet Noa s[un], faðir Iaphans, . . . f[aðir] Iupiter, . . . f. Priami konungs i Troeo. . . .
hans s[un] Magi, hans s. seskef vel SESCEF, Beðvig, Athra, Itermann, HEREMOTR.
SCEALDUA, BEAF, Eat, Goðvl¢, Finn, Frealaf, Voden, þan kollvm ver Oðen. — [The
Norwegian line:] Oden, Niorðr i Noatvnvm, Ynguifræyr, . . . Iorvndr, Avn hinn gamle,
Egill Tunnadolgr, OTTARR VENDIL KRAKA, AÞILS at Vppsŧlum, Eysteinn, YngvaR,
. . . Haralldr harfagri. — [The Danish line:] Oden, SKIOLDR hans s., Friðleifr hans s.,
Friðfroðe, . . . FROÐE frækni h. s., INGIALDR Starkaðar fostri h. s., HALFDAN broðir
hans, HELGI ok HROAR h. ss., ROLFR KRAKI Helga s., HRÆREKR Hnŧggvan bŧgi
Ingiallz s., Froðe h. s., Halfdan h. s., HRÆREKR Slŧngvanbŧgi h. s., Haralldr
Hillditŧnn h. s., Sigvrðr hringr . . . RagnaR loðbrok . . . Hŧrða Knvtr h. s.

§11.2. Chronicon Lethrense (‘The Lejre Chronicle,’ ca. 1170; ed. M. Cl. Gertz, in
Scriptores Minores Historiæ Danicæ Medii Ævi, I [Copenhagen, 1917–18]).
Cap. 3 (pp.¯46–7). RO . . . post patris obitum hereditarie possidebat regnum; patrem
uero suum Dan colle quodam apud Lethram tumulauit Sialandie, ubi sedem regni pro
eo pater constituit; quam ipse post eum diuicijs multiplicibus ditauit. . . . Erat autem
uxor eius fecunda sobole, ex qua genuit duos ¢lios: nomen primi HELGI et secundi
HALDAN. Cumque cepissent puerj robore confortari et crescere, obijt pater eorum
1
As the names are of chief interest, the spelling has not been normalized.
—————————————
helmets and glittering armlets, coats of mail reaching to the ankle, which Rolvo once conferred on
them, incite their unforgetting minds to battle. . . . I have put together this series of exhortations in
a metrical scheme principally because the sense of these very thoughts, arranged within the ambit
of a certain Danish poem, is produced from memory by very many practiced in antiquities.
§¯11.2. Ch. 3. After the death of his father, Ro held the kingdom by inheritance; indeed, he
buried his father Dan in a mound at Lethra [Lejre] on Zealand, where his father had established his
royal residence for him. He himself, following him [his father], enriched the place with manifold
treasures. . . . Moreover, his wife was fertile of progeny, producing two sons, the ¢rst named Helgi,
the second Haldan. And when the boys began to increase in strength and to grow, their father
302 APPENDIX A
Ro et sepultus est tumulo quodam Lethre; post cuius obitum partiti sunt ¢lij eius
regnum illud, in duas partes diuidentes. Alter terras, mare possedit alter.
Capp. 7–8 (pp.¯51–2). Interea . . . confortabatur ¢lius Helgi ROLF, cognomento
Kraki; quem . . . Dani [in] regem assumpserunt. . . . Conspirauerunt inter se deliber-
antes HIARWART et Sculd, quomodo Rolf inter¢ceretur, et Hiarwart superstes regni
heres eÌceretur. Non post multum uero temporis animosus ad uxoris exhortationem
Hiarwart Sialandiam classe pecijt; genero suo Rolf tributum attulisse simulauit. Die
quadam dilucessente ad Lethram misit: ut videret tributum, Rolf nunciauit. Qui cum
uidisset non tributum sed exercitum armatum, uallatus est [Rolf] militibus, et a
Hiarwardo interfectus est. Hiarwardum autem Sialandenses et Scanienses, qui cum eo
erant, in regem assumpserunt; qui breui tempore, a mane usque ad primam, regali
nomine potitus est. Tunc uenit Aki, frater Haghbardi, ¢lius Hamundi; Hiarwardum
interfecit et Danorum rex effectus est.

§¯11.3. Sven Aggesen, Brevis historia regvm Dacie (‘A Brief History of the Kings of
Dacia [i.e., Denmark],’ composed shortly after 1185; in Scriptores Minores Historiæ
Danicæ, I, 97–9).
Cap. 1. SKJOLD Danis primum didici prefuisse. Et ut eius alludamus uocabulo,
idcirco tali functus est nomine, quia uniuersos regni terminos regie defensionis
patrocinio affatim egregie tuebatur. A quo primum modis Islandensibus SKIOLDUNGER
sunt reges nuncupati. Qui regni post se reliquit heredes, FROTHI uidelicet et
HALDANUM. Successu temporum fratribus super regni ambitione inter se decer-
tantibus, Haldan fratre suo interempto regni monarchiam obtinuit. Hic ¢lium, scilicet
HELGHI, regni procreauit heredem, qui ob eximiam uirtutum strenuitatem pyraticam
semper exercuit. Qui cum uniuersorum circumiacentium regnorum ¢nes maritimos
classe pyratica depopulatus suo subiugasset imperio, ‘rex maris’ est cognominatus.
Huic in regno successit ¢lius ROLF KRAKI, patria uirtute pollens, occisus in Lethra;
que tunc famosissima regis extitit curia, nunc autem Roskildensi uicina ciuitati inter

—————————————
Ro died and was buried in a certain mound at Lethra; after his death, his sons partitioned that
realm, dividing it in two. One held the lands, and other the sea. — Chs. 7–8. Meanwhile, Helgi’s
son Rolf, nicknamed kraki, was growing strong; the Danes chose him as king. . . . Deliberating
between them, Hiarwart [Rolf’s brother-in-law] and Sculd [Rolf’s half-sister, married to Hiarwart]
plotted how Rolf might be killed and how Hiarwart might be made surviving heir to the realm. Not
long afterward, aroused by his wife’s goading, Hiarwart approached Zealand with a Ïeet; he
pretended that he was conveying tribute to his brother-in-law Rolf. On a certain day when it grew
light he sent word to Lethra, bidding Rolf to come and take stock of the tribute. When Rolf came
to see, he found not tribute but an armed force, and, hemmed in by troops, he was killed by
Hiarwart. The people of Zealand and Skåne who were with him thereupon accepted Hiarwart as
king; yet he had possession of the name of king a short while, from dawn to early morning. Then
came Aki, brother of Haghbardus and son of Hamundus; he killed Hiarwart and was made king of
the Danes.
§¯11.3. Ch. 1. I have heard that Skjold [‘Shield’] ruled the Danes ¢rst. And if we may make a
play of words with his name, it is for this reason that he lived with such a name, that he was
accustomed to guarding all the borders of the kingdom with the defensive protection of his quite
distinguished rule. He left heirs to the realm after him, namely Frothi and Haldanus. With the
passage of time, the brothers fought to the death between themselves over the right to rule, and
once Haldanus had slain his brother, he gained sole rule over the kingdom. He sired a son, an heir
to the realm, by the name of Helghi, who, on account of the exceeding vigor of his courage,
continually practiced piracy. After he had laid waste the maritime borders of all the adjoining
kingdoms with a pirate Ïeet and subjected them to his rule, he was nicknamed ‘King of the Sea.’
He was succeeded by his son Rolf Kraki, who grew powerful by virtue of his inherited bravery,
and who was killed at Lethra [Lejre], which was then the king’s most renowned court, but which
now, in the neighborhood of the city of Roskilde, being among the lowliest of towns, is scarcely
inhabited at all. After him reigned his son Rókil, called by his surname Slaghenback. The rule
 PARALLELS 303
abiectissima ferme uix colitur oppida. Post quem regnauit ¢lius eius RÓKIL,1 cogno-
mento dictus Slaghenback. Cui successit in regno heres, agilitatis strenuitate cogno-
minatus, quem nostro uulgari Frothi hin Frókni nominabant.
Cap. 2. Huius ¢lius et heres regni extitit WERMUNDUS. . . . Hic ¢lium genuit, UFFI
nomine, qui usque ad tricesimum etatis sue annum fandi possibilitatem cohibuit. . . .
[The Offa story follows.]

§¯11.4. Codex Runicus (MS ca. 1300?; ed. from the facsimile, Det Arnamagnæanske
Haandskrift N¯o 28, 8vo [Copenhagen, 1877], fols. 93–4r).
Ta 2 var 2 froTe 2 kunung 2 hadings 2 sun 2 han 2 drap 2 en 2 draka 2 ok 2 skataTe 2 annantima 2
TyTist 2 land 2 ok 2 frisland 2 ok 2 britanniam 2 Ta 2 uar 2 haldan 2 kunung 2 froTa 2 sun 2 han 2 drap 2
sina 2 br6Ter 2 fore 2 Ty 2 at 2 han 2 uiXdi 2 hava 2 rikit 2 Ta 2 var 2 ro 2 froTa 2 sun 2 han 2 bygdi 2
f6st 2 roskeldo 2 ok 2 helhe 2 kunung 2 hans 2 broTer 2 drap 2 kunung 2 hotbrod 2 af 2 sueriki 2 ok 2
skataTe 2 TriTia 2 tima 2 TyhTist 2 land 2 Ta 2 var 2 rolf 2 kunung 2 krake 2 heXhe 2 sun 2 i 2 hans 2 tima
2 var 2 hialti 2 ok 2 bierghi 2 ok 2 hans 2 mahg 2 het 2 iarmar 2 … 2 Ta 2 uar 2 uermund 2 kunung 2 uiTlesT
2 sun 2 … 2 Ta 2 uar 2 uffi 2 starke 2 uermunda 2 sun 2 han 2 skataTe 2 fiarTe 2 sinni 2
TyhTiskulande 2 Ta 2 uar 2 dan 2 kunung 2 uffa 2 sun 2 ok 2 huhlek 2 kunung 2 uffa 2 sun 2 …

§¯11.5. Annales Ryenses (‘The Rye Chronicle,’ 13th century; ed. E. Jørgensen, in
Annales Danici Medii Ævi [Copenhagen, 1920] 62–4):
Primus ergo Danorum rex fuit Dan. . . . Secundus, Humblæ, ¢lius eius; hic erat
uanus et iners, atque pauca notabilia fecit. Unde Lother, frater eius, facta conspiratione
Danorum contra fratrem, eum de regno deposuit atque pro eo regnauit. Tercius, Lother,
nimis durus fuit incolis regni atque in multis se nequiter gessit, atque ideo tirannidem
eius Dani non ferentes eum occiderunt. . . . Quartus, SKIOLD. . . . Gram. . . .
HALDANUS. . . . RO. . . . HALDAN et HELGI. . . . Helgi, rex marinus. Iste strennuus
bellator. HOTHBRODUM regem Suecie occidit. . . . ROLFKRAKI, ¢lius Helgi. Iste post
multas praeclaras uictorias ab HYERWARDO, comite Scanie, qui sororem eius habuit in
uxorem, in lecto suo proditiose est occisus in Læthra curia regali in Syelandia, cum quo
et BYÆRKI et IÆLTI, pugiles clarissimi, cum tota familia regia sunt occisi. Huic

1
I.e., Rørik Slangenboge? (Hrœrekr slaungvanbaugi = Hrēðrīċ.)
—————————————
passed from him to his heir, surnamed for the force of his agility, whom in the vernacular they call
Fróði hinn frœkni [‘the Bold’]. — Ch. 2. His son and heir to the realm was Wermundus. He
produced a son, UÌ by name, who repressed the power of speech until his thirtieth year.
§¯11.4. Then the king was FROTHE, son of Hading. He killed a dragon, and he was the second to
impose tribute upon Germany and Friesland and Britannia. Then the king was HALDAN, son of
Frothe; he killed his brothers, because he wanted to have the kingdom. Then came RO, son of
Frothe; he was the ¢rst to settle Roskeldo. And King HELHE, his brother, killed King HOTBROD of
Sweden, and he was the third to lay tribute upon Germany. Then the king was ROLF KRAKE, son
of HELLHE; in his day there were HIALTI and BIERGHI, and his kinsman was named Iarmar. . . .
Then the king was UERMUND, son of Uiþlesþ [or Uisleþ?]. . . . Then the king was UFFI the strong,
son of Uermund; he was the fourth to impose tribute upon Germany. Then the king was DAN, son
of UÌ, and King HUHLEK, son of UÌ.
§¯11.5. Thus, the ¢rst king of the Danes was Dan. . . . The second Humblæ, his son; he was idle
and cowardly, and he accomplished little of note. Hence, his brother Lother, when a conspiracy of
Danes was formed against his brother, deposed him and ruled in his place. The third, Lother, was
excessively harsh to the inhabitants of his realm and conducted himself badly in many matters, and
therefore the Danes, ¢nding his tyranny insupportable, killed him. Fourth was Skiold. . . . Helgi, a
sea-king. He was a ¢erce warrior. He killed Hothbrodus, king of Sweden. . . . Hrolf kraki, son of
Helgi. After many brilliant victories, he was killed treacherously in his bed by Hyarwardus,
governor of Skåne, who was married to his sister, in Lethra [Lejre], the royal court in Zealand,
along with Bjarki and Hjalti, superlative ¢ghters, and the entire royal family. Hyarwardus
304 APPENDIX A
successit Hyarwardus. Hyarwardus regnauit breui tempore scilicet a mane usque ad
horam primam. Hunc occidit Haki, ¢lius Hamundi, et factus est rex Danorum. . . .
Wichlechus. . . . WERMUNDUS BLINDE. Hic uir bellicosus erat. Huius tempore Keto et
Wiggo, ¢lii Frowini, praefecti Sleswicensis, occiderunt ATHISLUM, regem Suecie, in
ultionem patris sui. Huic successit UFFO STARKE, ¢lius eius. . . . Iste a septimo anno
etatis anno usque ad trigesimum noluit loqui, quousque in loco, qui adhuc Kunengi-
kamp dicitur, super Eydoram cum ¢lio regis Teutonicorum atque meliore pugile totius
Teutonie solus certans ambos occidit. . . .

§¯11.6. Skj∂ldunga saga (an epitome, made in 1596 by Arngrímur Jónsson, of a saga of
ca. 1180–1200 [?]; ed. Bjarni Guðnason, in Danakonunga s∂gur [Reykjavík, 1982] 1–
45).
Cap. 1. (Scioldus establishes his royal seat.) Rerum Danicarum historiam Norveg-
orum commentarii non à Dan, ut Saxo Grammaticus, sed à SCIOLDO qvodam Odini
(qvem vulgo Othinum) ¢lio ordiuntur. Tradunt enim Odinum illum . . . adeptum esse
imperium Daniamqve (qvae tum tamen eo nomine caruerit) Scioldo, Sveciam Ingoni
¢liis assignasse. Atqve inde à Scioldo, qvos hodie Danos, olim SKIOLLDUNGA fuisse
appellatos, ut et Svecos ab Ingone Inglinga. . . . Scioldus in arce Selandiæ Hledro . . .
sedes posuit, qvæ et seqventium plurimorum Regum regia fuit, cum etiam Jutiam
subjectam haberet, qvam etiam propter [vicinitudinem] primum occuparat.
Cap. 4 enumerates six sons of Leifus, the son of Herleifus (the fourth king of
Denmark): Herleifus, Hunleifus, Aleifus, Oddleifus, Geirleifus, Gunnleifus.
Cap. 9. (Frodo and Ingjaldus.) Perpetrato hoc fratricidio Rex FRODO Regem Sveciæ
Iorundum devicit, eiqve tributa imperavit; similiter etiam baroni cuidam Svetico
nomine Sverting. Filiam Sveci simul rapuit Frodo, ex qua HALFDANUM ¢lium possedit.
Concubina hæc fuit. Postea ductâ alia INGIALLDUM ¢lium legitimum hæredem
suscepit.
Cap. 10. (Ingjaldus seizes the kingdom.) [Genealogia:] . . . HALFDANUS — HELGO,
ROAS vel ROË; [Helgo’s son:] ROLPHO KRAG. — Halfdanus . . . ex qvadam Sigrida
Signyam, Roam et Helgonem habuit. Ingialldus porro Halfdanum regnandi cupiditate
cum exercitu ex improviso superveniens occidit. Daniæ igitur monarcha factus

———————————
succeeded him. Hyarwardus reigned a brief time, that is, from dawn to prime. Haki the son of
Hamundus killed him and was made king of the Danes. . . . Wermundus the blind. He was
extremely warlike. During his reign, Keto and Wiggo, sons of Frowinus, king of Schleswig, killed
Athislus, king of Sweden, to avenge their father. His son Uffo starke [‘the Strong’] succeeded
him. . . . From his seventh year to his thirtieth he would not speak, until in the place called
Kunengikamp, above the Eydora [Eider], contending with the son of the king of the Teutons and
one of the best ¢ghters of all of Teutonica, he killed both.
§¯11.6. Ch. 1. Norwegian commentaries begin the history of Danish affairs not with Dan, as
Saxo Grammaticus does, but with Scioldus, a certain son of Odinus (Othinus in the vernacular). In-
deed, they report that Odinus . . . secured oÌces for his sons, for Scioldus Denmark (which, how-
ever, was not called by that name at the time) and for Ingo Sweden. And thenceforth to this day the
Danes have been called Sciolldunga, after Scioldus, and the Swedes Inglinga, after Ingo. . . .
Scioldus placed his residence in the stronghold of Zealand called Hledrus [Lejre], which was also
the court of very many succeeding kings, when he had also made Jutland subject to him, which he
occupied ¢rst on account of its proximity. — Ch. 9. After perpetrating the death of his brother
[Alo, i.e. Áli], King Frodo subjugated King Iorundus of Sweden and imposed tribute on him;
likewise on a certain Swedish earl by the name of Sverting. At the same time Frodo snatched away
the Swedish king’s daughter, from whom he gained a son Halfdanus. She was his concubine. After
that, from another whom he married he received a son Ingialldus, his legitimate heir. — Ch. 10. . . .
Halfdanus fathered Signya, Roas, and Helgo by one Sigrida. Ingialldus next, because of his desire
to rule [alone], came unexpected upon Halfdanus with an army and killed him. Having thereby
become sole ruler of Denmark, he took to wife the widow of his brother. By her was raised his
daughter Signya, whom he later married off to the base-born earl Sevillus of Zealand. — Ch. 11.
 PARALLELS 305
relictam fratris viduam uxorem duxit. . . . Apud hanc educta est ¢lia Signya, quam
Ingialldus vili baroni Selandiæ Sevillo postea elocavit.
Cap. 11. ROAS ¢liam Angli uxorem duxit.
Cap. 12. (The death of Rolfo.) ROLFO cognomento KRAKE vel Krag1 Danicè . . . cæso
Helgoni patri avoqve eidem octennis successit . . . Rolfo Krage inter ethnicos Reges
celeberrimus multa virtute insignis erat: sapientiâ, potentiâ seu opibus, fortitudine et
modestiâ atque mirâ humanitate, statura procera et gracili. — . . . Habuit pugilem
celeberrimum Rolfo Bodvarum, Norvegum: hic de omnibus aliis fortitudinis laudem
abstulit. . . . Posthæc ortis inter ADILLUM illum Sveciæ Regem et ALONEM,
Opplandorum Regem in Norvegia, inimicitiis, prælium utrinqve indicitur: loco pugnæ
statuto in stagno Wæner, glacie jam obducto. . . . Rolpho domi ipse reses pugiles suos
duodecim Adillo in subsidium mittit, qvorum etiam operâ is alioqvi vincendus
victoriam obtinuit. . . . — [Rolfonis] sororius HIØRVARDUS, olim prælio subactus,
occultum Rolfonis fovebat odium. . . . Hiorvardus in Selandiam aliqvot navibus vectus,
tributum solvere velle simulat. [He treacherously attacks Rolf.] Ille tamen cum suis
heroica virtute arma capessit. . . . Pugnatur usqve ad vesperam. . . . Occubuit ROLFO
cum suis penè omnibus. [The next day, Hiørvardus is declared King of Denmark, but
he is fatally stabbed by Woggerus during the oaths of allegiance.] — Cap. 13. Hic solus
Regum Daniæ vix sex horas regnavit.
Cap. 14. Hiorvardo in ipso regni aditu interfecto successit Rolfonis consanguineus
RÆRECUS, qui Helgoni Rolfonis patri fuit patruelis.

§¯11.7. Arngrímur Jónsson, Catalogus Regum Sveciæ (‘Catalogue of the Kings of

Sweden,’ compiled from various earlier sources in the late 16th century; ed. Bjarni
Guðnason, in Danakonunga s∂gur [Reykjavík, 1982] 74). (Ship funeral of King
Sigvardus.)
Sigvardus Ring . . . Hinc post acerrimam pugnam fortiter occumbentibus Alfo cum
Ingvone fratre, Sigvardus etiam male vulneratus est. Qvi Alfsolæ funere allato magnam
navim mortuorum cadaveribus oneratam solus vivorum conscendit, seqve et mortuam
Alfsolam in puppi collocans navim pice, bitumine et sulphure incendi jubet:

1
Properly, the epithet is not kráka, Dan. krage ‘crow,’ but kraki ‘pole-ladder,’ in reference to
his slender ¢gure: see §¯8 supra (Skáldsk. ch. 44).
—————————————
Roas took to wife the daughter of the king of England. — Ch. 12. Rolfo, nicknamed Krake, or
‘Crow’ in Danish . . . after the fall of Helgo, who was father and uncle to him, ruled from the age
of eight. . . . Rolfo Krage was the most celebrated of pagan kings, distinguished by many a virtue:
wisdom, power or wealth, bravery and humility and extraordinary re¢nement, with a tall and
slender build. — Rolfo had a very renowned champion Bodvarus, a Norwegian. He took the
reputation for heroism away from all others. . . . After this, when hostilities arose between Adillus,
the king of Sweden, and Alo, king of the Opplanders in Norway, war was declared on both sides: a
place of battle was established on Lake Väner, which was covered with ice just then. . . . Rolfo,
though he sat at home himself, sent in support of Adillus his twelve champions, by whose
accomplishments he, who would otherwise have been defeated, obtained victory. — Rolfo’s
brother-in-law Hiørvardus, formerly bested by him in battle, nurtured a secret hatred for Rolfo. . . .
Hiørvardus, having arrived in Zealand with several ships, pretended it was his intention to pay the
tribute. . . . He [Rolfo], however, along with his men, seized his weapons with heroic bravery. . . .
They fought until evening. . . . Rolfo fell with nearly all his men. . . . Ch. 13. Of all the kings of
Denmark, he alone (Hiørvardus) ruled a mere six hours. — Ch. 14. Since Hiørvardus was killed at
the very beginning of his reign, he was succeeded by Rolfo’s kinsman Rærecus, who was a
paternal cousin to Rolfo’s father Helgo.
§11.7. Thus, after a very bitter battle, in which Alfus fell with his brother Ingvo, Sigvardus
[Ring], too, was badly wounded. When a funeral was arranged for Alfsola [Sigvardus’s intended,
killed by her brothers just named], he alone of the living boarded a great ship freighted with the
bodies of the dead, and placing himself and the deceased Alfsola together in the stern, he ordered
the ship to be burned with pitch, asphalt, and sulphur. And with the sails raised high, with strong
306 APPENDIX A
atqve sublatis velis in altum, validis à continente impellentibus ventis, proram dirigit,
simulqve manus sibi violentas intulit; sese tot facinorum patratorem, tantorum regno-
rum possessorem, more majorum suorum, regali pompa Odinum Regem (id est inferos)
invisere malle qvam inertis senectutis in¢rmitatem perpeti alacri animo ad socios in
littore antea relictos præfatus (qvidam narrant eum, anteqvam littus relinqveret, propria
se confodisse manu). Bustum tamen in littore more sui sæculi congeri fecit, quod
Ringshaug appellari jussit; ipse vero tempestatibus ratem gubernantibus Stygias sine
mora tranavit undas.

§¯12. HRÓLFS SAGA KRAKA (15th century or earlier; ed. Finnur Jónsson [Copenhagen,
1904]. (The story of King Hrólfr and his champions.)
Ch. 1. (3.7¯ff.) HÁLFDAN konungr átti þrjú b∂rn, tvá syni ok eina dóttur, er Signý hét;
hon var elzt ok gipt Sævil jarli, en synir Hálfdanar váru þá ungir, hét annarr HRÓARR,
an annarr HELGI.
Ch. 3. (9.4¯ff.) HRÓARR var þá tólf vetra, en HELGI tíu; hann var þó þeira meiri ok
frœknari.
Ch. 5. (17.9¯ff.) Konungr hét Norðri; hann réð fyrir n∂kkurum hluta Englands; hans
dóttir hét ¤gn. HRÓARR var l∂ngum með Norðra konungi, . . . ok um síðir gekk Hróarr
at eiga ¤gn ok settisk þar at ríki með Norðra konungi mági sínum.
Ch. 16. (45.25¯ff.) HRÓLFR konungr liggr nú í hernaði. . . . ok alla konunga, sem hann
¢nnr, þá gerir hann skattgilda undir sik, ok bar þat mest til, at allir hinir mestu kappar
vildu með honum vera ok engum ∂ðrum þjóna, því at hann var miklu mildari af fé en
n∂kkurir konungar aðrir. Hrólfr konungr setti þar h∂fuðstað sinn, sem Hleiðargarðr
heitir; þat er í Danm∂rk ok er mikil borg ok sterk, ok meiri rausn ok hoffrakt var þar en
n∂kkur staðar, ok í ∂llu því sem til stórlætis kom eða n∂kkurr hafði spurn af.
Chs. 17¯ff. B∂ðvar-Bjarka þáttr. [Summary:] Bůðvarr is the son of Bj∂rn1 (the son of
Hringr, king of Uppdalir in Norway) and Bera,2 a peasant's daughter. Having passed
eighteen winters, he leaves Norway, (ch. 23:) visits his eldest brother Elgfróði and his
second brother Þórir, who is king of GAUTLAND, and continues on his way to
Denmark. He arrives at Hleiðargarðr, goes into King Hrólfr’s hall, seats the simple and
cowardly Hůttr, who is regularly made sport of by the feasters, next to himself, and

1 2
I.e. ‘Bear’; he was turned into a bear by magic. ‘She-Bear.’
—————————————
winds blowing off the land, he directed the prow, and at the same time he laid violent hands on
himself [i.e., rent his garment in grief]. He had said beforehand with an animated spirit to his
comrades left on the shore that he, the accomplisher of so many deeds, the possessor of so many
kingdoms, preferred, in the manner of his ancestors, to seek out King Odinus (that is, hell) with a
regal display, rather than to endure the in¢rmity of an inactive old age. Some say, before he left the
shore he stabbed himself with his own hand. But he had a burial mound heaped up on the shore,
after the manner of his age, which he said should be called Ringshaug. And then he, with the ship
steered by storms, passed through the Stygian waves without delay.
§¯12. Ch. 1. King Hálfdan had three children, two sons and one daughter, who was called Signý;
she was the eldest and was married to Earl Sævill, but the sons of Hálfdan were young at the time;
one was called Hróarr, the other Helgi. — Ch. 2. Hróarr was then twelve years old, and Helgi ten;
the latter was, however, larger and more courageous. — Ch. 5. There was a king by the name of
Norðri; he ruled over certain parts of England; his daugher was named ¤gn. Hróarr was in
Norðri’s retinue for a long time, and eventually Hróarr came to marry ¤gn, and he settled there in
that realm with his father-in-law Norðri. — Ch. 16. King Hrólfr now occupied himself in warfare
. . . and all the kings he encountered, he compelled to pay tribute to him, and that happened chieÏy
because all the greatest champions wanted to serve him and no other, since he was far more
generous of payment than any other kings. King Hrólfr established his capital at that place called
Hleiðargarðr [Lejre]; that is in Denmark, and it is a great and strong fortress, and there was more
splendor and more pomp there than anywhere in all things relating to muni¢cence, to anyone’s
knowledge.
 PARALLELS 307
when one of the men throws a large bone at both of them, returns it with such force as
to kill the offender. Whereupon a great outcry is made; but the king settles the matter
and even asks B∂ðvarr to become one of his retainers. B∂ðvarr accepts the proposal,
insisting at the same time that H∂ttr be allowed to join him.
(68.10¯ff.) As the Yule-tide approached, the men seemed greatly depressed. B∂ðvarr,
upon asking the reason, was told by H∂ttr that about this time in the two preceding
winters a great beast had appeared and caused great damage. It was a terrible monster
(tr∂ll), he said, with wings on its back, and no weapon could injure it. Nor would the
king’s champions come home at this dreadful time. (68.17:) ‘The hall is not as well
guarded,’ said B∂ðvarr, ‘as I thought, if a beast can deal destruction to the king’s
domain and property.’ On Yule-eve the king commanded his men to leave the cattle to
their fate and on no account to expose themselves to danger. But B∂ðvarr went secretly
out at night, taking with him by force the trembling H∂ttr, and attacked the monster as
it approached. At ¢rst his sword stuck fast in the sheath, but when he pulled very hard,
the sword came out, and he struck it with such strength under the shoulder of the beast
that it ‘stood’ in its heart. The beast fell down dead. B∂ðvarr forced his comrade to
drink of the blood and eat of the heart of the beast, whereby H∂ttr became strong and
fearless. Both then set up the monster as if it were alive and returned to the hall.
In the morning King Hrólfr found on inquiry that the cattle had been unmolested, and
he sent out men to investigate. They quickly returned with the report that at that very
moment the monster was charging down upon the hall. When the king called on
volunteers to meet the beast, H∂ttr asked him for the loan of his sword Gullinhjalti, and
with it he struck at the monster, causing it to fall over. Then the king turned to B∂ðvarr
and said, ‘A great change has come over H∂ttr; but it was you who slew the beast. I
knew when you came here, that few were your equals, but this seems to me your
bravest deed that you have made a champion of H∂ttr. From this day he shall be called
Hjalti, — you shall be called after the sword Gullinhjalti.’
Ch. 24. (74.2¯ff.) B∂ðvarr var mest metinn ok haldinn, ok sat hann upp á hægri h∂nd
konunginum ok honum næst, þá Hjalti hinn hugprúði. . . . (74.17¯f.) Reyndisk B∂ðvarr
mestr allra hans kappa, hvat sem reyna þurfti, ok í svá miklar virðingar komsk hann hjá
HRÓLFI konungi, at hann eignaðisk hans einkadóttur, Drífu.
Chs. 25¯ff. Expedition of HRÓLFR and his champions (B∂ðvarr among them) to
Sweden.
Chs. 32¯ff. Fall of King HRÓLFR and his champions (B∂ðvarr Bjarki, Hjalti, V∂ttr,
and nine others) in defending themselves against HJŮRVARÐR; Hjalti’s exhortations.
Cf. Saxo ii 7,4–28.

§¯13. BJARKARÍMUR (before 1600; ed. Finnur Jónsson, Hrólfs saga kraka og Bjarka-
rímur [Copenhagen, 1904]). [Summary:]
Ríma iv, 58¯ff. Bjarki (or Bůðvarr) kills a she-wolf and compels Hjalti to drink her
blood.
Ríma v, 4¯ff. Hjalti courageously faces and slays a gray bear which has attacked the
folds of Hleiðargarðr; he is made one of HRÓLFR’s retainers.
Ríma viii, 14¯ff. Fight between AÐILS and ÁLI on Lake Väner; Aðils is assisted by
Bjarki and the other champions of Hrólfr.

—————————————
Ch. 24. B∂ðvarr was the most esteemed and the highest valued, and he sat next to the king at his
right hand, and then came Hjalti the stout-hearted. . . . B∂ðvarr proved foremost of all his [the
king’s] champions, whatever contest was at hand, and he came so high in King Hrólfr’s esteem
that he married his only daughter, Drífa.
308 APPENDIX A
IV. ROMAN, FRANKISH, AND GOTHIC HISTORIANS
§¯14. CORNELIUS TACITUS, GERMANIA (A.D. 98; ed. M. Winterbottom & R. Ogilvie,
Cornelii Taciti opera minora [Oxford, 1975].) (Roman account of [mostly] Germanic
peoples.)
Cap. 2. (Oral poetry.) Celebrant carminibus antiquis, quod unum apud illos mem-
oriae et annalium genus est, Tuistonem deum terra editum. ei ¢lium Mannum, originem
gentis conditoremque, Manno tris ¢lios adsignant, e quorum nominibus proximi
Oceano Ingaevones,1 medii Hermiones, ceteri Istaevones vocentur.
Cap. 6. (The shame attendant upon cowardice.) Corpora suorum etiam in dubiis
proeliis referunt. scutum reliquisse praecipuum Ïagitium, nec aut sacris adesse aut
concilium inire ignominioso fas, multique superstites bellorum infamiam laqueo
¢nierunt.
Cap. 7. (Leadership.) [N]ec regibus in¢nita ac libera potestas, et duces exemplo
potius quam imperio.
Cap. 10. (Auguries.) Auspicia sortesque ut qui maxime observant. . . . Et illud
quidem etiam hic notum, avium voces volatusque interrogare; proprium gentis
equorum quoque praesagia ac monitus experiri.
Cap. 11. (Reckoning time.) [N]ec dierum numerum ut nos sed noctium computant.
Cap. 13. (The war-band.) Insignis nobilitas aut magna patrum merita principis
dignationem etiam adulescentulis adsignant; ceteris robustioribus ac iam pridem
probatis adgregantur, nec rubor inter comites aspici. gradus quin etiam ipse comitatus
habet iudicio eius quem sectantur; magnaque et comitum aemulatio quibus primus
apud principem suum locus, et principum cui plurimi et acerrimi comites. haec
dignitas, hae vires magno semper et electorum iuvenum globo, circumdari, in pace
decus, in bello praesidium. nec solum in sua gente cuique sed apud ¢nitimas quoque
civitates id nomen, ea gloria est, si numero ac virtute comitatus emineat; expetuntur
enim legationibus et muneribus ornantur et ipsa plerumque fama bella proÏigant.
Cap. 14. (The warrior ethos.) Cum ventum in aciem, turpe principi virtute vinci,
turpe comitatui virtutem principis non adaequare. iam vero infame in omnem vitam ac
1
Pliny: Inguaeones.
—————————————
§¯14. Ch. 2. In ancient songs, which is the only kind of history or annals they have, they
celebrate a god Tuisto, spawned by the earth. To him they assign a son Mannus, the origin and
founder of the race, and to Mannus three sons, after whose names those nearest the sea are called
Ingaevones, those in the middle Herminones, and the rest Istaevones. — Ch. 6. They retrieve the
corpses of their men even in battles of indecisive result. It is the utmost disgrace to have
abandoned one’s shield; it is illicit for such a miscreant to attend religious rites or to be present at
council; many survivors of battles have ended their infamy with a noose. — Ch. 7. Neither
limitless nor unconstrained power is granted to their kings, and generals lead more by example
than command. — Ch. 10. They have greater regard for auguries and sortilege than anyone. . . .
And indeed, this is known even here [in Rome], to interpret the calls and Ïight of birds; but
peculiar to this people is to try the prophetic power and omens of horses, too. — Ch. 11. They
reckon not by days, as we do, but by nights. — Ch. 13 Exceptional nobility or great accomplish-
ments on the part of fathers earn the dignity of high rank even for adolescents; they attach
themselves to others who are stronger and who have long since proved themselves. Neither is it an
embarrassment to be seen among one’s followers. Rather, the comitatus itself has its ranks as
assigned by the one they follow; and the rivalry of the followers is great as to which of them will
have pride of place in the esteem of their chieftain, and of the chieftains as to which will have the
most numerous and keenest followers. This is a mark of honor and strength, always to be sur-
rounded by a crowd of select youths, in peace an honor, in war a protection. Neither is it only
among his own people but in adjacent states as well that it is a source of reputation and glory if
one’s comitatus stands out in size and strength; indeed, such men are sought out for legations and
are showered with gifts, and commonly by their very reputation they attenuate wars. — Ch. 14.
When they have come onto the battle¢eld, it is a disgrace for a chieftain to be surpassed in bravery,
and for the comitatus not to match the bravery of the chieftain. Furthermore, it truly renders one
 PARALLELS 309
probrosum superstitem principi suo ex acie recessisse; illum defendere tueri, sua
quoque fortia facta gloriae eius adsignare praecipuum sacramentum est: principes pro
victoria pugnant, comites pro principe; . . . exigunt enim principis sui liberalitate illum
bellatorem equum, illam cruentam victricemque frameam; nam epulae et quamquam
incompti largi tamen apparatus pro stipendio cedunt.
Cap. 20. (Sisters’ sons.) Sororum ¢liis idem apud avunculum qui ad patrem honor.
quidam sanctiorem artioremque hunc nexum sanguinis arbitrantur et in accipiendis
obsidibus magis exigunt, tamquam et animum ¢rmius et domum latius teneant.
Cap. 21. (Feuds and their settlement.) Suscipere tam inimicitias seu patris seu pro-
pinqui quam amicitias necesse est, nec implacabiles durant; luitur enim etiam homi-
cidium certo armentorum ac pecorum numero recipitque satisfactionem universa
domus, utiliter in publicum, quia periculosiores sunt inimicitiae iuxta libertatem.
Cap. 27. (Funerals.) Funerum nulla ambitio; id solum observatur ut corpora
clarorum virorum certis lignis crementur. struem rogi nec vestibus nec odoribus
cumulant; sua cuique arma, quorundam igni et equus adicitur. sepulcrum caespes erigit:
monumentorum arduum et operosum honorem ut gravem defunctis, aspernantur.
lamenta ac lacrimas cito, dolorem et tristitiam tarde ponunt. feminis lugere honestum
est, viris meminisse.
Cap. 40. (Worship of Nerthus.) Contra Langobardos paucitas nobilitat; plurimus ac
valentissimis nationibus cincti non per obsequium sed proeliis et periclitando tuti sunt.
Reudigni deinde et Aviones et Anglii et Varini et Eudoses et Suarines et Nuitones
Ïuminibus aut silvis muniuntur. nec quicquam notabile in singulis, nisi quod in
commune Nerthum, id est Terram matrem, colunt eamque intervenire rebus hominum,
invehi populis arbitrantur. est in insula Oceani castum nemus, dicatumque in eo
vehiculum, veste contectum; attingere uni sacerdoti concessum. is adesse penetrali
deam intellegit vectamque bubus feminis multa cum veneratione prosequitur. laeti tunc
dies, festa loca quaecumque adventu hospitioque dignatur. non bella ineunt, non arma

—————————————
who survives his lord disgraced for life and infamous, to have Ïed the battle¢eld; to defend him, to
look after him, and even to ascribe one’s own brave deeds to his glory, is one’s pre-eminent
obligation; chieftains ¢ght for victory, followers for their chieftain. . . . Indeed, they demand of the
generosity of their chieftain that war-horse, that bloody and conquering spear; feasts and certain
rough but lavish displays serve for pay. — Ch. 20. To sisters’ sons the same esteem is accorded by
an uncle as by a father. Some consider this blood tie [between uncle and sororal nephew] closer
and more sacred, and in accepting hostages they prefer it, in order to have so much the ¢rmer grasp
on their loyalty and a wider hold on the family. — Ch. 21. It is a duty to prosecute the feuds of
one’s father or other close relation as much as their friendships; but feuds do not remain
implacable. Indeed, even a murder is expiated by the payment of a certain number of cattle or
sheep, and the entire family receives satisfaction, to the public good, inasmuch as feuds are the
more dangerous when unconstrained. — Ch. 27. There is no empty pomp in their funerals: all they
do is burn the bodies of distinguished men with certain kinds of wood. They heap the funeral pile
with neither garments nor incense; their arms, sometimes their horse, are consigned to the ¢re. A
mound of turf serves for a sepulcher; they spurn the hard and laborious honor of monuments as
oppressive to the dead. They put aside lamentations and tears quickly, but sadness and pain slowly.
It is proper for women to lament, for men to remember. — Ch. 40. By contrast, their small num-
bers distinguish the Lombards; from the many and powerful nations surrounding them they are
protected not through submissiveness but by warfare and high risk. Next come the Reudigni and
the Aviones and the Anglii and the Varini and the Eudoses and the Suarines and the Nuitones, who
are shielded by rivers or forests. Neither is there anything remarkable about them as individual
peoples, except that in common they worship Nerthus, that is, Mother Earth, whom they imagine to
intervene in the affairs of men while traveling among the populace. On a sea isle there is a sacred
grove, with a consecrated wagon in it, covered with a cloth; a sole priest is permitted to touch it.
He senses when the goddess is present in the inner sanctum, and as she is borne away by cattle, he
follows with great veneration. The days then are joyous, and all the places festive that she deems
worthy to receive and entertain her. They do not enter into warfare, and they bear no arms; all
weapons are shut away. Only then are peace and quiet known, and only then loved, until that same
310 APPENDIX A
sumunt; clausum omne ferrum; pax et quies tunc tantum nota, tunc tantum amata,
donec idem sacerdos satiatam conversatione mortalium deam templo reddat. mox
vehiculum et vestis et, si credere velis, numen ipsum secreto lacu abluitur. servi
ministrant, quos statim idem lacus haurit; arcanus hinc terror sanctaque ignorantia quid
sit illud quod tantum perituri vident.
Cap. 45. (Boar images.) Ergo iam dextro Suebici maris litore Aestiorum gentes
adluuntur, quibus ritus habitusque Sueborum, lingua Britannicae proprior. matrem
deum venerantur. insigne superstitionis formas aprorum gestant; id pro armis
hominumque tutela securum deae cultorem etiam inter hostis praestat.

§¯15. GREGORY OF TOURS, LIBRI HISTORIARUM DECEM, commonly known as the

HISTORIA FRANCORUM (‘History of the Franks,’ late 6th century; ed. B. Krusch & W.
Levison, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum I, i, 2nd
ed. [Hannover, 1951] 97–9). (Hyġelāc’s raid on Frankish territory.)
Lib. iii, cap. 1. Defuncto igitur Chlodovecho regi, quattuor ¢lii eius, id est
Theudoricus, Chlodomeris, Childeberthus atque Chlothacharius, regnum eius accipiunt
et inter se aequa lantia dividunt. Habebat iam tunc Theudoricus ¢lium nomen
Theudobertum, elegantem atque utilem.
Lib. iii, cap. 3. His ita gestis, Dani cum rege suo nomen CHLOCHILAICHUM1 evectu
navali per mare Gallias appetunt. Egressique ad terras, pagum unum de regno
Theudorici devastant atque captivant, oneratisque navibus tam de captivis quam de
reliquis spoliis, reverti ad patriam cupiunt; sed rex eorum in litus1 resedebat, donec
navis alto mare conpraehenderent, ipse deinceps secuturus. Quod cum Theudorico
nuntiatum fuisset, quod scilicet regio eius fuerit ab extraneis devastata, Theudobertum,
¢lium suum, in illis partibus cum valido exercitu ac magno armorum apparatu direxit.

1
Alternate spellings: Chlodilaicum, Chlochilaico, Chlochilaicho, Chochilaico, Chochiliaco,
Chrochilaicho, Hrodolaicum. In the Liber historiae Francorum based on Gregory (ca. A.D. 727;
also known as Gesta Francorum; ed. B. Krusch, Fredegarii et aliorum chronica, MGH, Scriptores
Rerum Merovingicarum II [Hannover, 1888], 274), cap. 19, he is called Chochilaico (Varr.:
Chrochilaico, Chohilaico, Chochelaico, Chochilago, Hlodilago, Chodilaico, Chlochilaico). This
source, though later, gives additional, seemingly reliable information: Theuderico paygo Attoarios
vel alios; — ibid.: ad litus maris.
—————————————
priest returns the goddess, satiated by contact with mortals, to her temple. Thereupon the wagon
and its covering and, if you care to believe it, the deity herself are washed in a hidden lake. Slaves
conduct the ablutions, and immediately afterward, that same lake swallows them. Hence there is a
terror of the unknown and a reverent ignorance about what it might be that is seen only by those
who are about to die. — Ch. 45. Thus, then, on the right-hand shore, the waters of the Suebic sea
[i.e., the Baltic] wash the tribes of the Aestii, who have the customs and appearance of the Suebi,
though their language is more characteristic of the British tongue. They venerate a mother goddess.
As a mark of that superstition they bear images of wild boars: such an image is a substitute for
arms and the protection of men, furnishing security to a votary of the goddess even among
enemies.
§¯15. iii, 1. When King Clodovechus died, his four sons, Theudoricus, Chlodomeris, Childe-
bertus, and Chlothacharius, received his kingdom, and they divided it among them equally. Now
by this time Theudoricus had a son by the name of Theudobertus, who was excellent and service-
able. — iii, 3. When these things had thus transpired, the Danes, along with their king, by the name
of Chlochilaichus, approached Gaul over the sea with naval transport. Upon disembarking, they
laid waste a district of the kingdom of Theudoricus, and with their ships freighted equally with
captives and other spoils, they desired to return to their own country. But their king remained
ashore until the ships should reach the high seas, whereupon he would follow. When this was
reported to Theudoricus, i.e. that his kingdom had been devastated by invaders, he directed his son
to the area with a powerful and well-equipped army. Once he had killed the king, Theudobertus
crushed the overwhelmed enemy in a naval battle and restored all that had been taken from the land.
 PARALLELS 311
Qui, interfectu rege, hostibus navali proelio superatis oppraemit omnemque rapinam
terrae restituit.1

§¯16. JORDANES, DE ORIGINE ACTIBUSQUE GETARUM (‘The Origin and Accomplish-

ments of the Goths,’ A.D. 551; ed. F. Giunta & A. Grillone [Rome, 1991] 105–6.) (The
funeral of Attila [d. 451], from cap. 49.)
Cuius manes quibus a sua gente honorati sunt, pauca de multis dicere non
omittamus. in mediis siquidem campis et intra tentoria serica cadavere collocato,
spectaculum admirandum et sollemne exhibetur. nam de tota gente Hunnorum lect-
issimi equites, in eo loco quo erat positus, in modum circensium cursibus ambientes,
facta eius cantu funereo tali ordine referebant: ‘Praecipuus Hunnorum rex Attila, patre
genitus Mundiuco, fortissimarum gentium dominus, qui inaudita ante se potentia solus
Scythica et Germanica regna possedit. . . .’ Postquam talibus lamentis est deÏetus,
‘stravam’ super tumulum eius quam appellant, ipsi ingenti commissatione concele-
brant, et contraria invicem sibi copulantes, luctum funereum mixto gaudio explicabant,
noctuque secreto cadaver terra reconditum, cuius fercula primum auro, secundum
argento, tertium ferri rigore communiunt, signi¢cantes tali argumenta potentissimo regi
omnia convenisse: ferrum, quod gentes edomuit, aurum et argentum, quod ornatum rei
publicae utriusque acceperit. addunt arma hostium caedibus adquisita, faleras vario
gemmarum fulgore pretiosas, et diversi generis insignia, quibus colitur aulicum decus.
et, ut tantis divitiis humana curiositas arceretur, operi deputatos detestabili mercede
trucidarunt, emersitque momentanea mors sepelientibus cum sepulto.

V. MISCELLANEOUS PARALLELS
§¯17. LIBER MONSTRORUM DE DIVERSIS GENERIBUS (‘Book of Monstrosities of
Various Kinds,’ ca. A.D. 700; ed. A. Orchard, Pride & Prodigies [Cambridge, 1995]
254–317).
Lib. i, cap. 2. (Hyġelāc.) Et ¢unt monstra mirae magnitudinis, ut rex HIGLACUS,2 qui
imperavit Getis3 et a Francis occisus est, quem equus a duodecimo aetatis anno portare

1
The precise date of this event (on which the assignment of dates to other events narrated in
Beowulf has depended: see Intr. li) cannot be made out. Certainly it must fall between the death of
Theoderic’s father Chlodoweg (A.D. 511) and the death of Theoderic himself (534), and almost
certainly no earlier than 516 or later than 531 (see Cha.Intr. 381–7).
2
Variant spellings: huncgacus (altered to huncglacus), huncglagus, huiglaucus.
3
Variant spellings: gentes, gentibus, gethis, getys.
—————————————
§¯16. Let us not proceed without saying a little about the various ways in which his remains
were digni¢ed by his people. In the very middle of a ¢eld and within silken tents the corpse was
placed and displayed solemnly as a sight for admiration. For the most select horsemen of the entire
race of Huns rode around in circles, as at a racecourse, at the spot where the body was placed,
recounting his deeds in a funeral dirge in the following manner: ‘Distinguished king of the Huns
Attila, born to his father Mundiucus, lord of the most courageous races, who alone held un-
precedented sway over the Scythian and Germanic realms. . . .’ After he had been mourned with
such laments, they celebrated a strava, as they themselves call it, on his funeral mound with great
carousing, and by turns coupling contrarieties [of feelings], they expressed funereal mourning
mixed with joy, and under the cover of night they hid the body in the earth. They secured his
coÌns ¢rmly, the ¢rst with gold, the second with silver, the third with iron, signifying by this
demonstration that all these are ¢tting to this most powerful king: iron, because he subdued the
[Scythian and German] nations, gold and silver, because he took that which adorned each of the
two commonwealths. They added arms acquired by the defeat of enemies, precious bosses
glistening with a variety of gems and insignia of diverse sorts, by which princely honor is
conferred. And, in order that prying human eyes be kept away from such riches, they massacred
those on whom the work was laid, as damnable pay for their labor, and a quick death came to the
buriers along with the buried.
312 APPENDIX A
non potuit. Cuius ossa in Rheni Ïuminis insula, ubi in Oceanum prorumpit, reseruata
sunt et de longinquo uenientibus pro miraculo ostenduntur.
Lib. i, cap. 36. (Flame-like eyes.) Et quaedam insula in Orientalibus orbis terrarum
partibus esse dicitur, in qua nascuntur homines rationabili statura, nisi quod eorum
oculi sicut lucerna lucent.
Lib. i, cap. 54. (Giants of old.) Gigantes enim ipsos tam enormis alebat magnitudo ut
eis omnia maria pedum gressibus transmeabilia fuisse perhibeatur. Quorum ossa in
litoribus et in terrarum latebris, ad indicium uastae quantitatis eorum, saepe conperta
leguntur.
Lib. ii, cap. 23. (Melting sword blades.) Bestia autem illa inter omnes beluas
dirissima fertur, in qua tantam ueneni copiam ad¢rmant ut eam sibi leones quamuis
inualidioris feram corporis, timeant, et tantam uim eius uenenum habere arbitrantur, ut
eo licet ferri acies intincta liquescat.
Lib. iii, cap. 9. (A gigantic serpent.) Quidam quoque serpens horrendae magnitudinis
a Romano exercitu in Africa iuxta Ïumen Bagradam repertus describitur; et, pro
ultione militum quos primo deuorauit impetu, eum acutis cuncti Romani circum-
dederunt iaculis et tandem ballistis in¢xo molare lapide ictus in spinam crepuit, qui
prius cuncta squamis tela, uelut obliqua scutorum testudine repulit. Cuius corium trans
mare Tyrrhenum ad Romam usque deductum est, quod .CXX. pedes longitudinis
habuisse perhibetur.

§¯18. VITA I S. GILDAE (‘First Life of St. Gildas’ (d. 570), by a monk of Rhuys in
Brittany, 9th–11th century; ed. H. Williams, Gildae De excidio Britanniae [London,
1899] 366–8). (A ship funeral not wholly unlike Scyld’s.)
Deinde discipulos protestatus est dicens: Per Christum vos ¢lios meos moneo, ne
contendatis pro corporis mei cadavere, sed mox ut spiritum exhalavero, tollite me et in
navim deponentes supponite humeris meis lapidem illum, super quem recumbere
solitus eram: nemo autem ex vobis in navi mecum remaneat, sed impellentes eam in
mare permittite ire, quo Deus voluerit. Providebit autem Dominus sepulturae mihi
locum, ubi fuerit ei placitum. Con¢do autem in Domino, quod in die resurrectionis
resurgere me faciet cum ceteris. Deus autem pacis et dilectionis sit semper cum

—————————————
§¯17. i, 2. And there are monsters of prodigious size, such as King Higlacus, who ruled the Getae
and was killed by the Franks, whom, once he reached the age of twelve, no horse was able to bear.
His bones are preserved on an island in the river Rhine where it empties into the sea, and they are
shown to visitors from afar as a wonder. — i, 36. And there is said to be an island in the eastern
parts of the world on which men are born who are of reasonable stature, except that their eyes
shine like lanterns. — i, 54. Indeed, the size of giants used to grow so enormous that it was
customarily maintained that all seas could be crossed by the paces of their feet. Their bones, one
reads, are often discovered on beaches and in out-of-the-way places of the world, in evidence of
their vast dimensions. — ii, 23. But it is maintained that that is the most horrible beast among all
brutes, in which they say there is such an abundance of venom that, although its body is weaker,
lions are afraid of it, and they assert that its venom is so powerful that even the blade of a sword
will melt if dipped in it. — iii, 9. Also, a certain serpent of terrifying size is described by the
Roman army in Africa as having been found beside the Bagrada River, and to requite its having
devoured some soldiers in its ¢rst attack, all the Romans surrounded it with sharpened javelins,
and, at length, with a blow to the spine from a ballista loaded with a mill-stone, it cracked, though
formerly it had repulsed all missiles with its scales like a slanting formation of shields. When its
skin was brought across the Tyrrhenian Sea to Rome, it was said to be 120 feet in length.
§¯18. Thereupon he [Gildas] bore witness before his disciples, saying, ‘Through Christ I advise
you, my sons, not to quarrel over the remains of my body, but as soon as I have sent forth the
spirit, take me and lay me in a ship, placing under my bones the stone on which I was accustomed
to lie: let none of you, however, remain in the ship with me, but launch it on the sea and let it go
where God wishes. The Lord will nonetheless appoint a place of burial for me, wherever it pleases
him. For I believe in God, that on the day of resurrection he will have me rise with the rest. And
 PARALLELS 313
omnibus vobis. Et cum respondissent omnes amen, reddidit spiritum quarto kalendas
Februarii senex et plenus dierum. Discipuli vero illius tollentes corpus eius fecerunt,
sicut praeceperat eis.

§¯19. VITA II S. SAMSONIS (‘Second Life of St. Samson [of Dol]’ [d. ca. 560], 7th–9th
century; ed. F. Plaine, Analecta Bollandiana 6 (1887) 98–100).1 (A hagiographical
parallel to the dragon ¢ght.) [Summary:]
St. Samson sets out to return to his monastery, preaching to his companions as he
goes. When they come across some scorched earth at a place where the ground is torn
up by some strange track, they recognize that a dragon about which they have been
forewarned must be near by. Stricken with fear, one of the companions wants to turn
back. St. Samson calmly reassures them, however: ‘Wait for me, trusting in the Lord
until I come back to you. Solus non sum, sed Deus est mecum.’ Walking on alone, he
sees a dragon with a ¢ery head creeping through a deserted wasteland. He recites a
suitable psalm (Dominus illuminatio mea et salus mea, quem timebo?), whereupon the
dragon hisses angrily. As St. Samson advances fearlessly, the dragon roars aloud, then
bites its tail in a ¢t of rage, ‘as if it were being struck by a sword’ (quasi gladio
caederetur). After marking himself with the sign of the cross, St. Samson recites
another blessing (Benedicite omnia opera Domini Domino), then calls to his compan-
ions to draw near. He continues preaching to the men until evening, and all this time
the dragon rolls around in a circle biting its own tail. Finally, St. Samson says to the
dragon, ‘Live no more,’ and the beast spews out poison and dies a horrible death.

§¯20. TWO FOLKTALE ANALOGUES

§¯20.1. ‘SKRÆDDI KJÁLKI’ (from Færøske Folkesagn og Æventyr, ed. J. Jakobsen

[Copenhagen, 1898–1901] 241–4).2 (A Faroese version of ‘The Three Stolen Prin-
cesses’; see Intr. xxxvii n.¯6.) [Summary:]
Three brothers live together and take turns among them which should stay at home
while the others ¢sh at sea. While the eldest is at home preparing breakfast, a giant
comes and forces him to surrender all the food. The next day, the second brother,
though con¢dent of better success, suffers the same fate. The next day the third, though
reviled by his brothers for thinking he could do better, convinces the marauding giant
that the food is undercooked and more ¢rewood is required. To secure more, the giant
hews down the middle of a large tree trunk by the door, and immediately the third
brother pulls the giant’s beard down into the cleft, so that it sticks and he cannot stand
up. The giant escapes only by leaving behind his beard with the Ïesh attached to it.
When the brothers come home and learn what has happened, they follow the trail of
blood to a hole in the ground, which the elder brothers convince the youngest to
explore. He ¢nds the giant lying tenderly in the lap of a princess who had been
abducted and subsequently promised in marriage by her father to anyone who could
locate her. He sees a sword that he cannot lift; on her advice, he drinks a potion found
in a corner of the room, and as a result he is able to wield the sword and kill the giant.
He has his brothers draw up the princess with the rope they have brought, but when it
comes his turn, because he mistrusts his brothers, he ties a stone to the rope, which they

1
See Rauer 2000: 150–3 for text and translation, 91–116 for discussion.
2
Jakobsen gives two versions of the tale, the second one a brief summary. The present
summary follows chieÏy the ¢rst version.
————————————
may the God of peace and love always be with you.’ And when they had all said ‘Amen,’ he gave
up the ghost on the 29th of January, old and full of days. And indeed, his disciples took his body
and did as he had advised them.
314 APPENDIX A
let drop as they pull it up. The hero returns to the cave and ¢nds a giant named Skræddi
Kjálki (‘Broken Jaw’) who shows him how to escape. He ¢nds the princess, who is on
the verge of being forced to marry the eldest brother, and as a result, the brothers are
hanged and the hero marries the princess.1

§¯20.2. ‘VELVAKANDI OG BRÆÐUR HANS’ (‘Good-Waker and His Brothers’; from

Íslenzkar þjóðsögur og ævintýri, ed. Jón Árnason et al., 2nd ed. [Reykjavík, 1954–61]
II, 447–8). (An Icelandic version of ‘The Three Stolen Princesses’ that includes the
‘Hand and Child’ motif.)
[Five brothers receive special names from an old woman who has asked and
received a drink from them; these names correspond to unique abilities that, as the
narrative unfolds, they use to special effect.] Uxu nú bræðurnir upp hjá foreldrum
sínum þangað til þeir voru uppkomnir. Þá sögðust þeir vilja fara burtu úr kotinu og
reyna til að framast á öðrum stöðum. Foreldrar þeirra leifðu þeim það. Lögðu þeir nú á
stað og segir ekki af ferðum þeirra, fyrr en þeir koma til kóngsins. Þeir biðja kónginn
veturvistar, en segjast vilja fá hana annaðhvort allir eða enginn. Kóngur sagði að þeir
skyldu fá að vera hjá sér um veturinn, ef þeir vilji vaka y¢r og gæta dætra sinna á
jólanóttina. Þeir játa því og verða nú allir hjá kóngi. En svo stóð á að kóngur hafði átt
¢mm dætur, en tvær seinustu jólanæturnar höfðu tvær þeirra hor¢ð sín hvora nótt úr
meyjaskemmunni og var þó vakað y¢r þeim. Enginn vissi hvernig þær hefðu hor¢ð og
hvergi fundust þær þrátt fyrir allar leitir og rannsóknir, sem kóngur hafði látið gjöra.
Þegar bræðurnir vissu hvernig ástatt var létu þeir konung láta smíða nýja meyja-
skemmu einstaka sér og mjög rammgjörva.
Nú komu jólin. Fóru þá kóngsdæturnar þrjár sem eftir voru í skemmunna og bræður-
nir allir ¢mm. Ætluðu þeir nú að vaka á jólanóttina y¢r kóngsdætrunum. En þeir sofn-
uðu allir nema hann Velvakandi. Ljós var í skemmuni og hún harðlæst. Fyrri part nætur
sér Velvakandi að skugga ber á einn skemmugluggan og því næst seilist inn hönd
ógnarlega stór og hrikaleg of y¢r rúm einnar kóngsdótturinnar. Þá vekur Velvakandi
bræður sína í snatri og þrífur Velhaldandi í loppuna sem inn seildist svo sá gat ekki
dregið hana að sér sem átti, þó hann streittist við. Kom þá Velhöggvandi og hjó af

1
In the alternate version, the third brother is named Øskudólgur ‘Cinderellus’ or ‘Ash-Lad,’ and
instead of bearding the giant, he burns its nose. The equivalent of Skræddi Kjálki is called snerkti
risa ‘a wrinkled giant.’
—————————————
§20.2. The brothers were now raised by their parents until they were grown. Then they said that
they wanted to leave the cottage and distinguish themselves elsewhere. Their parents consented.
They departed then, and there is nothing to tell about their movements before they came to the
king. They asked the king for winter lodging, and they said they would accept such either for all or
for none of them. The king said that they could stay with him for the winter if they would keep
watch over his daughters overnight on Yule Eve. They agreed to that, and all stayed with the king.
Matters stood such that the king had had ¢ve daughters, but the last two Yule Eves, two of them
had disappeared, one of the nights, from the young women’s quarters, even though watch had been
kept over them. No one knew how they had disappeared, and they were not found, despite all the
investigations that the king had had undertaken. When the brothers perceived what the situation
was, they had the king commission the building of new women’s quarters standing apart and very
secure.
Then Yule arrived. The three remaining daughters entered the quarters with all the ¢ve brothers.
The brothers intended to keep watch over the princesses through the night. But all of them fell
asleep except Velvakandi (‘Good-at-Staying-Awake’). The chamber was well lit and securely
locked. In the ¢rst part of the night, Velvakandi saw that a shadow fell on the windows of the
chamber, and thereupon a horrible, huge arm reached in over the bed of one princess. Then
Velvakandi woke his brothers promptly, and Velhaldandi (‘Good-at-Holding’) grabbed the paw
that was reaching in, so that the owner could not withdraw it, as intended, though it resisted. Then
Velhöggandi (‘Good-at-Striking’) came along and struck off the arm up to the window. Whatever
 PARALLELS 315
hendina við gluggann. Hljóp þá sá frá sem úti var og eltu bræðurnir hann. Gat Velspor-
rekjandi rakið förin. Komu þeir loks að afar bröttum hömrum sem enginn komst upp
nema Velbergklifrandi. Hann klifraði upp hamarinn og kastaði festi niður til bræðr-
anna. Dró hann þá svo upp alla. Voru þeir þá staddir við hellismunna stóran. Þeir
gengu inn í hann. Þar sáu þeir skessu; hún var grátandi. Þeir spurðu hvað að henni
gengi. Hún var treg til að segja þeim það, en þó gjörði hún það á endanum. Sagði hún,
að karlinn sinn hefði í nótt mist aðra höndina og því lægi svo illa á sér. Þeir báðu hana
að huggast og bera sig vel því þeir gætu læknað karlinn. ‘En það má enginn horfa á
okkur,’ segja þeir, ‘á meðan við erum að lækna, og erum við svo varkárin með leyndar-
dóm okkar að við bindum alla sem nærri eru svo enginn geti komið að okkur á meðan á
lækningunni stendur því þar liggur mikið við.’ Buðu þeir nú skessunni að lækna karl
hennar undireins, ef hún leifði þeim að binda sig. Ekki var henni um það, en lét þó til
leiðast á endanum. Bundu þeir skessuna nú rammlega og gengu svo inn í hellinn til
karlsins. Var hann hið ferlegasta tröll og höfðu þeir engar sveiÏur á því nema drápu
hann undireins. Að því búnu fóru þeir til skessunnar, og drápu hana. [As the tale
continues, the brothers search the cave and ¢nd the two missing princesses, who had
been abducted by the troll and the giantess. When they return to the king’s hall, the
king is so pleased that he gives the ¢ve princesses in marriage to the ¢ve brothers.]

—————————————
was outside leapt away, and the brothers gave chase. Velsporrekjandi (‘Good-at-Tracking’) was
able to track the way taken. At length they came to some very steep crags, which no one could
surmount but Velbergklifrandi (‘Good-at-Clambering’). He clambered up the crag and cast a rope
down to his brothers. Thus he drew them all up. They were then all in front of a large entrance to a
cavern. They entered. There they saw a giantess who was weeping. They asked what was the
matter. She was reluctant to tell them, but in the end she did. She said that during the night her man
had lost one hand, and that was why she was so disturbed. They told her to take comfort and put on
a good face, because they could heal her man. ‘But no one may observe us while we are applying
treatment, and we are so cautious about our medical care that we tie up all who are nearby so that
no one can approach us while the treatment lasts, since much depends on this.’ Then they offered
to heal the woman’s man right away, if she would consent to being bound. She did not like that,
but in the end she allowed herself to be persuaded. Then they bound the giantess ¢rmly and went
into the cave to the male. He was the most monstrous troll, and they had no scruples about killing
him without delay. When they had done that, they returned to the giantess and killed her.
 APPENDIX B

INDEX OF REFERENCES TO EARLY

GERMANIC CULTURE1

KING AND COMITATUS

§¯1. Kingship. See Chaney 1970, Swanton 1982, Loyn 1984: 3–60, 81–93, Clemoes
1995: 3–67, D. Green 1998: 102–40, S. Norr To Rede and to Rown: Expressions of
Early Scandinavian Kingship in Written Sources (Uppsala, 1998).
Terms applied to kings: cyning, dryhten, þēoden, ealdor, hlāford, frēa, fenġel; bealdor,
brego, r®swa; (eorla, etc.) hlēo, eodor, helm; lēodġebyrġea; (¯folces, rīċes) hyrde,
weard; ēþelweard, landfruma; wine (Scyldinga, etc.); goldwine gumena, goldġyfa,
bēaga brytta, hringa þenġel; hildfruma, herewīsa, frumgār, wigena strenġel; besides
numerous compounds and combinations.
The ideal king: Hrōðgār (see, e.g., 1885¯f.); Bēowulf; Hyġelāc; Scyld (4¯ff.); Offa
(1957¯ff.). Liberality, 71¯f., 660¯f., 1020¯ff., 1050¯ff., 1089¯ff., 1193¯ff., 1866¯f., 2018¯f.,
2190¯ff., 2633¯ff., 2865¯ff., 2994¯ff. See note on 20¯ff. — The anti-ideal: Heremōd.
Throne: brego-, ēþel-, ġif-, gum-stōl (= cathedra or solium regni. Cf. von See et al.
1997–: 3.942–3). See Chaney 1970: 135–7 and Gloss.
The loss of the king a national disaster: 14¯f., 2999¯ff., 3018¯ff. (2354¯ff.).
Supreme respect for kingship: 862¯f., 2198¯f.; 2382¯f. (praise of an enemy king).
Joint regency: Hrōðgār–Hrōðulf, Hyġelac–Bēowulf (see Intr. liii¯f.).
Succession to the throne: 53¯ff.; 1178¯f., 2470¯f.; 2369¯f., 2207¯f., 1851; 910¯f. (see note
on 1709 on Heremōd).
Limitation of royal power: 73 (cf. 7.1 Appx.A §¯14 cap. 7). — Councilors of the king:
1098 (weotena dōme); 157, 171¯f., 1325, 1407 (Æschere, cf. 1342¯ff.); seler®dende 51,
1346; cf. snotere ċeorlas 202, 416. (See Liebermann 1906–13: 2.737–9, on witan;
Loyn 1984: 100–6.) See Comitatus.
§¯2. Comitatus. (Cf. Appx.A §¯14 capp. 13¯f.) (The war-band consisted partly of
kinsmen of the king; the relationship of the other members of the comitatus to the
king was built on analogy with kinship.) See H. Chadwick Studies on AS Institutions
(Cambridge, 1905) esp. 308¯ff.; Lindow 1976, D. Green 1998: 84–101, Bazelmans
1999, id. in Rituals of Power, ed. F. Theuws & J. Nelson (Leiden, 2000) 311–75.
Terms for retainers: ġesīð(as), þeġn(as): see Loyn EHR 70 (1955) 529–49, Thacker
ASSAH 2 (1981) 201–36, Yorke ibid. 171–200; æþeling(as): see Dumville ASE 8
(1979) 1–33; (æþelinga, etc.,) ġedriht; duguð, ġeoguð; bēod-, heorð-ġenēat(as),
healsittend(e), ġeselda, hondġesella; fyrd-(etc.)ġestealla; lēode, þēod; weorod,
corðer, handscolu; — māgas, wine-māgas, wine, gædelingas, sibbeġedriht;
(eafaran). Retainers gathered for a special expedition, 205¯ff.
Terms for warriors. rinċ, beado-; cempa, fēþa-; gār-wiga, -wīġend; gūð-beorn, -freca,
-fremmend, -rinċ, -wiga, -wine; heaþo-līðend, -rinċ; helmberend; hilde-mecg, -rinċ;
hild-, scyld-, wīġ-freca; lind-, rand-, searo-hæbbend; lind-, rand-, scyld-wiga. See
Brady 1983.
Terms for war-band: wīġhēap, Ïetwerod.
Loyalty: Bēowulf (cf. 435¯f., 2169¯f.); Wīġlāf (‘comitatus speech,’ 2633¯ff.); Ġēatas
(794¯ff., 1602¯ff.), Danes (1228¯ff., 1246¯ff.); see Finn episode. — Disloyalty, 2596¯ff.,

1
General refs.: Gummere Gmc. Origins (New York, 1892), H. Chadwick 1907, Grønbech 1909–
12, Stjerna 1912, B-Mitford, J.M. Hill 1995, The Transformation of the Roman World AD 400–900,
ed. L. Webster & M. Brown (Berkeley, 1997), D. Green 1998, Illus.B, R.-L.2.
 REFERENCES TO EARLY GERMANIC CULTURE 317
2864¯ff. (ten cowardly comrades). (On Hrōðulf and the question of his loyalty, see
1017–19¯n.)
Gift-giving, spoils of war, and credit for brave deeds belong to the king, 1482¯ff.,
2148¯f. (cf. 452¯ff.); 2985¯ff., 1652¯ff.; 1967b–70a (n.), 2484¯f., cf. 2875¯f. See Appx.A.
§¯14, cap. 14.
OÌcials and attendants: Æschere, Ūnferð, Wulfgār, Healgamen, attendant 1794,
cupbearers 494, 1161; servants 993; coast-warden 229–30, 1890, 1914. — Retinue
922b (n.). Etiquette, 331¯ff.; 407; 613¯ff., etc.

KINSHIP, FAMILY, LAW

§¯3. Kinship group (the social unit of Germanic culture). cyn(n), m®ġþ (m®ġþburg),
cf. sib(b). See Lancaster British Journal of Sociology 9 (1958) 234–48, 359–77;
Loyn ASE 3 (1974) 197–209; White Viator 20 (1989) 1–18; Charles-Edwards in The
Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century, ed. J. Hines
(Woodbridge, 1997) 171–204; D. Green 1998: 49–66; Vestergaard in The Scandi-
navians from the Vendel Period to the 10th Century, ed. J. Jesch (Woodbridge,
2002) 59–74. Cf. Liebermann 1906–13: 2.651–5, on sippe.
Genealogy. frumcyn. 53¯ff., 1960¯ff.; 105¯ff.; compare sunu, maga, mago, eafora, bearn,
byre.
Fosterage, 2428¯ff. (n.)
Uncle: Hrōðgār, Hyġelāc, Siġemund, Hererīċ, Swerting, Gārmund (?), Onela (?),
Bēowulf (?).
The sister’s son (cf. Appx.A §¯14 cap. 20; see J.M. Hill 1995: 163 n.¯10): Bēowulf
(Hyġelāc), Hyġelāc (Swerting), Fitela (Siġemund), Hildeburh’s son, Heardrēd
(Hererīċ), Ēomēr (Gārmund?), Wīġlāf (Bēowulf ?), Gārulf (Gūðere, in Finn).
The brother’s son: Hrōðulf (Hrōðgār), Ēadġils and Ēanmund (Onela ?).
‘Adoption of Bēowulf’: 946¯ff. (n.), 1175¯f.
Fratricide: 587¯ff.; 107¯f., 1261¯f.; 2435¯ff.
§¯4. Women. cwēn, ides, mæġð, f®mne, wīf; br©d; ġeō-mēowle. Wealhþēo, Frēawaru;
Hildeburh; Fremu (Þr©ð?), Hyġd; mourning woman, 3150; Grendel’s mother;
servants, 993. See Fell 1984, Olsen 1997. Cf. Lapidge et al. 1999: 485–7.
Woman’s beauty: sc©ne 3016, ®nlicu 1941.
Royal women at the banquet, taking part in ceremonies and displaying political
wisdom, 612b¯ff. (n.), 1162¯ff., 1980¯ff., 2016¯ff.; cf. 1649. See Enright 1996. — The
anti-ideal: Fremu (Þr©ð?).
King’s widow in a position to dispose of the throne, 2369¯f. See Enright 1996: 23–4.
Marriage for political reasons: Frēawaru, Hildeburh (?), Hyġelāc’s daughter, 2998; see
friðu-sib(b), freoðuwebbe.
Carrying off a queen (in war), 2930¯ff.; cf. 3153¯ff. (3018¯f.); 1153.
§¯5. Feud. See J.M. Hill 1995: 25–37; cf. J. Byock Feud in the Icelandic Saga
(Berkeley, 1982), W. Miller Bloodtaking & Peacemaking (Chicago, 1990). (Cf.
Appx.A §¯14 cap. 21.).
Ethnic wars, blood revenge: Danes–Heaðobards, Danes–Frisians, Ġēatas–Swedes;
Danes–Grendel kin (note, e.g., 1305¯f.).
Settlement of feud by payment, 470 ff.; cf. 154¯ff., 1053¯ff.
No settlement of feud within the kinship group, 2441¯ff.
Duty of revenge nulli¢ed, 2618¯f.
§¯6. Customary law. The entire clan responsible for the wrong done by individual
members; expulsion from right of kinship, 2884¯ff.
Granting of the father’s estate to the son, 2606¯ff. (Cf. Wid 95¯f.) — Hereditary estate,
cf. 2885¯ff. (¯folcscaru 73?)
Punishment by hanging, 2445¯f. (cf. 2940¯f.); putting to the sword, 1937¯ff. (cf. 2939).
— Punishment averted by a gift, 2224¯ff., 2281¯ff.
318 APPENDIX B
Legal diction: ðinġ 409, ðinġ ġehēġan 425¯f., meðelstede 1082, ġeþinġe, sacu, sæċ,
wrōht, fāh (e.g. 811), f®hð(o), dōm (e.g. 440¯f., 2963¯f.), scyldiġ, st®lan, sēðan,
sc©ran, scādan 1106, on ryht ġescādan 1555 (cf. 1006); heorowearh, grundwyrġen,
werġa; hold, hyldo; āð, āðsweord; see 153¯ff.; also 2185¯f.
§¯7. Exile. (ġyrn-, n©d-)wracu; wræc-lāst, -mæcg, -sīð; wreċċa. See Green¢eld
Speculum 30 (1955) 200–6.
§¯8. Custom. þēaw; see 20¯ff., 1170¯ff., 1534¯ff., 1863¯ff., 2163¯ff., 2708¯f., 3174¯ff.
§¯9. Idol worship. 175–88. See Wilson 1992: 6–11, 28–30; North 1997: 173–81; D.
Green 1998: 13–29. Cf. Appx.A §¯14 capp. 40, 45.
§¯10. Superstitions. h®l 204¯n. (cf. Appx.A §¯10 cap. 10); ġealdor 3052, goldhwatu
3074¯n., benemnan 3069¯n.
§¯11. Slavery. þē0 2223 (?). See R. Karras Slavery and Society in Medieval Scandinavia
(New Haven, 1988), D. Pelteret Slavery in Early Mediaeval England (Woodbridge,
1995), Wyatt Anglo-Norman Studies 23 (2001) 327–47.

WARFARE AND WEAPONS1

§¯12. Detailed description of warfare, 2922–98. — Leaders of army, folctogan 839.

Beasts of battle motif, 3024¯ff. See Intr. xcvi.
Spoils of war, 1155¯ff., 1205, 1212, 2361¯f., 2614¯ff., 2955, 2985¯ff.
Treaty of peace, 1085¯ff., cf. 2028¯f., 2063¯f. Tribute, 9¯ff.
Shore watch to forestall naval invasion, 229¯ff. (1890, 1914).
Fighting on foot, see fēþa. King’s war-horse with saddle, 1037¯ff.; cf. 1399¯ff. (Riding,
234, 286, 315, 855¯f., 864¯f., 2898, 3169; cf. 1035¯ff., 2163¯ff.)
§¯13. Weapons. See Brady 1979.
Normal equipment of warrior: coat of mail, helmet, shield, spear, 333¯ff. (325¯ff.,
395¯ff.), 1242¯ff.; cf. 794¯ff. (sword). See 1441¯ff.
Sword and ‘seax’ (short sword): sweord, bil(l); mēċe, -mēċe; heoru, secg, brond;
īren(n), ecg; w®pen; brogden-, gr®ġ-, hrinġ-, sceāden-, wunden-m®l; gūð-,
māðþum-; w®ġ-sweord; (lāf¯), (yrfelāf¯); beado-, hilde-lēoma; hildeġiċel; (gūðwine);
māðþum, ġeweorc, scūrheard; seax, wæll-; etc. — Names: Hrunting 1457, 1659,
Næġling 2680; Hūnlā¢ng (?) 1143. See Davidson 1962, Bone and Gale in Hawkes
1989: 63–70; 71–84.
Descriptions, 1455¯ff., 1687¯ff.; 1900, 1531, 1285; 1563, 1615; 672¯f., 2778, 1533.
Spear: gār, æsc(-holt), gārholt, bongār; mæġen-, þrec-wudu; here-, wæl-sceaft, daroð,
eofersprēot; wælstenġ; wudu; heorohōcyhte, etc. See scēotend. Cf. Williamson
1977: 345.
Helmet: helm, beadogrīma, heregrīma, grīmhelm, gūðhelm, entisc helm, wīġheafola,
hlēorbe(o)rg; see eofor, swīn. Descriptions, 303¯ff., 1030¯f., 1448¯ff.; 1111¯f., 1286,
2255¯ff., 2615, 2811; cf. 2723. See ¢gs. 5 & 7, and see Tweddle 1992: 1104–25.
Mail-coat: byrne; (brēost-, etc.) net, brēostġew®de; hrinġ, -īren; syrċe, (leoðo-); hræġl,
(ġe)w®d(e), gūð-ġew®de, beaduscrūd, fyrdhom, hildesceorp, herepād; (searo,
-ġeatwa); (lāf¯); hrinġed, locen, hondlocen, brōden, etc. Descriptions, 321¯ff., 406,
1443¯ff., 1547¯f.; 671, 2986. See Williamson 1977: 245; O’Connor in Tweddle 1992:
1057–81.
Shield: scyld, rond, bord, lind; hilde-rand, bord-; hildebord, wīġ-; reġnheard, beorht,
ġeolo, etc. Descriptive, 325¯f., 437¯f., 2610; 2337¯ff.; 2672¯f. See Williamson 1977:
146; Dickinson and Härke 1992.

1
General refs.: B-Mitford vol. II, Hawkes 1989, D. Green 1998: 67–83, Lapidge et al. 1999: 45–
7, Underwood 1999, Pollington 2001, Illus.B 227–32; cf. The Spoils of Victory, ed. L. Jørgensen et
al. (Copenhagen, 2003).
 REFERENCES TO EARLY GERMANIC CULTURE 319
Bow and Arrow: Ïān-, horn-boga; Ïān, gār, str®l. See 3116¯ff. See Williamson 1977:
204; Cook 1900: 147¯f.
Horn and Trumpet: horn, b©me. Cf. Williamson 1977: 170 — Banner: seġn, eafor-
hēafodseġn, cumbol, hildecumbor; (bēacen). See 47, 1021¯f., 2767¯ff.; 1204, 2958¯f.
See Chaney 1970: 140–5.

LIFE IN THE HALL

§¯14. The hall. See 307¯ff., 327, 402¯ff., 491¯ff., 704 (cf. 82), 721¯ff., 773¯ff., 780, 926¯f.,
997¯ff., 1035¯f., 1086¯ff. (n.), 1188¯ff., 1237¯ff., 2263¯f., Finn 4, 14, 16, 30; hēahsetl;
ġif-, brego-, ēþel-, gum-stōl; bēod(-ġenēat); heorð. (Cf. būr, br©dbūr, in[n] 1300.)
See Cramp 1993, M. Thompson The Medieval Hall (Aldershot, 1995) 11–27,
Herschend 1998: 14–51, Pollington 2003, Niles 2007a: 11–293, Illus.B 221–5. See
also ¢g. 4.
Court ceremonies, 331–490; cf. §¯2. See cyn(n) 613, f¡ġ(e)re.
Hall adorned for banquet, 991¯ff. Entertainment, 491¯ff., 611¯ff., 1008¯ff., 1160¯ff.,
1647¯ff., 1785¯ff., 1980¯ff., 2011¯ff.; cf. 2179¯f. (Women at banquet, see §¯4.) See medo,
bēor, ealo(-benċ, etc.), wīn (līðw®ġe, wered); cf. note on 480¯f. See Blumenstengel
1964, Williamson 1977: 218–19.
Gift-giving, see §¯1.
Treasure: sinċ, māððum, bēag, gold, hord, ġestrēon, etc., with their many compounds.
See Tyler 2000: 1–107; D. Hinton Gold & Gilt, Pots & Pans (Oxford, 2005) 7–74;
Jørgensen & Petersen 1998. See also ¢g. 8.
Reciting of lays, 89¯ff., 496¯f., 1063¯ff. (1159¯f.), 2105¯ff. See scop, glēoman; lēoð, sang,
ġid(d); hearpe, gomenwudu, glēobēam. On elegies, see notes on 2247–66, 2444,
2455–9. Technique of oral poetic composition: 867¯ff. See Opland 1980.
Retirement of the king from a banquet, 644b–6a, 1790b–2a.

SPORTS

§¯15. Swimming, 506¯ff. (2359¯ff.). Horse racing, 864¯f., 916¯f. Hunting, 1368¯ff., 1432¯ff.
(Boar-hunt, cf. eofersprēot 1437). Hawking, 2263¯f. See Lapidge et al. 1999: 172,
244–5; Oggins 2004: 36–50.

SEAFARING

§¯16. Cf. Intr. lxvi; Haywood 1991. A large number of synonyms for ‘sea,’ 506¯ff. See
Brady 1952. — Mound on sea-cliff, 2802¯ff., 3156¯ff.
Voyage, 207¯ff., 1896¯ff.; 28¯ff.; cf. 1130¯ff. Warring expeditions over sea, 1202¯ff.,
2354¯ff., 2913¯ff., (cf. Intr. lx); 1149; cf. 9¯f., 1826¯ff. (2394, 2472¯ff.?). See Ïot-, scip-
here.
Ship. Descriptive: hrinġedstefna, hrinġnaca; bunden-, wunden-stefna; wundenhals;
sīdfæþme(d), bront; nīwtyrwed. See mæst, seġl; stefn; bolca; ancor. See Christensen
in A History of Seafaring, ed. G. Bass (London, 1972) 159–80, B-Mitford 1.345–435,
Haywood 1991: 62–75, Lapidge et al. 1999: 419–20. Cf. Williamson 1977: 178; 248–
52, Vigeland KLNM 2.467–71. See also ¢g. 3; cf. Commentary, pp.¯114–15.

————————

§¯17. Runic writing, 1688¯ff. (OE wrītan; cf. Lat. scribere: see scrīfan.) See E. Moltke
Runes and Their Origin (Copenhagen, 1985); R. Elliott Runes, rev. ed. (Manchester,
1989); R. Page, Intr. to English Runes, rev. ed. (Woodbridge, 1999).
§¯18. Funeral rites. Cf. Appx.A §¯14, cap. 27, §¯10 viii 5,1, §¯11.7, §¯16. See notes on
36–42 on Scyld, 3137¯ff. on Bēowulf's obsequies, and on 445b¯ff., 1107¯f., 1115–17a,
320 APPENDIX B
118b¯ff., 2231b¯ff. See Intr. lxxii, Hills 1997: 297–302, S. Lucy The AS Way of Death
(Stroud, 2000), F. Svanberg Death Rituals in South-East Scandinavia AD 800–1000
(Stockholm, 2003), H. Williams Death & Memory in Early Medieval Britain (Cam-
bridge, 2006).
 APPENDIX C

TEXTUAL CRITICISM
A. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

(§¯1.) For a statement of general editorial principles in regard to the text, see Fulk
2007b. No attempt has been made regularly to restore the archaic or dialectal forms
frequently demanded by meter and alliteration, though various devices have been used,
without obscuring the testimony of the sole surviving manuscript, to highlight differ-
ences between the text as it is preserved and as it must have been at an earlier stage of
the poem’s manuscript transmission. Actual emendations are not for the purpose of
recovering an ‘original’ text — a frank impossibility — but to reverse a number of
textual changes that can be identi¢ed with relative certainty.1
(§¯2.) All punctuation is supplied; the only mark of punctuation in the MS is the
point, except occasionally at the close of a ¢tt (see Intr. xxxii). The German-style punc-
tuation of Kl. has been altered to conform more closely to English standards, though
the different syntax of OE verse demands some latitude in this regard. Bearing on the
punctuation of the text, a notable feature of OE poetry as recorded is that it is often
impossible to determine with certainty whether a clause is dependent or independent
(e.g. 36b–7, 89b–90a, 196–8a, 309–10a, 310b), and whether a subordinate clause is de-
pendent on preceding or following elements (e.g. 132–3a, 140b–2a, 223b–4a, 323b– 4).2
Many repunctuations have been suggested, especially by Andrew (1940, 1948),
Donoghue (1987: 69–73, 93–8), MR 172–5, and Blockley (2001). Some examples are
remarked in the Commentary, but by no means all; students are encouraged to experi-
ment continually with repunctuation. It is possible that the syntax of OE differs from
that of MnE in these respects, and that MnE punctuation obscures intentional ambigu-
ities;3 yet this hypothesis has not been veri¢ed systematically. The assumption of ЂπЮ
κοινοи constructions, though entertained by Kl. and many others, is particularly open to
question (see ASE 32 [2003] 4–9). On the division of the poem into verse paragraphs,
see Rob. 48¯f., Scragg in New Approaches to Editing OE Verse, ed. S. Keefer & K.
O’Brien O’Keeffe (Rochester, NY, 1998) 72–3, Robinson 2005; cf. ASE 35 (2006) 91–
109. — Departing from Klaeber’s practice, references to the deity are not capitalized,
excepting the proper name God. See Robinson 1991: 151; cf. 1985: 40–1.
(§¯3.) In accordance with Klaeber’s and many others’ editorial practice, the quantities
of vowels in syllables of lesser stress are generally marked on an etymological basis
when quantitative alternations are involved. For example, although the second vowel of
Hrōðgār and wīsdōm should have been shortened when the syllable was ¢nal (OEG
§¯88), analogy to inÏected cases no doubt resulted in the restoration of length in many
instances (see ELL 6.1 [2002] 82–3 n.¯3; also Russom JGL 13 [2001] 40¯f.). Yet it is
impossible to be certain about almost any individual example, and macrons in such
instances thus assert only etymological values, not necessarily actual ones, which are
generally unknowable. Pre¢xes are also marked with etymological values, e.g. ā-, tō-,
as are most monosyllables even when unstressed, e.g. hē, nū, ®r, ġē. With few
exceptions, the demonstrative se is marked long only when it is not proclitic, though
sēo is always long (cf. þ¬s, þēos), following Klaeber’s practice; similarly the rel.

1
See Kl. MLN 16 (1901) 17¯f.; Kock 220 n.; Fulk 1997: 47–8. — An attempt at a reconstruction
of ll.¯1–25 may be found in Holt.1–8 103. For an edition with normalized spelling, see Mag., with
many valuable derivational insights.
2
Attempts to formulate rigid rules for the poetry in these respects, esp. by Andrew 1940, 1948,
have met with concerted opposition: see, e.g., OES §§¯2536–60, w. refs.
3
See, e.g., Mitchell RES 31 (1980) 385–413.
322 APPENDIX C
particle þe/ðe is marked for length only when it does not immediately follow its
antecedent. On the alternation between -līċ and -liċ, see §¯26 infra. — As regards
stressed syllables, long vowels were likely shortened before geminates (OEG §¯285),
but the spelling in Kl.1–3 varies (e.g. attor vs. māþðum). In view of the strong
possibility that shortening took place in most closed syllables already in OE (see
NOWELE 33 [1998] 3–35), it has seemed best to avoid attempting to resolve the many
uncertainties and instead to follow the practice of OEG in marking the etymological
values of nearly all such long, stressed vowels (an exception being þreottēoða 2406:
OEG §¯693). Indeed, it is surely less confusing to the student to supply a macron in
forms like mētte, hēdde, and f®ttan, beside mētan, hēdan, and f®ted.
(§¯4.) In the text, ċ and ġ are generally marked on an etymological basis, in accor-
dance with the prescriptions of the chief handbooks of Old English phonology (which,
however, are not in full accord), except when there is strong reason to suspect analog-
ical disruption. For example, etymologically there should be an affricate in swingeð
(2264) and a glide in āstīgeð (1373; see Hogg §¯7.41.2). Yet in such unsyncopated verb
forms, common to the Anglian dialects, the present stem of other persons and numbers
was presumably leveled into the second and third persons singular in most dialectal
varieties (see OEG §¯733[a], Lang. §¯25.1), as suggested by the absence of front
mutation in long-stemmed strong verbs without weak presents (cf. bebūgeð 93,
healdest 1705, etc.). Given the resulting regularity of the paradigm, it is probably safest
to assume a velar in some other verb forms, as well, where it might not be expected
etymologically, hence bringe 1829 (strong pres., weak pret.). Leveling is not
consistently carried through in short-stemmed strong verbs, since some of these show
front mutation: see Lang. §¯25.1. Hence wiġeð 599, liġeð 1343, 2745, 2903, weġe 2252;
cf. sceaceð 2742. As regards nouns and adjectives, Hogg §¯7.22 is surely right that g
¯
was palatalized in some case-forms of cyninġ (æþelinġ, etc., cf. kyniŋc on the Ruthwell
Cross), but alternations in such unstressed syllables are assumed here to have been
leveled out before the Middle Eng. period, and spellings like cynincg are unreliable
counter-evidence (cf. tācnuncg, g©tsuncg, etc.). Hogg §§¯7.41.1, 7.42 is also most likely
right that g might be palatalized even after a back vowel (cf. OEG §§¯429, 615), hence
ēaġe, māġe; but Middle Eng. evidence suggests that the palatal in minority inÏected
forms like sorġe, fāġe, etc., was leveled out in OE (cf. sorhge 2468, where hg can
hardly represent an approximant). A palatal should not be expected in ēagena, wigena,
as the ending replaces earlier -ana (OEG §¯385); cf. wighena in the OE Bede
(12.50.27). We should expect stem-¢nal palatals throughout the paradigm of i-, ja-, jō-,
and īn-stems (e.g. hiġum, ġeþinġo, sæċċa, wlenċo) but variation in other classes (e.g.
dæġ beside dagas, rinċ beside rincum, sg. þinġ beside pl. þing < *þingu). In the
paradigm of cearu, c may well have alternated with ċ (OEG §¯208). Note that ġ
represents an affricate after n, but not when it begins a separate morpheme, as in an-
ġeat, in-ġesteald, In-ġeld. Although affrication failed before consonants, affricates are
preserved at the end of the ¢rst constituent in compounds, e.g. hrinġboga, līċhoma (see
ELL 6.1 [2002] 96–7). It probably failed before derivational and inÏectional suÌxes
(cf. onlīcnæs 1351), though it could be supplied by analogy before asm. -ne in some
adjectives, hence ēċne 1201 (cf. riicne on the Ruthwell Cross).1 — In the poem, sc
nearly always represents [Į] (but cf. Minkova 2003: 193–202); it is [sk] in just three
instances, æscum 1772, discas 2775, 3048 (and of course across the juncture in
Frēscyninge 2503; possibly in entiscne 2979). See OEG §440.
(§¯5.) It is assumed here that in the archaic language of verse, the ¢rst constituent of a
compound is never inÏected for case, though there is no scholarly consensus.2 When

1
But -licne (891, 1441, 2136, 2173, 3138) and -licra (2646, 3038), since -liċ- alternated with
-lic- elsewhere in the paradigm.
2
See, e.g., Russom 1987: 91–2. It may well be that there were genitive compounds in prose: se
dōmesdæġ is sometimes said to be one such (since not *þæs dōmes dæġ: see, with an excellent
 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 323
certainty cannot be achieved, consistency, at least, may be aimed at. Hence the place-
names Earna Næs, Hrefnes Holt, Hrēosna Beorh, and Hrones Næs are now decom-
pounded; also Hrefna Wudu (see further §¯15 fn.¯3 infra, with supporting evidence).
There is, after all, no good reason to treat Hrēosna Beorh and the others differently
from Bīowulfes Biorh, which all the 12 edd. treat as two words. It may not be strictly
necessary to read norþan wind 547, where Kl. has a compound (cf. feorrancundum
1795, hrinġedstefna 1897), but the sense is thereby improved. See also notes on 910¯f.,
2059a. — Even given this stipulation, it is often diÌcult to determine whether a com-
pound is intended. Nickel treats hilde always as a separate word (reading, e.g., hilde
lēoman 1143), because it alternates with hild-, which he regards as the only true com-
pounding form (NM 73 [1972] 264). Yet the two forms are distributed on a metrical
basis (see §¯15), so a morphological distinction, while not impossible, may at least be
regarded as redundant and thus unnecessary. (See also Bamm. MSS 39 [1980] 5–10.)
Conversely, Hoops recommends composition of gūðe r®sum 2356 (similarly 2626),
referring to hilder®s 300. Yet the circumstance is different, as no *hildr®s is possible
(Weyhe BGdSL 30 [1905] 79–83, Terasawa 1994: 8–11). The duality of gūðe r®s and
gūðr®s (1577, 2426, 2991) is matched by līfes wynn: līfwyn, heriġes wīsa: herewīsa,
wuldres cyning: wuldorcyning, beadwe weorc: beaduweorc, etc. On helle(-) and sibbe-,
see §¯23 infra. — The meter suggests a certain degree of probability in regard to
whether or not ealdsweord should be one word or two: in ealdsweord eotenisc (1558a,
2616a, 2979a), resolution of the second lift can occur only if the preceding drop is
suÌciently subordinated (cf. Sievers’s type A2k, and see §¯38). Indeed, the ¢fteen other
verses of this type with resolution (467a, 522a, 819a, etc.) all have a compound in the
¢rst foot, and so ealdsweord seems preferable, like gūð-, māðþum-, w®ġsweord, and
cf. ealdġestrēon, ealdfæder, etc.1 (Thus also in 1663a.) By analogy, then, compounds
might seem likely in heard sweord 2509, 2638, 2987, hyrsted sweord 672 (see Varr.),
and even gomel swurd 2610, d©re swyrd 3048; but as the ¢rst elements of these are
nowhere known to form nominal compounds in verse, these are best left uncom-
pounded. Kendall (1991: 183) is surely right that þrēohund 2278 should be regarded as
a compound, as a phrase would create metrical anomalies at GenA 1193, 1217, 1232,
1308, 2042, Wid 91, etc.; cf. seofonniht 517, fīfnihta 545; also 3159; 2174 Varr.; F. 41. It is
less certain that hund þūsenda 2994 should be treated the same way, an impossibility if
þūsenda is gen. pl. (see Lang. §¯19.2). Yet the possibility remains that uninÏected
numerals (above þr©¯?) that stand immediately before nouns they qualify should be
regarded as compounded elements (see 59, 147, etc.). — There is considerable variety
among the edd. in regard to what is regarded as a compound. The editions of Thorkelín,
Nickel, and Crépin are particularly often at odds with most recent editions in this
respect.2 Relatively little of this variation is recorded in the Apparatus of Variants.

discussion of the problems involved, Sauer in Bamm. 1985: 269–77, esp. 275–6, seemingly the
source of Stanley 1993: 183), though it is inconclusive, given comparison to se Godes man, þās
Drihtnes word, etc. Even in prose, such formations are unstable: cf. CP 35.245.18: Ðonne cymð se
Dryhtnes dōmes dæġ ℓ wrace dæġ (where Dryhtnes modi¢es dōmes, which is paralleled by wrace;
not so Sauer); and for the older poetry, cf. ChristC 1204¯¯f.: on þām grimman dæġe / dōmes þæs
miclan. Dōmes dæġ is never compounded in Krapp & Dobbie 1931–53. Verses like þæt hēo dōmes
dæġe (MSol 326; similarly 337, Instr 53) might be taken to support their decision (see §¯15 infra),
but cf. JEGP 106 (2007) 304–12.
1
The DOE omits ealdsweord, ealdmetod, and ealdġewinna while admitting ealdfæder, eald-
ġeseġen, ealdġesīð, ealdġestrēon, ealdġewyrht, and ealdhlāford, in regard to which the syntax is
determinative. Also omitted are forðġerīmed and f®tgold; the latter, however, ought to be f®ted
gold when decompounded (cf. 2253, etc., and see Lang. §¯29), and this would make for unusual
(though perhaps not impossible) meter at 1921a.
2
Thus, for example, Ni. separates the compounds in 269a (n.), 1119b, 1332b, 1891a, 1927a, 2783b,
2881a, 2896a, 3102b, as well as (in agreement with Cr., as in many respects) in 1143b, 1637a, 1795a,
1888b, 2576b. On the other hand, he assumes compounds in 70a, 1801a, 1950b, 2018a.
324 APPENDIX C
(§¯6.) Also in regard to punctuation, often of some help in determining where clauses
begin1 is the ¢rst metrico-syntactic law of H. Kuhn (BGdSL 57 [1933] 1–109, esp. 8, 11
n.¯17), according to which non-clitic words that usually are prosodically unstressed
(Satzpartikeln ‘particles,’ such as ¢nite verbs, pronouns, and adverbs of low lexical
salience, usually monosyllabic) receive stress if they do not appear in the ¢rst drop of
the verse clause, proclitic to either the ¢rst or the second stressed word (i.e. either
directly before or directly after the first stressed word of the clause, but not distributed
between these two positions).2 In Beowulf, exceptions to the law are few. Violations
noted by Kuhn (pp.¯10–12 and nn., but some of them otherwise explained by him) are
unstressed wæs 62, swylcum 299, iċ 525, mē 947, wæs 1109, sæt 1166, hit 1555, ēow
1987, ys 2093;3 some others (hē 109, þā 217, etc.) are explained (controversially) by
Bliss §§¯12–29 with the assumption that the alliterating ¢nite verb is unstressed. In the
phrases þā ġēn, þā ġīt, swā þēah, the ¢rst word is proclitic (Kuhn, pp.¯12–13), though
this explanation probably will not serve for ®fre (504; cf. Lucas 1990: 301; Kuhn, p.¯10
n.¯17). Since þā is not otherwise demonstrably enclitic (see 34, 620, 1408, etc.; but cf.
Lucas SN 59 [1987] 156–8), and since, in any case, we do not otherwise ¢nd an
unstressed monosyllable forming the drop at the end of a verse of type C, it is best to
treat nūða (426, 657) as a single word, as it certainly was in Chaucer’s day (nowthe; cf.
nuðe already in the 12th cent.: OED s.v. nowthe); cf. ġēna < ġēn + ā (see Gloss.); cf.
also Icel. núna vs. nú, etc., and see Kendall 1991: 195. Undoubtedly related to Kuhn’s
¢rst law is the restriction that ‘light’ verses of Sievers’s type A3 may only be clause-
initial. This explains, e.g., why noncontraction is required in beϽnne 1003, and why
Andrew’s restoration of l.¯2001a (see Varr.) must not be allowed.
(§¯7.) According to Kuhn’s second law, a drop at the start of a verse clause must
contain at least one particle (BGdSL 57 [1933] 43¯f.). That is, it must not comprise sole-
ly proclitic syllables, such as prepositions, pre¢xes, and determiners. The second law is
less rigid (and less widely credited) than the ¢rst: Kuhn counts 14 exceptions in Beo-
wulf, e.g. þone cwealm ġewræc 107b.4 — According to Bliss (ASE 9 [1981] 157–82;
Donoghue 1987: 9–10), an auxiliary that does or can ¢ll a single metrical position (e.g.
mōt, conn, or resolvable hafað, sculon, regardless of whether resolution actually does
apply), disregarding pre¢xes, does not normally appear outside the ¢rst verse of a
clause, even under stress. Two exceptions are to be found in Beowulf, at 1822b and
2669b.
(§¯8.) In assessing the likelihood of scribal error and choosing among alternative
restorations and emendations, it is usually necessary to take into account the similarity

1
But not sentences; hence, the arguments of Stanley 1992 regarding punctuation have no
genuine basis in Kuhn’s thinking (see Lucas SN 59 [1987] 146¯f.).
2
Thus, for example, oft is unstressed in 4, 480, 951, 1238, etc., but stressed in 165, 1065, 1428,
1885, etc. Even in what might be (theoretically) the ¢rst drop, before or after the ¢rst stress-word
(noun, adj., non-¢nite verb), a particle may receive stress, as with oft in 171, 444, 572, 857, etc.,
under frequently predictable conditions (see 563b note); hence stress may be assumed on eft in
603b, nū in 658a, etc. (cf. Lucas SN 59 [1987] 156¯f.). Both laws are explained admirably by Lucas
(145¯f.) and Hutcheson (SN 64 [1992] 129–39). The laws have generated considerable controversy
in recent years: for refs., see Momma 1997 and, subsequently, Getty JEGP 96 (1997) 155–81;
Orton RES 50 (1999) 287–303; Mines SP 99 (2002) 337–55; Y. Suzuki 2002; GriÌth N&Q 53
(2006) 253–62; PQ 77 (1998) 239–42. For a particularly convincing defense of the ¢rst law, see
Donoghue in O’Brien O’Keeffe 1997: 71–6.
3
The exceptions in 62, 1109, and 2093 can be eliminated if nonlexical ¢nite verbs are granted
greater freedom of placement: see Cosmos TSLL 18 (1976) 306–28; Getty ELL 4.1 (2000) 37–67;
cf. Russom 1998: 58 n.¯53, regarding Tō 2093 as proclitic and extrametrical, thus disposing of
this breach. (Cf. also the formula without tō at Rid 39.22.) On 2592b, see §¯34.
4
Kuhn does not list all of them, but a list of the remainder is supplied by Orton RES 50 (1999)
298: 202a, 363a, 457a, 507a, 639a, 801b, 928a, 1030a, 1110a, 1492a, 1684a, 2093a, 2669a. (On 552b,
1549a, 1717b, 1913b, see the Commentary). Cf. the list given by Kendall 1991: 76–7. On 2700b, see
Lucas SN 59 (1987) 169 n.¯11.
 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 325
of certain letter forms in Anglo-Saxon scripts (see, e.g., the readings adopted in 1602,
2226, 2305, 2755, 2814), as well as opportunities for dittography and haplography.1
The inÏuence of neighboring syllables must also be taken into account (¯frecnen;
seomode on sole; leade teah). One scribal peculiarity of this text deserves especial note.
In three instances the scribes have written -ū (i.e. -um) where -an is required (158,
2821, 2860; see also the note to 1382); probably also in 1068. Bamm. Angl. 108 (1990)
324 n.¯35 argues that -ū is a scribal rationalization of -u, the Northumbrian form of the
oblique sg. wk. inÏection, -an in other dialects (cf. LRid 11: eorðu, etc.). Clemoes
(1995: 32–4) and Lapidge (ASE 29 [2000] 11¯f.; and earlier Gerritsen 1989: 24) rather
explain that behind these scribal misreadings lies an exemplar in cursive minuscule, an
early hand in which a and u might easily be confused by later copyists.2 While both
explanations are plausible, the latter enjoys the advantages that it explains other in-
stances of confusion of u and a (357, 581, 986[?], 1031, 2961, 3073; see also Lang.
§¯19.2 rem.), it does not require the intermediate alteration of -u to -ū, and it does not
demand a Northumbrian line of descent, for which there is little evidence (see Lang.
§¯29 n. 2 (p.¯clviii).

B. GRAMMATICAL OBSERVATIONS

1. Contraction
(§¯9.) a. Uncontracted forms called for in place of orthographic contractions (Siev.R.
475–80, 268¯f., A.M. §¯76.4; Morsbach 1906: 262–8; Sarrazin EStn. 38 [1907] 172¯f.;
Richter 1910: 13–15; Seiffert 1913; Amos 1980: 40–9; Russom 1987: 39–42; HOEM
§§¯99–130; Hutch. 41–5; Suz. 20–1) are marked by a circumÏex.3 The contractions may
be divided into the following classes: (1) due to loss of h: ġeþ½n 25; t½n 1036; Ͻn
820, 1003 (n.), 1264;4 s½n 1180, 1275; sl¼ 681; lŷhð 1048;5 h¼(n) 116, 3097; n¼n
528, 839; ¼m 881;6 ð½n 2736; (2) due to loss of w: fr¼(n) 16, 271, 359, 1680, 1883,
1934; orcn¼s 112; r½n 512, 539; Wealhþ½n 629 (see also §¯17); strêd 2436; (3) due to
loss of hiatus: gân 386, 1644, g±ð 2034, 2054, dôn 1116, 1172, 1534, 2166, dêð 1058,
1134, 2859;7 (4) due to loss of j: s¾ 682 (OEG §¯234 n.¯2; SB §¯427 n.¯1), sŷ (= s¾)
1831, 2649 (ambiguous sīe 435, 3105, siġ 1778, s© 1941, since the uncontracted ¢rst
vowel is short: see HOEM §§¯107–14, and cf. Kl., Cameron et al. 1981: 45). Many more
examples are likely, but a circumÏex is supplied only in unambiguous instances. The
diacritics in this, as in the following set of cases, are intended to serve as aids to
scansion. It should be noted that some scholars8 have assumed consistently long vowels

1
See, e.g., the notes and Varr. in regard to 389¯f., 516, 752, 986, 1805. Andrew 1948: §§¯164–87
offers a perceptive survey of the sources of scribal error in the poem, though many of the
emendations that he recommends are too speculative to command assent. Orton 2000 examines
scribal change intensively in regard to poems other than Beowulf. See also Intr. xxxiii.
2
The same confusion is found in some copies of CædN: see Orton 2000: 22. The objections of
Stanley to this hypothesis (ANQ 15.2 [2002] 67–72) do not succeed in altering the probability that
a and u are frequently confused on a paleographic basis. It is true, however, that some instances of
-um for -an, at least, may be due to late grammatical confusion of the two suÌxes: see OEG
§§¯378, 656. For other possible indications of an archaic exemplar, see §§¯10, 17 infra; l.¯957¯n.;
Lang. §§¯7.3, 20.1 rem., 20.7, 21.4–5, 25.2.
3
This device was used in Klaeber 1913 (see Kl. MLN 24 [1909] 95) and in some other editions
of Beowulf, e.g. Holt. and Cha.
4
Kl., followed by many, includes here 2525, evidently in the belief that dissyllabic anacrusis is
not proper to the unexpanded D types, only D*. Yet his other exx. (1543a, 2367a, 2628a; see Appx.
3
IV, §¯24 in Kl. ) are analyzed differently by Bliss (§¯20), and so 2525 must be regarded as
ambiguous. (So also Kendall 1991: xvi.)
5
Angl. *lēð or *l®ð, from WGmc. *laχiþ.
6
Technically ambiguous (see HOEM §¯103 n.¯6), but the uncontracted analysis is likelier.
7
Note dissyllabic būan 3065 by the side of monosyllabic (ġe)būn 117.
8
Including Siev., Richter, Bliss, Amos; cf. Rie., Kal., Holt., Hutch.
326 APPENDIX C
or diphthongs in decontracted forms, but the distribution of forms with originally short
vowels discourages this analysis: see HOEM §¯101, IF 98 (1993) 241–51. Thus, for
example, decontracted s½n is to be treated like *seohan, not *sēoan.
(§10.) b. Analogical vowels restored scribally in contracted forms are marked by a
point beneath. Thus fēaĿm 1081 (see §¯17 fn.), hrēoĿm 2581. See Siev.R. 234, 489¯ff.,
A.M. §§¯76.5, 77.1b; Trautm. EStn. 44 (1912) 329–39; HOEM §§¯162–9; SB §¯301 n.¯1.
No diacritic is required by the exceptional spelling -rēouw 58, though uw may indicate
late vocalization of w (producing a triphthong [?]: see Zupitza ZfdA 21 [1877] 10 n.¯2;
SB §¯126 nn.¯1–2), or it may be due to an archaic or dialectal exemplar with u for w.
(§¯11.) c. Loss of h after r and before a vowel results in forms of Ïuctuating vowel
quantity (Siev.R. 487¯ff., A.M. §¯77.1a; Morsbach 1906: 272¯f.; Richter 1910: 9; Amos
1980: 30–9; HOEM §§¯156–61; OEG §§¯240–2).1 Forms of feorh: (-)fēore, fēorum 537,
1152, 1293, 1306, 2664, 3013; a short vowel is required in 73, 933, 1843 (see Bliss
§¯47); all the other instances of oblique cases are ambiguous. Forms of mearh: mēaras,
mēarum 855, 865, 917, 1035, 2163; there are no other unambiguous instances.

2. Syncope of medial vowels

(§¯12.) a. Short medial vowels in open syllables following long stem syllables were
syncopated, but they are often restored analogically, esp. in WS. The restored vowels,
which in Beo can always be disregarded in scansion, sometimes would otherwise
disrupt the meter (Siev.R. 459, A.M. §¯76.1; Amos 1980: 27–8; HOEM §§¯215–20; Suz.
105–6; OEG §¯343). This is indicated by a point beneath the vowel: ælmihtĽga 92,
elþēodĽġe 336, ®nĽgum 793 (if Scribe B’s alteration is accepted), 2416, ®nĺgum 842,
mōdĽgan 3011 (cf. mōdġes 502); dōgľres 219, 605, 2896; dōgľre (or dōgor: see Siev.R.
233, 245; Lang. §¯21.4) 2573 (and see 1797 Varr.). See also 932b note. — Syncope
appears probable in nīðhēdĽġe 3165, tīrēadĽgum 2189. It cannot be proved in
ġewealdĺne 1732, though it seems almost certain. It is probable also in dōgora 88 and
®niġe 972, but underpointing is unnecessary (cf. 1329b, 1941b, GenA 895b, 1053b, etc.);
likewise in h®þenes 986 (cf. 1118a, 1137b, 2096a, etc.) and ġeōmore 151 (cf. 1002a,
1097a, 1154a, etc.). Underpointing is similarly unnecessary in connection with the
endings -ena, -enum when they are applied analogically: to wes þū ūs lārena gōd 269b
and hē mid Ēotenum wearð 902b, cf. 1088a, 1093b, 1141a, 1766b, etc.; to Ġēatena lēode
443b, cf. 1072a, GuthA 166b, etc. See Cable 1991: 16–26, HOEM §§¯221–45. Compare
also the syncopated spellings in 1104, 2915, Jul 95, etc. There are numerous cases in
which merely the possibility of syncope is to be admitted. — On possible syncope in
522a, see §¯25 infra.
(§¯13.) b. Syncope after short stem syllables (Siev.R. 462¯f., OEG §§¯388–91) may
have occurred in a number of instances, e.g. in forms of fyren, eġesa (glēdeġesa grim
2650a, 2780b; etc.), Siġemund (875, 884), and the like, but positive metrical proof is not
obtainable, except probably in regard to nū is ofľst betost 3007b (see §¯38); cf. 78b. The
spelling H©lāces 1530 presupposes a form Hyġlāces: see Lang. §¯19.10.

3. Stems with vocalic r, l, m, n to be counted as monosyllabic (Siev.R. passim,

A.M. §¯79.4; Tr.Kyn. 31¯f.; Kal. passim; Holt., ed. passim; Sarrazin EStn. 38 [1907]
174¯f.; Luick 1910: 260–2; Richter 1910: 9–13; Seiffert 1913; W. Lehmann 1968; Amos
1980: 70–91; Russom 1987: 42–3; HOEM §§¯76–98; Hutch. 45–56; Suz. 19–20) are
distinguished by a point below the secondary vowel. The same diacritic is used in those
few cases in which the suppressed vowel is an original one (here marked *).

1
Against the supposition that the long syllable quantities are a metrical archaism rather than
evidence of actual lengthening (followed by analogical shortening), signi¢cant evidence is
presented by Dietz Angl. 88 (1970) 1–25.
 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 327
(§¯14.) a. Long stems
wundľr- 840,1 995, 1440, 1681, 3032 (wundĿr),1 3037, 30621 (see also 2173a note),
sundľr- 667, hleahtľr 611 (type B, cf. 1063a, 2105a, 2472a, 1008b, and see §¯35),
morþľr- 1079, 2436, 2742, wintĺr 1128, 1132, wuldľr- 1136, umbľr- 1187, ātĺr- 1459,
aldľr- 1676, *oncĺr- 1918, *dohtľr 2020,1 baldľr 2428, *brōðľr 2440,1 frōfľr 2941;1
-cumbľr 1022; ċeastĺr- 768.2 — fīfĺl- 104, *ēþĺl 913,1 symbĺl(-) 1782, 2431 (cf. plainly
dissyllabic symbel 1010). (Cf. the spellings ādl 1763, eaxl- 1326, 1714.) — māððĿm(-)
[1198], 2193, 2405, 2757. (Cf. the spellings māðm 1613, 1931, 2833, bearhtm 1766.) —
*īrĺn- 998, w®pĺn 1573,1 (w®pen plainly dissyllabic in 685a), *þēodĺn 1675,1 1871,1
2032,1 *Ongĺn- 1968, 2387, 2475 (see §¯17), *morgĺn- 2894. (Cf. the spelling bēcn
3160.) Monosyllabic bēacĺn seems probable in beorht bēacen Godes 570a (cf. swutol
sang scopes 90a), but ¢nal resolution does occur once in type D4: cf. wōm
wundľrbebodum 1747a (see §¯15).
Of course, many other forms may have nonsyllabic resonants (e.g. māþðum 169,
1052, 2055, etc.), though the meter is indecisive. Indeed, syllabi¢ed -um is never
demonstrably a syllable in verse meter.
(§¯15.) In compounds, the metrical sequence U¯Q¯-¯T¯Q is studiously avoided: see
Weyhe BGdSL 30 (1905) 79–83, Terasawa 1994: 8–26. All the undeniable exceptions
but one involve syllabic resonants, which must therefore be underpointed:3 umbľr- 46
(also 1187, as above), aldľr- 718, 757, 906 (also 1676, as above), morþľr- 1105 (also
1079, 2742, as above), wundĺr- 1162 (also 1681, as above), hlēoðľr- 1979, wuldĿr-
2795, āttľr- 2839. — māþðĿm- 1301, 2750. — fācĺn- 1018. Cf. also *sāwl- 1004.
For reasons explained in JEGP 106 (2007) 304–12, Terasawa’s ¢ndings also render
nonparasiting highly probable in (e)aldľr- 805, 2903; likely also wundľr- 1747.
(§¯16.) b. Short stems
The only decisive cases are snotľr 1904 (Siev., Fuhr 1892: 86, Trautm.: snottor),
meðĺl- 10821 (Trautm. EStn. 44 [1912] 339: older mæðlæ-), snotľrlicor 1842,4, and
(almost certainly) -bealĺwa 1946 (see HOEM §¯226; cf. §¯38 infra). The spellings efn
2903, setl 2013 may be noted. (wæter is plainly dissyllabic: 509, 1904, 1989, 2473; see
HOEM §¯84 n.¯21.) In accordance with the rule outlined in §¯15, the following must be
added: -ġiċĺlum 1606, -fealĿwe 2165.
Note. As a rule, the diacritics adopted in the foregoing sections are not included in
the variant readings. It should be understood that practically all of them are due to
Sievers and his example, and thus they are not found in editions before Sievers’s day.

4. Quantity in diphthongal stems

(§¯17.) Though long in uninÏected forms, the stem-¢nal diphthong in certain words,
including fēa, hlēo, trēow ‘tree’ (not ‘faith’), and þēow, was originally short (or, more
precisely, simply not a diphthong) in forms bearing inÏections with vocalic initials
(e.g., *þew > þēo, but *þewes remains). In such inÏected forms it was later lengthened
by analogy to the endingless form (OEG §¯584[b]), but this lengthening appears to have

1
See §§¯30¯f. infra.
2
Cf. foldbūende 1355a, grundbūendra 1006a (Kal. 36); see Fuhr 1892: 48–9; §¯30 infra. To
HOEM §¯88 n.¯33, cf. Terasawa 1994: 11.
3
The seeming exception nē þurh inwitsearo 1101a is probably explained by the degree of stress
on -wit-, since i is not reduced to e. The rule provides evidence against treating Hrefna Wudu 2925
as a compound: see §¯5 supra, and Terasawa 1994:¯11. The one undeniable exception is hildĺfrecan
2205, which Kl. not unreasonably emends (cf. hildfrecan 2366), given the great regularity of the
distribution of hild- and hilde-. Note that the rule is metrical, since compounds like irfenuma are
found in prose only; but it is also morphological, since the metrical pattern is not disallowed with
noncompounds (see 267a, 991a, 1680a, etc.) or with compounds of different juncture (see 1747a;
368a, 395b, 2636a). This is why underpointing is unnecessary in 570a, 668a, 771a, 833b, 1660b; cf.
920a.
4
See §¯38 infra.
328 APPENDIX C
occurred too late to affect the meter of Beo (see HOEM §§¯162–9). Thus, -þēow as a
name-element (the only such form to pose metrical problems in the poem) must
sometimes be scanned with a short diphthong in inÏected forms, where a long diph-
thong is in fact never required. The diphthong therefore is not marked long in inÏected
forms, even where the scribes have added w after it.1 Note also how rarely w is added,
perhaps another sign of an archaic exemplar,2 since spelling of the simplex without w
(cf. 2223) is exceedingly rare in OE, perhaps to be found only in the Anglian gospel
glosses. Klaeber’s practice varies: he underpoints the inÏectional vowel in bonan
Ongenþēoĺs 1968a, but in oððe him Ongenþeowes 2475a he leaves off the macron and,
evidently, assumes resolution.3 Resolution in such verses violates the scansional
regularity perceived by Weyhe and Terasawa (§¯15 supra), and so it is best to assume
Ongĺn- in these places (as does Mag.). That the poet was indeed reluctant to analyze
such traditional verses as showing resolution is demonstrated by the verse Ongĺnþioes
bearn 2387b, where underpointing is unambiguously required, even though the name
element is etymologically dissyllabic (see HOEM §§¯95–8, but cf. Siev.R. 266; and Wid
18: EormŖn-), as indeed the meter requires it to be in 2486, 2951. (In Ongenðīo 2986, e
might be underpointed and the diphthong circumÏected.) Note that inÏected forms of
Ecgþēo (see Gloss.) always follow rather than precede a monosyllabic foot, as should
be expected if tertiary-stressed -þeow- in such forms is a short syllable (cf. 499b;
HOEM §¯226).

5. Variant Forms
(§¯18.) a. nēosan and nēosian
The two forms are found side by side; nēosan (nīosan): 125, 1786, 1791, 1806, 2074,
2366, 2388; nīosian (nēosian): 115, 1125, 2486 (nīosað), 2671, 3045. Of the four
instances with a trisyllabic form, in one (115) the dissyllable could be substituted
without disrupting the meter (see Siev.R. 298); in the other three (1125, 2671, 3045) the
change would mark a distinct improvement (Siev.R. 233, 271, Bliss §¯65, Pope 366;
§§¯30¯f. infra), and so underpointing has been employed in these three instances. Holt.8
marks i as nonsyllabic in the in¢n. at 1125 and 2671, but this is hardly plausible given
comparison to 156b, 188b, 432b, etc.
(§¯19.) b. ©wan, ēawan, and eowian
On the origin of these variants (in a verb of the third weak class), see Lang. §¯10.2
n.¯1. The meter requires that analogical eoweð 1738 stand for older ©weð or ēaweð,
since an unresolved short lift ought not to stand after a resolved sequence (see §¯38); for
the type, see Bliss §¯35.
(§¯20.) c. Dat. sg. fem. ġehw®m and ġehw®re (later, analogical formation)
See OEG §¯716 n.¯4, Siev.R. 485; Tr.Kyn. 84, Bliss §¯47; Stanley PBA 70 (1984) 270.
ġehw®m: 1365a þ®r mæġ nihta ġehw®m. — ġehw®re: 25a in m®ġþa ġehw®re (w.
unusual allit.: see §¯35). See also Gloss.: ġehwā.
(§¯21.) d. The inÏected and the uninÏected form of the in¢nitive (after tō)
The inÏected has been changed to the uninÏected form by Siev.R. 255, 312, 482,
Bliss §¯44, Pope 237, Hutch. 146–9 in verses 473a, 1724b, 1941a, 2093a, 2562a. See
HOEM §¯3, and cf. the opposing views of Hoops St. 9¯f., Kl. Archiv 188 (1951) 108,
Russom 1987: 37–8, Suz. 112. The inÏected form is required by the meter in 174b,

1
This alternation of quantities does not apply to MS feaum 1081, which is required by the meter
to represent either a monosyllable or a resolved sequence. The former analysis is the correct one,
since w was lost from *fawum already in Proto-WGmc., producing a diphthong au > OE ēa (OEG
§¯120.3). The ending -um was much later reintroduced on an analogical basis.
2
See §¯8 supra. The spelling without w is found 15× (incl. 612, 2223, 2961), with w 15×.
3
That is, he is guided by whether or not the stem is written with ¢nal w. It is justi¢able to speak
of resolution in such a context because even though dithematic personal names normally bear
tertiary rather than secondary stress on the second constituent, presumably -þeow in Ongenþeow
bore elevated stress because of the preceding unstressed syllable. (Cf. §¯26.)
 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 329
1003a, 1731a, 1805a; the meter is ambiguous in 257a, 1419a, 1851a, 1922a, 2416a, 2445a,
2452a, 2644a. Kl.3 (Su. 466) settles for a stylistic explanation for the alternation, but it
is diÌcult to believe that this poet and others would choose to violate the meter so
frequently in connection with in¢nitives only, or, on the other hand, that the anomaly
could be accidental, especially when inÏected and uninÏected infs. after tō are known
to alternate in verse (see 316a, 2556a, Jul 557b, Phoen 275b, etc.). Hence underpointing
has been applied in the metrically anomalous verses.
(§¯22.) e. ymb and ymbe1 (See Intr. clvii.)
The two forms are metrically interchangeable except in ymbĺsittendra 2734a, where
ymb- is required: see Bliss §¯75, Hutch. 243; cf. Pope 308. Sievers (R. 258, 260), on
non-metrical grounds, calls for ymb- in hl®w oft ymbehwearf 2296b and heals ealne
ymbefēng 2691b; for the meter’s sake he is supported by Pope 364, 369 (cf. ll.¯603b,
658a); so also Bliss §¯82 in regard to the latter only.
(§¯23.) f. jō-stems in composition: hild- and hilde-; sib- and sibbe(-); hell- and helle(-)
The form hild(e)- is treated §¯5 supra. Though it belongs to the same declension of
jō-stems, helle (788, 1274), unlike hild(e)-, does not restrict what may follow (see §¯15),
and so it is best treated as a word rather than a compounding form: see Weyhe BGdSL
30 (1905) 79–83, Terasawa 1998. By contrast, sib(be)- behaves the way hild(e)- does,
and so technically sibbĺġedriht 387, 729 ought to be divided. Yet almost certainly this
is a scribal substitution for sibġedriht, as in Ex 214 (similarly sibġedryht: GuthB 1372,
Phoen 618), and so the compound must be allowed. See JEGP 106 (2007) 312–17. Cf.
Carr 1939: 291.
(§¯24.) g. hraþe (hrædlīċe, etc.) and raþe
hraþe is established by alliteration in 356, 543, 963, 991, 1576, 1914 (?), 1937; so is
raþe in 724 (MS raþe) and in 1390 (MS hraþe). The word does not participate in the
alliteration in 1975: cf. 1294, 1310. (See Hutcheson LSE 24 [1993] 36¯f., 42–6.) Forms
in hr- and r- most likely co-occurred from earliest times: see the Glossary; cf. SB §217
nn.¯1–2.
(§¯25.) h. f®ġer and fæġer
The variety with a long vowel appears to be an Anglian dialect feature found
regularly in poems other than apparently southern compositions: see Siev.R. 498¯f.;
HOEM §¯355.3; cf. Bamm. 1979: 46–7. A long vowel is required in f®ġer foldbold 773,
though all other instances in the poem are ambiguous: despite the macron supplied by
Klaeber, there may be stress on un- in lēoht unfæġer 727, and words in un- bear tertiary
rather than secondary stress (Bliss §¯32.6), so this variety of type D (so analyzed by
Bliss) would be permitted in the off-verse (see §¯29 infra). In regard to freoðoburh
fæġere 522a, a long root vowel would require underpointing of the middle vowel, but
this is entirely plausible (see §¯12 supra). Thus, all instances in the poem could be
marked with a macron; yet it seems that the long and short varieties were both used in
Anglian prose, and so there is no compelling reason to standardize the quantity.
(§¯26.) i. -līċ and -liċ
The practice of Kl. in regard to the adjective suÌx -liċ is modi¢ed here: it is
regarded as short not just before -u but in all case forms (cf. spellings like dp. -lecum:
see HOEM §§¯221–7; cf. §¯32 infra). The exception is when it is stressed, i.e. preceded
by an unstressed syllable that cannot be resolved, as in mōdiġlīcran 337 and ġeōmorlīċ
2444 (see Siev.R. 504, HOEM §¯203). In adv. -līċe the vowel is assumed to be long, but
not in the comparative and superlative (38, 139, 244, 1027, 1842; cf. Sea 85a, Kentish
ġeornliocar: OEG §¯216), of which there are no examples in the poem with suÌx
stress. Cf. Trautm. EStn. 44 (1912) 341; Suz. 111.

1
It has been supposed by some that ymb was originally a preposition and pre¢x only, ymbe
originally an adverb: see Sweet 1896 s.v. ymbe; J. & E. Wright 1925: §§¯594, 645. This view is not
improbable: cf. GenB, in which the postpositive preposition (stressed) is ymbe, otherwise
(unstressed) ymb. But the distinction is not observed consistently in any other poetic text.
330 APPENDIX C
C. OBSERVATIONS ON METER AND ALLITERATION

1. Rhythmical Peculiarities
(§¯27.) a. Type A admits in the second foot a short lift:1 K¯G¯|¯O¯G, a variety not
restricted to verses like wyrd oft nereð, gūðrinċ moniġ of the usual A2k type. See
Siev.R. 453¯f., 458, A.M. §¯85.1; Tupper 1910: lx n.; also Holt. Angl. 35 (1911) 167¯f.,
Pope 272, Bliss §¯31, Russom 1987: 117, Suz. 83–91.
Thus in the off-verse:2 Hrunting nama 1457b, æþeling maniġ 1112b, Hrunting beran
1807b, rīdend swefað 2457b, æþeling boren 3135b. Siev.R. 231 would assign a degree of
stress to the heavy syllable in the ¢rst drop (Bliss §¯31 supposes the weight of the
syllable is suÌcient), making these a variety of A2k. This is quite plausible, in view of
the half-stress required on similar syllables in Næġling forbærst 2680b, Henġest ðā ġ©t
1127b, and a number of similar verses (HOEM §¯210). Only Hrēðel cyning 2430b is not
thus to be explained.
In the on-verse: nīða ofercumen 845a, d®dum ġefremed 954a (cf. Siev.R. 312, Kal.
72, Bliss §¯84, Russom 1987: 117, Hutch. 158 n.¯8, Suz. 120; see Varr.).3 — Type A3
(Siev.A.M. §¯85 n.¯5; Fuhr 1892: 25–6; Russom 1998: 102): þæt hit ā mid ġemete 779a;
hwīlum hē on lufan 1728a; wæs mīn fæder 262a, þone þīn fæder 2048a; ġeslōh þīn fæder
459a; þ®r him n®niġ wæter 1514a. See §¯28. The frequency with which fæder creates
this metrical anomaly is suspicious (see also GenA 2697a, ChristB 773a, Jul 321a, Met
17.27a). There has been posited a by-form fædder, as has been proposed in regard to El
528a (see Tr.Kyn. 77, Schwartz 1905: 31, Pope 273¯f., HOEM §¯199; cf. Bamm. 1979:
46), but in all other verse types in Beo the word can, and usually must, be scanned with
a light initial syllable, as it must in 21b, 55b, 188a, 316b, 1355b, 1479b, 1950b, 2059b,
2608b, 2928b. (The stem fæddr- could indeed be quite old, due to WGmc. gemination in
PGmc. *faðr- < PIE *pķtró-, with analogical extension within the paradigm.) Although
it is tempting to apply resolution and classify these verses as B3 (so Siev.A.M. §¯85
n.¯4), this leaves 262a unmetrical (see the note on this verse), and Bliss §¯31 points out
the improbability of ¢nding so many B3 verses with ¢nal resolution when there is just
one such verse without resolution (3027a). Cf. Russom 1998: 102. It is notable that
these unusual types, like the normal A3, are restricted to the on-verse.
Type A rarely ends in a monosyllable, though the restriction may be as much
syntactic as metrical. An indisputable exception is ðicgean ofer þā niht 736a (though
Sed. supposes the last two words form a compound); probable exceptions are verses
ending in heard sweord (2509, 2638; see §¯5 supra), brād gold (3105), and ufan gr®ġ
(330); sceaðona iċ nāt hwylċ 274b is probably corrupt (see note), since type A2b, with
a heavy second drop, though not infrequent, occurs only in the on-verse, demanding, as
it does, double alliteration (Bliss §¯79; Hutch. 189–90). To the proposed verse hilderinċ
sum (see 3124 Varr.; also Moore JEGP 18 [1919] 215¯f.) there is no parallel in Beo; see
HOEM §¯88 n.¯30. Cf. also Varr.: 2800b.
The rare type ġeolorand tō gūðe 438a, gamolfeax ond gūðrōf 608a is paralleled in
other poems: see Siev.A.M. §¯85.2 & n.
(§¯28.) b. Type B with alliteration on the second stress only (or what Sievers would
analyze as such)4 is occasionally met with, of course only in the on-verse, and only
clause-initially: see Siev.A.M. §¯85.3. A plain case: þenden hē wið wulf 3027a, though

1
There occur no dependable instances of a short lift in the ¢rst foot, i.e. O¯G¯|¯K¯G: see the notes
and Varr. on 3171b, 2299a, 1980b, 1889a, 984b–5a (cf. Grienb. 750; Stanley 1981: 209).
2
hwīlum dydon 1828b is not a reliable example: see Lang. §¯25.6.
3
¼m his nefan 881a is often treated as another example, but since the second element of ¼m
was heavy before contraction (Gmc. *awa-haim-), this may be an example of type E: see HOEM
§¯210.
4
Bliss and most subsequent Sieversians, unlike Sievers himself, assume that there is no stress in
a verse before the ¢rst alliterating lift; i.e., the ¢rst lift must alliterate. Hence Bliss’s assumption of
‘light verses.’ Hence, also, the emendation in 707a (cf. A. Campbell 1962: 17).
 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 331
not improbably the scribe has miscopied wulfe (Pope 321, Andrew 1948: §¯68, Bliss
§¯67, Russom 1987 132, Hutch. 37 n.¯139). Another example is he is manna ġehyld
3056a, but the anomaly of the unstressed noun manna surely points to textual corrup-
tion; some assume scribal transposition of the last two words (so Pope, Russom),
though the repetition of manna in the next line perhaps suggests that manna has been
substituted for hæleða (see Varr.). There are two undoubted examples in Finn, 22a, 46a;
cf. A. Campbell 1962: 17.
Type B with an overheavy second drop is securely attested by wæs him Bēowulfes
sīð 501b. Textual corruption seems likely in regard to 932b, 949b, 1830b: see the notes
on these.
(§¯29.) c. Type D does not generally appear in the off-verse with secondary stress
(Bliss §§¯61¯f.), the only sure exception being hroden ealow®ġe 495b. (Almost certainly
the compound has been lexicalized, and the stress thus reduced, in fēond mancynnes
164b: see §¯39 infra, and cf. And 846b, Sat 309b, KtPs 110b, etc.) Thus, it is advisable to
divide eal(l) gylden 1111, 2767 and eal(l) ġearo 1230, 2241 (thus also 77), treated as
compounds by most edd. (incl. Kl.); see Bliss §¯61 (but see also §¯39¯fn. infra). Hence
also eal fela 869, 883.
The subtype D3 has a short, unresolved second lift at the beginning of a word: feorh
cyninges 1210b, fyll cyninges 2912b (cf. Dan 129b, 148b, 163b, 165b). Thus are to be
explained secg bet[e]sta 947a, 1759a and ðeġn bet[e]stan 1871b; cf. betost 3007, and see
947a note. The type more usually occurs when the entire verse is a compound: cf.
þēodcyninga 2a (similarly 372b, 535b, 1039b, 1155b), and this pattern is characteristic of
‘Cædmonian’ verse when the second syllable of the unresolved pair is heavy (see
HOEM §§¯272–4). The exception umbľrwesendum ®r 1187a thus raises suspicion. In
fact, the only parallel to this verse in poetry presumed to antedate Cynewulf is hēah-
cininges h®s at GenA 124a. See Varr.; Kuhn BGdSL 63 (1939) 193. (®r must bear stress
under Kuhn’s ¢rst law, §¯6 supra.)
(§¯30.) d. Type D* (expanded D) admits in the ¢rst foot two syllables after the initial
lift: K¯G¯G¯|¯K¯L¯G. Cf. Deutschbein 1902: 33; Bliss §§¯44, 65; Hutch. 146–9; Suz. 41–2.
Thus, certainly, selliċe s®dracan 1426a, deorc ofer dryhtgumum 1790a, since these
are unlikely to show ¢nal resolution (see Bliss §§¯54–5) and thus violate Kaluza’s law
(Intr. clx; see Terasawa 1994: 16); also eahtodan eorlscipe 3173a, since -scipe does not
bear secondary stress and thus is not subject to resolution (but see HOEM §¯249); less
likely word w®ron wynsume 612a (cf. 1919a), since -e is likely a scribal addition (see
n.); fyrdsearu fūslicu 232a is best regarded as involving alteration of fūsliċ (as in 2618a;
see Lang. §¯22); ¢nal resolution is possible in wongas ond wīċstede 2462a, though the
principle of ¢nal resolution is dubitable (see Kendall 1991: 182; Cable 1991: 19; HOEM
§¯226); a possible example of type D* is wr®tlicne wundurmāððum 2173a (assuming
wundĿr-), but note that -māððum is almost certainly monosyllabic: see note on line and
§¯14.
Double alliteration in type D* is the rule. The exceptions are chieÏy due to parasite
vowels and probable scribal alterations (e.g. in ceastĺr-, ēðĺl, þēodĺn, brōðľr, nīosĽan,
ymbĺ-: see §§¯14, 18, 22). The remaining examples are of the formula Bēowulf
(Wealhðeo, Hrōðgār, etc.) maðelode (24×; to Bliss §¯55, cf. Siev.R. 303, HOEM §¯249).
That the formula is restricted to the on-verse shows that it was probably felt to be a
metrical license.
(§¯31.) e. Type D* is not generally found in the off-verse, where the required double
alliteration in this type precludes its appearance. (See Siev.R. 255, A.M. §¯84.7; Fuhr
1892: 49; Kal. 56; Bliss §§¯61–6; cf. Pope 365). None of the seeming exceptions is
indubitable: dohtľr Hrōðgāres 2020b may show unetymological nonparasiting, like
brōðľr ōðerne 2440a, as may ðēodĺn Heaðo-Beardna 2032b, though the verse remains
problematic (see n.); on wīca nēosĽan 1125b and fīonda nios(Ľ)an 2671b, see §¯18 supra;
in regard to lāðra Ňwihte 2432b, the form used elsewhere in the poem in this function is
wihte (see 1822¯n., Gloss.); oftost wīsode 1663b (MS) gives questionable sense and
332 APPENDIX C
probably involves a natural scribal error (see n.); Bēowulf Scyldinga 53b (MS) is
dubitable on non-metrical grounds, as well (see n.); there may be elision in ðolodĺ ®r
fela 1525b, snūdĺ eft cuman 1869b, and Gode Ľċ þanc secge 1997b, in addition to
resolution of Gode Ľċ in the last (see Bliss §§¯77–8; cf. Hutch. 262); him on andsware
1840b may actually belong to type A2b, with ¢nal resolution (so Bliss §¯54), since the
accentual status of -sware is ambiguous (see HOEM §¯234, and note that -ar- ought not
to appear in an unstressed syllable); in that event the same may be true of dēad is
Æschere 1323b (but cf. 1329b), and in any case the rule can hardly be held disproved by
a verse containing a personal name (see HOEM §¯235). On seah on enta ġeweorc 2717b,
see the note; see also 2076b. It is notable that Pope identi¢es 211 verses of type D* in
the on-verse and 18 in the off-verse (all treated above; cf. Bliss: 147¯: 0); compare his
¢gures for the unexpanded type: 249¯: 375 (Bliss 204¯: 222). Pope’s ¢gures alone reveal
how infrequent D* is in the off-verse, and if the rule were not reliable, it would be
remarkable that the exceptions are so insecure, when there are so few of them.
Sievers’s ¢ndings thus demand credence. See HOEM §¯66.
(§¯32.) f. Type E admits a short syllable with tertiary stress bearing ictus in drihtliċe
wīf 1158a and lāðlicu lāc 1584a. See Siev.R. 504, A.M. §¯84 n.¯5, 1904: 568; Tr. Kyn.
78, EStn. 44 (1912) 341 (supposing -līċ-). Normally such a syllable does not bear ictus
after an initial lift: cf. frēolicu folccwēn 641a, tryddode tīrfæst 922a (similarly 105b,
560a, 1105b, 1118a, 1137b, 1161a, etc.). The type also occurs in GenA 1413a, 2359a, 2518b,
Az 73a, and Met 1.84b, 21.2b, 25.13b. See HOEM §¯230. Thus MS egsode eorl 6a must
not be ruled out on metrical grounds, though it is formally unusual. See Siev. 1904:
560–76;1 Huguenin 1901: 28¯n.; Kal. 70, 97. The type with secondary stress also is
uncommon, though it is more securely attested in the poem (rarely elsewhere), and it
conforms to Kaluza’s law (Intr. clx): Sūð-Dena folc 463b, bēaghroden cwēn 623b; also
783b, 2779b. See Hutch. 250–1. On īrena cyst 673a, 1697a, see note to 673a. It is notable
that the type with resolution of the ¢nal lift always has double alliteration (Cronan SN
58 [1986] 155 n.¯12). — There is a relatively high incidence of verses of the type
Bēowulf ġeþāh 1024b, with half-stress on the normally unstressed second syllable (cf.
946b, 1299b, etc.). The type is rare outside of the poem: see HOEM §¯210; cf. Russom
JGL 13 (2001) 52–5, Bredehoft JEL 31 (2003) 199–220, Hartman Anglo-Saxon 1
(2007) 201–20.
(§¯33.) g. ‘Catalectic’ measures are too infrequent to be wholly convincing. In any
case, violations of the four-position structure of the verse, infrequent as they are, are
most improbable (see JGL 14 [2002] 331–55). See Siev.A.M. §§¯10.1, 180; Vetter 1872:
33; Cosijn (& Siev.) BGdSL 19 (1894) 441¯f., n.¯2; Trautm., BBzA 23 (1907) 140; Pope
320–1, 334, 372; Bliss §¯84; Russom 1987: 117, 129; HOEM §¯209; Hutch. 156–8; Suz.
46–7, 120. MS ræhte ongean 747b (cf. Kock5 187) involves an erasure (see n.); obvious
scribal errors suggest themselves in regard to MS grette þa 652a and gegnum for 1404b;
there may also be error involved in lissa gelong 2150a (see Varr.), though the source is
more debatable. See also 1889a. (For references to the long-standing dispute between
Siev. and Kock over such measures, see the note to l.¯6.)

2. Anacrusis
(§¯34.) General. See Siev.A.M. §¯83 and the refs. given there; Bliss §§¯46–50; Cable
1974: 32–44; Donoghue N&Q 34 (1987) 1–5; Russom 1987: 33–8; Hutch. 97–107; Suz.
315–40, SP 92 (1995) 141–63, ES 76 (1995) 20–33; id. 2004: 169. Anacrustic syllables
are almost always proclitic in nature, comprising mostly unstressed pre¢xes and the
particle ne (see Cable 1974: 35–7; Russom 1987: 33–4; Suz. 319–22). The exception h©
eft ġemētton 2592b is on other grounds likely to show scribal intrusion of h© (see n.).
There is no anacrusis with type E.

1
Cf. Kock 219¯f., Angl. 28 (1905) 140¯f., unaware of the distinction between secondary and
tertiary stress, and of Kaluza’s law.
 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 333
(§¯35.) Type A. a. In the on-verse: monosyllabic in, e.g., ongunnen on ġeogoþe 409a.
There are no uncontested examples without double alliteration, though Hutch. 106 n.¯32
attributes this to the high rate of double alliteration in type A in general. Bliss identi¢es
17 examples. A fairly certain exception is Tō lang ys tō reċċenne 2093a, which fails to
conform, regardless of whether or not an uninÏected in¢nitive is substituted (see §¯21).
Thus, in m®ġþa ġehw®re 25a is not impossible, but the substitution of ġehw®m would
mark an improvement (see n.). Dissyllabic anacrusis is found twice in type A in the on-
verse, according to Bliss, in 1248a and 1563a. — Bliss §§¯46–7 also ¢nds that anacrusis
is avoided in verses of type A that otherwise comprise two words when they both have
initial stress. The verse in Cāines cynne 107a (MS caines altered from cames) is the
only plain exception, though even it is not entirely secure.1 This observation forbids the
usual emendation [be] Finnes eaferum 1068a, and it speaks for the reading under
heofones haðor 414a.
b. In the off-verse: monosyllabic. There are seven incontestable cases: 93b, 666b,
1223b, 1504b, 1773b, 1877b, 2247b; 2592b is very likely corrupt (see n.); see also the
note to 2481b. All the certain examples are of a particular subtype, what Bliss calls
1A1a, with a word boundary after the ¢rst lift.
(§¯36.) Type D(*). a. In the on-verse: monosyllabic in, e.g., ġesæġd sōðlīċe 141a,
ġesette siġehrēþiġ 94a. Bliss identi¢es 27 examples in type D(*), but an exact count
depends upon some disputed factors, especially whether an alliterating ¢nite verb must
be stressed in the onset of the clause. There is an apparent example of dissyllabic
anacrusis in oferÏēon fōtes trem 2525a (but see n.); others (1543a, 2367a, 2628a) may
perhaps have unstressed ¢nite verbs, as Bliss supposes, avoiding violations of Kuhn’s
¢rst law. Double alliteration is the rule.
b. In the off-verse, anacrusis occurs just twice: þā secg wīsode 402b, þāra ymb-
sittendra 9b. The rule against anacrusis in this type (Siev.R. 256; Pope 237; Bliss §¯49;
Pope 1988) is con¢rmed by its observance in other poems (Hutch. 104). Kl. emends the
latter, on the ground that it is syntactically objectionable (presumably because there is
no motivation for the de¢nite construction). In the former, as well, þā is inessential,
though semantically unobjectionable.

3. Elision
(§¯37.) Since it admits of no positive proof, elision is not marked in the text, except
in some crucial instances (see §¯31). Cf. Schubert 1870: 47–8; Siev.R. passim, esp.
241¯f., A.M. §¯79.5; Fuhr 1892: 47–8; Kal. passim; Pope 71; Bliss §¯59; Russom 1987:
23–4, 1995; Hutch. 143 n.¯8; Holt. ed. passim.
Instances have been proposed in 469b, 517b, 609b, 433a, 471a, 525a, etc. — In several
places it appears that an elision-vowel is dropped in the MS; this is indicated in the text
by an apostrophe. Thus wēn’ iċ 338a, 442a (wēne iċ occurs in 525a, 1184a); eotonweard’
ābēad 668b; ¢ren’ ondrysne 1932b; sibb’ ®fre 2600b; sum’ on 2940b; probably egl’
unhēoru 987a as well, though this could be a haplographic oversight (originally eglu).
See also the note on 698a; Varr.: 2562b.

4. Resolution (See Siev.A.M. §§¯9, 80; Bliss §§¯34–40; Russom 1987: 44–6; Hutch.
68–96; Suz. 171–275; Russom 1995; Stockwell & Minkova NOWELE 31–2 [1997]
389–406.)

1
See the note on this verse. Sievers (1900: 7) suggests the possibility of a diphthong āi in
this name, but siþðan Cāin wearð 1261b (MS camp) requires dissyllabic āi. Perhaps Cāines
107 should be treated like tryddode in tryddode tīrfæst 922a under a general rule of stress in
a

the cadence (Cable 1991: 16–26; HOEM §§¯221¯ff.) — though this solution merely resolves
the seemingly inconsistent metrical treatment of the digraph, without addressing the pecul-
iarity that Bliss observes.
334 APPENDIX C
(§¯38.) It is correct to speak of resolution only in connection with syllables bearing
primary or secondary stress. A short syllable bearing ictus may not immediately follow
a resolved lift (Siev.A.M. §¯9.2; Bliss §¯62). Thus, resolution of the ¢rst lift is avoided
in type C2: see Siev.R. 248, IF 26 (1910) 229. Cf. 2803b (n.). Such a short syllable is
permitted, however, if it is itself resolved: cf. tō brimes faroðe 28b, also 350b, 1154b,
etc.; to Siev.R. 462, cf. Terasawa 1994: 12–14, 65. (In one instance the second lift is
resolved even though the ¢rst is not: hē on weġ losade 2096b; cf. also 1946a, 2650a,
2780b; the type is similarly uncommon in OS: see S. Suzuki 2004: 198.) For the same
reason, the verb must have a long vowel in brimclifu blīcan 222a (cf. Varr.): in other
verses of this type (215a, 328a, 715a, 767a, etc.), a short syllable following the resolved
pair is always itself resolved. A probable exception is mōdġes merefaran 502a,
otherwise a violation of Kaluza’s law of light and heavy desinences in resolution (see
§¯30 supra and Intr. clx). The general rule is violated twice in type D3 (§¯29):
woroldcyninga 1684b (similarly 3180b; also GenA 1315b, 2337a, 2918b, Ex 410b, El
624b). It is not, conversely, true that resolution is avoided in the second lift of type D
(Siev.R. 463¯f., Bliss §¯62), though one would expect such treatment in the verse coda
(cf. HOEM §§¯355.6, 226): cf. heall heorudrēore 487b, feorh æþelinges 2424a, gold
glitinian 2758a, etc. — On possible examples of verse-¢nal resolution, see §§¯30¯f.
supra; HOEM §¯249.

5. Irregularities of Alliteration
(§¯39.) a. True compounds (i.e. those bearing secondary stress: see Bliss §¯32) almost
always alliterate, a principle that may conveniently be referred to as Krackow’s law.1
The only exceptions are mancynnes 164, wilcuman 394, ealow®ġe 495, and ®rdæġe
2942. All of these but ealow®ġe are prosaic compounds, and thus most likely they
have been lexicalized, with attendant reduction of stress: see Russom 1998: 92;
Hutcheson JEGP 103 (2004) 304 n.¯21. The verse hroden ealow®ġe is exceptional most
likely because of the double resolution (Kendall 1991: 169).
(§¯40.) b. Exceptionally, a ¢nite verb (in the on-verse, clause-initially) followed by a
noun or adjective alliterates alone: ġemunde þā se gōda 758a; ġefeng þā be eaxle 1537a.
(See Rie. V. 24, 43; Siev.A.M. §¯24.3; cf. Lehmann & Tabusa 1958: 5–6, regarding the
stressed verb as an archaism [implausibly].) (Of this exceptional mode of alliteration
some thirty instances have been found by Holt. Angl. 46 [1922] 52–4 in the corpus of
OE poetry, exclusive of PPs; in some ten of those cases the verb of the off-verse
alliterates.) Cf. also 702a. The rule of precedence is perhaps also violated in meaht þū,
mīn wine 2047a (cf. Andrew 1948: §¯171, suggesting m®ġwine), though probably meaht
is unstressed (so Bliss 153, Kendall 1991: 62; see p.¯324 n.¯4; cf. Pope 272, Suz. 522);
then for the stressed pronominal adjective, cf. 345b, 558b, 776b, 2095b, 2131b, etc. The
initial in¢nitive is unstressed in 821a; see Pope 2001: 96.
(§¯41.) c. In the off-verse, the alliterative precedence of a ¢nite verb in the clause
onset (489 [n.], 1137, 1327, 1441, 1548, 1872, 2544, 2717 [n.], 2863, 2980) is not out of
the ordinary (Siev.A.M. §¯24.3; cf. A. Campbell 1962: 16–17; Stanley Angl. 93 [1975]

1
See Krackow 1903: 43–4; Kendall ASE 10 (1982) 52; HOEM §¯66 n.¯97. Three of Krackow’s
other exceptions have been eliminated in the present edition by different word division: 2152b (see
n.); 1111b, 2767b (cf. 77b, 869a, 883a, 1230b, 2241b, 2338a, and see Bliss §¯62). His one remaining
exception, ūðgenġe 2123, does not involve a true compound, since ūð- is a pre¢x, never appearing
as a word unto itself. Neither is alwalda 316 a true compound, but al- may be derived from *ala-
(as in OHG alamahtic): cf. Max I 132b. Alternatively, it may be supposed that eal- is a pre¢x rather
than a compound element (so Kendall 1991: 177; Hutcheson JEGP 103 [2004] 304 n.¯21), and by
this means non-alliterating alwalda could be explained and the (quasi-)compounds ealfela,
ealġearo, ealgylden preserved (see §¯29 supra). Bliss’s and Russom’s explanation (as adopted
here) enjoys the advantage that ®r- (which Kendall groups with eal- in order to explain ®rdæġe
2942) otherwise always alliterates in compounds in verse, as well as that it accounts well for
mancynnes and wilcuman.
 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 335
307–34). Less ordinary is for the verb to take such precedence outside of the clause
onset, i.e. when stressed under Kuhn’s ¢rst law (as in 1128b, 1728b; see §¯6; Donoghue
1987: 193). — The second lift in the off-verse alliterates in 2615: (brūnfāgne helm)
hringde byrnan. (Prob. due to word metathesis: see Varr. and Andrew 1948: §¯180. Cf.
Finn 28b, 41b.)
(§¯42.) d. Double alliteration in the off-verse. See Bu.Tid. 63¯f.; Rie.V. 8–10;
Siev.A.M. §¯21(c). Von Schaubert’s advocacy of permissible double alliteration in the
off-verse (Lit.bl. 57 [1936] 27; similarly Stanley PBA 70 [1984] 268¯f., Orchard 2003:
177 n.¯54) is licensed by a greater trust in the reliability of the scribes than, probably,
most will allow (see OES §¯3843); cf. 1351b note; Hoover 1985: 68–9.
(a) Only apparently in 1251b, 1351b.
(b) Cases to be remedied by fairly certain emendation: ðā was heal hroden 1151b
(roden); hilde ġehn®ġdon 2916b (ġen®ġdon);1 in ēowrum gūðġeatawum 395b (gūð-
ġetawum, cf. wīġġetawum 368).
(c) þæt iċ mid sweorde ofslōh 574b looks like a genuine exception. Scribal substitu-
tion of a synonym (ofslōh for ābrēat, Holt.) is not so easily accounted for in this case as
in 965a (hand for mund), 1073b (hild for lind). See also 2298b note; Lehmann & Tabusa
1958: 9–10; and see MR 166¯f. (§§¯7, 9).
(§¯43.) e. The MS, read in conjunction with the early transcripts, contains a number
of verse lines that, without emendation, lack proper alliteration on stressed elements:
332, 457, 499, (707,) 949, 965, 1073, 1165, 1390, 1488, 2063, 2094, 2251, 2298, 2385,
2523, 2882, 2929, 2972. In most of these instances, emendations are almost universally
agreed upon among the edd. In some other instances, alliteration is lacking or im-
proper, but at the same time the line is defective in grammar, sense, and/or meter: 62,
149, 240, 312, 389¯f., 403, 586, 780, 954, 976, 1802¯f., 2139, 2239, 2250, 2341, 2473,
2488, 2525, 2792, 2941, 3000, 3086. The latter lines are thus plainly corrupt, and the
proportions suggest that the number of lines in the former group is about what should
be expected as a result of textual corruption. In some instances, alliteration must be
supplied with letters lost by damage to the MS and not securely attested in the
transcripts: 2020, 2186, 2196, 2229, 2255, 2275, etc. One verse (1903), if left unemend-
ed, would alliterate on an unstressed element.

————————————
For the convenience of students, a list of Sievers’s rhythmical types (with some slight
modi¢cations due in the main to Bliss) is appended. The underlying principles are ex-
plained in Pope 2001: 129–58.

A U Q | U Q h©ran scolde
A 1 bēaga bryttan ellen fremedon sceaþena þrēatum
A 2 frumsceaft fīra frumcyn witan folcstede frætwan
Grendles gūðcræft drihtsele drēorfāh
A 3 syðþan hīe þæs lāðan [allit. on lāðan, no lift in ¢rst foot]

B Q U | Q U ond Hālga til

B 1 him ðā Scyld ġewāt hine fyren onwōd þanon eft ġewiton
B 2 hē þæs frōfre ġebād hē bēot ne ālēh þēah ðe hīo ®nlicu s©
B 3 þenden hē wið wulf [allit. on wulf, no lift in ¢rst foot]

1
Cf. nīða ġen®ġdan 2206a, ġehn®ġde helle gāst 1274a. There seems to have been some confu-
sion between ġehn®ġan and ġen®ġan (see 1318). See also Krapp MP 2.3 (1905) 405–7 (possible
confusion of faroð and waroð), Varr.: 28b, 1916a.
336 APPENDIX C
C Q U | U Q oft Scyld Scē¢ng
C 1 ofer hronrāde þone God sende
C 2 in worold wōcun tō brimes faroðe
C 3 þæt wæs gōd cyning in ġeārdagum

D a. U | U V Q fēond mancynnes
b. U | U Q V wēold wīdeferhð
a: D 1 weard Scildinga gumum undyrne
D 2 hēah Healfdene swutol sang scopes
D 3 þēodcyninga fyll cyninges
b: D 4 Ïet innanweard fyrst forð ġewāt sweord swāte fāh
D* (expanded D1, D2, D4) aldres orwēna m®re mearcstapa
grētte Ġēata lēod

E U V Q | U weorðmyndum þāh
E Scedelandum in nicorhūsa fela woroldāre forġeaf
Sūð-Dena folc mundbora wæs draca morðre swealt

Scansion of the ¢rst 50 lines:

C3 C3 B1 C1
D3 A1 A2 C1
C2 A1 A3 C2
C1 A1 A1 B1
5 A1 E 30 B1 D1
A1 B1 D2 A1
A2 B2 B1 A1
A1 E A2 E
A3 D1 B1 A1
10 C1 A1 35 A1 C3
A1 C3 A1 B1
B1 A1 C3 A1
A1 C1 C3 A1
A1 E A1 C2
15 C3 A1 40 A1 B1
A1 C3 A1 C1
A1 E B1 A1
A1 E A3 A1
A1 E A1 C3
20 C3 A1 45 C1 A1
D1 C2 A1 D3
A3 A1 A3 D1
A1 C3 A1 C3
A1 E A2 B1
25 B21 A1 50 E A1

1
Reading ġehw®m: see §¯20 supra.
 APPENDIX D

THE TEXTS OF WALDERE AND THE

OLD HIGH GERMAN HILDEBRANDSLIED¯
WALDERE1

* * * * * hyrde hyne ġeorne:

‘Hūru Wēland(es) worc ne ġeswīceð
monna ®nĽgum ðāra ðe Mimming can
hear[d]ne ġehealdan; oft æt hilde ġedrēas
5 swātfāg ond sweordwund sec[g] æfter ōðrum.
Ætlan ordwyga, ne l®t ðīn ellen nū ġ©(t)
ġedrēosan tō dæġe, dryhtscipe * * *
* * * * * (Nū) is se dæġ cumen
þæt ðū scealt āninga ōðer twēġa,
10 līf forlēosan oððe lang[n]e dōm
āgan mid eldum, Ælfheres sunu.
Nalles iċ ðē, wine mīn, wordum ċīde,
(ð)© iċ ðē ġesāwe æt ðām sweordplegan
ðurh edwītscype ®niġes monnes
15 wīġ forbūgan oððe on weal Ͻn,
līċe beorgan, ðēah þe lāðra fela
ðīnne byrnhomon billum hēowun;
ac ðū symle furðor feohtan sōhtest,
m®l ofer mearce; ð© iċ ðē metod ondrēd,
20 þæt ðū tō fyrenlīċe feohtan sōhtest
æt ðām ætstealle ōðres monnes,
wīġr®denne. Weorða ðē selfne
2
The text is based on the facsimile in Zettersten’s ed., supplemented by notes from an examina-
tion of the MS leaves undertaken by RDF in the spring of 1988. For critical and explanatory notes
on Waldere, see the edd. of A. Zettersten (Manchester, 1979) and F. Norman (London, 1933; rev.
ed. 1949).
—————————————
Translation. A: . . . emboldened him intently: ‘Indeed, Wēland’s creation will not fail any of those
men who know how to handle hard Mimming; often at battle fell one ¢ghter after another, blood-
covered and sword-wounded. Attila’s champion, do not let your valor fail yet today, your prowess.
. . . Now the day has come when certainly you must do one of two things, lose your life or have
long-lived renown among mortals, son of Ælfhere. Not at all, my friend, will I taunt you with it
that I saw you at the sword-play with disgrace give way before the aggression of any man or Ïee
behind walls, protect your life, though many enemies hacked at your garment of mail with swords;
but you strove ever further to ¢ght, time after time; for that reason I mistrusted fate on your
account, that you strove too recklessly to ¢ght upon another man’s presenting himself, at his war-
making. Honor yourself with ¢ne accomplishments for as long as God provides for you. Do not
338 APPENDIX D

gōdum d®dum ðenden ðīn God reċċe.

Ne murn ðū for ðī mēċe; ðē wearð māðma cyst
25 ġifeðe tō [ġ]ēoce, (mit) ð© ðū Gūðhere[s] scealt
bēot forbīġan, ðæs ðe hē ðās beaduwe ongan
mid unryhte ®rest sēċan.
Forsōc hē ðām swurde ond ðām synċfatum,
bēaga mæniġo; nū sceal bēġa lēas
30 hworfan from ðisse hilde, hlāfurd sēċan,
ealdne ēðel, oððe hēr ®r swefan,
ġif hē ðā’ * * * * * * * *
B

* * * * * ‘swilċe1 bæteran
būton ðām ānum ðe iċ ēac hafa
on stānfate stille ġehīded.
Iċ wāt þæt [h]it ðōhte Ðēodrīċ Widian
5 selfum onsendon, ond ēac sinċ miċel
māðma mid ðī mēċe, moniġ ōðres mid him
golde ġeġirwan; iūlēan ġenam,
þæs ðe hine of nearwum Nīðhādes m®ġ,
Wēlandes bearn, Widia ūt forlēt;
10 ðurh fīfĺla ġe(wea)ld forð ōnette.’
Waldere mað(e)lode, wiga ellenrōf,
hæfde him on handa hildefrō[f]re,
gūðbilla gripe, ġyddode wordum:
‘Hwæt, ðū hūru wēndest, wine Burgenda,
15 þæt mē Hagenan hand hilde ġefremede,
1
Matching stains in the folds show that bifolium I was probably sewn to II in the original quire.
Hence, the matching of swil, at the foot of the vestige of the counterfoil attached to Ir, to ce, at the
head of IIr, as ¢rst proposed by Norman (p. 3), is correct. A leaf containing a passage at least as
long as one of these two fragments is missing between them, and perhaps more leaves, as well. Cf.
Dob. VI, xx.
—————————————
be concerned about your sword; the ¢nest of weapons has been granted you in aid, with which you
shall turn aside Gūðhere’s threat, since he did ¢rst unjustly seek out this confrontation. He spurned
the sword and the precious vessels [as peace-offerings], a mass of rings; now, ringless, he shall
depart from this combat, seek out his lord, his old homeland, or sleep [i.e., die] here ¢rst, if he . . .’
B: ‘[any] better such [weapon], except for that alone which I also have, quietly hidden [i.e.,
sheathed] in a stone-vessel [i.e., a jeweled scabbard?]. I know that Þēodrīċ intended to send it to
Widia himself, and also a great fortune of treasures with the sword, to deck with gold many of
another sort along with it; he received [this as] repayment [for service] of old, because Nīðhād’s
kinsman, Wēland’s son, Widia, had rescued him from diÌculties; from the power of giants he had
hurried forth.’ Waldere made a speech, a warrior of ¢rm valor, had in his hand a battle-solace, a
¢stful of war-blades, proclaimed in a speech: ‘So, friend of the Burgundians, you certainly
expected that Hagena’s hand would have made war against me and removed me from foot-combat.
 HILDEBRANDSLIED 339

ond ġetw®mde fēðewiġġes. Feta, ġyf ðū dyrre,

æt ðus heaðuwērĽgan hāre byrnan!
Standeð mē hēr on eaxelum Ælfheres lāf,
gōd ond ġēapneb, golde ġeweorðod,
20 ealles unscende æðelinges rēaf
tō habbanne þonne ha[n]d wereð
feorhhord fēondum; ne1 bið fāh wið mē
þonne (mē) unm®gas eft onġynnað,
mēċum ġemētað, swā ġē mē dydon.
25 Ðēah mæġ siġe syllan sē ðe symle byð
recon ond r®dfest ryhta ġehwilċes.
Sē ðe him tō ðām hālgan helpe ġelīfeð,
tō Gode ġīoce, hē þ®r ġearo ¢ndeð,
ġif ðā earnunga ®r ġeðenċeð.
30 Þonne mōten wlance welan britnian,
®htum wealdan; þæt is * * * *

THE OLD HIGH GERMAN

HILDEBRANDSLIED¯2
Ik gihōrta ðat seggen,
ðat sih urhēttun ®non muotīn,
Hiltibrant enti Haðubrant, untar heriun tuēm
sunufatarungo. iro saro rihtun,
5 garutun se iro gūðhamun, gurtun sih iro suert ana,
helidos, ubar [h]ringā, dō sie tō dero hiltiu ritun.
Hiltibrant gimahalta — Heribrantes sunu —
her uuas hērōro man,
ferahes frōtōro; her frāgēn gistuont
1 2
MS he. Klaeber’s text, improved by ref. to Lühr 1982.
—————————————
Fetch, if you dare, a grey mail-coat from one so war-weary. Ælfhere’s legacy rests here on my
shoulders, good and broad-fronted, adorned with gold, a wholly blameless prince’s garment to
have when hand defends life-hoard against foes; it will not be false with me when strangers again
start against me, meet me with swords, as you people have done with me. And yet he who is
always prompt and reliable in regard to all matters of right has the power to award victory. He who
trusts in help for himself from the sacred one, succor from God, there he will readily ¢nd it, if he
thinks beforehand as to how he will deserve it. Then proud ones will earn the right to dispense
treasure, to control wealth; that is . . .’
Hildebr.: I heard it told that warriors met singly, Hildebrand and Hadubrand, between two armies,
father and son. They ordered their gear, prepared their battle-dress, girded themselves with their
swords, heroes, over chain-mail, when they rode to the battle. Hildebrand made a speech,
Heribrand’s son — he was the older man, more experienced of life; he began to ask in few words
who his [i.e., Hadubrand’s] father was in the host of men. . . . ‘or of what family you are; if you
340 APPENDIX D

fōhēm uuortum, [h]wer sīn fater wāri

10 ¢reo in folche, * * * *
‘eddo [h]welīhhes cnuosles dū sīs;
ību dū mī Ęnan sagēs, ik mī dē ōdre uuēt,
chind, in chunincrīche; chūd ist mir al irmindeot.’
Hadubrant gimahalta, Hiltibrantes sunu:
15 ‘Dat sagētun mī ūsere liuti,
alte anti frōte, dea ērhina wārun,
dat Hiltibrant h®tti mīn fater; ih heittu Hadubrant.
Forn her ōstar giuueit, Ïōh her Ōtachres nīd,
hina miti Theotrīhhe, enti sīnero degano ¢lu.
20 Her furlaet in lante luttila sitten
prūt[i] in būre, barn unwahsan,
arbeo laosa; he[r] raet ōstar hina,
de[s] sīd Dētrīhhe darbā gistuontun
fatereres mīnes: dat uuas sō friuntlaos man.
25 Her was Ōtachre ummett[i] irri,
degano dechisto unti Deotrīchhhe darba gistontun.
Her was eo folches at ente, imo was eo fehta ti leop;
chūd was her chōnnēm mannum; ni wāniu ih iū līb habbe.’
‘Wēttu irmingot,’ quad Hiltibrant, ‘obana ab heuane,
30 dat dū neo dana halt mit sus sippan man dinc ni gileitōs.’
Want her dō ar arme wuntane baugā,
cheisuringu gitān, sō imo se der chuning gap,
Hūneo truhtīn: ‘Dat ih dir it nū bi huldī gibu.’
Hadubrant gima[ha]lta, Hiltibrantes sunu:
35 ‘Mit gēru scal man geba infāhan,
ort wider orte. * * * * *
Dū bist dir altēr Hūn, ummet spāhēr,
—————————————
tell me one [thing], I will know the others, lad, in the kingdom; the entire nation is known to me.’
Hadubrand made a speech, Hildebrand’s son: ‘Our people, old and experienced, who lived in days
gone by, told me that my father was called Hildebrand; I am named Hadubrand. Long ago he went
east, Ïed Odoacer’s enmity, away with Dietrich and many of his supporters. He left little ones
sitting in the land, a bride in chamber, [and] an ungrown child with nothing to inherit. He rode
away east; of him, my father, deprivation later arose for Dietrich [i.e., Dietrich was deprived of his
company]; he was such a friendless man. He was immeasurably angry with Odoacer, [but] the
most loyal of supporters to Dietrich [lit., until deprivation arose for Dietrich]. He was always in the
vanguard of the army, to him combat was always too dear; he was well known to keen men; I do
not suppose he is still alive.’ ‘Let great God in heaven witness that you have nonetheless never
held a meeting with so closely related a man.’ Then he unwound from his arm twisted rings, made
from the emperor’s gold, which the king had given him, the lord of the Huns: ‘This I give you now
in friendship.’ Hadubrand made a speech, Hildebrand’s son: ‘With a spear should gifts be
received, point against point. . . . You are immensely cunning, old Hun; you entice me with your
words, want to cast your spear at me; you have become such an elderly man because you practice
 HILDEBRANDSLIED 341

spenis mih mit dīnēm wortun, wili mih dīnu speru werpan;
pist alsō gialtēt man, sō dū ēwīn inwit fortōs.
40 Dat sagētun mī sĘolīdante
westar ubar WentilsĘo, dat inan wīc furnam:
tōt ist Hiltibrant, Heribrantes suno.’
Hiltibrant gimahalta, Heribrantes suno:
‘Wela gisihu ih in dīnēm hrustim,
45 dat dū habēs hēme hērron gōten,
dat dū noh bi desemo rīche reccheo ni wurti.’
‘Welaga nū, waltant got,’ quad Hiltibrant, ‘wēwurt skihit.
Ih wallōta sumaro enti wintro sehstic ur lante,
dār man mih eo scerita in folc sceotantero;
50 sō man mir at burc Ęnīgeru banun ni gifasta,
nū scal mih suāsat chind suertu hauwan,
bretōn mit sīnu billiu, eddo ih imo ti banin werdan.
Doh maht dū nū aodlīhho, ibu dir dīn ellen taoc,
in sus hēremo man hrusti giwinnan,
55 rauba birahanen, ibu dū dār ēnīc reht habēs.’
‘Der sī doh nū argōsto,’ quad Hiltibrant, ‘ōstarliuto,
der dir nū wīges warne, nū dih es sō wel lustit,
gūdea gimeinūn; niuse dē mōtti,
[h]werdar sih hiutu der hregilo hru[o]men muotti
6o erdo desero brunnōno bēdero uualtan.’
Dō lĘttun se ®rist asckim scrītan,
scarpēn scūrun, dat in dēm sciltim stōnt.
Dō stōpun tōsamane, staimbort chlubun,
heuwun harmlīcco huīttę scilti,
65 unti im iro lintūn luttilo wurtun,
giwigan miti wābnum * * * *

—————————————
continual craftiness. Seafarers west over the Mediterranean have told me that war destroyed him:
dead is Hildebrand, Heribrand’s son.’ Hildebrand made a speech, Heribrand’s son: ‘I see well by
your armor that you have at home a good lord, that you have not yet under this rulership become
an exile. Now, mighty God,’ said Hildebrand, ‘an outrage is occurring. I was away from the
country sixty summers and winters [i.e., thirty years], where I have always been grouped in the
army of lancers. Although I have been dealt death in no town, now my own boy shall hew me with
a sword, strike me down with his blade, or I become his killer. Yet you can now easily, if your
valor serves you, win the armor from such an aged man, seize the winnings, if you have any right
to it. Yet let him now be the most cowardly,’ said Hildebrand, ‘of Easterners who now refuses you
combat, now it pleases you so well, equal warfare. Let the encounter reveal which [of us] will be
able today to pride himself on the armor or possess both of these mail-coats.’ Then they ¢rst let Ïy
ash-spears, sharp showers, so that it stood in the shields. Then they advanced to meet each other; they
shattered the battle-boards, hacked ¢ercely the white shields, until their linden-shields grew small,
struck with weapons.
This page intentionally left blank
 GLOSSARY OF BEOWULF
AND THE FIGHT AT FINNSBURG

The order of words is strictly alphabetical, æ coming between ad and af; but ð (as well as þ, the
two being interchangeable) follows t, and in all parts of speech the pre¢x ġe- when word-initial has
been disregarded in the arrangement (e.g., ġe-b®ran follows b®r, but feorh-ġenīðla precedes
feorh-lāst). The abbreviation vb. 1, 2, etc., indicates the class of ablaut verbs; vb. I, etc., that of the
weak verbs; prp., the preterite-present verbs; anv., the so-called anomalous verbs; mi., mja., mc.,
etc. denote masc. i-, ja-, consonant-stems, etc.; nouns in -o, -u designated fīn. are old fem. abstract
nouns in -īn: see J. & E. Wright 1925: §¯382, SB §¯280, OEG §¯589.7.
When no form of a word is given before a reference, the head-word is to be supplied (the nom.
sg. of nouns and the nom. sg. masc. of adjectives being understood unless indicated otherwise); ~
signi¢es the same word(s) as cited before — e.g., s.v. ā-breġdan: up ~ = up ā-breġdan. Each
designation of mood and tense applies to all citations that follow until another designation is used.
The indicative mood of verb forms is understood unless indicated otherwise. In the case of variant
forms of a word, the one most frequently used in the text is generally chosen as the head-word.
Textual changes by emendation are marked by italicizing (the form or line number); editorial
additions to the text are marked by square brackets when these are conveniently possible. Forms
marked with an asterisk (*) are, as usual, hypothetical or reconstructed; a few of the more inter-
esting verbs (esp. prp. vbs.) have their headword so marked to indicate that the in¢nitive is un-
attested (though no systematic effort has been made to identify all unattested in¢nitives). Refer-
ences to words of The Fight at Finnsburg (marked ‘F.’) are added within square brackets. For ease
of reference, a word found in that poem and not in Beowulf has also been marked with an enlarged,
elevated point (•) before the headword.
The obelus, †, designates words (or meanings) found in poetry only; the double obelus, ‡,
words not elsewhere found in poetry (or prose); (†) is used when the word is incidentally found in
prose (in glosses or elsewhere) or when closely related words are recorded in prose; (‡) is used
when closely related words occur in other poetic texts or in prose; (‡) + when the word, not else-
where found in poetry, occurs in prose also; and (‡) (+) when such a use in prose appears to be
quite exceptional.
Ordinary small capital letters indicate direct modern reÏexes, slight dialectal differences and
similar variations being disregarded. Italic small capitals designate related words (or parts of
words), as well as those adopted (directly or indirectly) from a cognate language. Especially at the
end of an entry, information on derivation is enclosed in square brackets; information on semantics
and usage appears in round brackets (though the distinction is often ¢ne). Reference to scholarship
on particular words is very selective. For further references, see A. Cameron et al. OE Word
Studies (Toronto, 1983); and subsequently the annual bibliographies in ASE and OEN.
Students should be advised that the glossary is designed for various uses, just one of them being
translation of the poem. The glosses provided are intended not just to give Modern English equiv-
alents but to gloss the components of words and to indicate etymological connections. In com-
pounded words, very often an effort has been made ¢rst to gloss the elements literally or to point to
a modern reÏex, and only after that to suggest a more precise semantic equivalent. That is, in many
instances, the best modern equivalent is not the literal or etymological one. The value of Klaeber’s
practice in this regard may be seen, for example, in regard to the verb ā-būgan, literally ‘to bend
away.’ Where it is used in l.¯775 it may mean ‘be torn away’ or ‘be overturned’ or ‘start,’ and while
any of these glosses gives a superior translation, it is impossible to know which is meant. It is thus
important to be aware of the literal meaning, even if ‘bend away’ is not the best gloss to use in trans-
lation. The meaning of compound nouns and adjectives in particular is often ambiguous (see esp.
Robinson 1985: 14–18), and no attempt has been made to list all possibilities; the meaning of
compounds is best understood by reference to the semantics of their constituents and to context. It
should be noted as well that when further glosses are suggested in the course of an entry (see, e.g.,
fæþm), the intent is usually not to assert distinctions of meaning but to suggest the best term to use
in translation. Many archaic or excessively formal items of vocabulary have been eliminated from
the glosses, but for many OE words, natural-sounding modern equivalents are not to be found, and
it should be remembered that the diction of OE poetry is by design formal and elevated.
344 GLOSSARY
ā, adv., always; 881, 1478; ā syþðan,
283, 2920; in general maxims, 455,
930; at any time (strengthening a
negation), 779. (Ingersoll 1978: 54–6.)
[Go. aiw, OIcel. æ, OHG eo, NHG je.
Orel 2003: 10–11.] — Cpd.: (nā), nō.
ā-, pre¢x, see the following verbs; cf.
(stressed) or-. [Go. us-, OHG ir- (:¯ur-),
NHG er- (: ur-); Bamm. 1979: 11; Orel
2003: 436.] (W. Lehmann Das Prä¢x
uz-, besonders im Altenglischen [Kiel,
1906], 138–50; Ingersoll 1978: 103–
10.) Cf. also stressed ®- (OEG §¯73).
ā-belgan, vb. 3, enrage; pret. 3 sg.
ābealch, 2280.
ā-bēodan, vb. 2, offer; pret. 3 sg. ābēad,
390 (n.), 668; h®l(o) ~ (cf. 407),
wished good luck, saluted: 653, 2418.
ā-bīdan, vb. 1, w. gen., await, ABIDE;
977.
ā-brecan, vb. 4, BREAK into, break; pp.
[ābrocen, shattered, F. 44], np.
ābrocene, 2063.
ā-bredwian (‡), vb. II, kill; pret. sj. (?) 3
sg. ābredwade, 2619. [Cf. OHG
bretōn, Hildebr. 52; Bamm. GL 25
(1985) 4–7.]
ā-breġdan, vb. 3, move rapidly (trans.);
up ~, raise; pret. 3 sg. ābr®d, 2575.
ā-brēotan (†), vb. 2 (confus. w. 7?),
destroy, cut down, kill; pret. 3 sg.
ābrēat, 1298, ābrēot (Lang. §¯16.2),
2930; pp. ābroten, 1599, 2707.
ā-būgan, vb. 2, bend away; pret. 3 sg.
ābēag, 775 (n.).
ac, conj. (nearly always following a
negative clause), but; the adversative
(mostly contradictory-adversative; cf.
NHG ‘sondern’) function appears with
varying degrees of logical strictness;
occasionally it shades into the connec-
tive-adversative type (almost = and,
1448); 109, 135, [159], 339, 438, 446,
565, 595, 599, 601, 683, 694, 696,
708, 740, 773, 804, 813, 863, 975,
1004, 1085, 1300, 1448, 1509, 1524,
1576, 1661, 1711, 1738, 1878, 1893,
1936, 2084, 2142, 2146, 2181, 2223,
2308, 2477, 2505, 2507, 2522, 2525,
2598, 2675, 2697, 2772, 2828, 2834,
2850, 2899, 2923, 2968, 2973, 2976,
3011, 3018, 3024; [F. 5, 22, 42].
Introd. an interrog. clause (Lang. §¯27),
1990; [an adhort. clause, F. 10]. See
Schü.Sa. §¯50; Schuchardt 1910: 71¯ff.;
R. Williams 1924: 148–65; Glogauer
1922: §§¯8¯f.; Quirk 1954: 48–54; OES
§§¯1752–72.
ā-cennan, vb. I, beget, bear; pp.
ācenned, 1356.
ā-ċīġan, vb. I, call forth, summon; pret.
3 sg. āċīġde, 3121.
ā-cwellan, vb. I, kill; pret. 3 sg.
ācwealde, 886, 1055, 2121.
ā-cweðan, vb. 5, say, utter; pres. 3 sg.
(ond þæt word) ācwyð, 2046, pret. 3
sg. (~) ācwæð, 654 (formula, ZfdA 46
[1902] 267).
ād, m., pyre, funeral pile or ¢re; 1107;
ds. -e, 1110, 1114; as. ād, 3138.
ād-faru ‡, f., way to (onto) the funeral
pile; ds. ādfære, 3010.
ādl, f., sickness, disease; ~ nē yldo,
1736; ~ oððe ecg, 1763; ~ oþðe īren,
1848. [See J. Geldner, Untersuchung
einiger altenglischen Krankheits-
namen (Würzburg diss., 1906) 3–11; P.
Thompson ‘Pestilence and Skin
Disease’ (unpub. Toronto diss., 1988)
13–23, 317–26.]
ā-drēogan, vb. 2, endure; 3078.
®der, f., (vein,) stream; dp. ®drum
2966, ēdrum 742. [OIcel. æðr, Dan.
aare, Swed. åder, NHG Ader.]
®dre, adv., promptly, speedily; 77, 354,
3106.
®fen(n), m.n. (ja.), EVENing; syþðan ~
cwōm, 1235, si. 2303. [EVE(N); OHG
āband, NHG Abend.]
®fen-grom ‡, adj., angry (hostile, op-
pressive) in the EVENing; 2074.
®fen-lēoht ‡, n., EVENing-LIGHT (‘twi-
light’?); 413.
®fen-ræst ‡, fjō., EVENing- (or night-)
REST; gs. -e, 1252; bed, as. -e, 646.
®fen-spr®ċ ‡, fjō., EVENing-SPEECH; as.
-e, 759.
æfnan †, vb. I, perform, do; 1464, efnan
1041, 2622; ger. efnanʼnĺ, 1941; pres.
sj. 3 sg. efne, 2535; pret. 1 sg. efnde,
2133; 3 sg. æfnde 1254, efnde 3007;
make (ready), pp. ġeæfned, 1107,
3106. (See PMLA 70 [1955] 1138–42.)
[Holt.Et.; cf. Bamm. 1979: 43.]
ġe-æfnan †, vb. I, carry out; pret. 1 pl.
ġeæfndon, 538.
®fre, adv., EVER, at any time (in any
case); 70, 280, 504, 692, 1101, 1314; in
 GLOSSARY
negative clause (never), 2600. [Horn,
Pal. 135, §¯75: *ā-in-fēore.] — Cpd.:
n®fre.
æfter, I. prep., w. dat. (instr.: 724),
AFTER; (1) local: after, along, through,
among, on; 140, 580, 995, 1067, 1316,
1403, 1425, 1572, 1964, 2288, 2294,
2832; æfter gumcynnum, 944, æfter
wīġfruman, 2261 (n.); semi-adv. (verb
of motion understood: ‘follow’) 2816
(iċ him æfter sceal). — (2) (orig. local)
denoting the direction of an inquiry or
turn of one’s desire or feelings: after,
about; æfter æþelum fræġn, 332, si.
1322; 1879 (langað); (sorrow for the
deceased, cf. [4]:) 1342 (æfter sinċ-
ġyfan . . . grēoteþ), 2268, 2461, 2463,
3151; æfter dōme (in pursuit of,
striving after), 1720 (n.), 2179. — (3)
modal: in accordance with, in confor-
mity to; ~ rihte, 1049, 2110; 1320,
3096 (or: in memory of, Aant. [4o]); ~
wordcwydum, 2753 (cf. temp., [4]). —
(4) temporal: after, sometimes verging
on the sense in consequence of, on
account of; 85, 117, 119, 128, 824,
1008, 1149, 1213, 1255, 1258, 1301,
1315, 1589, 1606, 1680, 1775, 1938,
1943, 2030, 2052, 2060, 2066, 2176,
2531, 2581, 2803, 3005; ~ þ®m
wordum, 1492, 2669; ~ dēaðdæġe,
187, 885; cf. (wyrċan) wunder ~
wundre, 931; ~ (after [obtaining])
māððĿmwelan, 2750; w. persons:
1257, 2260; — constr. w. instr.: æfter
þon, 724.
II. adv., AFTER(ward) (coming after
someone, w. ref. to something); word
æfter cwæð, 315 (thereupon), si. 341,
2154; 1389; semi-prep.: 12 (n.), 2731.
(See Schü.Bd. 19–30.)
æf-þunca (‡) (+), wk.m., cause for
resentment, irritant; 502 (n.). [Cf.
of-þynċan.]
®ġ-hwā, m., ®ġ-hwæt, n., pron., every-
one, everything; dsm. ®ġhw®m, 1384;
gsn. ®ġhwæs (unrīm), 2624, 3135;
semi-adv., in every respect: ®ġhwæs
unt®le, 1865, si. 1886 (see Angl. 27
[1904] 273). (Kahlas-Tarkka 1987.)
[*ā-µi-hwā.]
®ġ-hw®r, adv., everyWHERE, in all cir-
cumstances; 1059. [*ā-µi-hw®r.]
®ġ-hwæðer, pron. subst., each (of two:)
345
nsm., 2844; gsn. ®ġhwæþres, 287;
dsm. ®ġhwæðrum, 2564; (of more
than two:) dsm. ~, 1636. [*ā-µi-;
EITHER.]
®ġ-hwylċ, pron., each (one), every
(one); adj.: 1228, 2590; asm. -ne, 621;
subst. (absol. or w. gen.): nsm., 9, 984,
987, 1165, 1386, 2887; dsm. -um,
1050. (Kahlas-Tarkka 1987.) [*ā-µi-.]
®ġ-l®ċa, see āg-l®ċa.
®ġ-weard ‡, f., watch by the sea; as. -e,
241. [Cf. ēg-, ēagor-; Lang. §¯7.2; OEG
§233.]
®ht, ¢., property; ap. -e, 2248; —
possession, power; as. ®ht, 1679
(Ïōdes, wæteres) ~, 42, 516. (Winter
1955: 31–52.) [āgan.] — Cpds.: gold-,
māðm-.
®ht (‡), f., pursuit, chase; 2957 (n.).
[= ōht, OHG āhta, NHG Acht; cf.
ēhtan, vb. I.]
æhtian, see eahtian.
ġe-æhtle (-a?) ‡, wk.f. (m.?), consider-
ation, esteem; gs. ġeæhtlan, 369.
[eahtian.]
®led †, m., ¢re; 3015. [OS êld, OIcel.
eldr.]
®led-lēoma ‡, wk.m., gleam of ¢re,
torch; as. -lēoman, 3125.
æl-fylċe †, nja., foreign people or army;
dp. -fylċum, 2371. [el (cf. el-þēodiġ);
folc.]
æl-mihtiġ, adj., ALMIGHTY (God); wk.:
(se) ælmihtĽga, 92. (Cf. Lat. omni-
potens; see al-walda; Robinson 1985:
35–7.) [Go. ala-; see eall.]
æl-wiht ‡, ¢. (n.), alien creature, mon-
ster; gp. -a, 1500. [Cf. ellor-gāst.]
(Lang. §¯2.5 rem.¯1; Mal. MLN 40
[1925] 35–9: cf. allwyghtys, Wake¢eld
Secunda pastorum 139.)
®ne, adv., ONce; 3019. [ān.]
®niġ, pron., ANY; adj.: ®niġ ōðer man,
503, 534, si. 1353, 1560; 510, 1099,
2297, 2731; nsf., 802, 2493, 2772;
dsm. ®negum, 655; asm. ®niġne, 627,
1772, 1851, 3080, 3127; asf. ®niġe
972, 2449, 2548; gpm. ®niġra, 932; —
subst., ®niġ, absol.: 3129; w. gen.:
779, 1356, 2007, 2734, 3054; dsm.
®ngum 474, 793, 1461, ®nĽgum 2416,
®nĺgum 842; isn. (w. partit. gp.:)
®niġe þinga, in any way, by any
means, 791, 2374, 2905. [ān; Horn
346 GLOSSARY
Archiv 142 (1921) 128¯f.] — Cpd.:
n®niġ.
®n-liċ, adj., unique, peerless, glorious,
beautiful; nsf. ®nliċ 251, ®nlicu 1941.
[ān.] (AldV 13.1 [Nap] 2113: pulcher-
rima, .i. speciosissima, ‘ænlicoste.’
See Juzi 1939: 62–4.)
®nne, see ān.
æppel-fealu ‡, adj.wa., ‘APPLE-FALLOW,’
dapple-dun (?); npm. -fealĿwe, 2165
(n.). See fealu.
®r, I. adv., (ERE,) before, formerly,
previously; w. pret. (freq. imparting a
pluperf. sense): 15, 655, 694, 757, 778,
825, 831, 941, 1054, 1079, 1187, 1238,
1300, 1381, 1466, 1525, 1587, 1615,
1618, 1676, 1751, 1858, 1891, 1915,
2248, 2349, 2562, 2595, 2606, 2712,
2777, 2787, 2848, 2861, 2973, 3003,
3060; 3038 (¯¢rst); eft swā ®r, 642,
1787; ®r ond sīð, at all times, 2500;
(n®fre¯.¯.¯.) ®r nē siþðan, at any time,
718; — w. pluperf.: 3075, 3164; — w.
pres.: 1182, 1370 (sooner, see II.); —
nō þ© ®r (w. pret.), none the sooner,
yet . . . not (OES §§¯1800–2; cf.
Iglesias-Rábade SELIM 2 [1992] 20),
754, 1502, 2081, 2160, 2373, 2466. —
Comp. ®ror, before, formerly, 809,
2654 (¯¢rst), 3168. See ®rra. — Supl.
®rest, ¢rst, 616, 1697, 2157, 2556,
2926, [F. 32 (adj.?)]; syððan ®rest, 6,
1947.
II. conj., before; w. pret. sj., 264, 676,
2818; w. pret. ind., 2019, 1496 (sj.?);
w. pres. sj.: rather than 252, w. correl.
adv. ®r, 1371. (See Siev. 1904: 330–1;
OES §¯1368; DOE s.v. III. C; Mald
60¯f.; Hel. 3732, 1424¯ff.; cf. Stanley
N&Q 39 [1992] 12.) — ®r þon, w.
pret. sj., 731.
III. prep., w. dat., before (temporal);
1356 (n.: postpos., stressed), 1388,
2320, 2798.
®r-dæġ, m., EARly part of the DAY,
daybreak; ds. (mid, samod) ®rdæġe,
126, 1311, 2942.
®rende, nja., ERRAND, message; as.,
270, 345. [ār? See Kluge BGdSL 35
(1909) 569; Guntermann ZfdPh. 42
(1910) 397–406; Bamm. 1979: 14.]
®rest, see ®r.
®r-fæder ‡, mc., foreFATHER, old father,
late father; 2622. [Schü. EStn. 55
(1921) 89–92; Crp.: ‘comme le ¢t son
père jadis.’] Cf. eald-fæder.
®r-ġestrēon †, n., ancient treasure or
wealth; as. (p.?), 1757; gp. -a, 2232.
®r-ġeweorc †, n., ancient WORK; 1679.
®r-gōd ‡, adj., GOOD from old times (i.e.
tried and true), ‘good old’; (īren)
®rgōd, 989, 2586; (applied to: æþel-
ing) ®rgōd, 130, 1329, 2342. See
Hoops St. 20–4; DOE. (Cf. Bryan MP
28.2 [1930] 157–61; Henry ZvS 77
[1961] 140–8: ‘formerly good’).
ærn, n., house; gs. -es, 2225. See
ren-weard. [Go. razn; ON rann,
whence rannsaka, MnE RANsack. —
See Angl. 24 (1901) 386–9; BGdSL 30
(1905) 55–66.] — Cpds.: heal-, hord-,
medo-, þr©ð-, wīn-.
®ror, see ®r.
®rra, adj. comp., former, EARlier; dp.
®rran (m®lum), 907, 2237, 3035.
®r-wela ‡, wk.m., ancient WEALth; as.
-welan, 2747. (Winter 1955: 71–99.)
[WEAL.] Cf. burh-, hord-, māððum-
wela.
®s, n., food, carrion, carcass; ds. ®se,
1332. [etan; OS, OHG ās, NHG Aas.]
æsc, m., (ASH) spear†; dp. -um, 1772.
(Underwood 1999: 39–46; Cronan
2003: 407–8.)
æsc-holt †, n., (ASH wood, i.e.) spear;
np., 330 (n.).
æsc-wiga †, wk.m., (spear) warrior; 2042.
æt, prep., w. dat., AT, near, in (place, cir-
cumstance, time); 32, 45, 81, 175, 224,
500, 517, 1089, 1110, 1114, 1147, 1156,
1166, 1248, 1267, 1588, 1914, 1916,
1923, 2526, 2790, 2803, 2823, 3013,
3026, [F. 16]; hrān æt heortan, 2270;
æt hilde (gūðe, sæċċe, wīġe, etc.), 584,
882, 953, 1073, 1168, 1337, 1460,
1535, 1618, 1659, 1665, 2258, 2353,
2491, 2575, 2585, 2612, 2629, 2659,
2681, 2684, 2878, [F. 31, 37]; æt
þearfe, 1477, 1525, 2694, 2709; æt
bēore, 2041, si. 617; w. persons: (nū is
se r®d ġelang) æt þē, 1377, si. 2149;
after verbs of taking, receiving,
obtaining: from (at the hands of) a
person, 629, 930, 2374, 2429, 2860.
(Lindkvist 1978: 11–52.) [Go. at.]
®t, m. (n.?), meal; ds. -e, 3026. [etan.]
æt-beran, vb. 4, BEAR or carry (to), bear
away; 1561; pret. 1 sg. ætbær, 3092; 3
 GLOSSARY
sg. ~, 519, 624, 2127, 2614; 3 pl.
ætb®ron, 28.
æt-fēolan, vb. 3, w. dat., stick to, hold
¢rmly; pret. 1 sg. ætfealh, 968.
æt-ferian (‡) +, vb. I, carry away (w.
dat., from); pret. 1 sg. ætferede, 1669.
æt-gædere, adv., toGETHER (in connec-
tion w. notion of rest); 321, 1190; þā
ġ©t wæs hiera sib ætgædere, 1164
(‘they were still at peace’); samod æt-
gædere, 329b, 387b, 729b, 1063b. [Cf. tō-
gædre, ġeador.] (See Dening 1912: 3.)
æt-ġifan ‡, vb. 5, GIVE; 2878. [Go.
atgiban.]
æt-gr®pe ‡, adj.ja., grasping AT, aggres-
sive; ~ weorðan (w. dat.), lay hold of,
1269. [grīpan.]
æt-hrīnan, vb. 1, w. gen. or dat., touch;
pret. 3 sg. æthrān, 722.
æt-hweorfan ‡, vb. 3, turn (intr.), go;
pret. 3 sg. æthwearf, 2299.
æt-rihte (‡) +, adv., immediately, ‘RIGHT
away’; 1657 (n.).
æt-somne, adv., together; 307, 402, 544,
2847; ġeador ~, 491. [Cf. tō-somne,
samod.] (See Dening 1912: 3.)
æt-springan (‡), vb. 3, SPRING out, Ïow
out; pret. 3 sg. ætspranc, 1121.
æt-standan, vb. 6, STAND ¢xed, stop;
pret. 3 sg. ætstōd, 891.
æt-steppan ‡, vb. 6, STEP forth; pret. 3
sg. ætstōp, 745.
®ttren (®tren), adj., poisonous, venom-
ous; 1617. [āt(t)or.]
æt-wegan ‡, vb. 5, carry, carry away;
pret. 3 sg. ætwæġ, 1198.
æt-windan (‡) +, vb. 3, w. dat., Ïee
from, escape; pret. 3 sg. ætwand, 143.
æt-wītan, vb. 1, w. acc. of thing, charge,
blame (someone for something); pret.
3 pl. ætwiton, 1150. [TWIT.] See oð-.
æþele, adj.ja., noble, excellent, glorious;
198, 263, 1312; gsn.wk. æðelan, 2234.
(Juzi 1939: 75–8; Bähr 1959; Stanley
1993: 210–13.) [NHG edel; Sprach-
wissenschaft 26 (2001) 189–204.]
æþeling, m., noble, prince; hero, man;
1112, 1815, 2188, 2443, 2506, 2715,
3135, ~ ®rgōd 130, [1329], 2342; vs.,
1225, 2667; gs. -es, 33, 888, 1596,
2424; ds. -e, 1244, 2374; np. -as, 3,
982, 1804, 2888; gp. -a, 118, 1294,
1920, ~ bearn, 1408, 2597, 3170; dp.
æþellingum, 906. (Bähr 1959; ASE 8
347
(1979) 3; Cronan 2003: 412–13.) —
Cpd.: sib-.
æþelu, nja.p. (sg. *æþele, n., not found;
æþelo, f.), (noble) descent, race,
nobility, excellence of character; dp.
æþelum, 332, ~ gōd 1870, ~ dīore
1949; ap. æþelu, 392. (P. Grimm 1912:
163–4; Clemoes 1995: 76–8.) [OHG
adal, OIcel. aðal] — Cpd.: fæder-.
®ðm, m., breath, breathing; ds. -e, 2593.
[NHG Atem, Odem.]
ā-fēdan, vb. I, (FEED), bring up; pp.
āfēded, 693.
ā-fyllan, vb. I, FILL (instr., with); pp.
āfylled, 1018.
ā-galan, vb. 6, sing; pret. 3 sg. āgōl,
1521.
āgan, prp., possess, have; 1088; pres. 3
sg. āh, 1727; pret. 1 sg. āhte, 487, 533;
3 sg. ~, 31 (n.), 522, 2608 (n.). (Winter
1955: 52–70.) [OWE; Bamm. NOWELE
26 (1995) 57–66.] — Neg. form nāh;
pres. 1 sg., 2252.
ā-gangan, vb. 7, come to pass, happen
(to, dat.); pp. āgangen, 1234.
āgen, adj. (pp. of āgan), OWN; 2676.
āgend, mc. (pres.ptc. of āgan), OWner;
gs. -es, 3075 (n.: ref. to God?). —
Cpds.: bl®d-, bold-, folc-, mæġen-
āgend(e).
āgend-frēa, wk.m., OWner, lord; gs.
-fr¼n, 1883.
ā-ġifan, vb. 5, GIVE (in return); 355;
pret. 3 sg. āġeaf, 2929.
āg-l®ċa, ®ġ-l®ċa, †, wk.m., one in-
spiring awe or misery, formidable one,
aÑicter, assailant, adversary, combat-
ant (used chieÏy of Grendel and the
dragon); ®ġl®ċa, 159, 433, atol ~, 592,
816; āgl®ċa, 739, 893 (n.), 1000, 1269,
atol ~, 732; gs. āhl®ċan 989, āgl®ċan
1512 (n.), āgl®ċean 2557; ds. āgl®ċan
425, āhl®ċan 646 (n.), āgl®ċean 2520,
2534 (as.?), 2905; as. āgl®ċan 556,
āgl®ċean 2534 (?). — (Used of heroes
in 893; 1512 (?), 2592 [Bēowulf and
the dragon]. See 893¯n.; Dob.; Gillam
Studia Germanica Gandensia 3 (1961)
145–69, ibid. 6 (1964) 85–101; Storms
NM 73 [1972] 430; HuÌnes Semasia 1
[1974] 71–81; Stanley 1979: 75–6;
O’Brien O’Keeffe 1981: 484–5; Niles
1983: 25; Huppé 1984: 46–7; Nicholls
N&Q 38 [1991] 147¯f.; GriÌth ASE 24
348 GLOSSARY
[1995] 35; Downes 1997: 38; DOE.)
[From āglāc ‘trouble, distress’; cf.
lybl®ċa ‘sorcerer’ beside lyblāc
‘sorcery,’ etc.; cf. also OHG aigi-laihi
‘phalanx.’ — Gr., Trautm. EStn. 44
(1912) 325, Mag.: agl®ċa. — EStn. 25
(1898) 424, 41.24¯f.; IF 20 (1906–7)
316; Amer. Jnl. of Philol. 52 (1931)
136¯f.; JEGP 40 (1941) 1; Word 2
(1946) 66–71; S. Kuhn 1979; Olsen
Am. Notes & Queries 20.5 (1982) 66–
8; Lapidge 1993: 381; Orchard 1995:
33; Amodio 2004: 244 n.¯25.]
āg-l®ċ-wīf ‡, n., troublemaker, female
adversary; 1259. (Jnl. of Am. Folklore
80 [1967] 359¯f.; ELN 31.3 [1994] 13–
25; ibid. 34.1 [1996] 1–6.)
ā-ġyldan, vb. 3, pay; permit, make pos-
sible; pret. 3 sg. āġeald: þā mē s®l
āġeald, ‘when I had the opportunity,’
1665, si. 2690.
āh, āhte, see āgan.
ā-hebban, vb. 6, raise, lift, extract; pp.
āhafen, 128; āhæfen, 1108.
āh-l®ċa, see āg-l®ċa.
ā-hlēapan, vb. 7, LEAP up; pret. 3 sg.
āhlēop, 1397.
ā-hli(e)hhan (ā-hlæhhan) †, vb. 6,
LAUGH, exult; pret. 3 sg. āhlōg, 730.
ā-hreddan, vb. I, rescue; pret. 3 sg.
āhredde, 2930. (See Lang. §¯12.3 n.¯3.)
[OED: REDD, v.1 (obs., Sc.); cf. also
MnE rid?; NHG erretten.]
āhsian (āscian), vb. II, ASK, go in search
of, seek; pret. 3 sg. (wēan) āhsode (tō),
1206, 3 pl. (wēan) āhsodon, 423
(‘courted trouble,’ Cl.Hall tr., cf.
sēċean 1989¯f.; see EStn. 1 [1877] 488;
MLN 16 [1901] 15¯f., Kl. 1905–6: 258).
ġe-āhsian, vb. II, learn by inquiry
(ASKing), hear; pp. ġeāhsod, 433.
āht, n.(f.)i., (AUGHT), anything; as.,
2314. [ā-wiht.] See ō-wiht.
ā-hyrdan, vb. I, HARDen; pp. āhyrded,
1460.
ā-l®tan, vb. 7, leave, give up; 2591,
2750; — LET (w. acc. & inf.); pres. sj.
2 sg. āl®te, 2665.
aldor(-), see ealdor(-).
ā-lecgan, vb. I, LAY, lay down; pret. 3
sg. āleġde, 834, 2194; 3 pl. ālēdon 34,
āleġdon 3141; lay down, lay aside,
give up: pret. 3 sg. (feorh) āleġde, 851,
si. 3020.
ā-lēh, see ā-lēogan.
ā-lēogan, vb. 2, beLIE, fail to perform or
leave unful¢lled (a promise); pret. 3
sg. ālēh, 80.
ā-licgan, vb. 5, fall, fail, cease; ālicgean,
2886; pret. 3 sg. ālæġ, 1528.
ā-limpan †, vb. 3, occur, arise, come (to
pass); pret. 3 sg. ālamp, 622; pp.
ālumpen, 733.
al-walda (†), wk. adj. & m. noun,
omnipotent (one), God; fæder alwalda,
316; alwalda, 955, 1314; ds. alweald-
an, 928. [w(e)aldan.] (JEGP 8 [1909]
414; Kl. 1911–12: [10]; Appx.C §¯39
n.¯1)
ā-l©fan, vb. I, allow, grant, entrust; pret.
1 sg. āl©fde, 655; pp. āl©fed, 3089.
[See lēafnes-word. NHG erlauben.]
ā-l©san, vb. I, LOOSEn, take off, pp.
āl©sed, 1630. [lēas; NHG erlösen.]
an, prep., see on.
an-, pre¢x, see also on-.
an, verb, see unnan.
ān, num. adj. and subst. (1) ONE; (w.
partit. gen.: 1037, 1294, 2237, 2599;
1458; w. def. art.: 1053, 2237, 2399,
2453); — nsm. ān, 2237, 2453, ~ æfter
eallum, 2268; gsm. ānes, 699, 2541,
3077; gsf. ānre, 428; gsn. in: ānes
hwæt (one part, or piece, only, see
Angl. 27 [1904] 140, Rissanen 1967:
244–5, manages huat, Hel. 3172, etc.),
3010; dsm. ānum, 705, 1037, 2599;
dsn. ānum, 2461 (n.); asm. ®nne 1053,
1579, ānne 1294, 2399, 2964; asf. āne,
135, 1762; asn. ān, 2461 (n.); pl.,
individuals, gpm. in: ānra ġehwylċes
(of each one), 732, ānra ġehwylcum,
784; — (unique), peerless; þæt wæs ān
cyning, 1885, si. (nsn.) 1458 (ES 22
[1940] 199¯f., 49.511; Rissanen 1967:
200–2). — (2) a certain (one); nsm.
ān: oð ðæt ān ongan . . . , 100 (n.),
2210; 2280; asm. ānne, 2410, 2774
(n.). — (3) only, alone; str. decl.: gsm.
ānes, 2533; dsm. ānum, 1377; asm.
®nne, 46; dpm. in: fēaĿm ānum (only
a few, see Einenkel Angl. 26 [1903]
493, Rissanen 1967: 184–8), 1081; wk.
decl. (alone: L. Bloom¢eld 1930):
nsm. āna, 145, 425 (myself¯), 431 (n.:
myself¯), 888, 999, 1714, 2498, 2643,
2657, 2876. — Cpd.: nān.
ancor, m., ANCHOR; ds. ancre, 303, 1883.
 GLOSSARY
[Fr. Lat. ancora; Frank in Gmc. Texts
& Latin Models, ed. K. Olsen et al.
(Leuven, 2001) 7–27.]
ancor-bend ‡, fjō. (mi.), ANCHOR-rope;
dp. oncĺrbendum, 1918.
and-, ond-, stressed pre¢x, cf. unstressed
on-; spelt: and-, 340, 689, 1059, 1287,
1796, 2695, (hand- 1541), ond-,
600¯(?), 1932¯(?), 2938 (hond- 2094,
2929, 2972), otherwise abbreviated: ℓ
(Maisenhelder 1935: 7–9, 20–3, 31–9.)
[Gk. Ђντί, Go. anda- (: and-), NHG
ant- (:¯ent-).]
anda, wk.m., anger, indignation, enmity;
ds. andan, 708; as. (ds.?) ~, 2314 (Kl.:
‘vexation, horror’). [OS ando; cf.
NHG ahnden.]
and-drysno (†), fīn. (pl.), reverence; dp.
andrysnum, 1796 (n.). [Kl. et al.: and-
rysno ‘propriety, courtesy’ (but cf.
ond-drysne); Trautm. EStn. 44 (1912)
325: an-rysno; cf. Bamm. BGdSL (T)
99 (1977) 210–12, id. 1979: 42–3.]
and-ġit, n., understanding, discernment;
1059. [Cf. on-ġitan.]
and-lēan, ond-lēan, †, n., reward, re-
quital, repayment; as. andlēan (MS
hand-) forġeald, 1541; ondlēan (MS
hond-) ~, 2094.
and-long †, adj., extending away in the
opposite direction (OED); standing
alongside (or upright? so Kl.); asm.
-ne, 2695 (Kock2 123: ‘related, kin-
dred’ [?]; Girvan MLR 28 [1933] 246:
‘[the noble] at his side,’ cf. gloss
an[d]langcempa = miles ordinarius,
BTS; hence v.Sch. note: ‘excellent,’
but properly ‘subordinate’ [see Rich-
ards 1993: ‘enduring,’ i.e. ‘loyal, stead-
fast’]; see also Maisenhelder 1935:
36–9); — continuous, entire; asm.:
andlangne dæġ, 2115; asf.: ondlonge
niht, 2938. [Cf. prep. andlang, ALONG;
OS ant-lang ‘continuous’; NHG
entlang; Ehrismann BGdSL 18 (1894)
233¯f.]
andrysnum, see and-drysno.
and-saca (†), wk.m., enemy, adversary;
(Godes) ~, 1682; as. (~) andsacan,
786. [Cf. on-sacan, ġe-saca.]
and-swarian (w. chief stress on pre¢x),
vb. II, ANSWER; pret. 3 sg. -swarode,
258, 340. [and-swaru.]
and-swaru, f., ANSWER; 2860; gs.
349
andsware, 1493; as. ~, 354, 1840. [Cf.
swerian.]
and-weard, adj., opposite, standing over
against; asn., 1287. [weorþan; cf. Lat.
vertere.]
and-wlita, wk.m., face; ds. -wlitan, 689.
[wlītan; cf. OIcel. andlit, NHG
Antlitz.]
ān-feald, adj., (‘ONEFOLD’), simple,
plain; asm. -ne, 256 (cf. ‘plain Eng-
lish’).
ānga, wk. adj., sole, ONly; dsm. āngan
(brēþer), 1262; asm. ~ (eaferan), 1547;
asf. ~ (dohtor), 375, 2997. [ān; OS
ênag.]
an-ġeat, see on-ġitan.
ān-genġa (‡) (+), wk.m., one who goes
alONE, solitary one (Grendel); 449,
āngenġea, 165. (Tr. ed. & EStn. 44
(1912) 323, Bamm. N&Q 46 (1999)
173–6: angenġa ‘aggressor’; but cf.
ÆCHom I 7.106.26.)
an-ġyldan, vb. 3, w. gen., pay (a pen-
alty) for; pret. 3 sg. anġeald, 1251. [OS
an(t)-geldan, OHG in(t)-geltan.] See
on-, pre¢x.
ān-haga (†), wk.m., solitary being,
loner; 2368.
an-hār ‡, adj., very HOARy; 357 (n.).
(MS. un-.)
ān-h©diġ †, adj., resolute, strong-minded;
2667. [hycgan; on the pre¢x, see ān-
r®d.]
ān-pæð †, m., ONE-by-one PATH, narrow
path (Bu. 94), or lonely way (Schü.Bd.
40–2); ap. ānpaðas, 1410. (EpGl 1042:
termo¢las = fæstin vel ānstīgan; OIcel.
einstigi; Schü. Kl.Misc. 213–16, Sed.
JEGP 35 [1936] 162 n.¯8.) [Bamm.
1979: 102.]
ān-r®d, adj., resolute; 1529, 1575. [Kl.
et al.: an-. Although the pre¢x is spelt
on- once each in two homilies, HomM
11 & HomU 53, this incidence is so
small in comparison to some 250 spel-
lings with an- that the vowel must be
regarded as etymologically long; cf.
frequent ons©n-, onsund-, etc.]
an-sund, adj., SOUND, uninjured; 1000.
See ġe-sund.
an-s©n, ¢., appearance, form, sight; 251,
ons©n 2772; gs. ans©ne, 928; as.
ans©n, 2834. [Go. siuns; cf. OE sēon,
vb.]
350 GLOSSARY
ān-tīd ‡, ¢., ¢xed or appropriate time,
time when something is due; as., 219.
(Siev. 1904: 326: cf. āndaga; Gr.Spr.:
āntīd = hora prima [?]; Cos. viii 568:
an[d]-tīd, corresponding time, cf. E.,
Tr.: andtīd; BBzA 17 (1905) 169: antīd,
¢rst hour; Krogmann EStn. 70.1
[1935] 40–5.)
ānunga, adv., entirely, by all means,
certainly; 634. [ān.]
an-walda, wk.m., ruler, God; ds.
-waldan, 1272. See al-walda.
an-wīġ-ġearo, (and-), ‡, adj.wa., pre-
pared against attack, np. -ġearwe,
1247 (n.).
•ā-nyman (-niman) (‡)¯+, vb. 4, take
away; [F. 21].
ār †, m., messenger, herald; 336, 2783.
ār, f., honor; kindness, bene¢t, help; ds.
(mid) āre, 2378; as. ~, 1272; gp. ārna,
1187; dp. ārum (healdan), 296, 1182,
si. 1099; property, possessions, estate
(see Kluge BGdSL 9 [1884] 192,
Dob.): as. āre, 2606. [NHG Ehre.] (See
Grønbech 1909–12: 1.69¯ff., JEGP 9
[1910] 277; cf. Taylor 2000: 57–60.)
— Cpd.: worold-.
ā-r®ran, vb. I, raise up, establish, exalt;
pret. 3 pl. ār®rdon, 2983; pp. ār®red,
1703. [rīsan; REAR.]
ār-fæst, adj., kind, merciful; honorable
(but cf. Kl. 1905–6: 249): 1168. [ār, f.]
ārian, vb. II, w. dat., show mercy, spare;
pres. 3 sg. ārað, 598. [ār, f.]
ā-rīsan, vb. 1, rise, ARISE (lit. & ¢g.);
[pres. 3 pl. ārīsað, F. 8]; imp. sg. ārīs,
1390; pret. 3 sg. ārās, 399, 2403, 2538,
[F. 13]; we(o)rod eall ārās, 651, 3030,
si. 1790.
ār-stafas †, m.p., generosity, favor,
grace; dp. (mid) ārstafum 317, (for) ~,
382, 458 (help? Hoops EStn. 70.1
[1935] 79¯f.). See fācenstafas. (Gold-
smith 1970: 157–9; D. Green 1998:
383: ‘success, blessing’; cf. Bloom-
¢eld MLQ 60 [1999] 137–41.)
ā-secgan, vb. III, tell, declare; 344.
ā-settan, vb. I, SET, place, appoint; pret.
3 pl. āsetton, 47; pp. āseted, 667.
ā-singan, vb. 3, SING (to the end); pp.
āsungen, 1159.
ā-standan, vb. 6, STAND up, get up; pret.
1 sg. āstōd, 2092; 3 sg. ~, 759, 1556.
ā-stīgan, vb. 1, ascend, arise (lit. & ¢g.);
pres. 3 sg. -eð, 1373; pret. 3 sg. āstāg
782, āstāh 1118 (n.), 1160, 3144.
ā-swebban (†), vb. I, (put to sleep), kill;
pp. npm. āswefede, 567. [swefan.]
ateliċ (= atol-liċ) (‡) +, adj., horrible,
dreaded; 784.
ā-tēon, vb. 2, draw; sīð ātēon, take a
journey; pret. 3 sg. (sīð) ātēah, 766
(n.).
āter-tān ‡, m., (‘poison twig’), poison
stripe (ref. to pattern welding or
damascening?); dp. ātĺrtānum ‘with
serpentine patternings,’ 1459 (n.). [W.
Lehmann 1967.]
atol, adj., horrible, dire, terrible (applied
7× [marked+] to the monsters, see Kl.
1911–12: [19, 23]); +165, 848 (nsn.),
+
1332, 1766 (nsf.), +2670; atol ®ġl®ċa,
+
592, +732, +816; eatol, +2074; asm.
eatolne, 2478; asf. atole, 596;
dpm.wk.(?) atolan, 1502. [Cf. OIcel.
atall.]
āttor (ātor), n., poison, venom; 2715; gs.
āttres, 2523. [ATTER (obs., dial.);
OIcel. eitr, NHG Eiter.]
āttor-sceaða †, wk.m., venomous enemy
(dragon); gs. āttľrsceaðan, 2839.
āð, m., OATH; gp. -a, 2739; dp. -um,
1097; ap. -as, 472.
ā-ðenċan, vb. I, THINK, intend; pret. 3
sg. āðōhte, 2643.
āð-sweord (‡) (+), n., OATH; np., 2064.
[swerian; cf. PsGlA, B 104.9: āð-
swyrd, E: ®þ-swyrd (cf. āð-swaru;
OHG eidswurt, -swart), which, how-
ever, ought to be fem. (MSS 25 [1969]
5¯f.). See Lang. §¯3.6 rem.¯1. Cf. Sed.
1922: 149, Sed.1–2: ‘oath-sword.’ The
notion that -sweorð or -swyrð is the
correct form (see 2064 Varr.) cannot
be reconciled with the OE or OHG
evidence.]
āþum-swēoras ‡, m.p., son-in-law and
father-in-law; dp. āþumswēoran, 84
(n.). (NM 78 [1977] 235¯f.; cf. Alxr.:
‘oath-swearers.’) [Cf. NHG Eidam
(perh. rel. to āþ, NHG Eid, OIcel. eiðr,
Dan., Swed. ed); swēor, Go. swaíhra,
OHG swehur, Lat. soccer.]
āwa (†), adv., always; āwa tō aldre, for
ever and ever, 955. [See ā, Beibl. 13
(1902) 16.]
ā-wrecan, vb. 5, recite, tell; pret.: (ġid)
āwræc, 1 sg. 1724, 3 sg. 2108.
 GLOSSARY
ā-wyrdan, vb. I, injure, destroy; pp.
āwyrded, 1113. [weorþan; Go. fra-
wardjan, OS â-werdian.]
bā, see bēġen.
b®dan, vb. I, compel, urge on; pret. 3
sg. b®dde 2018 (n.); pp. (strenġum)
ġeb®ded, 3117; — press hard, op-
press; pp. (bysigum) ġeb®ded, 2580;
(bealwe) ~, 2826. [Go. baidjan.]
b®l (†), n., ¢re, Ïame; ds. -e, 2308,
2322; — funeral ¢re, pyre; ds. -e, 2803;
as. b®l, 1109, 1116, 2126 (bēl), 2818.
[Cf. OED: BALE, sb.2 (fr. ON bál).]
b®l-f©r †, n., funeral FIRE; gp. -a, 3143.
b®l-stede ‡, mi., place of the pyre; ds.,
3097.
b®l-wudu ‡, mu., WOOD for the funeral
pyre; as., 3112.
b®r, f., BIER; 3105. [beran.]
ġe-b®ran, vb. I, BEAR oneself, behave,
fare; sēl ~, 1012, [F. 38]; blēate ~,
2824. [ġe-b®re; beran.]
bærnan, vb. I, BURN (trans.); 1116, 2313.
[See byrnan. BBzA 40 (1929) 343–5.]
— Cpd.: for-.
(ġe-)b®tan, vb. I, bridle, BIT, (saddle?);
pp. ġeb®ted, 1399. (See BTS; Brown
PMLA 53 [1938] 914¯f.; Kl. Beibl. 54–
5 [1943–4] 175.) [bītan; BAIT, fr. ON
beita.]
bæð, n., BATH; as. ganotes ~ (= ‘sea’),
1861.
baldor, see bealdor.
balu, see bealo.
bām, see bēġen.
bān, n., BONE; ds. -e, 2578; dp. -um,
2692 (of the dragon’s teeth; cf.
Thomas MLR 22 [1927] 73: claws).
(Soland 1979: 32–5.) [HS 116 (2003)
103¯f.]
bana, wk.m., slayer, murderer; ns. bana
2613, bona 1743, 2082, 2506, 2824;
gs. banan, 158; ds. banan, 1102, tō
banan weorðan, kill: 587, 2203
(bonan); as. bonan, 1968, 2485; gp.
banena, 2053. [BANE.] — Cpds.: ecg-,
feorh-, gāst-, hand-, mūð-.
bān-cofa †, wk.m., body; ds. -cofan,
1445. [cofa ‘chamber’; COVE.]
bān-fæt †, n., body; ap. -fatu, 1116.
(Hoops 140: muscles.) [fæt ‘vessel.’]
bān-fāg ‡, adj., decorated with BONE, i.e.
ivory (?); asn., 780 (n.).
351
•bān-helm¯‡, m., BONE-HELMet (or
-protection), i.e. helmet protecting the
skull?; [F. 30 (n.)].
bān-hrinġ †, m., (BONE RING), vertebra;
ap. -as, 1567.
bān-hūs †, n., body; as. (p.?), 2508; ap.,
3147 (sg. meaning). (Cf. Hoops St.
126.)
bān-loca †, wk.m., (BONE LOCKer), joint;
body; np. -locan, 818; ap. (s.?) ~, 742.
(Cf. Siev. 1910: 402–4; Hoops 94:
muscles, Ïesh.)
ġe-bannan, vb. 7, w. dat. of person &
acc. of thing, command, order; 74.
[See OED: BAN.]
ġe-barn, see ġe-byrnan.
bāt, m., BOAT, ship; 211. [A. 71.2 (1953)
140–7, ibid. 73.3 (1956) 262–75.] —
Cpd.: s®-.
bāt-weard ‡, m., BOAT-GUARD, boat-
keeper; ds. -e, 1900.
be, bī (1188, 1956, 2538, 2716, 2756, biġ
3047), prep., w. dat. (instr.: 1722); (1)
local: BY, beside, near, along, to (rest,
motion); 36, 566, 1188, 1191, 1573,
1905, 2243, 2262, 2538, 2542, 2716,
2756; following its case (prep.-adv.):
him biġ, 3047; be s®m twēonum,
between the seas (= on earth), 858
(n.), 1297, 1685, 1956; (ġefēng) be
eaxle, 1537; si. 814, 1574, 1647, 1872.
— (2) temporal: be ðē li¢ġendum,
‘during your life,’ 2665. — (3) Other
uses: in comparison with, 1284; ac-
cording to: be fæder lāre, 1950; (ðū þē
l®r) be þon, from this, thereby, 1722;
(with reference to), for the sake of: be
þē, 1723.
bēacen, n., sign; bēacen Godes (= sun,
see Kl. 1911–12: [8]), 570; as. bēcn (=
monument), 3160; gp. bēacna (ban-
ner), 2777. (N&Q 23 [1976] 200–7.)
[BEACON.]
(ġe-)bēacnian, vb. II, (make a sign in
regard to), point out, show; pp.
ġebēacnod, 140. [BECKON.]
beado, -u, †, fwō., battle, ¢ghting; gs.
beadwe, 1539, 2299 (n.); gp.(?)
beadwa, 709.
beado-grīma ‡, wk.m., war-mask, hel-
met; as. -grīman, 2257. (Brady 1979:
88–90.) See grīm-helm.
beado-hræġl ‡, n., war-garment, shirt
(or coat) of mail; 552.
352 GLOSSARY
beado-lēoma ‡, wk.m., battle-light, i.e.
(¯Ïashing) sword; 1523. (Cf. 2492,
Finn 35¯f.; OIcel. gunnlogi, Intr. xli
n.¯3; Robinson 1979: 132–3; ON
sword-names Ljómi, Sigrljómi, Falk
1914: 54, 58.)
beado-mēċe ‡, mja., battle-sword; np.
-mēċas, 1454.
beado-rinċ †, m., warrior; gp. -rinca,
1109.
beadu-folm ‡, f., battle-hand; as. -e, 990.
beadu-lāc †, n., (battle-sport, -exercise),
battle; ds. -e, 1561. See (ġe-)lāc, lācan.
beadu-rōf †, adj., bold in battle; gsm.
-es, 3160. See rōf.
beadu-rūn ‡, f., battle-counsel (-RUNE),
hostile speech; as.: onband beadurūne,
‘commenced a verbal assault,’ 501.
beadu-scearp ‡, adj., battle-SHARP; asn.,
2704.
beadu-scrūd ‡, n., war-garment, armor,
2660; gp. -a, 453. (Brady 1979: 116.)
[SHROUD.]
beadu-serċe ‡, wk.f., (battle-SARK), coat
of mail; as. -serċean, 2755.
bēag, bēah, m., (precious) ring, circlet,
(bracelet, collar; torque?); used of
rings serving as ‘money,’ (‘treasure’);
ns. bēah (necklace), 1211, so gs. bēag-
es, 1216; ds. bēage (diadem, crown?
Gussone & Steuer R.-L.2 5.350–75),
1163; as. bēah, 2041 (n.), 2812, bēg
(collect.), 3163; np. bēagas, 3014; gp.
bēaga, 2284, locenra bēaga, 2995,
bēaga bryttan, 35, 352, 1487; ap.
bēagas, 523, 2370, 3105, ~ d®lde, 80,
~ ġeaf, 1719, 2635 (things of value),
3009, si. 1750. (See DOE.) [būgan;
OIcel. baugr, OHG boug.] — Cpds.:
earm-, heals-.
bēag-ġyfa †, wk.m., ring-GIVer, lord,
king; gs. -ġyfan, 1102. [Cf. Hel.: bôg-
geİo.]
bēag-hroden †, adj. (pp.), ring-adorned
(cf. 1163?); 623. [hrēodan.]
bēah, see bēag, būgan.
bēah-hord ‡, n., ring-HOARD, treasure;
gs. -es, 894; gp. -a, 921; dp. -um,
2826.
bēah-sele (‡), mi., ring-hall, hall (in
which rings are given); 1177. (Cf. And
1657: bēag-selu, apn.)
bēah-ðegu ‡, f., receiving of a ring; ds.
-ðeġe, 2176. [þicgan.]
bēah-wriða ‡, wk.m., ring-band, ring,
circlet; as. -wriðan, 2018. [wrīðan;
WREATH.]
bealdian ‡, vb. II, show oneself brave
(BOLD); pret. 3 sg. bealdode, 2177.
(Cf. Mackie 1939: 524, Eliason SP 76
(1979) 105¯f.: ‘encourage’ [unlikely:
cf. ealdian, heardian, wācian, etc.].)
bealdor †, m., (prec. by gen. pl.), lord?,
protector?; baldľr, 2428. (See D. Green
1965: 5–8, Strauss 1974: 97–8; cf.
Schröder ZfdA 35 (1891) 237–44, H.
Kuhn 1969–78 [1951]: 2.332–8:
‘brightness’? ‘paragon’?) [Cf. ON
Baldr; rel. to OE beald. Orel 2003:
33.]
bealo, bealu, (†), adj.wa., BALEful, evil,
pernicious; dp. balwon, 977. (IF 41
[1923] 71–7; Cronan 2003: 401.)
bealo, bealu, (†), nwa. (orig. neut. of
adj.), (BALE), aggression, attack, de-
struction, aÑiction, misery, evil; ds.
bealwe, 2826; gp. bealwa 909, beale-
wa 2082, bealuwa 281. (Robinson
1985: 56–7, 98 n.¯89, w. refs.; Cronan
2003: 401) — Cpds.: cwealm-,
ealdor-, feorh-, hreþer-, lēod-, morð-,
morðor-, niht-, sweord-, wīġ-.
bealo-cwealm ‡, m., BALEful death,
death resulting from hostility; 2265.
bealo-hycgende ‡, adj. (pres.ptc.), in-
tending harm, hostile; gp. -hycgendra,
2565.
bealo-h©diġ ‡, adj., intending harm,
hostile; 723.
bealo-nīð †, m., pernicious enmity, grave
offense; ds. -nīðe (‘with ¢erce rage’),
2714; as. -nīð, 1758; dire aÑiction, ns.
-nīð, 2404.
bearhtm, m.(?), (1) brightness; 1766. —
(2) sound, noise; as., 1431. [See
Holt.Et.; M. Förster Die Vercelli-
Homilien (Hamburg, 1932) 78 n.¯41.]
bearm, m., lap, breast, embrace; ns.
foldan bearm (cf. Lat. gremium), 1137;
ds. bearme, 40; as. bearm, 1144, 2194,
2775, (on) bearm scipes (nacan), 35,
214, 896; keeping, possession, ds.
bearme, 21 (n.), 2404. [beran.]
be-arn, 67, see be-irnan.
bearn, n., child, son; 888, 910, 1408 (n.),
1837; bearn Ecgþeowes, 529, 631,
957, 1383, 1473, 1651, 1817, 1999,
2177, 2425, si. 469, 499, 2387; ds.
 GLOSSARY
bearne, 2370; as. bearn, 1546, 2121,
2619; np. bearn, 59, 1189, 2184 (Ġēata
~), 2597, 3170; gp. bearna, 2433; dp.
bearnum, 1074 (n.); ap. bearn: Ēotena
~, 1088, 1141; 2956; besides, plural in
set (bibl.?) expressions, ‘children of
humankind’ (Kl. 1911–12: [42]): ylda
(yldo) bearn (np.) 70, ~ -um, (dp.) 150,
~ bearn (ap.) 605; gumena bearn (np.)
878, ~ -a (gp.) 1367; niþða bearna
(gp.) 1005; hæleða bearna (gp.) 2224.
(Bäck 1934: 1–38.) [beran; Sc. BAIRN.]
— Cpd.: dryht-.
bearn-ġebyrdo ‡, fīn. (SB §¯267 n. 4,
OEG §589.7), child-bearing; gs., 946.
[BIRTH.]
bearu, mwa., grove, wood; np. bearwas,
1363.
bēatan, vb. 7, BEAT, strike, stamp; pres.
3 sg. bēateð, 2265; pp. ġebēaten,
2359.
be-bēodan, vb. 2, command, order; pret.
3 sg. bebēad, 401, 1975.
be-beorgan, vb. 3, w. reÏ. dat., protect
or guard oneself, 1746; w. acc. of
thing (against), imp. sg. bebeorh,
1758.
be-būgan, vb. 2, encompass, surround;
pres. 3 sg. bebūgeð, 93, 1223.
be-bycgan, vb. I, sell (on w. acc., for);
pret. 1 sg. bebohte, 2799.
be-ċeorfan (‡) +, vb. 3, w. acc. of pers.
& dat. (instr.) of thing, cut off (deprive
by cutting); pret. 1 sg. (hēafde)
beċearf, 2138; 3 sg. (~) ~, 1590.
[CARVE.]
bēcn, see bēacen.
be-cuman, vb. 4, COME; pret. 3 sg.
becōm, 115, 192, 2552 (w. inf.), 2992,
becwōm 1254, 2116, 2365 (w. inf.); w.
acc.: befall, pret. 3 sg. becwōm, 2883.
bed(d), nja., BED; gs. beddes, 1791; as.
bed, 140, 676; dp. beddum, 1240. —
Cpds.: dēað-, hlim-, leġer-, morðor-,
wæl-.
ġe-bedda, wk.m.f., BED-fellow; ds. ġe-
beddan, 665. — Cpd.: heals-.
be-d®lan, vb. I, w. dat. (instr.) of thing,
deprive; pp. bed®led, 721, 1275.
be-fæstan, vb. I, entrust, commit, give
over; 1115.
be-feallan, vb. 7, FALL; pp. befeallen, w.
dat. (instr.), (‡) deprived, bereft, 1126,
2256.
353
be-Ïēon, vb. 2, FLEE from, escape; ger.
beϽnne, 1003 (n.).
be-fōn, vb. 7, seize, encompass, encircle,
envelop; pp. befongen, 976, 1451,
2009 (bi-), 2595; befangen, 1295,
2274, 2321.
be-foran, I. adv., BEFORE, in front; 1412,
2497. — II. prep., w. acc., before,
into the presence of; 1024.
bēg, see bēag.
be-gang, see be-gong.
bēġen, num., both; 536, 769, 2707; gm.
bēġa, 1124, gn. bēġa 1043, 1873 (n.),
2895; dm. bām, 2196, 2660; af. bā,
1305, 2063. [A. 86 (1968) 418–22;
Orel 2003: 52.]
be-ġitan, vb. 5, GET, obtain; pret. 3 pl.
beġēaton, 2249; come upon, happen
to, befall, overtake; pret. 3 sg. beġeat,
1068, 1146, 2230, beġet 2872; sj. 3 sg.
beġēate, 2130.
be-gnornian ‡, vb. II, lament, grieve
over; pret. 3 pl. begnornodon, 3178.
(Cf. GenB 243: begrornian.)
be-gong, m., circuit, compass, expanse,
region; as. (sweġles) begong 860,
1773, (Ïōda) begong 1497, ~ begang
1826, (ġeofenes) begang 362, (sioleða)
bigong 2367.
be-ġylpan ‡, vb. 3, w. acc., boast, exult;
2006.
be-healdan, vb. 7, guard, HOLD, occupy;
pret. 3 sg. behēold, 1498; attend to,
([-]nytte) ~, 494, 667; watch, observe,
~, 736. (See Penttilä 1956: 119–30.)
be-helan, vb. 4, hide; pp. beholen, 414.
[Cf. NHG hehlen.]
be-hō¢an, vb. II, w. gen., have need of,
require; pres. 3 sg. behōfað, 2647.
[BEHOOVE.]
be-hōn, vb. 7, HANG (all about with,
instr.), drape; pp. behongen, 3139.
be-hrēosan, vb. 2, fall; pp. (w. dat.
[instr.]), apm. behrorene, ‡deprived,
2762.
be-irnan, vb. 3, RUN (into); pret. 3 sg.:
him on mōd bearn, ‘came into his
mind’ (‘occurred’ to him), 67. (See
Archiv 126 [1911] 355 n.¯1.)
bēl, see b®l.
be-lēan, vb. 6, (blame); w. dat. of pers.
& acc. of thing, dissuade or keep from;
511.
be-lēosan †, vb. 2, LOSE; pp. (w. dat.
354 GLOSSARY
[instr.]) beloren, deprived, 1073. [See
losian.]
(ġe-)belgan, vb. 3, enrage; pret. sj. 3 sg.
ġebulge (w. dat.), offend, 2331; pp.
ġebolgen, enraged, angry; 2401, ðā
(þæt) hē ġebolgen wæs: 723 (n.), 1539,
2220, 2550, si. 2304; np. ġebolgne,
1431. [Orig. ‘swell’; cf. b(i)elġ ‘bag.’]
See bolgen-mōd.
be-limpan (‡) +, vb. 3, w. dat., happen,
befall; pret. 3 sg. belamp, 2468.
be-lūcan, vb. 2, LOCK up, close; pret. 3
sg. belēac, 1132; protect against (dat.),
1 sg. ~, 1770.
be-mīðan, vb. 1, conceal; pret. 3 sg.
bemāð, [2217]. [Cf. NHG meiden.]
be-murnan (†), vb. 3, MOURN over,
bewail, deplore; pret. 3 sg. bemearn,
907, 1077.
ben(n) †, fjō., wound; as. benne, 2724.
[bana.] See wund. — Cpds.: feorh-,
sex-.
bēn, ¢., petition, request, favor; gs. -e,
428 (n.), 2284. [BOON, fr. ON bón; ZvS
93 (1979) 122¯f.]
bēna, wk.m., petitioner, petitioning; ~
wesan, ask, request: bēna, 352, 3140;
np. bēnan, 364. (Cf. Owen-Crocker
2000: 91: ‘deserving.’)
benċ, ¢., BENCH; 492; ds. benċe, 1188,
1243, bugon þā tō benċe: 327, 1013.
(Possibly the word refers to something
other than a bench, perhaps a section
of a hall: see NM 97 [1996] 122;
Pollington 2003: 80; cf. Webster in
MR 187.) — Cpds.: ealo-, medu-.
benċ-swēġ ‡, mi., BENCH-noise, conviv-
ial sound; 1161.
benċ-þel ‡, n., BENCH-plank, pl. -þelu,
Ïoor on which benches are placed (or:
benches?); np. 486, ap. 1239 (n.). (See
Heyne 1864: 52; Frank 1981: 135.) Cf.
•buruh-ðelu.
bend, fjō. (mi.), BOND, fetter; as., 1609;
dp. -um, 977. [bindan.] — Cpds.: ancor-,
f©r-, hell-, hyġe-, īren-, searo-, wæl-.
be-nemnan vb. I, declare; pret. 3 sg.
(āðum) benemde, 1097; pret. 3 pl.
benemdon, 3069 (n.).
be-nēotan †, vb. 2, deprive of (dat.
[instr.]); (aldre) ~, 680; pret. 3 sg. (~)
binēat, 2396.
ben-ġeat ‡, n., wound-opening (-GATE),
gash; np. -ġeato, 1121.
be-niman, vb. 4, rob, deprive of (dat.
[instr.]); pret. 3 sg. benam, 1886.
bēodan, vb. 2, (1) offer, tender, give;
385; pret. 3 pl. budon, 1085; pp.
boden, 2957. — (2) announce; bīodan,
2892. [See biddan.] — Cpds.: ā-, be-.
ġe-bēodan, vb. 2, (1) offer, show; 603
(n.); pret. 3 sg. ġebēad, 2369. — (2)
announce, BID, command; ġebēodan,
3110.
bēod-ġenēat ‡, m., table-companion; np.
-as, 343; ap. -as, 1713. [bēodan (but
see IF 23 [1908–9] 395; W. Lehmann
1986 s.v. *biuþs); nēotan; ZfdA 60
(1923) 70; BGdSL 60 (1936) 398¯f.; cf.
NHG Genosse.]
bēon, bēo(ð), see eom.
bēor, n., (BEER,) intoxicating drink; ds.
bēore, 480, 531; æt bēore, ‘at the
“beer”-drinking,’ 2041. (LSE 8 [1975]
76–95 [a sweet and potent unmalted
fruit drink, such as cider; si. Kylstra
1974]; Durham Univ. Jnl. 78.2 [1986]
231–50; Hagen 2006: 200–2.) [BGdSL
35 (1909) 569–71; R.-L.2 2.533–4;
Sprachwissenschaft 25 (2000) 103–11,
229–31.]
beorg, beorh, m., (1) hill, cliff, headland,
elevated shore; ds. beorge, 211, 3143;
as. (Hrēosna) Beorh, 2477; ap.
beorgas, 222. — (2) BARROW, tumu-
lus, burial mound; ns. beorh, 2241; gs.
beorges, 2304, 2322, 2524, 2580,
2755, biorges, 3066; ds. beorge, 2529,
2546, 2559, 2842; as. beorh, 2299,
3097; (Bīowulfes) Biorh, 2807; beorg,
3163; ap. biorgas, 2272. — Cpd.: stān-.
beorgan, vb. 3, w. dat., preserve, save,
protect; 1293, [1372], 1445; pret. 3 pl.
burgan, 2599. — Cpds.: be-, ymb-.
ġe-beorgan, vb. 3, w. dat., protect; pret.
3 sg. ġebearh 1548, ġebearg 2570.
beorh, see beorg.
beorht, adj., BRIGHT, shining, splendid,
glorious, magni¢cent; 1802, nsn. 570;
nsm.wk. beorhta, 1177; nsn.wk.
beorhte, 997; gsf. beorhtre, 158;
dsf.wk. byrhtan, 1199; asm. beorhtne,
2803 (Sed. JEGP 35 [1936] 167 n.¯40:
‘clearly visible, prominent’); dpf.
beorhtum, 3140; apm. beorhte, 231;
apf. beorhte, 214, 896; apn. beorht,
2313; apm.wk. beorhtan, 1243. Supl.
beorhtost, 2777. (Juzi 1939: 34–44;
 GLOSSARY
Mittner 1955: 146–9.) — Cpds.: sadol-,
wlite-.
beorhte, adv., BRIGHTly; 1517.
beorhtian, vb. II, ‡sound clearly or
loudly; pret. 3 sg. beorhtode, 1161.
(Robinson 1970a: 106: ‘glittered’
[¢g.].) [beorht; cf. meaning of -torht
2553.]
beorn, 1880, see byrnan.
beorn †, m., man, hero, warrior; 2433,
biorn 2559; ds. beorne, 2260; as.
beorn, 1024, 1299, 2121; np. -as, 211,
856; gp. biorna 2220, 2404. — Cpds.:
gūð-, •siġe-.
beorn-cyning ‡, m., (warrior-) KING;
vs., 2148; ns. biorn-, [2792].
bēor-scealc ‡, m., ‘BEER’-drinker,
feaster (see Kl. A. 46 [1922] 233¯f.,
1926: 200); gp. -a, 1240. (See bēor,
scealc; Brady 1983: 217.)
bēor-sele (†), mi., ‘BEER’-hall, banquet-
hall; ds. (in, on) bēorsele, 482, 492,
1094, (~) bīorsele, 2635.
bēor-þegu †, f., (‘BEER’-taking), liquor-
drinking; ds. -þeġe, 117, 617. [þicgan.]
bēot, n., vow, promise; as., 80, 523.
[*bī-hāt, cf. hātan; SB §¯43 n.¯4, OEG
§¯74.] See Schü. 1933; Stefán Einars-
son PMLA 49 (1934) 975–93; Daunt
1966: 70–1; Dunning & Bliss 1969:
54–8; Nolan & Bloom¢eld JEGP 79
(1980) 499–516; Bauschatz 1982: 110;
Brady 1983: 211; Murphy ES 66
(1985) 105–12; Bjork 1994: 1004–5;
Nelson Neophil. 89 (2005) 299–310.
(Kl. et al.: ‘boast.’)
ġe-bēotian, vb. II, vow; pret. 1 pl.
ġebēotedon, 536; 3 pl. ~, 480.
bēot-word †, n., WORD of promise,
pledge; dp. -um, 2510.
beran, vb. 4, BEAR, carry, wear, bring;
(w. objects denoting armor or weapons
sometimes = go); 48, 231, 291, 1024,
1807, 1920, 2152, 2518, 2754; pres. 3
sg. byreð, 296, 448, 2055; [3 pl. berað,
F. 5]; pres. sj. 1 sg. bere, 437, 1834; 3
sg. ~, [2253]; 1 pl. beren, 2653; pret. 3
sg. bær, 495, 711, 846, 896, 1405,
1506, 1982, 2021, 2048, 2244, 2281,
2539, 2661, 2686, 2988, 3124; 3 pl.
b®ron, 213, 1635, 1889, 2365, b®ran
2850; [sj. 3 sg. b®re, F. 20]; pp. boren,
1192, 1647, 3135. — Cpds.: æt-, for-,
on-, oþ-; helm-, sāwl-berend.
355
ġe-beran, vb. 4, BEAR (child); pp.
ġeboren, 1703.
be-rēa¢an, vb. II, w. dat. (instr.), BE-
REAVE, despoil, deprive; pp. berēafod,
2746, 2825, 3018.
be-rēofan †, vb. 2, w. dat. (instr.),
deprive; pp. asf. berofene, 2457, 2931.
[Cf. be-rēa¢an.]
berian ‡, vb. I, BARE, make clear; pret. 3
pl. beredon, 1239 (n.). [BARE fr.
*barian.]
berstan, vb. 3, break, BURST (intr.); [F.
30]; pret. 3 pl. burston, 760 (n.), 818;
burst open, ~, 1121. — Cpd.: for-.
be-scūfan, vb. 2, SHOVE, thrust; 184.
be-settan, vb. I, SET about, embellish;
pret. 3 sg. besette, 1453.
be-sittan, vb. 5, besiege; pret. 3 sg.
besæt, 2936.
be-smiþian (‡) (+), vb. II, (surround
with the SMITH’s iron work), fasten;
pp. besmiþod, 775.
be-snyððan †, vb. I, deprive (dat.
[instr.], of¯); pret. 3 sg. besnyðede,
2924. [Cf. OIcel. snauðr ‘bereft,’
‘poor,’ sneyða ‘deprive.’]
be-st©man †, vb. I, wet, suffuse; pp.
(blōde) best©med, 486. [stēam
(STEAM); cf. Dream 62.]
be-sw®lan, vb. I, scorch, burn; pp.
besw®led, 3041. [swelan.]
be-syrwan, vb. I, ensnare, entrap, trick;
713; pp. besyred, 2218; contrive, ac-
complish, inf. besyrwan, 942. [searu.]
ġe-bētan, vb. I, improve, remedy, pret. 2
sg. ġebēttest, 1991; pret. 3 sg. (or pp.
asf.?) ġebētte, 830; put right, settle (by
punishment), f®ghðe ġebētan, 2465.
[bōt.]
betera, betost, betest, betst, see gōd.
be-timbran ‡, vb. I, build, complete the
building of; pret. 3 pl. betimbredon,
3159. (Cf. be-wyrċan.)
bet-liċ †, adj., excellent, splendid; nsn.,
1925; asn., 780. [Cf. betera.]
be-wæġnan ‡, vb. I, offer; pp. be-
wæġned, 1193.
be-wennan ‡, vb. I, attend to, entertain;
pp. asf. biwenede 2035 (n.); np. be-
wenede 1821. (See wennan.)
be-weotian, see be-witian.
be-werian, vb. I, protect, defend against
(dat.); pret. sj. 3 pl. beweredon, 938.
be-windan, vb. 3, WIND about, grasp,
356 GLOSSARY
bind, enclose, encircle, mingle; pret. 3
sg. bewand, 1461; pp. bewunden,
1031, 2424, 3022, 3052, 3146.
be-witian, vb. II, watch, observe, attend
to, watch over; pres. 3 pl. bewitiað,
1135; pret. 3 sg. beweotede 1796,
beweotode 2212; pres. 3 pl. bewitiġað,
1428 (n.). [Cf. be-witan, prp.; Go.
witan, vb. III. Seebold Sprache 19
(1973) 164–5.]
be-wyrċan, vb. I, build around, sur-
round; pret. 3 pl. beworhton, 3161.
bī, see be.
bicgan, see bycgan.
bid (†), n., aBIDing, halt; as.: on bid
wrecen, brought to bay, 2962. (Bu.
108: cf. OIcel. bið; Trautm. EStn. 44
[1912] 322: bīd; cf. LkGl[Ru] 21.26:
‘exspectatio.’)
bīdan, vb. 1, BIDE, wait, stay, remain,
linger; 2308; pret. 3 sg. bād, 87, 301,
310, 1313, 2568; 3 pl. bidon, 400; —
await, wait for (gen.); inf., 482, 528,
1268, 1494; pret. 1 sg. bād, 2736; 3 sg.
~, 82, 709, 1882. — Cpds.: ā-, on-.
ġe-bīdan, vb. 1, await; imp. pl. ġebīde,
2529; — wait for (gen.); ger. ġe-
bīdanne, 2452; — live to see, experi-
ence, live through; w. acc.: inf., 638,
934, 1060, 1386, 2342; pret. 1 sg.
ġebād, 929, [F. 25]; 3 sg. ~, 7, 264,
815, 1618, 2258, 3116; pp. ġebiden,
1928; w. þæt-clause: pret. 1 sg. ġebād,
1779, 3 sg. ~, 1720, ger. ġebīdanne,
2445.
biddan, vb. 5, ask, request; abs.: pres. 1
sg. bidde, 1231; pret. 3 sg. bæd, 29; w.
gen. of thing: inf., 427, pret. 3 sg. bæd,
2282; w. acc. and inf. (understood):
pret. 3 sg. bæd, 617; w. þæt-clause:
pret. 1 sg. bæd, 1994, 3 sg. ~, 3096, 3
pl. b®don, 176; cf. 427¯ff. [BID fr.
blending of biddan and bēodan, see
OED.]
bi-fōn, see be-fōn.
biġ, see be.
bi-gong, see be-gong.
bil(l), n., † sword, blade; bil, 1567, bill,
2777; gs. billes, 2060, 2485, 2508; ds.
-e, 2359; as. bil, 1557, bill, 2621; gp.
-a, 583, 1144; dp. -um, 40. (Brady
1979: 91–3; Cronan 2003: 414.) [OED:
BILL, sb.1] — Cpds.: gūð-, hilde-,
wīġ-.
bindan, vb. 3, BIND, join; pp. ġebunden,
1743, 2111, apn. 871; asm.: wudu
bundenne, 216 (MLN 55 [1940] 605¯f.);
asn.: bunden golde (swurd), 1900, si.
ġebunden 1531, nsm.: heoru bunden,
1285 (perh. ‘furnished with a gold
ring’; see also Falk 1914: 22; but cf.
Owen-Crocker 2004: 77–8.). — Cpd.:
on-.
ġe-bindan, vb. 3, BIND; pret. 1 sg. ġe-
band, 420.
bi-nēotan, see be-nēotan.
bīo(ð), see bēon.
bīodan, see bēodan.
bīor-, see bēor-.
biorh, see beorg.
biorn(-), see beorn(-).
bis(i)gu, see bysigu.
bītan, vb. 1, cut, BITE; 1454, 1523; pret.
3 sg. bāt, 742, 2578. [Cf. Lat. ¢ndere.]
bite, mi., BITE, cut; ds., 2060; as., 2259.
— Cpd.: lāð-.
biter, adj., sharp; asn., 2704; dsm.wk.
biteran, 1746; dpn.wk. ~, 2692; ¢erce,
furious; np. bitere, 1431. [bītan;
BITTER.]
bitre, adv., BITTERly, sorely; 2331.
bið, see eom.
bi-wennan, see be-wennan.
blāc, adj., shining, brilliant; asm. -ne,
1517. [blīcan; BLAKE (North.), BLEAK.]
— Cpd.: hilde-.
blæc, adj., BLACK; nsm.wk. blaca, 1801.
bl®d, m., power, vigor, vitality, glory,
renown; 18, 1124, 1703, 1761.
[blāwan. See NM 25 (1924) 109–17.]
bl®d-āgande ‡, pres.ptc. [pl.], prosper-
ous, glorious; npm., 1013.
bl®d-fæst (‡), adj., glorious; asm. -ne,
1299.
blanca †, wk.m., (white or grey?, cf.
865) horse; dp. blancum, 856. [BLANK,
adj., fr. Fr. (fr. OHG).] See Tupper
1910: 119; McClelland 1966: 179–80;
Barley 1974: 22–3.
blēate (‡), adv., wretchedly, pitiably;
2824. See wæl-blēat. [Cf. OHG blōz,
NHG bloss.]
blīcan, vb. 1, shine, gleam; 222.
blīðe, adj.(i.)ja., (1) happy, well disposed,
kind, BLITHE; nsm. 436; asm. blīðne,
617. (See BT, DOE, and cf. Bloom-
¢eld MLQ 60 [1999] 144–5.) — Cpd.:
un-.
 GLOSSARY
blīð-heort (†), adj., BLITHE of HEART,
cheerful; 1802.
blōd, n., BLOOD; 1121, 1616, 1667; ds.
blōde 486, 1422, 1880, ~ fāh 934,
1594, 2974; on blōde, bloody 847 (n.);
as. blōd, 742. (Kühlwein 1968: 69–
72.) [Peeters GL 27 (1987) 81; Orel
2003: 50.]
blōd(e)gian (‡) +, vb. II, make BLOODY;
pp. ġeblōdegod, 2692. [blōdiġ.]
blōd-fāg †, adj., BLOOD-stained; 2060.
blōdiġ, adj., BLOODY, blood-stained;
dsm.wk. blōdigan, 2440; asf. blōdġe,
990; asn. blōdiġ, 448.
blōdiġ-tōð ‡, adj., with BLOODY (TOOTH)
teeth; 2082.
blōd-rēow †, adj., BLOOD-thirsty; nsn.,
1719.
blonden-feax †, adj., (having mixed hair,
i.e.) grey-haired; 1791; dsm. -um,
1873; npm. -e, 1594; nsm.wk. -fexa,
2962. [blondan.]
bodian, vb. II, announce; pret. 3 sg.
bodode, 1802. [BODE.]
bolca, wk.m., deck or gangway of a ship;
i.e., passageway from the quarter-deck
to the forecastle (or gangplank, laid
between the ship and the shore); as.
bolcan, 231. (See Falk Wörter und
Sachen 4 [1912] 48; Schnepper Die
Namen der Schiffe und Schiffsteile im
Ae. [Kiel diss., 1908] 23, 63; Vogel
R.-L.1 4.112; Thier 2002: 81.) [Cf.
BULK fr. ON bulki.]
bold, n., BUILDing, house, hall; 997,
1925; as., 2196; gp. -a, 2326. — Cpd.:
fold-.
bold-āgend(e) †, mc. (pres.ptc.) [pl.],
house-OWner (-owning); gp. -āgendra,
3112.
bolgen-mōd †, adj., enraged; 709, 1713.
[belgan.]
bolster (‡) +, m.(?), BOLSTER, cushion;
dp. bolstrum, 1240. — Cpd.: hlēor-.
bona, see bana.
bon-gār ‡, m., deadly spear; 2031.
(Brady 1979: 129–30.)
bord, n., (BOARD), †shield; 2673, [F.
29]; as., 2524; gp. -a, 2259. (Brady
1979: 125–6.) — Cpds.: hilde-, wīġ-.
bord-hæbbend(e) ‡, mc. (pres.ptc.)
[pl.], (BOARD-HAVing), shield-bearer;
npm., 2895.
bord-hrēoða †, wk.m., shield-covering,
357
shield, phalanx; ds. -hrēoðan, 2203.
[Cf. hroden; Siev. 1910: 408–9; M.
Keller 1906: 226; Cook 1900: 139
(l.¯675¯n.).]
bord-rand ‡, m., shield; as., 2559.
(Brady 1979: 126¯f.)
bord-weal(l) †, m., ‘shield-WALL,’ (pro-
tecting) shield or formation of shields;
as. -weal, 2980. (See R.-L.2 27.103.)
bord-wudu ‡, mu., shield; ap., 1243.
born, see byrnan.
bōt, f., relief, remedy; 281; as. -e, 909,
934; reparation, compensation, gs. -e,
158. (Kellermann 1954: 179–84.)
[BOOT; Go. bōta: batiza, OE bet(e)ra.]
botm, m., BOTTOM; ds. -e, 1506.
brād, adj., BROAD, wide, spacious; 3157;
nsn.wk. -e, 2207; asm. -[n]e, 2978;
asn. brād, 1546, 3105.
ġe-bræc, n., crashing; as., 2259. [Cf.
brecan.]
brand, see brond.
brecan, vb. 4, BREAK; 2980; pret. 3 sg.
bræc, 1511, 1567; sj. 3 sg. br®ce, 1100;
— press, torment, pret. 3 sg.: hine
fyrwyt bræc, 232, 1985, 2784; — intr.:
burst forth, inf. 2546. — Cpds.: ā-, tō-,
þurh-.
ġe-brecan, vb. 4, BREAK, crush, destroy;
pret. 3 sg. ġebræc, 2508; pp. ġebrocen,
3147.
brecð (‡), f., BREAKing, ‡grief; np.:
mōdes brecða, 171. (Hoops 39, DOE;
cf. Dietrich ZfdA 11 [1859] 410¯f.,
Bamm. Language 43 [1967] 452–6, et
al.: wk.m.; id. 1979: 21–2.)
breġdan, vb. 3, (1) move quickly (trans.),
draw, swing, Ïing; 707; pret. 3 sg.
bræġd, 794, 1539; 2 pl. brugdon (w.
dat. [instr.]), 514. — (2) knit, weave;
inf. breġdon, 2167; pp. brōden (ref. to
the interlocked rings of the mail shirt),
552, 1548, asf. brogdne, 2755. [BRAID.]
— Cpds.: ā-, on-.
ġe-breġdan, vb. 3, (1) draw (sword); w.
instr.: pret. 1 sg. ġebr®d, 1664, 3 sg. ~,
2703; w. acc.: ~, 2562, ġebræġd 1564.
— (2) knit, weave (see breġdan); pp.
ġebrōden, 1443.
brego †, m., chief, lord (w. gen. pl.);
609; as., 1954 (n.); vs., 427.
brego-rōf ‡, adj., very valiant; 1925. See
rōf.
brego-stōl †, m., princely seat, throne,
358 GLOSSARY
principality; as., 2196, 2370, 2389.
(See ēþel-stōl.)
brēme, adj.ja., famous, renowned; 18.
[Giessener Beiträge 1 (1921) 139¯f.
*be-hr¹me, cf. *hrōm, hrēmig (?);
Holt.Et.]
brenting ‡, m., ship; ap. -as, 2807.
[bront.]
brēost, n., f. (453), BREAST; 2176, 2331;
as., 453; pl. (w. sg. meaning, see P.
Grimm 1912: 15–20; Soland 1979: 93–
9.); dp. -um, 552, 2550, 2714.
brēost-ġehyġd †, fni., thought of the
heart; dp. -um, 2818.
brēost-ġew®de ‡, nja. (pl. used w. sg.
meaning), BREAST-garment, mail shirt
(or coat); np. -ġew®du, 1211; ap. ~,
2162.
brēost-hord †, n., (BREAST-HOARD),
breast, mind, heart; 1719; as., 2792.
brēost-net(t) †, nja., BREAST-NET, mail
shirt (or coat); -net, 1548. Cf. here-,
hrinġ-, inwit-, searo-net(t).
brēost-weorðung ‡, f., BREAST-orna-
ment; as. -e, 2504.
brēost-wylm (‡) (+), mi., (BREAST-
WELLing), emotion; as., 1877.
[weallan.]
brēotan †, vb. 2, (break), cut down, kill;
pret. 3 sg. brēat, 1713. [Cf. brytta;
BRITT¯le.] — Cpd.: ā-.
brim (†), n., sea, water (of sea, lake);
847, 1594; gs. -es, 28, 2803; np. -u,
570. [Cf. OIcel. brim; Holt.Et.]
brim-clif ‡, n., sea-CLIFF; ap. -u, 222.
brim-lād †, f., sea-passage, voyage; as.
-e, 1051. [līðan.]
brim-līðend(e) †, mc. (pres.ptc.) [pl.],
seafarer; ap. -e, 568.
brim-strēam (†), m., ocean-STREAM,
sea’s current, sea; ap. -as, 1910.
brim-wīsa ‡, wk.m., sea-leader, -king;
as. -wīsan, 2930. [Cf. wīsian.]
brim-wylf ‡, fjō., she-WOLF of the sea or
lake; 1506, 1599. (Kl. 1911–12: [20].)
See grund-wyrġen.
brim-wylm ‡, mi., surge of the sea or
lake; 1494. [weallan.]
bringan, vb. I (vb. 3), BRING; 1862,
2148, 2504; pres. 1 sg. bringe, 1829;
pret. 1 pl. brōhton, 1653.
ġe-bringan, vb. I (vb. 3), BRING; pres. sj.
1 pl., 3009. (Foll. by on w. dat.; see
Lorz 1908: 74.)
brōden, see breġdan.
brōden-m®l, see brogden-m®l.
brōga, wk.m., terror, horror; 1291,
2324, 2565; gs. brōgan, 583 (n.). —
Cpds.: gryre-, here-.
brogden-m®l †, n., (ornamented with a
wavy pattern, i.e.) pattern-welded (or
damascened?) sword; 1667; brōden-,
1616. (Cf. hrinġ-, wunden-m®l.)
[breġdan; m®l ‘mark’; Davidson 1962:
122–3, Peirce 2002.]
brond, m., (1) burning, ¢re; 3014; ds. -e,
2126, 2322; gp. -a, 3160. (2) sword;
ns. brond 1454; as. brand, 1020 (n.).
[OED: BRAND, sb. I & II.] Cf. OIcel.
brandr (Falk 1914: 48); brand ‘sword’
3× in prose: see DOE.
bront †, adj., steep, high; asm. -ne, 238,
568. [J. Wright 1898–1905: BRANT,
BRENT. Cf. OIcel. brattr.] (See Mid-
dendorff 1902: 17?)
brosnian, vb. II, decay, fall to pieces;
pres. 3 sg. brosnað, 2260. [Bamm.
MSS 31 (1972) 11–13; id. 1979: 24–5.]
brōðor, mc., BROTHER; 1324, 2440
(brōðľr), 2978; gs., 2619; ds. brēþer,
1262; dp. brōðrum, 587, 1074 (n.). —
Cpd.: ġe-.
ġe-brōðor, mc.p., BROTHERs; dp. ġe-
brōðrum, 1191.
brūcan, vb. 2, w. gen. object (sometimes
understood), make use of, enjoy; 894,
1045, 2241, 2812, 3100; pres. 3 sg.
brūceð, 1062; imp. sg. brūc, 1177,
1216, 2162; pret. 1 sg. brēac, 1487; 3
sg. ~, 1953, 2097. [BROOK.]
brūn, adj., (BROWN), bright, reÏective
(sword); 2578. (See Bu.Tid. 67; Mead
PMLA 14 [1899] 193¯f.; Falk 1914: 5;
ZfdPh. 67 [1942] 1–10; Beibl. 54–5
[1943–4] 133¯f.; note to 1546.) [Cf.
BURNish (fr. OFr.).] Cpd.: •sealo-.
brūn-ecg †, adj., with bright (BROWN)
EDGE; asn., 1546¯(n.).
brūn-fāg ‡, adj., of a (BROWN or) reÏec-
tive color, shining; asm. -ne, 2615.
(Webster in MR 189 connects w.
bronze ornamentation, but cf. brūn-
ecg.)
br©d, ¢., BRIDE; 2031; wife; as. br©d,
2930; ap. -e, 2956. (Stibbe 1935: 79–
82; Cronan 2003: 422.) [See Braune
BGdSL 32 (1907) 6–9, 30–59, 559–
62.]
 GLOSSARY
br©d-būr (‡) +, m., woman’s apartment;
ds. -e, 921. (A. Fischer 1986: 51–5.)
[BRIDE; BOWER.]
bryne-lēoma ‡, wk.m., gleam of ¢re;
2313. [byrnan.]
bryne-wylm †, mi., surge of ¢re; dp.
-um, 2326.
brytnian, vb. II, deal out, dispense; pret.
3 sg. brytnade, 2383. [Cf. brytta;
brēotan.]
brytta (†), wk.m., distributor, dispenser;
(sinċes) brytta, 607, vs. 1170, 2071; as.
(bēaga) bryttan, 35, 352, 1487,
(sinċes) ~, 1922. (Strauss 1974: 103;
Cronan 2003: 405–6.) [brēotan.]
bryttian, vb. II, distribute, dispense;
pres. 3 sg. bryttað, 1726.
būan, vb. 7, vb. III, (1) reside; būon,
2842. (2) reside in, inhabit; būan,
3065. — Cpds.: ċeaster-, •eorð-, feor-,
fold-, grund-, land-būend.
ġe-būan, vb. 7 (ingressive), take posses-
sion of, settle in; pp. ġebūn, 117.
bū-folc ‡, n., inhabitants; 2220. (Malone
JEGP 27 [1928] 318–24; 1933b: 151.)
būgan, vb. 2, BOW (intr.); (1) sink, fall;
2918, 2974. (2) bow down, rest; pres.
3 sg. būgeð, 2031. (3) bend, sit down;
pret. 3 pl. bugon, 327, 1013. (4) turn,
Ïee; pret. 3 sg. bēah, 2956; 3 pl.
bugon, 2598. — Cpds.: ā-, be-;
wōh-bogen.
ġe-būgan, vb. 2, BOW (intr.); (1) sink,
fall; pret. 3 sg. ġebēah, 1540, 2980. (2)
coil (oneself together); pret. 3 sg. ~
(tōsomne), 2567; pp. ġebogen, 2569.
(3) w. acc.: lie down on; pret. 3 sg.
ġebēah 690, ġebēag 1241.
bunden-heord ‡, adj., with hair BOUND
up; wk.f. -e, 3151 (n.).
bunden-stefna ‡, wk.m., ship with
BOUND prow; 1910 (n.). [STEM.]
bune, wk.f., cup, drinking vessel; np.
bunan, 3047; ap. ~, 2775. [Frank in
O’Brien O’Keeffe & Orchard 2005:
410–11.]
būr, m., private chamber, apartment,
room; ds. -e, 1310, 2455 (n.); dp. -um,
140 (n.). [BOWER; cf. būan.] — Cpd.:
br©d-.
burh, fc., homestead, residence, ‘man-
or,’ hence forti¢ed place, stronghold,
town; [F. 36: Finn(e)s Buruh]; ds.
byriġ, 1199; as. burh, 523; dp. (sg.
359
meaning): (on, in) burgum, 53, 2433,
si. 1968, 2452. (H. Meier 2002; cf.
DOE.) [BOROUGH, BURG(H). Griepen-
trog 1995: 91–116.] — Cpds.: frēo-,
freoðo-, hēa-, hlēo-, hord-, lēod-,
m®ġ-.
burh-loca †, wk.m., stronghold (LOCK);
ds. -locan, 1928.
burh-stede †, mi., forti¢ed place; as.,
2265. [STEAD.]
burh-wela ‡, wk.m., WEALth of a citadel
(town); gs. -welan, 3100. (Mackie
1941: 98: ‘rich fortress.’) [WEAL.] See
®r-wela.
burne, wk.f., stream; gs. -an, 2546.
[BOURN, BURN; NHG Brunnen.]
•buruh-ðelu¯‡, f., stronghold-Ïoor; [F.
30]. Cf. benċ-þel.
būton (būtan), I. prep., w. dat., except,
BUT; būton, 73, 705. — II. conj.; (1)
w. sj.: unless, if .¯.¯. not; 966 (būtan).
(2) w. ind.: except that, but that; 1560
(OES §¯3641). (3) without verb (after
neg.); except; 657, 879; (ne .¯.¯. mā .¯.¯.)
būton, (not .¯.¯. more .¯.¯.) than, 1614.
bycgan, vb. I, BUY, pay for; bicgan,
1305. — Cpd.: be-.
ġe-bycgan, vb. I, BUY, pay for, obtain;
pret. 3 sg. ġebohte, 973, 2481; pp.
npm. ġebohte, 3014 (?, n.).
byldan, vb. I, encourage, cheer; 1094.
[beald.]
b©me, wk.f., trumpet; as. b©man, 2943.
[bēam; OED: BEME, sb. (obs.).]
ġe-byrd, f.(n.)i., fate (?); as., 1074 (n.).
(Bäck 1934: 85–6; Smithers 1970: 67.)
[Cf. BIRTH.]
byre †, mi., son; 2053, 2445, 2621, 2907,
3110; np., 1188; ‡boy; ap., 2018 (n.).
(Bäck 1934: 64–6.) [beran; cf. Go.
baúr.]
byrele, mi., cupBEARer; np. byrelas,
1161. [beran; BGdSL 30 (1905) 138.]
byreð, see beran.
byrġan, vb. I, taste, eat; byrġean, 448.
[Cf. OIcel. bergja.]
byrht, see beorht.
byriġ, see burh.
byrnan, vb. 3, BURN (intr.); [pres. 3 pl.
byrnað, F. 1, 4]; pres.ptc. byrnende,
2272, 2569; pret. 3 sg. born, 2673,
1880 (n.). [BURN fr. fusion of beornan
(byrnan) and bærnan.] — Cpds.: for-;
un-byrnende.
360 GLOSSARY
ġe-byrnan (‡) (+), vb. 3, BURN (intr.), be
consumed; pret. 3 sg. ġebarn, 2697.
byrne, wk.f., shirt (or coat) of mail; 405,
1245, 1629, 2660, 2673, [F. 44]; gs.
byrnan, 2260; ds. ~, 2704; as. ~, 1022,
1291, 2153, 2524, 2615, 2621, 2812,
2868; np. ~, 327; dp. byrnum, 40, 238,
2529, 3140. (Note: byrnan hrinġ 2260,
hrinġed byrne 1245, si. 2615; see
hrinġ. See H. Lehmann 1885; Germ.
31 (1886) 486–97; M. Keller 1906: 93–
108, 255–9; Shetelig & Falk 1937:
403–4; B-Mitford 2.232–40; Under-
wood 1999: 91–4. [BGdSL 30 (1905)
271; IF 23 (1908–9) 390–2; D. Green
1998: 155–6. Fr. Celtic: see Orel 2003:
58. Cf. BYRNIE.] — Cpds.: gūð-,
heaðo-, here-, īren-, īsern-.
byrn-wiga †, wk.m., mailed warrior;
2918.
bysigu, fīn., (†)aÑiction, distress,
trouble, care; gs. bisigu, 281; dp.
bisgum, 1743, bysigum, 2580. (Szogs
1931: 74–5; Grinda 1975: 268–9.)
[BUSIness.] (OEG §¯589.7; in evidence
of velar g before back vowels, despite
īn-stem origin, cf. spellings bysegum,
bysega.)
byð, see eom.
b©wan (‡), vb. I, polish, furbish up,
prepare; 2257. [Holt.Et.]
camp, m.n., battle, ¢ght; ds. -e, 2505
(n.). [Fr. Lat. campus.]
can, see cunnan.
candel, f., CANDLE, light; 1572 (rodores
~, ‘sun,’ see Kl. 1911–12: [8]). [Fr.
Lat. candela.] — Cpd.: woruld-.
caru, see cearu.
ċeald, adj., COLD; apm. -e, 1261; supl.
nsn. -ost, 546; painful, pernicious, evil,
dpm. -um, 2396. — Cpd.: morgen-.
ċēap, m., bargain, purchase; 2415; ds.
(heardan) ċēape, 2482 (price).
(Mackie 1941: 95–6: ‘goods,’ i.e.
treasure; cf. Max I 81¯f.) [CHAP(man),
CHEAP; fr. Lat. caupo.]
(ġe-)ċēapian, vb. II, trade, purchase; pp.
ġeċēapod, 3012.
cearian, vb. II, CARE, be anxious; pres. 3
sg. cearað, 1536.
ċear-sīð ‡, m., expedition that brings
sorrow (CARE); dp. -um, 2396.
cearu, f., CARE, sorrow, grief, 1303; as.
care, [3171]. (On the necessity of as-
suming alternation between c- and ċ-,
see OEG §¯208 and esp. SB §¯108 n.¯4.)
— Cpds.: aldor-, gūð-, m®l-, mōd-.
ċear-wælm, -wylm, †, mi., (CARE-
WELLing), seething of sorrow; np.
-wylmas, 282; dp. -wælmum, 2066.
ċeaster-būend ‡, mc. (pres.ptc.) [pl.],
town-dweller, fortress-dweller; dp.
ċeastĺrbūendum, 768. [Lat. castra.]
•celæs ‡, [F. 29, see note].
cempa, wk.m., CHAMPION, warrior;
1312, 1551, 1585, 2078; vs. ~, 1761; ds.
cempan, 1948, 2044, 2502, 2626 [np.
~, F. 14]; ap. ~, 206. [camp; cf. MnE
champion, fr. OFr. (fr. late Lat.
campio).] See EStn. 68 (1934) 324–5;
D. Green 1998: 234. — Cpd.: fēþe-.
cēne, adj.ja. bold, brave; [dsm. (collect.)
(or dpm.) cēnum, F. 29]; gpm. cēnra,
768; supl. apm. cēnoste, 206.
(Schabram A. 74 [1956] 181–7; Bately
2003: 290.) [KEEN; NHG kühn.] —
Cpds.: d®d-, gār-.
cennan, vb. I, declare, show; imp. sg.
cen, 1219. (Head in Harbus & Poole
2005: 55–75.) [cunnan; Go. kannjan,
OIcel. kenna, NHG kennen.]
cennan, vb. I, bring forth, bear (child);
pret. 3 sg. cende, 943; pp. cenned, 12.
[Cf. cyn(n).] (On the two verbs
cennan, see BGdSL 43 [1918] 495–7.)
— Cpd.: ā-.
cēnðu ‡, f., boldness; as., 2696.
ċēol, m., ship; 1912; gs. -es, 1806; as.
ċēol, 38, 238. [OED: KEEL, sb.2; Thier
2002: 38–40; Cronan 2003: 397–8.]
ċeorl, m., man (orig. freeman); (snotor)
~, 908; ds. (gomelum) -e, 2444,
(ealdum) -e, 2972 (ref. to a king); np.
(snotere) -as, 202, 416, 1591. (Cronan
2003: 422.) [CHURL.]
ċēosan, ċīosan, vb. 2, CHOOSE, taste, try;
ċīosan, 2376; pret. sj. 3 sg. cure, 2818
(see Lorz 1908: 47, Kl. 1911–12: [44]).
ġe-ċēosan, vb. 2, CHOOSE; obtain; imp.
sg. ġeċēos, 1759; ger. ġeċēosenne,
1851; pret. 3 sg. ġeċēas, 1201, 2469,
2638; pp. apm. ġecorone, 206.
clam(m), clom(m), m., grasp, grip,
clasp; dp. clammum, 963, 1335,
clommum 1502.
clif, n., CLIFF; ap. -u, 1911. — Cpds.:
brim-, ecg-, holm-, stān-, weal-.
 GLOSSARY
ġe-cnāwan, vb. 7, recognize; 2047.
[KNOW.]
cniht-wesende (†), adj. (pres.ptc.), being
a boy or young man; as., 372; np.,
535. (So Bede 2.12.142.8, 3.1.188.1.
See Bäck 1934: 110–32; J. Burrow The
Ages of Man [Oxford, 1986] 124–5.)
cnyht, m., boy; dp. -um, 1219. (Bäck
1934: 110–32.) [KNIGHT.]
cnyssan, vb. I, dash against, strike; pret.
3 (1?) pl. cnysedan, 1328.
cōl, adj., COOL; comp. np. -ran, 282,
2066.
collen-ferhð †, adj., bold of spirit,
excited; 1806; collenferð, 2785.
(Schabram 1954: 87–92; Dunning &
Bliss 1969: 43–4; Henry 1981; Bately
2003: 285.)
con, const, see cunnan.
corðor †, n., troop, band, host; ds.
corþre 1153, corðre 3121. (N&Q 35
[1988] 292–5.)
costian, vb. II, w. gen., try, make trial of;
pret. 3 sg. costode, 2084. [ċēosan; cf.
OHG costōn, NHG kosten, Lat.
gustare.]
cræft, m. (f.?), (1) strength, power; 1283;
ds. -e, 982, 1219, 2181 (ability, n.),
2360; as. cræft, 418, 699, 2221, 2696.
— (2) skill, cunning, CRAFT, device;
ds. -e, 2219; dyrnum (-an) ~, 2168,
2290 (almost = adv. phrase, ‘sec-
retly’); dp. -um, 2088. (Kroetsch MP
26.4 [1929] 433–43; Szogs 1931: 79–
81; Mincoff 1933; Kellermann 1954:
173–9; Clemoes 1995: 78–9.) —
Cpds.: gūð-, leoðo-, mæġen-, nearo-,
wīġ-.
cræftiġ, adj., strong, powerful; 1466,
1962. — Cpds.: ēacen-, lagu-, wīġ-.
ġe-cranc, see ġe-cringan.
cringan †, vb. 3, fall (in battle), die;
pret. 3 pl. (on wæle) crungon, 1113; sj.
1 sg. (on wæl) crunge, 635. (Stolz-
mann 1953: 122–4.) [CRINGE (orig.
causative deriv.).]
ġe-cringan (†), vb. 3, fall (in battle), die;
pret. 3 sg. ġecranc (see Lang. §¯19.1),
1209; ġecrang, 1337, [F. 31]; ġecrong,
1568, 2505.
cuma, wk.m., COMer, visitor; 1806; np.
cuman, 244 (?, n.). — Cpds.: cwealm-,
wil-.
cuman, vb. 4, COME; (the pret. freq. w.
361
inf. [predicative, as in 2914¯f., or ¢nal,
as in 268; see M. Callaway The In-
¢nitive in AS (Washington, 1913) 89¯–
92, 132–40; Ogura 2002: 80–3]; used
w. adv. of motion: hēr 244, 376,
feorran 361, 430, 825, 1819, on weġ
1382, þonan 2359, from 2556, ūt 3106;
w. eft: 281, 1869; of morning, evening,
etc.: 569, 731; 1077, 2103, 2124; 1235,
2303; 1133; 2646; 2058) — inf., 244,
281, 1869; pres. 2 sg. cymest, 1382; 3
sg. cymeð, 2058; sj. 3 sg. cume, 23; 1
pl. cymen, 3106; pret. 1 sg. cwōm,
419, 2009, cōm 430; 3 sg. cwōm, 1162,
1235, 1338, 1774, 1888, 1973, 2073,
2124, 2188, 2303, 2404, 2556, 2669,
2914, cōm 569, 702, 710, 720, 825,
1077, 1133, 1279, 1506, 1600, 1623,
1644, 1802, 2103, 2359, 2944; 1 pl.
cwōmon, 268; 2 pl. ~, 239; 3 pl. ~,
324, cwōman 650, cōmon 1640; sj. 3
sg. cwōme 731, cōme 1597; pp. cumen
376, 2646, np. (feorran) cumene 361,
1819. (ES 54 [1973] 521–5.) — Cpds.:
be-, ofer-.
cumbol †, n., banner, standard; gs.
cumbles, 2505.
cunnan, prp., know; (1) w. acc. or
clause; pres. 1 sg. can, 1180; 2 sg.
const, 1377; 3 sg. can, 392, con 1739,
2062; 3 pl. cunnon, 162, 1355; sj. 2 sg.
cunne, 2070; pret. 1 sg. cūðe, 372; 3
sg. ~, 359, 2012, 3067; 3 pl. cūðon,
119, 180, 418, 1233. — (2) w. inf.:
know how to, be able to; pres. 3 sg.
con, 1746; 3 pl. cunnon, 50; pret. 3 sg.
cūþe, 90, 1445, 2372 (sj.?); 3 pl.
cūþon, 182. (ABzäG 5 [1973] 1–10.)
[CAN, CON; OIcel. kunna, NHG
können.]
cunnian, vb. II, w. gen. or acc., try, make
trial of, tempt, explore; 1426, 1444,
2045; pret. 3 sg. cunnode 1500; 2 pl.
cunnedon, 508.
cure, see ċēosan.
cūð, adj., known, well known; 705, 2178;
(undyrne) ~, 150, 410; (wīde) ~, 2135,
2923, [F. 25]; asf. cūþe, 1303, 1634;
npm. ~, 867; npf. ~, 1145; apm. ~,
1912. [cunnan; Go. kunþs, NHG
kund.] — Cpds.: un-, wīd-.
cūð-līċe, adv., openly, familiarly; comp.
-licor, 244.
cwealm, m., death, killing; as., 107,
362 GLOSSARY
3149. [cwelan.] — Cpds.: bealo-,
dēað-, gār-.
cwealm-bealu ‡, nwa., death-aggression
(-BALE), mortal attack; as., 1940.
(Mackie 1939: 524: nom.)
cwealm-cuma ‡, wk.m., murderous
visitor; as. -cuman, 792.
cweċċan, vb. I, shake, brandish; pret. 3
sg. cwehte, 235. [Cf. QUAKE, fr.
cwacian.]
cwellan, vb. I, kill; pret. 2 sg. cwealdest,
1334. [QUELL; cf. cwelan, cwalu;
NHG quälen.] — Cpd.: ā-.
cwēn, ¢., (1) wife (of a king); 62, 613,
923; as., 665. (2) QUEEN, lady; ns.,
623, 1153, 1932, 2016. (Stibbe 1935:
71–3; Strauss 1974: 110; Aevum 54
[1980] 265–70.) Cpd.: folc-.
cwēn-liċ ‡, adj., QUEENLY, ladylike;
1940. (Schü.Bd. 31¯f.; cf. Hoops:
‘womanly.’)
cweðan, vb. 5, speak, say; (1) abs.; pres.
3 sg. cwið, 2041. — (2) w. acc.; pret. 3
sg. (word) cwæð, 315, si. 2246, 2662.
— (3) w. subord. clause; (asyndetic:)
pret. 3 sg. cwæð, 199, 1810, 2939; [cf.
cweþ, F. 24]; (introd. by þæt:) ~, 92,
1894, 2158, 3 pl. cw®don, 3180.
[QUOTH; cf. be-QUEATH.] See ZfdA 46
(1902) 263–9; Goossens 1985. —
Cpds.: ā-, •on-.
ġe-cweðan, vb. 5, say; pret. 2 sg. ġe-
cw®de, 2664; 3 sg. ġecwæð, 857, 874,
987; agree (Kl. 1905–6: 453; cf. Go.
ga-qiþan, ga-qiss); 1 pl. ġecw®don,
535.
cwic(o), adj.u., living, alive; cwico,
3093; gsn. cwices, 2314; asm. cwicne,
792, 2785; npn. cwice, 98. [QUICK;
Bamm. GL 26 (1986) 259–63.]
cwīðan, vb. I, w. acc., bewail, lament,
mourn for; 2112, 3171.
cyme, mi., COMing; np., 257. — Cpd.:
eft-.
cymen, see cuman.
c©m-līċe †, adv., beautifully, splendidly,
nobly; comp. -licor, 38. (Juzi 1939:
71–2.) [Cf. OHG kūmig ‘in¢rm,’ NHG
kaum; (‘weak’ > ‘delicate, ¢ne.’) MnE
COMELY (see OED; Luick §¯397 n.¯2).]
cyn(n), nja., family, kind, breed, race,
people; cyn, 461; gs. cynnes, 701, 712,
735, 883, 1058, 1729, 2008, 2234,
2354, 2813; ds. cynne, 107, 810, 914,
1725, 2885; as. cyn, 421, 1093, 1690;
gp. cynna, 98. (Note: manna cynne[s],
701, 712, 735, 810, 914, 1725, si.
1058.) [KIN; Go. kuni.] — Cpds.:
eormen-, feorh-, fīfel-, frum-, gum-,
mon-, wyrm-; Hæð-cyn(n).
cyn(n), (adj. &) nja., proper procedure,
etiquette, courtesy; gp. cynna, 613.
See cyn(n) (above), ġe-cynde; cf.
cunnan.
ġe-cynde, adj.ja., innate, natural,
inherited; nsn., 2197, 2696. [KIND.]
cyne-dōm, m., royal power; as., 2376.
[cyn(n).]
cyning, m., KING; 11, 619 (kyning), 863,
920, 1010, 1153, 1306, 1870, 1885,
1925, 2110, 2191, 2209, 2390, 2417,
2702, 2980, [F. 2]; (just once w. gen.:
Ġēata) ~, 2356, (Hiorogār) ~, 2158,
(Hrēðel) ~, 2430; gs. cyninges, 867,
1210, 2912, cyniges 3121; ds. cyninge,
3093; as. cyning, 1851, 2396, 3171.
(Sprache 12 [1966] 186¯f.; Strauss
1974: 90–1; D. Green 1998: 130–40.)
[cyn(n).] — Cpds.: beorn-, eorð-,
folc-, gūð-, hēah-, lēod-, s®-, sōð-,
þēod-, worold-, wuldur-; Frēs-.
cyning-bald ‡, adj., ‘royally BOLD,’ very
brave; npm. -e, 1634 (n.). (Bately
2003: 289.)
kyning-wuldor ‡, n., the glory of KINGs
(= cyninga wuldor), i.e., the most
glorious of kings (God); 665. (See Kl.
1905–6: 454, id. 1911–12: [10]; T.
Gardner 1968: 75–6.)
ġe-ċ©pan (†), vb. I, buy; 2496. [ċēap.]
ġe-cyssan, vb. I, KISS; pret. 3 sg. ġecyste,
1870.
cyst, f.(m.)i., choice; the best (of its
class), w. gen. pl.: 802, 1232, 1559,
1697; as. ~, 673; good quality,
excellence, dp. -um, 867, 923. (Juzi
1939: 65–6; Guerrieri AION-SG 26
[1983] 7–27; Cronan 2003: 414.)
[ċēosan. Bamm. ZvS 81 (1967) 213–14;
Orel 2003: 226.] — Cpds.: gum-,
hilde-.
c©ðan, vb. I, make known, show; 1940,
2695; imp. sg. c©ð, 659; pp. ġec©þed,
700, (well known:) 923, w. dat., 262,
349. [cūð.]
ġe-c©ðan, vb. I, make known, announce;
354; ger. ġec©ðanne, 257; pp. ġec©ð-
ed, 1971, 2324. (See Lorz 1908: 48.)
 GLOSSARY
d®d, ¢., DEED, action, doing; as. d®d,
585, 940, 2890, d®de, 889; gp. d®da,
181, 479, 2454 (n.): 2646, 2838; dp.
d®dum, 954, 1227, 2059, 2178, 2436,
2467, 2666, 2710, 2858, 2902, 3096;
ap. d®da, 195. — Cpds.: ellen-, fyren-,
lof-, •wēa-.
d®d-cēne ‡, adj.ja., daring in DEEDs;
1645.
d®d-fruma †, wk.m., doer of (evil)
DEEDs; 2090.
d®d-hata ‡, wk.m., one who shows his
HATred by DEEDs, persecutor; 275.
(Cf. 2466¯f.)
dæġ, m., DAY; 485, 731, 2306, 2646; gs.
dæġes, 1495, 1600, 2320, adv.: by day,
1935, 2269; ds.: on þ®m dæġe (time)
þysses līfes, 197, 790, 806; as. dæġ,
2115, 2399, 2894, 3069 (dōmes dæġ);
gp. daga 2341; dp. dagum, 3159. —
Cpds.: ®r-, dēað-, ealdor-, ende-,
fyrn-, ġeār-, līf-, swylt-, win-dæġ; •fīf-,
t©n-dagas.
dæġ-hwīl ‡, f., DAY-WHILE, (space of a)
day; ap. -a, 2726.
dæġ-rīm †, n., number of DAYs; 823.
d®l, mi., part, portion, share, measure, a
(great) DEAL (e.g., oferhyġda d®l 1740
‘great arrogance’); 1740, 2843; as.,
621, 1150, 1752, 2028, 2068, 2245,
3127; ap. (worolde) d®las, regions,
1732 (cf. Lat. partes, Klaeber Archiv
126 [1911] 354; id. 1911–12: [49 n.¯2]).
[Go. dails, Dan., Swed. del, NHG
Teil.]
d®lan, vb. I, DEAL, distribute, dispense;
1970; pres. 3 sg. d®leþ, 1756; pret. 3
sg. d®lde, 80, 1686; share with (wið):
pres. sj. 3 sg. eofoðo d®le (‘¢ght’),
2534 (cf. Kock2 121: ‘try one’s
strength’). — Cpd.: be-.
ġe-d®lan, vb. I, distribute; 71; part,
sever (wið, from); 2422; pret. sj. 3 sg.
ġed®lde, 731.
•dagian¯(‡)¯+, vb. II, DAWn; [pres. 3 sg.
dagað, F. 3]. [dæġ; OED: DAW, v.1
(obs., Sc.)]
ġe-dāl, n., separation, parting; 3068.
[Cf. d®l.] — Cpds.: ealdor-, līf-.
daroð †, m., javelin; dp. dareðum, 2848.
(See Shetelig & Falk 1937: 388;
Swanton 1973, 1974; Underwood
1999: 23–6.) [DART, fr. OFr. (fr.
German).]
363
dēad, adj., DEAD; 467, 1323, 2372; asm.
-ne, 1309.
ġe-dēaf, see ġe-dūfan.
*dēagan ‡, vb. 7, conceal (be con-
cealed?); pret. 3 sg. dēog, 850 (n.).
[See dēogol.]
dēah, see dugan.
deal(l) †, adj., proud, famous; npm.
dealle, 494.
dear, dearst, see durran.
dēað, m., DEATH; 441, 447, 488, 1491,
1768, 2119, 2236, 2728, 2890; gs. -es,
2269, 2454; ds. -e, 1388, 1589, 2843,
3045; as. dēað, 2168; dēoð (Lang.
§¯16.2), 1278. — Cpds.: gūð-, wæl-,
wundor-.
dēað-bed(d) ‡, nja., DEATH-BED; ds.
-bedde, 2901. (See Kl. 1911–12: [41].)
dēað-cwalu †, f., DEATH, destruction;
dp. -cwalum, 1712. [cwelan.]
dēað-cwealm ‡, m., DEATH, slaughter;
as., 1670. [cwelan.]
dēað-dæġ (†), m., DEATH-DAY; ds. -e,
187, 885.
dēað-f®ġe ‡, adj.ja., doomed to DEATH;
850.
dēað-scua (†), wk.m., DEATH-shadow;
160 (n.). (OEG §¯236.1 n.¯4: -scūa (?);
so Sed., Wn., Ja., et al.; but the meter
requires a short vowel at PPs 56.1.3,
79.10.1, 87.6.2, etc.)
dēað-wēriġ ‡, adj., (DEATH-WEARY),
dead; asm. -ne , 2125.
dēað-wīċ, n., DEATH-place; as. (p.?),
1275.
ġe-dēfe, adj.(i.)ja., ¢tting, seemly,
proper, just; swā hit ~ wæs, 561, 1670,
si. 3174; nsm., 1227 (Kl.: gentle,
kind). [Go. gadōfs.] — Cpd.: (adv.)
un-.
dēman, vb. I, judge; — (1) adjudge,
assign; pres. sj. 3 sg. dēme, 687. (2)
express a (¯favorable) opinion, ap-
praise, praise; pret. 3 pl. dēmdon,
3174. [DEEM. OIcel dœma, Dan.
dømme, Swed. dömma.]
dēmend, mc. (pres.ptc.) judge; as.
dēmend, 181.
den(n), nja., DEN, lair; gs. dennes, 3045;
as. denn, 2759.
dēofol, m.n., DEVIL, demon; gs. dēoÏes,
2088; gp. dēoÏa, 756, 1680. (Feldman
NM 88 [1987] 163–5.) [Fr. Lat. (Gk.)
diabolus.]
364 GLOSSARY
dēog, see dēagan.
dēogol, adj., secret, hidden, mysterious;
275; asn. d©ġel, 1357. [Sprach-
wissenschaft 25 (2000) 201–27; Lang.
§¯16.2.]
dēop, adj., DEEP; asn., 509, 1904; used ad-
verbially (deep inside): nsm. 2549 (n.).
dēope, adv., DEEPly, profoundly, solemn-
ly; dīope, 3069.
dēor (†), adj., brave, bold, ¢erce; 1933;
dīor, 2090. (Schabram 1954: 46–56;
Bately 2003: 289.) [OED: DEAR
(DERE), a.2 (obs.); Breeze 1997: fr.
Welsh, but cf. Orel 2003: 71.] —
Cpds.: heaðo-, hilde-.
deorc, adj., DARK; 160, 1790; dpf. -um,
275, 2211.
dēore, adj.ja., DEAR, precious, excellent,
beloved; nsf. (wk.?) dīore, 1949; gsf.
dēorre, 488; dsm. dēorum, 1528, 1879;
dsn.wk. dēoran, 561; asn. dēore 2254,
d©re 2050, 2306; npn. d©re 3048; apm.
dēore 2236, d©re 3131. — Supl. asm.
dēorestan, 1309.
dēor-liċ ‡, adj., bold; asf. -e, 585.
[Bamm. Sprachwissenschaft 27 (2002)
25–9.]
•dēor-mōd¯†, adj., bold, brave; [F. 23].
dēoð, see dēað.
dēð, see dōn.
ġe-dīġan, vb. I, pass through safely,
survive, endure; 2291; ġed©ġan, 2531,
2549 (n.); pres. 2 sg. (aldre) ġedīġest,
661; 3 sg. ġedīġeð, 300; pret. 1 sg.
(fēore) ġedīġde, 578, (ealdre) ~, 1655;
3 sg. ~, 2350, 2543.
dīope, see dēope.
dīor, see dēor.
dīore, see dēore.
disc (‡) +, m., DISH, plate; np. -as, 3048;
ap. ~, 2775. [Fr. Lat. (Gk.) discus.]
dōgor, n. (SB §§¯288¯f., OEG §¯636), day;
gs. dōgľres, 219, 605; d.(i.)s. dōgor,
1395, 1797, dōgľre 2573; gp. dōgora
88, dōgera 823, dōgra 1090; dp.
(ufaran) dōgrum, 2200, 2392. [Cf.
dæġ; Ling. Inquiry 4 (1973) 246–51.]
— Cpd.: ende-.
dōgor-ġerīm †, n., number of days; gs.
-es, 2728. Cf. dæġ-rīm.
dohte(st), see dugan.
dohtor, fc., DAUGHTER; 1076, 1929,
1981, 2020 (dohtľr), 2174; as. ~, 375,
2997.
dol-ġilp ‡, n.(m.), foolish boasting, fool-
hardiness; ds. -e, 509. See dol-liċ.
dol-liċ, adj., audacious, daring, fool-
hardy; gpf. -ra, 2646. (See Green¢eld
1985: 400; cf. Eliason 1953: 454–5;
Frank 1986: 153; Robinson ANQ 6
[1993] 11–13; Orchard 2003: 262.) [Cf.
DULL; NHG toll.]
dol-scaða ‡, wk.m., mad ravager, des-
perate foe; as. -scaðan, 479 (n.). See
dol-liċ.
dōm, m., (1) DOOM, judgment, decree,
authority; 2858; gs. -es, 978, 3069 (~
dæġ); ds. -e, 441, 1098; as. dōm, 2964;
discretion, choice; ds. (selfes) dōme,
895, 2776; as. (sylfes) dōm, 2147. —
(2) glory; 885, [954], 1528; gs. -es,
1388; ds. -e, 1470, 1645, 1720 (n.),
2179; as. dōm, 1491, 2666, 2820. (See
Grønbech 1909–12: 3.167; Robinson
1985: 52–3; Stanley 1993: 171–4; D.
Green 1998: 44–5; Bately 2003: 279–
80; Cavill 2004: 20–2.) — Cpds.:
cyne-, wīs-.
dōm-lēas †, adj., inglorious; asf.wk. -an,
2890.
dōn, anv., (1) absol.: DO, act; pres. 3 pl.
dōð, 1231. — (2) [cf. Gk. τίθημι]
place, put (w. adv. or prep. phrase);
inf. dôn, 1116; pret. 3 sg. dyde, 671,
1144, 2809; 3 pl. dydon, 3070, 3163.
— (3) do (repres. a preceding verb);
inf. (swā sceal man) dôn, 1172, 1534,
si. 2166; pres. 3 sg. (swā hē nū ġīt)
dêð, 1058, si. 1134, si. 2859, dēð 2470;
pret. 1 sg. dyde, 1381, 1824, 2521; 2
sg. dydest, 1676; 3 sg. dyde, 444, 956,
1891; 3 pl. dydon, 44, 1238, 1828. —
(4) make (much, nothing) of, consider;
pret. 3 sg. dyde, 2348. [A. 57 (1933)
377–95, 51.43–54; Krämer in Fest-
schrift für Otto HöÏer, ed. H. Birkhan
& O. Gschwantler (Vienna, 1968) 315–
26; IF 98 (1993) 241–51.]
ġe-dōn, anv., (1) make, render; 2186
(n.); pres. 3 sg. ġedēð, 1732. — (2)
place, put; inf., 2090.
dorste, see durran.
draca, wk.m., DRAGON; 892, 2211, [F.
3]; gs. dracan, 2088, 2290, 2549; as. ~,
2402, 3131. (Ogura JEL 21 [1988] 99–
124; D. Green 1998: 234; in place-
names: Whitelock 1951: 73–4.) [Fr.
Lat. draco; OED: DRAKE1; dragon fr.
 GLOSSARY
OFr., fr. Lat.] — Cpds.: eorð-, f©r-,
līġ-, nīð-, s®-. — See wyrm.
ġe-dr®ġ (ġe-drēag) †, n., (noisy) host,
company, tumult; as., 756. [Cf. Go.
driugan ‘serve as a soldier’ = OE
drēogan. See Bamm. ZvS 88 (1974)
139–46, NM 94 (1993) 243–8 (cf. ibid.
93 [1992] 87–91); cf. Tr. Angl. 33
(1910) 279. Lang. §¯7.2. Kl.: ġedr»ġ
(cf. dragan).]
drēam, m. delight, gladness, rejoicing,
festivity; 497; ds. -e, 1275; as. drēam,
88; gp. -a, 850; dp. -um, 99, 721.
(PMLA 46 [1931] 80–9; RES o.s. 25
[1949] 193–209; E. Dick in Festschrift
für Karl Schneider, ed. id. [Amster-
dam, 1982] 121–35; Karasawa Neophil.
87 [2003] 307–22, w. refs. at 319 n.¯1.)
[See OED: DREAM, sb.1,2; Bamm.
1979: 41.] — Cpds.: glēo-, gum-,
medu-, mon-, sele-.
drēam-healdende ‡, adj. (pres.ptc.),
(joy-HOLDing), with power over glad-
ness, hence (as subst.) benefactor;
1227. (Kl.: ‘joyful, blessed’; id. 1905–
6: 262.)
drēam-lēas †, adj., joyLESS; 1720.
drēfan, vb. I, stir up, make turbid; 1904;
pp. (of ġedrēfan?) ġedrēfed, 1417.
drēogan, vb. 2, (1) act, bear oneself;
pret. 3 sg. drēah, 2179. — (2) perform,
be engaged in (sometimes in peri-
phrasis for plain verb); inf., 1470; pret.
3 sg. (sundnytte) drēah (‘swam’),
2360; 3 pl. drugon, 1858, (ġewin) ~
(‘fought’), 798, (sīð) ~ (‘journeyed’),
1966. — (3) experience, pass through;
pp. ġedrogen, 2726; enjoy, imp. sg.
drēoh, 1782; endure, suffer; inf., 589;
pret. 1 sg. drēah, 422; 3 sg. ~, 131; 3
pl. drugon, 15, 831. (Crozier Afnf. 101
[1986] 127–48, ES 68 [1987] 297–
304.) [DREE (Sc., arch.).] — Cpd.: ā-.
drēor (†), m. or n., dripping blood; ds.
-e, 447. (Kühlwein 1968: 69–72.) [drēo-
san.] — Cpds.: heoro-, sāwul-, wæl-.
drēor-fāh ‡, adj., stained with gore; 485.
drēoriġ, adj., † blood-stained, gory;
1417; asm. drīoriġne, 2789. (SN 44
[1972] 278–88; NM 74 [1973] 232–7:
‘ill-fated.’) [DREARY.] — Cpd.:
heoro-.
ġe-drēosan (†), vb. 2, fall, decline;
2666; pres. 3 sg. ġedrēoseð, 1754.
365
drepan, vb. 5, (vb. 4), strike, hit; pret. 1
sg. drep, 2880; pp. drepen 1745,
dropen 2981. [OIcel. drepa, cf. NHG
treffen.]
drepe †, mi., blow; as., 1589.
drīfan, vb. 1, DRIVE; 1130; pres. 3 pl.
drīfað, 2808. — Cpd.: tō-.
(ġe-)driht-, see (ġe-)dryht-.
drihten, see dryhten.
drincan, vb. 3, DRINK; abs.; pret. 3 pl.
druncon, 1648; w. acc.: pret. 3 sg.
dranc, 742; 3 pl. druncon, 1233; — pp.
druncen, inebriated, drunken (or
having drunk, i.e. having pledged
loyalty?); abs.: npm. druncne, 1231
(n.); apm. ~, 2179; w. dat. (instr.):
druncen, 531 (n.), 1467; npm. druncne,
480. — Cpd.: ealo-drincend(e).
drinċ-fæt, see drynċ-fæt.
drīoriġ, see drēoriġ.
drohtoð, m., way of life, course; 756.
[drēogan.]
dropen, see drepan.
drūsian †, vb. II, stagnate, subside; pret.
3 sg. drūsade, 1630. (See Siev. ZfdPh.
21 [1889] 365.) [DROWSE, cf. OHG
trūrēn; OE drēosan.]
ġe-dryht, -driht, †, ¢., troop, band of
retainers, (w. preceding gen. pl.); ġe-
dryht, 431; as. ġedryht, 662, 1672;
ġedriht, 118, 357, 633. (MLR 63 [1968]
392–406; SN 45 [1973] 20–31; D.
Green 1998: 106–12.) [drēogan; Go.
ga-draúhts. H. Kuhn 1969–78 (1956):
2.437–9; Enright 1996: 71–4, w. refs.]
— Cpd.: sibbe-.
dryht-bearn ‡, n., son (lit., scion) in a
troop; 2035 (n.). (Kl.: ‘noble child.’)
dryhten, m., (1) lord (retainers’ chief¯),
prince (mostly w. gen. pl.: Ġēata [8×],
etc.); 1484, 2186, 2338, 2402, 2560,
2576, 2901, 2991, drihten 1050; ds.
dryhtne, 2483, 2753; as. dryhten, 1831,
2789; vs. ~, 1824, 2000 (~ Hiġelāc).
— (2) Lord (God); ns. dryhten, 686,
696; drihten, 108, 1554, 1841; gs.
dryhtnes 441, drihtnes 940; ds. (ēċean)
dryhtne, 1692, 1779, 2330, 2796;
drihtne, 1398; as. drihten, 181 (~ God),
187. (Ehrismann Zs. f. deutsche Wort-
forschung 7 [1905–6] 189¯f.; Stibbe
1935: 11–24; Gneuss 1955: 51; D.
Green 1965: 276–8, 1998: 106–12;
Meid Sprache 12 [1966] 187–9;
366 GLOSSARY
Strauss 1974: 87–90; Robinson 1985:
38.) — Cpds.: frēa-, frēo-, gum-,
mon-, siġe-, wine-.
•dryht-ġesīð¯‡, m., retainer, comrade;
[gp. drihtġesīða, F. 42].
dryht-guma, wk.m., †retainer, warrior,
man; ds. drihtguman, 1388; vs. dryht-
guma, 1768; np. drihtguman 99, dryht-
guman 1231; dp. dryhtgumum, 1790.
dryht-liċ (†), adj., noble, lordly, splen-
did; nsn., 892; asn.wk. drihtliċe, 1158;
[npm. ~, F. 14]. (In prose, the meaning
is ‘of Christ.’)
dryht-māððum ‡, m., noble treasure,
splendid jewel; gp. dryhtmāðma,
2843.
dryht-scype †, mi., valor, bravery; as.
driht-, 1470.
dryht-sele ‡, mi., splendid hall (orig.
retainers’ hall); 767; drihtsele, 485;
as. dryhtsele, 2320.
dryht-sib(b) ‡, fjō., peace, alliance; gs.
dryhtsibbe, 2068.
drynċ-fæt (‡) +, n., DRINKing-vessel,
cup; as., 2254, drinċfæt 2306. [VAT;
see hioro-drynċ.]
ġe-dūfan, vb. 2, plunge in, sink in; pret.
3 sg. ġedēaf, 2700. [DIVE fr. deriv.
d©fan.] — Cpd.: þurh-dūfan.
dugan, prp., avail, do well, be good, be
strong; pres. 3 sg. dēah, 369, 573,
1839 (n.); sj. 3 sg. duge, 589, 1660,
2031; pret. sj. 2 sg. dohte, 526; — w.
dat., deal well by, treat well; pret. 2
sg. dohtest, 1821; 3 sg. dohte, 1344.
[OIcel. duga, Dan. due, Swed. duga,
OHG tugan.]
duguð, f. (orig. ¢.), (1) body of (noble or
tried) retainers, host; 498, 1790, 2254;
gs. duguðe, 359, 488, 2238, 2658;
duguþe (ond ġeogoþe): 160, 621, 1674;
ds. duguðe, 2020 (‘old retainers’),
dugoðe, 2920, 2945; np. duguða, 2035
(?, n.); dp. dugeðum, 2501 (n.). — (2)
power, excellence, glory; gp. duguða,
2035 (?, n.); dp. (semi-adv.) duguðum,
3174 (‘praised highly’; cf. Mal. 1933b:
151). (Whitelock 1951: 89–90.) [dugan;
cf. NHG Tugend.]
*durran, prp., DARE (in neg., condit., &
rel. clauses); pres. 2 sg. dearst, 527; 3
sg. dear, 684; sj. 2 sg. dyrre, 1379;
pret. 3 sg. dorste, 1462, 1468, 1933,
2735; 3 pl. dorston, 2848.
duru, fu., DOOR; 721; ds. dura, [F. 14];
as. duru, [F. 23]; dp. durum [(sg.
meaning), F. 16, 20]; ap. duru, [F. 42].
[OE duru & dor > DOOR. Griepentrog
1995: 117–52.]
dwellan, vb. I, mislead, hinder, stand in
one’s way; pres. 3 sg. dweleð, 1735.
[DWELL.]
dyde, dydon, see dōn.
ġe-d©ġan, see ġe-dīġan.
d©ġel, see dēogol.
dyhtiġ †, adj., strong, good; dyhttiġ, 1287.
(Lang. §¯20.4.) [dugan; DOUGHTY, fr.
dohtiġ.]
dynnan, vb. I, resound; pret. 3 sg.
dynede, 767, 1317, 2558, [F. 30].
[DIN.]
d©re, see dēore.
dyrne, adj.ja., secret, hidden; mysteri-
ous, (hence evil?); 271, 1879; dsm.
dyrnum, 2168; dsm.wk.(?) dyrnan,
2290; asm. dyrnne, 2320; gpm. dyrnra,
1357. — Cpd.: un-.
dyrre, see durran.
dyrstiġ (‡) +, adj., DARing, bold; 2838.
[durran.]
ēac, adv., conj. (postpos.), also, more-
over; 97, 388, 433, 1683, 2776; ēc,
3131; [and ēac, F. 45]. [EKE (arch.);
NHG auch; cf. EKE (out).]
ēacen, adj. (pp.), †immense, vast; asn.,
1663; npm. ēacne, 1621; dpf. ēacnum,
2140; †great, prodigious; nsm., 198
(Tolkien in Cl.Hall tr. x¯f.: ‘enlarged’;
Moore ELN 13.3 [1976] 161–5¯: ‘en-
dowed w. supernatural strength’). [Cf.
Go. aukan; see ēac.]
ēacen-cræftiġ ‡, adj., exceedingly pow-
erful, huge; nsn., 3051; asn., 2280.
ēadiġ, adj., prosperous, fortunate,
blessed; 1225, 2470. (Gneuss 1955: 61;
Smithers 1970: 67, 72.) [Go. audags,
OIcel. auðugr; ZvS 82 (1968) 290–2.]
— Cpds.: siġe-, sigor-, tīr-.
ēadiġ-līċe, adv., happily; 100.
eafor-, see eofor-.
eafora, eafera, (†), wk.m., offspring,
son, descendant; eafera, 12, 19, 897;
eafora, 375, 2358, 2992; gs. eaforan,
2451; as. eaferan, 1068 (n.) 1547,
1847; np. ~, 2475 (?); dp. ~, 1185,
eaferum 2470; eaforum, 1710 (n.).
(Bäck 1934: 67–71.)
 GLOSSARY
eafoð †, n., strength, power; eafoð (ond
ellen), 902; gs. eafoþes, 1466, 1763;
as. eafoð (ond ellen), 602, 2349;
eafoð, 960; dp. eafeþum, 1717; ap.
eafeþo, 534 (n.); eofoðo, 2534. (Min-
coff 1933: 103–6, 153–6; Clemoes
1995: 69–73.) [Cf. OIcel. aÏ, GenB:
abal.]
ēaġe, wk.n., EYE; gp. ēagena, 1766; dp.
ēagum, 726, 1781, 1935. (See Appx.C
§¯4.)
ēagor-strēam †, m., sea-STREAM, sea;
as., 513. [On ēagor, see SB §¯289.2 &
n.¯4, OEG §¯636; BGdSL 31 (1906) 88
n.; EGS 5 (1952–3) 50–7; MS 37
(1975) 419–32. Cf. ēġ-strēam.]
eahta, num., EIGHT; g., 3123; a., 1035.
eahtian, vb. II, consider, deliberate
(about something); pret. 3 pl. eahted-
on, 172; — ‡watch over, rule (?); pret.
3 sg. eahtode, 1407 (n.); — esteem,
praise; pres. 3 pl. ehtiġað, 1222; pret.
3 pl. eahtodan, 3173; pp. ġeæhted,
1885. [OHG ahtōn, NHG achten.]
eal(l), adj. & subst., ALL; nsm. eal, 1424;
nsf. eal, 1738, 1790, [F. 36], eall 2087,
2885; nsn. eal, 835, 848, 998, 1567
(or: adv.), 1593, 1608, eall 651, 2149,
2461, 2727, 3030; gsn. ealles, 1955,
2162, 2739, 2794; dsn. eallum, 913;
asm. ealne, 1222, 2297, 2691; asf.
ealle, 830, 1796 (or pl.?); asn. eal, 523,
744, 1086, 1155, 1185, 1701, 1705 (n.),
[F. 22], eall 71, 2005, 2017, 2042,
2080, 2427, 2663, 3087, 3094; isn.
ealle, 2667; npm. ealle, 111, 699, 705,
941, 1699; npn. eal, 486, 1620; gpm.
ealra, [F. 32], ~ twelfe (‘twelve in all,’
MLN 16 [1901] 17), 3170; gpn. ealra,
1727 (see Lang. §¯26.9); gpf. ealra
(þrītiġ: ‘thirty in all’), 2361; dpm.
eallum, 145, 767, 823, 906, 1057,
1417, 2268; apm. ealle, 649, 1080,
1122, 1717, 2236, 2814, 2899. —
eal(l), adv. entirely, quite, very; eal,
77, 680 (þēah . . . eal, cf. ALTHOUGH),
869, 883, 1111, 1230, 1705¯(?), 1708;
eall, 2241, 2338, 2767, 3164. (In a few
other instances eall, adj., approaches
adverbial function.) ealles (gsn.) adv.,
in every respect, 1000. — [Go. alls.]
— Cpd.: n(e)alles.
eald, adj., OLD; (1) of living beings:
nsm., 357, 945(?), 1702, 2042, 2210,
367
2271, 2415, 2449, 2929, 2957; gsm.
ealdes, 2760; dsm. ealdum, 1874,
2972; dpm. ealdum, 72. — (2) of
material things (time-honored): nsm.,
2763; asn., 2774; asf. ealde, 795, 1488,
1688; apm. ealde, 472. — (3)
continued from the past, long-
standing: asn. 1781; asf. ealde, 1865;
asn.wk ealde, 2330. — See gamol,
frōd. — Comp. yldra, ELDER, OLDER;
468, 1324, 2378. — Supl. yldesta,
ELDEST, OLDEST; dsm. yldestan, 2435;
(se) yldesta, chief; 258 (n.); asm.
yldestan, 363.
ealder-, see ealdor-dagas.
eald-fæder (‡) +, mc., late FATHER,
ancestor; 373. (Cf. OS aldfader ‘patri-
arch’; BT[S] s.v.; Hoops St. 23 [=¯NHG
Altvater]; si. Schü. EStn. 55 [1921]
89–92; NM 78 [1977] 234. Cf. Maldon
218: mīn ealda fæder ‘my grand-
father.’) Cf. ®r-fæder.
eald-ġeseġen ‡, f., OLD tradition (SAGA);
gp. -a, 869.
eald-ġesīð †, m., OLD associate or re-
tainer; np. -as, 853.
eald-ġestrēon, n., ancient treasure; gp.
-a, 1458; dp. -um, 1381.
eald-ġewinna ‡, wk.m., OLD adversary
(‘hostis antiquus,’ see Kl. 1911–12:
[19–20]); 1776.
eald-ġewyrht †, ni., desert for former
deeds; np., 2657. (Cf. Sed.: ‘tradi-
tional fairness’ [si. E.tr.]; MR: ‘former
deeds’ [?].)
eald-hlāford, m., OLD (perh. ‘dear’ or
‘rightful’) lord; gs. -es, 2778 (i.e.
Bēowulf).
eald-metod ‡, m., God of OLD; 945. (See
Kl. 1911–12: [9]; Robinson 1985: 50.)
ealdor, aldor, m., chief, lord, prince;
aldor 56, 369, 392, ealdor 1644, 2920;
ds. aldre 346, ealdre 592; as. aldor
668, ealdor 1848. (Stibbe 1935: 59–63;
Strauss 1974: 93.) [Cf. ALDERman.]
ealdor, aldor, (†), n., life; gs. aldres 822,
1002, 1565, ealdres 1338, 2061, 2443,
2790; ds. aldre 661, 680, 1434 (vitals),
1447, 1469, 1478, 1524, ealdre 1442,
1655, 2133, [2228], 2396, 2481, 2599,
2624, 2825, 2924; on aldre (ever),
1779; tō aldre, for ever, always, all the
time, 2005, 2498, āwa ~, 955; as.
aldor, 1371; dp. aldrum, 510, 538.
368 GLOSSARY
(e)aldor-bealu †, nwa., injury to life,
death; as. aldľr-, 1676.
(e)aldor-cearu ‡, f., life-CARE, great
sorrow; ds. aldľrċeare, 906. (See
Appx.C §¯4.)
(e)aldor-dagas (†), m.p. (sg.: -dæġ),
DAYS of life; dp. aldľrdagum 718,
ealdĺr-, 757.
(e)aldor-ġedāl †, n., separation from
life, death; aldľr-, 805. [Cf. d®lan;
līf-ġedāl.]
ealdor-ġewinna †, wk.m., life-enemy,
deadly enemy; ealdľr-, 2903.
(e)aldor-lēas (‡) +, adj., ‡lord-LESS,
lacking a king; npm. aldorlēase, 15.
ealdor-lēas ‡, adj., lifeLESS, dead; asm.
aldorlēasne 1587, ealdor-, 3003.
(e)aldor-þeġn (†), m., chief THEGN; as.
aldor-, 1308.
eald-sweord ‡, n., ancient SWORD; as.
ealdsweord (eotenisc), 1558, 2616,
2979, (si.) 1663.
ealgian, vb. II, protect, defend; (feorh)
~, 796, 2655, 2668; pret. 3 sg. ealgode,
1204. [Cf. ealh ‘temple’; Lat. arcere.]
ealo-, ealu-benċ ‡, ¢., ALE-BENCH; ds.
ealobenċe, 1029; ealubenċe, 2867. See
benċ. [ealu: R.-L.2 2.534.]
ealo-drincend(e) ‡, mc. (pres.ptc.) [pl.],
ALE-DRINKer; np. ealodrincende, 1945.
ēa-lond, n., water-LAND, ‡seaboard; as.,
2334 (n.). [ISLAND.]
ealo-, ealu-w®ġe, ‡, nja., ALE-cup, -can;
as. ealow®ġe 481, 495, ealuw®ġe 2021.
ealu-scerwen ‡, fjō., (dispensing of ALE
[bitter drink], i.e.) distress, terror; 769
(n.). Cf. meoduscerwen, And 1526.
ēam, m., (maternal) uncle; ¼m, 881; ds.
ēame, 1117. (NM 78 [1977] 235–6;
Neophil. 78 [1994] 633–43; D. Green
1998: 54–5.) [EME (obs., dial.); NHG
Oheim; ZfdA 69 (1932) 46–8; Holt.Et.]
eard, m., land, estate, region, residence,
home; 2198; ds. earde, 56, 2654, 2736;
as. eard, 104, 1129, 1377, 1500, 1727,
2493; np. (sg. meaning) eardas, 1621.
eardian, vb. II, (1) dwell, remain; pret. 3
pl. eardodon, 3050. (2) inhabit; inf.
eardian, 2589; pret. 3 sg. eardode, 166.
eard-lufu (-lufe) ‡, (wk.)f., (home-
LOVE), dear home; as. eardlufan, 692.
earfoð-līċe, adv., with diÌculty, pain-
fully, sorrowfully; 1636, 1657, 2822,
2934; with torture, impatiently, 86,
2303. (Grinda 1975: 231–3; Ingersoll
1978: 218–19.) [earfoþe ‘hardship.’]
earfoð-þrāg ‡, f., (time of tribulation),
distress; as. -e, 283. [earfoþe.]
earg, adj., cowardly, spiritless; gsm. -es,
2541. [NHG arg. See IF 41 (1923) 20–
1, 25–7.]
earm, m., ARM; ds. -e, 2361; as. earm,
749, 835, 972; dp. -um, 513.
earm, adj., wretched, distressed, forlorn;
2368; dsf. -re, 2938. — Comp. asm.
-ran, 577. [Go. arms, OIcel. armr,
Dan., Swed. arm, OHG, NHG arm.
See IF 41 (1923) 305–9, 316–25; Beck
& Strunk 1973.]
earm-bēag (‡) +, m., ARM-ring, brace-
let; gp. -a, 2763.
earm-rēad (-hrēad) ‡, f., ARM-ornament;
np. -e, 1194. [hrēodan; Lang. §¯20.2.]
earm-liċ, adj., miserable, pitiable; 807.
earm-sceapen, adj. (pp.), wretched,
miserable; 1351, 2228. (Stanley 2001:
85–6.)
earn, m., eagle; ds. -e, 3026. See Earna
Næs, 3031. [ERNE; OIcel. ∂rn, Dan.,
Swed., örn; cf. NHG Aar.]
eart, see eom.
ēastan, adv., from the EAST; 569, [F. 3].
eatol, see atol.
ēaðe (properly ēðe, ©ðe), adj.ja., easy,
pleasant; nsm. ēðe, 2586; nsn. ©ðe,
1002, 2415; npf. ēaðe, 228. [EATH
(Sc.); cf. OS ôði. The ēa-form perh.
due to the inÏuence of the adv.] (Cf.
©ðe-līċe.)
ēaðe, adv., easily; ēaþe mæġ (Kl. 1911–
12: [6]), 478, 2291, 2764; [ēðe], 2216.
[The last form perh. due to the inÏu-
ence of the adj.; cf. confusion of ēað-
and ēþ- in cpds.]
ēað-fynde †, adj.ja., easy to FIND; 138
(implying ‘a great number,’ ‘all’).
(ġe-)ēawan, see (ġe-)©wan.
eaxl, f., shoulder; ds. -e, 816, 1537, 1547;
as. ~, 835, 972, 1117 (or dat.?); dp.
-um, 358, 2853. [Cf. AXLE; OIcel. ∂xl,
NHG Achsel.]
eaxl-ġestealla (†), wk.m., shoulder-
companion, fellow, associate; 1326;
ap. -ġesteallan, 1714. (Brady 1983:
223–4.)
ēc, see ēac.
ēċe, adj.ja., eternal, enduring, lasting;
ēċe (drihten), 108; nsn. (or m.), 2719;
 GLOSSARY
dsm. ēċum (dryhtne), 2796; dsm.wk.
ēċean (~), 1692, 1779, 2330; asm. ēċne
(r®d), 1201; apm. ēċe (r®das), 1760.
(Kellermann 1954: 185–8; Robinson
1985: 51: ‘long-lasting’; cf. J.M. Hill
1995: 52.) [Cf. Go. ajuk-dūþs; SB
§¯129 n.¯3, OEG §¯237.1(c); Bamm.
1979: 12; Orel 2003: 11.]
ecg, fjō, EDGE, sword; 1106, 1459, 1524,
1575, 1763, 2506, 2508, 2577, 2772,
2778; ds. ecge, 2876; as. ~, 1549; np.
ecga 2828, ecge 1145, 2683; gp. ecga,
483, 805, 1168; dp. ecgum, 1287, 1558,
1772, 2140, 2485, 2564, 2614, 2939,
2961; ap. ecge, 1812. (P. Grimm 1912:
33–7.) — Cpds.: brūn-, heard-, st©l-.
ecg-bana ‡, wk.m., slayer with the
sword; ds. -banan, 1262.
ecg-clif ‡, n., sea-CLIFF (= ēġ-clif: EStn.
27 [1900] 223¯f.), or CLIFF with an
EDGE or brink (BTS), steep cliff
(Hoops St. 136¯f.); as., 2893.
ecg-hete †, mi., sword-HATE, hostility,
war; 84, 1738.
ecg-þracu ‡, f., sword-storm, ¢ght; as.
-þræce, 596.
ēd(e)r, see ®d(e)r.
ed-hwyrft, mi., return, change, reversal
(of fortune); 1281. [hweorfan.]
ed-wenden †, fjō., turning back, rever-
sal, change (of fortune); 280, 1774,
2188. (Shippey 1972: 38–9.)
ed-wīt-līf ‡, n., LIFE of disgrace; 2891.
efn, in on efn, prep. phrase, w. preced-
ing dat., (EVEN with), beside; 2903.
[ANENT; NHG neben.]
efnan, see æfnan.
efne, adv., EVEN, just; efne (swā), 943,
1092, 1223, 1283, 1571, 3057; efne
(swylċ), 1249.
efstan, vb. I, rush, hurry (intr.), waste no
time; 3101; pret. 3 sg. efste, 1493. [ofost.]
eft, adv., AFTerward, back, again; in
turn, on the other hand; 22, 56, 123,
135, 281, 296, 603, 692, 853, 871,
1146, 1160, 1377, 1529, 1541, 1556,
1596, 1753, 1804, 1869, 2111, 2117,
2142, 2200, 2319, 2365, 2368, 2387,
2592, 2654, 2790, 2941, 2956, 3044;
eft swā ®r, 642, 1787; eft sōna
(EFTSOON[s]), 1762. [Cf. æfter.]
eft-cyme †, mi., return; gs. eftcymes,
2896. [cuman.]
eft-sīð ‡, m., going (or coming) back,
369
return; gs. -es, 2783; as. -sīð, 1891; ap.
-as tēah, returned, 1332.
eġesa, wk.m., terror, fear, horror; 784;
gs. eġesan, 1757; ds. ~ (Schü.Bd. 35:
terribly, greatly? cf. Hoops St. 133¯f.),
1827, 2736; as. ~, 3154; þurh eġsan, in
a terrible manner (Kl. 1905–6: 451),
276. [eġe, cf. AWE.] — Cpds.: glēd-,
līġ-, wæter-.
eġes-ful(l), adj., terrible; -full, 2929.
eġes-liċ, adj., terrible; nsm., 2309, 2825;
nsn., 1649.
eġle, adj.ja. (SB §¯303 n. 2, OEG §¯655),
hideous, horrible; nsf. eġl’, 987 (n.:
npn.?). [Cf. AIL, vb.]
eġsa, see eġesa.
eġsian (‡) +, vb. II, terrify; pret. 3 sg.
eġsode, 6. (Hallander 1966: 143–57.)
ēg-strēam †, m., water-STREAM, (pl.)
sea; dp. -um, 577. [Cf. ēagor-strēam,
®ġ-weard; ēa-lond; EGS 5 (1952–3)
25¯f., 42¯f.; Lang. §¯8.5; on velar g in
ēg-, see OEG §¯233.]
ēhtan, vb. I, w. gen., pursue, persecute;
pret. 3 pl. ēhton, 1512; pres.ptc. (mc.?)
ēhtende (wæs), 159 (n.). [ōht.]
ehti(ġ)an, see eahtian.
elde, eldo, see ylde, yldo.
el-land (†), n., foreign country; as.,
3019. [Cf. elra.]
ellen, n., courage, valor, strength, exer-
tion, dedication; 573, 902, 2706; gs.
elnes, 1529, 2876; ds. elne, 893, 1097,
2861; on ~, 2506, 2816; (mid) ~, 1493,
2535; elne (semi-adv.), valiantly,
quickly (GriÌth ASE 24 [1995] 16;
Robinson 1997: 202): ~ ġeēode 2676,
si. 1967, 2917; as. ellen, 602, 2349,
2695, [F. 11], (deed[s] of valor:) 3,
637. (Mincoff 1933; Kühlwein 1967:
118–21; Clemoes 1995: 68–73; Bately
2003: 290–1.) [Go. aljan. Orel 2003:
15.] — Cpd.: mæġen-.
ellen-d®d †, ¢., DEED of valor; dp. -um,
876, 900.
ellen-g®st ‡, mi., powerful or bold
demon; 86.
ellen-līċe (†), adv., valiantly, boldly;
2122.
ellen-m®rþu ‡, f., fame for courage;
heroic deed; dp. -m®rþum, 828, 1471.
ellen-rōf, adj., brave, strong; 340, 358,
3063; dpm. -um, 1787. See rōf.
ellen-sīoc ‡, adj., (strength-SICK),
370 GLOSSARY
deprived of strength, powerless; asm.
-ne, 2787.
ellen-weorc (†), n., WORK of valor, cou-
rageous deed; as., 661, 958, 1464,
2643; gp. -a, 2399; ap. -weorc, 3173.
elles, adv., ELSE, otherwise; 2520; ~
hw®r, 138; ~ hwerġen, 2590.
ellor †, adv., (ELsewhither), to another
place; 55, 2254.
ellor-gāst, -g®st, ‡, ma., mi., alien
spirit; -gāst, 807, 1621, -g®st 1617; ap.
-g®stas, 1349.
ellor-sīð ‡, m., journey ELsewhere,
death; 2451.
elne(s), see ellen.
elra (‡), comp. (see Kl. 1905–6: 252),
another; dsm. elran, 752. [Cf. Go.
aljis, Lat. alius. See el-, elles, ellor;
DOE s.v. ell.]
el-þēodiġ, adj., foreign; apm. elþēodĽġe,
336. [Cf. elra.]
ende, mja., END; 822, 1254; ds., 224,
2790, 2823; as., 1386, 1734, 2021 (n.),
2342, 2844, 3046, 3063. (Stolzmann
1953: 91–7.) — Cpd.: woruld-.
ende-dæġ, m., last DAY, death; 3035;
as., 637.
ende-dōgor †, n., last day, death; gs.
-dōgľres, 2896.
ende-lāf ‡, f., last remnant; 2813.
ende-lēan †, n., ¢nal reward or retribu-
tion; as., 1692.
ende-s®ta ‡, wk.m. one stationed at the
(END) extremity of a territory (i.e.
shore watch); 241. [sittan.]
ende-stæf (†), m., END; as., 1753. See
fācen-stafas.
(ġe-)endian, vb. II, END; pp. ġeendod,
2311.
enġe, adj.ja., narrow; apm., 1410 (cheer-
less? see Schü.Bd. 37–44; cf. ZvS 77
[1961] 147–8). [Go. aggwus, NHG
eng.]
ent, mi., giant; gp. enta (ġeweorc), 2717,
2774, si. 1679 (n.). See Grimm D.M.
434 (524), 443 (534); MLN 67 (1952)
554¯f.; in place-names: Whitelock
1951: 74.
entisc ‡, adj., made by giants, giant;
asm. -ne, 2979. (Schatte & Olrik
Danske Studier [1914] 9–2o, Davidson
1962: 145–6.)
(ġe-)ēode, see (ġe-)gān.
eodor, m. (1) shelter, enclosure,
precinct; ap. (under ‘inside’) eoderas,
1037. (Cf. GenB 2445, 2487, Hel.
4943.) — (2) †protector, prince (w.
gen. pl.); ns. eodur, 663, eodor 1044;
vs. eodor, 428. (Cf. hlēo; ґρκος ’Αχαι-
уν. See Neckel BGdSL 41 [1916] 163–
70; Hoops 130; H. Kuhn 1969–78
(1951): 333; Cronan 2003: 406.)
eofer, eofor, m. boar; ¢gure of boar on
helmet: eofer, 1112; ap. eoferas, 1328.
[NHG Eber.]
eofer-sprēot (‡) +, m., boar-spear; dp.
-um, 1437.
eofor-hēafod-seġn ‡, m.n., boar’s-HEAD-
SIGN, banner; as. eafor-, 2152 (n.).
[See seġn; cf. eoforcumbol.]
eofor-līċ ‡, n. ¢gure of a boar; np., 303.
(Beck 1965: 4, 47.) See līċ, swīn-līċ.
eofoð, see eafoð.
eolet ‡, voyage? sea?; gs. -es, 224 (n.).
eom, anv., AM (sometimes used as auxil.
w. pp. of transitive or [esp.] intrans.
verbs); 1 sg. eom, 335, 407, 1475,
2527, [F. 24]; 2 sg. eart, 352, 506,
1844, 2813; 3 sg. is (31×), 248, 256,
272, etc., [F. 24, 26], ys 2093, 2910,
2999, 3084; neg. nis, 249, 1361, 1372,
2458, 2532; 1 pl. synt, 260, 342; 2 pl.
syndon, 237, 393; 3 pl. sint 388, synt
364, syndon 257, 361, 1230; sj. 3 sg.
sīe 435, 3105, s¾ 682, siġ 1778, s©
1941, sŷ 1831, 2649. — wesan, vb. 5,
be (often used as auxil. w. pp. of trans.
and sometimes of intrans. verbs); inf.
wesan, 272, 1328, 1859, 2708, 2801,
3021; imp. sg. wes, 269, 1170, 1219,
1224, 1480, wæs 407; [pl. wesað, F.
12]; pret. 1 sg. wæs, 240, 1657, 2428,
3087; neg. næs, 2141, 2432; 3 sg. wæs
(243×), 11, 18, 49, 53, 126, 140, etc.,
[F. 28, 45]; neg. næs (20×), 134, 1299,
etc.; 1 pl. w®ron, 536, 544, 1820; 3 pl.
w®ron (15×), 233, 548, 612, etc.,
w®ran 2475; neg. n®ron, 2657; sj. 2
sg. w®re, 1478; 3 sg. w®re (14×), 173,
203, 593, etc., [F. 36, 44]; neg. n®re,
860, 1167; (3 pl. w®ron, 233, 1986?).
— Note: pres.ptc. used w. wæs, w®re
(‘progressive form,’ see note on 159):
159, 1105, 3028. Omission of wesan
(see BGdSL 36 [1910] 362–5, OES
§§¯3773, 3863–5): 617, 992, 1783,
1857, 2091, 2256, 2363, 2497, 2659,
of is, wæs (in neg. clauses of general
 GLOSSARY
import): 2262, 2297. (Kl. would re-
cognize ‘loosely joined elliptic
clauses’ in 936, 1343, 2035, but see
nn. on these lines; see also 3062.) —
Cpds.: cniht-, umborwesende. — bēon,
anv., BE; the indic. forms used in
‘abstract’ clauses; thus in generic and
gnomic statements: 3 sg. bið, 183, 186,
1059, 1283, 1384, 1388, 1940, 2541,
(cf. w. [n]is, 2532), 2890, 3174, byð
1002, 2277; 3 pl. bēoð, 1838; ref. to
‘typical’ instances: 3 sg. bið, 1742,
1745, 2444, 2450; w. a future sense: 1
sg. bēo, 1825; 3 sg. bið, 299, 660, 949,
1762, 1767, 1784, 1835, 2043; 3 pl.
bīoð, 2063; — imp. sg. bēo, 386, 1173,
1226, bīo 2747. (Auxil. w. pp.: 1745,
2063, 2450.) See K. Jost Bēon und
wesan, AF 26 (Heidelberg, 1909)
§§¯18–34. (Heidemann Archiv 147
[1924] 30–46; Flasdieck EStn. 71
[1937] 336–49.)
eorclan-stān, m., precious STONE; ap.
-as, 1208. [Cf. eorc(n)anstān. — OHG
erchan ‘egregious,’ OE Eorcon- in
names of persons: see ZfdA 11 (1859)
90, BGdSL 12 (1887) 182¯f.; EStn. 74.1
(1940) 9–13; Orel 2003: 84–5.]
ēored-ġeatwe ‡, fwō.p., warlike equip-
ment; ap., 2866. [ēored (= eoh + rād)
‘troop’ (originally, of cavalry); Bamm.
1979: 45. See wīġ-ġetawa.]
eorl, m., (nobleman?), man, warrior,
hero; 761, 795, 1228, 1328, 1512,
1702, 2908, 2951, 3015, 3063, 3077;
gs. eorles, 689, 982, 1757; as. eorl,
573, 627, 2695; gp. eorla, 248, 357,
369, 431, 1235, 1238, 1312, 1420,
1891, 2064, 2248, 2891, 3166, ~
drihten: 1050, 2338, ~ hlēo: 791, 1035,
1866, 1967, 2142, 2190; dp. eorlum,
769, 1281, 1649, 1676, 2021; ap.
eorlas, 6, 2816. (Stibbe 1935: 67–9.
Cf. eorlscipe.) [EARL, cf. ON jarl.]
eorl-ġestrēon †, n., (warriors’) treasure,
riches; gp. -a, 2244.
eorl-ġew®de ‡, nja., dress of a warrior,
armor; dp. (sg. meaning) -ġew®dum,
1442.
eorliċ (= eorl-liċ) (‡) (+), adj., manly,
heroic; asn. eorliċ, 637.
eorl-scipe †, mi., nobility, rank; manli-
ness; act(s) of heroism; as., 1727,
3173, ~ efnan (& si.): 2133, 2535
371
(-scype), 2622, 3007. (PMLA 70
[1955] 1133–42: ‘oÌcial duty.’)
eorl-weorod ‡, n., band of warriors;
2893.
eormen-cyn(n) †, nja., humanKIND; gs.
-cynnes, 1957. [eormen- ‘immense’;
KIN.]
eormen-grund (‡), m., spacious
(GROUND) earth; as., 859. (Jul 10,
ChristB 481: yrmenne grund [as.].)
eormen-lāf ‡, f., immense legacy; as.
-lāfe, 2234.
eorre, see yrre.
•eorð-būend(e) (†), mc. (pres.ptc.) [pl.],
(EARTH-dweller,) man, native; [gp.
-ra, F. 32]. (Cf. Jud 226, 314: land-
būend(e) = ‘land-dwellers,’ i.e., ‘na-
tives.’ See Tr.F. 29, 47 [comparing Beo
1155: eorðcyninges]; cf. Vickrey SN 65
[1993] 19–27: ‘dwellers in the earth.’)
eorð-cyning, m., KING of the land; gs.
-es, 1155. (Cf. H. Kuhn 1969–78
[1969]: 2.187, Vickrey SN 65 [1993]
19–27: ‘king living in the earth.’)
eorð-draca ‡, wk.m., EARTH-DRAGON
(‘dragon that lives in the earth’); 2712,
2825.
eorðe, wk.f., EARTH; both ground and
the world we live in; gs. eorþan, 752,
1730, 2727, 3049; ds. ~, 1532, 1822,
2415, 2822, 2855, 3138; as. ~, 92,
2834, 3166, ofer ~, 248, 802, 2007,
wīde ġeond ~, 266, 3099.
eorð-reċed ‡, m.n., EARTH-house; 2719.
eorð-scræf, n., EARTH-cavern, subterra-
nean chamber; gp. -scrafa, 3046.
eorð-sele †, mi., EARTH-hall, subterra-
nean chamber; ds., 2232, 2515; as.,
2410.
eorð-weal(l) (‡) +, m., EARTH-WALL,
mound; -weall, as., 2957, 3090.
eorð-weard ‡, m., region of EARTH; as.,
2334. (Cf. Kl.: ‘EARTH-GUARD, strong-
hold’; see Dietrich ZfdA 11 [1859]
415¯f., Cl.Hall, Dob.)
eoten (‡) (+), m., giant; 761 (Grendel);
np. -as, 112; gp. -a, 421, 883. [Cf.
etan(?); de Vries 1956–7: §¯174 n.;
OED: ETEN, ETTIN (obs., dial.).]
eotenisc ‡, adj., made by giants, giant;
asn. (-sweord) ~: 1558, etonisc 2616,
eotonisc 2979.
eoton-weard ‡, f., watch against a
giant; as. -weard’ (Appx.C §¯37), 668.
372 GLOSSARY
ēow, see þū.
ēowan, see ©wan.
ēower, poss. pron., YOUR; 2532; dsn.
ēowrum, 2885; asm. ēowerne, 294,
2537, 2889; asn. ēower, 251; npm.
ēowre, 257; gpm. ēowra, 634; dpn.
ēowrum, 395; [apf. ēowre, F. 11]; apn.
(?, see þū) ēower, 392.
ēower, ēowiċ, (pers. pron.), see þū.
ēst, ¢., favor, good will; as. ēst, 2157
(n.), 3075 (n.); dp. ēstum (‘with good
will,’ ‘unstintingly’), 1194, 2149, 2378,
~ miclum 958; — choice item, gift; as.
ēst, 2165. (D. Green 1965: 246–51.)
[unnan.]
ēste (†), adj.ja., kind, gracious (w. gen.:
‘in regard to’), 945.
etan, vb. 5, EAT; 444; 3 sg. eteð, 449. —
Cpds.: þurh-, fretan.
etonisc, see eotenisc.
ēð-beġēte (†), adj.ja., easy to obtain
(GET); 2861. [See ēaðe, be-ġitan.]
ēðe, see ēaðe.
ēþel, m., native land, home; ds. ēþle,
1730, 1774; as. .². (Intr. xxix), 520,
913 (= ēþĺl); ēðel, 1960.
ēðel-riht †, n., ancestral RIGHT, privi-
leges belonging to a hereditary estate,
ancestral domain; 2198. See folc-,
lond-riht (see Schü.Bd. 44–7).
ēþel-stōl †, m., native seat, ancestral
throne; ap. -as, 2371. [STOOL.]
ēþel-turf (†), fc., native soil, country; ds.
-tyrf, 410. [TURF.]
ēþel-weard †, m., GUARDian of the na-
tive land, king; .². weard, 1702, ēþel-
weard, 2210; ds. -e, 616.
ēðel-wyn(n) ‡, ¢., enjoyment of hered-
itary estate, delightful home; ns. ēðel-
wyn, 2885; as. ~, 2493.
ēþ-ġes©ne †, adj.ja., easily visible (with
the connotation of ‘in abundance’);
1110; ©þġesēne, 1244. [See ēaðe;
SEEN.]
fācen-stafas ‡, m.p., (deceit-STAVES),
acts of malice (treachery?); ap. fācĺn-
stafas, 1018. [Cf. OIcel. feikn-sta¢r
‘baleful runes,’ ‘crimes’; Sisam 1965:
81, Kolb 1993: 480.] See ār-stafas,
ende-, rūn-stæf.
fæc, n., space of time; as., 2240. (Grüner
1972: 64–7.) [NHG Fach.]
fæder, mc., FATHER; 55, 262, 316, 459,
1609, 2048, 2608, 2928; gs. ~, 21, 188,
1479, 1950, 2059; ds. ~, 2429; as. ~,
1355. — Cpds.: ®r-, eald-.
fæder-æþelu †, nja.p., paternal rank or
excellence; dp. -æþelum, 911 (n.). See
æþelu.
fæderen-m®ġ (‡) +, m., paternal rela-
tive, kinsman on the FATHER’s side;
ds. -e, 1263.
ġe-fæġ (?) ‡, adj., satisfactory, pleasing,
dear; comp. ġefæġra, 915 (n.).
f®ġe (†), adj.ja., doomed to die, fated,
near death; 846, 1241, 1755, 2141,
2975; gsm. f®ġes, 1527; dsm. f®ġum,
2077; asm. f®ġne, 1568; dead: dpm.
f®ġum, 3025. (See Gillam Studia Ger-
manica Gandensia 2 (1962) 165–201;
cf. A. 83 [1965] 90¯f.; Donahue 1965:
103–5.) [FEY (Sc.); OIcel. feigr, NHG
feige.] — Cpds.: dēað-, un-.
fæġen, adj., glad, rejoicing; npm. fæġne,
1633. [FAIN; cf. ġe-fēon.]
f¡ġer (see Appx.C §¯25), adj., FAIR,
beautiful; nsm., 1137; nsn. f®ġer, 773;
asf. -e, 522; npm. -e, 866. (Juzi 1939:
21–9.) [EStn. 67.3 (1933) 346¯f.;
HOEM §¯355.3.] — Cpd.: un-.
f¡ġ(e)re, adv., FAIRly, pleasantly, ¢t-
tingly, courteously; fæġere, 1014,
1788; fæġre, 1985, 2989.
ġe-f®gon, see ġe-fēon.
f®hð(o), f., FEUD, enmity, hostile act,
battle; f®hð, 2403, 3061, f®hðo 2999;
gs. (or ds.) f®hðe, 109; ds. ~, 1537; as.
~, 459, 470, 595, 1207, 1333, 1340,
1380, 2513, 2618, 2948, f®ghðe 2465;
f®hðe ond fyrene, 137, 879 (ap.?),
2480, si. 153; gp. f®hða, 2689; ap.(s.?)
f®hðo, 2489. (See Mal. ES 21 [1939]
269–71; Day PQ 78 [2000] 77–95.)
[fāh. Cf. NHG Fehde; OED: FEUD.] —
Cpd.: wæl-.
f®lsian (†), vb. II, cleanse, purge; 432;
pret. 3 sg. f®lsode, 2352; pp. ġef®lsod,
825, 1176, 1620. (Kleman 1953;
Hallander 1966: 333–5.) [f®le ‘good,
pleasant.’]
f®mne, wk.f., virgin, woman (who is
unmarried); gs. f®mnan, 2059; a.(d.?)s.
~, 2034. (Pedersen Jesp.Misc. 55–68;
Bäck 1934: 184–97; Stibbe 1935: 82–
4.) [Holt.Et.]
fær, n., †vessel, ship; as., 33 (n.). [faran.]
f®r, m., sudden attack, danger, disaster,
 GLOSSARY
peril; 1068, 2230; ds. -e, 2009 (n.).
[FEAR; NHG Gefahr.]
f®r-gripe ‡, mi., sudden GRIP or attack;
1516; dp. -gripum, 738.
f®r-gryre †, mi., (terror caused by) sud-
den attack, awful horror; dp. -gryrum,
174.
f®ringa, adv., suddenly; 1414, 1988.
[f®r.]
f®r-nīð ‡, m., hostile attack, sudden
aÑiction; gp. -a, 476.
fæst, adj., FAST, ¢rm, ¢xed (often w.
dat.); nsm., 137, 636, 1007, 1290,
1364, 1742, 1878, 1906, 2243, 2901,
3045, 3072; nsf., 722, 2086; nsn., 303,
998; asm. -ne, 2069; asf. -e, 1096; asn.
fæst, 1918; apm. -e, 2718. — Cpds.:
ār-, bl®d-, ġin-, sōð-, tīr-, wīs-.
fæste, adv., FAST, ¢rmly; 554, 760, 773,
788, 1295, 1864 (or apm. of adj.?).
Comp. fæstor (‘more securely’), 143.
fæsten, nja., FASTness, stronghold; as.,
104, 2333, 2950.
fæst-r®d, adj., ¢rmly resolved; asm. -ne,
610.
fæt, n., vessel, cup; ap. fatu, 2761. [VAT,
fr. a southern or western dialect.] —
Cpds.: bān-, drynċ-, māðþum-, sinċ-,
wunder-.
f®t ‡, n., (gold) plate or decoration; dp.
f®tum 716 (MS fættum; Lang. §¯20.4),
2256. [See f®ted.]
f®ted (†), adj. (pp. of *f®tan), orna-
mented, (gold-)plated, gilded (?); nsn.,
2701; gsn.wk. f®ttan (goldes), 1093,
2246; dsn.wk. f®ttan (golde), 2102;
asn. f®ted, 2253, 2282; apm. f®tte,
333, 1750. [Cf. Go. fētjan ‘decorate.’]
(See ZfdA 11 [1859] 420; BGdSL 30
[1905] 91¯n.; Tupper 1910: 184–5;
Coatsworth & Pinder 2002: 250.)
f®ted-hlēor ‡, adj., with ornamented
cheeks, i.e. decorated with (gilded)
bridle plates; apm. -e, 1036. (See
Webster in MR 193.)
f®t-gold ‡, n., plated GOLD; as., 1921.
f®ttan, f®tte, see f®ted.
f®ttum, see f®t.
fæðer-ġearwe ‡, fwō.p., FEATHER-GEAR;
dp. -ġearwum, 3119. [Bamm. 1979:
51; GEAR fr. ON gørvi.]
fæþm, m., (outstretched) arms; dp. -um,
188, 2128; — embrace: ns. (līġes)
fæþm, 781; as. (si.) ~, 185; — bosom:
373
as. (foldan) ~, 1393, (si.) 3049; —
grasp, power: as. fæþm, 1210.
[FATHOM.] — Cf. sīd-fæþme(d).
fæðmian (†), vb. II, embrace, enfold;
3133; sj. 3 sg. fæðmie, 2652.
fāg, fāh, adj., colored, decorated, vari-
egated, shining; nsm. fāh, 1038,
2671(?); nsf., 1459; nsn., 2701; asm.
fāgne, 725 (NM 70 [1969] 246–55),
fāhne 716, 927; asf. fāge, 1615 (see
Lang. §¯22); npn. fāh, 305; dpn. fāgum,
586, apn. fāh, 2217. — with ref. to
blood (see 420¯n.): nsm. fāh, 420,
2974, fāg 1631 (nsn.?); nsn. fāh, 934,
1286, 1594; asm. fāhne, 447. (Juzi
1939: 56–9; Rob. 51.) — Cpds.: bān-,
blōd-, brūn-, drēor-, gold-, gryre-,
searo-, sinċ-, stān-, swāt-, wæl-,
wyrm-.
fāh, fāg, adj., (1) hostile, (FOE); nsm.
fāh, 420 (?, Kock4 111), 554, 2671 (?);
asm. fāne, 2655; gpm. fāra, 578, 1463;
in a state of feud with (wið), nsm. fāg.
811. — (2) outlawed, guilty; nsm. fāh,
978, fāg 1001, 1263 (cf. Robinson
1985: 62). — Cpd.: nearo-.
fāmiġ-heals †, adj., FOAMY-necked;
1909; fāmī-, 218.
(ġe-)fandian, vb. II, search out, test,
tamper with (w. gen.); pp. ġefandod,
2301; — experience (w. acc. or gen.);
pp. ġefondad, 2454. [¢ndan.] See
cunnian.
fāne, fāra, see fāh.
faran, vb. 6, go, proceed, FARE; 124,
865, 2551, 2915, 2945; ger. farenne,
1805; pret. 3 sg. fōr, 1404, 1908, 2308,
2672; 3 pl. fōron, 1895.
ġe-faran, vb. 6, proceed, act; 738 (n.).
(See Lorz 1908: 22.)
faroð †, m. or n., current, sea; ds. -e, 28,
580, 1916. [faran.] Cf. waroð (Angl. 28
[1905] 455¯f., Appx.C §¯43 n.¯1).
fēa, adj.wa.(a.), pl., FEW, a few; gp.
fēara, 1412, 3061; dp. fēaĿm, 1081; a.
(w. part. gen.: worda) fēa, 2246, 2662.
[Go. fawai, pl.; cf. Lat. paucus.]
fēa, 156, see feoh.
ġe-fēa, wk.m., joy, enjoyment, pleasure;
as. ġefēan (habban, w. gen.), 562,
2740. [ġefēon.]
ġe-feah, see ġe-fēon.
fealh, ġe-fealg, see (ġe-)fēolan.
feallan, vb. 7, FALL; 1070; pret. 3 sg.
374 GLOSSARY
fēol, 772, [F. 41], fēoll 2919, 2975; 3
pl. fēollon, 1042. — Cpd.: be-.
ġe-feallan, vb. 7, FALL; 3 sg. ġefealleð,
1755; — w. acc., fall (on) to: pret. 3
sg. ġefēoll, 2100, 2834.
fealo, 2757, see fela.
fealu, adj.wa., (FALLOW), pale (?), glossy
or glinting (?); asf. fealwe (str®te),
916; apm. ~ (mēaras), 865; asm.
fealone (Ïōd), 1950. (Mead PMLA 14
[1899] 198: ‘pale yellow shading into
red or brown’; cf. Lerner MLR 46
[1951] 247¯f.; McClelland 1966: 181–2:
‘dark,’ ‘dusky’; Barley 1974: 21–5:
‘glossy.’ See note to 1545¯f.) [OIcel.
f∂lr ‘pale.’] — Cpd.: æppel-.
fēa-sceaft (†), adj., destitute, poor,
wretched; 7, 973; dsm. -um, 2285,
2393; npm. -e, 2373.
feax, n., hair of the head (collect.); ds.
feaxe, 1647, fexe 2967. — Cpds.:
blonden-, gamol-, wunden-.
ġe-fēgon, -feh, see ġe-fēon.
fēhð, see fōn.
fel(l), n., FELL, skin; dp. fellum, 2088.
fela, nu. (indecl.), much, many, nearly
always w. part. gen. (pl. or sg.); 36,
992, 995, 1265, 1509, 1783, 2231,
2763, [fæla, F. 33]; as., 153, 164, 311,
408, 530, 591, 694, 809, 869, 876,
883, 929, 1028, 1060, 1411, 1425,
1525, 1577, 1837, 2003, 2266, 2349,
2426, 2511, 2542, 2620, 2631, 2738,
[fæla, F. 25], fealo, 2757; — adv.,
much; [586], 1385, 2102, 3025, 3029.
(Marckwardt in Rosier 1970: 50–2.)
[Go. ¢lu, NHG viel.] See worn.
fela-fricgende ‡, adj. (pres.ptc.), well
informed, wise; 2106 (n.). See ġe-
fricgan.
fela-ġeōmor ‡, adj., very sad, solemn;
2950.
fela-hrōr ‡, adj., very vigorous, strong;
27.
fela-mōdiġ ‡, adj., very brave; gpm. -ra,
1637, 1888.
fen(n), nja., FEN, marshy region; ds.
fenne, 1295; as. fen, 104.
fen-freoðo ‡, wk.f. (orig. mu.: see SB
§§¯271, 280), FEN-refuge; as. (ds.?),
851.
fenġ, mi., grasp, grip; 1764; as., 578.
[fōn.] — Cpd.: inwit-.
(ġe-)fēng, see (ġe-)fōn.
fenġel ‡, m., prince, king; 1400, 2156,
2345; vs., 1475. [Cf. fōn? See þenġel.]
fen-ġelād ‡, n., (treacherous) passage
across a FEN; as., 1359. (Gelling ASE
31 [2002] 10–11.) [līðan.] See ġe-lād.
fen-hlið ‡, n., FEN-slope, marshy tract;
ap. -hleoðu, 820.
fen-hop ‡, n., FEN-retreat, i.e. remote,
secret place in a fen; ap. -hopu 764.
(Gelling ASE 31 [2002] 9–10.) [OED:
HOPE, sb.2; O. Jespersen Language
(New York, 1922) 310: cf. hope ‘spes’?]
(See mōrhop.)
fēo, see feoh.
feoh, n., property, money, riches; ds. fēo,
470, 1380, fēa 156. (Arcamone 2000:
934.) [FEE; OHG ¢hu, NHG Vieh.]
feoh-ġift ‡, ¢., dispensing of treasure;
costly GIFT; gs. -ġyfte, 1025; dp.
-ġiftum 21, -ġyftum 1089. [MnE gift
prob. fr. ON gipt.]
feoh-lēas (‡) +, adj., (money-LESS, i.e.)
‡not to be atoned for with money,
inexpiable; nsn., 2441. Cf. bōt-lēas in
the laws, LawIIIAtr 1, etc.
ġe-feoht, n., FIGHT; 2441; ds. -e, 2048.
•feohtan, vb. 3, FIGHT; [pret. 3 pl.
fuhton, F. 41].
ġe-feohtan, vb. 3, FIGHT; 1083 (n.).
feohte, wk.f. †, FIGHT; [2525]; as.
feohtan, 576, 959; dp. fyhtum 457 (n.).
fēol, f., FILE; gp. -a, 1032 (n.).
fēolan, vb. 3, penetrate, reach; pret. 3
sg. (inne) fealh, 1281, 2225. [Go.
¢lhan. See BGdSL 37 (1912) 314.] —
Cpd.: æt-.
ġe-fēon, vb. 5, w. gen. or dat. (instr.),
rejoice; pret. 3 sg. ġefeah, 109, 1624;
ġefeh, 827, 1569, 2298; 3 pl. ġef®gon,
1014, ġefēgon 1627.
fēond, mc., enemy, FIEND; 101, 164, 725,
748, 970, 1276; gs. fēondes, 984, 2128,
2289; ds. fēonde 143, 439; as. fēond,
279, 698, 962, 1273, 1864, 2706; gp.
fēonda, 294, 808, 903, 1152, fīonda
2671; dp. fēondum, 420, 1669. (NM 88
[1987] 159–74.) [Go. ¢jands, NHG
Feind.]
fēond-grāp ‡, f., enemy’s GRIP or clutch;
dp. -um, 636.
fēond-scaða †, wk.m., dire foe; 554. See
sceaþa.
fēond-scipe, mi., enmity, hosility; 2999.
feor(r), adv., FAR; feor, 42, 109, 542,
 GLOSSARY
808, 1340, 1805, 1916; ~ ond nēah,
1221, si. 2870; feorr, 1988; semi-adj.,
feor, 1361, 1921; far back (time): feor,
1701. — Comp. fyr, 143, 252.
feor-būend †, mc. [pl.], FAR dweller;
vp., 254.
feor-c©þð(u) ‡, f. (SB §¯255.3, OEG
§¯589.6.), FAR country; np. -c©þðe,
1838. (Robinson 1985: 5: ‘close friends
who are afar.’) [cūð; KITH.]
feorh (see Appx.C §¯11), m.n., life; 2123,
2424; gs. fēores, 1433, 1942; ds. fēore,
578, 1293, 1548, 3013, feore 1843
(age); tō wīdan feore, ever, 933; as.
feorh, 439, 796, 851, 1370, 1849, 2141,
2655, 2668, 2856, [F. 19], ferh 2706;
in feorh dropen, 2981 (‘mortally
wounded,’ cf. aldor 1434); wīdan feorh,
ever, 2014; dp. fēorum, 1306, feorum
73; ap. feorh, 2040; — living being,
body (see Angl. 28 [1905] 445); ns.
feorh, 1210; dp. fēorum, 1152 (‘life-
blood’: see Robinson 1970a: 104.).
(Kellermann 1954: 185–8; Benning
1961: 117–45.) [Orel 2003: 100.] See
ealdor. — Cpd.: ġeogoð-.
feorh-bealu †, nwa., (life-BALE), deadly
attack; 2077, 2537 (frēcne); -bealo
(~), 2250; as. ~, 156.
feorh-ben(n) ‡, fjō., life-wound, mortal
wound; dp. -bennum, 2740.
feorh-bona (†), wk.m., (life-)slayer; ds.
-bonan, 2465.
feorh-cyn(n) †, nja., (life-race), human
race; gp. -cynna, 2266. (Mackie 1941:
95: ‘living creatures.’) [Cf. fīras.]
feorh-ġenīðla ‡, wk.m., life-enemy, dead-
ly foe; ds. -ġenīðlan, 969; as. ~, 1540;
dp. ~, 2933.
feorh-lāst ‡, m., (life-track, i.e.) track of
failing life, bloody track; ap. -as, 846.
(Kl. Angl. 28 [1905] 445; Hoops St.
104.)
feorh-legu †, ¢. (SB §¯268, OEG §¯606),
LAYing down of life, fate, death; as.
-leġe, 2800. [licgan; cf. LAW. See Dan
139: aldorlegu; Bu.Tid. 69, Kl.:
‘‡(allotted) life.’]
feorh-sēoc ‡, adj., (life-SICK), mortally
wounded; 820.
feorh-swenġ ‡, mi., life-blow, deadly
blow; as., 2489.
feorh-wund ‡, f., life-WOUND, mortal
wound; ds. -e, 2385.
375
feorm, f., feeding, sustenance, tending
to, taking care of; ds. feorme, 2385
(hospitality; cf. Bede 1, 16.64.16¯f.: for
feorme ond onfongnesse gæsta ond
cumena = propter hospitalitatem atque
susceptionem); as. ~, 451 (n.). (Von
Schaubert 1949: 67–97; A. Fischer
1986: 46–8.) [See OED: FARM, sb.1
(obs.).]
feormend-lēas ‡, adj., without a cleaner
or polisher; apm. -e, 2761.
(ġe-)feormian, vb. II, †consume, eat up;
pp. ġefeormod, 744. (Von Schaubert
1949.)
feormynd (= feormend, Lang. §¯19.5), mc.
(pres.ptc.), cleaner, polisher; np., 2256.
(Kleman 1953.) [OED: FARM, v.1
(obs.); Bamm. 1979: 50–1.]
feorran (‡) (+), vb. I, remove; 156.
[feorr; Lang. §¯12.3.]
feorran, adv., from aFAR; 430, 825,
1370, 2808, 2889, 3113; ~ cumen, 361,
1819; ~ ond nēan, 839; nēan ond ~,
1174, 2317; from far back (time): 91,
2106.
feorran-cund (‡), adj., of a FAR country,
visiting from abroad; dsm. -um, 1795.
[See Siev. 1910: 414 n.]
feor-weġ, m., FAR WAY, (pl.:) distant
parts; dp. (of) feorwegum, 37. (Cf.
NorWAY; Alvíssmál 10.)
fēower, num., FOUR; 59, 1637, 2163; a.,
1027. [MGS 2 (1976) 1.]
fēower-t©ne, num., FOURTEEN; 1641.
fēran, vb. I, go, FARE; 27, 301, 316 (tō
fēran), 1390, 2261; pres. sj. 2 pl. fēran,
254; pret. 3 pl. fērdon, 839, 1632. [OS
fôrian, NHG führen, OIcel. fœra, Dan.
føre, Swed. föra.]
ġe-fēran, vb. I, (go to), reach, attain,
bring about; w. acc.: pres. sj. 3 sg.
ġefēre, 3063; pret. 3 pl. ġefērdon, 1691
(n.); pp. ġefēred, 2844; — w. þæt-
clause: pp. ġefēred, 1221, 1855.
ferh, see feorh.
ferhð †, m.n., mind, spirit, heart; gs. -es,
1060; ds. -e, 754, 948, 1166, 1718,
[2230]; dp. -um, 1633, 3176. (Soland
1979: 76–81.) [Cf. feorh.] — Cpds.:
collen-, sāriġ-, swīð-; wīde-.
ferhð-frec ‡, adj., bold in spirit; asm.
wk. -an, 1146. [See freca.]
ferhð-ġenīðla ‡, wk.m., deadly foe; as.
-ġenīðlan, 2881.
376 GLOSSARY
ferh-weard ‡, f., GUARD over life, i.e. safe
conduct; as. -e, 305 (n.). See feorh.
ferian, vb. I, carry, lead, bring; pres. 2 pl.
feriġeað, 333; pret. 3 pl. feredon, 1154,
1158, fyredon 378; sj. 3 pl. feredon,
3113; pp. npm. ġeferede, 361. [FERRY;
Go. farjan.] — Cpds.: æt-, of-, oð-.
ġe-ferian, vb. I, carry; 1638; imp.
(adhort.) 1 pl. ~, 3107; pret. 3 pl.
ġeferedon, 3130.
fetel-hilt ‡, n.f., linked HILT; ap. (asf.?)
(þā) fetelhilt, 1563 (n.). See hilt.
fetian, vb. II, FETCH; pp. fetod, 1310.
ġe-fetian, vb. II, FETCH, bring; 2190.
fēþa, wk.m., band on foot, troop; 1424;
ds. fēðan, 2497, 2919; np. ~, 1327,
2544. See fēþe. — Cpd.: gum-.
fēþe, nja., going, pace; ds., 970. [OS
fâði, fôði. Not rel. to fōt.]
fēþe-cempa ‡, wk.m., foot-warrior;
1544, 2853.
fēðe-ġest †, mi., foot-GUEST or -warrior
(BGdSL 32 [1907] 565¯f.); dp. -um,
1976.
fēþe-lāst †, m., walking-track, step; dp.
-um, 1632.
fēðe-wīġ †, n. (or m.), ¢ght on foot; gs.
-es, 2364.
fex, see feax.
fīf, num., FIVE; a., fīfe, 420.
•fīf-daġas, m.p., period of FIVE DAYS; ap.
[F. 41]. (Appx.C §¯5, HOEM §¯199.)
fīfel-cyn(n) ‡, nja., race of monsters; gs.
fīfĺlcynnes, 104. [Cf. OIcel. fíÏ; MLN
22 (1907) 235.]
fīf-niht, fc.pl., period of FIVE NIGHTs; g.
-a, 545. (Appx.C §¯5, HOEM §¯199;
Appx.A §¯14, cap. 11)
fīftiġ, num., w. gen., FIFTY; gs. fīftiġes,
3042; a. fīftiġ (wintra), 2209, 2733.
fīf-t©ne, num., FIFTEEN; g. fīft©na, 207;
a. f©ft©ne, 1582.
¢ndan, vb. 3, FIND; 207, 1156, 1378,
1838, 2294, 2870, 3162 (devise); pret.
1 sg. fond, 2136, funde 1486; 3 sg.
fand, 719, 870, 2789; pp. funden, 7; —
w. acc. & inf.; pret. 3 sg. fand, 118,
1267, fond 2270, funde 1415; 3 pl.
fundon, 3033; — w. æt, obtain from,
prevail upon; inf. ¢ndan, 2373. —
Cpd.: on-.
¢nġer, m., FINGER; np. ¢ngras, 760; gp.
¢ngra, 764; dp. ¢ngrum, 1505; ap.
¢ngras, 984.
fīond, see fēond.
fīras †, mja.p., humankind, people; gp.
fīra, 91, 2001, 2286, 2741, f©ra 2250.
(Benning 1961: 114–16.) [Cf. feorh;
Bamm. 1979: 52; Orel 2003: 100.]
¢ren, see fyren.
¢rġen-, see fyrġen-.
Ϯsc, n., FLESH; ds. -e, 2424.
Ï®sc-homa (†), wk.m., body; as. -homan,
1568. See līċ-homa.
Ïān, m. (or f.), arrow; ds. -e, 2438, 3119
(arrowhead, barb: Moore Kl.Misc.
212). (Shetelig & Falk 1937: 385.)
Ïān-boga ‡, wk.m., arrow-BOW; ds.
-bogan, 1433, 1744. (Underwood 1999:
26–35.)
Ïēah, see Ïēon.
Ïēam, m., Ïight; as., 1001, 2889. [Cf.
Ïēon.]
Ïēogan, vb. 2, FLY; pres. 3 sg. Ïēogeð,
2273, [F. 3].
Ïēon, vb. 2, FLEE; 755, 764, Ͻn, 820;
— w. acc., Ͻn, 1264; pret. 3 sg.
Ïēah, 1200, 2224. [OS Ïiohan, NHG
Ïiehen.] — Cpds.: be-, ofer-.
Ïēotan, vb. 2, FLOAT, swim, sail; 542;
pret. 3 sg. Ïēat, 1909.
Ïet(t), nja., (1) Ïoor (of a hall); as. Ïet,
1540, 1568. — (2) hall; ns., 1976; ds.
Ïette, 1025; as. Ïet, 1036, 1086 (n.),
1647, 1949, 2017, 2054, Ïett 2034. See
heal(l), sele. (K. Rhamm Ethnograph.
Beiträge zur german.-slavischen Alter-
tumskunde 2.1 [Braunschweig, 1908]
passim; Shetelig & Falk 1937: 324–5;
R.-L.2 9.187–9.) [Cf. FLAT, inÏ. by adj.
Ïat fr. ON Ïatr.]
Ïet-ræst ‡, fjō. (?), (hall-REST), couch in
the hall; as. -ræste, 1241.
Ïet-sittend(e) †, mc. (pres.ptc.) [pl.],
SITTer in the hall; dp. -sittendum 1788;
ap. -sittende, 2022.
Ïet-werod ‡, n., hall-troop; 476.
Ïiht, mi., FLIGHT, Ïying; 1765. [Ïēogan.]
ġe-Ïit, n., contest, rivalry; as. (on) ġeÏit,
865. [Ïītan.]
Ïītan, vb. 1, contend, compete; pres.ptc.
npm. Ïītende, 916; pret. 2 sg. Ïite,
507. [FLITE, FLYTE (dial.); cf. NHG
Fleiss.] — Cpd.: ofer-.
Ïōd, m., FLOOD, water, sea; 545, 580,
1361, 1422, 1689; gs. -es, 42, 1516,
1764; ds. -e, 1366, 1888; as. Ïōd, 1950,
3133; gp. -a, 1497, 1826, 2808.
 GLOSSARY
Ïōd-©þ ‡, fjō., FLOOD-wave, wave of the
sea; dp. -um, 542.
Ïōr, m., FLOOR; ds. Ïōre, 1316; as. Ïōr,
725.
Ïota, wk.m., ship, boat; 210, 218, 301;
as. Ïotan, 294. [‘FLOATer,’ cf. Ïēotan.]
— Cpd.: wēġ-.
Ïot-here (‡) +, mja., sea-army, naval
force; ds. -herġe, 2915. [Cf. Ïota.] See
scip-here.
(ġe-)Ï©man, vb. I, put to Ïight; pp.
ġeÏ©med, 846, 1370. [Ïēam.]
folc, n., FOLK, people, nation, army; (the
pl. sometimes used w. sg. meaning);
gs. folces, 1124, 1582, 1932, [F. 9]; ~
hyrde, 610, 1832, 1849, 2644, 2981, [F.
46], si. 2513; ds. folce, 14, 465, 1701,
2377, 2393, 2595; as. folc, 463, 522,
693, 911, 1179; np. folc, 1422, 2948;
gp. folca, 2017, (frēawine) ~: 2357,
2429, si. 430; dp. folcum, 55, 262,
1855. (D. Green 1998: 90–5.) —
Cpds.: bū-, siġe-.
folc-āgend(e) †, mc. (pres.ptc.), leader
of people, chief; npm. -āgende, 3113
(or ds.?). See 522.
folc-cwēn ‡, ¢., FOLK-QUEEN; 641.
folc-cyning †, m. FOLK-KING; 2733,
2873.
folc-rēd †, m., people’s bene¢t, what is
good for the people; as., 3006.
folc-riht, n. FOLK-RIGHT, legitimate
authority (?), inheritance (?); gp. -a,
2608 (n.).
folc-scaru †, f., FOLK-SHARE, nation (?),
heritable land (?); ds. -scare, 73 (n.).
folc-stede †, mi., FOLK-STEAD; dwelling-
place, as., 76; battle-place, as., 1463.
folc-toga †, wk.m., FOLK-leader, chief;
np. -togan, 839. [tēon, vb. 2.] (Strauss
1974: 97; Brady 1983: 216.)
fold-bold ‡, n., BUILDing; 773.
fold-būend(e) †, mc. (pres.ptc.) [pl.],
earth-dweller, human (being); np.
-būend, 2274; -būende, 1355; dp.
-būendum, 309.
folde (†), wk.f., earth, ground; gs.
foldan, 96, 1137, 1393; ds. ~, 1196; as.
~, 1361, 2975. (Benning 1961: 103–16.)
fold-weġ †, m., WAY, path; as., 1633; np.
-wegas, 866.
folgian, vb. II, w. dat., FOLLOW, pursue;
pret. 3 sg. folgode, 2933; sj. 3 pl.
folgedon, 1102.
377
folm (†), f., hand; ds. -e, 748; as. -e, 970,
1303; dp. -um, 158, 722, 992; ap. -a,
745. — Cpds.: beadu-, ġearo-.
fōn, vb. 7, grasp, grapple, seize; 439
(wið); pres. 3 sg. fēhð (tō), 1755; pret.
3 sg. fēng (tōġēanes), 1542; — receive
(cf. Kl. 1907: 195–6); pret. 3 sg. fēng
(w. dat.), 2989. — Cpds.: be-, on-,
þurh-, wið-, ymbe-.
ġe-fōn, vb. 7, w. acc., seize, grasp; pret.
1 sg. ġefēng, 3090; 3 sg. ~, 740, 1501,
1537, 1563, [2216], 2609.
fondian, see fandian.
for, prep., I. w. dat. (1) beFORE, in front
of, in the presence of; 169(?), 358,
1026, 1120, 1649, 2020, 2501(?),
2781(?). — (2) FOR, out of, because of,
on account of; 110 (w. instr.), 169,
338, 339, 382, 434, 458, 462, 508,
509, 832, 965, 1206, 1515, 1734, 1796,
2223, 2501(?), 2549, 2781(?), 2835,
2926, 2966; w. murnan: 1442, 1537; in
return for, 385, 951, 2385. — II. w.
acc., for, as, in place of; for (sunu),
947, 1175; (nē . . .) for (wiht), 2348.
(Van Dam 1957: 4–20, 40–57.) See
fore.
for- (unstressed), fore- (stressed), pre¢x.
See the foll. words. (See M. Leopold
Die Vorsilbe ver- und ihre Geschichte
[Breslau, 1907] 42–3, 274; Siemerling
Das Prä¢x for(e) in der ae. Verbal-
und Nominalkomposition (Kiel diss.,
1909); de la Cruz Linguistics 145
[1975] 51–6; Fraser in Stud. in Eng.
Grammar, ed. A. Joly & T. Fraser
[Paris, 1975] 19–28.)
foran, I. adv., beFORE, in front; 984;
(¢g.:) 1458. II. prep. w. dat. (w.
onġēan), against; 2364. (See DOE.) —
Cpd.: be-.
for-bærnan, vb. I, BURN up (trans.);
2126.
for-beran, vb. 4, FORBEAR, restrain;
1877.
for-berstan, vb. 3, BURST apart (intr.),
snap; pret. 3 sg. forbærst, 2680.
for-byrnan, vb. 3, BURN up (intr.); pret.
3 sg. forbarn, 1616, 1667.
ford, m., FORD, ‡water-way (sea); as.,
568. (Cf. Lat. vadum also used of
‘body of water’; Siev. BGdSL 11 [1886]
359, Hoops St. 99; Brady 1952: 38–9;
A. Campbell 1971: 284.)
378 GLOSSARY
fore, I. adv., thereFOR, for it; 136. II.
prep., w. dat., (1) beFORE, in the pres-
ence of; 1064, 1215. — (2) on account
of; 457 (n.), 2059.
fore-m®re, adj.ja., very famous, illus-
trious; supl. forem®rost, 309.
fore-mihtiġ (†), adj., very powerful; 969.
fore-snotor ‡, adj., very prudent or per-
ceptive; npm. foresnotre, 3162.
fore-þanc, m., FORETHOUGHT; 1060.
for-ġifan, vb. 5, GIVE, grant; pret. 3 sg.
forġeaf, 17, 374, 696, 1020, 1519,
2492, 2606, 2616, 2997.
for-grindan, vb. 3, GRIND to pieces,
crush (w. dat. of person); pret. 1 sg.
forgrand, 424; — destroy, consume
(w. acc.); pp. (glēdum) forgrunden,
2335, 2677.
for-grīpan, vb. 1, w. dat. of person,
crush to death; pret. 3 sg. forgrāp,
2353. [GRIPE.]
for-ġyldan, vb. 3, repay, pay for, re-
quite; 1054, 1577, 2305, [F. 39]; pret.
1 sg. (-lēan) forġeald, 2094; 3 sg.
forġeald, 2968, ([-]lēan) ~, 114, 1541,
1584; pp. forgolden, 2843; recom-
pense, reward (w. pers. object): pres.
sj. 3 sg. forġylde, 956.
for-ġ©man, vb. I, neglect, be unmindful
of; pres. 3 sg. forġ©með, 1751 (n.).
for-ġytan, vb. 5, FORGET; pres. 3 sg.
forġyteð, 1751. [See OED on the form
of get.]
for-habban, vb. III, hold oneself back,
restrain oneself, FORbear; (ne meahte
.¯.¯.) forhabban, 1151, 2609.
for-healdan, vb. 7, disregard, come short
in one’s duty toward, rebel against;
pp. forhealden, 2381.
for-hicgan, vb. III, despise, scorn; pres.
1 sg. forhicge (w. þæt-clause), 435.
forht, adj., afraid; 754, 2230, 2967. [Cf.
FRIGHT fr. fyrhtu; Bamm. 1979: 53.]
— Cpd.: un-.
for-lācan †, vb. 7, mislead, betray; pp.
forlācen, 903.
for-l®dan, vb. I, LEAD to destruction;
pret. 3 pl. forl®ddan, 2039.
for-l®tan, vb. 7, leave, LET; 792 (let go);
pret. 3 sg. forlēt, 2787. — w. acc. &
inf.: ~, 970; 3 pl. forlēton, 3166.
for-lēosan, vb. 2, w. dat., LOSE; pret. 3
sg. forlēas, 1470, 2861; pp. forloren,
2145. [See losian.]
forma, adj. supl., ¢rst; forma (sīð), 716,
1463, 1527, 2625; ds. forman (sīðe),
740, 2286, [F. 19]; ~ (dōgľre), 2573.
[Cf. FORMer.] — Supl. fyrmest, 2077.
[Cf. FOREMOST.]
for-niman, vb. 4, take away, carry off,
destroy; pret. 3 sg. fornam, 488, 557,
695, 1080, 1123, 1205, 1436, 2119,
2236, 2249, 2772; w. dat.: 3 pl. for-
nāmon, 2828.
for-scrīfan, vb. 1, w. dat., proscribe,
condemn; pp. forscrifen, 106. [See
scrīfan. Cf. Lat. proscribere. Siev. 1904:
311; OES §¯1092.]
for-sendan (‡) +, vb. I, SEND away,
dispatch, put to death; pp. forsended,
904. See for-sīðian.
for-sittan, †, vb. 5, fail, diminish (intr.);
pres. 3 sg. forsiteð, 1767.
for-sīðian ‡, vb. II, go amiss (to destruc-
tion), perish; pp. forsīðod, 1550.
forst, m., FROST; gs. -es, 1609.
for-standan, vb. 6, (1) withSTAND, hin-
der, prevent; pret. 3 sg. forstōd, 1549;
sj. 3 sg. forstōde, 1056. — (2) defend
(w. dat., against); inf., 2955.
for-swāpan †, vb. 7, SWEEP off; pret. 3
sg. forswēop, 477, 2814. [SWOOP.]
for-swelgan, vb. 3, SWALLOW up; pret. 3
sg. forswealg, 1122, 2080.
for-sw(e)orcan, vb. 3, become dark or
dim; pres. 3 sg. forsworceð, 1767.
for-swerian (‡) +, vb. 6, w. dat., (SWEAR
away, i.e.) ‡make useless by a spell;
pp. forsworen, 804 (n.).
forð, adv., FORTH, forward, on(ward),
away; 45, 210, 291, 612, 745, 903, 948
(henceforth), 1162, 1179, 1632, 1718,
1795, 1909, 2069 (forð sprecan, ‘go on
speaking’), 2253, 2266, 2289, 2959,
2967, 3176, [F. 5].
for-ðām, for-ðan, for-ðon, (1) adv.,
thereFORE; forþan, 679, 1059; forðon,
2523, 3021(?); forðām, 149. — (2)
conj., because, since, FOR; forðām,
149(?), 1957, 2645 (MS forðā), 2741(?)
(MS forðā); forþan, 418, 1336; forðon,
2349, 3021 (?); forþon þe, 503. —
(Sometimes apparently used as a loose
connective, ‘so,’ ‘indeed.’ See Law-
rence JGP 4 [1902] 463–6; also
Schü.Sa. §§¯11, 54; Giessener Beiträge
1 [1921] 77¯ff., 133; OES §¯3082, w.
refs.)
 GLOSSARY
forð-ġerīmed (‡), pp. of -rīman, vb. I,
counted up, all told; npn., 59.
forð-ġesceaft †, ¢., future state, destiny;
as., 1750. (BT, Cl.Hall: also ‘created
things, the world.’)
forð-ġewiten, pp. of -ġewītan, vb. 1, de-
parted, dead; dsm. -um, 1479.
for-ðon, see for-ðām.
for-þringan (‡) (+), vb. 3, drive out,
expel; 1084 (n.).
forð-weġ †, m., WAY FORTH; as., 2625.
for-weorpan, vb. 3, throw away; pret.
sj. 3 sg. forwurpe, 2872.
for-wrecan, vb. 5, drive away, banish;
1919; pret. 3 sg. forwræc, 109. (Rob-
inson N&Q 13 [1966] 407¯f.: ‘drive to
destruction.’)
for-wrītan ‡, vb. 1, cut through; pret. 3 sg.
forwrāt, 2705. (Frantzen 1990: 184–7.)
for-wyrnan, vb. I, refuse, (w. dat. of
pers. & þæt-clause or gen. of thing);
pres. sj. 2 sg. forwyrne, 429; pret. 3 sg.
forwyrnde, 1142. [wearn.]
fōt, mc., FOOT; gs. fōtes, 2525; dp.
fōtum, 500, 1166; ap. fēt, 745.
[Griepentrog 1995: 153–83.]
fōt-ġemearc ‡, n., FOOT-MARK, length of
a foot; gs. -es, 3042.
fōt-lāst (‡) +, m., FOOT-print, track; as.,
2289.
fracod, adj., bad, useless; nsf., 1575.
[cūþ; cf. Go. fra-kunnan ‘despise.’ See
SB §¯43 n.¯4; OEG §¯74 n.¯6.]
ġe-fr®ġe (†), nja., information (con-
veyed orally); is.: mīne ġefr®ġe, as I
have heard say, 776, 837, 1955, 2685,
2837. [ġe-fricgan.]
ġe-fr®ġe (†), adj.ja., well known, re-
nowned; nsn., 2480; w. dat.: nsm., 55.
[ġe-fricgan; OS gi-frâgi.]
(ġe-)fræġn, see (ġe-)friġnan.
frætwan, vb. I, decorate, make beauti-
ful; 76 (n.).
frætwe, fwō.p., ornaments, trappings,
decorated armor or weapons, precious
things, treasure; gp. frætwa, 37, 2794,
3133; dp. frætwum, 2054, 2163, 2784,
2989, frætewum 962; ap. frætwe, 214,
1207, 1921, 2503, 2620, 2919, frætwa
896. (Juzi 1939: 73; Tyler 2006: 89–
100.)
ġe-frætwian, vb. II, decorate, deck; pret.
3 sg. ġefrætwade, 96; pp. ġefrætwod,
992.
379
fram, from, I. prep., w. dat., FROM;
(motion:) (away) from; fram, 194 (n.),
541, 543, 775, 855, 2366, postpos.:
110; from, 420, 1635, postpos.: 1715;
— (origin, source); fram, 2565; of,
concerning: fram, 581, 875, from 532.
(Van Dam 1957: 20–3; Bately 2003:
287.) — II. adv., forth, away; fram,
754, from 2556.
frēa †, wk.m., lord, king; 2285; gs.
frēan, 2853; gs. or ds.: frēan, 500,
1166, fr¼n, 359, 1680 (prob. dat., see
1684¯f.); ds. frēan, 291, 2662, fr¼n,
271; as. frēan, 351, 1319, 2537, 3002,
3107; — consort: ds. ~, 641 (cf.
1934?); — the Lord: gs. ~, 27; ds. ~,
2794. (Stibbe 1935: 2–11; Strauss
1974: 92–3; D. Green 1965: 276–8, id.
1998: 277–8.) [Cf. Go. frauja, OIcel.
Freyr.] — Cpds.: āgend-, līf-, sin-.
frēa-drihten †, m., lord; gs. -drihtnes,
796. See frēo-.
frēa-wine ‡, mi., (¯friend and) lord; ~
(folca), 2357, 2429; as. ~, 2438. See
frēo-.
frēa-wrāsn ‡, f., (lordly, i.e.) splendid
chain or band or web; dp. -um, 1451
(n.).
freca (†), wk.m., bold one, †warrior;
1563. (Schabram 1954: 71–5; Brady
1979: 100.) [Cf. ferhð-frec; J. Wright
1898–1905: FRECK, FRACK; NHG
frech.] — Cpds.: gūð-, hild-, scyld-,
sweord-, wīġ-.
frēcne, adj.ja., (1) daring, audacious;
dsf.wk. frēcnen, 1104 (Lang. §¯19.4
rem.); asf. frēcne, 889. — (2) terrible,
fearful, dangerous; nsm. frēcne, 2689;
nsn. ~, 2250, 2537; asf. ~, 1378; asn.
~, 1359, 1691 (n.). (Schabram 1954:
82–6.) [EStn. 39 (1908) 330¯f.]
frēcne, adv., daringly, terribly, severely;
959, 1032.
ġe-frēcnian, vb. II, make bold; pp. ġe-
frēcnod, 1333 (n.).
fremde, adj.ja., foreign, alien, estranged
(w. dat.); nsf., 1691. [NHG fremd.]
fremman, vb. I, (1) further (w. pers.
obj.); 1832. — (2) do, perform; abs.:
pres. sj. 3 sg. fremme, 1003; — w.
obj.: inf., 101, 2499, 2514, 2627, [F.
9]; pres. 3 sg. fremeð, 1701; imp. pl.
fremmað, 2800 (attend to); pret. 3 sg.
fremede, 3006; 1 pl. fremedon, 959; 3
380 GLOSSARY
pl. ~, 3, 1019; sj. 1 sg. fremede, 2134.
[from, adj.]
ġe-fremman, vb. I, (1) further, advance
(w. pers. obj.); pret. sj. 3 sg. ġe-
fremede, 1718. — (2) do, perform,
accomplish; inf., 636, 1315, 2449,
2674; ger. ġefremmanne, 174, 2644;
pret. 3 sg. ġefremede, 135, 165, 551,
585, 811, 1946, 2004, 2645; 1 pl.
ġefremedon, 1187; 3 pl. ~, 2478; sj. 3
sg. ġefremede, 177, 591, 1552 (n.); pp.
ġefremed, 476, 954 (brought about, w.
þæt-clause); asf. ġefremede, 940.
frēo-burh ‡, fc., (FREE, i.e.) noble town;
as., 693.
frēod †, f., friendship; gs. frēode, 2556;
as. ~, 1707, 2476. [Cf. frēoġan;
Bamm. ZvS 84 (1970) 94–7, id. 1979:
54–5.]
frēo-drihten, -dryhten, †, m., noble (or
dear) lord; ds. -dryhtne, 2627; vs.
-drihten, 1169 (n.). See frēa-.
frēoġan, vb. II, †love; 948; pres. sj. 3 sg.
frēoġe, 3176. [Cf. Go. frijōn. ZvS 79
(1965) 32–8.]
frēo-liċ (†), adj., noble, excellent; nsn.,
615; [asn., F. 19]; nsf. -licu, 641. (Juzi
1939: 73–5; Bähr 1959: 18–20.)
frēond, mc., FRIEND, supporter, ally;
2393; as. ~, 1385, 1864; gp. -a, 1306,
1838; dp. -um, 915, 1018, 1126. (D.
Green 1998: 55–9. The meaning ‘kins-
man,’ advocated by Damico 1984:
162–4, is found in Northumbrian.)
[frēoġan. Go. frijonds, OIcel. frændi,
Dan. frænde, Swed. frände.]
frēond-lār ‡, f., FRIENDly counsel
(LORE); dp. -um, 2377.
frēond-laþu ‡, f., FRIENDship, good will
(or invitation?); 1192. (Cf. Hávamál 4:
þjóðl∂ð ‘hearty welcome’; JEGP 93
[1994] 198–200; see nēod-laðu.) [Kl.
Archiv 115 (1906) 179.]
frēond-līċe, adv., in a FRIENDLY man-
ner; comp. -licor, 1027.
frēond-scipe, mi., FRIENDSHIP; as.,
2069.
freoðo, wk.f. (orig. mu., SB §§¯271, 280),
protection, safety, peace; gs., 188.
(Kellermann 1954: 31–40.) [See Lang.
§¯12.1; OIcel. friðr, Dan., Swed. fred,
NHG Friede.] — Cpd.: fen-.
freoðo-burh (‡) +, fc., town affording
protection, stronghold (perh. orig. ref.
to ‘the sacred peace attaching to the
king’s dwelling’ in the laws [LawAf 1
40, etc.; see H. Chadwick 1912: 330
n.]); as., 522.
freoðo-wong ‡, m., ¢eld of refuge, fast-
ness; as., 2959.
freoðu-webbe †, wk.f., peace-WEAVer,
i.e. lady (cf. friðu-sibb); 1942. (NM 71
[1970] 534–51; Chance 1986: 1–11; A.
Olsen 1997: 316–17.)
frēo-wine ‡, mi., noble (or dear) friend;
vs. ~ (folca), 430.
fretan, vb. 5, EAT up, devour, consume;
3014, 3114; pret. 3 sg. fr®t, 1581. [Go.
fra-itan; OED: FRET, v.1]
fricgan †, vb. 5, ask, question; fricgcean,
1985. [Cf. friġnan.] — Cpd.: fela-
fricgende.
ġe-fricgan ‡, vb. 5, learn (orig. ‘by in-
quiry’), hear of; pres. 1 sg. ġefricge,
1826; 3 pl. ġefricgeað, 3002; sj. 3 pl.
ġefricgean, 2889.
friclan (†), vb. I, w. gen., desire, ask for;
2556. [Cf. freca; EStn. 39 (1908)
337¯f.]
friġnan, frīnan, vb. 3, ask, inquire;
frīnan, 351 (w. acc. of pers. & gen. of
thing); imp. sg. frīn, 1322; pret. 3 sg.
fræġn, 236, 332, 1319 [F. 22, 46]. [Cf.
fricgan; Go. fraíhnan.]
ġe-friġnan, vb. 3, learn, (orig. ‘by in-
quiry’), hear of, pret. 1 sg. ġefræġn,
575; 3 sg. ~, 194; 1 pl. ġefrūnon (Lang.
§¯20.1), 2; 3 pl. ~, 70, ġefrungon 666;
pp. ġefræġen, 1196, ġefrūnen 694,
2403, 2952. — Foll. by inf.: pret. 1 sg.
ġefræġn, 74; by acc. & inf.: ~, 1011
(ġefræġen), 1027, 2484, [2694], 2752,
2773, [F. 37]; 3 pl. ġefrūnon, 1969. Cf.
fricgan.
frioðo-w®r †, f., compact of peace; gs.
frioðow®re, 2282; as. frioðuw®re,
1096.
friðu-sib(b) ‡, fjō., pledge of peace;
friðusibb folca, 2017 (cf. 2028¯f.).
frōd (†), adj., wise, old (‘old and wise’);
279, 1306, 1366, 1844, 2209, 2513,
2625, 2950; (wintrum) ~, 1724, 2114,
2277; nsm.wk. -a, 2928; dsm.wk. -an,
2123; asf. -e, 2800 (Ke., et al.: frōde,
adv., ‘prudently,’ see BTS). (Piirainen
Germ. *frōd- und germ. *klōk- [Hel-
sinki, 1971]; orig. meaning ‘wise.’)
[Go. frōþs.] — Cpds.: in-, un-.
 GLOSSARY
frōfor, f., consolation, solace, relief,
help; frōfľr 2941; gs. frōfre, 185; ds. ~,
14, 1707; as. frōfre, 7, 628, 973, 1273,
frōfor 698 (n.; appar. masc.).
from, prep. (adv.), see fram.
from, adj., strenuous, bold, brave; 2527;
npm. frome (fyrdhwate): 1641, 2476;
dpf. fromum (splendid), 21. — Cpds.:
sīð-, un-.
fruma, wk.m., beginning; 2309. (Other
meanings: originator, maker, doer,
chief; see Cronan 2003: 403.) —
Cpds.: d®d-, hild-, land-, lēod-, ord-,
wīġ-.
frum-cyn(n) (†), nja., lineage, origin;
as. -cyn, 252.
frum-gār †, m., chieftain; ds. -e, 2856.
(Cf. Lat. primipilus? ZfdA 101 [1972]
25¯f.)
frum-sceaft, ¢. (m.?), creation, begin-
ning, origin; ds. -e, 45; as. -sceaft, 91.
ġe-frūnen, -frūnon, -frungon, see ġe-
friġnan.
fugol, m., bird; ds. fugle, 218; [np.
fugelas, F. 5]; dp. fuglum, [2941].
[FOWL.]
fuhton, see feohtan.
ful(l), adj., w. gen., FULL; full, 2412. —
Cpds.: eġes-, sorg-, weorð-.
ful(l), adv., FULL, very; ful (oft), 480,
951, 1252.
ful(l), n., (FILLed) cup, beaker; ful, 1192;
ds. fulle, 1169; as. ful, 615, 628, 1025,
©ða ful (‘sea’), 1208. [See IF 25
(1909) 152.] — Cpds.: medo-, sele-.
ful-l®stan (†), vb. I, w. dat., help, sup-
port; pres. 1 sg. -l®stu, 2668. [Cf.
fylstan; SB §¯43 n.¯4.]
full-ēode, pret. of ful(l)-gān, anv., w.
dat., follow, serve, aid; 3119.
fultum, m., help, support; as., 698, 1273,
1835, 2662. [ful(l), tēam; SB §¯43 n.¯4,
OEG §¯356.] — Cpd.: mæġen-.
fundian, vb. II, strive, be eager to go;
pret. 3 sg. fundode, 1137 (n.); desire
(w. inf. of motion); pres. 1 pl. fundiaþ,
1819.
furðum, adv., just (of time), ¢rst; 323,
465 (Ries 1907: 378: ðā .¯.¯. furþum =
cum primum, in subord. clause), 2009;
(a short time ago:) 1707.
furþur, adv., FURTHER, furthermore,
further on; 254, 761, 3006.
fūs, adj., eager to set out, ready, in a
381
rush, hurtling; 1475, 3025, 3119; nsn.,
1966; npm. fūse, 1805; — longing;
nsm. fūs, 1916; — ready for death;
nsm. ~, 1241. [Cf. fundian. Stern EStn.
68.2 (1933) 161–73; Bamm. 1979: 56–
7; Orel 2003: 119.] — Cpds.: hin-, ūt-,
wæl-.
fūs-liċ (‡) (+), adj., ready; asn., 1424;
apn. (fyrdsearu) fūslicĿ, 232 (Gum-
mere 1909: ‘war-gear in readiness’),
(~) fūsliċ 2618 (asn.?). (EStn. 68.2
[1933] 161–73.)
f©f-t©ne, see fīf-t©ne.
fyhtum, see feohte.
fyl(l), mi., FALL; fyll, 2912; ds. fylle,
1544 (see: on). — Cpds.: hrā-, wæl-.
ġe-fyllan, vb. I, FELL, kill; 2655; pret. 3
pl. ġefyldan, 2706. [feallan.]
fyllo, fīn., FILL, plenty, feast; gs. fylle,
562; gs. or ds. ~, 1014; ds. ~, 1333.
[full.] — Cpds.: wæl-, wist-.
fyl-wēriġ ‡, adj., (FALL-WEARY), killed;
asm. -ne, 962.
fyr, see feor(r).
f©r, n., FIRE; 2701, 2881; gs. -es, 185,
1764; ds. -e, 2274, 2309, 2595; as. f©r,
1366. — Cpds.: b®l-, heaðo-, wæl-.
f©ras, see fīras.
f©r-bend ‡, fjō. (mi.), BAND or bar
forged with FIRE; dp. -um, 722.
(Coatsworth & Pinder 2002: 250.)
fyrd-ġestealla †, wk.m., war-comrade;
dp. -ġesteallum, 2873. [faran; OIcel.
ferð, OHG fart.]
fyrd-hom ‡, m., war-garment, shirt (or
coat) of mail; as., 1504.
fyrd-hræġl ‡, n., war-garment, mail shirt
(or coat); as., 1527.
fyrd-hwæt †, adj., active in war, war-
like; npm. (frome) fyrdhwate, 1641,
2476.
fyrd-lēoð †, n., war-song; as., 1424.
f©r-draca ‡, wk.m., (FIRE-DRAKE),
-DRAGON; 2689.
fyrd-searo ‡, nwa., armor; ap. -searu,
232, -searo 2618 (as.?).
fyrd-wyrðe (‡) (+), adj.ja., distinguished
(WORTHy) in war; 1316.
fyren, ¢ren, (†), f., pain, violence,
crime, sin, wicked deed; fyren, 915; gs.
fyrene 811 (n.); as. fyrene, 101, 137,
153, 2480, ¢ren’ 1932; gp. fyrena, 164,
628, 750; ap. fyrena, 879; dp.
fyrenum, adv., violently, wickedly:
382 GLOSSARY
1744, exceedingly, sorely: 2441 (Kl.
1905–6: 459). See Weisweiler IF 41
(1923) 33–9, 44–6; Hoops St. 89;
Gneuss 1955: 87; Büchner 1968: 30–
56; Robinson 1985: 56; id. NM 100
(1999) 471–5; Cronan 2003: 401.
•f©ren, adj., FIERy, on ¢re; [nsf. f©renu,
F. 36].
fyren-d®d (†), ¢., violent or wicked
DEED, crime; dp. -um, 1001; ap. -a,
1669.
fyren-ðearf ‡, f., dire distress; as. -e, 14.
fyrġen-bēam ‡, m., mountain-tree; ap.
-as, 1414. (D. Green 1998: 159;
Russom 2007: 227–9.) [Cf. Go.
faírguni, see BGdSL 31 (1906) 68¯f.;
Ritter 1922: 166¯ff.; Holt.Et.; BEAM.]
fyrġen-holt ‡, n., mountain-wood; as.,
1393.
fyrġen-strēam †, m., mountain-STREAM
(or waterfall?; see 1359¯n.; cf. Sarrazin
EStn. 42 [1910] 4–6); 1359; as. ¢rġen-
strēam, 2128.
f©r-heard ‡, adj., HARDened by FIRE;
npn., 305.
fyrian, see ferian.
f©r-lēoht ‡, n., FIRE-LIGHT; as., 1516.
fyrmest, see forma.
fyrn-dagas (†), m.p., DAYS of old; dp.
-dagum, 1451. (NM 100 [1999] 471¯f.)
[Cf. Go. *faírn(ei)s; OE feor(r).]
fyrn-ġeweorc †, n., ancient WORK; as.,
2286. (NM 100 [1999] 472.)
fyrn-ġewin(n) ‡, n., ancient strife; gs.
-ġewinnes, 1689. (Robinson NM 100
[1999] 472.)
fyrn-man(n) ‡, mc., ancient MAN, per-
son of old; gp. -manna, 2761.
fyrn-wita †, wk.m., counselor since old
times; ds. -witan, 2123.
fyrst, mi., space of time, time (granted
for doing something); 134, 210, 2555;
ds. -e, 76 (n.); as. fyrst, 528, 545; is.
-e, 2573. [NHG Frist.]
(ġe-)fyrðran, vb. I, FURTHER, advance,
impel; pp. ġefyrðred, 2784 (see Aant.
[37]). [furðor.]
fyr-wet(t), -wyt(t) [wit(t)], nja., curi-
osity, anxiety; fyrwet, 1985, 2784;
fyrwyt, 232. (Shippey 1978: 15–16.)
[Cf. OS ¢ri-wit(t).]
f©r-wylm ‡, mi., surge of FIRE; dp. -um,
2671.
(ġe-)f©san, vb. I, make ready, impel,
incite; pp. ġef©sed, 217, 630 (ready
for, w. gen.), 2309 (provided with, w.
dat.); nsf. ~, 2561. [fūs.]
gād †, n., lack, want; 660, 949. [Goth.
gaidw; Bamm. 1979: 58.]
gædeling (†), m., kinsman, companion;
gs. -es, 2617 (Brett MLR 14 [1919] 5:
nephew(?), cf. CorpGl 2.6.318:
frat[r]uelis = ġeaduling); dp. -um,
2949. [Go. gadiliggs, OS gaduling; OE
ġeador.]
gæst, see ġist.
g®st, see gāst.
galan, vb. 6, sing, sound; 786, 1432;
pres. 3 sg. gæleð, 2460. [R.-L.2 399.
Cf. nightinGALE.] — Cpd.: ā-.
galdor, see ġealdor.
galga, wk.m., GALLOWs; ds. galgan,
2446. [Bamm. 1979: 62.]
galg-mōd (†), adj., sad in mind, gloomy;
nsf., 1277. [See IF 20 (1906–7) 322.]
galg-trēow, nwa., GALLOWs-TREE; dp.
-tr¬owum, 2940 (Appx.C. §¯17).
gamen, see gomen.
gamol †, adj., old, aged, ancient; (1) of
persons (kings, etc.); 58, 265; gomol,
3095; gomel, 2112, 2793: wk. gamela,
1792; gomela, 1397, 2105, 2487, 2851,
2968; dsm. gamelum, 1677, gomelum
2444; wk. gomelan, 2817; asm.wk.
gomelan, 2421; asf. gomela[n], 2931;
npm. gomele, 1595; gpm. gomelra
(men of old, ancestors), 2036. — (2)
of material objects (sword); nsn. gomol,
2682; asf. gomele, 2563; asn. gomel,
2610. [See Kluge ZvS 26 (1883) 70;
Holtausen IF 5 (1895) 12¯f.; Pokorny
1959: 426; de Vries 1962: s.v. gamall;
Ísl.osb. 227; Orel 2003: 125. — See
BGdSL 12 (1887) 562.]
gamol-feax †, adj., grey-haired; 608.
gān, anv., GO; 1163, gân 386, 1644; pres.
3 sg. g®ð, 455, 603, g±ð 2034, 2054;
sj. 3 sg. gā, 1394; imp. sg. gā, 1782;
pp. (tōgædre) ġegān, 2630 (of hostile
meeting, cf. Mald 67). — Pret. ēode; 3
sg., 358, [403], 612, 640, 726, 918,
1232, 1312, 1814, 3123; 3 pl. ēodon,
493, 1626, 3031, [F. 14]. [Cf. Go.
iddja. See Collitz Das schwache
Präteritum und seine Vorgeschichte,
Hesperia 1 (Göttingen, 1912) §¯32;
Flasdieck A. 61 (1937) 54–64; IF 72
 GLOSSARY
(1967) 275–86; HS 111 (1998) 134–42;
Orel 2003: 133–4.] — Cpds.: full-,
ofer-, oð-, ymb-.
ġe-gān, anv., (1) GO; pret. 3 sg. ġeēode,
2676; 3 pl. ġeēodon, 1967; enter upon,
go to (w. acc.): inf. ġegān, 1277, 1462.
— (2) obtain, gain; inf. ġegān, 1535;
bring to pass (w. þæt-clause): pret. 3
pl. ġeēodon, 2917. — (3) happen; pret.
3 sg. ġeīode, 2200.
gang, m., going; gs. -es, 968; ds. -e,
1884; — track; ns. gang, 1404; as. ~,
1391. [OED: GANG, sb.1] — Cpds.:
be-, here-, in-.
gangan, vb. 7, go; 314, 324, 395, 1034,
[F. 43]; gongan, 711, 1642, 1974,
2083, 2648; imp. sg. ġeong (Lang.
§¯12.5), 2743; pret. 3 sg. †ġēong, 925,
1785, 2019, 2756, 3125, †ġīong, 2214,
2409, 2715; ‡gang (Lang. §¯25.4),
1009, 1295, 1316. Pret. gen(g)de, see
genġan. [Go. gaggan; GANG (Sc.,
dial.).] — Cpd.: ā-.
ġe-gangan, vb. 7, (1) (go to a certain
point), reach (see Lorz 1908: 24); pp.
ġegongen, 822, 3036; obtain, win; inf.
ġegangan, 2536; ger. ġegangenne,
2416; pp. ġegongen, 3085; bring about
(w. þæt-clause): pp. ġegongen, 893. —
(2) happen; pres. 3 sg. ġegangeð,
1846; pp. ġegongen, 2821.
ganot, m., GANNET, sea-bird; gs. -es,
1861. [Lockwood Zeitschr. f. Anglistik
u. Amerikanistik 21 (1973) 416–18.]
gār (†), m., (1) spear, according to 1765
(gāres Ïiht), for throwing; 1846, 3021;
gs. -es, 1765; ds. -e, 1075; np. -as, 328.
(2) missile; ds. -e, 2440 (= ‘arrow’).
(Swanton 1973, 1974; Underwood
1999: 23–6.) [GAR- (¢sh, lic), (Ed)-
GAR; OED: GARE, sb.1 (obs.), GORE,
sb.2, fr. OE gāra.] — Cpds.: bon-,
frum-.
gār-cēne ‡, adj.ja., (spear-bold), brave;
1958.
gār-cwealm ‡, m., spear-death, i.e.
death by the spear, as., 2043.
gār-holt ‡, n., spear-shaft, i.e. spear; as.
(or ap.?), 1834. (Brodeur 1959: 30,
Brady 1979: 130, Robinson 1979: 134–
7, Crp.: ‘forest of spears’; cf. æscholt.)
gār-secg, mja., ocean, sea; as., 49, 515,
537. [EpGl 966: segg = salum
(‘ocean’). Cf. gār, GenB 316? —
383
Etym.: Grimm ZfdA 1 (1841) 578: secg
‘sedge’; Ke., Gloss. s.v. secg: ‘spear-
man’ (cf. Neptune?); Sweet EStn. 2
(1879) 315: gāsrīċ ‘rager’; Redbond
MLR 27 (1932) 204–6: Celtic; Derolez
MLQ 7 (1946) 445–52; Mal. ES 28
(1947) 42–5: gār ‘storm’; Bouman
Neophil. 35 (1951) 239–40: ‘spear-
sedge’; Lindqvist 1958: 121–2: ‘spear-
man’ (Óðinn) in 49 only; Candelaria
ELN 1.4 (1964) 243¯f.: ‘narwhal’;
Archiv 202 (1966) 431–6; Names 20
(1972) 95–100, 21.75–7; R. Smith ELN
24.3 (1987) 14–19.]
gār-wiga ‡, wk.m., spear-¢ghter, war-
rior; ds. -wigan, 2674, 2811.
gār-wīġend ‡, mc., spear-¢ghter, war-
rior; ap., 2641.
gāst, g®st, ma., mi., GHOST, spirit, de-
mon, creature; g®st, 102, 2073(?),
2312 (??); gs. (werġan) gāstes, 133
(Grendel), 1747 (devil); as. gāst, 1274;
gp. gāsta 1357, g®sta 1123 (¢re). —
(Note. It is sometimes diÌcult to deter-
mine whether [-]gæst [ġist] or [-]g®st
was intended; see Rie.Zs. 383;
Emerson PMLA 21 [1906] 880 n.¯3; Kl.
1911–12: [19]; Cha., note on 102;
Hoops 29¯f.; Tolkien 1936: 279; D.
Green 1998: 355.) [NHG Geist.] —
Cpds.: ellen-, ellor-, ġeōsceaft-, wæl-.
gāst-bona ‡, wk.m., soul-slayer, devil,
177. (See Kl. 1911–12: [18]; Hoops St.
24–6.)
ġē, conj., and; 1340; ġē swylċe, 2258;
correl. ġē .¯.¯. ġē (both .¯.¯. and), 1864;
ġē .¯.¯. ġē .¯.¯.¯, ġē 1248.
ġē, pron., see þū.
ġe-, pre¢x. See Lorz 1908: 11–72; W.
Lehmann, Das Prä¢x uz- im Alt-
englischen, p. i, n.¯3; Lang. §¯26.5 &
p.¯cl n.¯11.
ġeador (†), adv., toGETHER; 835; ~
ætsomne, 491. — Cpd.: on-.
ġeald, see ġyldan.
ġealdor, n., (1) sound; as., 2944. — (2)
incantation, spell; ds. galdre, 3052.
[galan.]
ġealp, see ġilpan.
ġēap, adj., curved, vaulted, †spacious;
1800; asm. -ne, 836. — Cpds.: horn-,
s®-. (See Hoops 22¯f., EStn. 64 [1929]
201–7.)
ġēar, n., YEAR; (oþ ðæt ōþer cōm) ġēar,
384 GLOSSARY
1134 (= ‘spring,’ cf. GuthA 744,
MRune 32). — See winter; missere.
ġeāra, adv., gp. of ġēar (OEG §¯666; cf.
Pope 2001: 184), long since, (of
YORE); 2664. — Cpd.: un-.
ġeara, adj., see ġearo.
ġeard, m., (enclosure, hence) inhabited
place, settlement, homestead; ap. -as,
1134; dp. (sg. meaning) -um, 13, 265,
1138, 2459. [YARD.] — Cpds.:
middan-, wind-.
ġeār-dagas, m.p., DAYS of YORE; dp.
(in, on) ġeārdagum, 1, 1354, 2233. [Or
ġēar-? So Kl.; cf. Pope 2001: 184 s.v.
ġeāra.]
ġeare, see ġear(w)e.
ġearo, ġearu, adj.wa., ready, prepared
(¯for: gen., on w. acc.), alert; ġearo,
121, 1825, 2241, 2414; ġearu, 1109;
ġeara (Lang. §¯18.2), 1914; nsf. ġearo,
1230, 2118, 3105; nsn. ġearo, 77; asf.
ġearwe, 1006; np. ġearwe, 211, 1813
(equipped with, w. dat.). [YARE (dial.,
arch.); NHG gar.] See ġear(w)e,
fæðerġearwe. — Cpd.: anwīġ-.
ġearo, adv., see ġear(w)e.
ġearo-folm ‡, adj., with ready hand;
2085.
ġear(w)e, adv., (readily), entirely, well,
surely, for certain (w. witan, cunnan,
ġemunan, scēawian); ġearwe, 265 n.,
2339, 2725; ġearwe ne .¯.¯.¯, not at all,
246 (n.), 878; ġeare (see Beibl. 15
[1904] 70), 2062, 2070, 2656; ġearo,
2748 (n.). — Comp. ġearwor, 3074
(n.: more certainly, rather). — Supl.
ġearwost, 715.
ġeato-liċ †, adj., richly equipped,
splendid, stately; 1401; nsn., 1562;
asn. ~, 308, 2154; apn. ~, 215. (Juzi
1939: 72–3.) [See ġeatwa.]
ġeatwa, fwō.p., equipment, precious
objects; ap., 3088. (SP 62 [1965] 2–4;
Brady 1979: 121–4, 135–6.) [SB §¯43
n.¯4, OEG §§¯74 n.¯5, 337 (but cf. 358
n.¯6); see wīġ-ġetawa.] — Cpds.:
ēored-, gryre-, hilde-.
ġeġn-cwide †, mi., answer; gp. -cwida,
367. [cweðan.]
ġeġnum †, adv., forward, straight, di-
rectly (gangan, faran); 314, 1404.
ġehðo, see ġiohðo.
ġēn, adv., still, yet, further; 2070, 2149,
3006; (nū) ġēn, 2859, 3167; (ðā) ġēn,
2237, 2677, 2702; w. neg., (ðā) ġēn,
not yet, no more, not . . . still, 83 (n.),
734, 2081. See ġ©t.
ġēna, adv., still, further; 2800; (þā) ~,
3093. (Quirk 1954: 63–7.) [Cf. āwa,
sōna; -a fr. ā, = Go. aiw; Luick §¯313.]
gende, see genġan.
genġan (†), vb. I, go, ride (cf. ærnan);
pret. 3 sg. gengde, 1412, gende (Lang.
§¯20.1), 1401. [gangan.]
ġēnunga (†), adv., straightway, directly,
completely; 2871.
ġeō, adv., formerly, of old; 1476; ġiō,
2521; iū, 2459. [Go. ju.] See iō-
meowle, iū-mon(n).
ġēoc (†), f., help; ds. ġēoce, 1834; as. ~,
177, 608, 2674.
ġēocor †, adj., grief-¢lled, sad; 765.
ġeofon †, m. or n., sea, ocean; 515;
ġifen, 1690; gs. ġeofenes, 362, ġyfenes
1394. [OS geİan.]
ġeofum, -ena, see ġifu.
ġeogoð, f. (orig. ¢.), YOUTH; (1) abstract;
ds. ġeogoþe, 409, 466, 2512, ġiogoðe
2426; as. ġioguðe, 2112. — (2)
concrete: young persons (warriors);
ns. ġeogoð, 66, ġiogoð 1190; gs.
(duguþe ond) ġeogoþe: 160, 621, (~)
iogoþe, 1674; as. ġeogoðe, 1181.
(Whitelock 1951: 89–90.)
ġeogoð-feorh †, m.n., (period of¯)
YOUTH; ds. (on) ġeogoðfēore, 537, (~)
ġeoguðfēore, 2664.
ġeolo, adj.wa., YELLOW; asf. ġeolwe,
2610.
ġeolo-rand †, m., YELLOW shield (ref. to
the color of the lindenwood, cf. 2610,
or, perh., to a golden band encircling
the shield: see M. Keller 1906: 73);
as., 438.
ġeōmor (†), adj., sad, mournful; 2100,
him wæs ġeōmor sefa: 49, 2419, si.
2632; nsf. ġeōmuru, 1075. [OHG
jāmar; NHG Jammer (noun).] —
Cpds.: fela-, hyġe-, mōd-, wine-.
ġeōmore †, adv., sadly; ġeōmore, 151.
ġeōmor-ġyd(d) †, nja., song of mourn-
ing, as. ġiōmorġyd, 3150.
ġeōmor-līċ, adj., sad; nsn., 2444.
ġeōmor-mōd (†), adj., sad of mind;
2044, nsf. 3018; nsm. ġiōmormōd,
2267.
ġeōmrian, vb. II, mourn, lament; pret. 3
sg. ġeōmrode, 1118.
 GLOSSARY
ġeōmuru, see ġeōmor.
ġeond, prep., w. acc., throughout,
through, along, over; ġeond þisne
middanġeard, 75, 1771; wīde ġeond
eorþan, 266, 3099; ġeond wīdwegas,
840, 1704; ġeond þæt sæld, 1280, si.
1981, 2264. [Cf. beYOND; Go. jaind.]
ġeond-br®dan (‡) (+), vb. I, over-
spread; pp. -br®ded, 1239. [brād.]
ġeond-hweorfan †, vb. 3, pass through,
go about; pret. 3 sg. -hwearf, 2017.
ġeond-sēon ‡, vb. 5, look over; pret. 1
sg. -seh, 3087.
ġeond-wlītan †, vb. 1, look over; ġiond-,
2771.
ġeong, adj., YOUNG; 13, 20, 854, 1831,
ġiong 2446; nsf. ġeong, 1926, 2025;
wk.m. ġeonga, 2675; dsm. ġeongum,
1843, 1948, 2044, 2674, 2811; dsm.wk.
ġeongan, 2626, 2860; asm. ġeongne,
1969; dpm. ġeongum, 72; apm.
ġeonge, 2018. Supl. wk.n. ġinġæste
(Luick §¯169 n.¯4), ‡last, 2817. (Bäck
1934: 164–6.) Cpd.: •heaþo-ġeong.
ġēong, pret., and ġeong, imp. (2743), see
gangan.
ġeorn, adj., w. gen., desirous, eager;
2783. [Cf. YEARN, vb.; see ġeorne.] —
Cpd.: lof-.
ġeorne, adv., eagerly, willingly, earnest-
ly; 66, 2294; readily, ¢rmly, 669, 968;
surely: comp. ġeornor, 821. (Ingersoll
1978: 177–8.) [OIcel. gerna, Dan.
gerne, Swed. gärna, NHG gern.]
ġeō-sceaft ‡, ¢., that which has been de-
termined of old, fate; as., 1234.
ġeō-sceaft-gāst ‡, m., demon sent by
fate, fated spirit; gp. -a, 1266.
ġēotan, vb. 2, pour, Ïow, rush; pres.ptc.
ġēotende, 1690. [Go. giutan, NHG
giessen.]
ġest-sele †, mi., GUEST-hall, (royal¯) hall
for retainers (BGdSL 32 [1907] 9–16,
565–7); as., 994. [See ġist; SB §¯91
n.¯2; OEG §§¯188, 193(c).]
ġētan (‡), vb. I, destroy, kill (by shed-
ding blood¯); (Kock 1918: 1:) cut open;
2940. (Cf. ā-ġētan, Brun 18, etc.; Rob.
52.) [Gmc. *gautjan, cf. OE ġēotan. IF
20 (1906–7) 327; Holt.Et.]
ġid(d), nja., song, tale, (¯formal) speech,
sententious utterance; ġid 1065, ġidd
2105, ġyd 1160; as. ġid, 1723; ġyd,
2108, 2154, 2446; gp. ġidda, 868; dp.
385
ġiddum 1118, ġyddum, 151. (See
P.Grdr.2 iia 36¯f.; R.-L.1 1.444; Parker
1956; Howlett SN 46 [1974] 309–25;
Raw 1978: 17–19; Opland 1980: 195–
6; North 1991: 39–62; Reichl in
Korhammer et al. 1992: 349–70; Niles
1999: 208–12. See lēoð, spel[l].) —
Cpds.: ġeōmor-, word-.
ġif, conj.; (1) IF; w. ind.: ġif, 272, 346,
442, 447, 527, 661, 684, 1185, 1822,
1826, 1836, 1846, 2514; ġyf, 944,
1182, 1382, 1852; w. sj.: ġif, 452, 593,
1379, 1477, 1481, 2519, 2637, 2841;
ġyf, 280 (ind. ?), 1104. — (2) whether,
if, w. sj.; ġif, 1140, 1319.
ġifan, vb. 5, GIVE; inf. ġiofan, 2972; pret.
3 sg. ġeaf, 1719, 2146, 2173, 2431,
2623, 2635, 2640, 2865, 2919, 3009,
3034; 3 pl. ġēafon, 49; pp. ġyfen, 64,
1678, 1948. [On the prob. Scand. inÏ.
on the form of GIVE, see OED.] —
Cpds.: ā-, æt-, for-, of-.
ġifen, (noun), see ġeofon.
ġifeðe (†), adj.ja. (see Kluge 1926:
§¯233), GIVen, granted (by fate); 2730;
nsn. 299, 2491, 2682, ġyfeþe 555, 819.
(N.-L. Surber-Meyer, Gift & Exchange
in the AS Poetic Corpus (Geneva,
1994) 186–92.) [Cf. OS giİiđig.] —
Cpd.: un-.
ġifeðe †, nja., fate; 3085.
ġif-heal(l) ‡, f., GIFt-HALL, hall for the
dispensing of gifts; as. -healle, 838.
ġīfre, adj.ja., greedy, ravenous; nsf.,
1277. — Supl. ġīfrost, 1123. — Cpd.:
heoro-.
ġif-sceat(t) ‡, m., GIFt; ap. -sceattas,
378. [See sceat(t).]
ġif-stōl †, m., GIFt-seat, throne; 2327;
as. ~, 168 (n.). (Drescher & Hauck
Frühmittelalterliche Studien 16 [1982]
237–301; Hauck Offa 41 [1984] 29–39;
Pollington 2003: 81–4. See ēþel-stōl;
Appx.B §¯1.)
ġifu, f., GIFt; 1884; as. ġife, 1271, 2182;
gp. ġifa, 1930, ġeofena 1173; dp. ġeo-
fum, 1958. — Cpds.: māðm-, swyrd-.
ġīgant, m., GIANT; np. -as, 113; gp. -a,
1562, 1690. (Clemoes 1995: 26–9.)
[Fr. Lat. (Gk.) gigas, acc. gigantem.]
ġilp, n. (m.), vow, boast, boasting; ds.
ġylpe, 2521 (n.); as. ġilp, 829, ġylp
2528; on ġylp, proudly, honorably,
1749. [OS gelp.] See Schü. 1933;
386 GLOSSARY
Daunt 1966: 70–1; Nolan & Bloom-
¢eld JEGP 79 (1980) 499–516;
Murphy ES 66 (1985) 105–12; Cronan
2003: 400; Nelson Neophil. 89 (2005)
299–310. — Cpd.: dol-.
ġilpan, ġylpan, vb. 3, w. gen. or dat.,
boast, rejoice; ġylpan, 2874; pres. 1
sg. ġylpe, 586; 3 sg. ġylpeð, 2055;
pret. 3 sg. ġealp, 2583. [YELP.] —
Cpd.: be-.
ġilp-cwide †, mi., boasting speech; 640.
[OS gelp-quidi.]
ġilp-hlæden ‡, adj. (pp.), (vaunt-
LADEN), supplied with glorious words;
868. (So Cha., n.; Bryan JEGP 19
[1920] 85 [= ġidda ġemyndiġ; si.
Nolan & Bloom¢eld JEGP 79 (1980)
499–516]; Dob.; cf. Kl.1–3 [and 1905–
6: 456]: ‘covered with glory, proud.’)
ġim(m), m., GEM, jewel; 2072. [Fr. Lat.
gemma (> OFr. gemme > MnE gem).]
— Cpd.: searo-.
ġin(n) †, adj., spacious, wide; asm.
ġynne, 1551; asn.wk. ġinne (MS
gimme), 466 (n.). [Cf. OIcel. ginn-,
ginnunga gap.]
ġin-fæst, ġimfæst (Lang. §¯20.3), †, adj.,
ample, liberal; asf. ġimfæste (ġife),
1271; asf.wk. ġinfæstan (~), 2182.
[gin(n).]
ġinġæst, see ġeong.
ġiō, see ġeō.
ġiofan, see ġifan.
ġiogoð, see ġeogoð.
ġiohðo †, f., sorrow, care; ds. (on)
ġiohðe, 2793, (~) ġehðo 3095; as.
ġiohðo, 2267. [Bamm. 1979: 64.]
ġiōmor(-), see ġeōmor(-).
ġiond-, see ġeond-.
ġiong, see ġeong.
ġīong, pret., see gangan.
ġe-ġiredan, see ġe-ġyrwan.
ġist, mi., stranger, visitor, GUEST; ġist,
1138, 1522; gæst, 1800, 2073(??),
2312(?); ds. ġyste, 2227; as. ġist, 1441;
np. ġistas, 1602; ap. gæstas, 1893.
[Cogn. w. Lat. hostis; form GUEST
prob. inÏ. by ON gestr (see OED). On
ġi- : gæ-, see OEG §§¯193(c), 427.] —
Cpds.: fēðe-, gryre-, inwit-, nīð-, sele-.
ġit, see þū.
ġīt, see ġ©t.
gladian (‡) +, vb. II, ‡glisten, shine;
pres. 3 pl. gladiað, 2036. [glæd.]
glæd, adj., cheerful, bright, well dis-
posed, gracious; 1173; dsm. gladum,
2025; asm. glædne, 863, 1181; apm.
glæde, 58 (n.). [GLAD (cf. glædmōd);
oldest meaning ‘shining’ (cf. gladian);
see BT, Cronan 2003: 398, 401–2, and
cf. Bloom¢eld JEGP 93 (1994) 195¯f.,
MLQ 60 (1999) 141–4: ‘lordly, glori-
ous’ (cf. Juzi 1939: 55–6); Owen-
Crocker ELN 38.4 (2001) 1–9: ‘appre-
ciative’; cf. Orel 2003: 135.]
glæd-man ‡, adj., cheerful, bright, gra-
cious; vs., 367. (AntGl 6.119: hilaris =
glædman; Bu. 84; EStn. 20 [1895]
335.)
glæd-mōd, adj., GLAD at heart; 1785.
glēd, ¢., ¢re, Ïame; 2652, 3114; dp.
glēdum, 2312, 2335, 2677, 3041.
[GLEED (arch., dial.); cf. glōwan.]
glēd-eġesa ‡, wk.m., ¢re-terror, terrible
¢re; -eġĺsa, 2650.
glēo, n. (SB §§¯247 n.¯1, 250 n.¯2, OEG
§¯120.2), GLEE, entertainment, music
(?); 2105. (Opland 1980: 243–5.)
glēo-bēam †, m., GLEE-wood, lyre or
harp; gs. -es, 2263. [BEAM.]
glēo-drēam ‡, m., enjoyment, entertain-
ment, revelry; as., 3021.
glēo-man(n), mc., GLEEMAN, singer,
musician; gs. -mannes, 1160. (Wiss-
mann 1955; Opland 1980: 196–9, 213–
16, 243–6.)
glīdan, vb. 1, GLIDE; pret. 3 sg. glād,
2073; 2 pl. glidon, 515. [Krisch HS
103 (1990) 116–31.] — Cpd.: tō-.
glitinian (‡) +, vb. II, GLITTer, shine;
2758. [Cf. Go. glitmunjan.]
glōf, f., GLOVE, (pouch?); 2085 (n.).
[Archiv 125 (1910) 159; Kross 1911:
89–90; Bamm. 1979: 67.]
gnēað (‡) +, adj., miserly, sparing; 1930.
gnorn †, m. or n., sorrow, aÑiction; as.,
2658.
gnornian, vb. II, mourn, lament; pret. 3
sg. gnornode, 1117. — Cpd.: be-.
gōd, adj., GOOD (able, eÌcient, excel-
lent, strong, brave; used mostly of
persons); 195, 269 (w. gen., ‘as
regards’), 279 (frōd ond gōd), 1870,
2263, 2543, 2563; þæt wæs gōd
cyning: 11, 863, 2390; nsn. gōd, 1562;
nsm.wk. gōda, 205, 355, 675, 758,
1190, 1518, 2944, 2949; dsm. gōdum,
3036, 3114; dsm.wk. gōdan, 384,
 GLOSSARY
2327; asm. gōdne, 199, 347, 1486,
1595, 1810, 1969, 2184; npm. gōde,
2249; npm.wk. gōdan, 1163; gpm.
gōdra, 2648, [F. 33]; dpf. gōdum,
2178; apm. gōde, 2641. — Cpd.: ®r-.
— Comp. betera, BETTER, superior;
469, 1703 (ġeboren ~, cf. [bett]
borenra, LawAf 1, 11.5 [MS H]). Supl.
bet(e)st, betost, BEST; nsm. betst,
1109; nsf. betost, 3007; asn. betst, 453;
asm.wk. bet[e]stan, 1871; vsm.wk.
bet[e]sta, 947 (n.), 1759. — Comp.
sēlra, sēlla, better (just 4× of persons):
sēlra, 860, 2193, 2199 (‘higher in
rank’); sēlla, 2890; nsn. sēlre, 1384;
dsm. sēlran, 1468; asm. sēlran, 1197,
1850; asn. sēlre, 1759; npf. sēlran,
1839. Supl. sēlest, best (just 6× of
persons); nsf., 256; nsn., 146, 173,
285, 935, 1059, 1389, 2326; nsm. wk.
sēlesta, 412; dsm.wk. sēlestan, 1685;
asn. sēlest, 454, 658, 1144; asm.wk.
sēlestan, 1406, 1956, 2382; npm.wk. ~,
416; apm. ~, 3122. See sēl. (Daunt
1966: 68–70; Strauss 1974: 109.)
[*sōli-; cf. Go. sēls (ablaut).]
gōd, n., GOOD, goodness, good action,
gifts, liberality; ds. gōde, 20, 956,
1184, 1952; gp. gōda (advantages,
good practices, ‘skills,’ Ja.; prob. not
‘(understand the) good (of),’ Bradley
1982), 681; dp. gōdum, 1861.
gōd-fremmend(e) ‡, mc. (pres.ptc.)
[pl.], one doing GOOD, acting proper-
ly; gp. gōdfremmendra, 299.
gold, n., GOLD; 1107, 1193, 2765, 3012,
3052, 3134; gs. goldes, 1093, 1694,
2246, 2301; ds. golde, 304, 553, 777,
927, 1028, 1054, 1382, 1484, 1900,
2102, 2192, 2931, 3018; as. gold, 2276,
2536, 2758, 2793, 3105, 3167. (Silber
AnMed. 18 [1977] 5–19.) — Cpd.: f®t-.
gold-®ht ‡, ¢., possessions in GOLD,
treasure of gold; as., 2748.
gold-fāg, -fāh, (‡) +, adj., ornamented
with GOLD; -fāh, 1800; asm. -fāhne,
2811; asn. -fāh, 308, npn. -fāg, 994.
gold-ġyfa †, wk.m., GOLD-GIVer, lord;
as. -ġyfan, 2652.
•gold-hladen¯‡, adj. (pp.), (LADEN)
adorned with GOLD; [F. 13].
gold-hroden †, adj. (pp.), GOLD-
adorned; nsf., 614, 640, 1948, 2025.
(Damico 1984: 74–8.) [hrēodan.]
387
gold-hwatu ‡, f., GOLD-spell, curse on
gold; as. -hwæte, 3074 (n.). See hwatu.
gold-māððum ‡, m., GOLD-treasure; ap.
-māðmas, 2414.
gold-sele ‡, mi., GOLD-hall; ds., 1639,
2083; as., 715, 1253.
gold-weard ‡, m., GUARDian of GOLD;
as., 3081.
gold-wine †, mi., GOLD-friend, (gener-
ous) prince; goldwine gumena: ns.,
1602, vs. 1171, 1476; goldwine Ġēata:
ns., 2419, 2584.
gold-wlanc †, adj., GOLD-proud, splen-
didly decked in gold; 1881.
gombe (wk.f.?) (-a?, -an?) †, tribute; as.
gomban (ġyldan), 11. (The only other
instance: gombon (ġieldan), GenA
1978; cf. gambra, Hel. 355; Guten-
brunner 1936: 106.)
gomel, gomol, see gamol.
gomen, n., amusement, entertainment,
diversion, pastime, sport, play; 2263,
2459, gamen, 1160; ds. gomene, 1775,
gamene, 2941; as. gamen, 3021.
[GAME; Jóhannesson 1956: 414; de
Vries 1962: s.v. gaman; Bamm. 1979:
61; Ísl.osb. 227; Orel 2003: 125.] —
Cpd.: Heal-.
gomen-wāþ ‡, f., diverting (i.e. cheerful)
journey, ds. -e, 854.
gomen-wudu ‡, mu., WOOD of enter-
tainment (lyre or harp); 1065; as.,
2108.
(ġe-)gongan, see (ġe-)gangan.
gr®diġ, adj., GREEDY, ¢erce; nsf. (grim
ond) gr®diġ, 121, so 1499 (m.f.); asn.
gr®diġ, 1522.
gr®ġ, adj., GREY, silvery; npn., 330; apf.
-e, 334. (See Barley 1974: 23.)
•gr®ġ-hama¯‡, wk.m. (adj.), the GREY-
coated one; [F. 6 (n.)]. See līċ-homa.
gr®ġ-m®l ‡, adj., GREY- or silver-
colored (‘-marked’); nsn., 2682.
(Davidson 1962: 124.)
græs-molde ‡, wk.f., GRASS-MOLD,
greensward, grassy turf; as. -moldan,
1881.
gram, adj., angry, hostile; gsm. -es, 765;
npm.wk. -an, 777; dpm. -um, 424,
1034. [Cf. grim(m); NHG gram.] —
Cpd.: ®fen-.
grāp, f., grasp, claw; gs. -e, 836; ds. -e,
438, 555; dp. -um, 765, 1542. [grīpan.]
— Cpds.: fēond-, hilde-.
388 GLOSSARY
grāpian, vb. II, (GROPE), grasp; pret. 3
sg. grāpode, 1566, 2085.
grēot, n., sand, earth; ds. -e, 3167.
[GRIT.]
grēotan †, vb. 2, weep; pres. 3 sg.
grēoteþ, 1342. [GREET (Sc., North.).
AfdA 20 (1894) 244: grēotan fr.
blending of grētan (= *gr®tan, cf.
OIcel. gráta, Dan. græde, Swed. gråta)
and rēotan.]
grētan, vb. I, (1) approach, touch,
attack; 168, 803 (harm), 2421, 2735;
pret. 3 sg. grētte, 1893, 2108; sj. 2 sg.
~, 1995; 3 sg. ~, 3081; pp. grēted,
1065. — (2) GREET, salute, address;
inf. grētan, 347, 1646, 2010, 3095;
pret. 3 sg. grētte, 614, 625, 1816. [OS
grôtian. See Stroebe BGdSL 37 (1912)
205–9.]
ġe-grētan, vb. I, GREET, address; inf.
ġegrētan, 1861 (n.); pret. 3 sg. ġe-
grētte, 652, 1979, 2516.
grim(m), adj., GRIM, ¢erce, angry, grim,
555, 2043, 2650; nsf. ~, 121, 1499
(m.f.): 2860; nsm.wk. grimma, 102;
gsf. grimre, 527; asm. grimne, 1148,
2136; asf. grimme, 1234; dpm.
grimmon, 306 (?, n.); dpf. wk.(?)
grimman, 1542. — Cpds.: heaðo-,
heoro-, nīþ-, searo-.
grīm-helm †, m., mask-HELMet, helmet
(with a mask-like frontal plate); ap.
-as, 334 (n.). See beado-, here-grīma.
grim-liċ, adj., ¢erce, terrible; 3041.
grimme, adv., GRIMly, terribly; 3012,
3085.
grīm-mon(n) ‡, mc., mask-MAN, helmet-
ed warrior; 306 (n.).
grīpan, vb. 1, (GRIPE), grasp, clutch;
pret. 3 sg. grāp, 1501. — Cpds.: for-,
wið-.
gripe, mi., GRIP, grasp, attack; 1765; as.,
1148. — Cpds.: f®r-, mund-, nīð-.
grom-heort †, adj., hostile-HEARTed;
1682. (Willard A. 54 [1930] 14.)
grom-h©diġ †, adj., angry-minded, hos-
tilely disposed; 1749. (Willard ibid.)
[hycgan.]
grōwan, vb. 7, GROW; pret. 3 sg. grēow,
1718.
grund, m., GROUND, bottom; ds. grunde,
553, 2294, 2758, 2765; as. grund,
1367, 1394; — plain, earth; as.
(ġynne) grund, 1551; ap. grundas,
1404, 2073. (Benning 1961: 88–94.) —
Cpds.: eormen-, mere-, s®-.
grund-būend †, mc. [pl.], inhabitant of
the earth, human (being); gp. -ra, 1006.
grund-hyrde ‡, mja., guardian of the
deep; as., 2136.
grund-wong ‡, m., GROUND-plain;
bottom (of the pool), as., 1496; surface
of Ïoor, as., 2770; — earth; as., 2588
(n.).
grund-wyrġen(n) ‡, fjō., (¯female) out-
cast of the deep; as. -wyrġenne, 1518.
(See Kl. 1911–12: [20]; Philippson
1929: 53 n.¯6.) See werhðo.
gryn(n), see gyrn.
gryre (†), mi., terror, horror; 1282
(Schü.Bd. 49: force of attack); ds.
(as.?), 384; as., 478; gp. gryra, 591; dp.
gryrum, 483. — Cpds.: f®r-, wīġ-.
gryre-brōga †, wk.m., horror; 2227.
gryre-fāh ‡, adj., terrible in its vari-
egated coloring (rather than terribly
hostile: see Kl. JEGP 12 [1913] 253);
3041; asm. -ne, 2576.
gryre-ġeatwe ‡, fwō.p., terrible armor,
warlike equipment; dp. -ġeatwum,
324. See wīġ-ġetawa.
gryre-ġiest ‡, mi., dreadful stranger; ds.
-e, 2560.
gryre-lēoð †, n., terrible song; as. 786.
gryre-liċ †, adj., terrible, horrible, asm.
-licne, 1441, 2136.
gryre-sīð ‡, m., dreadful (perilous)
expedition; ap. -as, 1462.
guma †, wk.m., man, (adult) male per-
son; 20, 652, 868, 973, 1682, 2178;
vs., 1384; ds. guman, 2821; as. ~,
1843, 2294; np. ~, 215, 306, 666, 1648;
gp. gumena, 73, 328, 474, 715, 878,
1058, 1171, 1367, 1476, 1499, 1602,
1824, 2043, 2233, 2301, 2416, 2516,
2859, 3054; dp. gumum, 127, 321; ap.
guman, 614. [Go. guma, OHG gumo,
OIcel. gumi, Swed. gumma; cf.
brideGrOOM, Dan. brudgom, Swed.
brudgumme. Orel 2003: 146.] —
Cpds.: dryht-, seld-.
gum-cyn(n) †, nja., humanKIND, (hu-
man) race; gs. -cynnes, 260, 2765; dp.
-cynnum, 944. [KIN.]
gum-cyst †, ¢., manly virtue, muni¢-
cence; dp. -um (gōd): 1486, 2543; ap.
-e, 1723. (Cf. uncyst = avaritia, BenR
31.16, etc.)
 GLOSSARY
gum-drēam ‡, m., pleasures of men; as.,
2469.
gum-dryhten ‡, m., lord of men; 1642.
gum-fēþa ‡, wk.m., band on foot; 1401.
See fēþa.
gum-mon(n) ‡, mc., MAN; gp. -manna,
1028.
gum-stōl ‡, m., throne; ds. -e, 1952. (See
brego-stōl; MLR 48 [1953] 176; ES 39
[1958] 110–16. See Appx.B §¯1.)
gūð †, f., war, battle, ¢ght; 1123, 1658,
2483, 2536; gs. -e, 483, 527, 630,
1997, 2356, 2626; ds. -e, 438, 1472,
1535, 2353, 2491, 2878, [F. 31]; as. -e,
603 (ds.?, see Kl. 1905–6: 453; cf.
Hoops); gp. -a, 2512, 2543; dp. -um,
1958, 2178.
gūð-beorn ‡, m., warrior; gp. -a, 314.
gūð-bil(l) †, n., war-sword; 2584; gp.
-billa, 803.
gūð-byrne ‡, wk.f., war-corslet; 321.
gūð-cearu ‡, f., war-CARE, grief-laden
strife; ds. -ċeare, 1258. (See Appx.C §¯4.)
gūð-cræft ‡, m., war-strength; 127.
gūð-cyning †, m., war-KING; 2335
(-kyning), 2563, 2677, 3036; as., 199,
1969.
gūð-dēað ‡, m., DEATH in battle; 2249.
gūð-Ïoga ‡, wk.m., war-FLIer; as.
-Ïogan, 2528. [Ïēogan.]
gūð-freca †, wk.m., ¢ghter; 2414. (Brady
1983: 231–2: ‘one eager for war’; but
cf. scyld-freca.)
gūð-fremmend(e) †, mc. (pres.ptc.) [pl.],
warrior; gp. -fremmendra, 246.
gūð-ġetawa ‡, fwō.p., war-equipment;
ap., 2636; dp. -um, 395. See wīġ-
ġetawa; Varr.: 368a.
gūð-ġew®de ‡, nja., war-garment, ar-
mor; np. -ġew®do, 227; gp. -ġew®da
(ap.?), 2623 (n.); ap. -ġew®du, 2617,
2730, 2851, 2871.
gūð-ġeweorc ‡, n., warlike deed; gp. -a,
678, 981, 1825 (n.).
gūð-helm ‡, m., war-HELMet; 2487. (Cf.
Gwara SP 93 [1996] 333–48: ‘battle-
shroud’ [¢g.], i.e. martial fury.)
gūð-horn ‡, n., war-HORN; as., 1432.
gūð-hrēð ‡, (orig. n.: see hrēð), glory in
battle; 819.
gūð-lēoð ‡, n., war-song; as., 1522.
gūþ-mōd ‡, adj., of warlike mind, 306.
gūð-r®s †, m., storm of battle, attack;
as., 2991; gp. -a, 1577, 2426.
389
gūð-rēċ ‡, mi., war-(REEK), smoke; 1118
(n.).
gūð-rēow ‡, adj., ¢erce in battle;
-rēouw, 58. (See Appx.C §¯10.) [Holt.
Et.]
gūð-rinċ †, m., warrior; 838, 1881; as.,
1501; gp. -a, 2648.
gūð-rōf †, adj., brave in battle; 608. See
rōf.
gūð-scear ‡, m., slaughter (SHEARing) in
battle, carnage; ds. -e, 1213. Cf.
inwit-scear.
gūð-sceaða ‡, wk.m., enemy, destroyer;
2318.
gūð-searo †, nwa., armor; np. 328; ap.,
215.
gūð-sele ‡, mi., battle-hall; ds., 443,
2139.
gūð-sweord ‡, n., war-SWORD; as., 2154.
gūð-wēriġ ‡, adj., worn out (WEARY)
with ¢ghting, dead; asm. -ne, 1586.
gūð-wiga ‡, wk.m., warrior; 2112.
gūð-wine ‡, mi., war-friend, warrior,
sword; as., 1810; dp. -winum, 2735
(n.). (Kock2 113; Brady 1979: 103–5,
eadem 1983: 203–4.)
•gūð-wudu¯‡, mu., battle-WOOD, spear;
[F. 6].
ġyd(d), see ġid(d).
ġyddian, vb. II, speak, discourse; pret. 3
sg. ġyddode, 630.
ġyf, see ġif.
ġyfen, noun, see ġeofon.
ġyfen, pp., see ġifan.
ġyfeþe, see ġifeðe.
ġyldan, vb. 3, pay, repay; 11, 1184,
2636; pret. 1 sg. ġeald, 2491; 3 sg. ~,
1047, 2991; [3 pl. guldan, F. 40].
[YIELD.] — Cpds.: ā-, an-, for-.
gylden, adj., GOLDEN, covered with gold;
nsn., 1111, 1677; dsm. gyldnum, 1163;
asm. gyldenne, 47, 1021, 2809; asn.
(seġn eall) gylden (‘gold-wrought,’ i.e.
with brocaded gold thread or strips, as
with the vestments of St. Cuthbert [see
C. Dodwell AS Art (Manchester, 1982)
pl. F]; see also Owen-Crocker 2004:
195–6), 2767. [gold; Go. gulþeins.]
•ġyllan¯¯(†), vb. 3, YELL, cry out, re-
sound; [pres. 3 sg. ġylleð, F. 6].
ġylp, ġylpan, see ġilp, ġilpan.
ġylp-spr®ċ ‡, fjō., boasting SPEECH; ds.
-e, 981.
ġylp-word, n., boasting WORD; gp. -a, 675.
390 GLOSSARY
ġ©man, vb. I, w. gen., care, heed, be
intent (on); pres. 3 sg. ġ©með, 1757;
imp. sg. ġ©m, 1760; w. (tō &) ger.:
pres. 3 sg. ġ©með, 2451. [Go.
gaumjan.] — Cpd.: for-
ġyn(n), see ġin(n).
gyrdan, vb. I, GIRD, belt; [pret. 3 sg.
gyrde, F. 13]; pp. gyrded, 2078.
ġyrede, ġeġyred, see ġyrwan.
gyrn, gryn(n), †, m.f.n.(?), grief, aÑic-
tion; gyrn, 1775; gp. grynna, 930. (See
Siev. 1910: 417.) [OHG grun.]
gyrn-wracu †, f., revenge for injury; gs.
-wræce, 2118; ds. ~, 1138.
ġyrwan, vb. I, prepare, make ready,
dress, equip, garnish; pret. 3 sg. ġyr-
ede, 1441; 3 pl. ġyredon, 994; pp.
ġeġyred, 1472; nsf. ġeġyrwed, 2087,
nsn. (golde) ~ 553, asf. (~ ġeġyrede,
2192, apm. (~) ~, 1028. [ġearu; cf.
fæðer-ġearwe.]
ġe-ġyrwan, vb. I, make ready, equip; 38,
199; pret. 3 pl. ġeġiredan, 3137.
ġyst, see ġist.
ġystran, adv., YESTERday; ġystran niht
(perh. cpd.), 1334.
ġ©t, ġīt, adv., YET, still, (hitherto), up to
now; (w. neg., not yet); ġ©t, 944, 1824,
2512, [F. 26]; ġīt, 583, 1377; (nū) ġ©t,
956, 1134, (nū) ġīt 1058; (þā) ġ©t,
1127, 1164, 1256, 1276, 2141, (þā) ġīt
536, 2975; þā ġ©t, further, besides: 47,
1050, [F. 18], so: ðā ġīt, 1866. See ġēn.
ġ©tsian (= ġītsian), vb. II, covet, be
avaricious, be miserly; pres. 3 sg.
ġ©tsað, 1749. [NHG geizen.]
habban, vb. III, (1) HAVE, hold; 446,
462 (keep), 1176, 1490, 1798, 2740
(ġefēan ~), 3017; pres. 1 sg. (wēn)
hæbbe, 383; (ġeweald) ~, 950; hafu
2523, hafo 2150, ([wēn]) ~, 3000; 2 sg.
hafast, 1174, 1849; 3 sg. (ġeweald)
hafað, 1610; 1 pl. habbað, 270; sj. 3 sg.
hæbbe, 381; 3 pl. neg. næbben, 1850;
imp. sg. hafa, 1395, ~ (. . . ond ġe-
heald), 658; [pl. habbað, F. 11]; pret. 3
sg. hæfde, 79 (ġeweald . . . ~), 518,
554, 814, 1167, 1202, 1625, 2158,
2361, 2430 (hēold .¯.¯. ond ~), 2579; 1
pl. hæfdon, 539; 3 pl. (ġefēan) hæfdon,
562. — (2) used as auxiliary, have, w.
inÏected pp.: pres. 3 sg. hafað, 939;
pret. 3 sg. hæfde, 205; — w. uninÏ.
pp.: pres. 1 sg. hæbbe, 408, 433, 1196;
2 sg. hafast, 953, 1221, 1855; 3 sg.
hafað, 474, 595, 975, 1340, 2026,
2265, 2453; sj. 3 sg. hæbbe, 1928;
pret. 1 sg. hæfde, 2145; 3 sg. ~, 106,
220, 665, 743, 804, 825, 828 (w. inÏ.
pp. as well [?]), 893, 1294, 1472, 1599
(sj.?), 2301, 2321, 2333, 2397, 2403,
2726, 2844, 2952, 3046, 3074, 3147; 1
pl. hæfdon, 2104; 3 pl. ~, 117 (sj.?),
694, 883, 2381, 2630, 2707, 3165; sj. 3
sg. hæfde, 1550. [Flasdieck A. 59
(1935) 20–6; Bamm. A. 110 (1992)
143–50.) — Cpds.: for-, wið-habban;
bord-, lind-, rond-, searo-hæbbend(e).
hād, m., manner, state, position, form;
as., 1297 (see: on), 2193; þurh h®stne
hād, in a violent manner, 1335. (Szogs
1931: 88–94; Soland 1979: 41.)
[-HOOD; Go. haidus.]
hādor (†), adj., bright, clear-voiced;
497. (Juzi 1939: 95–6.) [NHG heiter.]
hādre †, adv., clearly, brightly; 1571.
hæf ‡, n., sea; ap. heafo, 2477, heafu
1862 (n.). (Brady 1952: 24; Rynell
1991: 135.) [OIcel. haf, Dan., Swed.
hav, NHG Haff. BGdSL 12 (1887)
561; Jóhannesson 1956: 186; de Vries
1962: s.v. haf; Ísl.osb. 297.]
hæfen, see hebban.
hæft, m. †captive; 2408 (i.e. slave; cf.
Dan 266, ChristA 154, 360¯f.); —
‡wk. (adj.): asm. (helle) hæfton, 788
(= captivus inferni, see Kl. 1911–12:
[21]). [Kluge 1975: s.v. Haft.2]
hæft-mēċe ‡, mja., hilted sword; ds.,
1457. (See Intr. xli; Shetelig & Falk
1937: 385; Davidson 1962: 134–5;
Brady 1979: 95; Fjalldal 1998: 64–5.)
[HAFT; NHG Heft.]
hæft-n©d, ¢., captivity; as., 3155.
hæġ-steald, adj., young; gpm. -ra, 1889.
(Also GenA 1862 used as adj., else-
where noun [so np. -as, F. 40].) [See
haga; NHG Hage-stolz.] See Bäck
1934: 171–4; Brady 1983: 220.
h®l, nc. (SB §§¯288¯n., 289 n. 3; BGdSL
31 [1906] 87), (1) safety, good luck;
as., 653. — (2) omen(s); as., 204. (So
CorpGloss 2, 13.170.) [hāl.] See h®lo.
hæle, hæleð, †, mc. (BGdSL 31 [1906]
71–3, SB §¯290, OEG §¯637), man,
hero, warrior; hæle (hildedēor): 1646,
1816, 3111; hæleð, 190, 331, [F. 23,
 GLOSSARY
43]; np. hæleð, 52, 2247, 2458, 3142;
gp. hæleþa, 467, 497, 611, 662, 912,
1047, 1189, 1198, 1296, 1830, 1852,
1954, 2052, 2072, 2224, 3005, 3111;
dp. hæleðum, 1709, 1961, 1983, 2024,
2262; ap. hæleð 1069 (n.). [NHG
Held.]
h®lo, fīn., (HAIL), prosperity, luck; ds.
h®le, 1217; as. ~, 719 (n.); h®lo, 2418.
(Kellermann 1954: 166–73.) [hāl; h®lþ
> HEALTH.) — Cpd.: un-.
hærg-træf ‡, n., heathen temple; dp.
-trafum, 175 (n.). (Cf. And 1691: hell-
trafum; Fell 1995: 21–3.) [See hearh;
Lat. trabs (?); so Holt.Et.]
h®ste †, adj.ja., violent; asm. h®stne,
1335.
h®þen, adj., HEATHEN; gsm. h®þenes,
986; dsn. h®ðnum, 2216; asf. h®þene,
852; asn. h®ðen, 2276; gpm. h®þenra,
179. (Jente 1921: 58–63.) [OED:
HEATHEN; Kluge 1975: s.v. Heide;
Braune BGdSL 43 (1918) 428–33;
Hoops in Aufsätze zur Sprach- und
Literaturgeschichte (Dortmund, 1920)
27–35; Wessén Afnf. 44 (1928) 86–
93; Jellinek Geschichte der got.
Sprache (Berlin, 1911) 190, 196; Vel-
ten JEGP 29 (1930) 491; Krogmann
ZfdPh. 59 (1934) 209–29; Krause
1968: §¯28.4; Seebold BGdSL (T) 93
(1971) 39–40; W. Lehmann 1986:
172–3.]
h®ð-stapa †, wk.m., HEATH-stalker
(stag); 1368. [steppan.]
hafa, see habban.
hafela †, wk.m., head; gs. heafolan,
2697; ds. hafelan, 672, 1372, 1521,
heafolan 2679; as. hafelan, 1327,
1421, 1448, 1614, 1635, 1780, hafalan
446; np. hafelan, 1120. — Cpd.: wīġ-.
hafen, see hebban.
hafenian †, vb. II, raise, lift; pret. 3 sg.
hafenade, 1573. [hebban.]
hafo, hafu, see habban.
hafoc, m., HAWK; 2263.
haga (‡) +, wk.m., enclosure, entrench-
ment; ds. hagan, 2892, 2960 (n.).
[OED: HAW, sb.1,2; NHG Hag.] See
hæġsteald; ān-haga.
hāl, adj., WHOLE, HALE, sound, unhurt;
300, 1974, wes þū . . . hāl (HAIL, cf.
WASSAIL), 407; dsn.wk. hālan, 1503.
(See Kellermann 1954: 166–73; H.
391
Beckers Die Wortsippe *hail- und ihr
sprachliches Feld im Ae. [Münster
diss., 1971].)
hāliġ, adj., HOLY; hāliġ (God), 381,
1553, ~ (dryhten) 686. (Kellermann
1954: 166–73; D. Green 1965: 289–
91.) [hāl.]
hals, see heals.
hām, m., HOME, dwelling, residence;
2325; gs. hāmes, 2366, 2388; ds. hām
(after: tō, æt, fram), 124, 194, 374,
1147, 1156, 1248, 1923, 2992; as. hām,
717, 1407, 1601 (adv., home[-ward]);
ap. hāmas, 1127.
hamer, m., HAMMER; ds. hamere, 1285;
gp. homera, 2829.
hām-weorðung ‡, f., honor to a HOME;
as. -e, 2998 (n.). (Kl.: ‘ornament of a
home,’ si. Hoops; cf. A. Fischer 1986:
65–6.)
hand, hond, fu., HAND; hand, 1343,
2099, 2137, 2697; hond, 1520, 2216,
2488, 2509, 2609, 2684; ds. handa,
495, 540, 746, 1290, 1983, 2720,
3023, 3124, [F. 29], honda 814; as.
hand, 558, 983, 1678, 2208; hond, 656
(~ ond rond), 686, 834, 927, 2405,
2575; dp. hondum, 1443, 2840.
hand-bona ‡, wk.m., slayer with the
HAND; ds. (tō) handbonan (wearð):
460, 1330 (-banan), 2502.
hand-ġestealla ‡, wk. m., comrade, as-
sociate; ds. hondġesteallan, 2169; np.
handġesteallan, 2596.
hand-ġewriþen ‡, adj. (pp.), twisted or
woven by HAND; apf. -e, 1937.
[wrīþan.]
hand-scolu, -scalu, ‡, f. (HAND-)troop,
companions; ds. handscale, 1317 (n.),
hondscole 1963. [OED: SHOAL, sb.2.]
hand-sporu ‡, wk.f., HAND-SPUR, nail
(or claw); np. -u, 986 (n.).
hangian, vb. II, HANG (intr.); 1662;
pres. 3 sg. hangað, 2447; 3 pl. hon-
giað, 1363; pret. 3 sg. hangode, 2085.
hār, adj., HOARy, grey, old; hār
(hilderinċ), 1307, 3136; gsm. hāres,
2988; dsm. hārum, 1678; asm. hārne
(stān), 887, 1415, 2553, 2744; asf.
hāre, 2153. (Barley 1974: 20; Biggam
ASE 24 [1995] 61¯f.) [NHG hehr.] —
Cpd.: an-.
hāt, adj., HOT; 897, 2296, 2547, 2558,
2691, 3148; nsn., 1616; gsn. hātes,
392 GLOSSARY
2522; dsm.n.wk.(?) hāton, 849, hātan
1423; asm. hātne, 2781; apm. hāte,
2819. — Supl. hātost, 1668.
hāt, n., HEAT; as., 2605.
hātan, vb. 7, (1) name, call; pres. sj. 3
pl. hātan, 2806; pp. hāten, 102, 263,
373, 2602. — (2) order, command
(also shading off into cause, see JEGP
17 [1918] 82–93); abs.: pret. 3 sg.
heht, 1786; — w. inf.: pret. 3 sg. heht,
1035, 1053, 1807, 1808 (n.), 2337,
2892; hēt, 198, 391, 1114, 1920, 2152,
2190, 3095, 3110; passive constr., pp.
hāten, 991 (n.); — w. acc. & inf.: inf.
hātan, 68; pres. 1 sg. hāte, 293; imp.
sg. hāt, 386, pl. hātað, 2802; pret. 3
sg. hēt, 674 (acc. subject of inf.
implied), 1868; hēt hine wēl brūcan,
1045, si. 2812; — w. þæt-clause: pret.
3 sg. hēt, 2156. [HIGHT (arch.); Go.
haitan, OIcel. heita, Dan. hede, Swed.
heta, NHG heissen.]
ġe-hātan, vb. 7, promise, (vow, threat-
en); pres. 1 sg. ġehāte, 1392, 1671;
pret. 3 sg. ġehēt, 2134, 2937, 2989 (w.
gen., cf. Bo 37.112.4); 1 pl. ġehēton,
2634; 3 pl. ~, 175; pp. nsf. ġehāten
(betrothed), 2024.
hatian, vb. II, HATE, persecute; 2466;
pret. 3 sg. hatode, 2319. See d®d-hata,
hettend.
haðor (heaðor) †, n., con¢nement; as.,
414 (n.). Cf. heaðerian.
hē, hēo, hit, pers. pron., HE, she (SHE),
IT; hē (285×), 7, 29, 8o, etc.; [F. 3×];
nsf. hēo (18×) (in the A part of the MS
only), hīo (11×; just 3× in A), hīe
2019; nsn. hit (17×), hyt (in B only,
6×); gsm. his (possessive, 78×), [F.
4×]; gsf. hire, 722 (or dat.), poss.: 641,
1115, 1546, so: hyre, 1188, 1339, 1545,
2121; gsn. his, 2579, poss.: 1733,
2157; dsm. him (169×), used also as
(reÏex.) dat. of personal interest (see
1918¯n.): him .¯.¯. ġewāt, 26, 234, 662,
1236, 1601, 1903, 1963, 2387, 2949,
[F. 43], si. 1880, him .¯.¯. losað, 2061,
con him, 2062, him .¯.¯. ġel©fde, 1272,
him .¯.¯. ondrēd, 2347, si. 2348, him
selfa dēah, 1839, him .¯.¯. hēold, 2377
(n.); hym, 1918 (dp.?); dsf. hire, 626,
1521, 1566, 1935, hyre, 945, 2175,
3153 (pers. interest); dsn. him, 78,
313; asm. hine (43×, just 3× in B), [F.
13, 46], hyne (30×; just 6× in A), [F.
33]; asn. hit (12×), hyt, 2158, 2248,
3161, [F. 21]; np. hīe (52×; 9× in B);
hī, 28, 43, 1628, 1966, 2707, 2934,
3038, 3130, 3163; hiġ, 1085, 1596, [F.
41, 42]; h©, 307, 364, 368, 2124, 2381,
2598, 2850; gp. (poss. & partit.) hira,
1102, 1124, 1249; heora, 691, 698,
1604, 1636; hiora, 1166, 2599, 2994;
hiera, 1164; hyra, 178, 324, 1012,
1055, 1246, 2040, 2311, 2849, [F. 3×];
dp. him (33×; ġewiton him: 301,
1125); [F. 17]; ap. hīe, 477, 694, 706,
1068, 2039, 2236; hiġ, 1770; h©, 1048,
2233, 2592 (Ĺţ).
hēa-burh, fc., (HIGH-BURGH), great town
(or fortress); as., 1127.
heafo, -u, see hæf.
hēafod, n., HEAD; 1648; as., 48, 1639;
ds. hēafde, 1590, 2138, 2290, 2973;
dp. hēafdon, 1242. — Cpd.: eafor-.
hēafod-beorg ‡, f., HEAD-protection; as.
-e, 1030.
hēafod-m®ġ †, m., (HEAD-, i.e.) near
relative; gp. -māga, 2151; dp. -m®gum,
588.
hēafod-weard (‡) (+), f., HEAD-watch;
as. -e, 2909 (i.e. ‘deathwatch,’ cf.
Dream 63; Schü. EStn. 39 [1908] 4¯f.).
heafola, see hafela.
hēah, adj., HIGH, lofty, exalted; 57, 82,
1926, 2805, 3157; gsn.wk. h¼n, 116;
dsm.n. hēaum, 2212; dsm.wk. (sele
þām) hēan: 713, 919, 1016, 1984; asm.
hēanne, 983; asn. hēah, 48, 2768;
asm.wk. h¼n, 3097.
hēah-cyning (†), m., great KING; gs. -es,
1039.
hēah-ġesceap ‡, n., (HIGH) destiny; as.,
3084.
hēah-ġestrēon †, n., splendid treasure;
gp. -a, 2302.
hēah-lufu (-lufe) ‡, wk.f., HIGH LOVE,
great esteem; as. -lufan, 1954.
hēah-sele ‡, mi., HIGH (great) hall; ds.,
647.
hēah-setl, n., HIGH SEAT, throne; as.,
1087. [SETTLE.]
hēah-stede ‡, mi., lofty place; ds., 285.
heal(l), f., HALL; heal, 1151, 1214; heall,
487; gs. healle, [F. 4, 20]; ds. ~, 89,
614, 642, 663, 925, 1009, 1288, 1926,
[F. 28]; as. ~, 1087. — Cpds.: ġif-,
medo-.
 GLOSSARY
heal-ærn ‡, n., HALL-building; gp. -a, 78.
healdan, vb. 7, HOLD, keep, guard, oc-
cupy, possess, rule; 230, 296, 319,
704, 1182, 1348, 1852, 2372, 2389,
2477, 3034, 3166; pres. 2 sg. healdest,
1705; 3 sg. healdeð, 2909; sj. 3 sg.
healde, 2719 (n.); imp.sg. heald, 948,
2247; ger. healdanne, 1731; pret. 1 sg.
hēold, 241, 466, 2732, 2737, 2751; 3
sg. ~, 57, 103, 142, 161, 305, 788,
1031, 1079, 1748, 1959, 2183, 2279,
2377 (n.), 2414, 2430, 3043, 3084
(n.), 3118; hīold, 1954; 3 pl. hēoldon,
401, 1214, [F. 42]; sj. 3 sg. hēolde,
1099, 2344, [F. 23]. (Beer 1939: 286.)
— Cpds.: be-, for-; drēam-healdende.
ġe-healdan, vb. 7, HOLD, keep, guard,
rule; 674, 911, 2856; pres. 3 sg.
ġehealdeþ, 2293; sj. 3 sg. ġehealde,
317; imp. sg. ġeheald, 658; pret. 3 sg.
ġehēold, 2208, 2620, 3003.
healf, adj., HALF; gsf. -re, 1087.
healf, f., (HALF), side; ds. -e, 2262; as.
-e, 1675; gp. -a, 800; ap. -a, 1095,
1305, -e, 2063.
heal-reċed ‡, n., HALL-building; as., 68,
1981.
heals, m., neck; ds. healse, 1872, 2809,
3017, halse, 1566; as. heals, 2691.
[Go. NHG hals.] — Cpds. (adj.):
fāmiġ-, wunden-.
heals-bēag ‡, m., neck-ring, collar,
(torque?); as. -bēah, 2172; gp. -bēaga,
1195.
heals-ġebedda ‡, wk.m.f., dear BEDfel-
low, consort; 63. (Cf. GenA 2156:
healsmæġeð. SB §¯278 n.¯4.)
healsian, vb. II, implore; pret. 3 sg.
healsode, 2132 (n.).
heal-sittend(e) ‡, mc. (pres.ptc.) [pl.],
HALL-SITTer, thegn; gp. -sittendra,
2015; dp. -sittendum, 2868.
heal-ðeġn ‡, m., HALL-THEGN; gs.
-ðeġnes, 142; ap. -ðeġnas, 719.
heal-wudu ‡, mu., HALL-WOOD; 1317.
hēan, adj., abject, humiliated, wretched,
despised; 1274, 2099, 2183, 2408.
[Go. hauns; see h©nan.]
hēan(ne), see hēah.
hēap, m., band, troop, company; 432,
[1889]; (þr©ðliċ þeġna) hēap: 400,
1627; ds. hēape, 2596; as. hēap, 335,
730, 1091. [HEAP; NHG Haufe.] —
Cpd.: wīġ-.
393
heard, adj., HARD, strong, brave,
HARDy, severe; 376; (wīġes) heard:
886, si. 1539, [F. 21]; heard (under
helme): 342 (n.), 404, 2539; nsf.
heard, 2914; heard (hondlocen): 322,
551; nsn. heard, 1566 (semi-adv.
function, Kl. 1905–6: 251), 2037 (p.?),
2509; nsm.wk. hearda, 401, 432, 1435,
1807, 1963, 2255, 2474, 2977;
nsn.wk. hearde, 1553; dsm. (nīða)
heardum, 2170, wk. (?) heardan, 2482;
asm. heardne, 1590; asn. heard, 1574,
2687, 2987, wk. hearde, 1343 (n.);
npm. hearde, 2205; npf. ~, 2829; gpm.
heardra, 988; gpf. ~, 166, [heordra, F.
26 (n.)]; dpm. heardum, 1335, wk.(?)
heardan, 963; apn. heard, 540, 2638.
— Comp. asf. heardran, 576, 719 (n.).
[HARD; HARDy fr. OFr. (fr. Gmc.)] —
Cpds.: f©r-, īren-, nīð-, reġn-, scūr-.
hearde, adv., HARD, sorely; 1438, 3153
(~ ondrēde, cf. ChristC 1017).
heard-ecg †, adj., HARD of EDGE; nsn.,
1288; asn., 1490. (Kolb 1993: 476–7:
substantive?)
heard-hicgende ‡, adj. (pres.ptc.) brave-
minded; npm., 394, 799. [hycgan.]
hearh (hearg), m., ‘idol-fane,’ heathen
temple, sanctuary; as. 2276; dp. her-
gum, 3072 (n.). [OIcel. h∂rgr, OHG
harug; cf. hærg-trafum; Harrow(-) in
place-names; ASSAH 8 (1995) 1–42.]
(See Cook 1900: 121 re: ChristB 485;
Thümmel BGdSL 35 (1909) 101¯ff.;
R.-L.2 30.327–40; E&S o.s. 19 [1934]
151¯f.; T. Markey in Studies for Einar
Haugen, ed. E. Firchow et al. [The
Hague, 1973] 365–78.)
hearm, m., HARM, insult, ds. -e, 1892.
hearm-scaþa ‡, wk.m., pernicious ene-
my; 766. See sceaþa.
hearpe, wk.f., HARP or lyre; gs. hearpan
(swēġ): 89, 2458, 3023, ~ (wyn[ne]):
2107, 2262. [See IF 16 (1904) 128–37;
Wörter und Sachen 3 (1912) 68–77;
Wrenn CL 14 (1962) 118–28; Boenig
Speculum 71 (1996) 290–320; id.
2001; R.-L.2 14.1–9; Arnold 1997: 69–
71; Pollington 2003: 204–8.]
heaðerian, vb. II, restrain, con¢ne; pp.
ġeheaðerod, 3072. [haðor.]
heaðo-byrne †, wk.f., (war-BYRNIE),
mail shirt or coat; 1552. [OHG Hadu-;
OIcel. H∂ðr.]
394 GLOSSARY
heaþo-dēor ‡, adj., battle-brave; 688;
dpm. -um, 772.
•heaþo-ġeong, adj., YOUNG (in war); [F. 2].
heaðo-, heaðu-f©r, ‡, n., battle-FIRE,
deadly ¢re; gs. heaðuf©res, 2522; dp.
heaðof©rum, 2547.
heaðo-grim(m) †, adj., battle-GRIM,
¢erce; -grim, 548, 2691.
heaðo-lāc ‡, n., (battle-sport), battle; gs.
-es, 1974; ds. -e, 584. (Cf. beadu-lāc.)
heaþo-līðend(e) †, mc. (pres.ptc.) [pl.],
war-traveler, warrior who is journey-
ing to battle; np. -līðende, 1798; dp.
-līðendum, 2955. (See Kluge BGdSL 9
[1884] 190; Krapp 1906: 104 (re
l.¯426); Tupper 1910: 213; Brady 1983:
220.)
heaðo-m®re ‡, adj.ja., renowned in
battle; apm., 2802.
heaðo-r®s ‡, m., storm of battle; 557;
gp. -a, 526; ap. -as, 1047.
heaðo-rēaf ‡, n., war-clothing, war-
equipment, armor; as., 401. Cf. wæl-
rēaf; rēa¢an.
heaðo-rinċ †, m., warrior; as., 2466;
dp. -rincum, 370.
heaþo-rōf †, adj., brave in battle; 381,
2191; npm. -e, 864. See rōf.
heaðo-scearp ‡, adj., battle-SHARP; npf.
-e, 2829 (n.).
heaðo-sīoc ‡, adj., battle-SICK, wound-
ed; dsm. -um, 2754.
heaþo-stēap ‡, adj., (STEEP) towering in
battle; nsm.wk. -a (helm), 1245; asm.
-ne (~), 2153.
heaþo-swāt ‡, m., battle-SWEAT, blood
shed in battle; ds. -e, 1460, 1606; gp.
-a, 1668.
heaðo-torht ‡, adj., clear(-sounding) in
battle; nsf., 2553. (Grinda 1993: 382.)
heaðo-w®d ‡, f., war-garment, armor;
dp. -um, 39. See ġe-w®de.
heaðo-weorc ‡, n., battle-WORK, ¢ght;
as., 2892.
heaðo-wylm †, mi., (battle-surge), hos-
tile Ïame; gp. -a, 82; ap. -as, 2819.
heaðu-swenġ ‡, mi., battle-stroke; ds.
-e, 2581.
hēawan, vb. 7, HEW; 800.
ġe-hēawan, vb. 7, HEW, cut (to pieces);
sj. 3 sg. ġehēawe, 682.
hebban, vb. 6, (HEAVE), raise, lift; 656;
pp. hafen, 1290; hæfen, 3023. —
Cpd.: ā-.
hēdan, vb. I, w. gen., HEED, care for;
pret. 3 sg. hēdde, 2697.
ġe-hēdan, vb. I, w. gen., HEED, care for;
pret. 3 sg. ġehēdde, 505 (n.).
hefene, see heofon.
ġe-hēġan †, vb. I, hold (a meeting); (~
ðinġ) 425 (n.). [Cf. OFris. heya,
OIcel. heyja.]
heht, see hātan.
hel(l), fjō., HELL; hel, 852; gs. helle,
788, 1274; ds. ~, 101, 588; as. ~, 179.
(Jente 1921: 224–6; Stolzmann 1953:
53–64; Feldman NM 88 [1987] 170–4.
See Appx.C §¯23.)
hell-bend ‡, fjō. (mi.), BOND of HELL;
dp. -um, 3072.
helm, m., (1) protection, cover; as.,
1392. — (2) HELMet; ns., 1245, 1448,
1629, 2255, 2659, 2762, [F. 45]; gs.
helmes, 1030; ds. helme, 342, 404,
1286, 2539; as. helm, 672, 1022, 1290,
1526, 1745, 2153, 2615, 2723, 2811,
2868, 2973, 2979, 2987; dp. helmum,
3139; ap. helmas, 2638. — (3)
†protector, lord; ns. helm (Scyldinga,
etc.), 371, 456, 1321, 1623, 2462,
2705; as., 182 (heofena helm), 2381.
See H. Lehmann 1885, Germ. 31
(1886) 486–97; M. Keller 1906: 79–
93, 247–52; Strauss 1974: 101–2;
Brady 1979: 85–6; Tweddle 1992;
Underwood 1999: 94–106. (Cronan
2003: 406.) [OED: HELM, sb.1] —
Cpds.: •bān-, grīm-, gūð-, niht-, scadu-.
helm-berend †, mc. [pl.], (HELMet-
BEARer), warrior; ap. (hwate) helm-
berend: 2517, 2642. (Brady 1983:
233.)
help, f., HELP; ds. (hæleðum tō) helpe:
1709, 1961, si. 1830; as. helpe (ġe-
fremede): 551, 1552, si. 2448.
helpan, vb. 3, HELP; w. dat.: 2340,
2684; w. gen. or dat.: 2649; w. gen.:
2879; pret. 3 sg. healp, 2698.
hel-rūne (‡) +, wk.f., one skilled in the
mysteries of HELL, demon; np. -rūnan,
163 (n.). Cf. rūn.
hēo (hīo), see hē.
heofon, m., HEAVEN; (pl. used w. sg.
meaning); 3155; gs. heofenes, 414;
heofones, 576, 1801, 2015, 2072; ds.
hefene, 1571; gp. heofena, 182; dp.
heofenum, 52, 505. (Benning 1961:
19–25.)
 GLOSSARY
heolfor †, m. or n., blood, gore; ds.
heolfre, 849 (n.), 1302, 1423, 2138.
(Kühlwein 1968.)
heolster (†), m., hiding-place; as., 755.
[helan.]
heonan, adv., HENce, from here; 252;
heonon, 1361. Cf. hin-fūs.
hēore †, adj.ja., safe, pleasant, good;
nsf. hēoru, 1372. [NHG geheuer;
Ritter 1922: 66.] — Cpd.: un-.
heoro-, heoru-drēor, ‡, m. or n.,
(sword-, i.e.) battle-blood; ds. heoro-
drēore, 849 (n.); heorudrēore, 487.
heoro-drēoriġ †, adj., (sword-) gory,
blood-stained; nsn., 935; asm. -ne,
1780, 2720. (Cf. Wentersdorf SN 45
[1973] 45¯f.; Grinda 1993: 392–4.)
heoro-ġīfre †, adj.ja., (sword-greedy),
¢ercely ravenous; 1498.
heoro-, heoru-grim(m), †, adj., (sword-
GRIM), ¢erce; heorogrim, 1564; nsf.
wk. heorugrimme, 1847.
heoro-hōcyhte ‡, adj.ja., (sword-HOOKed),
barbed; dpm. -hōcyhtum, 1438.
heoro-swenġ †, mi., sword-stroke; as.,
1590.
heorot, m., HART, stag; 1369. [NHG
Hirsch; cf. Lat. cervus.] (Cf. Heorot.)
heoro-wearh ‡, m., ¢erce outcast, sav-
age foe; 1267. (See Kl. 1911–12: [20];
Robinson in Walmsley 2006: 246.)
See werhðo.
heor(r) (‡) +, m., hinge; np. heorras,
999. [HAR(RE) (dial.).]
heorte, wk.f., HEART; 2561; gs. heortan,
2463, 2507; ds. ~, 2270. (Soland
1979: 88–92.) — Cpds.: blīð-, grom-,
rūm-, stearc-heort.
heorð, m., HEARTH, Ïoor of a ¢replace;
ds. -e, 404 (MS heoðe). (See Kluge
1975: s.v. Herd; Pollington 2003: 79.)
heorð-ġenēat †, m., HEARTH-compan-
ion, retainer; np. -as, 261, 3179; dp.
-um, 2418; ap. -as, 1580, 2180. See
bēod-ġenēat.
heoru †, mu., sword; 1285. [Go. haírus.]
(Only here and Max I 200; freq. in
cpds.)
hēr, adv., HERE, hither, to this place;
244, 361, 376, 397, 1061, 1228, 1654,
1820, 2053, 2796, 2801, [F. 3, 4, 5, 26].
here, mja., army; ds. herġe, 1248, 2347,
2638. (Green 1998: 84–90; Pulsiano &
McGowan SAP 23 (1990) 3–13, HOEM
395
§¯288 n.¯14.) [Go. harjis, Dan. hær,
Swed. här, NHG Heer.] — Cpds.:
Ïot-, scip-, sin-.
here-brōga ‡, wk.m., war-terror; ds.
-brōgan, 462.
here-byrne ‡, wk.f., (battle-BYRNIE),
shirt (or coat) of mail; 1443.
here-ġeong ‡, m., invasion; ap. -as,
3153. [gang; Hogg §¯5.61.]
here-grīma ‡, wk.m., war-mask, helmet;
ds. (under) heregrīman: 396 (dp.?),
2049, 2605. (Brady 1979: 86–8.) See
grīm-helm.
here-net(t) ‡, nja., war-NET, mail shirt
or coat; -net, 1553. Cf. brēost-, hrinġ-,
inwit-, searo-net(t).
here-nīð ‡, m., hostility; 2474.
here-pād ‡, f., shirt (or coat) of mail;
2258. (Brady 1979: 116–17; D. Green
1998: 179–80.) [Go. paida.]
here-rinċ †, m., warrior; as., 1176.
here-sceaft ‡, m., battle-SHAFT, spear;
gp. -a, 335.
•here-sceorp¯‡, n., war-dress, armor; [F.
45].
here-spēd ‡, ¢., success in war; 64.
[SPEED.]
here-str®l ‡, m., war-arrow; 1435.
here-syrċe ‡, wk.f., (battle-SARK), shirt
(or coat) of mail; as. -syrċan, 1511. Cf.
hioro-serċe.
here-w®d ‡, f., war-garment, armor;
dp. -um, 1897. See ġe-w®de.
here-wæs(t)m ‡, m., (warlike stature),
martial vigor; dp. -wæsmun (Lang.
§¯20.6), 677 (n.). [weaxan.]
here-wīsa †, wk.m., army leader; 3020.
[Cf. wīsian.]
herġe, see here, herian.
hergum, see hearh.
herian, vb. I, praise, laud; 182, 1071;
pres. sj. 3 sg. herġe, 3175; honor;
pres. sj. 1 sg. heriġe, 1833 (n.). [Go.
hazjan.]
hete, mi. (nc., SB §§¯263 n.¯4, 288¯n.,
OEG §¯610.6), HATE, hostility; 142,
2554. [Go. hatis, n.] — Cpds.: ecg-,
morþor-, wīġ-.
hete-liċ (‡) +, adj., HATEful; 1267. [NHG
hässlich.]
hetend, see hettend.
hete-nīð (†), m., enmity; ap. -as, 152.
hete-swenġ ‡, mi., hostile blow; ap.
-swenġeas, 2224.
396 GLOSSARY
hete-þanc †, m., THOUGHT of HATE; dp.
-um, 475.
hettend †, mc., enemy, np. hetende
(Lang. §¯20.5), 1828; dp. hettendum,
3004. [Cf. hatian; NHG hetzen.]
hicgean, see hycgan.
hider, adv., HITHER, to this place, here;
240, 370, 394, 3092.
hiġe, hyġe, †, mi., mind, heart, soul;
hiġe, 593; hyġe, 755; gs. hiġes, 2045;
as. hiġe, 267; dp. hiġum, 3148. (So-
land 1979: 70–5; North 1991: 63–98.)
[Woodhouse HS 118 (2005) 264–6.]
hiġe-m®ðu, see hyġe-mēðe.
hiġe-rōf †, adj., valiant; asm. -ne, 204.
See rōf.
hiġe-þīhtiġ ‡, adj., strong-willed, deter-
mined; asm. -ne, 746. See þ©htiġ.
hiġe-þrym(m) ‡, mja.(?), greatness of
heart; dp. -þrymmum, 339.
hild †, fjō., war, battle; 1588, 1847,
2076; ġif meċ hild nime: 452, 1481;
gs. hilde, 2723; ds. hilde, 2916; (æt)
hilde, 1460, 1659, 2258, 2575, 2684,
[F. 37]; as. hilde, 647, 1990; [gp.
hilda, F. 26]; — valor; ns. hild, 901;
as. hilde, 2952.
hilde-bil(l) ‡, n., battle-sword; -bil,
1666; ds. -bille, 557, 1520, 2679.
hilde-blāc ‡, adj., battle-pale, mortally
wounded; 2488. (Or possibly ‘battle-
resplendent’? Cf. wīġblāc, Ex 204: so
v.Sch.; cf. Grinda 1993: 367.)
hilde-bord ‡, n., battle-shield; dp. -um,
3139; ap. -bord, 397.
hilde-cumbor ‡, n., battle-banner; as.,
1022 (n.).
hilde-cyst ‡, ¢., battle-virtue, valor; dp.
-um, 2598. (Cronan 2003: 414 n.¯70.)
hilde-dēor †, adj., brave in battle; 312,
[403], 834, 2107, 2183; (hæle) hilde-
dēor: 1646, 1816, 3111 (-dīor); npm.
-dīore, 3169.
hilde-freca, see hild-freca.
hilde-ġeatwe ‡, fwō.p., war-equipment;
gp. -ġeatwa, 2362; ap. -ġeatwe, 674.
(Robinson SP 62 [1965] 2¯f.) See wīġ-
ġetawa.
hilde-ġiċel ‡, m., battle-icICLE; dp.
-ġiċĺlum, 1606. (Brady 1979: 102–3.
On the pronunciation, see Pope 2001:
185: ġiċel.)
hilde-grāp ‡, f., hostile grasp; 1446,
2507.
hilde-hlem(m), -hlæm(m), ‡, mja. crash
of battle; gp. -hlemma, 2351, 2544;
dp. -hlæmmum, 2201. Cf. ūht-, wæl-
hlem(m).
hilde-lēoma ‡, wk.m., battle-light; as.
-lēoman (sword, cf. beadolēoma 1523),
1143; np. ~ (¯Ïames), 2583. (Brady
1979: 99–101.)
hilde-mēċe ‡, mja., battle-sword; np.
-mēċeas, 2202.
hilde-mecg ‡, mja., warrior; np.
-mecgas, 799.
hilde-r®s ‡, m., storm of battle; 300.
hilde-rand ‡, m., battle-shield; ap. -as,
1242.
hilde-rinċ †, m., warrior; (hār) hilde-
rinċ: 1307, 3136; gs. -rinċes, 986; ds.
-rinċe, 1495, 1576; gp. -rinca, 3124.
hilde-sceorp ‡, n., war-clothing, armor;
as., 2155.
hilde-setl ‡, n., war-SEAT, saddle; 1039.
[SETTLE.]
hilde-strenġo ‡, fīn., battle-STRENGth;
as., 2113.
hilde-swāt ‡, m., battle-SWEAT, hostile
vapor; 2558.
hilde-tūx (= tūsc) ‡, m., battle-TUSK or
-fang; dp. -um, 1511.
hilde-w®pen ‡, n., war-WEAPON; dp.
-w®pnum, 39.
hilde-wīsa ‡, wk.m., leader in battle; ds.
(p.?) -wīsan, 1064. [Cf. wīsian.]
hild-freca †, wk.m., ¢ghter, warrior; ds.
-frecan, 2366; np. hildĺfrecan, 2205.
See Brady 1983: 225–6: ‘one eager for
battle’; but cf. scyld-freca. (See
Appx.C §¯15 n.¯3.)
hild-fruma †, wk.m., war-chief; gs.
-fruman, 2649 (ds.?), 2835; ds. ~,
1678. (Perh. ‘warrior, hero’: A. 60
[1936] 390.)
hild-lata †, wk.m., (adj.), one sluggish
in battle, coward; np. -latan, 2846.
[LATE.]
hilt, n.f.(m.)i. (Siev. 1910: 420, SB
§¯267[a], OEG §¯636), HILT; (gylden)
hilt, 1677 (neut.); as. hilt, 1614 (fem.;
or neut.pl. [OES §¯62], but see Lang.
§¯22), 1668 (neut.); hylt, 1687; pl. w.
sg. meaning: dp. hiltum, 1574. —
Cpds.: fetel-, wreoþen-.
hilted ‡, adj., HILTED; asn., 2987.
hindema ‡, adj. supl. (OEG §¯675), last;
dsm. hindeman (sīðe): 2049 (n.), 2517.
 GLOSSARY
hin-fūs †, adj., eager to get away; 755.
See heonan.
hīofan, vb. 2, vb. I, lament; pres.ptc.
npm. hīofende, 3142. [Go. hiufan.
BGdSL 9 (1884) 278, SB §¯384 n.¯2,
OEG §¯745(b).]
hioro-drynċ ‡, mi., sword-DRINK; dp.
-drynċum, 2358 (n.). [Cf. OIcel. drykkr,
Dan. drik, Swed. drink, NHG Trunk.]
hioro-serċe ‡, wk.f., (battle-SARK), shirt
(or coat) of mail; as. -serċean, 2539.
hioro-weallende ‡, adj. (pres.ptc.),
WELLing ¢ercely; asm. (uninÏ.), 2781.
hit (hyt), see hē.
hladan, vb. 6, LADE, load, heap up, lay;
2126; hladon, 2775; pp. hladen, 1897;
nsn., 3134. — Cpds.: ġilp-hlæden,
•gold-hladen.
ġe-hladan, vb. 6, load; pret. 3 sg. ġe-
hlēod, 895. (Lang. §¯25.3.)
hlæst, m. (or n.), freight, load; ds. -e,
52. [hladan; OED: LAST, sb.2]
hl®w, hlāw, m. (SB §§¯250 n.¯1, 288¯n.,
OEG §¯636), mound, barrow, cave; ds.
hlāwe, 1120; hl®we, 2773; as. hl®w,
2296, 2411, 2802, 3157, 3169. (See
Antiquity 67 [1993] 66–73.) [OED:
LOW, sb.1; Go. hlaiw.]
hlāford, m., LORD; 2375, 2642; gs. -es,
3179; ds. -e, 2634; as. hlāford, 267,
2283, 3142. (Stibbe 1935: 44–57.)
[hlāf-weard (so PPs 104.17.1).] —
Cpd.: eald-.
hlāford-lēas, adj., LORD-LESS, without a
chief; npm. -e, 2935.
hlāw, see hl®w.
hleahtor, m., LAUGHTER, festivity;
hleahtľr, 611; as. hleahtor, 3020.
hlēapan, vb. 7, LEAP, gallop; 864. —
Cpd.: ā-.
hlēo (†), m.(n.)wa., cover, shelter, pro-
tection, hence protector (cf. helm,
eodor); eorla hlēo: ns., 791, 1035,
1866, 2142, 2190; as., 1967; wīġendra
hlēo: ns., 899, 1972, 2337; vs., 429.
(Strauss 1974: 103–4; Cronan 2003:
421.) [LEE.]
hlēo-burh ‡, fc., sheltering town, strong-
hold; as., 912, 1731.
ġe-hlēod, see ġe-hladan.
hleonian (hlinian), vb. II, LEAN; hleo-
nian, 1415.
hlēor-berg ‡, f., cheek-guard (on helmet);
dp. -an, 304 (n.). (Cf. hēafod-beorg;
397
ċin-berg, Ex 175; Lang. §¯3.5.) See
hlēor-bolster.
hlēor-bolster ‡, m.(?), cheek-cushion,
pillow; 688. [OED: LEER, vb., sb.2;
BOLSTER.] (Cf. wangere, Go.
waggareis.)
hlēotan, vb. 2, (cast LOTs), obtain; pret.
3 sg. hlēat (w. dat. [instr.]), 2385 (n.).
(Jente 1921: 268–70.)
hlēoðor-cwyde †, mi., ceremonious
speech; as., 1979 (hlēoðľr-). [cweðan.]
•hlēoþrian, vb. II, speak, exclaim; [pret.
3 sg. hlēoþrode, F. 2].
hlī¢an, vb. II, stand high, tower; 2805;
pret. 3 sg. hlīfade, 81, 1898; hlīuade,
1799.
hlim-bed(d) ‡, nja., BED of rest; as.
-bed, 3034. (= hlin-, cf. Lang. §¯19.3;
see hleonian.)
hlið, n., cliff, hill-side, hill; gs. hliðes,
1892 (n.). (Cf. Schü.Bd. 49–55; Gel-
ling ASE 31 [2002] 8–9: ‘hill with
hollow in it.’) — [Cf. hlid > MnE lid.
Kl.: hlīð.] — Cpds.: fen-, mist-, næs-,
stān-, wulf-hlið.
hlīuade, see hlī¢an.
hlūd, adj., LOUD; asm. -ne, 89.
hlyn(n), mja., clamor, sound; hlyn, 611.
•ġe-hlyn(n) (‡), nja., loud sound, din; [F.
28].
hlynnan (†), vb. I, (hlynian, vb. II),
make a noise, shout, roar; hlynnan,
2553; [pres. 3 sg. hlynneð, F. 6]; pret.
3 sg. hlynode, 1120.
hlynsian †, vb. II, resound; pret. 3 sg.
hlynsode, 770. (Hallander 1966: 218–
21.)
hlytm (‡), mi.(?), LOT (Gr.: ‘sortitio’);
ds. -e, 3126. [hlēotan.] (See un-
hlitme.)
ġe-hn®ġan, vb. I, lay low, humble,
subdue; pret. 3 sg. ġehn®ġde, 1274.
[hnīgan (see hnāh); NHG neigen; Go.
hnaiwjan (?): see E. Seebold Ver-
gleichendes und etymolog. Wörter-
buch der germ. starken Verben (The
Hague, 1970) 266.]
hnāh, adj., lowly, mean, poor, illiberal;
nsf., 1929. — Comp. dsm. hnāhran,
952; asm. hnāgran, 677. [hnīgan; Go.
hnaiws.]
hnītan, vb. 1, (strike), clash together;
pret. 3 pl. (þonne) hniton (fēþan):
1327, 2544 (hnitan).
398 GLOSSARY
hof, n., residence, house, court; ds. hofe,
1236, 1507, 1974, 2212; as. hof, 312;
dp. hofum, 1836; ap. hofu, 2313.
[Dan. hof, Swed. hov, NHG Hof. Cf.
OIcel. hof ‘heathen temple.’]
(ġe-)hogode, see (ġe-)hycgan.
hōh, m., promontory; ds. hōe, 3157.
[OED: HOUGH, sb.; see Fu.1 203¯f.]
hold, adj., friendly, well-disposed, loyal,
trusty; 1229, 2161, 2170; nsn., 290;
asm. -ne, 267, 376, 1979; gpm. -ra,
487. (D. Green 1965: 140–63; J.M.
Hill 1995: 71.) [NHG hold.]
hōlinga, adv., in vain, without cause,
1076.
holm †, m., sea, water; 519, 1131, 2138;
ds. -e, 543, 1435, 1914, 2362; as.
holm, 48, 632, 1592; gp. -a, 2132; ap.
-as, 240. [Cf. OIcel. hólmr, Dan.
holm, Swed. holme ‘islet’; see OED:
HOLM(E)1; JEGP 21 (1922) 480–6;
E&S 11 (1925) 55.] — Cpd.: w®ġ-.
holm-clif ‡, n., sea-CLIFF, cliff by the
waterside; ds. -e, 1421, 1635; ap. -u,
230.
holm-wylm ‡, mi., surge of the sea; ds.
-e, 2411.
holt, n., wood, copse; as., 2598, 2846,
2935 (Hrefnes Holt). [HOLT; NHG
Holz.] — Cpds.: æsc-, fyrġen-, gār-.
holt-wudu †, mu., WOOD; 2340 (wooden
shield); as., 1369 (¯forest).
homer, see hamer.
hond, hond- (ġestealla, scolu), see
hand(-).
hond-ġemōt ‡, n., HAND-MEETing, battle;
gp. -a, 1526, 2355.
hond-ġesella ‡, wk.m., companion (who
is close to one’s side), close associate;
dp. -ġesellum, 1481. [sæl, sele; NHG
Geselle.] Cf. ġe-selda; hand-ġestealla.
hond-ġeweorc, n., HANDIWORK, deed of
strength; ds. -e, 2835.
hond-locen ‡, adj. (pp.), (LOCKed)
linked by HAND; nsf., 322, 551.
[lūcan.]
hond-r®s ‡, m., HAND-¢ght; 2072.
hond-wundor ‡, n., WONDRous thing
wrought by HAND; gp. -wundra, 2768.
hongian, see hangian.
hord, n., HOARD, treasure (orig. what is
hidden); 2283, 2284 (n.), 3011, 3084;
gs. hordes, 887; ds. horde, 1108, 2216,
2547, 2768, 2781, 3164; as. hord, 912,
2212, 2319, 2422, 2509, 2744, 2773,
2799, 2955, 3056, 3126, hord ond
rīċe: 2369, 3004. (Tyler 2006: 52–73.)
[Go. huzd.] — Cpds.: bēah-, brēost-,
word-, wyrm-.
hord-ærn (‡) +, n., treasure-house; ds.
-e, 2831; gp. -a, 2279.
hord-burh (†), fc., treasure-city; as.,
467.
hord-ġestrēon †, n., stored-up posses-
sions, treasure; gp. -a, 3092; dp. -um,
1899.
hord-māððum ‡, m., HOARD-treasure,
jewel; as. -māððĿm, 1198.
hord-weard †, m., GUARDian of treas-
ure; hordweard hæleþa (‘king’): ns.,
1047, as., 1852; hordweard (‘dragon’):
ns., 2293, 2302, 2554, 2593.
hord-wela ‡, wk.m., HOARDed WEALth;
as. -welan, 2344. [WEAL.] See ®r-
wela.
hord-weorþung ‡, f., honoring with
gifts; as. -e, 952.
hord-wyn(n) ‡, fjō., HOARD-joy, de-
lightful treasure; as. -wynne, 2270.
hord-wyrðe ‡, adj.ja., WORTHy of being
HOARDed; asm. -wyrðne, 2245.
horn, m., HORN; 1423; as., 2943; [np.
-as, ‘gables,’ F. 1, 4]; dp. -um, 1369.
— Cpd.: gūð-.
horn-boga †, wk.m., HORN-BOW (i.e.
bow ‘tipped with horn,’ or ‘curved
like a horn’; see BT, M. Keller 1906:
50, Cl.Hall tr. [n.], Falk 1914: 91–2;
Cha.Intr. 361); ds. -bogan, 2437.
horn-ġēap †, adj., wide-gabled; 82. (See
Angl. 12 [1889] 396¯f.; Hoops St. 93,
EStn. 64 [1929] 207–11; Cramp 1993:
339; Biggam 2000: 117–20.) See
ġēap.
horn-reċed ‡, n., gabled house; as., 704.
hors, n., HORSE; 1399. [OIcel. hross, OS
hros(s), NHG Ross.]
hōs ‡, f., troop (of attendants); ds. -e,
924. [Go. OHG (NHG) hansa; BGdSL
29 (1904) 194–6, 30.288; Archiv 169
(1936) 1–8; Bamm. 1979: 83–4.]
hoðma †, wk.m. (?), concealment, grave
(?); ds. (p.?) hoðman, 2458. (Holt. IF
60 [1952] 277.)
hrā (hr®[w], hrēa[w]), n.(m.) (SB §¯250
n.¯1, OEG §¯400), corpse, body; hrā,
1588; [np. hr®w, F. 34]. (Soland 1979:
29–31.) [Go. hraiwa-.]
 GLOSSARY
hræd-līċe, adv., quickly; 356, 963.
[hraþe.]
hræfen, see hrefn.
hræġl, n., garment, hence mail shirt (or
coat); 1195; gs. -es, 1217; gp. -a, 454.
[RAIL (obs.); night-rail (dial.).] —
Cpds.: beado-, fyrd-, mere-.
hræðre, see hreðer.
hrā-fyl(l) ‡, mi., FALL of corpses,
slaughter; as. -fyl, 277. (Robinson
1985: 62: ‘cannibalism’ [cf. fyllo; not
so MR], and see TSL 11 [1966] 146.)
hraþe, hræþe, hreþe, adv., quickly;
hraðe (hraþe), 224, 740, 748, 1294,
1310, 1541, 1576, 1937, 1975, 2117,
2968; hræþe, 1437; hreþe, 991 (n.),
1914; raþe (Appx.C §¯24, cf. Go.
raþizō, comp.?), 724; Ĺraþe: 1390. —
Comp. hraþor, 543. [RATHER. See
Holt.Et.: hræd, ræd.] (See Stern Swift,
Swiftly, & Their Synonyms (Göteborg,
1921) 29–38; BGdSL 48 [1923] 79–
85.)
hrēam, m., cry, outcry; 1302.
hrēa-wīċ ‡, n., place of corpses; as.
(p.?), 1214. [hrā.]
hrefn (hræfn), m., RAVEN; [hræfen, F.
34]; hrefn (blaca), 1801; (wonna) ~,
3024; ds. hrefne, 2448. See Hrefnes
Holt, 2935. (See Lang. §¯3.1.)
hrēmiġ †, adj., w. gen. or dat., exulting;
124, 1882, 2054; npm. hrēmġe, 2363.
(Juzi 1939: 99–101.) [OS hrôm, NHG
Ruhm.]
hrēoh, adj., rough, ¢erce, savage, trou-
bled; 1564, 2180; dsn. hrēoĿm, 2581,
wk. hrēon, 1307; npf. hrēo, 548. (Cf.
blōd-, gūð-, wæl-rēow.)
hrēoh-mōd (†), adj., troubled in mind,
¢erce; 2132, 2296.
hrēosan, vb. 2, fall, rush; pret. 3 sg.
hrēas, 2488, 2831; 3 pl. hruron, 1074,
1430, 1872. — Cpd.: be-.
hrēow, f., sorrow, distress; 2328; gp. -a,
2129. (Shippey 1978: 16.) [OED: RUE,
sb.1; OHG (h)riuwa, NHG Reue.]
hrēð †, orig. n. (BGdSL 31 [1906] 82–4,
SB §§¯267[a], 288, OEG §¯636), glory,
triumph, as., 2575. See hrōðor. —
Cpds.: gūð-, mæġen-, siġe-. (Hrēð-
rīċ.)
hreþe, see hraþe.
hreðer †, n.(?), breast, heart; 2113,
2593; ds. hreþre, 1151, 1446, 1745,
399
1878, 2328, 2442, 3148; hræðre, 2819;
gp. hreðra, 2045. (Soland 1979: 82–
7.) [Go. haírþra, n.p.]
hreþer-bealo ‡, nwa., (heart-BALE), dis-
tress; as. 1343 (n.).
hrēð-sigor ‡, m.(n.), glorious victory;
gp. -a, 2583.
hrīnan, vb. 1, touch, reach; w. dat.: 988,
1515, 3053; pret. sj. 3 sg. hrine, 2976
(hurt); w. æt: pret. 3 sg. hrān, 2270. —
Cpd.: æt-.
hrinde ‡, pp. npm. (of *hrindan, vb. I),
covered with frost; 1363. [J. Wright
1898–1905: RIND (North.) ‘hoar-
frost’; cf. OE hrīm (Holt. IF 14 [1903]
339).]
hrinġ, m., (1) RING (ornament); as.,
1202, 2809; np. hringas, 1195; gp.
hringa (þenġel), 1507 (n.), ~ (hyrde),
2245, ~ (fenġel), 2345; dp. hringum,
1091; ap. hringas, 1970, 3034. — (2)
ring-mail, armor formed of rings;
1503, 2260 (byrnan hrinġ; cf. Brady
1979: 112, Crp., Ja.: ‘ringing sound’).
— Cpd.: bān-.
hrinġan, vb. I, RING, resound; pret. 3
pl. hringdon, 327.
hrinġ-boga ‡, wk.m., coiled creature
(dragon); gs. (ds.?) -bogan, 2561.
[RING; būgan.]
hrinġed (‡), adj., (pp.), formed of RINGs;
hrinġed (byrne), 1245; asf. hringde
(byrnan), 2615.
hrinġed-stefna ‡, wk.m., RING-prowed
ship, ship with coiled prow?; 32 (n.),
1897; as. -stefnan, 1131. [stefn.]
hrinġ-īren ‡, n., RING-IRON, iron rings
(of mail shirt); 322. (Falk 1914: 27:
‘sword embellished w. a ring’; si.
Hübener Lit.bl. 56 [1935] 242.)
hrinġ-m®l ‡, adj., RING-marked, i.e.
(sword) embellished with a ring (see
1521¯n. and see fetelhilt); nsn. (p.?),
2037; — used as noun (ring-sword);
ns., 1521; as., 1564. (GenA 1992:
hrinġ-m®led; cf. Davidson 1962: 124–
6: [sword] with wavy patterns.)
hrinġ-naca ‡, wk.m., RING-prowed ship;
1862. See hrinġed-stefna.
hrinġ-net(t) ‡, nja., RING-NET, shirt (or
coat) of mail; as. -net, 2754; ap. ~,
1889. Cf. brēost-, here-, inwit-, searo-
net(t).
hrinġ-sele ‡, mi., RING-hall; ds., 2010
400 GLOSSARY
(cf. bēah-sele); — (of the dragon’s
cave:) ds., 3053; as., 2840.
hrinġ-weorðung ‡, f., RING-adornment;
as. -e, 3017.
hroden †, pp. (of hrēodan, vb. 2), deco-
rated, ornamented; asn., 495, 1022;
ġe-hroden, npn., 304. — Cpds.: bēag-,
gold-.
hrōf, m., ROOF; 999; as., 403, 836, 926,
983, 1030 (helmes ~, ‘crown’), 2755.
— Cpd.: inwit-.
hrōf-sele ‡, mi., ROOFed hall; ds., 1515.
hron-¢sc (‡) (+), m., whale (-FISH, cf.
NHG Wal¢sch); ap. -¢xas, 540. [Sarr.
1913: 69: Celt. rhon? But see R.
Jordan Die ae. Säugetiernamen, AF 12
(Heidelberg, 1903), 212; Holt.Et.;
Cooke N&Q 18 (1971) 245–7: ‘gram-
pus.’]
hron-rād †, f., whale-ROAD, ocean; as.
-e, 10. (Brady PMLA 67 [1952] 556–
60.)
hrōr, adj., agile, vigorous, strong; dsm.
wk. -an, 1629. [Cf. onhrēran; NHG
rührig.] — Cpds.: fela-, •un-.
hrōðor †, n., comfort, bene¢t, advan-
tage, satisfaction; ds. hrōðre, 2448;
gp. hrōþra, 2171. See hrēð. (Hrōð-
gār.)
hruron, see hrēosan.
hrūse †, wk.f., earth, ground; 2558; vs.,
2247; ds. hrūsan, 2276, 2279, 2411;
as. ~, 772, 2831. (Benning 1961: 94–
6.)
hrycg, mja., back, RIDGE; as., 471.
hryre, mi., fall, death; ds., 1680, 2052,
3005; as., 3179. [hrēosan.] — Cpds.:
lēod-, wīġ-.
hryssan (hrissan), vb. I, shake, (cause
to) rattle; pret. 3 pl. hrysedon, 226
(n.). [Go. af-, us-hrisjan.]
hū, adv., conj., HOW; in direct question:
1987; — in dependent clauses, w.
ind., sometimes sj.; 3, 116, 279, 737,
844, 979, 1725, 2093, 2318, 2519,
2718, 2948, 3026, [F. 47]. (Word 19
[1963] 328–34.) [Studia linguistica 26
(1972) 116–19.]
hund, m., dog, HOUND; dp. -um, 1368.
hund, num., n., HUNDred; a., w. partit.
gen. (missera:) 1498, 1769; hund (þū-
senda), 2994 (Appx.C §¯5). [Szemerényi
1960.] — Cpd.: þrēo-.
hūru, adv., indeed, at any rate, to be
sure, however; 182, 369, 669, 862,
1071, 1465, 1944, 2836, 3120. (Meyer
Beibl. 53 [1942] 87–90; Ingersoll
1978: 180–1.)
hūs, n., HOUSE; gs. hūses, 116, 1666; gp.
hūsa (sēlest): 146, 285, 658, 935. —
Cpds.: bān-, nicor-.
hūð, f., spoils, plunder; ds. (gs.?) -e,
124. [Go. hunþs.]
hwā, m.f., hwæt, n., pron., (1) interr.,
WHO, WHAT; hwā, 52, 2252 (‘[some-
one] who’: see OES §¯359), 3126, [F.
23]; hwæt, 173, 233 (who), w. gp.
(what sort of¯): 237; dsm. hwām, 1696;
asn. hwæt, 1476, 3068, w. partit. gen.:
474, 1186; isn. (tō) hwan, 2071. — (2)
indef., some one, any one, something,
anything; asm. hwone, 155; nsn.
hwæt, 3010; asn. ~: 880. [IF 90 (1985)
196–206.] — hwæt, interj., see hwæt.
— Cpds.: ®ġ-, ġe-.
ġe-hwā, pron., prec. by partit. gen., each
(one); gsm. ġehwæs, 2527, 2838 (ref.
to fem.); dsm. ġehw®m, 1365 (ref. to
fem.), 1420; ġehwām, 882, 2033; dsn.
ġehwām, 88; dsf. ġehw®re, 25 (n.);
asm. ġehwone, 294, 800 (ref. to fem.),
2765; ġehwane, 2397, 2685. (Kahlas-
Tarkka 1987.)
hwæder, see hwyder.
hw®r, adv., conj., WHERE, wherever,
anywhere; 762 (n.), 2029; hwār, 3062;
elles hw®r, ELSEWHERE, 138. [OIcel.
hvar, Dan. hvor, Swed. var, OHG wār,
NHG wo.] — Cpds.: ®ġ-, ġe-, ō-.
ġe-hw®r, adv., everyWHERE, on every
occasion; 526.
ġe-hyld, ni.(c.) (SB §§¯267[a], 288¯n.,
OEG §¯610.6), protection; (manna) ~,
3056 (see Kl. 1911–12: [6]). [healdan.]
hwæt, adj., brisk, vigorous, valiant;
nsm.wk. hwata, 3028 (?, n.); dsm.
hwatum, 2161; npm. hwate (Scyld-
ingas): 1601, 2052; apm. hwate, 3005;
~ (helmberend): 2517, 2642. (Schab-
ram 1954: 59–68; Bately 2003: 286–
7.) [See hwettan.] — Cpds.: fyrd-,
gold-.
hwæt, pron., see hwā.
hwæt, interj. (= interr. pron.), well, now,
oh; foll. by pers. or dem. pron.; at the
beginning of a speech: 530, 1652;
within a speech: 942, 1774, 2248; at
the beginning of the poem (as of
 GLOSSARY
many other OE poems): 1 (n.). (Kl.:
‘WHAT, lo, behold, well’; Hiltunen in
Walmsley 2006: 104–6.)
hwæðer, pron., (WHETHER), which of
two; 2530; asf. (swā) hwæþere . . .
(swā), whichever, 686. — Cpds.: ®ġ-,
ġe-; nōðer.
hwæþer, conj., WHETHER; 1314 (MS
hwæþre), 1356, 2785; [F. 48 (n.)].
ġe-hwæþer, pron., either, each (of two),
both; 584, 814, 2171; nsn., 1248; gsn.
ġehwæþres, 1043; dsm. ġehwæðrum,
2994. [EITHER fr. ®ġ-hwæþer.]
hwæþre, hwæþere, adv., however, yet;
hwæþre, 555, 1270, 2098, 2228, 2298,
2377, 2874, hwæþere, 970, 1718 (n.:
ðēah þe . . . hwæþere); hwæðre (swā
þēah), 2442; however that may be,
anyhow (Siev. BGdSL 9 [1884] 138):
hwæþere, 574, 578, hwæþre, 890.
(Quirk 1954: 44–8.) [Horn EStn. 70
(1935) 46–8.]
hwan, see hwā.
hwanan, -on, adv., WHENce, from
where, from what direction; hwanan,
257, 2403, hwanon, 333.
hwār, see hw®r.
hwate, -um, see hwæt.
hwatu, f., augury, omen, prediction; gp.
hwata, 3028 (n.). — Cpd.: gold-.
hwealf, (f.) n., vault, arch; as. (heo-
fones) hwealf: 576, 2015. [Cf. NHG
wölben.]
•hwearf-lata¯‡, wk.m. (adj.), one slow to
Ïee, stalwart one (?); [gpm. -latra, F.
34 (n.)].
ġe-hwelċ, see ġe-hwylċ.
hwēne, adv., a little, somewhat; 2699.
[SB §¯237 n.¯2; OEG §§¯571 n.¯2, 668;
cf. l©thwōn.]
hweorfan, vb. 3, turn, go, move about;
2888 (n.); hworfan, 1728; pret. 3 sg.
hwearf, 55, 356, 1188, 1573, 1714,
1980, 2238, 2268, 2832, [F. 17]; sj. 3
sg. hwurfe, 264. [Go. hwaírban, NHG
werben.] — Cpds.: æt-, ġeond-, ond-,
ymbe-.
ġe-hweorfan, vb. 3, go, pass; pret. 3 sg.
(on ®ht) ġehwearf, 1679, (si.) ~: 1210,
1684, 2208.
hwerġen (‡), adv., someWHERE; elles
hwerġen, ELSEWHERE; 2590. [Cf. NHG
irgend.]
hwettan, vb. I, WHET, urge, incite; pres.
401
sj. 3 sg. hwette, 490; pret. 3 pl.
hwetton, 204. [hwæt, adj.]
hwīl, f., WHILE, time, space of time; 146;
ds. -e, 2320; as. -e, 16, 1762, 2030,
2097, 2137, 2159, 2548, 2571, 2780; a
long time: ns. hwīl, 1495; as. -e, 105,
152, 240; — dp. hwīlum, adv., some-
times, at times, now and again, for-
merly, (archaic WHILOM); 175, 496,
864, 867, 916, 1728, 1828, 2016, 2020,
2107–2108–2109–2111, 2299, 3044
(n.). (Grüner 1972: 75–82.) — Cpds.:
dæġ-, ġescæp-, orleġ-, siġe-.
hwīt, adj., WHITE, shining; nsm. wk. -a,
1448; [asm. -ne, F. 39 (n.)].
hworfan, see hweorfan.
hwyder, adv., WHITHER, to what place;
163; hwæder (Lang. §¯2 rem.¯2), 1331.
hwylċ, pron., (1) interr., WHICH, what;
274 (n.); nsf., 2002; npm. -e, 1986. —
(2) indef., any (one) (w. partit. gen.);
nsm., 1104; nsn., 2433; — swā hwylċ
.¯.¯.¯swā, whichever; nsf., 943; dsm. ~
hwylcum ~, 3057. — Cpds.: ®ġ-, ġe-,
nāt-, wēl-.
ġe-hwylċ, pron., each, every (one), w.
partit. gen. (pl.); 985, 1166, 1673; gsm.
ġehwylċes, 732 (ānra ~, see ān), 1396;
gsn. ~, 2094, 2189; dsm. ġehwylcum,
412, 768, 784 (ānra ~), 936, 996, 2859,
2891; dsf. ġehwylcre, 805; dsn. ġe-
hwylcum, 98; asm. ġehwelcne, 148;
ġehwylcne, 2250, 2516; asf. ġehwylċe,
1705; asn. ġehwylċ, 2608; ism. ġe-
hwylċe, 2450; isn. ~, 1090, 2057.
hwyrfan, vb. I, move about; pres. 3 pl.
hwyrfaþ, 98. (See Lang. §¯3 rem.¯1.)
[hweorfan.]
hwyrft, mi., turning, motion, going; dp.
-um, 163. [hweorfan.] — Cpd.: ed-.
hycgan, vb. III, think, intend, resolve;
[imp. pl. hicgeaþ, F. 11]; pret. 1 sg.
hogode, 632. (Flasdieck A. 59 [1935]
30–2.) — Cpds.: for-, ofer-; bealo-,
heard-, swīð-, þanc-, wīs-hycgende.
ġe-hycgan, vb. III, resolve; pret. 2 sg.
ġehogodest, 1988.
h©dan, vb. I, HIDE; 446; pres. sj. 3 sg.
h©de, 2766.
ġe-h©dan, vb. I, HIDE; pret. 3 sg. ġe-
h©dde, 2235, 3059 (n.).
ġe-hyġd, fni., thought; as., 2045.
[hycgan; Afnf. 54 (1939) 229–34;
Language 46 (1969) 532–7; Bamm.
402 GLOSSARY
1979: 85–7.] — Cpds.: brēost-, mōd-;
(ofer-, won-hyġd).
hyġe, see hiġe.
hyġe-bend ‡, fjō. (mi.), mind’s BOND,
mental restraint, reserve; dp. -um,
1878. (Kl.: ‘heart-string’; cf. Wan 11–
20.)
hyġe-ġiōmor †, adj., sad in mind; 2408.
hyġe-mēðe ‡, adj.ja., wearying the mind,
weary of mind; nsn., 2442; ds. hyġe-
m®ðum, 2909 (n.). [NHG müde.] (Cf.
s®-mēþe.) See Hoops 260.
hyġe-sorh †, f., heart-SORROW; gp.
-sorga, 2328.
hyht, mi., hope, solace; 179. [Afnf. 54
(1939) 229–34.]
hyldan, vb. I, incline, bend down; reÏ.:
pret. 3 sg. hylde (hine), 688. [HEEL
‘tilt’ (see OED); OE heald, ‘sloping,
inclined.’]
hyldo, fīn., favor, grace, loyalty, friend-
ship; 2293 (or acc.? see n.); gs., 670,
2998; as., 2067. [hold.]
hylt, see hilt.
h©nan, vb. I, humble, ill-treat, injure;
pret. 3 sg. h©nde, 2319. [hēan; NHG
höhnen; honi soit etc.]
h©nðu, f., humiliation, harm, injury; as.
h©nðu, 277; h©[n]ðo, 3155; gp. h©nða,
166; h©nðo, 475, 593. [See h©nan.]
h©ran, vb. I, (1) HEAR; w. acc., hear of:
pret. 1 sg. h©rde, 1197; — w. inf.:
pret. 1 sg. h©rde, 38; (secgan) h©rde,
582; 3 sg. (~) h©rde, 875; 1 pl. (~)
h©rdon, 273; — w. acc. & inf.: pret. 1
sg. h©rde, 1346, 1842, 2023; — w.
þæt-clause: pret. 1 sg., h©rde iċ þæt
(formula of transition, ‘further’), 62,
2163, 2172. — (2) w. dat., listen to,
obey; inf., 10, 2754; pret. 3 pl.
h©rdon, 66.
ġe-h©ran, vb. I, HEAR, learn; w. acc.:
imp. pl. ġeh©rað, 255; pret. 3 sg.
ġeh©rde, 88, 609; — w. (acc. and) acc.
& inf. (Kl. 1905–6: 238): pret. 3 pl.
ġeh©rdon, 785; — w. (obj. þæt and)
þæt-clause: pres. 1 sg. ġeh©re, 290.
hyrde, mja., (HERD), guardian, keeper;
1742, 2245, 2304, 2505; (folces)
hyrde (Archiv 126 [1911] 353 n. 3):
610, 1832, 2644, 2981, [F. 46];
(wuldres) hyrde (= God), 931; (fyrena)
hyrde (= Grendel), 750; as. hyrde,
887, 3133, (folces) ~, 1849, (rīċes) ~:
2027, 3080; ap. hyrdas, 1666. —
Cpd.: grund-.
hyrst (†), ¢., ornament, accouterment,
armor; dp. -um, 2762; ap. -e, 2988;
-a, 3164, [F. 20]. [OHG (h)rust.]
hyrstan (†), vb. I, decorate, ornament;
pp. asn. hyrsted, 672. [NHG rüsten;
see hyrst.]
hyrsted-gold †, n., decoratively wrought
GOLD; ds. -e, 2255 (n.).
hyrtan (‡) +, vb. I, encourage, reÏ.:
take HEART; pret. 3 sg. hyrte (hine),
2593. [heorte.]
hyse †, mi.(ja.) (SB §¯263 n.¯3, OEG
§¯610.5), young man; vs., 1217; [gp.
hyssa, F. 48].
hyt(t) (hit[t]) ‡, fjō., HEAT; hyt, 2649
(n.). [NHG Hitze; Holt.Et. 161; cf.
Kendall 1991: xvi: h©t.]
h©ð, f., harbor; ds. -e, 32. [HYTHE
(obs.); cf. Rotherhithe, etc.]
h©ð-weard ‡, m., harbor-GUARD; 1914.
iċ, pers. pron., I; 181×; [F. 24, 25, 37];
gs. mīn, 2084, 2533; ds. mē (42×); [F.
27]; as. meċ (16×); mē, 415, 446, 553,
563, 677; — dual nom. wit, 535, 537,
539, 540, 544, 683, 1186, 1476, 1707;
g. uncer, 2002 (n.), 2532; d. unc,
1783, 2137, 2525, 2526; a. unc, 540,
545; — pl. wē (24×); gp. ūser, 2074,
ūre, 1386; dp. ūs, 269, 346, 382, 1821,
2635, 2642, 2920, 3001, 3009, 3078,
ūrum (w. ending of poss. pron.), 2659
(n.); ap. ūsiċ, 458, 2638, 2640, 2641.
icge ‡, adj.ja. (?), ds. -e, 1107, see note.
īdel, adj., IDLE, empty, unoccupied; 413;
nsn., 145; deprived (of, gen.), 2888.
īdel-hende (‡) +, adj.ja., empty-HANDed;
2081.
ides (†), f. (orig. ¢.), †woman, lady;
620, 1075, 1117, 1168, 1259; gs. idese,
1351; ds. ~, 1649, 1941. (See Stibbe
1935: 85–8; ELN 23.3 [1986] 10–15;
Damico 1984: 68–72; Cronan 2003:
403.)
in, I. prep., IN; (1) w. dat. (rest); 1 (the
only dat. instance of temporal sense),
13, 25, 87, 89, 107, 180, 323, 324,
395, 443, 482, 588, 695, 713, 728,
851, 976, 1029, 1070, 1151, 1302
(Varr.), [1513], 1612, 1952, 1984,
2139, 2232, 2383, 2433, 2458, 2459,
2495, 2505, 2599, 2635, 2786, 3097;
 GLOSSARY
postpos. (stressed), 19; in innan (prec.
by dat.), 1968, 2452. — (2) w. acc.
(motion), into, to; 60, 185, 1134, 1210,
2935, 2981; in þā tīde, 2226. (W.
Krohmer Altengl. in und on, Berlin
diss., 1904.) — II., adv., in, inside;
386, 1037, 1371, 1502, 1644, 2152,
2190, 2552; inn, 3090.
in(n), n., dwelling, lodging; in, 1300.
[INN.]
inċ, inċer, see þū.
inċġe-lāf ‡, f., 2577, see note.
in-frōd ‡, adj., very old and wise; 2449;
dsm. -um, 1874.
in-gang, m., entrance; as., 1549.
in-genġa ‡, wk.m., invader; 1776.
in-ġesteald ‡, n., house-property, pos-
sessions in the house; as., 1155. (Cf.
R. North LSE 21 [1990] 33: Inge- =
‘Ing’s.’) [See in(n).]
inn, see in, adv.
innan, adv., (¯from) withIN, inside; 774,
1017, 2331, 2412, 2719; in innan, w.
preced. dat. (semi-prep.), 1968, 2452;
on innan, 2715, 1740 (w. preced.
dat.); þ®r on innan, 71, denot. motion
(‘into’): 2089, 2214, 2244.
innan-weard, adj., INWARD, interior;
991; nsn., 1976. Cf. inneweard.
inne, adv., withIN, inside, inwardly; 390,
642, 1141, 1281, 1570, 1800, 1866,
2113, 3059; þ®r inne, 118, 1617, 2115,
2225, 3087.
inne-weard, adj., INWARD, interior;
nsn., 998.
inwid-sorg, see inwit-sorh.
inwit-fenġ ‡, mi., malicious grasp, 1447.
[Bamm. 1979: 87–8.]
inwit-gæst ‡, m., malicious (stranger
or) foe; 2670. (Or -g®st? See gāst.)
inwit-hrōf ‡, m., evil (or enemy’s) ROOF;
as., 3123. (Cf. Berkhout PLL 9 [1973]
428–31.)
inwit-net(t) ‡, nja., NET of malice; as.
-net, 2167. (See Kl. 1911–12: [16].) Cf.
brēost-, here-, hrinġ-, searo-net(t).
inwit-nīð †, m., enmity, hostile act; np.
-as, 1858; gp. -a, 1947.
inwit-scear ‡, m., malicious slaughter;
as., 2478. See gūð-scear.
inwit-searo ‡, nwa., enmity (or mal-
ice?); as., 1101.
inwit-sorh ‡, f., evil care or SORROW;
1736; as. inwidsorge, 831.
403
inwit-þanc †, m., hostile purpose; dp.
-um, 749.
ġe-īode, see ġe-gān.
iogoð, see ġeogoð.
iō-meowle ‡, wk.f., woman (or wife) of
old, i.e. of a former day; as. iō-
meowlan, 2931 (n.). (See Schü. EStn.
55 [1921] 90¯f.; Rob. 51.) See meowle.
īren(n), nja., IRON, †sword; 892, 1848,
īren ®rgōd: 989, 2586; as. īren, 1809,
2050; gp. īrenna, 802, (npf. of adj.?:)
2683, 2828; īrena (see note on 673),
673, 1697, 2259. — Cpd.: hrinġ-; cf.
īsern-. (See Kluge BGdSL 43 [1918]
516¯f.: īren fr. *īsren; D. Green 1998:
154–5; Kleinman NM 98 [1997] 371–
90. Fr. Celtic: Orel 2003: 204.)
īren(n), adj.ja., of IRON; nsf. (ecg wæs)
īren: 1459, 2778; asn.wk. īrenne 2338.
īren-bend †, fjō. (mi.), IRON BAND; dp.
-um, 774 (n.), 998 (īrĺn-).
īren-byrne ‡, wk.f., IRON shirt (or coat)
of mail; as. -byrnan, 2986. Cf. īsern-.
īren-heard (‡), adj., IRON-HARD; 1112.
(Hough Neophil. 84 [2000] 133:
‘hardened by the sword’; cf. Grinda
1993: 360.)
īren-þrēat ‡, m., band having IRON ar-
mor, armed troop; 330.
is, see eom.
īs, n., ICE; ds. -e, 1608. (Stork MS 51
[1989] 287–303.)
īsern-byrne ‡, wk.f., IRON mail shirt (or
coat); as. -byrnan, 671. Cf. īren-.
īsern-scūr ‡, f., IRON SHOWER (of ar-
rows); as. -e, 3116. [Cf. Go. skūra, f.;
Lang. §¯21.1]
īs-ġebind ‡, n., ICy BOND; ds. -e, 1133.
īsiġ (‡) +, adj., ICY, covered with ice (?);
33 (n.).
iū, see ġeō.
iū-mon(n), mc. [pl.], PERSON of old, gp.
-monna, 3052.
kyning(-), see under C.
lā, interj., (LO), indeed, þæt lā mæġ
secgan: 1700, 2864.
lāc, n., gift, offering; dp. lācum, 43,
1868; ap. lāc, 1863; ap. lāc, 1584. [Go.
laiks, OHG leih.] — Cpds.: ġe-,
beadu-, heaðo-; s®-. See lācan. (On
the semantic development of lāc [cf.
lācan, beadu-lāc, etc.] in connection
404 GLOSSARY
with ritual practices [processions and
the like], see Grimm D.M. 32; Heusler
1923: §¯34; BT; Beck 1968.)
ġe-lāc †, n., motion, play; dp. (ecga)
ġelācum, 1168; ap.(s.?) (sweorda) ġe-
lāc, 1040. [lācan.]
lācan, vb. 7, move quickly, Ïy; pres.ptc.
lācende, 2832; †(play, i.e.) ¢ght; inf.
(dareðum) lācan, 2848. — Cpd.: for-.
lād, f., way, passage, journey; gs. -e,
569; ds. -e, 1987. [LOAD, LODE; līðan.
OIcel. leið, Swed. led.] (Marquardt
1938: 171–2.) — Cpds.: brim-, ġe-,
s®-, ©þ-.
ġe-lād, n., (treacherous) passage across
water: as., 1410. (Cronan Neophil. 71
[1987] 316–19; Gelling ASE 31 [2002]
10–11.) [līþan.] — Cpd.: fen-.
l®dan, vb. I, LEAD, bring; 239; pret. 3
pl. l®ddon, 1159; pp. l®ded, 3177,
ġel®ded, 37. [līðan.] — Cpd.: for-.
l®fan, vb. I, LEAVE; 2315; imp. sg. l®f,
1178; pret. 3 sg. l®fde, 2470. [Cf. lāf;
(be-)līfan.]
l®n-dagas ‡, m.p., transitory DAYS; ap.
-dagas, 2591. See l®ne.
l®ne, adj.ja., (LOANed) transitory, mut-
able, perishable, perishing; 1754; gsn.
wk. l®nan, 2845; asf.wk. ~, 1622; asn.
l®ne, 3129 (cf. Bamm. ES 61 [1980]
483¯f.: adv.). (Kellermann 1954: 315–
20.) [lēon; OS lêhni; Arcamone 2000:
937–43.]
lænġ, see longe.
l®ran, vb. I, teach; imp. sg. (þē) l®r,
1722. [Cf. lār; Go. laisjan, OIcel. læra,
NHG lehren.] (Cf. Go. reÏ. (ga)laisjan
sik, etc., ZvS 42 [1909] 317–30; HomU
19 [BlHom 8] 68 [p. 101, l.¯6].)
ġe-l®ran, vb. I, teach, advise, persuade
(w. acc. of pers. & of thing, foll. by
þæt- or hū-clause); 278, 3079; pret. 3
pl. ġel®rdon, 415.
l®s, see l©t.
l®sest, l®ssa, see l©tel.
l®stan, vb. I, (1) w. dat., (¯follow), do
service, avail; 812. (2) perform; imp.
sg. l®st, 2663. [lāst; MnE LAST, NHG
leisten.] — Cpd.: ful-.
ġe-l®stan, vb. I, (1) w. acc., serve, stand
by; pres. sj. 3 pl. ġel®sten, 24; pret. 3
sg. ġel®ste, 2500. (2) carry out, ful¢ll;
inf., 1706; pret. 3 sg. ġel®ste, 524,
2990; pp. ġel®sted, 829.
læt, adj., sluggish, slow (w. gen.); 1529.
[LATE. Go. lats, OIcel. latr, Dan. lad,
Swed. lat, OHG laz, NHG lass.] —
Cpds.: hild-, •hwearf-lata.
l®tan, vb. 7, LET, allow (w. acc. & inf.);
pres. 3 sg. l®teð, 1728; imp. sg. l®t,
1488; pl. l®tað, 397; pret. 3 sg. lēt,
2389, 2550, 2977; 3 pl. lēton, 48, 864,
3132; sj. 2 sg. lēte, 1996; 3 sg. ~,
3082. — Cpds.: ā-, for-, of-, on-.
lāf, f., (1) what is LEFt as an inheritance,
heirloom; ref. to armor, 454; — ref. to
swords: 2611, 2628; ds. (-)lāfe, 2577
(?,¯n.); as. lāfe, 795, 1488, 1688, 2191,
2563; np. ~, 2036. — (2) remnant,
remainder; survivors: as. (sweorda)
lāfe, 2936; leavings: ns. (fēola) lāf
(‘sword’), 1032; np. (homera) lāfe
(‘sword’), 2829; as. (bronda) lāfe
(‘ashes’), 3160. (See Kl. Archiv 126
[1911] 348¯f.; Portnoy Angl. 119 [2001]
237–48.) [See l®fan; Go. laiba.] —
Cpds.: ende-, eormen-, wēa-, yrfe-,
©ð-.
ġe-la¢an (‡) +, vb. II, LAVE, refresh;
pret. 3 sg. ġelafede, 2722. [Lat. lavare;
NHG laben. See Pogatscher Prager
Deutsche Studien 8 (1908) 81¯ff., EStn.
42 (1910) 170; Heyne 1899–1903:
3.38; Holt.Et.]
lagu (†), mu., sea, lake, water; 1630.
lagu-cræftiġ ‡, adj., sea-skilled, experi-
enced as a sailor; 209.
lagu-str®t ‡, f., sea-road (-STREET); as.
-e, 239.
lagu-strēam †, m., sea-STREAM, sea;
ap. -as, 297. Cf. brim-.
lāh, see lēon.
land, n., LAND; ns. lond, 2197; gs.
landes, 2995; ds. lande, 1623, 1913,
2310, 2836; as. land, 221, 242, 253,
580, 1904, 2062, 2915; lond, 521,
1357, 2471, 2492; gp. landa, 311. —
Cpds.: ēa-, el-; Frēs-, Scede-.
land-būend, mc. [pl.], LAND-dweller,
earth-dweller; dp. landbūendum, 95;
ap. londbūend, 1345.
land-fruma ‡, wk.m., prince of the
LAND, king; 31.
land-ġemyrċe (‡) +, nja., LAND-boundary;
ap. -ġemyrċu (shore), 209. [mearc.]
(Cf. ende-s®ta.)
land-ġeweorc ‡, n., LAND-WORK, strong-
hold; as., 938.
 GLOSSARY
land-waru ‡, f., people of the LAND; ap.
-wara (country), 2321 (or apm. =
-ware?, see SB §¯252 n.¯3; OEG
§¯610.7).
land-weard ‡, m., LAND-GUARD, shore
watch; 1890. (Cf. 209, 242.)
lang(e), see long(e).
ġe-lang, adj., at hand, dependent on (æt);
1376; nsn. ġelong, 2150. [ALONG, adj.
(arch. & dial.).]
langað, m., LONGing; 1879.
lang-twīdiġ ‡, adj., granted for a LONG
time, lasting; 1708. [Hel. 2752 (C):
tuîthon ‘grant’; Holt.Et.; cf. Mackie
1939: 523: ‘long-time granting.’]
lār, f., instruction, counsel, precept, bid-
ding; ds. -e, 1950; gp. -a, 1220; -ena,
269 (Lang. §¯21.6). [LORE.] — Cpd.:
frēond-.
lāst, m., track, footprint; as., 132; np.
-as, 1402; ap. ~, 841 (cf. Thomas MLR
22 [1927] 71); — on lāst (faran, w.
preced. dat.), behind, after, 2945; [si.:
on lāste (hwearf), F. 17]; lāst weardi-
an, remain behind: 971, follow: 2164
(Kl. Beibl. 54–5 [1943–4] 173). [See
OED: LAST, sb.1; Go. laists.] —
Cpds.: feorh-, fēþe-, fōt-, wræc-.
lāð, adj., hated, despicable, hostile (used
as subst.: enemy); 440, 511, 815, 2315;
nsn., 134, 192; nsm.wk. lāða, 2305;
gsm. lāþes, 841, 2910; gsn. ~, 929,
1061; gsm.wk. lāðan, 83, 132; gsn.wk.
lāðan (cynnes): 2008 2354; dsm.
lāþum, 440, 1257; asm. lāðne, 3040;
gpm. lāðra, 242, 2672; gpn. ~, 3029;
dpm. lāðum, 550, 938; dpf. ~, 2467;
dpm.wk.(?) lāþan, 1505; apn. lāð,
1375. — Comp. lāðra, 2432. [LOATH;
NHG leid.]
lāð-bite ‡, mi., hostile BITE, wound; np.,
1122.
lāð-ġetēona ‡, wk.m., LOATHly spoiler,
evil-doer; 974; np. -ġetēonan, 559.
lāð-liċ, adj., LOATHLY, terrible; apn.
-licu, 1584.
lēaf, n., LEAF; dp. -um, 97.
lēafnes-word ‡, n., WORD of LEAVE,
permission; as. (p.?), 245.
lēan, n., reward, requital, recompense;
gs. lēanes, 1809 (‡loan, but see n.);
ds. lēane, 1021; as. lēan, 114, 951,
1220, 1584, 2391; gp. lēana, 2990; dp.
lēanum 2145; ap. lēan, 2995. [Go.
405
laun, NHG Lohn.] — Cpds.: and-,
ende-.
lēan (‡) +, vb. 6, blame, ¢nd fault with;
pres. 3 sg. lŷhð, 1048; pret. 3 sg. lōg,
1811; 3 pl. lōgon, 862; 203 (w. dat. of
pers. & acc. of thing: blame for,
dissuade from). [OS lahan.] — Cpd.:
be-.
lēanian, vb. II, w. dat. of pers. & acc. of
thing, requite, recompense (someone
for something); pres. 1 sg. lēaniġe,
1380; pret. 3 sg. lēanode, 2102.
lēas, adj., w. gen., devoid of, without;
850; dsm. (winiġea) lēasum, 1664
(¯friendLESS). [Go. laus, OIcel. lauss,
Dan. løs, Swed. lös, NHG los; LOOSE
fr. ON.] — Cpds.: dōm-, drēam-,
ealdor-, feoh-, feormend-, hlāford-,
sāwol-, siġe-, sorh-, tīr-, ðēoden-,
wine-, wyn-.
lēas-scēawere ‡, mja., deceitful ob-
server, spy; np. -scēaweras, 253. (See
Kl. Angl. 29 [1906] 380; Terasawa
Angl. 119 [2001] 193–206; cf. Mezger
MLN 66 [1951] 38, v.Sch.: ‘vagabond
watchers.’)
lēġ(-), see līġ(-).
leġer, n., lying, place of lying; ds. -e,
3043. [LAIR; cf. licgan.]
leġer-bed(d), nja., BED, bed of death,
grave; ds. -bedde, 1007.
lemman (lemian) (‡) +, vb. I, LAME,
hinder, oppress; pret. 3 pl. lemedon,
905 (n.). (JEGP 61 [1962] 280¯f.)
lenġ(e), lenġest, see longe.
ġe-lenġe, adj.ja., beLONGing to (dat.);
2732.
lengra, see long.
lēod, mi., man, member of a nation
(regul. w. gp., Ġēata, Scyl¢nga, etc.:
†prince[?], see MLN 34 [1919] 129¯f.;
Brady 1983: 205–6; Marquardt 1938:
251: representative); 341, 348, 669,
829, 1432, 1492, 1538, 1612, 2159,
2551, 2603, [F. 24]; as., 625; vs.,
1653. — lēode, pl., (perh. orig.
freemen,) people (freq. w. gp., Ġēata,
etc., or poss. pron.); np., 24, 225, 260,
362, 415, 1213, 2125, 2927, 3137,
3156, 3178, lēoda (Lang. §¯21.2),
3001; gp. lēoda, 205, 634, 793, 938,
1673, 2033, 2238, 2251, 2333, 2801,
2900, 2945; dp. lēodum, 389, [390]
(n.), 521, 618, 697, 905, 1159, 1323,
406 GLOSSARY
1708, 1712, 1804, 1856, 1894, 1930,
2310, 2368, 2797, 2804, 2910, 2958,
2990, 3182; ap. lēode, 192, 443, 696
(as.? so Dob.), 1336, 1345, 1863, 1868,
1982, 2095, 2318, 2732. (G. von Ol-
berg in Wörter und Sachen im Lichte
der Bezeichnungsforschung, ed. R.
Schmidt-Wiegand [Berlin, 1987] 91–
106; D. Green 1998: 95–7.) [NHG
Leute.] lēod, f., people, nation; gs.
lēode, 596, 599. (Cf. 3001; also GenA
2075; ES 58 [1977] 97–100.)
lēod-bealo ‡, nwa., harm to a people,
widespread aÑiction; as., 1722; gp.
-bealĺwa, 1946.
lēod-burg †, fc., town; ap. -byriġ, 2471.
lēod-cyning ‡, m., KING of a people; 54.
lēod-fruma †, wk.m., prince of a
people; as. -fruman, 2130.
lēod-ġebyrġea †, wk.m., protector of a
people, prince; as. -ġebyrġean, 269.
[beorgan.]
lēod-hryre ‡, mi., fall of a people, na-
tional calamity; gs. -hryres, 2391; ds.
-hryre, 2030. (Brady 1983: 205–6;
Kl.’s alternative gloss: ‘fall of a
prince.’)
lēod-sceaða †, wk.m., people’s enemy;
ds. -sceaðan, 2093.
lēod-scipe, mi., nation, country; ds.,
2197; as., 2751.
lēof, adj., dear, well loved; 31, 54, 203,
511, 521, 1876, 2467; gsm. -es, 1994,
2080, 2897, 2910, gsn. 1061; asm. -ne,
34, 297, 618, 1943, 2127, 3079, 3108,
3142; vs.wk. -a, 1216, 1483, 1758,
1854, 1987, 2663, 2745; gpm. -ra,
1915; dp. -um, 1073. — Comp. nsn.
lēofre, 2651. Supl. lēofost, 1296;
asm.wk. lēofestan, 2823. [LIEF; Go.
liufs, NHG lieb.] — Cpd.: un-.
leofað, see li¢ġan.
lēof-liċ (†), adj., precious, admirable;
2603; asn., 1809.
lēogan, vb. 2, LIE, belie, misrepresent;
pres. sj. 3 sg. lēoge, 250; pret. 3 sg.
lēag, 3029 (w. gen.). [Go. liugan. ES
54 (1973) 58–9.] — Cpd.: ā-.
ġe-lēogan, vb. 2, deceive, play false (w.
dat.); pret. 3 sg. (him sēo wēn) ġelēah,
2323. (Cf. Lat. fallere; Kl. Archiv 126
[1911] 355.)
lēoht, n., LIGHT; 569, 727, 1570; ds.
lēohte, 95; as. lēoht, 648, 2469. (See
2251b n.) [Cf. Go. liuhaþ.] — Cpds.:
®fen-, f©r-, morgen-.
lēoht, adj., LIGHT, bright, gleaming;
dsn.wk. -an, 2492. (Juzi 1939: 49–52.)
lēoma, wk.m., light, gleam, luminary;
311, 1570, [1802], 2769; as. lēoman,
1517; ap. ~, 95. [LEAM (Sc., North.);
OS liomo; cf. lēoht.] — Cpds.: ®led-,
beado-, bryne-, hilde-, •swurd-.
leomum, see lim.
lēon (‡) (+), vb. 1, lend; pret. 3 sg. lāh,
1456. [Go. leihwan.] — Cpd.: on-.
leornian, vb. II, LEARN, devise; pret. 3
sg. leornode, 2336. (Hoops St. 121.)
lēoð, n., song, lay; 1159. (Parker 1956;
Opland 1980: 246–9.) [Go. *liuþ (cf.
liuþōn ‘sing,’ liuþareis ‘singer’), NHG
Lied.] — Cpds.: fyrd-, gryre-, gūð-, sorh-.
leoðo-cræft †, m., skill of limbs (hands);
dp. -um, 2769. [OE liþ > LITH (dial.);
Go. liþus, NHG Glied.]
leoðo-syrċe ‡, wk.f., (limb-SARK), coat
or shirt of mail; as. (locene) leoðo-
syrċan, 1505; ap. (~) ~, 1890. (Perh. a
long mail-coat, or having long sleeves:
Brady 1979: 114–15.)
lettan (‡) +, vb. I, w. acc. of pers. &
gen. of thing, (LET), hinder; pret. 3 pl.
letton, 569. [læt.]
līċ, n., body (generally living[†]); 966;
gs. līċes, 451, 1122; ds. līċe, 733,
1503, 2423, 2571, 2732, 2743; as. līċ,
2080, 2127. [LICH-(gate) etc.; Go.
leik, OIcel. lík, Dan. lig, Swed. lik,
NHG Leiche. Cf. adj. suÌx -l√ċ
(Kluge 1926: §¯237; Appx.C §¯26).] —
Cpds.: eofor-, swīn-.
ġe-līċ, adj., (A)LIKE; npm. -e, 2164 (n.).
— Supl. ġelīcost, (LIKEST), most like;
218, 985; nsn., 727, 1608. [See OED:
alike.]
licgan, vb. 5, LIE, lie low, lie bereft of
life; 1586, 3129; licgean, 966, 1427,
3040, 3082; pres. 3 sg. liġeð, 1343,
2745, 2903; pret. 3 sg. læġ, 40, 552,
1041 (¯failed), 1532, 1547, 2051, 2077,
2201, 2213 (stīġ under læġ), 2388,
2824, 2851, 2978; pret. 3 pl. l®gon,
566, lāgon, 3048. (Stolzmann 1953:
124–5.) [OIcel. liggja, Dan. ligge,
Swed. ligga, OHG liggen.] — Cpd.:
ā-.
ġe-licgan, vb. 5, subside; pret. 3 sg.
ġelæġ, 3146.
 GLOSSARY
līċ-homa, wk.m., body; 812, 1007, 1754;
ds. -haman, 3177; as. ~, 2651. (Soland
1979: 20–4.) [Lit. ‘body-covering.’] Cf.
Ï®sc-homa, •gr®ġ-hama; fyrd-hom.
līcian, vb. II, w. dat., please; pres. 3 sg.
līcað, 1854; pret. 3 pl. līcodon, 639.
[LIKE.]
līċ-sār †, n., bodily pain, wound; as.,
815. [SORE.]
līċ-syrċe ‡, wk.f., (body-SARK), coat or
shirt of mail; 550.
lid-man(n) †, mc., seafarer, mariner;
gp. -manna, 1623. [līðan.]
līf, n., LIFE; 2743; gs. līfes, 197, 790,
806, 1387, 2343, 2823, 2845; ds. līfe,
2471, 2571; tō līfe, 2432 (ever); as. līf,
97, 733, 1536, [2251], 2423, 2751; is.
līfe, 2131. — Cpd.: edwīt-.
līf-bysiġ ‡, adj., struggling for LIFE, in
torment of death; 966. See bysigu.
līf-dæġ, m.; pl. līf-dagas, LIFE-DAYS;
ap., 793, 1622.
līf-frēa †, wk.m., lord of LIFE (God);
-fr¼, 16.
līf-ġedāl (†), n., parting from LIFE,
death; 841. Cf. ealdor-.
līf-ġesceaft ‡, ¢., LIFE (as ordered by
fate), condition in life; gp. -a, 1953
(n.), 3064.
li¢ġan, vb. III, LIVE; pres. 3 sg. lifað,
3167; leofað, 974, 1366, 2008; lyfað,
944, 954; sj. 2 sg. li¢ġe, 1224;
pres.ptc. li¢ġende, 815, 1953, 1973,
2062; dsm. li¢ġendum, 2665 (see:
be); pret. 3 sg. lifde, 57, 1257; lyfde,
2144; 3 pl. lifdon, 99. (Flasdieck A. 59
[1935] 32–4.) [WS libban, see Lang.
§§¯25.5, 29.] — Cpd.: un-li¢ġende.
līf-wraðu ‡, f., LIFE-protection; ds. (tō)
līfwraðe (to save his life), 971; as. ~,
2877.
līf-wyn(n) †, ¢.(jō.), joy of LIFE; gp.
-wynna, 2097.
līġ, mi., Ïame, ¢re; 1122; lēġ, 3115,
3145; gs. līġes, 83, 781; ds. līġe, 2305,
2321, 2341, liġġe, 727, lēġe, 2549.
[OIcel. leygr, OHG loug; cf. NHG
Lohe. Orel 2003: 238.]
līġ-draca ‡, wk.m., ¢re-DRAGON; 2333;
lēġ-, 3040. Cf. f©r-.
līġ-eġesa ‡, wk.m., ¢re-terror; as.
-eġĺsan, 2780. Cf. glēd-.
liġe-torn ‡, n., pretended injury or in-
sult; ds. -e, 1943. [lyġe ‘lie’; Bu.Zs. 208.]
407
liġġe, see līġ.
līġ-©ð ‡, fjō., wave of Ïame; dp. -um,
2672.
lim, n., LIMB, branch (of tree); dp.
leomum, 97.
limpan, vb. 3, happen, befall, turn out;
pret. 3 sg. lomp, 1987. — Cpds.: ā-,
be-.
ġe-limpan, vb. 3, happen, come to pass,
befall, turn out; pres. 3 sg. ġelimpeð,
1753; sj. 3 sg. ġelimpe, 929; pret. 3
sg. ġelamp, 626, 1252, 2941, ġelomp,
76; sj. 3 sg. ġelumpe, 2637; pp.
ġelumpen, 824.
lind, f., (LINDen), †shield (made of
linden-wood [lime]); 2341; as. -e,
2610; ap. -e, 2365; [-a, F. 11]. (ASSAH
7 [1994] 37.)
lind-ġestealla ‡, wk.m., shield-comrade,
companion in arms; 1973. (Robinson
1985: 65: ‘comrade who is a shield’;
cf. MR.)
lind-hæbbend(e) ‡, mc. (pres.ptc.) [pl.],
shield-bearer (-HAVing), warrior; np.
-e, 245; gp. -ra, 1402.
lind-plega ‡, wk.m., shield-PLAY, battle;
ds. -plegan, 1073 (MS hild-), 2039.
lind-wiga ‡, wk.m., shield-warrior; 2603.
linnan (†), vb. 3, w. gen. or dat., part
from, lose; (aldre) ~, 1478; (ealdres)
~, 2443. [Go. af-linnan.]
liss, fjō., kindness, favor, delight; gp.
lissa, 2150. [līðe.]
list, m¢., skill, cunning; dp. -um, 781.
[Go. lists, NHG List.]
līðan, vb. 1, go (by water), pass; pp.
liden, 223 (n.). līðend, mc. (pres.ptc.),
seafarer, voyager; 2341; np. -e, 221.
(Lindow 1976: 70–2.) — Cpds.:
brim-, heaþo-, mere-, s®-, wēġ-
līðend(e).
līðe, adj.ja., mild, pleasant, benign,
gracious (w. gen., ‘as regards’); 1220.
Supl. līðost, 3182. (J. Bloom¢eld
JEGP 93 [1994] 196–8.) [LITHE; NHG
lind.]
līð-w®ġe ‡, nja., cup of strong drink;
as., 1982. [R.-L.2 21.523–4: līð.]
līxan, vb. I, shine, glitter, gleam; pret. 3
sg. līxte, 311, 485, 1570. [HOEM §¯341
n.¯75.]
locen, see lūcan.
lōcian, vb. II, LOOK; pres. 2 sg. lōcast,
1654. (See Penttilä 1956: 130–52.)
408 GLOSSARY
lof, m., praise, glory; as., 1536. [OIcel.
lof, Dan., Swed. lov, NHG Lob.
Bamm. 1979: 93.]
lof-d®d ‡, ¢., praiseworthy (glorious)
DEED; dp. -um, 24.
lof-ġeorn, adj., eager for praise (¯fame);
supl. -ġeornost, 3182 (n.).
lōg, lōgon, see lēan.
ġe-lōme, adv., frequently; 559.
lond(-), see land(-).
lond-riht, n., LAND-RIGHT, privileges
belonging to the owner of land, do-
main; gs. -es, 2886. (MR: i.e. ‘native
land.’)
long, adj., LONG; local: 3043; — tem-
poral: nsn. lang, 2093; næs ðā lang tō
ðon: 2845, 2591 (long); asf. lange
(hwīle, þrāge, tīd): 16, 114, 1257,
1915, 2159, longe (~): 54, 2780. —
Comp. lengra, 134. — See and-,
morgen-, niht-, up-; ġe-.
ġe-long, see ġe-lang.
longe, adv., LONG; 1061, 2751, 3082,
3108; lange, 31, 905, 1336, 1748,
1994, 2130, 2183, 2344, 2423. —
Comp. lenġ, 451¯(n.), 974, 1854, 2801,
2826, 3064; læ[n]ġ, 2307; lenġe, 83
(n.). Supl. lenġest, 2008, 2238.
long-ġestrēon ‡, n., (LONG-accumulated,)
old treasure; gp. -a, 2240.
long-sum, adj., LONG, long-lasting, en-
during; nsn. (lāð ond) longsum: 134,
192; asm. -sumne, 1536; asn. -sum,
1722. [Cf. Dan. langsom, Swed. lång-
sam, NHG langsam.]
losian, vb. II, (be lost), escape, get away
safely; pres. 3 sg. losaþ, 1392, 2062;
pret. 3 sg. losade, 2096. [LOSE, inÏ. by
(ON lauss¯>) loose?]
lūcan, vb. 2, LOCK, intertwine, link; pp.
asf. locene (leoðosyrċan), 1505, so
apf., 1890, (see hrinġ); gpm. locenra
(bēaga), 2995; asn. (seġn) ġelocen,
2769 (woven). — Cpds.: be-, on-, tō-;
hond-locen.
lufen †, f., gladness, comfort (?); 2886.
[Rel. to lu¢an; EStn. 48.1 (1914) 121;
Sievers 1910: 427–8; Hoops St. 110–
12: ‘dear home, homestead’ (so
v.Sch.); Kock5 88¯f.: ‘tenancy’; Mac-
kie 1941: 97: ‘domestic affection.’]
(Cf. Dan. 73? See R. Farrell Daniel &
Azarias [London, 1974] 137–8.) See
l.¯1728.
lu¢an, vb. II, LOVE, treat kindly; pret. 3
sg. lufode, 1982.
luf-tācen ‡, n., TOKEN of LOVE; ap. 1863.
lufu (lufe), wk.f. (SB §¯278 n.¯1, OEG
§¯619.4), LOVE; as. lufan, 1728 (n.).
See eard-lufu, lufen. — Cpds.: eard-,
hēah-, mōd-, wīf-.
lungor (‡), adj., swift; npm. lungre,
2164 (n.).
lungre †, adv., quickly, forthwith; 929,
1630, 2310, 2743.
lust, m., gladness, pleasure; as., 599,
618 (on lust, semi-adv.); dp. lustum
(gladly, with pleasure), 1653. [LUST;
Bamm. 1979: 93–4; Orel 2003: 251.]
ġe-l©fan, vb. I, beLIEVE in, trust; w.
dat., 440 (resign oneself to); — w.
acc., count on, expect con¢dently
(something); pret. 3 sg. ġel©fde, 608,
(on w. acc. or tō, from someone:) 627,
909, 1272. [Go. ga-laubjan.]
lyfað, lyfde, see li¢ġan.
lyft, fmi., air, sky; 1375; ds. -e, 2832.
[LIFT (Sc., poet.); Go. luftus, ON lopt
> MnE loft; ON lypta, vb. > MnE
lift.]
lyft-Ïoga ‡, wk.m., air-FLIer; 2315.
lyft-ġeswenċed ‡, adj. (pp.), weather-
beaten; 1913 (n.). See swenċan.
lyft-wyn(n) ‡, fjō.(i.), air-joy, delight in
air; as. -wynne, 3043.
lŷhð, see lēan.
lystan, vb. I, impers., w. acc. of pers.,
desire; pret. 3 sg. lyste, 1793. [LIST
(arch.); OE lust.]
l©t, (1) n. (indecl.), w. partit. gen. (in
2365 implied), LITTle, small number;
2365, 2882; ds., 2836 (n.); as., 1927,
2150. (2) adv., little, not at all; 2897,
3129. — Comp. l®s, (1) n., w. partit.
gen., LESS; asn. 487, 1946. (2) adv.,
in: þ© l®s, LESt, 1918 (or ‘by which .¯.¯.
less,’ OES §¯2934).
l©tel, adj., LITTLE, small; nsn., 1748;
asn., 2240; asf. l©tle, 2877: ~ (hwīle):
2030, 2097. — Cpd.: un-. — Comp.
l®ssa, LESS, lesser; 1282; dsn. l®ssan,
951; asf. ~, 2571; dpn. ~, 43. — Supl.
l®sest, LEAST; nsn., 2354.
l©t-hwōn, adv., very LITTle, not at all;
203. Cf. hwēne.
mā, (1) adv. (comp. of micle), in: þ© mā,
MOre, 504. (2) subst. n., w. partit.
 GLOSSARY
gen., MOre (cf. meanings of Lat. magis
& plus); as., 735, 1055, 1613. [Go.
mais.] — Supl. m®st, w. partit. gen.,
MOST; as., 2645. See miċel.
mādma(s), -e, -um, see māððum.
m®ġ, m., kinsman, blood-relative; 408,
468, 737, 758, 813, 914, 1530, 1944,
1961, 1978, 2166, 2604; gs. m®ġes,
2436, 2628, 2675, 2698, 2879; ds.
m®ġe, 1978; as. m®ġ, 1339, 2439,
2484, 2982; np. māgas, 1015 (n.); gp.
māga, 247 (n.), 1079, 1853, 2006,
2742; dp. māgum, 1167, 1178, 2614,
3065; m®gum, 2353; ap. māgas, 2815.
(See Appx.B §§¯2¯ff.) [Go. mēgs;
Bamm. 1979: 95.] — Cpds.: fæderen-,
hēafod-, wine-.
m®ġ-burg, fc., kinsmen, relatives, (ex-
tended) family; gs. -e, 2887.
mæġen, n., (MAIN), might, strength; gs.
mæġenes, 196, 1534, 1716, 1835,
1844, 1887, 2647, mæġenes cræft, 418
(see Kl. 1911–12: [43]), si. 1270;
mæġnes, 670, 1761, 2084, 2146; ds.
mæġene, 789, 2667; as. mæġen, 518,
1706; — military force, host; gs.
mæġenes, 155, (perh. 2647). (Mincoff
1933; Kellermann 1954: 173–9; Rob-
inson 1985: 53–5; Clemoes 1995: 72–
3.) — Cpd.: ofer-.
mæġen-āgende ‡, pres.ptc. [pl.], strong,
forceful; gpm. -āgendra, 2837.
mæġen-byrþen(n) ‡, fjō., mighty load
(BURTHEN), immense BURDEN; ds.
-byrþenne, 1625; as. ~, 3091. [beran.]
mæġen-cræft †, m., strength; as., 380.
mæġen-ellen ‡, n., potent valor; as.,
659.
mæġen-fultum ‡, m., powerful help; gp.
-a, 1455. (Perh. ‘support of one’s
strength’: Marquardt 1938: 223; cf.
mæġenes fultum 1835.)
mægen-hrēð ‡, orig. n., (MAIN-glory),
glorious host; as., 445 (n.).
mæġen-r®s ‡, m., strong impetus, pow-
erful thrust; as., 1519.
mæġen-strenġo †, fīn., great STRENGth;
ds., 2678.
mæġen-wudu ‡, mu., (MAIN-WOOD),
imposing spear; as., 236.
mæġð (†), fc. (OEG §¯637; cf. SB §¯290,
BGdSL 31 [1906] 73–7), MAID(en), (un-
married) woman; 3016; gp. mæġþa,
924, 943, 1283. (Bäck 1934: 213–17;
409
Stibbe 1935: 89–92.) [OE mæġden >
MAID(EN); Boutkan ABzäG 58 (2003)
11–27.]
m®ġþ, f., nation, people (orig. aggre-
gate of blood-relatives); ds. -e, 75; as.
-e, 1011 (Pilch IF 72 [1967] 114–15:
‘maid,’ but cf. Schabram IF 73 [1968]
143–5); gp. -a, 25, 1771; dp. -um, 5.
[m®ġ.]
m®ġ-wine †, mi., kinsman (and friend);
np., 2479.
m®l, n., †time, suitable time, occasion;
316, 1008 (s®l ond m®l); as., 2633;
gp. m®la, 1249, 1611 (s®la ond m®la),
2057; dp. (®rran) m®lum: 907, 2237,
3035. (Grüner 1972: 83–91.) [MEAL;
cf. dial. ‘SEALS and MEALS.’] — Cpd.:
undern-; cpds. of m®l = ‘mark, sign’:
brogden-, gr®ġ-, hrinġ-, sceāden-,
wunden-.
m®l-cearu ‡, f., CARE or sorrow of the
time; as. -ċeare, 189. (Sievers 1904:
320¯–2; Cha.)
m®l-ġesceaft ‡, ¢., time-allotment, des-
tiny, fate; gp. -a, 2737. (Cf. v.Sch.;
Rudanko 1983: 16.)
m®nan, vb. I, speak of, complain of;
1067 (n.), 3171; pret. 3 sg. m®nde,
2267; 3 pl. m®ndon, 1149, 3149; pp.
m®ned, 857. [OED: MEAN, v.1,2;
MOAN.]
ġe-m®nan, vb. I, mention, complain;
pret. sj. 3 pl. ġem®nden, 1101. (Sed.3:
‘be false to.’)
ġe-m®ne, adj.(i.)ja., common, in com-
mon, mutual, shared; nsf. ġem®nu,
1857, ġem®ne 2137 (n.), 2473, 2660;
npm. ~, 1860; gpm. ġem®nra, 1784.
[MEAN; NHG gemein; Peeters ZvS 91
(1977) 166.]
mæniġo, see meniġeo.
m®re, adj.ja., famous, glorious, illus-
trious; (15×, marked +, in combination
w. þēoden); +129, +1046, +1715; nsf.
m®ru, [2001], 2016, m®re (wk.?),
1952; nsn. m®re, 2405; nsm.wk.
m®ra, 2011, 2587; gsm. m®res, +797;
gsn.wk. m®ran, 1729; dsm. m®rum,
+
345, 1301, +1992, 2079, +2572; dsm.
wk. m®ran, 270; asm. m®rne, 36, +201,
+
353, +1598, +2384, +2721, +2788,
3098, +3141; asn. m®re, 1023; vs.
m®re, 1761, (wk.) m®ra, 1474; npm.
m®re, +3070. Supl. m®rost, 898; —
410 GLOSSARY
well known, notorious (GriÌth ASE
24 [1995] 37); nsm. m®re, 103; wk.
m®ra, 762. (Juzi 1939: 78–81.) [Go.
-mēreis; OHG māri; cf. NHG
Märchen; cf. MP 65.3 (1968) 191–
201.] — Cpds.: fore-, heaðo-.
m®rðo, f., fame, glory, glorious deed;
857; as., 659, 687, 2134, m®rðu,
2514; gp. m®rða, 408, 504, 1530,
2640, 2645; ap. ~, 2996. (Bately
2003: 280.) [m®re; Go. mēriþa.] —
Cpd.: ellen-.
mæst, m., MAST; 1898; ds. -e, 36, 1905.
(Thier 2002: 86.)
m®st, see miċel.
m®te, adj.ja., moderate, insigni¢cant,
small; supl. m®tost, 1455. [metan. See
OED: MEET, adj.]
maga †, wk.m., (1) son; maga (Healf-
denes), 189, 2143, si. 2587; vs. (~),
1474. (2) young man, man; 978, 2675;
as. magan, 943. (Bäck 1934: 153–4.)
Cf. mago.
magan, prp., pres. 1 sg. mæġ, can,
MAY, may well; be able; 1 sg. mæġ,
277, 1822, 2739, 2801; 2 sg. meaht,
2047, miht, 1378; 3 sg. mæġ, 930,
942, 1341, 1365, 1484, 1700, 1733,
1837, 2032, 2260, 2448, 2600, 2864,
3064, ēaþe mæġ: 478, 2764, si. 2291;
sj. 1 sg. mæġe, 680, 2749; 3 sg. ~,
2530; 1 pl. mæġen, 2654; pret. 1 sg.
meahte, 1659, 2877; mihte, 571, 656,
967; 3 sg. meahte, 542, 754, 762
(sj.?), 1032, 1078, 1130, 1150, 1561,
2340, 2464, 2466, 2547, 2673, 2770,
2855, 2870, 2904, 2971; mehte, 1082,
1496, 1515, 1877; mihte, 190, 207,
462, 511, 1446, 1504, 1508, 2091,
2609, 2621, 2954 (sj.?); 1 pl. meahton,
941, 3079; 3 pl. meahton, 648, 797
(sj.?), 1156, 1350, 1454, 1911, 2373;
mihton, 308, 313 (sj.?), 2683, 3162; sj.
1 sg. meahte, 2520; 3 sg. meahte, 243,
780 (ind.?), 1130(?), 1919; mihte, 1140.
— (Without inf.: 754, 762, 797,
2091.) (Ogawa 1989: 24–7.)
māgas, -a, -um, see m®ġ.
māġe (m®ġe), wk.f., kinswoman (moth-
er); gs. māgan, 1391. [m®ġ; cf. Bamm.
N&Q 45 (1998) 2–4: dual of m®ġ.]
mago †, mu., son; mago (Healfdenes),
1867, 2011, si. 1465. [Go. magus. Cf.
hilde-, ōret-, wræc-mecg (mæcg).]
mago-driht ‡, ¢., band of young re-
tainers; 67.
mago-rinċ †, m., young warrior; gp.
-rinca, 730.
mago-ðeġn †, m., young retainer,
THEGN; 408, 2757; ds. maguþeġne,
2079; gp. magoþeġna, 1405; dp. -um,
1480; ap. maguþeġnas, 293. (Brady
1983: 207–9.)
man(n), man-, see mon(n), mon-.
mān, n., crime, offense, wickedness,
guilt; ds. -e, 978, 1055; is. -e, 110.
(Büchner 1968: 90–129.) [OHG mein,
cf. NHG Meineid.]
mān-for-d®dla ‡, wk.m., guilty destroy-
er, malefactor; np. -ford®dlan, 563.
[d®d.]
manian, vb. II, admonish, urge; pres. 3
sg. manað, 2057. [NHG mahnen.]
maniġ, see moniġ.
man-līċe ‡, adv., MANfulLY, nobly;
1046. (Frantzen 1998: 92–3: ‘that
which is an appropriate human re-
sponse to the situation’; but cf. OIcel.
mannliga ‘manfully,’ OHG mannilīh
‘männlich.’)
mān-scaða †, wk.m., guilty ravager,
criminal assailant; 712, 737, 1339,
-sceaða, 2514.
māra, see miċel.
maþelian (†), vb. II, speak, discourse,
make a speech (orig. before an assem-
bly); used in introducing direct dis-
course, see Intr. lxxx; always in the
on-verse; pret. 3 sg. maþelode, 286,
348, 360, 371, 405, 456, 499, 529,
631, 925, 957, 1215, 1321, 1383, 1473,
1651, 1687, 1817 1840, 1999, 2510,
2631, 2724, 2862, 3076; maþelade,
2425. (Cook JEGP 25 [1926] 1–6;
Robinson 1985: 66–7; Bjork 1994:
1001; Rissanen 1998; McConchie NM
101 [2000] 59–68.) [Cf. Go. maþljan.
ZfdA 46 (1902) 260–3; Markey Am.
Jnl. of Gmc. Ling. & Lits. 10 (1998)
153–200.]
māðm-®ht ‡, ¢., precious property,
treasure; gp. -a, 1613, 2833.
māþm-ġestrēon (‡) (+), n., treasure;
gp. -a, 1931.
māððum, (māðm-), m., precious or
valuable thing, treasure; ds. māþme,
1902; mādme, 1528; as. māþðum,
169, 1052, 2055, 3016; np. māþmas,
 GLOSSARY
1860; gp. māþma, 1784, 2143, 2166
(mēara ond ~), 2779, 2799, 3011;
mādma, 36, 41; dp. māðmum, 1898,
(mēarum ond ~), 2103, 2788;
mādmum, 1048 (mēarum ond ~); ap.
māþmas, 1867, 2146, 2236, 2490,
2640, 2865, 3131; mādmas, 385, 472,
1027, 1482, 1756. (Tyler 2006: 40–
52.) [Go. maiþms. See Appx.C §¯14.]
— Cpds.: dryht-, gold-, hord-, ofer-,
sinċ-, wundur-.
māðþum-fæt (‡) +, n., precious vessel;
2405 (māðþĿm-). [VAT.]
māþðum-ġifu ‡, f., treasure-GIVing; ds.
māþðĿmġife, 1301.
māððum-siġle ‡, nja., precious jewel;
gp. māððĿmsiġla, 2757.
māðþum-sweord ‡, n., precious SWORD;
as., 1023.
māððum-wela ‡, wk.m., WEALth of
treasure; ds. māððĿmwelan, 2750.
[WEAL.] See ®r-wela.
mē, see iċ.
mēagol, adj., earnest, forceful, hearty;
dp. mēaglum, 1980. [IF 20 (1906–7)
317; Bamm. 1979: 97.]
mearc, f., MARK, limit; ([frontier-]
district); ds. -e, 2384 (life’s end: cf.
GenA 1719, Sat 499). [Griepentrog
1995: 265–85.] — Cpds.: Weder- (see
Proper Names); fōt-, mīl-ġemearc.
mearcian, vb. II, MARK, make a mark
upon; pres. 3 sg. mearcað, 450; pp.
ġemearcod, 1264; nsn., 1695.
mearc-stapa ‡, wk.m., (‘MARK’-haunter),
wanderer in the waste borderland;
103; ap. -stapan, 1348. [steppan;
MARCH.]
mearh †, m., horse, steed; 2264; np.
mēaras, 2163; gp. mēara, 2166; dp.
mēarum, 855, 917, 1048, 1898; ap.
mēaras, 865, 1035. (See Appx.C §¯11.)
[Cf. MARE.]
mearn, see murnan.
meċ, see iċ.
mēċe (†), mja., sword; 1938; gs. mēċes,
1765, 1812, 2614, 2939; as. mēċe,
2047, 2978; gp. mēċa, 2685; dp.
mēċum, 565. (Brady 1979: 91–3.)
[Go. mēkeis. ZvS 93 (1979) 110–18.]
— Cpds.: beado-, hæft-, hilde-.
mēd, f., MEED, reward; ds. -e, 2146; as.
-e, 2134; gp. -o (Lang. §¯19.3), 1178.
[OS mêda, cf. Go. mizdō.]
411
ġe-mēde (‡) +, nja., agreement, consent;
ap. ġemēdu, 247. [mōd; OS gi-môdi.]
medo, medu, mu., MEAD; ds. medo,
604; as. medu, 2633; [medo, F. 39].
(R.-L.2 19.618–22; Unger Beer in the
Middle Ages (Philadelphia, 2004) 23;
Hagen 2006: 226–30.)
medo-ærn ‡, n., MEAD-hall; as., 69.
[See BGdSL 35 (1909) 242.]
medo-benċ †, ¢., MEAD-BENCH; medu-,
776; ds. medu-benċe, 1052, medo-,
1067, 2185, meodu-, 1902. Cf. ealo-.
medo-ful(l) †, n., MEAD-cup; as. -ful,
624, 1015.
medo-heal(l) †, f., MEAD-HALL; -heal,
484; ds. meodu-healle, 638.
medo-stīġ ‡, f., path to the MEAD-hall;
as. -stiġġe, 924 (n.). See stīġ.
medu-drēam †, m., MEAD-gladness,
festivity; as., 2016.
medu-seld ‡, n., MEAD-house; as., 3065.
See sæld.
melda, wk.m., informer; gs. meldan,
2405. [Cf. NHG melden.] (Kl. 1926:
241 n.¯1.)
meltan, vb. 3, MELT; 3011; pret. 3 sg.
mealt, 2326; 3 pl. multon, 1120.
ġe-meltan, vb. 3, MELT; pret. 3 sg.
ġemealt, 897, 1608, 1615, 2628 (¢g.,
see Kl. 1926: 217).
mene (‡) +, mi., necklace; as., 1199.
[OS hals-meni; cf. OED: MANE.]
menġan, vb. I, mix, MINGle, stir up;
1449; pp. nsn. ġemenġed, 848, 1593.
[ġe-mong.]
meniġeo, fīn., multitude, a great MANY;
mæniġo, 41; as. meniġeo, 2143. [moniġ.]
meodo-setl ‡, n., MEAD-(house-)SEAT,
i.e. hall-seat; gp. -a, 5 (n.). See setl.
meodo-wong ‡, m., plain near the
MEAD-hall; ap. -as, 1643.
meodu-benċ, -heal(l), see medo-.
meodu-scenċ ‡, mi., MEAD-vessel, -cup,
dp. -um, 1980. See scenċan.
meoto, ap. of me(o)tu ‡, f., meditation,
thought(s); 489 (n.).
meotod-, see metod.
meowle †, wk.f., woman (orig.: young
woman, virgin; Cronan 2003: 412);
ns. 3150. (Schü. EStn. 55 [1921] 90¯f.;
Bäck 1934: 226–8; Stibbe 1935: 93–
4.) [Go. mawilō; SB §¯110 n.¯2, OEG
§¯211; cf. Kl. et al.: mēowle.] — Cpd.:
iō-.
412 GLOSSARY
merċels, m., MARK, aim; gs. -es, 2439.
[mearc; Holt.Et. 222.]
mere, mi., MERE, lake, pool, †sea; 1362;
ds., 855; as., 845 (n.), 1130, 1603.
[Go. mari-, NHG Meer; cf. MERmaid.]
mere-dēor ‡, n., sea-beast; as., 558.
[DEER; NHG Tier.]
mere-fara ‡, wk.m., seaFARer; gs.
-faran, 502.
mere-¢sc ‡, m., sea-FISH; gp. -¢xa, 549.
mere-grund ‡, m., bottom of a lake or
pool; as., 2100; ap. -as, 1449.
mere-hræġl ‡, n., sea-garment, sail; gp.
-a, 1905.
mere-līðend(e) †, mc. (pres.ptc.) [pl.],
seafarer; vp. -līðende, 255.
mere-str®t †, f., sea-path; ap. -a, 514.
[STREET.]
mere-strenġo ‡, fīn., STRENGth in the
sea; as., 533.
mere-wīf ‡, n., MERE-woman, water-
witch; as., 1519.
merġen, see morgen.
ġe-met, n., measure, allotment, faculty,
ability; 2533 (n.); as. ~, 2879; means,
manner: mid ġemete, by ordinary
means, in any way, 779 (Kl. 1905–6:
455–6). Cf. mid unġemete, see BT.
[metan.]
ġe-met, adj. (cf. the noun), MEET, ¢t,
proper; nsn.: swā him ġemet þinċe,
687, si. 3057. — Cpd.: (adv.) un-
ġemete(s).
metan, vb. 5, measure, †traverse (cf.
Lat. [e]metiri, see Kl. MLN 33 [1918]
221¯f.); pret. 3 sg. mæt, 924, męt (‡try,
test), [2221]; 2 pl. m®ton, 514; 3 pl. ~,
917, 1633. [METE.]
mētan, vb. I, MEET, ¢nd, come upon;
pret. 3 sg. mētte, 751; 3 pl. mētton,
1421. [Go. -mōtjan; cf. OE ġemōt.]
ġe-mētan, vb. I, MEET, ¢nd; pret. 3 sg.
ġemētte, 757; 3 pl. (h©) ġemētton (met
each other), 2592; sj. 3 sg. ġemētte,
2785. Cf. ġemēting.
ġe-mēting, f., MEETING, encounter;
2001.
metod †, m., God (perh. orig. governor);
110, 706, 967, 979, 1057, 1611, 2527
(ruler, cf. 1057¯f.); gs. -es, 670; ds. -e,
169, 1778; as. metod, 180. [metan; cf.
OS metod; OIcel. mj∂tuðr ‘ordainer of
fate,’ ‘fate’; Kl. 1911–12: [9]; Baird
ES 49 (1968) 418–23.] — Cpd.: eald-.
metod-sceaft †, ¢., decree of fate,
death; ds. -e, 2815; as. meotodsceaft,
1077; metodsceaft (s½n, see Kl.
1911–12: [41]), 1180 (so GenA 1743).
(Cf. Mackie 1941: 96: tō metodsceafte
‘at their appointed destiny,’ i.e. time
appointed for death.)
meþel (mæþel) (†), n., council, meeting;
ds. meþle, 1876. [Go. maþl.]
meðel-stede †, mi., place of assembly
(cf. þinġ-stede), battle-¢eld; ds. meþĺl-
stede, 1082.
meþel-word ‡, n., formal word; dp. -um,
236 (‘words of parley,’ Cl.Hall tr.).
miċel, adj., great, large, MUCH; 129,
502; nsf., 67, 146; nsn., 170, 771; gsn.
micles, 2185; gsm. wk. miclan, 978;
dsf.wk. ~, 2849; asm. miċelne, 3098;
asf. micle, 1778, 3091; asn. miċel, 69,
270, 1167; isn. micle, 922; dpf.
miclum, 958; apm. micle, 1348; —
gsn. micles (adv.), much, far, 694; isn.
micle (adv.), much, 1283, 1579, 2651.
— [MICKLE, MUCKLE (arch., dial.);
Go. mikils, OIcel. mikill.] — Comp.
māra, greater, MORE; 1353, 2555;
nsn. māre, 1560; gsf. māran, 1823;
dsn. ~, 1011; asm. ~, 247, 753, 2016;
asf. ~, 533; asn. māre, 136 (more,
additional), 518. [Go. maiza.] — Supl.
m®st, greatest; 1195; nsf., 2328; nsn.,
78, 193, 1119; asf. m®ste, 459, 1079;
asn. m®st, 2768, 3143; isn. m®ste,
2181. [Go. maists.] — m®st, subst. n.,
see mā.
mid, I. prep., with; (1) w. acc., with,
together with (persons); 357, 633,
662, 879, 1672, 2034 (or dat.? n.),
2652. — (2) w. dat., (a) among; 77
(mid yldum), 195 (mid Ġēatum), 274,
461, 902, 1145, 2192, 2611, 2623,
2948, [2990]; (b) together with, along
with; (persons:) (125), 923, 1051,
1128, 1313, 1317, 1407, 1592, 1924,
1963, 2627, 2949, 3011, 3065;
postpos., stressed: 41, 889, 1625;
(things:) 125, (483), 1868, 2308, 2788,
cf. 2468 (n.); 1706 (virtually and); (c)
(manner:) with (sometimes semi-adv.
phrases); 317, (438), 475, 483, 779,
1217, 1219, 1493, 1892, 2056 (mid
rihte, ‘by right’), 2378, 2535; (d)
(instrument:) with, by means of; 243,
438, (475), 574, 746, 748, 1184, 1437,
 GLOSSARY
1461, 1490, 1659, (2535), 2720, 2876,
2917, 2993, 3091; (e) (time:) with, at;
126 (mid ®rdæġe). — (3) w. instr., by
means of, through; 2028. — II. adv.
(cf. prep. foll. its case); 1642 (among
them), 1649 (too, with them). — [Go.
miþ, NHG mit.] See E. Hittle Zur
Geschichte der ae. Präpos. mid und
wið, AF 2, 1901; Dančev 1967.
middan-ġeard, m., MIDDle habitation
(YARD), world, earth (considered as
the center of the universe, the region
between heaven and hell, or the
inhabited land surrounded by the sea);
gs. -es, 504, 751; ds. -e, 2996; as.
(ġeond þisne) middanġeard: 75, 1771.
[Go. midjungards, etc.; OED: MID-
DENERD, MIDDle-ERD, (-)earth.] (See
Grimm D.M. 662 (794); P.Grdr.2 iii
377¯f.; Cl.-Vig. s.v. miðgarðr; de Vries
1956–7: §¯579; Benning 1961: 168–72;
R.-L.2 20.10–12.)
midde, wk.f.; ds. in on middan, in the
MIDDle, 2705.
middel-niht †, fc., MIDDLE of the
NIGHT; dp. -um, 2782, 2833.
miht, ¢., MIGHT, power, strength; as.,
940; dp. -um, 700. (Mincoff 1933;
Clemoes 1995: 73.) [Go. mahts; cf.
magan.]
mihtiġ, adj., MIGHTY, powerful, strong;
1339; asn., 558, 1519; — applied to
God: nsm., 701, 1716, 1725; dsm.wk.
-an, 1398. — Cpds.: æl-, fore-.
milde, adj.ja., (MILD), benevolent,
friendly, affable, kind; 1229; dpn.
mildum, 1172 (n.). Supl. mildust,
3181. (See IF 41 [1923] 352–6, D.
Green 1965: 163–73, 371–4; the
meaning ‘generous’ is not securely
attested in OE, and only secondarily
in OS and OHG; cf. JEGP 93 [1994]
190–1 n.¯26, and see SN 77 [2005] 152
n.¯1.)
mīl-ġemearc ‡, n., measure by MILEs;
gs. -es, 1362. [Fr. Lat. milia; MARK.]
milts, fjō., kindness; 2921. (D. Green
1965: 166; Cronan 2003: 415.)
[milde.]
mīn, gs. of pers. pron., see iċ.
mīn, poss. pron., MY, MINE; 262, 343,
391, 436, 468, 1325a, 1325b, 1776,
2434, [F. 24]; nsf., 550; nsn., 476,
2742; gsn. mīnes, 450; dsm. mīnum,
413
473, 965, 1226, 2429, 2729, 3093; dsf.
mīnre, 410; asm. mīnne, 255, 418,
445, 638, 1180, 2012, 2147 (on
[mīn]ne sylfes dōm), 2651, 2652; asf.
mīne, 453, 558, 1706, 2799; asn. mīn,
345, 2737 (absol., my own), 2750,
2879; vsm. mīn, 365, 457, 530, 1169,
1704, 2047, 2095; isn. mīne, 776, 837,
1955, 2685, 2837; npm., mīne, 415,
2479; gpm. mīnra, 431, 633, 2251;
dpm. mīnum, 1480, 2797, 2804; apm.
mīne, 293, 1336, 1345, 2815; [vpm. ~,
F. 10].
missan (‡) +, vb. I, w. gen., ‡MISS (a
mark); pret. 3 sg. miste, 2439.
missere †, n., half-year, season; gp.
(fela) missera: 153, 2620, (hund) ~:
1498, 1769. [OIcel. misseri, missari.
Cf. Go. missō ‘reciprocally.’ Usu.
connected w. OE ġēar (i.e. *mis-j®r-,
see Orel 2003: 272, but cf. Cl.-Vig.),
hence read as missēre (so Kl. et al.,
but cf. fīftĭges, tryddŏde, etc.) See
HOEM §§222, 257 n.¯96.] The Gmc.
year was apparently at ¢rst divided
into two seasons (as in Beo and the
sagas); the later, quadripartite division
is due to Latin inÏuence: see ASE 26
(1997) 231–63.
mist-hliþ †, n., MISTy hill, cover of
darkness; dp. -hleoþum, 710.
mistiġ (‡) (+), adj., MISTY, dark; apm.
-e, 162.
mōd, n., mind, spirit, heart; 50, 549
(temper), 730, 1150; gs. mōdes, 171,
436, 810, 1229, 1603, 1706, 2100; ds.
mōde, 624, 753, 1307, 1418, 1844,
2281, 2527, 2581; as. mōd, 67; high
spirit, courage: ns. 1057, as. 1167,
2678; [ds. mōde, F. 12 (n.)]; pride,
arrogance: as., 1931 (?, see note).
(Schabram 1954: 122–7; Soland 1979:
56–62; Low in Harbus & Poole 2005:
77–88.) [MOOD.] — Cpds.: bolgen-,
•dēor-, galg-, ġeōmor-, glæd-, gūð-,
hrēoh-, sāriġ-, stīð, swīð-, wēriġ-, yrre-.
mōd-cearu †, f., sorrow of soul; as.
-ċeare, 1778, 1992, 3149.
mōd-ġehyġd †, fni., thought; dp. -um,
233.
mōd-ġeþonc (†), m.n., THOUGHT(s),
mind; as., 1729.
mōd-ġiōmor †, adj., sad at heart; nsn.,
2894.
414 GLOSSARY
mōdiġ, adj., high-spirited, courageous,
brave; 604, 1508, 1643, 1812, 2757;
wk. mōdega, 813; gsm. mōdġes, 502,
mōdiġes 2698; gsn.wk. mōdgan, 670;
dsm.wk. mōdĽgan, 3011; npm. mōdġe,
855, mōdiġe, 1876; gpm. mōdiġra,
312. (Schabram 1954: 122–44, id.
1965; Bately 2003: 286.) [MOODY.]
— Cpd.: fela-.
mōdiġ-līċ, adj., brave-looking, gallant;
comp. apm. -līcran, 337. (Mackie
1939: 516; McIntosh NM 92 [1991]
301.)
mōd-lufu (-lufe) (†), wk.f., heart’s
LOVE, affection; gs. -lufan, 1823.
mōdor, fc., MOTHER; 1258, 1276, 1282,
1683, 2118; as., 1538, 2139, 2932.
mōd-sefa †, wk.m., mind, spirit, heart,
character; 349, 1853, 2628; ds.
-sefan, 180; as. ~, 2012. (Robinson
1985: 65: ‘valiant spirit’ except in
180.)
mōd-þracu ‡, f., impetuous courage,
daring; ds. -þræce, 385.
mōd-þr©ð ‡, ¢., force of will, arro-
gance; ap. -þr©ðo, 1931 (n.)
mon(n), mc. (sometimes, in as., wk.m.),
MAN, person (of either sex); mon,
209, 510, 1099, 1560, 1645, 2281,
2297, 2355, 2470, 2590, 2996, 3065,
3175; man, 25, 503, 534, 1048, 1172,
1175, 1316, 1353, 1398, 1534, 1876,
1958; gs. monnes, 1729, 2897;
mannes, 1057, 1994, 2080, 2533,
2541, 2555, 2698; ds. men, 655, 752,
1879, 2285; menn, 2189; as. man,
1489; mannan, 297, 1943, 2127, 2774,
3108; mannon, 577; np. men, 50, 162,
233, 1634, 3162, 3165; gp. monna,
1413, 2887; manna, 155, 201, 380, 445
(n.), 701, 712, 735, 779, 789, 810, 914,
1461, 1725, 1835, 1915, 2527, 2645,
2672, 2836, 3056, 3057, 3098, 3181;
ap. men, 69, 337, 1582, 1717. (The ns.
used as a kind of indef. pron. [cf.
Dan., Swed., NHG man], one, they
(anyone): 1172, 1175, 2355 (25, 1048,
1534); omission of this pron.: 1365. (J.
Fröhlich Der inde¢nite Agens im Ae.
[Bern, 1951]; Mitchell 1982.) —
Cpds.: fyrn-, glæd-, glēo-, gum-, iū-,
lid-, s®-, w®pned-.
mōna, wk.m., MOON; [F. 7]; as. mōnan,
94.
mon-cyn(n), nja., humanKIND; gs. mon-
cynnes, 196, 1955; mancynnes, 164,
1276, 2181; ds. mancynne, 110.
mon-drēam †, m., pleasure of human
life; as. mandrēam, 1264; dp. mon-
drēamum, 1715.
mon-dryhten †, m., (human) lord
(never in ref. to God); 2865; man-
dryhten, 2647; mondrihten, 436; gs.
mondryhtnes, 3149, man-, 2849; ds.
mandryhtne, 1249, 2281, mandrihtne,
1229; as. mondryhten, 2604, man-,
1978 (ns.?).
ġe-mong, n., MINGling together, throng,
troop; ds. (on) ġemonge, 1643.
[AMONG; cf. menġan.]
moniġ, adj., (sg.) MANY a, (pl.) many;
used as adj. (w. noun): 689, 838, 908,
918, 2762, 3022, 3077; [mæniġ, F.
13]; nsf., 776; nsn., 1510; nsm. maniġ,
399, 854 (noun understood), 1112,
1289; dsm. monegum, 1341, 1419; dsf.
maniġre, 75; asn. maniġ, 1015; gpf.
maniġra, 1178; dpm. manegum, 2103;
dpf. monegum, 5; apm. maniġe, 337;
apf. moniġe, 1613 (noun understood);
— used as subst., abs.: nsm. moniġ,
857, 171 (w. adj.); maniġ, 1860; dsm.
manegum, 1887; npm. moniġe, 2982;
maniġe, 1023; gpm. maniġra, 2091;
dp.(s.?)m. manegum, 349; apm.
moniġe, 1598; — w. gen.: dp.(s.?)m.
monegum, 2001, 3111; manegum,
1235; dpf. manigum, 1771; apm.
maniġe, 728. [Go. manags, Dan.
mange, Swed. många, NHG manch.]
mon-ðw®re, adj.ja., gentle, mild, kind;
supl. -ðw®rust, 3181. Cf. ġeþw®re.
mōr, m., MOOR, marsh, wasteland; ds.
-e, 710; as. mōr, 1405; ap. -as, 103,
162, 1348. (See Kl. 1926: 113; Spec-
ulum 2 [1927] 321–5; Stanley 2001:
82–4.)
morgen, m., (ja.), MORNing, MORROW;
1077, 1784; merġen, 2103, 2124; ds.
morgne, 2484; merġenne, 565, 2939;
as. morgen, 837; gp. morna, 2450.
[Go. maúrgins.]
morgen-ċeald ‡, adj., COLD in the
MORNing; 3022. (Grinda 1993: 383–4:
‘vom Morgen kalt,’ ‘morgendlich
kalt.’)
morgen-lēoht (‡), n., MORNing-LIGHT,
sun; 604, 917.
 GLOSSARY
morgen-long ‡, adj., lasting the MORN-
ing; asm. morgĺnlongne (dæġ, ‘the
whole forenoon’), 2894. (See and-
long. Grinda 1993: 377 et al.: ‘having
a long morning.’)
morgen-swēġ ‡, mi., MORNing-sound
(of wailing); 129.
morgen-tīd (†), ¢., MORNing; as., 484,
518.
mōr-hop ‡, n., MOOR-retreat, i.e. re-
mote, secret place on a moor; ap. -u,
450. (Gelling ASE 31 [2002] 9–10.)
See fen-hop.
morna, see morgen.
morð-bealu ‡, nwa., MURDer(-BALE),
slaughter; as. -beala, 136 (Lang.
§¯19.2). Cf. morþor-bealo.
morðor, n., MURDER, slaying, assault;
gs. morðres, 1683, 2055; ds. morþre,
1264, morðre (swealt): 892, 2782.
morþor-bealo ‡, nwa., MURDER, slaugh-
ter; as. morþľr-, 1079, 2742. Cf.
morð-bealu.
morþor-bed(d) ‡, nja., BED of death (by
violence); morþľrbed, 2436.
morþor-hete ‡, mi., MURDERous HATE
or hostility; gs. morþľrhetes, 1105.
*mōtan, prp., (1) may, have opportunity,
be allowed; pres. 2 sg. mōst, 1671; 3
sg. mōt, 186, 442, 603; 1 pl. mōton,
347 (sj.?); 2 pl. ~, 395; sj. 1 sg. mōte,
431; 2 sg. ~, 1177; 3 sg. ~, 1387; 3 pl.
mōton, 365; pret. 1 sg. mōste, 1487,
1998, 2797; 3 sg. ~, 168 (n.), 706, 735,
894, 1939, 2504, 2574(?), 2827, 3053,
3100; 3 pl. mōston, 1628, 2038, 2124,
2984, mōstan, 2247; sj. 2 sg. mōste,
961; 3 sg. ~, 2241 (ind.?); 3 pl. mōston
1088, 1875. (With ellipsis of inf.: 603,
1177, 1387, 1487, 2247.) — (2) MUST
(cf. NM 78 [1977] 215–32); pres. 3 sg.
mōt, 2886; pret. 3 sg. mōste, 1939(?),
2574 (?, n.). (Standop 1957: 67–93.)
[MUST fr. mōste.]
ġe-munan, prp., w. acc., bear in MIND,
remember, think of; pres. 1 sg. ġeman,
1220, 2633, ġemon, 2427; 3 sg.
ġeman, 265, 2042; ġemon, 1185, 1701;
imp. sg. ġemyne, 659; pret. 3 sg.
ġemunde, 758, 870, 1129, 1259, 1270,
1290, 1465, 2114, 2391, 2431, 2488,
2606, 2678; 3 pl. ġemundon, 179; sj. 3
sg. ġemunde, 1141. — Cf. on-munan;
ġe-mynd.
415
mund, f., †hand; dp. -um, 236, 514,
1461, 3022, 3091; (protection, in:
mund-bora). [Cf. OED: MOUND, sb.2]
mund-bora, wk.m., protector, guard-
ian; 1480, 2779. (Kellermann 1954:
31–40.) [beran.]
mund-gripe ‡, mi., hand-GRIP; ds., 380,
965 (MS hand-), 1534, 1938; as., 753.
murnan, vb. 3, (1) MOURN, be sad, pres.
sj. 3 sg. murne, 1385; pres.ptc. nsn.
murnende, 50. — (2) have anxiety or
fear (about, for); pret. 3 sg. mearn,
1442; (shrink from:) ~, 136, 1537;
(have scruples, regret:) ~, 3129 (or
mourn?). [Bamm. 1979: 99.] — Cpd.:
be-; cf. un-murn-līċe.
mūþa, wk.m., MOUTH, opening, way of
entry ([‡]door; cf. Max II 36¯f.); as.
mūþan, 724.
mūð-bona ‡, wk.m., one who destroys
with the MOUTH, devourer; ds.
-bonan, 2079.
ġe-mynd, fni., remembrance, memorial;
dp. -um, 2804, 3016. [MIND; Go. ga-
munds.]
myndgian, vb. II, (recollect), reMIND;
pres. 3 sg. myndgað, 2057. See ġe-
myndgian. [(ġe-)myndiġ.]
ġe-myndgian, vb. II, call to MIND; pp.
ġemyndgad, 2450.
myndgiend ‡, mc. (pres.ptc. of mynd-
gian), reMINDer (reminding), one who
calls to mind; 1105 (n.).
ġe-myndiġ, adj., MINDful (of¯), intent
(on) (w. gen.); 868, 1173, 1530, 2082,
2171, 2689; nsf. ~, 613.
myne †, mi., MIND, desire, 2572; love,
kind thought; as., 169. (Dunning &
Bliss 1969: 61–5; North 1991: 28–38.)
[Go. muns.]
ġe-myne, see ġe-munan.
myntan, vb. I, intend, think; pret. 3 sg.
mynte, 712, 731, 762. [Cf. munan;
MINT (dial., arch.).]
myrċe (†), adj.ja., dark; asm.wk.
myrċan, 1405. [MURK.]
myrð(u) ‡, f., disturbance, trouble,
aÑiction; gs. myrðe, 810 (n.).
[m(i)erran > MAR.]
nā, see nō.
naca †, wk.m., boat, ship; 1896, 1903;
gs. nacan, 214; as. ~, 295. [NHG
Nachen.] — Cpd.: hrinġ-.
416 GLOSSARY
nacod, adj., NAKED, bare; 2273 (-draca,
smooth [Berger & Leicester 1974: 66:
‘unsheathed’ (metaph.)]); nsn. (ref. to
sword), 2585; apn. (~), 539.
næbben, see habban.
næfne, see nefne.
n®fre, adv., NEVER; 247, 583, 591, 655,
718, 1041, 1048; w. ne added before
verb, 1460, [F. 1, 37, si. nēfre, F. 39].
n®ġan †, vb. I, accost, address; pret. 3
sg. (wordum) n®ġde, 1318. [IF 20
(1906–7) 320; Holt.Et.: cf. nēah.]
ġe-n®ġan †, vb. I, (approach), assail,
attack; pret. 3 pl. ġen®ġdan, 2206
-don, 2916 (Appx.C §¯42); pp. ġe-
n®ġed, 1439.
næġl, m., NAIL; gp. -a, 985 (n.).
næġl(i)an, vb. I (II), NAIL; pp. asn.
næġled, 2023 (n.).
n®niġ, pron., No, no one, none; adj.:
nsn., 1514, n®niġŗĺ (or gpm.?) 949
(n.); asm. n®niġne, 1197; — subst. (w.
gen.): n®niġ, 157, 242, 691, 859,
1933; dsm. n®negum, 598. [ne, ®niġ.]
n®re, n®ron, næs (= ne wæs), see eom.
næs (‡) +, adv., by No means; 562,
2262, 3074. [= nealles; see Horn, Pal.
135, §¯75.]
næs(s), mja., headland, bluff; ds. næsse,
2243, 2417, 2805 (Hrones Næsse),
3136 (~); as. næs, 1439, 1600, 2898,
3031 (Earna Næs); gp. næssa, 1360;
ap. næssas, 1358, 1411, 1912. (Cronan
2003: 411.) [OED: NESS, cf. OIcel.
nes.] — Cpd.: s®-.
næs-hlið ‡, n., (slope of¯) headland; dp.
-hleoðum, 1427.
nāh, see āgan.
nalas, nalæs, nales, nallas, nalles, see
nealles.
nam, nāman, see niman.
nama, wk.m., NAME; 343, 1457, [F. 24];
as. naman, 78.
nān, pron., adj., NO; nsn., 988; subst., w.
partit. gen., NONE; [F. 41]; nsn., 803.
[ne, ān.]
nāt, see witan.
nāt-hwylċ (†), pron., some (one), a cer-
tain (one); adj.: dsm. -um, 1513; —
subst., w. partit. gen.: nsm., (274? n.),
2215, 2233; gsm. -es, 2053, 2223.
[= ne wāt: see 274¯n.; cf. OIcel.
n∂kkurr; Lat. nescio quis.]
ne, adv., Not; immediately prec. the verb
(137×), 38, 50, 80, 83, 109, 119, 154,
162, 180, etc.; [F. 3a, 3b, 4b, 20, 37,
41]. nē, conj., Nor, after (or within)
neg. clause, 157, 169, 577, 584, 793,
1084, 1101, 1454, 1736¯a,b, 1737, 1930,
2126, 2185, 2263, 2264, 2348, 2533,
2628b, 2738b, 2857, 3016, [F. 39]; w.
ne added before verb: 182, 245, 862,
1515, 2922, [F. 3a, 3b, 4a]; disjunct.
phrases, nē lēof nē lāð 511, nē .¯.¯. nē
. . . nē 1393a,b, 1394a, w. ¢rst neg.
omitted: ®r nē siþðan 718, sūð nē
norð 858, wordum nē worcum 1100,
wyrda nē worda 3030, si. 1454a,
1736¯a; — after positive clause: 510
(n.), 739, 889 (n.), 1071, 2217, 2297.
(See V. Mourek Zur Negation im
Altgerm. [Prague, 1903]; Schuchardt
1910; Einenkel A. 35 [1911] 187–248,
401–24.)
nēah, (NIGH), near; I. adv.; 1221, 2870.
— II. prep. (usu. following the noun),
w. dat., near, on, by, close to; 564,
1924, 2242, 2290, 2547, 2831, 2853;
nēh, 2215, 2411. — III. (predic.) adj.;
1743, 2420, 2728. — Comp. adv.
nēar, NEARer; 745. — Supl. adj.
nīehsta, n©hsta, last; dsm. nīehstan
(sīðe), 2511; n©hstan 1203. (Cf.
ġinġæste 2817.) [NEXT.]
ġe-neahhe, adv., suÌciently, abundant-
ly, frequently; 783 (very), 3152 (perh.
earnestly); supl. ġenehost, 794 (n.).
nealles, adv., Not at ALL; 2145, 2167,
2179, 2221, 2363, 2596, 2873, 3089;
nalles, 338, 1018, 1076, 1442; 2503,
2832, 2919, 3015, 3019, 3023; nales,
1811; nallas, 1719, 1749; nalas, 1493,
1529, 1537; nalæs, 43. (Ingersoll 1978:
169–70.) [ne, ealles.] Cf. næs.
nēan, adv., from near, near; n¼n, 528,
839; nēan, 1174, 2317; nēon, 3104.
nēar, see nēah.
nearo, adj.wa., NARROW; ap.(s.?)f. nearwe,
1409.
nearo, nwa., straits, diÌculty, distress;
as., 2350, 2594. [neut. of nearo, adj.]
nearo-cræft ‡, m., art of rendering diÌ-
cult of access; dp. -um, 2243.
nearo-fāh ‡, adj., cruelly hostile; gsm.
-fāges, 2317.
nearo-þearf †, f., severe distress; as. -e,
422.
nearwe, adv., NARROWly, closely; 976.
 GLOSSARY
nearwian, vb. II, press (hard); pp. ġe-
nearwod, 1438.
nefa, wk.m., nephew; 2170, 1203 (grand-
son?); ds. nefan, 881; as. ~, 2206; —
grandson: ns. nefa, 1962 (n.). [MnE
nephew fr. OFr., fr. Lat. (acc.)
nepotem; R. Hoops EStn. 70.3 (1936)
429–31; Lowe NM 94 (1993) 27–35:
‘younger male relative’; A. Fischer
2002: 124–6.]
nefne, nemne, I. conj.; (1) with sj.:
unless, if — not; nefne 1056, 3054,
næfne 250, nemne 1552 (w. ind.?, n.),
2654. (2) w. ind.: except that; næfne,
1353. (3) without verb (after neg.):
except; nefne, 1934, 2151, 2533. — II.
prep., w. dat.: except; nemne, 1081.
[Cf. Go. niba(i); MLN 9 (1894) 77¯f.;
BGdSL 29 (1904) 264; Ritter Archiv
119 (1907) 178–80; Flasdieck A. 69
(1950) 135–71 & 70 (1951) 46; OES
§§¯3648–50; Lang. §¯2.1.] — See
nymþe; būton. (Cf. Kock4 115–17.)
nēh, see nēah.
ġe-nehost, see ġe-neahhe.
nelle, see willan.
nemnan, vb. I, NAME, call; 2023; pres. 3
pl. nemnað, 364; pret. 3 pl. nemdon,
1354. [nama; Go. namnjan.] — Cpd.:
be-.
nemne, see nefne.
nēod-laðu ‡, f., desire; dp. -laðu[m],
1320 (n.; Lang. §21.3). (Kl. Archiv 115
[1905] 179; v.Sch., Wn.: nēod- = nēd-,
hence ‘pressing summons’; Smithers
1966: 413–16, Ja.: -laðu ‘invitation’;
cf. frēond-laþu.) See nīod.
nēon, see nēan.
nēosan, nēosian, vb. I, II (Appx.C §¯18),
w. gen., seek out, inspect, go to, visit,
attack; nēosan 125, 1786, 1791, 1806,
2074, nīosan 2366, 2388; nēosian 115,
nēosĽan 1125, nīosĽan 2671, 3045;
pres. 3 sg. nīosað, 2486. [Go. niuhs-
jan.]
nēotan †, vb. 2, w. gen., make use of,
enjoy; imp. sg. nēot, 1217. [Go. niutan,
OIcel. njóta, Swed. njuta, NHG ge-
niessen. Peeters ZvS 91 (1977) 166–7.]
— Cpd.: be-.
neowol, adj., precipitous, steep; apm.
neowle, 1411. [See BGdSL 30 (1905)
135, SB §¯88 n.¯2, OEG §¯154.2; to
HOEM §¯162 n.¯2, cf. meowle.]
417
nerian, vb. I, save, protect, preserve;
pres. 3 sg. nereð, 572; pp. ġenered,
827. [(ġe-)nesan; Go. nasjan.]
ġe-nesan, vb. 5, be saved, survive, get
safely through; abs.: pret. 3 sg. ġenæs,
999; w. acc.: pret. 1 sg. ~, 2426; 3 sg.
~, 1977; [3 pl. ġen®son ‘bore,’ F. 47];
pp. ġenesen, 2397. [Go. ga-nisan;
NHG genesen.]
nēðan, vb. I, venture (on); pret. 3 sg.
nēþde, 2228; 2 pl. (on . . . wæter
aldrum) nēðdon, 510; sj. 1 pl. (si.)
nēðdon, 538; — w. acc., brave, dare;
pres.ptc. nēðende, 2350. [Go. ana-
nanþjan.]
ġe-nēþan, vb. I, venture (on); (under
©ða ġewin aldre) ġenēþan, 1469; pret.
sj. 1 sg. (si.) ġenēðde, 2133; — w.
acc., engage in, brave, dare; inf.,
1933; pret. 1 sg. ġenēðde, 1656, 2511;
3 sg. (under . . . stān) ~, 888; 1 pl.
ġenēðdon, 959. Cf. ġe-dīġan.
nicor (‡) +, m., water-monster; gp.
nicera, 845; ap. niceras, 422, 575,
nicras 1427. [NICKER (arch.); OHG
nihhus, NHG Nix(e).] (See Rie.Zs.
388, 399; Bugge ZfdPh. 4 [1873] 197;
Kl. 1911–12: [53]; MLR 10 [1915]
85¯f.; de Vries 1956–7: §¯187; Puhvel
1979: 63–5; R.-L.2 33.292; in place-
names: Whitelock 1951: 74.)
nicor-hūs ‡, n., abode of water mon-
sters; gp. -a, 1411.
nīehsta, see nēah.
nigon, num., NINE; a. nigene, 575.
niht, fc., NIGHT; 115, 547, 649, 1320,
2116; gs. nihtes, adv., by night; 422,
2269, 2273, 3044 (n.); ds. niht, 575,
683, 702, 1334 (ġystran niht); as. ~,
135, 736, 2938; gp. nihta 1365; dp.
nihtum, 167, 275, 2211. — Cpds.: fīf-,
middel-, seofon-, sin-.
niht-bealu ‡, nwa., NIGHT-attack; gp.
-bealwa, 193.
niht-helm †, m., cover of NIGHT; 1789.
niht-long, adj., lasting a NIGHT; asm.
-ne, 528. See and-long.
niht-weorc ‡, n., NIGHT-WORK, noc-
turnal deed; ds. -e, 827.
niman, vb. 4, take, seize; 1808, 3132;
pres. 3 sg. nymeð, 598; pret. 3 sg.
nōm 1612, nam 746, 2986; 1 pl.
nāman, 2116; pp. numen, 1153; —
carry off (w. subject: dēað, hild, etc.);
418 GLOSSARY
pres. 3 sg. nimeð 441, 447, 1491,
2536, nymeð 1846; sj. 3 sg. nime,
452, 1481. [Go. niman, NHG nehmen;
see OED: NIM, NUMB, NIM¯ble; ES 54
(1973) 521–5; HS 116 (2003) 302–7.]
— Cpds.: •ā-, be-, for-.
ġe-niman, vb. 4, take, seize, take away;
pret. 3 sg. ġenōm, 2776, ġenam 122,
1302, 1872, 2429; pp. ġenumen, 3165.
nīod (†), f., desire, pleasure; as. -e,
2116.
nīos(i)an, see nēosan.
nioðor, see niþer.
nīowe, see nīwe.
ġe-nip, n., darkness, mist; ap. -u, 1360,
2808. [nīpan.]
nīpan (†), vb. 1, grow dark; pres.ptc.
nīpende (niht): 547, 649.
nis, see eom.
nīð, m., (ill-will, envy), violence; ds.
nīþe, 2680; hostility, rancor, persecu-
tion, trouble, aÑiction; ns. 2317; ds.
nīðe, 827; as. nīð, 184, 276, 423, [F.
9]; — †battle, contest; ds. nīðe, 2585;
gp. nīða, 882, 1962, 2170, 2350, 2397,
[F. 21], w. verb (instr. sense): 845,
1439 (by force?), 2206. (Kühlwein 1967:
112–16; Corso Neophil. 64 [1980]
121–6; cf. GriÌth ASE 24 [1995] 28¯f.)
[Go. neiþ, NHG Neid.] — Cpds.:
bealo-, f®r-, here-, hete-, inwit-,
searo-, wæl-.
nīð-draca ‡, wk.m., hostile or malicious
DRAGON; 2273.
niþer, adv., down(ward); 1360; nyðer,
3044. nioðor, adv. comp. (based on
stem niþ-), lower down, 2699. [Cf.
NETHER.]
nīð-gæst †, mi., malicious (stranger or)
foe; as., 2699. (Or -g®st?)
nīþ-ġeweorc (‡), n., hostile deed, ¢ght;
gp. -a, 683.
nīþ-grim(m) †, adj., GRIM, cruel, nsf.
-grim, 193.
nīð-gripe ‡, mi., malicious GRIP; ds.,
976 (n.).
nīð-heard (†), adj., brave in battle;
2417.
nīð-hēdiġ ‡, adj., hostile; npm. -hēdĽġe,
3165. [= -h©diġ; hycgan.]
nīð-sele ‡, mi., hostile or battle hall; ds.,
1513. [Gr.Spr.: nið- ‘abysm.’]
niþðas †, mja.p., men; gp. niþða, 1005,
2215. [Go. niþjis ‘kinsman.’]
nīð-wundor ‡, n., dreadful WONDER,
portent; as., 1365.
nīwe, adj.ja., NEW; 2243 (n.), 783 (un-
heard of, startling); asf. ~, 949; gpn.
nīwra, 2898; — dsm.wk. nīwan
(stefne) (afresh, anew), 2594, nīowan
(~), 1789.
(ġe-)nīwian, vb. II, reNEW; pp. ġenīwod,
1303, 1322, ġenīwad, 2287 (n.).
nīw-tyrwed ‡, adj. (pp.), NEW-TARRed;
asm. -tyrwydne, 295. (Osborn ANQ 13
[2000] 3–6.)
nō, emphatic neg. adv., Not at all, not,
never; 136, 168, 244, 366, 450, 541 :
543 (correl.: n.), 575, 581, 586, 677,
754, 841, 968, 972, 974, 1002, 1025,
1355, 1366, 1392, 1453, 1502, 1508,
1735, [1875], 1892, 1907, 2081, 2160,
2307, 2314, 2347, 2354, 2373, 2423,
2466, 2585, 2618; nā, 445, 567, 1536.
— (nō þ© ®r, see ®r; nō þ© lenġ: 974,
si. 2423; syðþan nā (nō): 567, 1453,
[1875]. With ne added before verb:
450, 567, 1453, 1508, 2466.) [NO; Go.
ni aiw. See ā; Beibl. 13 (1902) 15.]
ġe-nōg, adj., ENOUGH, abundant, many;
apm. -e, 3104; ap.(s.?)f. -e, 2489.
nolde, see willan.
nōm, see niman.
nōn (‡) +, n.(?), ninth hour (ca. 3 p.m.);
1660. [NOON; fr. Lat. nona.]
norð, adv., NORTH(ward); 858.
norþan, adv., from the north; 547.
nōse ‡, wk.f., promontory, cape; ds.
nōsan, 1892 (n.), 2803. [Cf. nosu;
Holt.Et.; but cf. Hoops St. 116, Kl.3:
nŏse.]
nōðer, conj., NOR, and not; 2124. [nō-
hwæðer; OES §¯1850¯n.]
nū, I. adv. (conj.), NOW; 251, 254, 375,
395, 424, 489, 602, 658, 939, 946,
1174, 1338, 1343, 1376, 1474, 1761,
1782, 1818, 2053, 2247a, 2508, 2646,
2666, 2729, 2743, 2747, 2884, 2900,
2910, 3007, 3013, 3101, 3114, [F. 7, 8,
10]; nū ġēn, 2859, 3167; nū ġ©t, 956,
1058 (ġīt), 1134. — II. conj., now, now
that, since; 430, 2799, 3020, [F. 21];
correl. w. (preced.) adv. nū: 1475, 2247b,
2745. (Van Dam 1957: 61–3; OES
§¯3099; Blockley SN 73 [2001] 8.)
nūða, adv., NOW, just now, at this
moment; 426, 657. (See Appx.C §¯6.)
[nū-þā. Kl. et al. read nū ðā.]
 GLOSSARY
n©d, ¢., necessity, compulsion, distress;
ds. n©de, 1005; as. n©d, 2454. (Ben-
ning 1971: 37–8; Taeymans 2005.)
[nēd > NEED; Go. nauþs, OIcel. nauðr,
NHG Not.] — Cpds.: hæft-, þrēa-.
(ġe-)n©dan, vb. I, compel, force; pp.
nsn. ġen©ded, 2680, asf. ġen©dde
1005.
n©d-bād (‡) +, f., enforced contribution,
toll; as. -e, 598.
n©d-ġestealla ‡, wk.m., companion in
NEED, i.e. in battle (cf. Havelok 9: at
nede); np. -ġesteallan, 882. [OHG
nōt(igi)stallo, MHG nōtgestalle; L.
Uhland Schriften zur Geschichte der
Dichtung und Sage, I (Stuttgart, 1865)
256 n.]
n©d-wracu †, f., violent persecution,
dire distress; 193.
n©hsta, see nēah.
nyllan, see willan.
nyman, see niman.
nymþe, conj., (w. subj.:) unless, if . . .
not; 781; (w. ind.:) except that, but;
1658 (n.). Cf. nefne.
nyt(t), fjō., use, oÌce, duty, service; as.
nytte, 494, 3118 (~ hēold ‘did its
duty’). (Szogs 1931: 97–8.) [OIcel.
nyt. Cf. OHG nuz (masc.). See nyt(t),
adj.] — Cpds.: sund-, sundor-.
nyt(t), adj.ja., useful, bene¢cial; apm.
nytte, 794. [nēotan; Go. (un-)nuts,
OHG nuzzi.] — Cpd.: un-.
ġe-nyttian (‡), vb. II, w. acc., use, en-
joy; pp. ġenyttod, 3046.
nyðer, see niþer.
of, prep., from (motion, direction); 37,
56, 229, 265, 419, 672, 710, 726, 785
(n.), 854, 921, 1108, 1138, 1162, 1571,
1629, 1892, 2471, 2624, 2743, 2769,
2809, 2819, 2882, 3121, 3177; post-
pos. (stressed), 671 (OFF); ūt of, 663,
2557; ūt .¯.¯. of, 2083, 2546; of .¯.¯. ūt,
2515, 2550; of Ïānbogan ‘(with an
arrow shot) from a bow,’ 1433, si.
1744, 2437. [OF, OFF.]
ōfer, m., bank, shore; ds. ōfre, 1371.
[NHG Ufer; cf. (Winds)or, etc.]
ofer, prep., (1) w. dat, (rest:) OVER,
above; 304, 1244, 1286, 1289, 1363,
1790, 1899, 1907, 2768, 2907, 2908,
3025, 3145. — (2) w. acc., (motion,
extension, see Kl. 1905–6: 256:) over,
419
across; 10, 46, 48, 200, 217, 231, 239,
240, 248, 297, 311, 362, 393, 464,
471, 481, 515, 605, 649, 802, 859,
899, 983, 1208, 1404, 1405, 1415,
1705, [1803], 1826, 1861, 1862, 1909,
1910, 1950, 1989, 2007, 2073, 2259,
2380, 2394, 2473, 2477; 2724 (n.),
2808, 2893, 2899 (n.), 2980, 3118,
3132, [F. 22]; — beyond; 2879, 1717
(more than); contrary to, against:
2330, 2409, [2589]; after (time): 736,
1781; without, 685 (cf. Dan 73).
ofer-cuman, vb. 4, OVERCOME; pret. 3
sg. -cwōm, 1273; 3 pl. -cōmon, 699;
pp. -cumen, 845.
ofer-ēode, see ofer-gān.
ofer-Ïēon (‡), vb. 2, FLEE from (acc.);
2525 (n.).
ofer-Ïītan (‡) +, vb. 1, OVERmatch (in a
contest); pret. 3 sg. -Ïāt, 517.
ofer-gān, anv., pass OVER, traverse,
cross; pret. 3 sg. oferēode, 1408 (n.);
3 pl. -ēodon, 2959.
ofer-helmian ‡, vb. II, OVERhang, over-
shadow; pres. 3 sg. -helmað, 1364.
ofer-hīgian ‡, vb. II, pass away from,
escape from; 2766 (n.). [HIE.]
ofer-hycgan, vb. III, despise, scorn;
pret. 3 sg. -hogode, 2345.
ofer-hyġd, -h©d, fni., pride, arrogance;
gp. -hyġda, 1740; -h©da, 1760. (H.
Schabram Superbia [Munich, 1965].)
ofer-mæġen †, n., superior force; ds. -e,
2917.
ofer-māððum, ‡, m., exceeding treas-
ure; dp. -māðmum, 2993.
ofer-sēċan ‡, vb. I, OVERtax, put to too
severe a trial; pret. 3 sg. -sōhte, 2686.
ofer-sēon, vb. 5, (OVERSEE), look on;
pret. 3 pl. -sāwon, 419. (See Penttilä
1956: 39.)
ofer-sittan (‡) +, vb. 5, w. acc., abstain
from, forgo (the use of¯); 684; pres. 1
sg. -sitte, 2528.
ofer-swimman ‡, vb. 3, SWIM OVER;
pret. 3 sg. -swam, 2367 (n.).
ofer-sw©ðan, vb. I, OVERpower, over-
come; pres. 3 sg. -sw©ðeþ, 279, 1768.
[swīð.]
ofer-weorpan, vb. 3, ‡fall (OVER),
stumble (elsewhere trans.); pret. 3 sg.
-wearp, 1543 (n.).
of-ferian ‡, vb. I, carry OFF; pret. 3 sg.
-ferede, 1583.
420 GLOSSARY
of-ġyfan, vb. 5, GIVE up, leave; 2588; pret.
3 sg. -ġeaf, 1681, 1904, 2251, 2469; 3
pl. -ġēafon, 1600, -ġēfan 2846.
of-l®tan, vb. 7, leave, relinquish; pres.
2 sg. -l®test, 1183; pret. 3 sg. -lēt,
1622.
ofost, f., haste, speed; 256, 1663 (n.),
3007 (ofľst); ds. (on) ofoste, 3090;
(bēo on) ofeste, 386, (si.:) ofste 1292,
ofoste 2747, 2783. [SB §¯43 n. 4; IF
20 (1906–7) 320; EStn. 54 (1920) 97–
100; BGdSL 59 (1935) 314–16.]
ofost-līċe, adv., speedily, in haste; 3130.
of-scēotan, vb. 2, SHOOT (dead); pret. 3
sg. -scēt, 2439.
of-sittan (‡) +, vb. 5, w. acc., beset, set
upon, press down; pret. 3 sg. -sæt,
1545 (n.).
of-slēan, vb. 6, SLAY, kill, destroy; pret.
1 sg. -slōh, 574, 1665; 3 sg. ~, 1689,
3060.
oft, adv., OFTen; 4, 165, 171, 444, 480,
572, 857, 907, 951, 1065, 1238, 1247,
1252, 1428, 1526, 1885, 1887, 2018,
2029, 2296, 2478, 2500, 2867, 2937,
3019, 3077, 3116. (Implying as a rule,
regularly: 572, 1247, 2029, etc.) —
Comp. oftor, 1579. Supl. oftost, 1663
(MS).
of-tēon, vb. 1 (& 2), (1) deny, deprive
(w. dat. of person & gen. of thing):
pret. 3 sg. oftēah, 5. (2) deny, with-
hold (w. acc. of thing): pret. 3 sg.
oftēah, 1520 (see Varr.), 2489. [Con-
fusion as to form, meaning, and con-
struction between *of-tīhan and *of-
tēohan. Siev. 1904: 306–7; SB §¯383;
OEG §¯753.8.]
of-þynċan, vb. I, w. dat. of pers. & gen.
of thing, displease; 2032 (n.).
ō-hw®r, adv., anyWHERE; 1737; ōwer,
2870. [See ®ġ-hw®r; nō.]
ombeht, m., oÌcer, attendant; 287;
ombiht, 336. (Szogs 1931: 72–4; D.
Green 1998: 149–50.) [Cf. Go. and-
bahts; NHG Amt. From Celtic: Orel
2003: 18.]
ombiht-þeġn †, m., attendant, oÌcer;
ds. -e, 673. (Brady 1983: 216: ‘mili-
tary aide.’)
ōmiġ (‡) +, adj., rusty; 2763; np. ōmiġe,
3049. (MLN 66 [1951] 261–3.)
on (an: 677, 1935), I. prep., ON, in (used
373×); 1. with dative (place, time,
circumstance, manner, condition), on,
in, at, among; 21, 22, 40, 53, etc.; [F.
12, 17, 28, 29]; (postpos., stressed,
2357). Note: on him byrne scān, 405,
si. on him, 2036; cf. 752; ġeh©rde on
Bēowulfe .¯.¯. ġeþōht, 609 (to be transl.
from), si. 1830; — on searwum, 1557
(n.), 2568, si. 2866 (in, postpositive,
stressed), cf. 2523 (on, postpositive,
stressed); — on ræste ġenam þrītiġ
þeġna, 122, si.: 747, 2986, 3164 (may
be rendered from); — among, in (w.
collective nouns): on corþre 1153, on
herġe 1248, 2638 (n.), on ġemonge
1643, on folce 1701, 2377, on siġe-
þēode 2204, cf. 2197, on fēðan 2497,
2919, on ðām ðrēate 2406, on hēape
2596; — on sefan 473, 1342, 1737; on
mōde 753, 1418, 1844, 2281, 2527; on
ferhðe 754, 948, 1718, [2230]; on
hreþre 1878, 2328; — (time:) on
fyrste, 76; on morgne, 2484, si. 565,
2939; on niht, 575, 683, 702; etc.; —
on orleġe, 1326; on ðearfe, 1456,
2849; — semi-adj. phrases: (a)
predic.: (wæs) on sālum 607, si. 643,
1170; on wynne 2014; on hrēon mōde
1307, 2581, [cf. F. 12]; on ofeste 386,
1292, 2747, 2783 (cf. 3090); on sunde
(‘swimming’), 1618; on fylle wearð
(‘fell’), 1544; on blōde, 847; (b) at-
tributive, appositive: (fēond) on helle
(‘hellish ¢end’?), 101 (n.); (secg) on
searwum, 249, 2530, 2700, cf. 1557,
2568 (see above), 368; on frætewum,
962; on elne, 2506, 2816; on yrre,
2092; on ġiohðe, 2793, 3095; — in
respect to, in the matter of; an here-
wæsmun, 677; on fēþe, 970; on ġylp-
spr®ċe, 981; — on þ®m golde onġitan
(by), 1484. — 2. with accusative
(motion [actual or ¢g.], manner, time),
see Kl. 1905–6: 257¯f.; on, to, onto,
into, in; 27, 35, 49, 67, etc., [F. 11].
Note: on (holm) wliton, 1592, 2852;
si. (sēon:) 2717, 2863 (cf. 1650), (stari-
an:) 996, 1485, 1603, 1780, (postpos.,
stressed, on: 2796, cf. an w. dat.,
semi-adv.: 1935); — (direction), on .¯.¯.
hond 686, on twā healfa 1095, si.: 800,
1305, 1675, 2063; 1728; — on b®l
ġearu (‘ready to be placed on . . .’),
1109; — (price, w. bebycgan) for,
2799; — without perception of
 GLOSSARY
motion in MnE; on wæteres ®ht . . .
swuncon, 516, si. 242, 507, 2132, on
wæl crunge, 635; God wāt on meċ,
2650 (see 1830); 627 (ġel©fan, see
note); on (ġesīðes) hād (‘in the
position of,’ ‘as’), 1297, si. 2193; on
[mīn]ne sylfes dōm (‘at my own
discretion’), 2147; (time:) on morgen-
tīd, 484, 518, si. 837, 1428, cf. 1579,
1753; semi-adverbial phrases: on
ġylp, 1749, on lust, 618; on spēd, 873;
on ryht, 1555; on unriht, 2739; on
ġeÏit, 865; on ende, 2021. — on weġ,
on lāst, on efn, on innan, see weġ, lāst,
efn, innan. — [Go. ana, NHG an.] See
in. II. adv.; 1650 (see on, prep. [2]),
1903.
on-, pre¢x, = 1. Go. and- (see and-). 2.
Go. ana-. (Lüngen 1911.)
on-arn, see on-irnan.
on-beran, vb. 4, harm, weaken, di-
minish; 990; pp. nsn. onboren, 2284.
(Cf. GuthB 944; Hubbard 1920: 14¯f.;
Kock5 79.)
on-bīdan, vb. 1, wait; pret. 3 sg. onbād,
2302; (w. gen.:) ABIDE, await; inf.,
397.
on-bindan, vb. 3, UNBIND, let loose;
pret. 3 sg. onband, 501.
on-breġdan, vb. 3, swing open (trans.);
pret. 3 sg. onbr®d, 723.
oncer-, see ancor-.
on-ċirran, vb. I, turn, change (trans.);
2857; — turn (intr.), go; pret. 3 sg.
onċirde, 2951, 2970.
on-cnāwan, vb. 7, KNOW, recognize,
perceive; pret. 3 sg. oncnīow, 2554.
•on-cweðan, vb. 5, answer; [pres. 3 sg.
oncwyð, F. 7].
on-c©ð(ð) (‡), f., grief, distress; onc©ð,
1420; as. onc©þðe, 830. (Pedersen SN
14 [1941–2] 214–20.)
ond, conj., AND (310×); spelt: ond, 1148,
2040 (see also 600¯n.); otherwise ab-
breviated: ℓ¯; [and: F. 15, 16a, 16b, 17,
35; 45 (and ēac)]. (See Schü.Sa. §¯42;
Maisenhelder 1935: 47–79; Lühr MSS
38 [1979] 117–54; Guerrieri AION-SG
25 [1982] 7–55; Blockley 2001: chs.
2–3.)
ond-drysne, adj.ja., terrible, awful; asf.
ondrysne, 1932 (n.). See and-drysno.
ond-hweorfan ‡, vb. 3, turn (intr.)
against; pret. 3 sg. ondhwearf, 548 (n.).
421
ond-lēan, see and-lēan.
ond-long, see and-long.
on-dr®dan, vb. 7, DREAD, fear; 1674;
pres. 3 pl. ondr®dað, 2275; pret. 3 sg.
ondrēd, 2347; sj. 3 sg. ondrēde, 3153.
[ond-r®dan; Beibl. 14 (1903) 182–5,
A. 60 (1936) 259–62, BGdSL (T) 99
(1977) 206–12, Bamm. 1979: 38; but
see also MLN 32 (1917) 290; Holt.Et.]
ondrysne, see ond-drysne.
ond-sendeþ, see on-sendan.
ond-slyht ‡, mi., onSLAUGHT, counter-
blow; as. (MS. hond-), 2929, 2972.
[slēan.]
ōnettan, vb. I, hurry, move quickly;
pret. 3 pl. ōnetton, 306, 1803. [*on-
hātjan; SB §¯43 n.4, OEG §¯77 n.¯2.]
on-¢ndan, vb. 3, FIND, ¢nd out, dis-
cover, perceive; pret. 3 sg. onfand,
1522, 1890, [2219], 2288, 2300, 2629,
2713; onfunde, 750, 809, 1497; sj.(?) 3
sg. ~, 2841; pp. onfunden, 595, 1293.
(Lapidge 2001: 89–93.)
on-fōn, vb. 7, w. dat., receive, take; 911;
imp. sg. onfōh, 1169; pret. 3 sg. on-
fēng, 52, 688, 748, 852, 1214, 1494.
on-ġeador ‡, adv., toGETHER; 1595.
on-ġēan, prep., w. dat., AGAINst, to-
ward; 1034; postpos.: 681, 747 (object
supplied); foran ~ 2364. (Flasdieck
Beibl. 34 [1923] 271¯f., 35.190–2.)
[on-ġeġn; NHG entgegen.]
on-ġinnan, vb. 3, beGIN, undertake; w.
acc.: pp. ongunnen, 409; — w. inf.
(sometimes pleonastic: see Ogura
2002: 88–93); pres. 3 sg. onġinneð,
2044; pret. 1 sg. ongan, 2878; 3 sg., ~,
100, 871, 1605, 1983, 2111, 2210,
2312; ongon, 2701, 2711, 2790; 3 pl.
ongunnon, 244 (n.), 3143.
on-ġitan, -ġytan, vb. 5, perceive, see,
hear, understand; onġitan, 1484, 1911,
2770; onġytan, 1496; onġyton, 308;
pres. sj. 1 sg. onġite, 2748; imp. sg.
onġit, 1723; pret. 3 sg. onġeat, 14,
1512, 1518; 3 pl. onġēaton, 1431,
2944; — ‡seize, get hold of; pret. 3
sg. anġeat, 1291 (n.). (See Penttilä
1956: 171–3; Lapidge 2001: 89–93;
SELIM 11 [2001–2] 97–115.)
onhōhsnian ‡, vb. II, check, stop (?);
pret. 3 sg. onhōhsnode, 1944 (n.).
on-hrēran, vb. I, stir up, arouse; pp.
onhrēred, 549, 2554. [hrōr.]
422 GLOSSARY
on-irnan (†), vb. 3, †give way, spring
open; pret. 3 sg. onarn, 721.
on-l®tan, vb. 7, loosen, release; pres. 3
sg. onl®teð, 1609.
on-lēon, vb. 1, w. dat. of pers. & gen. of
thing, lend; pret. 3 sg. onlāh, 1467.
on-līcnes(s), fjō., LIKENESS; onlīcnæs,
1351. (Lang. §¯19.6.)
on-lūcan, vb. 2, UNLOCK, disclose; pret.
3 sg. onlēac, 259.
on-mēdla (†), wk.m., arrogance, pre-
sumption, effrontery; ds. onmēdlan,
2926. [mōd.]
on-munan, prp., w. acc. of pers. & gen.
of thing, consider worthy of (or ¢t
for); pret. 3 sg. onmunde, 2640 (n.).
on-sacan, vb. 6, resist, contest, ¢ght
(dat., against); 2954. Cf. 1083.
on-s®ċe, see on-sēċan.
on-s®ġe (‡) +, adj.ja., attacking, as-
sailing (see Aant. [30¯f.]), fatal (?);
nsf., 2076, 2483. [sīgan.]
on-s®lan, vb. I, untie, loosen, disclose;
imp. sg. ons®l, 489. [sāl.]
on-sēċan, vb. I, w. acc. of pers. & gen.
of thing, exact (something from some-
one), deprive (someone of something);
pres. sj. 3 sg. (fēores) ons®ċe (see
Lang. §¯7.3), 1942. (Jul 679: fēores
onsōhte; PPs 118.95.2 wyllað mē lāðe
līfes āsēċean = ut perderent me.)
on-sendan (ond-), vb. I, SEND, send
away; imp. sg. onsend, 452, 1483;
pres. 3 sg. ondsendeþ, 600 (destroys:
n.); pret. 3 sg. onsende, 382; 3 pl.
(forð) onsendon, 45; pp. (~) onsended,
2266 (destroyed).
on-sittan, vb. 5, dread; 597. [Cf. Go.
and-sitan; NHG sich entsetzen.]
on-sponnan †, vb. 7, unfasten; pret. 3
sg. onspēon, 2723. [SPAN.]
on-springan, vb. 3, SPRING asunder;
pret. 3 pl. onsprungon, 817.
on-stellan, vb. I, institute, bring about;
pret. 3 sg. onstealde, 2407.
on-swīfan (†), vb. 1, swing, turn (trans.);
pret. 3 sg. onswāf, 2559.
on-s©n, see an-s©n.
on-tyhtan (‡), vb. I, incite, impel; pret.
3 sg. ontyhte, 3086. [Cf. tēon, vb. 2.]
on-ðēon †, vb. 1, prosper, thrive; pret. 3
sg. onðāh, 900.
•on-wacnian, vb. II, AWAKE (intr.); [imp.
pl. onwacniġeað, F. 10].
on-wadan (†), vb. 6, enter, take pos-
session of; pret. 3 sg. (hine fyren)
onwōd, 915. (Cf. GenA 1260, 2581,
Dan 17.)
on-wæcnan, pret. onwōc, vb. 6, vb. I
(SB §¯392 n. 2, OEG §¯744), AWAKE(N)
(intr.); pret. 3 sg. onwōc, 2287; —
arise, be born; pret. 3 sg. ~, 56; 3 pl.
onwōcon, 111. (Cf. swebban.)
on-weald, m., power, possession; as.,
1044.
on-wendan, vb. I, turn aside (trans.),
put aside, remove; 191, 2601.
on-windan (†), vb. 3, UNWIND, loosen;
pres. 3 sg. onwindeð, 1610.
on-wōc, see on-wæcnan.
open, adj., OPEN; asf. opene, 2271.
openian, vb. II, OPEN (trans.); 3056.
ōr (†), n.(?), beginning, origin; 1688
(n.); ds. ōre (¯front), 1041; as. ōr, 2407.
[Fr. Lat. ora.]
orc, m., cup, pitcher; np. orcas, 3047;
ap. ~, 2760. [Fr. Lat. orca, cf. urceus.
Holthausen IF 32 (1913) 337; Kross
1911: 105; Frank in Alfred the Wise,
ed. J. Roberts et al. (Cambridge, 1997)
15–24.]
orc-nēas ‡, m.p., evil spirits, monsters;
np. -n¼s, 112. [Fr. Lat. orcus; Grimm
D.M. 402 (486) n.¯1, iii 402 (1737); Kl.
1911–12: (53); nēo-, (driht)nēum, cf.
Go. naus.] (Jente 1921: 137; Hoops
32, St. 17–20; Krogmann Angl. 56
(1932) 40–2, ibid. 57 (1933) 110–11,
112, 396; S. Wiersma ‘Linguistic
Analysis of Words Referring to
Monsters in Beowulf¯’ (unpublished
Wisconsin diss., 1961) 312–19; Poli
AION-SG Studi Ned./Nord. 19 [1976]
103–41.)
ord, m.(?), point; 2791; ds. orde, 556; as.
ord, 1549; — front; ds. orde, 2498,
3125, [F. 12]. [NHG Ort, OIcel. oddr;
cf. OED: ODD (fr. ON).]
ord-fruma, wk.m., leader, one who
goes before; 263. (Rankin JEGP 8
[1909] 407: ‘father’; Keller EStn. 68.3
[1934] 335: ‘front ¢ghter’; si. Brady
1983: 224–5: ‘point-man’; Cronan
2003: 403.)
ōret-mecg (†), mja., warrior; np. -as,
363, 481; ap. ~, 332. [*or-hāt, OHG
ur-heiz, ‘challenge.’ SB §¯43 n. 4,
OEG §¯77.]
 GLOSSARY
ōretta †, wk.m., warrior; 1532, 2538.
(Brady 1983: 210–11; D. Green 1998:
73–4: orig. [and still?] ‘challenger,
provoker’; cf. Robinson 1985: 67.)
[See ōret-mecg; Hildebr. 2: urhētto]
oreðe(s), see oruð.
or-, stressed pre¢x, see the following
nouns and adjectives; cf. ā-.
or-leahtre (‡) (+), adj.ja., blameless;
1886. [Cf. lēan ‘blame.’]
or-leġe (†), ni., war, battle, strife; gs.
orleġes, 2407; ds. orleġe, 1326. (Jente
1921: 213–15.) [OS urlagi. See Wood
MLN 34 (1919) 205; Holt.Et.; Jóhannes-
son 1956: 745, 750; Pokorny 1959:
659; Ísl.osb. s.v. örlög.]
orleġ-hwīl ‡, f., time of war, ¢ght; 2002;
gs. -e, 2911; gp. -a, 2427.
or-þanc, m., ingenuity, skill, craft; dp.
-þancum, 406; -ðoncum, 2087.
oruð, n., breath; 2557; gs. [o]reðes,
2523; ds. oreðe, 2839. [*or-ōð; cf. Go.
uz-anan, vb.]
or-wearde ‡, adv., without GUARDian, in
an undefended condition; 3127 (n.).
or-wēna, wk.adj., despairing (of, gen.);
(aldres) orwēna: 1002, 1565. [Go. us-
wēna.]
oð, prep., w. acc., until; 2399, 3069,
3083. — oð þæt, prep. + conj., until;
9, 56, 100, 145, 219, 296, 307, 545,
622, 644, 1133, 1254, 1375, 1414,
1640, 1714, 1740 (n.), 1801, 1886,
2039, 2058, 2116, 2210, 2269, 2280,
2303, 2378, 2621, 2782, 2791, 2934,
3147; oðð þæt, 66; oþ ðe, 649, oð ðe,
2475 (n.). [oð, conj., F. 31.] (It spe-
cially indicates progress of narrative:
100, 644, 2210, etc.; sometimes it
bears consecutive force, ‘so that’: 66,
1375, etc. See 1740¯n.; Irving 1968:
31–42.) — oð-, (verbal) pre¢x, see the
foll. verbs; cf. (stressed) ūð-. [Go.
unþa-, und. See Lüngen 1911: 73–82.]
oþ-beran †, vb. 4, BEAR (off¯); pret. 3 sg.
oþbær, 579.
oð-ēode, see oð-gān.
ōðer, adj. (used as adj. & as subst.),
OTHER, (cf. Lat. alter, alius:) the
other, one of two, another, second,
following; 503, 534, 859, 1338; (cor-
relative, ‘one . . . the other’:) 1349,
1351; 1353, 1560, 1755, 2481; (se
ōþer:) 1815, 2061; nsf., 2117; nsn.,
423
1133, 1300; gsm. ōðres, 2451; gsn. ~,
219, 605, 1874; dsm. ōðrum, 814,
1029, 1165, 1228, 2167, 2171, 2198,
2565, 2908; þ®m ōðrum, 1471; asm.
ōþerne, 652, 1860, 2440, 2484, 2985;
asn. ōðer, 1086, 1583, 1945; ism. ōðre,
2670, 3101; [dpf. ōþrum, F. 16]; apn.
ōþer, 870 (n.). [Go. anþar.]
oð-ferian, vb. I, bear away; pret. 1 sg.
oðferede, 2141.
oð-gān ‡, anv., pret. oð-ēode, went
away, escaped; 3 pl. oðēodon, 2934.
oððe, conj., OR; 283, 437, 635, 637, 693,
1491, 1763, 1764a, 1764b, 1765a,
1765b, 1766a, 1766b, 1848, 2253, 2376,
2434, 2494, 2495, 2536, 2840, 2870,
2922, 3006 (n.); [F. 48]. (See Bu.Tid.
57; Angl. 25 [1902] 268¯f.; Schü.Sa.
§¯48; ZfdA 48 [1906] 193; MSS 34
[1976] 77–94.) [Go. aíþþau.]
oð-wītan, vb. 1, w. dat. of pers. & acc.
of thing, reproach, blame; 2995. Cf.
æt-.
ōwer, see ō-hw®r.
ō-wiht, fni., (AUGHT), anything; gsf. -e,
1822 (n.); ds. Ňwihte, 2432 (n.). See
āht, ā; note on 1825.
ġe-rād (‡) +, adj., skilful, apt; asn.wk.
-e, 873. [Go. ga-raiþs; READy.]
r®ċan, vb. I, REACH (out); pret. 3 sg.
r®hte, 747.
ġe-r®ċan, vb. I, REACH, hit; pret. 1 sg.
ġer®hte, 556; 3 sg. ~, 2965.
r®d, m., advice, counsel, what is advis-
able, good advice, help; 1376; as.,
172, 278, 2027, 3080; bene¢t, gain:
as. (ēċne) r®d, 1201; ap. (ēċe) r®das,
1760. [REDE (arch., dial.); OIcel. ráð,
NHG Rat.] See Grønbech 1909–12:
1.170–4; Kellermann 1954: 31–40. —
Cpds.: folc-; ān-, fæst-.
r®dan, vb. 7, (advise), provide for, rule,
control (w. dat.), 2858; possess, 2056
(n.). [See OED: READ, REDE, v.1; Go.
ga-rēdan, OIcel. ráða, NHG raten.] —
Cpd.: sele-r®dend(e).
r®d-bora, wk.m., counselor; 1325.
[beran.]
r®dend (†), mc., ruler (God); 1555.
r®s, m., rush, onslaught, storm; as.,
2626; dp. -um, 2356. [RACE fr. ON
rás.] — Cpds.: gūð-, heaðo-, hilde-,
hond-, mæġen-, wæl-.
424 GLOSSARY
r®san, vb. I, rush (upon); pret. 3 sg.
r®sde, 2690. [Bamm. 1979: 105.]
ġe-r®san, vb. I, rush (against); pret.
sj.(?) 3 sg. ġer®sde, 2839.
ræst, fjō.(?), REST, resting-place, bed;
ds. ræste, 122, 747, 1237, 1298, 1585;
as. ræste, 139, reste 2456. — Cpds.:
®fen-, Ïet-, sele-, wæl-.
r®swa †, wk.m., (counselor), prince,
leader; ds. r®swa[n], 60 (Gr.Spr., et
al.: np.). (Strauss 1974: 96.) [Cf. r®s-
bora, r®dan; OIcel. ræsir.]
rand, see rond.
rand-wiga †, wk.m., (shield-)warrior;
1298; as. -wigan, 1793.
rāsian (‡), vb. II, explore; pp. nsn.
rāsod, 2283. [Holt.Et.]
raþe, see hraþe.
rēa¢an, vb. II, rob, plunder, riÏe; 2773;
pret. 3 sg. rēafode, 2985, 3027; 3 pl.
rēafeden, 1212 (Lang. §¯19.4 rem.).
[REAVE (arch.); ROB fr. OFr. rob(b)er,
fr. Gmc.] — Cpd.: be-; cf. heaðo-,
wæl-rēaf.
rēċ, mi., smoke; ds. -e, 3155. [REEK.] —
Cpds.: gūð-, wæl-, wudu-.
reċċan, vb. I, narrate, tell, unfold; 91;
ger. reċċenʼnĺ, 2093; pret. 3 sg., rehte,
2106, 2110. [racu.]
reċċan, vb. I, care (¯for, gen.); pres. 3
sg. reċċeð, 434. [RECK; SB §¯407 n.¯3;
OEG §¯287; cf. OS rôkian.]
reċed †, m.n., building, hall; 412 (m.),
770, 1799; gs. reċedes, 326, 724,
3088; ds. reċede, 720, 728, 1572; as.
reċed, 1237; gp. reċeda, 310. [Cf. OS
rakud.] — Cpds.: eorð-, heal-, horn-,
wīn-.
reġn-heard ‡, adj., wonderfully strong;
apm. -e, 326. [Go. ragin. Cf. JEGP 15
(1916) 251–66.]
reġnian, rēnian, vb. II, prepare, trim;
rēn[ian], 2168; pp. ġereġnad, 777. See
reġn-heard.
ren-weard ‡, m., GUARDian of the house
(see note on 142); np. -as, 770.
(Berkhout & Medine N&Q 33 [1986]
433¯f.: ‘watchdog’) [See ærn; Lang.
§¯20.7.]
rēoc ‡, adj., ¢erce, savage; 122. [Holt.
Et.]
rēodan (†), vb. 2, REDDen; pp. roden,
1151.
r½n, see rōwan.
reord, f., speech, voice; as. -e, 2555. [Cf.
Go. razda. Archiv 167 (1935) 66¯f.]
(MLR 28 [1933] 231¯f.)
reordian, vb. II, speak, talk; 3025.
ġe-reordian, vb. II, prepare a feast; pp.
ġereorded, 1788.
rēotan †, vb. 2, weep; pres. 3 pl. rēotað,
1376.
rēotiġ †, adj., lamenting, dreary, mourn-
ful; asf. rēot[ġ]e, 2457 (n.). (Lang.
§¯7.3.)
rest, see ræst.
restan, vb. I, REST; 1793, 1857; (w.
reÏex. acc.:) pret. 3 sg. reste, 1799.
rēþe, adj.ja., ¢erce, cruel, furious; 122,
1585; npm., 770.
rīċe, nja., kingdom, realm, rule; 2199,
2207; gs. rīċes, 861, 1390, 1859, 2027,
3080; as. rīċe, 466, 912, 1179, 1733,
1853, 2369, 3004. (Mincoff 1933;
Sprache 12 [1966] 182–9.) [Cf.
(bishop)RIC; Go. reiki, OIcel. ríki,
NHG Reich. Orel 2003: 305.] —
(Cpd.: Swīo-.)
rīċe, adj.ja., powerful, mighty, of high
rank; 172, 1209, 1237, 1298; wk. (se)
rīċa, 310, 399, 1975. [RICH (cf. OFr.
riche); Go. reiks.]
ricone (recene), adv., quickly, at once;
2983. [IF 20 (1906–7) 329.]
rīcsian, vb. II, rule, hold sway; 2211;
pret. 3 sg. rīxode, 144. (Hallander
1966: 444–55.) [rīċe.]
rīdan, vb. 1, RIDE; 234, 855; pres. sj. 3
sg. rīde (‘swing on gallows’), 2445;
pret. 3 sg. rād, 1883 (‘ride at anchor’),
1893; 3 pl. riodan, 3169. (Brady PMLA
67 [1952] 549–51.)
ġe-rīdan, vb. 1, w. acc., RIDE up to; pret.
3 sg. ġerād, 2898.
rīdend (‡), mc., RIDer, horseman; np.,
2457 (n.).
riht, n., RIGHT, what is right; ds. rihte,
144; mid ~, 2056, æfter ~: 1049, 2110;
as. riht, 1700 (sōð ond ~, see Kl. 1911–
12: [35]), 2330 (law); on ryht (rightly),
1555. — Cpds.: ēðel-, folc-, lond-, un-,
word-.
rihte, adv., RIGHTly; 1695. Cpds.: æt-,
un-; cf. upp-riht.
rinċ †, man, warrior; 399, 720, 2985; ds.
rinċe, 952, 1677; as. rinċ, 741, 747; gp.
rinca, 412, 728. (Lindow 1976: 96–8.)
[OIcel. rekkr; cf. RANK, adj., fr. OE
 GLOSSARY
ranc.] — Cpds.: beado-, gūð-, heaðo-,
here-, hilde-, mago-, s®-.
riodan, see rīdan.
rīxian, see rīcsian.
rodor, m., sky, heaven; (pl. used w. sg.
meaning); gs. rodores, 1572; np.
roderas, 1376; gp. rodera, 1555; dp.
roderum, 310. (Benning 1961: 28–34.)
[By-form rador, OS radur.]
rōf †, adj., brave, strong; 682, 2084,
2538, 2666; asm. rōfne, 1793; asm.wk.
rōfan, 2690. (Schabram A. 75 [1957]
259–74, ZvS 84 [1970] 234¯f.: not ‘re-
nowned’ [so Kl., Bately 2003: 287–8,
but cf. hiġerōf].) — Cpds.: beadu-,
brego-, ellen-, gūð-, heaþo-, hiġe-, siġe-.
rond, m., †boss of shield (see Max II 37);
as., 2673 (n.: edge?); †shield; ds.
ronde, 2538, rande 1209; as. rond, 656,
2566, 2609, rand 682; ap. rondas, 326
(or bosses?), 2653, randas 231. [RAND,
see OED.] (See Shetelig & Falk 1937:
398; Brady 1979: 126–8; Cronan 2003:
402.) — Cpds.: bord-, ġeolo-, hilde-,
sīd-.
rond-hæbbend(e) ‡, mc. (pres.ptc.) [pl.],
shield-bearer (-HAVing), warrior; gp.
-hæbbendra, 861.
rōwan, vb. 7, ROW (i.e. swim); pret. 1 pl.
r½n (Appx.C §¯9), 539; 2 pl. ~, 512
(n.).
rūm, m.(?), ROOM, opportunity; 2690.
(Grüner 1972: 114–16.)
rūm, adj., ROOMy, spacious, large; nsn.,
2461; asm. -ne, 278.
rūm-heort, adj., large-HEARTed, noble-
spirited; 1799, 2110.
ġe-rūm-līċe (‡), adv., ‡at a distance, far
away; comp. -licor, 139. [Cf. ROOM-
iLY; on ġerūm, Rid 20.14, El 320;
OHG rūmo, rūmor.]
rūn, f., (RUNE), (secret) consultation,
council; ds. -e, 172. (Page Jnl. of the
Brit. Archaeol. Assn. ser. 3, no. 27
[1964] 14–31, H.-G. Goetz Geschichte
des Wortes ‘rūn (rune)’ und seiner
Ableitungen im Englischen [Göttingen,
1964], Fell 1991.) [Pierce ABzäG 58
(2003) 29–37.] — Cpd.: beadu-; cf.
hel-rūne.
rūn-stæf, m., RUNic letter; ap. -stafas,
1695. [STAFF, STAVE.]
rūn-wita †, wk.m., con¢dant, trusted
adviser; 1325.
425
ryht, see riht.
(ġe-)r©man, vb. I, clear, vacate, yield;
pret. sj. 3 pl. ġer©mdon, 1086; pp.
ġer©med, 492, 1975; — allow, grant;
pp. ~, 2983, 3088. [rūm; cf. NHG
(ein)räumen.]
ġe-rysne, (-risne), adj.ja., proper, ¢t,
becoming, appropriate; nsn. ġerysne,
2653. [ġerīsan.]
ġe-saca, wk.m., adversary; as. ġesacan,
1773. [sacan; cf. andsaca.]
sacan, vb. 6, contend, ¢ght; 439. [Go.
sakan.] — Cpd.: on-.
sacu, f., strife, ¢ghting; 1857, 2472; as.
sæce, 154. (See J.M. Hill 1995: 71.)
[SAKE; NHG Sache; OIcel. s∂k, OS
saka ‘lawsuit,’ ‘enmity,’ etc.] See
sæċċ.
ġe-sacu (‡), f., contention, enmity; 1737.
(= sacu.)
sadol (‡) +, m., SADDLE; 1038.
sadol-beorht ‡, adj., SADDLE-BRIGHT,
made bright by a saddle; apn., 2175.
(Grinda 1993: 369–71.)
s®, m¢., SEA; 579, 1223; ds., 318, 544;
as., 507 (masc.), 2380, 2394 (n.: fem.,
lake?); dp. (be) s®m (twēonum), 858,
1297, 1685, 1956.
s®-bāt †, m., SEA-BOAT, ship; as., 633,
895.
sæċ(ċ) †, fjō., ¢ghting, battle, conÏict,
quarrel; gs. seċċe, 600; ds. (æt) sæċċe,
953, 1618, 1665, 2612, 2659, 2681, (tō)
~, 2686; as. ~, 1977, 1989, 2347, 2499,
2562; ap. (gp.?) sæċċa, 2029. (J.M.
Hill 1995: 72–3, 83: ‘settlement.’)
[Go. sakjō. See sacu.]
sæce, see sacu.
s®-cyning ‡, m., SEA-KING; gp. -a, 2382.
[Cf. OIcel. sæ-konungr.]
sæd, adj., w.gen., satiated with, having
had one’s ¢ll of, wearied with; asm.
-ne, 2723. [SAD; ZvS 93 (1979) 103–7.]
s®dan, s®de, see secgan.
s®-dēor (‡) +, n., SEA-beast; 1510. See
mere-.
s®-draca (‡) (+), wk.m., SEA-snake; ap.
-dracan, 1426.
s®ġan, vb. I, lay low, slay; pp. ġes®ġed,
884. [sīgan.]
s®-ġēap ‡, adj., curved (or spacious) (for
use on the SEA); 1896. (Hoops EStn.
64 [1929] 207–11.) See ġēap.
426 GLOSSARY
s®-genġa (‡) +, wk.m., SEA-goer, i.e.
‡ship; 1882, 1908. [gangan.]
s®gon, see sēon.
s®-grund, m., bottom of the SEA; ds. -e,
564.
sæl †, n. (BGdSL 31 [1906] 87 n.; SB
§§¯288¯f.; OEG §¯610.6), hall; as. sæl,
307, 2075, 2264; sel (see Lang. §¯3.1),
167. (Grüner 1972: 116–23.) [OIcel.
salr, NHG Saal. Cf. sele.]
s®l, m¢., (1) time, proper time, oppor-
tunity, season; 622, 1008, 1665, 2058;
gp. s®la, 1611; ap. sēle, 1135. — (2)
happiness, contentment; dp. s®lum,
1322; on sālum 607, on s®lum 643,
1170 (see: on). (Grüner 1972: 116–23.)
[J. Wright 1898–1905: SEAL, sb.2 Cf.
Go. sēls; — ġe-s®lan, ġe-s®liġ.] See
m®l.
s®-lāc ‡, n., SEA-booty; gp. -lāca, 1624;
ap. -lāc, 1652.
s®-lād †, f., SEA-journey, voyage; ds. -e,
1139, 1157.
s®lan (†), vb. I, fasten, moor; pret. 3 sg.
s®lde, 1917; 3 pl. s®ldon, 226; twist;
pp. ġes®led, 2764. [sāl.] — Cpd.: on-.
ġe-s®lan, vb. I, befall, chance, turn out
(¯favorably); pret. 3 sg. ġes®lde, 574,
890, 1250. [s®l.]
sæld (†), n., hall; as., 1280. [Perh. blend-
ing of two stems: sæl (cf. Go. saljan,
saliþwōs) and seþel¯/¯seld ‘seat.’] See
ġe-selda, seld-guma, medu-seld.
s®-līðend †, mc. [pl.], SEA-farer; np.,
411, 1818, 2806; -e, 377.
s®-man(n), mc., SEA-MAN; gp. -manna,
329; dp -mannum, 2954.
s®-mēþe ‡, adj.ja., SEA-weary; npm.,
325. See hyġe-.
s®mra, adj. comp., inferior, worse, weak-
er; 2880; dsm. s®mran, 953. Cf. s®ne.
s®-næs(s) (‡) (+), mja., (SEA-)headland;
ap. -næssas, 223, 571.
s®ne, adj.ja., slow; comp. s®nra, 1436.
[Cf. Go. sainjan.]
s®-rinċ †, m., SEA-man, -warrior; 690.
s®-sīð, m., SEA-journey, voyage; ds. -e,
1149.
s®-weal(l) †, m., SEA-WALL, shore; ds.
-wealle, 1924.
s®-wong ‡, m., plain by the SEA, shore;
as., 1964.
s®-wudu ‡, mu., (SEA-WOOD), ship; as.,
226.
s®-wylm ‡, mi., SEA-WELLing, billow;
ap. -as, 393. [weallan.]
sāl, m., rope; ds. -e, 302, 1906. [NHG
Seil.]
sālum, see s®l.
samod, I. adv., together; 2196; samod
ætgædere, 329b, 387b, 729b, 1063b; —
also (postpos.); somod, 2174; ond . . .
somod, 1211, 1614, 2343, 2987. — II.
prep., w. dat., simultaneously with, at,
in: ‡samod ®rdæġe, 1311, somod ~,
2942 (cf. mid ~, 126). [Go. samaþ; cf.
SAME, fr. ON.]
sand, n., SAND, shore; ds. -e, 213, 295,
1896, 1917, 1964, 3033.
sang, m., SONG, cry; 90, 1063; as., 787,
2447. (Parker 1956.) [Go. saggws.]
sār, n.(f.?), (SORE), pain, wound; 975;
nsf. sār, 2468 (n.), asn., 787; asf. -e,
2295¯(?, n.). [Go. sair.] — Cpd.: līċ-.
sār, adj., SORE, grievous, bitter; dpn.
-um, 2058.
sāre, adv., SOREly, grievously; 1251,
2222, 2295¯(?, n.), 2311, 2746. [NHG
sehr.]
sāriġ, adj., sad, full of pain; asm. -ne,
2447. [SORRY.]
sāriġ-ferð †, adj., sad at heart; 2863.
sāriġ-mōd (‡) (+), adj., sad-hearted;
dpm. -um, 2942.
sār-liċ, adj., painful, sad; nsn., 842, asn.,
2109.
sāwl-berend ‡, mc., (SOUL-BEARer),
human being; gp. -ra, 1004. (Cf. g®st-,
feorh-berend.)
sāwol, f., SOUL, life; 2820; gs. sāwele,
1742, sāwle, 2422; as. sāwle, 184, 801,
852. (See Kl. 1911–12: [40]; Stolz-
mann 1953: 84–9; Soland 1979: 46–
51.) [Go. saiwala.]
sāwol-lēas, adj., lifeLESS; asm. -ne, 1406,
3033 (sāwul-).
sāwul-drīor †, m. or n., life-blood, ds. -e,
2693.
scacan, vb. 6, hurry, pass, depart; w.
prep. or adv. of local force: 1803; pres.
3 sg. sceaceð, 2742; pret. 3 sg. scōc,
3118, s[c]eōc 2254; — abs., pp.
(gone): scacen, 1124b, 1136b, sceacen,
2306b, 2727b. [SHAKE.] (See Wyld
E&S o.s. 11 [1925] 85–7.)
ġe-scād, n., distinction, discrimination;
ġescād witan (w. gen.), distinguish,
understand, be a judge (of¯), 288 (n.).
 GLOSSARY
(Cf. NHG Bescheid wissen.) See ġe-
scādan.
scādan, vb. 7, decide, settle; pret. sj. 3
sg. scēde, 1106 (n.). [Go. skaidan;
SHED.]
ġe-scādan, vb. 7, decide; pret. 3 sg.
ġescēd, 1555.
scadu-helm ‡, m., cover of night (SHAD-
OW), darkness; gp. -a (ġesceapu), 650
(‘shapes of darkness,’ i.e. ‘night,’ see
Kl. 1911–12: [53]). Cf. niht-helm.
ġe-scæp-hwīl ‡, f., fated time (hour); ds.
-e, 26. [See ġe-sceap; scyppan.]
scami(ġ)an, vb. II, be aSHAMEd; scam-
iġan (w. gen.), 1026; pres.ptc. npm.
scamiende, 2850.
scaþa, see sceaþa.
sceacen, sceaceð, see scacan.
scead, n., pl. sceadu, SHADE(s), shadows;
ap., 707. See sceadu.
sceāden-m®l ‡, n., (ornamented with
distinctive or branching patterns, i.e.
damascened or) pattern-welded sword;
1939. Cf. wunden-m®l. (Sievers
BGdSL 36 [1910] 429¯f.; Hatto 1957:
152; Davidson 1962: 123–4. On pat-
tern welding and damascening, see
Engstrom et al. 1989; Biborski R.-L.2
27.562–8.)
sceadu, fwō., ap. sceadwa, SHADOW(s),
[1803]. See scead.
sceadu-genġa ‡, wk.m., walker in dark-
ness; 703.
scealc (†), m., retainer, warrior, man;
918, 939. (Orig. ‘servant’: Cronan
2003: 413–14.) [Go. skalks, OIcel.
skálkr, NHG Schalk; cf. marSHAL.] —
Cpd.: bēor-.
ġe-sceaft, ¢., (creation, abstr., & concr.
collect.), world; as., 1622. [scyppan.]
— Cpds.: forð-, līf-, m®l-; cf. ġeō-
sceaft(-), won-sceaft.
ġe-sceap, n., creation, creature, SHAPE,
form; np. ġesceapu, 650. — Cpd.:
hēah-.
sceapen, see scyppan.
scearp, adj., SHARP, acute, smart; 288.
— Cpd.: beadu-, heaðo-.
scēat, m., district, region, corner, sur-
face; gp. -a, 752; ap. -as, 96. [Go.
skauts, NHG Schoss; SHEET (fr.
scīete).] (See Kl. 1911–12: [3].)
sceat(t), m., property, treasure, money;
ap. sceattas, 1686. [Go. skatts, OIcel.
427
skattr, NHG Schatz; Naamkunde 4
(1972) 320¯ff.] — Cpd.: ġif-.
sceaþa, wk.m., one who does harm,
enemy; gp. sceaþena 4, sceaðona 274;
— †warrior; np. scaþan, 1803, 1895.
[sceððan.] (Taylor 1986: 41–3; cf.
Cronan 2003: 424–5.) — Cpds.: attor-,
dol-, fēond-, gūð-, hearm-, lēod-,
mān-, scyn-, syn-, þēod-, ūht-.
scēawian, vb. II, look at, view, examine,
see; 840, 1413 (n.), 2402, 2744, 3032,
scēawiġan 1391; pres. 2 pl. scēawiað
3104; sj. 1 sg. scēawiġe, 2748; 1 pl.
scēawian, 3008; pret. 3 sg. scēawode,
843, 1687, 2285, 2793; 3 pl. scēaw-
edon, 132, 204, 983, 1440; pp. ġe-
scēawod, 3075¯(n.), 3084 (perh.
‘shown,’ ‘presented,’ fr. ġe-scēawian;
Kl. A. 63 [1939] 425; cf. Dob.). [SHOW;
NHG schauen.] (See Penttilä 1956:
80–108, 111–15; Archiv 209 [1972]
357–60.) — Cf. lēas-scēawere.
scēde, see scādan.
sceft (sceaft), m., SHAFT (of arrow);
3118; [ds. -e, F. 7 (spear)]. — Cpds.:
here-, wæl-sceaft (spear).
scel, see sculan.
scenċan, vb. I, pour out, give to drink;
pret. 3 sg. scencte, 496. [SKINK (dial.);
NHG schenken.]
scenn (scenna, -e?)‡, sword-guard (?),
plate of metal on handle of sword (?);
dp. scennum, 1694. [Cos. Taalkundige
Bijdragen 1 (1877) 286: cf. Du.
scheen; ZföG 59 (1908) 343; Shetelig
& Falk 1937: 382; Holt.Et.; EGS 2
(1948–9) 75–8; Coatsworth & Pinder
2002: 251.]
ġe-sceōd, see ġe-sceðþan.
scēotan, vb. 2, SHOOT; pres. 3 sg.
scēoteð, 1744. — Cpd.: of-.
ġe-scēotan (‡) +, vb. 2, w. acc., (SHOOT),
‡dart or hurry to; pret. 3 sg. ġescēat,
2319.
scēotend (†) mc., SHOOTer, warrior; np.,
703, 1154; dp. -um, 1026.
scepen, see scyppan.
sceran, vb. 4, (SHEAR), cut; pres. 3 sg.
scireð, 1287.
ġe-sceran (‡), vb. 4, cut through; pret. 3
sg. ġescær, 1526; ġescer, 2973.
sceþðan, vb. 6, vb. I, injure, harm; w.
dat.; 1033, 1524; pret. 3 sg. scōd, 1887;
sceþede, 1514; — abs., w. on & acc.:
428 GLOSSARY
sceðþan, 243 (make a raid, cf. Lang.
§¯26.5) [Go. skaþjan; SCATHE, fr. ON
skaða.]
ġe-sceþðan, vb. 6, injure, harm; w. dat.;
1447; pret. 3 sg. ġescōd, 1502, 1587,
2777; ġesceōd, 2222.
scildiġ, see scyldiġ.
scild-weall ‡, m., SHIELD-WALL, phalanx
(?); as., 3118.
scile, see sculan.
scīnan, vb. 1, SHINE; 1517; pres. 3 sg.
scīneð, 606, 1571; [sc©neð, F. 7]; pret.
3 sg. scān, 321, 405, 1965; 3 pl.
scinon, 994; scionon, 303.
scinna (†), wk.m., evil spirit, demon; dp.
scinnum, 939. (In place-names: White-
lock 1951: 73.)
scionon, see scīnan.
scip, n., SHIP; 302; gs. -es, 35, 896; ds.
-e, 1895; as. scip, 1917; dp. scypon,
1154.
ġe-scipe ‡, ni., fate; ds., 2570. [Cf. ġe-
sceap; Gr.1; ZföG 56 (1905) 751.]
scip-here, mja., SHIP-army, naval force;
ds. -herġe, 243.
scīr, adj., bright, resplendent, glorious,
clear; 979; nsn., 322; gsn.wk. scīran,
1694; asn. scīr, 496. [Go. skeirs;
SHEER.]
scireð, see sceran.
scīr-ham ‡, adj., in bright armor; npm.
-e, 1895.
(ġe-)scōd, see (ġe-)sceþðan.
scofen, see scūfan.
scop, m., poet, singer; 496, 1066; gs. -es,
90. (Wissmann 1955; JEGP 77 [1978]
317–29; Opland 1980: 196–9 et
passim.) [Cf. OHG scopf. Related to
words meaning ‘mockery.’ See R.-L.2
5.381–4, Orel 2003: 346.]
(ġe-)sc(e)ōp, see (ġe-)scyppan.
scrīfan, vb. 1, decree, judge, impose
(sentence), w. dat. of pers.; 979. [Fr.
Lat. scribere; SHRIVE.] — Cpd.: for-.
ġe-scrīfan, vb. 1, decree, assign, w. dat.
of pers. & acc. of thing; pret. 3 sg.
ġescrāf, 2574.
scrīðan, vb. 1, glide, move, wander,
stride; 650, 703, 2569; pres. 3 pl.
scrīþað, 163. [OIcel. skríða, NHG
schreiten. See EStn. 56 (1922) 171¯f.;
Beibl. 37 (1926) 251; Watanabe Stud.
in Lang. & Culture (Osaka) 14 (1988):
107–20.]
scucca, wk.m., demon, devil; dp. scucc-
um, 939. [Holt.Et.; Jente 1921: §¯106;
Newton 1993: 143–4; in place-names:
Whitelock 1951: 73.]
scūfan, vb. 2, SHOVE, push, move
forward; pret. 3 pl. scufon, 215;
scufun, 3131; pp. scofen, 918. (ELN
14.2 [1976] 81–7.) — Cpds.: be-;
wīd-scofen.
*sculan, prp., (pres.:) SHALL, must,
ought, is to, (pret.:) had to, was to,
SHOULD; pres. 1 sg. sceal, 251; 2 sg.
scealt, 588, 2666; 3 sg. sceal, 20, 183,
271, 287, 440, 977, 1004, 1060, 1172,
1386, 1534, 2166, 2525, 2590, 2884,
3108, 3114; sceall, 3014, 3077; scel,
455 (inf. to be supplied fr. preced.
main clause), 2804, 3010; sj. 3 sg.
scyle 2657, scile 3176; pret. 2 sg.
sceoldest, 2056; 3 sg. scolde, 10, 85,
805, 819, 1070, 1443, 1449, 1464;
sceolde, 2341, 2400, 2408, 2421, 2442,
2585 (inf. to be supplied fr. preced.
main clause), 2589, 2627, 2918, 2963,
2974, [F. 29]; 3 pl. scoldon, 41, 832,
1305, 1637; sj. 3 sg. scolde, 965, 1328,
sceolde 2708; — chieÏy expressive of
futurity: shall (am determined to);
pres. 1 sg. sceal, 384, 424, 438, 601,
636, 1706, 2069; sceall, 2498, 2535; 2
sg. scealt, 1707; 3 sg. sceal, 1862,
3018, sceall, 2508, 3021; 1 pl. sculon,
683; pret. 3 sg. sceolde (was to), 3068;
sj. scolde (should, were to, would), 1
sg., 1477; 3 sg., 280, 691, 910 (ind.?);
— ref. to the performance of an act (or
to a state) in accordance w. one’s
nature or custom or as a duty (semi-
periphrastic); pres. 3 sg. sceall (‘it is
his nature to .¯.¯.’), 2275; pret. 3 sg.
scolde, 230, 1034, 1067, 1260; 3 pl.
scoldon, 704, 1798 (‘were accustomed
to’), sceoldon 2257; suggesting cer-
tainty: pres. 3 sg. sceal (‘is sure to’),
24. — W. omission of inf. of verb of
motion: 1 sg. sceal, 2816, sj. 2 sg.
scyle, 1179; of wesan (denot. futur.:) 3
sg. sceal, 1783, 1855, 2255, 2659.
(Kellermann 1954: 242–50; Standop
1957: 94–132; Henry 1966: 93–104;
Ogawa 1989: 27–32; Larrington 1993:
8; Cavill 1999: 45–50.)
scūr-heard †, adj., SHOWER-HARD,
hard(ened) in the storm of battle (?);
 GLOSSARY
nsf., 1033. (See note; Pearce MLN 7
[1892] 193¯f.; Palmer ibid. 8.121¯f.;
Krapp ibid. 19.234; Sed.3 note; Col-
grave MLR 32 [1937] 281 [scūr- =
‘rain’ confused w. reġn-, cf. reġn-
heard; so Wn.1–2 81, Wn.-B. 270]; Kl.
A. 63 [1939] 414; Krapp 1906: 133–4
re: And 1133; Davidson 1962: 132–3;
MLN 86 [1971] 378–80; Grinda 1993:
360–1; Cronan 2003: 410–11.)
scyld, m., SHIELD; 2570, [F. 7]; as., 437,
2675; ap. -as, 325 (n.), 333, 2850.
scyldan, vb. I, protect; pret. sj. 3 sg.
scylde, 1658 (n.). [scyld.]
scyld-freca ‡, wk.m., (SHIELD-)warrior;
1033.
scyldiġ, adj., guilty; (synnum) scildiġ,
3071 (cf. fāh 978, 1001); (w. gen. of
crime:) morðres scyldiġ, 1683; having
forfeited (w. gen.): ealdres ~, 1338,
2061. (Büchner 1968: 151–72.) [scyld
‘guilt’; sculan.]
scyld-wiga ‡, wk.m., (SHIELD-)warrior;
288.
scyle, see sculan.
scyndan, vb. I, rush, (quickly) advance;
intr., 2570; trans., pp. scynded, 918
(n.). [OIcel., Swed. skynda, Dan.
skynde.]
sc©ne (†), adj.ja., beautiful, lovely; nsf.
(wk.?), 3016. (Juzi 1939: 12–15.)
[SHEEN; Go. skauns (adj.i.), NHG
schön.]
scyn-scaþa (scin-) ‡, wk.m., demonic
foe, hostile demon; 707 (MS syn-; cf.
TSLL 23 [1981] 485).
scyp, see scip.
scyppan, vb. 6, create, SHAPE, make; pp.
scepen, 2913; assign (name): pret. 3
sg. scōp, 78. [Go. ga-skapjan.] —
Cpd.: earm-sceapen.
ġe-scyppan, vb. 6, create; pret. 3 sg.
ġesceōp, 97.
scyppen, mc., creator; 106. (Lang.
§¯20.7.)
sc©ran (scīran), vb. I, clear up, settle;
1939. [scīr. See also Kock2 109.]
s¬, sēo, þæt, dem. pron.; (a) dem. adj.
(def. article? see OES §¯237), THE,
THAT: (b1) subst., that one, he, she,
that, it; (b2) rel., that, who, which,
what; (b3) sē (etc.) þe, rel. — nsm. sē,
se, (a) (107×) 84, 86, 92, 102, 205,
258, etc.; (b1) (9×) 196, 469, 898, etc.;
429
(b2) 12×, 143, 370, 1267, etc.; (b3) sē
þe (47×) 79, 87, 90, 103, 230, 289,
etc.; 441: sē þe hine (he whom); 2292:
sē ðe, he whom. — nsf. sēo (13×); (a)
(12×) 66, 146, etc., 2031, 2258a, 2323;
(b3) sēo ðe: 1445; sīo (16×) 2024 (n.),
2087, 2098, 2258b, 2403, and then
regularly; (a) (13×); (b1): 2024, 2087,
(b2): 2258b; sīe, (a): 2219. — nsn. þæt
(usually spelt ³) (66×); (a) (18×) 133,
191, 890, etc.; (b1) (46×) mostly: þæt
wæs, 11, 170, 309, etc. (ne wæs þæt,
716, 734, 1455, 1463, 2415, 2586; þæt
is [bið], 454, 1002, 1388, 1611, 2000,
2999; nis þæt, 249, 1361, 2532); (b2):
453, 2500. — gsm. þæs (9×), ðæs
(10×); (a) (18×) 132, 326 (gsn.?), 989,
1030, etc.; (b2): 1145 (gsn.?). — gsf.
þ®re, (a): 109 (d.?), 1025, 2546, 2887;
ð®re, (a): 562; [F. 20]. — gsn. þæs
(incl. ðæs 10×) (49×); (a) (5×) 1467,
etc.; (b1) w. verbs governing the gen.:
350, 586, 778, 1598, 2026, 2032;
(semi-adv.) for that, because of that,
w. expressions of compensation, re-
ward, thanks, rejoicing, sorrow, etc.; 7,
16, 114, 277, 588, 900, 1220, 1584,
1692, 1774, 1778, 1992, 2335, 2739;
(adv.) to such a degree, so; 773, 968,
1366, 1508, 1509, tō þæs 1616; (b2)
rel.; (semi-adv., as:) 272, 383; 1398
(incl. rel. & antecedent); (b3) þæs þe
(ðe); (semi-conj.) because, as, after;
108, 228, 626, 1585 (n.), 1628, 1751 (?,
n.), 1779 (w. antec. þæs, b1; but see
OES §¯3114), 1998, 2797; according to
what, as (conj.): 1341, 1350, 3000; tō
þæs þe (rel. & antec.), see tō. — dsm.
þ®m (23×), ð®m (5×), þām (19×),
ðām (20×) (þ®m, ð®m in the A part of
the MS only; þām, ðām in the B part,
besides þām 425, 713, 824, 919, 1016,
1073, 1421); (a) (52×) 52 (dsn.?), 143,
197, 270, etc.; in (& si.) sele þām
hēan: 713, 919, 1016, 1984; (b1) 12, 59,
1363, 2612; (b2) 310 (dsn.?), 374, (rel.
& antec.:) 2199, 2779; (b3) þ®m
(þām) ðe (rel. & antec.), 183, 186,
1839, 2601, 2861, 3055, 3059. — dsf.
þ®re; (a) (9×) 109 (g.?), 125, 617, etc.;
[ð®re, F. 31]. — dsn.; (a) þ®m 1215,
1484, 1635, þām 1421, 2298, ðām 639,
2232; (b1) þām 137, ð®m 1688 (n.),
ðām 2769; see also for-ðām. — asm.
430 GLOSSARY
þone (66×, incl. ðone 12×); (a) (52×)
107, 168, 202, etc.; ūhthlem þone 2007
(Lang. §¯26.4), si. 2334, 2588, 2959,
2969, 3081; beorh þone h¼n 3097;
(b1) 1354, 3009 (þone .¯.¯. þe); (b2): 13,
2048, 2751; (b3) þone þe, 1054, 1298,
2056, 2173, 3034; after a noun or
pronoun in the acc., (him) who: 2251,
2295, 3003, 3116. — asf. þā (15×), ðā
(4×); [F. 23]; all (a), 189, 354, 470,
etc., excl. 2022: (b2). — asn. þæt
(usually spelt ³) (59×); (a) (17×) 628,
654, etc.; (b1) (36×) 194, 290, etc.;
(b2) (7×) 15 (n.), 766, 1456, 1466, etc.
— ism. þ©, (a): 2573, isn. þ©, ð©
(20×); þē (ðē): 242 (n.), 488, 821,
1000 (n.), 1436a, 1436b (?, n.), 2638,
2641, 2687; (a): 110, 1664, 1797, 2028,
2573; (b1) for that reason, therefore:
1273, 2067, 2638; because, since: 488,
1000 (?, n.), 1436b (?, n.), 2641; before
comp. (cf. EStn. 44 [1912] 212–39):
a
THE, any: 487, 821, 1436 , 1902, 2749,
2880; ne .¯.¯. ð© sēl: 2277, 2687; nō þ©
lenġ, 974; nō þ© ®r, see ®r; (b2) þ©
l®s, LESt, 1918. þon, (b1); þon (mā),
any (see BGdSL 29 [1904] 286; Small
1929: 89–96; Dal Norske Vidensk.-
Akademi i Oslo, Avhandl., Hist.-Filos.
Kl., 1932, No. 2), 504; 2423 (n.); after
prep.: after þon 724, be þon 1722, tō
ðon 2591, 2845; tō þon 1876 (to that
degree, so); see also for-ðan, for-ðon;
®r þon [b2], conj.), before, 731. —
npm. (n.: 639, 1135, 2948) þā (14×),
ðā (9×), [F. 47]; (a) (12×) 3 (n.), 99,
221, etc.; (b1) þā (. . . þe) 44 (allit.);
(b2) (6×) 41, 113, etc.; (b3) þā þe (5×)
378, 1135, etc. — gpm.f.n. þāra (20×),
ðāra 937, 1578, 1686, 2734, 2779,
2794, þ®ra 992, 1266, ð®ra 1349, [F.
48]; (a) (7×) ŐőŗŖ ymbsittendra 9;
ymbĺsittendra ®niġ ðāra 2734; (b1)
1015 (n.), 1037, 1248, 1266, 1349;
þ®ra (. . . þē) 992; (b3) þāra (etc.) ðe:
206, 878, 1123, 1196, 1578, 1625 (n.);
when containing the subj., (of those)
who (which), foll. by the sg.: 843, 996,
1051, 1407, 1461, 1686, 2130, 2383, or
by the pl. of the verb: 98, 785, 937. —
dpm.f.n. þ®m, ð®m (6×, in A); þām,
ðām (7×, in B, and 1855); all (a), 370,
1191, etc. — apm.f.n. þā (10×, ðā 11×,
[F. 42]); all (a), excl. 488, 2148 (n.),
3014: (b1), and [1174]: b2). — Note.
The line of division between the dem.
(b1) and rel. (b2) function is often
doubtful. As to the use of se, sēo, þæt
as ‘def. article,’ see Lang. §¯26.3. The
dem. adj. alliterates: 197a, 790a, 806a;
736a; 1675b, 1797b, 2033b. — On sē vs.
se, see Appx.C §¯3. See also rel. part.
þ¬.
sealma (selma) (‡) (+), wk.m., bedstead,
bed, couch; as. sealman, 2460. [OS
selmo; EpGl 955: selma = sponda
(Hoops St. 125).]
•sealo-brūn¯‡, adj., [SALLOW- or] dark-
BROWN; [F. 35].
sealt, adj., SALT; asn., 1989.
searo, nwa., (pl. freq. w. sg. meaning),
contrivance, skill; dp. searwum, 1038,
2764; — work of art, war-gear, equip-
ment, armor; np. searo, 329; dp.
searwum, 249, 323, 1557 (n.), 1813,
2530, 2568, 2700; apn. searo, [2217];
— battle (cf. searo-grim); dp. ~, 419,
1557(?). (Brady 1979: 118–21.) [Go.
sarwa, pl.] — Cpds.: fyrd-, gūð-,
inwit-.
searo-bend ‡, fjō. (mi.), cunningly
wrought BAND or clasp; dp. -um, 2086.
searo-fāh ‡, adj., cunningly decorated;
nsf., 1444.
searo-ġim(m), m., skilfully wrought
GEM, precious jewel; gp. -ġimma,
1157, 3102; ap. -ġimmas, 2749. See
ġim(m).
searo-grim(m) ‡, adj., ¢erce in battle;
-grim, 594.
searo-hæbbend(e) †, mc. (pres.ptc.)
[pl.], (armor-HAVing), warrior; gp.
-hæbbendra, 237.
searo-net(t) †, nja., armor-NET or battle-
net, mail shirt or coat; -net, 406. Cf.
brēost-, here-, hrinġ-, inwit-net(t).
searo-nīð, m., crafty enmity, treacherous
quarrel; ap. -as, 1200, 2738; — battle,
contest; gp. -a, 582; ap. -as, 3067. (SP
80 [1983] 109–25.)
searo-þonc (†), m., ingenuity, skill; dp.
-um, 775.
searo-wundor ‡, n., curious WONDER,
wonderful thing; as., 920.
seax, n., knife, short sword (with single
edge); as., 1545. (Gale in Hawkes
1989: 71–83; Medieval Archaeology
33 [1989] 144–8; Underwood 1999:
 GLOSSARY
68–71.) [OED: SAX; OIcel. sax, OS
sahs.] — Cpd.: wæll-.
sec, see secg.
sēċan, vb. I, SEEK; try to ¢nd or to get;
abs.: pret. 3 sg. sōhte, 2293 (search),
2572 (desire, demand); w. obj.: inf.
(f®hðe) sēċan, 2513; ger. (si.)
sēċeanʼnĺ, 2562; (cf.) imp. sēċ, 1379;
pret. 1 sg. sōhte, 2738; 3 sg. ~, [139],
[2231], 2300, 3067; w. obj. and tō
(¯from, at): inf. sēċean, 1989, 2495, [F.
27]; pres. 3 pl. sēċeað, 3001; — try to
reach (by attack): inf. (sāwle) sēċan
801, (si.) sēċean 2422 (see Kl. 1911–
12: [40]: animam quaerere, Matt. 2:¯¯20,
etc.); — go to, visit; inf. sēċean, 187,
200, 268, 645, 821, 1597, 1869, 2820,
2950, 3102; sēċan, 664, 756, 1450,
1820; pres. 3 sg. sēċeð, 2272; sj. 3 sg.
sēċe, 1369; pret. 2 sg. sōhtest, 458; 3
sg. sōhte, 208, 376; 2 pl. sōhton, 339;
3 pl. sōhtan, 2380; sj. 1 sg. sōhte, 417.
[Go. sōkjan.] — Cpds.: ofer-, on-.
ġe-sēċan, vb. I, SEEK, look for; ġesēċean
(wīġ), 684; go to, visit: ~, 692, 2275;
ġesēċan, 1004; ger. ġesēċanne, 1922;
pret. 3 sg. ġesōhte, 463, 520, 717,
1951; pp. npf. ġesōhte, 1839; — go to,
attack; pres. 3 sg. ġesēċeð, 2515; pret.
3 pl. ġesōhtan 2204, ġesōhton 2926; sj.
3 sg. ġesōhte, 2346.
seċċe, see sæċ(ċ).
secg †, mja., man; 208, 249, 402, 871,
980, 1311, 1569, 1812, 2226, 2352,
2406, 2700, 2708, 3028, 3071; sec,
2863 (n.); vs., 947, 1759; ds. secge,
2019; as. secg, 1379; np. secgas, 213,
2530, 3128; gp. secga, 633, 842, 996,
1672, dp. secgum, 490. [OIcel. seggr;
cf. Lat. socius.]
secg †, fjō., sword; as. -e, 684. [See
OED: SEDGE, sb.1; cf. saw, OE seax;
Lat. secare.]
secgan, vb. III, SAY, tell; abs.: 273; pret.
3 sg. sæġde, 90, 2899; w. acc.: inf.
secgan, 582, 875, 880, 1049; pres. 1
sg. secge, 1997, 2795; pret. 2 sg.
sæġdest, 532; 3 sg. sæġde, 1809, 2632;
cf. pp. ġesæġd, 141; w. gen.: pres.ptc.
(mc.) secggende (wæs), 3028 (n.); —
foll. by indir. question (hū, hwā,
hwæt): inf. secgan, 51, 3026; ger.
secganʼnĺ, 473, 1724; pp. ġes®d, 1696;
foll. by þæt-clause: inf. secgan, 391,
431
1818; pres. 1 sg. secge, 590; 3 pl.
secgað, 411; pret. 3 sg. sæġde, 1175,
sæide, 3152, [F. 44]; — w. pron. þæt
and þæt-clause: inf. secgan, 942, 1346,
1700, 2864; pret. 3 pl. sæġdon, 377; w.
obj. ōðer and þæt-clause: s®dan, 1945.
(Flasdieck Angl. 59 [1935] 26–30;
Goossens 1985.) [OHG sagēn.] —
Cpd.: ā-.
ġe-secgan, vb. III, SAY, tell; imp. sg.
ġesaga, 388; pret. sj. 1 sg. ġesæġde,
2157.
sefa, wk.m., mind, heart, spirit; 490, 594,
2600; him wæs ġeōmor sefa, 49, 2419,
si. 2632; si. 2043, 2180; ds. sefan, 473,
1342, 1737; as. ~, 278, 1726, 1842.
(Soland 1979: 63–9; North 1991: 63–
98.) [OS seİo.] — Cpd.: mōd-.
sēft, see sōfte.
ġe-sēgan (-on), see ġe-sēon.
seġen, see seġn.
seġl, m.n., SAIL; 1906. [Bamm. 1979:
113; Thier 2003; Sayers Intl. Jnl. of
Nautical Archaeology 33 (2004) 348–
50.]
seġl-rād ‡, f., SAIL-ROAD, sea, lake; ds.
-e, 1429. (Brady PMLA 67 [1952]
562¯f.)
seġn, m.n., banner, standard; ds. seġne,
1204; as. seġn, 2776, (neut.:) 2767;
(masc.:) seġen, 47, 1021; np. (neut.)
seġn, 2958 (LSE 20 [1989] 316¯f.). [Fr.
Lat. signum; SIGN fr. OFr. signe;
Wollmann 1990: 290–323.] — Cpd.:
eafor-hēafod-.
sel, see sæl.
sēl (noun), see s®l.
sēl, adv. comp., better; 1012, 2530, [F.
38, 39]; ne byð him wihte ð© sēl,
2277, si. 2687. See gōd.
ġe-selda †, wk.m., (one in the same
hall), companion, associate, comrade;
as. ġeseldan, 1984. [See sæld.]
seldan, adv., SELDOM; 2029 (n.).
seld-guma ‡, wk.m., hall-man, retainer;
249 (n.). [See sæld.]
sele (†), mi., hall; 81, 411; ds., 323, 713,
919, 1016, 1640, 1984, 3128; as., 826,
2352. (Neophil. 64 [1980] 113–20.)
[Cf. sæl.] — Cpds.: bēah-, bēor-,
dryht-, eorð-, ġest-, gold-, gūð-, hēah-,
hrinġ-, hrōf-, nīð-, wīn-.
sele-drēam †, m., joy of the hall; ap. -as,
2252.
432 GLOSSARY
sele-ful(l) ‡, n., hall-cup; as. -ful, 619.
sele-ġyst ‡, mi., hall-visitor (-GUEST);
as., 1545.
sele-r®dend(e) †, mc. (pres.ptc.) [pl.],
hall-counselor, -ruler; np. -e, 51; ap.
-e, 1346.
sele-rest ‡, fjō.(?), bed in a hall; as. -e,
690. See ræst.
sēlest, see gōd.
sele-þeġn ‡, m., hall-THEGN, chamber-
lain, oÌcial of the court, attendant;
1794.
sele-weard ‡, m., hall-GUARD(ian); as.,
667.
self, pron., SELF; (1) strong inÏ.; used
abs.: sylf, 1964; gsm. (transl. ‘his
own’) selfes, 700, 895; sylfes, 2222,
2360, 2639, 2710, 2776, 3013; in
connect. with a poss. pron.: on
[mīn]ne sylfes dōm, 2147; as. sylfne,
1977; npm. selfe, 419; — w. a noun or
pers. pron.; self, 594, 920, 1010, 1313;
sylf 2702, [F. 17, 27]; gsm. selfes,
1147; sylfes, 2013, 2325; gsf. selfre,
1115; asm. selfne, 961, 1605; sylfne,
2875; gpm. sylfra, 2040; apm. sylfe,
1996; along w. the dat. of pers. pron.:
(þū) þē self, 953. — (2) weak inÏ.;
nsm. selfa, 29, 1468, 1733, 1839 (him
~), 1924; sylfa, 505, 3054; seolfa,
3067. (See J.M. Farr Intensives and
ReÏexives in AS and Early ME [Johns
Hopkins diss., 1905]; Ingersoll 1978:
208–13; re: God sylf, see Robinson
1985: 45.)
sēlla, see gōd.
sellan, vb. I, give; syllan, 2160, 2729;
pres. 3 sg. seleð, 1370 (give up), 1730,
1749; pret. 2 sg. sealdest, 1482; 3 sg.
sealde, 72, 672, 1271, 1693, 1751,
[2019], 2155, 2182, 2490, 2994, 3055,
(offer, pass:) 622, 2024; 3 pl. sealdon,
1161 (serve). [SELL; Go. saljan. ZvS 83
(1969) 125–9.]
ġe-sellan, vb. I, give, make a present of,
1029; pret. 3 sg. ġesealde, 1052, 1866,
1901, 2142, 2172, 2195, 2810, 2867,
(offer, pass:) 615.
sel-liċ, syl-liċ, adj., strange, wonderful;
nsf. sylliċ, 2086; asn. ~, 2109; apm.
selliċe, 1426. Comp. asf. syllicran,
3038. (Juzi 1939: 64–5.) [Cf. seldan.]
sēlra, see gōd.
semninga, adv., immediately, suddenly,
‡at last (Kock4); 1767; oþ þæt ~: 644,
1640. [Cf. æt-, tō-somne.]
sendan, vb. I, SEND; pret. 1 sg. sende,
471; 3 sg. ~, 13, 1842.— Cpds.: for-,
on-.
sēo, see sē.
sēoc, adj., SICK, weakened; 2740, 2904;
sad: npm. sēoce, 1603. [Go. siuks,
OIcel. sjúkr, NHG siech.] — Cpds.:
ellen-, feorh-, heaðo-.
seofan, num., SEVEN; uninÏ.: a., 2195;
inÏ.: syfone, 3122.
seofonniht, fc., SENNIGHT, week; as.,
517. (HOEM §¯199; Appx.A §¯14, cap.
11.)
seolfa, see self.
seomian †, vb. II, rest, lie, remain,
hover, hang; siomian, 2767; pret. 3 sg.
seomade, 161 (n.), seomode 302.
[OHG gi-semōn; BGdSL 55 (1931)
311¯f.]
sēon, vb. 5, look; pret. 3 sg. seah (on w.
acc.), 2717, 2863; 3 pl. (on) sāwon,
1650; (tō) s®gon, 1422; — SEE; sēon
387, 920, 1365, 3102, s½n 1180, 1275;
pret. 1 sg. seah, 336, 2014. [Go.
saíhwan.] (See Penttilä 1956: 16–28.)
— Cpds.: ġeond-, ofer-.
ġe-sēon, vb. 5, SEE, perceive; 396, 571,
648, 961, 1078, 1126 (go to), 1485,
1628, 1875 (n.), 1998; pres. 3 sg.
ġesyhð, 2041, 2455; pret. 1 sg. ġeseah,
247, 1662; 3 sg. ~, 229, 728, 926,
1516, 1557, 1585, 1613, 2542, 2604,
2756, 2767, 2822; 3 pl. ġesāwon, 221,
1023, 1347, 1425, 1591, 2252¯(n.);
ġesēgan 3038, ġesēgon 3128; sj. 3 pl.
ġesāwon, 1605. (See Penttilä 1956: 41–
80.)
seonu, fwō., SINEW; np. seonowe, 817.
sēoðan, vb. 2, w. acc., SEETHE, boil,
cause to well up, brood over; pret. 1
sg. (-ċeare) sēað, 1993; 3 sg. (~) ~, 190
(n.).
seoððan, see siððan.
seowian, vb. II, SEW, put together, link;
pp. seowed, 406 (ref. to the ‘battle-
net,’ cf. hræġl, etc.; or possibly sēow-
ed, if to *sīowan, vb. I). [Gothic
siujan. See Holt.Et.; Brunner Beibl. 52
(1941) 53; Pokorny 1959: 916; OEG
§¯753.6.]
ses(s) (‡) (+), m.(n.?), SEAT; ds. sesse,
2717, 2756. [EpGl 1021: ses =
 GLOSSARY
transtrum; cf. Sedge¢eld JEGP 35
(1936) 166; OIcel. sess; OE sittan.]
sētan, see sittan.
setl, n., SEAT; gs. -es, 1786; ds. -e, 1232,
1782, 2019; as. setl, 2013; dp. -um,
1289. [SETTLE. Weyhe BGdSL 30
(1905) 67–75; SB §¯201.3 & n.¯4, OEG
§¯419; Bamm. 1979: 113–14.] —
Cpds.: hēah-, hilde-, meodo-.
settan, vb. I, SET; pret. 3 pl. setton, 325,
1242; pp. nsn. ġeseted (set down),
1696. [Go. satjan.] — Cpds.: ā-, be-.
ġe-settan, vb. I, SET, establish; pret. 3
sg. ġesette, 94; settle, pres. sj. 3 sg. ~,
2029.
sex-ben(n) ‡, fjō., dagger-wound; dp.
-bennum, 2904. [See seax; Lang. §¯13
rem.]
sib(b), fjō., kinship, friendship, peace;
sib, 1164, 1857; gs. sibbe, 2922; as.
sibbe, 154, 949, 2431; sibb’, 2600 (n.)
(‘ties of kinship’). [Go. sibja. Cf.
gosSIP. Vennemann in Heizmann &
van Nahl 2003.] See Grønbech 1909–
12: 1.61–2; Kellermann 1954: 31–40;
Weimann Der Friede im Ae. (Bonn
diss., 1966); legal vs. blood kinship:
Schwab Studi medievali 3rd ser., no.
12 (1971) 355–81; D. Green 1998: 59–
62. — Cpds.: dryht-, friðu-.
sib-æðeling ‡, m., related noble; np. -as,
2708.
sibbe-ġedriht †, ¢., band of kinsmen; as.
sibbĺġedriht, 387, 729. (As if a gen.
cpd.; see Appx.C §¯23.)
sīd, adj., large, spacious, broad, great;
nsf., 1444, 2086; nsn.wk. -e, 2199;
dsm.wk. -an, 2347; asm. -ne, 437, 507,
1726; asf. -e, 1291, 2394; asn.wk. sīde,
1733; gpf. -ra, 149; apm. -e, 223, 325.
sīde, adv., widely; 1223.
sīd-fæþme ‡, adj.ja., roomy; asn., 1917.
[fæþm.]
sīd-fæþmed ‡, adj. (pp.), roomy; nsn.,
302. [fæþm.]
sīd-rand ‡, m., broad shield; 1289.
sīe, see eom.
sīe, 2219, see sē.
siġ, see eom.
sīgan, vb. 1, sink, fall; pret. 3 pl. sigon,
1251; move (together), march, ~, 307.
ġe-sīgan, vb. 1, sink, fall; 2659.
•siġe-beorn¯‡, m., victorious warrior;
[gp. -a, F. 38].
433
siġe-drihten †, m., victorious lord; 391.
siġe-ēadiġ ‡, adj., victory-blessed, victo-
rious; asn., 1557.
siġe-folc †, n., victorious or gallant
people; gp. -a, 644. See folc.
siġe-hrēð ‡, (n., see hrēð), glory of
victory; as., 490 (n.).
siġe-hrēþiġ †, adj., victorious, trium-
phant; 94, 1597, 2756.
siġe-hwīl ‡, f., time of victory, victory;
gp. -a, 2710 (cf. Bu.Zs. 217, Mackie
1941: 96: gs.; see Lang. §¯19.3 rem.).
siġel †, n.(?), sun; 1966. (Cf. MRune 45–7.)
siġe-lēas, adj., without victory, of defeat;
asm. -ne, 787.
siġe-rōf (†), adj., courageous in victory,
victorious; 619. See rōf.
siġe-þēod †, f., victorious or glorious
people; ds. -e, 2204.
siġe-w®pen ‡, n., victory-WEAPON; dp.
-w®pnum, 804.
siġle (‡) +, n., jewel, brooch, necklace;
as., 1200; gp. siġla, 1157; ap. siġlu,
3163. [OIcel. sigli; — fr. siġel ‘brooch,
clasp’ (orig. ‘sun’? or fr. Lat. sigil-
lum).] — Cpd.: māððum-.
sigor, (nc.) m., victory, triumph, glory;
gs. -es, 1021; gp. -a, 2875, 3055. [Cf.
siġe(-); Go. sigis, OIcel. sigr, NHG
Sieg; BGdSL 31 (1906) 87; SB §¯289.2
& nn. 5¯f., OEG §¯636; Stanley 1993:
174–210.] — Cpds.: hrēð-, wīġ-.
sigor-ēadiġ ‡, adj., victorious; 1311,
2352.
sīn (†), poss. pron. (reÏ.), his; dsm.
sīnum, 2160; dsn. ~, 1236, 1507 (her);
asm. sīnne, 1960, 1984, 2283, 2789.
[Go. seins, OIcel. sinn, NHG sein.]
sinċ †, n., treasure, jewels, precious
object, ornament; 2764; gs. sinċes
(brytta): 607, 1170, 1922, 2071; ds.
sinċe, 1038, 1450, 1615, 1882, 2217,
2746; as. sinċ, 81, 1204, 1485, 2023
(n.), 2383, 2431; gp. sinca, 2428.
(Tyler 2006: 77–89.) [See H. Falk
Altwestnord. Kleiderkunde (Kristiania,
1919) 30; Newton 1993: 33.]
sinċ-fæt †, n., precious cup, costly
object; as., 1200 (n.), 2231, 2300; ap.
-fato, 622. [VAT.]
sinċ-fāg †, adj., richly decorated; asn.
wk. -e, 167. (Cf. gold-fāg.)
sinċ-ġestrēon †, n., treasure; gp. -a,
1226; dp. -um, 1092.
434 GLOSSARY
sinċ-ġifa †, wk.m., treasure-GIVer; ds.
-ġifan, 2311, -ġyfan 1342 (Holt., note:
ds. of -ġyfu[?]); as. ~, 1012.
sinċ-māðþum ‡, m., treasure, jewel;
-māðþĿm, 2193.
sinċ-þego †, f., receiving of treasure;
2884. [þicgan.]
sin-frēa ‡, wk.m., great lord; -fr¼ 1934
(n.). (Cf. Robinson 1970a: 102 n.¯7,
MR: husband.) [sin- ‘continual, great,’
see the foll. sin-cpds. and syn-dolh,
-sn®d; cf. sym(b)le; Go. sinteins;
SEN-(green) (dial.).]
sin-gāl, adj., continual; asf. -e, 154.
sin-gāla, sin-gāles, (†), adv., continually,
always; -gāla, 190; -gāles, 1777; syn-
gāles, 1135.
singan, vb. 3, SING, ring (out); [pres. 3
pl. singað, F. 5]; pret. 3 sg. sang, 496,
[3152]; song, 323, 1423. (See R.-L.1
1.443.) — Cpd.: ā-.
sin-here ‡, mja., huge army; ds. -herġe,
2936. (Cf. Robinson 1970a: 102 n.¯7,
1973: standing army [MR: i.e. person-
al retinue].)
sinniġ, adj., (SINful), culpable; asm. -ne,
1379. [syn(n).]
sin-nihte †, nja., perpetual NIGHT or
darkness; as. -e, 161. (So Kl.3 Su.; see
BTS; Girvan 1935: 10; Dob. 125.)
sint, see eom.
sīo, see sē.
sioloð ‡, m.(?), water, sea (?); gp.
sioleða, 2367 (n.) (see begong).
(Bu.Zs. 214; Hoops St. 123¯f.)
siomian, see seomian.
sittan, vb. 5, SIT; pres. 3 sg. siteð, 2906;
pret. 3 sg. sæt, 130, 286, 356, 500,
1166, 1190, 2852, 2894; 3 pl. s®ton,
1164, sētan 1602; — sit down; inf.
sittan, 493, 641; imp. sg. site, 489. —
Cpds.: be-, for-, of-, ofer-, on-, ymb-;
Ïet-, heal-, ymb(e)-sittend(e).
ġe-sittan, vb. 5, SIT down (ingress.); pret.
3 sg. ġesæt, 171, 749 (sit up, see note),
1424, 1977, 2417, 2717; pp. ġeseten,
2104; — w. acc., sit down in: pret. 1
sg. ġesæt, 633.
sīð, m., (1) going, trek, trip, voyage;
undertaking, venture, expedition; 501,
765, 1971 (coming), 2586, 3089; gs.
sīðes, 579, 1475, 1794, 1908; ds. sīðe,
532, 1951, 1993; as. sīð, 353, 512, 872,
908 (Kock4 117: fate; Dob.: way?),
1278, 1429, 1966; np. sīðas, 1986; gp.
sīða, 318; ap. sīðas, 877; course (of
action), way (of doing); ns. sīð, 2532,
2541, 3058. — (2) time, occasion; ns.
(forma) sīð, 716, 1463, 1527, 2625; ds.
(forman, n©hstan, etc.) sīðe, 740 (n.),
1203, 2049, 2286, 2511, 2517, 2670,
2688, [3101], [F. 19]; as. sīð, 1579.
(Grüner 1972: 123–8.) [Go. sinþs. Cf.
sendan.] — Cpds.: ċear-, eft-, ellor-,
gryre-, s®-, wil-, wræc-; ġe-.
sīð, adv. comp., later; 2500 (see ®r).
[Go. (þana-)seiþs; NHG seit.]
ġe-sīð, m., retainer, companion; gs. -es,
1297; np. sw®se ġesīðas, 29, 2040
(n.), so ap.: 2518; gp. sw®sra ġesīða,
1934; dp. ġesīðum, 1313, 1924, 2632.
(See Loyn EHR 70 [1955] 529–40;
Lindow 1976: 12–17; Amos 1980:
149–50.) [sīð ‘journey.’] — Cpds.:
•driht-, eald-, wil-.
sīðast, sīðest, adj. supl., latest, last; sīð-
as[t], 2710 (n.); dsn.wk. (æt) sīðestan,
3013. [Go. seiþus. Cf. sīð, adv.]
sīð-fæt, m., expedition, adventure; ds.
-fate, 2639; as. -fæt, 202. [Cf. OIcel.
feta, vb., ‘step.’]
sīð-from †, adj., eager to depart; npm.
-e, 1813.
sīðian, vb. II, go, travel; 720, 808; pret.
3 sg. sīðode, 2119. [sīð.] — Cpd.: for-.
siððan, I. adv., SINce, then (i.e.
thereupon), afterward; siððan (þð),
470, 685, 718 (see ®r); syððan (ðþ,
þð), 142, 283, 567, 1106, 1453, 1689
(n.), 1901, 1951, 2064, 2071, 2175,
2207, 2217, 2395, 2702, 2806, 2920;
seoððan, 1875, seoþðan, 1937. — II.
conj., since, from the time when,
when, after, as soon as (sometimes
shading into because); siððan (þð, ðþ,
þþ), 106, 413, 604, 648, 656, 850, 901,
982, 1148, 1204, 1253, 1261, 1281,
1784; syððan (þð, ðþ), 6 (~ ®rest),
115, 132, 722, 834, 886, 1077, 1198,
1206, 1235, 1308, 1420, 1472, 1556,
1589, 1947 (~ ®rest), 1949, 1978,
2012, 2051, 2072, 2092, 2103, 2124,
2201, 2351, 2356, 2388, 2437, 2474,
2501, 2630, 2888, 2911, 2914, 2943,
2960, 2970, 2996, 3002, 3127;
seoþðan, 1775. See also sōna.
(Shippey 1972: 36–8; Bately 1985.)
[sīð-þon; SITH, SIN(E), SYNE (dial.).]
 GLOSSARY
•sixtig, num., SIXTY; [acc., F. 38].
sl®p, m., SLEEP; 1742; ds. -e, 1251.
sl®pan, vb. 7, (vb. I), SLEEP; pres.ptc.
sl®pende, 2218; asm. sl®pendne, 741;
apm. sl®pende, 1581.
slēac, adj., slow, slothful; 2187. [Not rel.
to slæc > MnE slack; IF 20 (1906–7)
318, Angl. 39 (1915) 366¯f.]
slēan, vb. 6, (1) strike; abs.: pres. sj. 3 sg.
sl¼, 681; pret. 3 sg. slōh, 1565, 2678;
— w. obj. (acc.): ~, 2576, 2699,
(2179? slōg). — (2) SLAY; pret. 1 sg.
slōg, 421; 3 sg. ~, 108, 2179; slōh,
1581, 2355; 3 pl. slōgon, 2050; pp.
slæġen, 1152. — Cpd.: of-.
ġe-slēan, vb. 6, achieve or bring about
by ¢ghting; pret. 3 sg. ġeslōh, 459 (n.);
3 pl. ġeslōgon, 2996 (n.).
slītan, vb. 1, tear, sever; pret. 3 sg. slāt,
741. [SLIT.]
slīðe (†), adj.ja., severe, dangerous, ter-
rible; asm. slīðne, 184; gpn. slīðra,
2398. [Go. sleiþs.]
slīðen, adj., cruel, dire; nsn., 1147.
ġe-slyht (‡), ni., battle, conÏict; gp. -a,
2398. [slēan; cf. NHG Schlacht. See
ond-slyht, •wæl-sliht.]
smið, m., SMITH, worker in metals; 1452;
gs. smiþes, 406. — Cpd.: wundor-.
snel(l), adj., quick, bold, brave; nsm.wk.
snella, 2971. [SNELL (Sc., North.); NHG
schnell; Bamm. 1979: 117–18; HS 116
(2003) 104–6.]
snel-liċ (†), adj., quick, brave; 690.
snot(t)or, adj., prudent, wise; snotor,
826, 908, 1384 (voc.), snotľr 190; wk.
snotera, 1313; snotra, 2156, 3120;
snottra, 1475 (voc.), 1786; npm.
snotere, 202, 416, snottre 1591.
(Seebold A. 92 [1974] 294–333.) [Go.
snutrs. SB §¯228, OEG §¯408.] —
Cpd.: fore-.
snotor-līċe (‡) +, adv., wisely, prudently,
comp. snotľrlicor, 1842.
snūde, adv., quickly, without delay; 904,
1869 (snūdĺ), 1971, 2325, 2568, 2752.
[Cf. Go. sniwan ‘hurry.’]
snyrian †, vb. I, move quickly; pret. 3 pl.
snyredon, 402. [Cf. OIcel. snarr
‘quick.’]
snyttru, fīn., wisdom, discernment, skill;
as., 1726; dp. snyttrum, 872 (semi-
adv.), 942, 1706. [snot(t)or.] — Cpd.:
un-.
435
sōcn, f., (SEEKing), (‡)persecution, visita-
tion; gs. sōcne, 1777. [sēċan; Go.
sōkns; cf. Sc. hameSUCKEN.]
sōfte, adv., SOFTly, gently, pleasantly;
comp. sēft, 2749. — Cpd.: un-.
somod, see samod.
sōna, adv., (SOON), immediately, at once;
121, 721, 743, 750, 1280, 1497, 1591,
1618, 1762, 1785, 1794, 1825, 2011,
2226, 2300, 2713, 2928, [F. 46]. (sōna
.¯.¯. siððan: 721, 1280, 2011; cf. sōna .¯.¯.
swā (in prose), ‘as soon as.’) [OS
sâno.] (See Schücking 1929b; OES
§¯2702.) [See Peeters ZvS 84 (1970)
231¯f., Tollenaere ibid. 95 (1981)
309¯f.]
sorg(-), see sorh(-).
sorgian, vb. II, SORROW, grieve, care;
451; imp. sg. sorga, 1384.
sorh, f., SORROW, grief, trouble; 473,
1322; gs. sorge 2004 (n.); ds. sorhge,
2468; as. sorge, 119, 1149, 2463; gp.
sorga, 149; dp. sorgum, 2600. —
Cpds.: hyġe-, inwit-, þeġn-.
sorh-ċeariġ †, adj., SORROWful, sad;
2455; nsf. sorg-, 3152.
sorh-ful(l), adj., SORROWFUL; nsf. sorh-
full, 2119; — grief-¢lled, perilous,
dismal, sad; asm. -fullne (sīð) 512,
-fulne (~): 1278, 1429.
sorh-lēas, adj., free from care; 1672.
sorh-lēoð †, n., song of SORROW; as.,
2460.
sorh-wylm †, mi., surging SORROW or
care; np. -as, 904; dp. -um, 1993.
sōð, adj., true; 1611; asn., 2109. [SOOTH
(arch.); OIcel. sannr, Dan. sand, Swed.
sann; cf. Lat. (prae-)sens.]
sōð, n., truth; 700; as., 532, 1049, 1700,
2864; (secgan & si.) tō sōðe, in
SOOTH, as a fact: 51, 590, 2325.
sōð-cyning †, m., true KING, king of
truth, God; 3055.
sōðe (†), adv., truly, faithfully; 524, 871.
sōð-fæst, adj., true, righteous (cf. Lat.
iustus); gp. -ra, 2820.
sōð-līċe, adv., truly, faithfully; (secgan &
si.): 141, 273, 2899.
specan, see sprecan.
spēd, ¢., success; as. on spēd, success-
fully, with skill, 873. [SPEED; spōwan.]
See Grønbech 1909–12: 1.182–5;
Gneuss 1955: 132–3; Winter 1955:
126–49. — Cpds.: here-, wīġ-.
436 GLOSSARY
spel(l), n., tale, story, message; as. spel,
873, spell 2109; gp. spella 2898, 3029.
[OED: SPELL, sb.1; Go. spill.] (See
ZfdA 37 [1893] 241–68; P.Grdr.2 iia 36;
R.-L.1 1.442; SN 46 [1974] 309–25.) —
Cpd.: wēa-.
spīwan, vb. 1, SPEW, disgorge, pour out;
(w. dat.), 2312.
spōwan, vb. 7, impers. w. dat., succeed;
pret. 3 sg. spēow, 2854, 3026. [See
spēd.]
spr®ċ, fjō., SPEECH, language; ds. -e,
1104. — Cpds.: ®fen-, ġylp-.
sprecan, vb. 5, SPEAK; abs.: 2069, 3172;
imp. sg. spræc, 1171; pret. 3 sg. spræc,
1168, 1215, 1698, 2510, 2618, 2724,
[2792]; 1 pl. spr®con, 1707; 3 pl. ~,
1595; — w. object (acc.): inf. specan
(Lang. §¯25.3), 2864; pret. 2 sg.
spr®ce, 531; 3 sg. spræc, 341; 1 pl.
spr®con, 1476; pp. sprecen, 643.
(Goossens 1985.) [OHG sprehhan,
spehhan. See also BGdSL 32 (1907)
147¯f.]
ġe-sprecan, vb. 5, SPEAK; w. obj.: pret. 3
sg. ġespræc, 675, 1398, 1466, 3094.
springan, vb. 3, SPRING, bound, burst
forth, spread; pret. 3 sg. sprang, 18;
sprong, 1588, 2966; 3 pl. sprungon,
2582. — Cpds.: æt-, on-.
ġe-springan, vb. 3, SPRING up or out,
arise; pret. 3 sg. ġesprang, 1667; ġe-
sprong, 884.
st®l, m.(?), place, position; ds. -e, 1479.
[staþol. See BGdSL 30 (1905) 73;
OED: STALwart.]
st®lan, vb. I, (lay to one’s charge),
avenge; 2485; pp. ġest®led, 1340. (See
Kock 229–33; Kl. 1905–6: 261.)
stān, m., STONE, rock; ds. stāne, 2288,
2557; as. (hārne) stān: 887, 1415,
2553, 2744. — Cpd.: eorclan-.
stān-beorh (‡) +, m., STONE-BARROW;
as., 2213.
stān-boga ‡, wk.m., (STONE-BOW), stone
arch; ap. -bogan, 2545 (n.), 2718 (n.).
(Cf. OIcel. steinbogi ‘stone arch’ [Kolb
1993: 479].)
stān-clif, n., rocky CLIFF; ap. -cleofu,
2540.
standan, vb. 6, STAND, continue in a
certain state; 2271; stondan, 2545,
2760; pres. 3 sg. standeð, 1362; 2 pl.
standað, 2866; sj. 3 sg. stande, 411;
pret. 3 sg. stōd, 32, 145, 926, 935,
1037, 1416, 1434, 1913, 2679; 3 pl.
stōdon, 328, stōdan 3047; — w.
subjects like lēoht, eġesa, (usu. ex-
pressing direction, ‘ingressive’:) arise,
issue, emanate, shine; pret. 3 sg. stōd:
726, 783, 1570, 2227, 2313, 2769, [F.
35]. (Si. in OIcel., OS; see Sievers
1878: 432.) [HS 111 (1998) 142–62.]
— Cpds.: ā-, æt-, for-.
ġe-standan, vb. 6, STAND, take one’s
stand; pret. 3 sg. ġestōd, 358, 404,
2566; 3 pl. ġestōdon, 2597.
stān-fāh †, adj., embellished with STONEs,
paved; nsf., 320 (n.).
stān-hlið †, n., rocky slope; ap. -o, 1409.
stapol, m., post, pillar, large upright
stone (megalith); dp. stapulum, 2718
(n.); — Ïight of steps? pedestal?; ds.
stapole, 926¯(n.). Cf. DOE: fōtstappel.
[steppan; OED: STAPLE, sb.1; cf.
STOOP = ‘porch,’ etc.]
starian, vb. II, gaze, look; usu. w. on and
acc.; pres. 1 sg. stariġe, 1781, starie
2796; 3 sg. starað, 996, 1485; pret. 3
sg. starede, 1935 (n.); 3 pl. staredon,
1603. (See Penttilä 1956: 167–71.)
[STARE.]
stēap, adj., STEEP, high, towering; asm.
stēapne, 926, 2566; apm. stēape, 222;
apn. stēap, 1409. — Cpd.: heaþo-.
stearc, adj., strong, secure, unyielding;
asm. -ne, 2213. (Mincoff 1933.)
[STARK.]
stearc-heort ‡, adj., stout-HEARTed; 2288,
2552.
stede, mi., place; gp. steda, 985 (n.).
[STEAD.]
stefn, m., STEM, prow; as., 212. (See
Crosby MLN 55 [1940] 605; Grüner
1972: 128–31; Thier 2002: 65–73.) —
Cf. bunden-, hrinġed-, wunden-stefna.
stefn, m., period, time; ds. nī(o)wan
stefne (anew, again), 1789, 2594.
stefn, f., voice; 2552. [Go. stibna, NHG
Stimme.]
stēpan †, vb. I, raise, exalt; pret. sj. 3 sg.
stēpte, 1717. [stēap.]
ġe-stēpan †, vb. I, advance, support;
pret. 3 sg. ġestēpte, 2393.
steppan, vb. 6, STEP, stride, march; pret.
3 sg. stōp, 761, 1401. — Cpd.: æt-.
ġe-steppan, vb. 6, STEP, walk; pret. 3 sg.
ġestōp, 2289.
 GLOSSARY
stīġ, f., path; 320, 2213; ap.(s.?) -e, 1409.
[Cf. stīgan.] — Cpd.: medo-.
stīgan, vb. 1, go, step, go up, mount;
pret. 3 pl. stigon, 212, 225; sj. 3 sg.
stiġe, 676. [STY (obs.); cf. stile. Go.
steigan, OIcel. stíga, NHG steigen.] —
Cpd.: ā-.
ġe-stīgan, vb. 1, go (up), set out; pret. 1
sg. ġestāh, 632.
stille, adj.ja., STILL, ¢xed; 301, 2830.
stincan, vb. 3, snuÑe, smell, follow a
scent; pret. 3 sg. stonc, 2288 (n.).
stīð, adj., ¢rm, strong, hard; nsn., 1533.
stīð-mōd, adj., stout-hearted, ¢rm; 2566.
stondan, see standan.
stōp, see steppan.
storm, m., STORM; 3117; ds. -e, 1131.
stōw, f., place; 1372; as. -e, 1006, 1378.
[Cf. STOW, vb.; (-)STOW(E) in place-
names.] — Cpd.: wæl-.
str®l, m.(f.), arrow; ds. -e, 1746; gp. -a,
3117. [NHG Strahl.] — Cpd.: here-.
str®t, f., STREET; 320; as. -e, 916, 1634.
(EGS 2 [1948–9] 78¯f.) [Fr. Lat. strata
(sc. via).] — Cpds.: lagu-, mere-.
strang, adj., STRONG; (mæġenes) strang,
1844; nsf. strong, 2684; nsn. strang
(severe), 133. — Supl. strenġest: 196
(mæġenes ~), 789 (mæġene ~), 1543.
(Mincoff 1933.)
strēam, m., STREAM, current (pl.: †sea,
body of water; Cronan 2003: 411); as.,
2545; np. strēamas, 212; ap. ~, 1261.
— Cpds.: brim-, ēagor-, ēg-, fyrġen-,
lagu-.
strēġan (†), vb. I, STREW, spread; pp.
strêd, 2436. [Go. straujan.]
strenġel ‡, m., chief, ruler; as. (wigena)
~, 3115. [strang.]
strenġest, see strang.
strenġo, fīn., STRENGth; ds., 2540;
strenġe, 1533; as. ~, 1270; dp.
strenġum, 3117 (or fr. strenġ,
[bow-]string?). — Cpds.: hilde-,
mæġen-, mere-.
ġe-strēon, n., wealth, treasure; ns. (p.?),
2037; as. (p.?), 1920, 3166. (Winter
1955: 100–15; Tyler 2006: 73–6.)
[OED: STRAIN, sb.1] — Cpds.: ®r-,
eald-, eorl-, hēah-, hord-, long-,
māðm-, sinċ-, þēod-.
strong, see strang.
strūdan, vb. 2, plunder; pret. sj. 3 sg.
strude, 3073, 3126.
437
ġe-str©nan, vb. I, acquire, gain; 2798.
[See ġe-strēon.]
stund, f., time; dp. stundum, time and
again, 1423. Cf. Schü.Bd. 84. (Grüner
1972: 91–8.) [STOUND (arch., dial.);
OIcel., Dan., Swed. stund, NHG
Stunde.]
st©le, nja., STEEL; ds., 985. [steel fr.
Angl. stēle; cf. OHG stahal, stāl.]
st©l-ecg ‡, adj., STEEL-EDGEd; nsn.,
1533.
•st©ran, vb. I, w. dat., (STEER,) restrain;
[pret. 3 sg. st©rde, F. 18].
styrian, vb. I, STIR up; pres. 3 sg. styreþ,
1374; — disturb; pret. sj. (?) 3 sg.
styrede, 2840; — tell of, recite; inf.,
872 (see Cosijn BGdSL 19 [1894]
455).
styrman, vb. I, STORM, shout; pret. 3 sg.
styrmde, 2552. [storm.]
suhterġe-fæderan †, wk.m.p., nephew
(brother’s son) and (paternal) uncle;
1164. (Wid 46: suhtorfædran. See āþum-
swēoras.) See Krause ZvS 52.3 (1924)
223–49 (suhter-ġefæderan); Weyhe
1925: 314 (on: suhtria, suhterġa);
Sisam 1965: 80; Gardner 1968: 90–5;
NM 78 (1977) 234.
sum, adj., SOME (one), one, a certain
(one); used as adj.: isn. sume, 2156; —
used as subst.; (a) abs.: nsm. sum,
1251, 3124; nsn. sum (a certain thing),
271 (n.); asm. sumne, 1432; npm.
sume, 400, 1113 (n.); apm. sum’, 2940;
(b) w. partit. gen. (pl., excl. 712¯f.; in
many cases no partit. relation is
perceptible in MnE): nsm. sum, 248,
314, 1240 (n.), 1266, 1312, 1499, 2301;
nsn. ~, 1607, 1905; asm. sumne, 713;
asn. sum, 675, 2279; w. gen. of numer-
als: fīft©na sum (i.e., ‘with fourteen
others,’ cf. MHG selbe zwelfter, etc.;
see EStn. 17 [1892] 285–91, ibid. 24
[1898] 463), 207; twelfa sum, 2401;
eahta sum, 3123; si.: fēara sum, 1412;
asm. fēara sumne, 3061 (n.); maniġra
sumne, 2091. — (By litotes, many (a
one): 713, 1240(?); see also OES
§§¯385¯ff.; Rissanen 1986, 1988.) [Go.
sums.]
sund, n., (1) movement (or ability to
move) on or through water, swimming,
voyage; +223; gs. sundes, 1436; ds.
sunde, 517, on ~ while swimming (cf.
438 GLOSSARY
on sweofote, etc.); +1510, 1618; as.
sund, 507, +1426, +1444. — (2) †sea,
water; ns. sund, 213; as. sund, 512 (n.),
539. (Instances marked + may have
sense 2; so Kl.; see JEGP 104 [2005],
457–74; cf. Cronan 2003: 404.)
[SOUND. Cf. swimman.]
ġe-sund, adj., SOUND, safe, unharmed;
asm. -ne, 1628, 1998; npm. -e, 2075;
— w. gen.: apm. (sīða) ġesunde, 318.
See an-sund.
sund-ġebland ‡, n., commotion of water,
surging water; as., 1450. [blandan.]
sund-nyt(t) ‡, fjō., act of swimming; as.
-nytte, 2360 (see drēogan). (Possibly
‘use of the sea,’ but see JEGP 104
[2005] 471 n.¯35.)
sundor-nyt(t) (‡) +, fjō., special service;
as. sundľrnytte, 667.
sundur, adv., aSUNDER, apart, in two;
2422.
sund-wudu †, mu., sea-WOOD, i.e. ship;
1906; as., 208. Cf. s®-.
sunne, wk.f., SUN; 606; gs. sunnan, 648;
as. ~, 94.
sunu, mu., SON; 524, 645, 980, 1009,
1040, 1089, 1485, 1550, 1699, (1808?),
2147, 2367, 2386, 2398, 2447, 2602,
2862, 2971, 3076, 3120, [F. 33]; gs.
suna, 2455, 2612, sunu (Lang. §¯19.2
rem.), 1278; ds. suna, 1226, 1808 (n.),
2025, 2160, 2729, sunu, 344, 1808
(n.); as. sunu, 268, 947, 1175, 2013
(ap.?), 2119, 2394, 2752; vs. sunu, 590,
1652; np. suna, 2380; ap. (as.?) sunu,
1115 (n.). (Mostly w. gen. of proper
names: sunu Healfdenes, ~ Ecglāfes,
etc.)
sūð, adv., SOUTH(ward); 858.
sūþan, adv., from the SOUTH; 606, 1966.
swā, I. adv., SO, thus, in this manner; at
beginning of sentence, usu. at beginn.
of on-verse: 20, 99, 144, 164, 189, 559,
1046, 1534b, 1694, 1769, 2115, 2144,
2166b (conj.?), 2177, 2267, 2278, 2291,
2397, 2444, 2462b, 3028, 3066, 3178;
positioned within clause (and un-
stressed): 1103, 2057, 2498; clause-
internal and stressed: 1709, 2730; at
end of clause and of off-verse
(stressed): 538, 762, 797, 1471, 2091,
2990; — w. foll. adj., so; 585, 1732,
1843, 3069 (n.), si. 591, [F. 19];
emphat. (very), 347; lenġ swā wēl,
1854; correl. swā . . . swā, see II. —
swā þēah (at end of off-verse), 972,
1929, 2442, 2878, 2967, see þēah. —
II. conj., as; not foll. by clause; 642,
1787, 2622; — foll. by clause, usu. at
beginning of off-verse (freq. one
containing complete clause); 29b,
93b¯(n.), 273a, 352b, 401b, 444b (swā hē
oft dyde, si.: 956b, 1058b, 1134b,
1172b¯[n.], 1238b, 1381b, 1676b, 1891b,
2521b, 2859b), 490b, 561b, 666b, 881b,
1055b, 1234b 1252b, 1396b, 1451b,
1571a (efne swā), 1587b, 1670b, 1707a,
1786b, 1828a, 1975b, 2233a, 2310b,
2332b, 2470b, 2480b, 2491b, 2526b,
2585b, 2590b¯(n.), 2608b¯(n.), 2664a,
2696b, 3078b, 3098b, 3140b, 3161b,
3174b; within off-verse: 455b, 1231b;
— correl. swā . . . swā: 594, 1092¯f.,
1223, 1283 (efne swā . . . swā), 3168;
swā hwæþer .¯.¯. swā, 686¯f.; swā hwylċ
. . . swā, 943, 3057; — as (soon as),
when (¯= sōna swā), 1667b (OES
§¯2842); — in proportion as, inasmuch
as, since, 1142 (n.), 2184a, 3049 (n.);
— in such a way that, so that (in neg.
clauses), 1048b, 1508a, 2006a, 2574b,
[F. 41]; — w. sj., in asseveration: 435b
(n.). (See Ericson 1932; Blockley SN
73 [2001] 8; Schleburg 2002.) [Go.
swa, OIcel. svá, OHG sō; IF 90 (1985)
196–206.]
sw®s, adj., (†) (one’s) own, dear; asm.
-ne, 520; npm. sw®se (ġesīþas), 29,
2040 (n.), so apm.: 2518; gpm. -ra
(ġesīða), 1934; apm. -e, 1868. [Go.
swēs. Bamm. 1979: 127.]
sw®s-līċe, adv., in a friendly manner,
gently; 3089.
•swæþer¯(‡)¯+ (=¯swā hwæþer), pron.,
whichever of two; [asn., F. 27]. (Cf.
Beo 686; OES §¯2373.)
•swān¯(‡)¯+, m., young man (in prose:
‘herdsman’); [ap. -as, F. 39]. [Cf.
SWAIN, from ON sveinn.]
swancor †, adj., supple, graceful; apn.,
2175. [J. Wright 1898–1905: SWANK,
adj.2]
swan-rād †, f., SWAN-ROAD, sea; as. -e,
200. (Woodward MLN 69 [1954] 544–
6: ‘riding place of a ship’; cf. PMLA
67 [1952] 567–9.) Cf. hron-.
swāt, m., (SWEAT), (†)blood; 2693, 2966;
ds. -e, 1286. (Kühlwein 1968; Cronan
 GLOSSARY
2003: 409–10.) — Cpds.: heaþo-,
hilde-.
swāt-fāh †, adj., blood-stained; nsf.,
1111.
swātiġ, adj., (SWEATY), †bloody; nsn.,
1569.
swāt-swaðu ‡, f., bloody track; 2946.
swaþrian (†), vb. II, subside, become
still; pret. 3 pl. swaþredon, 570. Cf.
sweðrian.
swaðu, f., track; as. swaðe (weardade,
remained behind), 2098. See lāst.
[SWATH(E).] — Cpds.: swāt-, wald-.
swaþul ‡, m. or n., Ïame, heat; ds. -e,
782. See swioðol, sweoloð. (See Cha.,
note; Gr.Spr.; BT; BGdSL 30 [1905]
132; Dietrich, ZfdA 5 [1845] 215¯f.:
‘smoke.’)
sweart, adj., SWART, black, dark; 3145,
[F. 35]; dpf. -um, 167. [NHG schwarz.]
swebban, vb. I, (put to sleep), †kill; 679;
pres. 3 sg. swefeð, 600. [swefan.] —
Cpd.: ā-.
swefan (†), vb. 5, sleep, sleep in death;
119, 729, 1672; pres. 3 sg. swefeþ,
1008, 1741, 2060, 2746; 3 pl. swefað,
2256, 2457; pret. 3 sg. swæf, 1800; 3
pl. sw®fon, 703, sw®fun 1280.
(Stolzmann 1953: 115–18.)
swefeð, 600, see swebban.
swēġ, mi., sound, noise, music; 644, 782,
1063; hearpan swēġ: 89, 2458, 3023;
ds. swēġe, 1214. [swōgan.] — Cpds.:
benċ-, morgen-.
sweġl †, n., sky, heaven; gs. (under)
sweġles (begong): 860, 1773; ds.
(under) sweġle: 1078, 1197. (Benning
1961: 25–8.)
sweġl (‡), adj.u.(?), bright, brilliant;
apm. sweġle, 2749. [sweġl, n.; cf. OS
swigli. Siev. ZfdPh. 21 (1889) 357;
Tolkien MÆ 3 (1934) 95–111; Juzi
1939: 52–5.]
sweġl-wered ‡, adj. (pp.), clothed with
radiance; nsf. (sunne) ~, 606. [werian
‘clothe.’] (Cf. Ps. 103: 2: amictus lumine,
etc.; see Kl. 1911–12: [8–9].)
swelan †, vb. 4, burn (intr.); 2713. See
be-sw®lan.
swelgan, vb. 3, SWALLOW; w. dat.: pret.
3 sg. swealh, 743; swealg, 3155; w.
ellipsis of pron. obj.: pret. sj. 3 sg.
swulge, 782. — Cpd.: for- (w. acc.).
swellan, vb. 3, SWELL; 2713.
439
sweltan, vb. 3, die; pret. 3 sg. swealt,
1617, 2474; morðre ~: 892, 2782;
-dēaðe ~, 3037; si. 2358. [SWELT(er);
Go. swiltan ‘lie dying.’]
swenċan, vb. I, press hard, harass,
aÑict; pret. 3 sg. swe[n]cte, 1510; pp.
ġeswenċed, 975, 1368. [swincan.] —
Cpd.: lyft-ġeswenċed.
ġe-swenċan, vb. I, injure, strike down;
pret. 3 sg. ġeswencte, 2438.
swenġ, mi., blow, stroke; ds. -e, 2686,
2966; as. swenġ, 1520; dp. -um, 2386.
[swingan.] — Cpds.: feorh-, heaðu-,
heoro-, hete-.
sweofot (†), m. or n., sleep; ds. -e, 1581,
2295. [swefan.]
sweoloð (‡), m. or n., heat, Ïames; ds.
-e, 1115. [swelan.]
sweorcan, vb. 3, become dark, become
sinister; pres. 3 sg. sweorceð, 1737.
[OS swerkan. Di Sciacca in Lettura di
Beowulf, ed. Dolcetti Corazza & Gendre
(2005) 291–329.] — Cpd.: for-.
ġe-sweorcan, vb. 3, become dark; pret. 3
sg. ġeswearc, 1789.
sweord, swurd, swyrd (see Lang, §¯3.6),
n., SWORD; sweord, 1286, 1289, 1569,
1605, 1615, 1696, 2499, 2509, 2659,
2681, 2700; swurd, 890; gs. sweordes,
1106, 2193, 2386; ds. sweorde, 561,
574, 679, 2492, 2880, 2904; [swurde,
F. 13]; as. sweord, 437, 672, 1808,
2252, 2518, 2562; swurd, 1901; swyrd,
2610, 2987; np. swyrd, 3048; gp.
sweorda, 1040, 2936, 2961; dp.
sweordum, 567, 586, 884; ap. sweord,
2638; swurd, 539; [sword, F. 15].
[OIcel. sverð, OS swerd, NHG
Schwert.] — Cpds.: eald-, gūð-,
māðþum-, w®ġ-.
sweord-bealo ‡, nwa., SWORD-
destruction, death by the sword; 1147.
sweord-freca ‡, wk.m., (SWORD-)
warrior; ds. -frecan, 1468.
•sweord-lēoma¯‡, wk.m., SWORD-light;
[swurdlēoma, F. 35].
sweotol, adj., clear, apparent, unmistak-
able; nsm. swutol, 90; nsn. sweotol,
817, 833; dsn.wk. sweotolan, 141.
swerian, vb. 6, SWEAR; pret. 1 sg. swōr,
2738; 3 sg. ~, 472. [Cf. and-swaru.] —
Cpd.: for-.
sweðrian, vb. II, subside, diminish,
cease; 2702; pret. 3 sg. sweðrode, 901.
440 GLOSSARY
swīcan, vb. 1, depart, escape; pret. sj. 3
sg. swice 966; — fail (in one’s duty to
another), desert; w. dat.: pret. 3 sg.
swāc, 1460.
ġe-swīcan, vb. 1, fail, prove ineffective;
w. dat., fail, desert; pret. 3 sg. ġeswāc,
1524, 2584, 2681.
swift, adj., SWIFT; nsm. wk. -a, 2264.
swīġe, adj.ja., silent; comp. swīġra, 980.
swīgian, vb. II, be silent; pret. 3 sg.
swīgode, 2897 (w. gen.); 3 pl. swīg-
edon, 1699. [NHG schweigen. A. 70
(1951) 271–5, 280–2.]
swilċe, see swylċe.
swīn, n., (SWINE), ‡image of boar (on
helmet); ns. sw©n, 1111; as. sw©n, 1286.
swincan, vb. 3, labor, work; pret. 2 pl.
swuncon, 517. [SWINK: (arch., dial.).]
ġe-swinġ †, n., vibration, swirl, surf;
848.
swingan, vb. 3, †Ïy; pres. 3 sg. swingeð,
2264. (Nearly always trans. in OE.)
[SWING.]
swīn-līċ ‡, n., boar-¢gure; dp. -um,
1453.
swioðol (‡), m. or n., ¢re, Ïame; ds.
swioðole, 3145. See swaþul, sweoloð.
(Angl. 8 [1885] 452: a gloss cauma vel
estus = swoþel vel h®te.)
swīð, adj., strong, harsh; nsn. swīð,
3085; sw©ð, 191. Comp. nsf. swīðre,
right (hand), 2098. (Mincoff 1933: 23–
9, 84–102.) [Go. swinþs; NHG ge-
schwind.] — Cpd.: ðr©ð-.
swīðe, adv., (w. adj. or verb), very, much,
very much; 597, 997, 1092, 1743,
1926, [2275]; sw©ðe, 2170, 2187.
Comp. swīðor, more, rather, 960,
1139; more especially, 1874, 2198. (ES
84 [2003] 372–91.) — Cpd.: un-.
swīð-ferhð †, adj., strong-minded, brave;
826 (sw©ð-); gsm. -es, 908; npm. -e,
493; dpm. -um, 173.
swīð-hicgende ‡, adj. (pres.ptc.), strong-
minded, courageous; 919; npm., 1016.
swīð-mōd (†), adj., strong-minded, stout-
hearted; 1624.
swōgan, vb. 7, make noise, roar;
pres.ptc. swōgende, 3145. [SOUGH; OS
swôgan, Go. ga-swōgjan.]
swōr, see swerian.
swulċes, see swylċ.
swurd(-), see sweord(-).
swutol, see sweotol.
swylċ, pron., (1) demonstr., SUCH; 178,
1940, 2541, 2708; gsn. swulċes, 880;
asn. swylċ, 996, 1583, 2798; gpm.
swylcra, 582; gpn. ~, 2231; apm.
swylċe, 1347. — (2) rel., such as,
which (one); dsm. swylcum, 299 (n.);
asf. (pl.?) swylċe, 1797; asn. swylċ,
72; apm. swylċe, 1156 (?, see swylċe).
— (3) correl., such . . . as; nsm. swylċ
. . . ~, 1328, 1329; isn. swylċe . . . ~,
1249a,b; apf. swylċe . . . 3164a,b. [Go.
swa-leiks.]
swylċe, I. adv., likewise, also; 113, 293,
830, 854, 907, 920, 1146, 1165, 1427,
1482, 2258 (ġē ~), 2767, 2824, 3150;
swilċe, 1152. — II. conj., (such) as;
757, 1156(?), 2459, 2869; [as if, F. 36,
w. sj.]. — (Except in 2824, always at
beginning of verse.)
swylt †, mi., death; 1255, 1436. [sweltan;
Go. swulta(-waírþja).]
swylt-dæġ †, m., DAY of death; ds. -e,
2798.
swymman (swimman), vb. 3, SWIM;
1624. — Cpd.: ofer-.
sw©n, see swīn.
swynsian (swinsian), vb. II, make a
(pleasing or cheerful) sound; pret. 3
sg., swynsode, 611. (Hallander 1966:
227–30.) [swin(n).]
swyrd, see sweord.
swyrd-ġifu ‡, f., GIVing of SWORDs;
2884. See sweord.
sw©ð(e), see swīð(e).
s©, see eom.
syfan-wintre (‡) +, adj.ja.(u.), SEVEN
years old; 2428. [Go. -wintrus.]
syfone, see seofon.
syl(l) (‡) +, fjō., SILL, Ïoor; ds. sylle,
775. [Cf. Go. ga-suljan.]
sylf, see self.
syllan, see sellan.
syl-liċ, see sel-liċ.
symbel, n., feast, banquet; ds. symble,
119, 2104; symle, 81, 489, 1008; as.
symbel, 564, 619, 1010, 2431 (sym-
bĺl); gp. symbla, 1232. (Bauschatz
1982: 72–8, 110–15; A. Fischer 1986:
46–8.) [OS ds. sumble, OIcel. sumbl.
See Beibl. 13 (1902) 226; BGdSL 36
(1910) 99; ES 48 (1967) 25–7. The
word is not a ja-stem (cf. Orel 2003:
386); front mutation may be due to
analogy to vb. I symblan.]
 GLOSSARY
symbel-wyn(n) ‡, fjō.(i.), happiness of
feasting, delightful feast; as. symbĺl-
wynne, 1782.
sym(b)le (sim[b]le), adv., ever, always,
regularly; symble, 2450; symle, 2497,
2880. [Go. simlē.]
symle, ds., see symbel.
syn(n), fjō., (SIN), hostility, wrongdoing;
synn, 2472; dp. synnum, 975, 1255,
3071. (See Kl. 1911–12: [12]; A.
Heusler Germanentum [Heidelberg,
1940] 56; Kellermann 1954: 301–6;
Gneuss 1955: 87; Robinson 1985: 56;
Feldman NM 88 [1987] 167–70;
Cronan 2003: 401.) [Holt.Et.; ZvS 56
(1928–9) 106–16.] — Cpd.: un-.
syn-bysiġ ‡, adj., distressed by hostility
(or by SIN, i.e. guilty?); 2226. [BUSY.]
syn-dolh (sin-) ‡, n., very great wound;
817. See the sin-cpds. (Cf. He., Rob-
inson 1970a: 102 n.¯7: lasting wound,
incurable wound.)
syndon, see eom.
ġe-s©ne, adj.(i.)ja., visible, evident; 2947,
3158; nsn., [149], 1255, 2316, 3058;
npm., 1403. [SEEN; Go. (ana-)siuns; cf.
OE sēon, vb.; Bamm. Angl. 90 (1972)
427–36, id. 1979: 114–16.] — Cpd.:
ēþ-.
syn-gāles, see sin-gāles.
ġe-syngian, vb. II, (SIN), do wrong; pp.
ġesyngad, 2441. (Gneuss 1955: 86–7.)
syn-scaða (†), wk.m., hostile attacker,
malefactor; as. -scaðan, 801. Cf. mān-.
syn-sn®d ‡, ¢., huge morsel; dp. -um,
743 (n.). [snīðan.] See the sin-cpds.
synt, see eom.
ġe-synto, f., health, safety; dp. ġe-
syntum, 1869. [ġe-sund.]
syrċe, wk.f., shirt (of mail); 1111; ap.
syrċan, 226, 334. [SARK (Sc., North.);
OIcel. serkr. Fr. Lat.? See P.Grdr.2 i
344; H. Falk Altwestnord. Kleider-
kunde (Kristiania, 1919) 144; Brady
1979: 113; Neophil. 74 (1990) 635¯f.;
Owen-Crocker 2004: 115.] — Cpds.:
beadu-, here-, hioro-, leoðo-, līċ-.
syrwan, vb. I, plot, ambush; pret. 3 sg.
syrede, 161. [searo.] — Cpd.: be-.
syððan, see siððan.
tācen, n., TOKEN, sign, evidence; 833;
ds. tācne, 141, 1654. [Go. taikns.] —
Cpd.: luf-.
441
ġe-t®ċan, vb. I, show, point out, assign;
pret. 3 sg. ġet®hte, 313, 2013. [TEACH;
cf. tācen. Bamm. 1979: 129.]
ġe-t®se, adj.ja., agreeable; nsf., 1320.
talian, vb. II, suppose, consider (some-
one or something to be such and such);
pres. 1 sg. taliġe, 532 (claim, maintain,
see Kl. 1905–6: 261), 677, 1845; 2 sg.
talast, 594; 3 sg. talað, 2027. Cf. tellan.
te, 2922, see tō.
tēar, m., TEAR; np. -as, 1872. [Go. tagr,
OIcel. tár, OHG zahar, NHG Zähre.]
— Cpd.: wollen-.
tela, adv., well, properly; 948, 1218,
1225, 1820, 2208, 2663, 2737. (Al-
ways at end of off-verse; excepting
2663, always in type C; see Angl. 93
[1975] 321¯f.) [til.]
telġe, see tellan.
tellan, vb. I, account, reckon, consider
(someone or something to be such and
such); pres. 1 sg. telġe (Lang. §¯25.5),
2067; pret. 1 sg. tealde, 1773; 3 sg. ~,
794, 1810, 1936, 2641; 3 pl. tealdon,
2184. Cf. talian. [TELL.]
ġe-tenġe, adj.ja., lying on, close to (w.
dat.); asn., 2758.
*tēoġan, vb. II (or *tēon, SB §¯415[e],
OEG §¯761.2; inf. unrecorded), make,
form; pret. 3 sg. tēode, 1452; —
furnish, provide (dat., with); pret. 3 pl.
tēodan, 43.
*ġe-tēoġan, vb. II (or *ġe-tēon), assign,
allot; pres. 3 sg. ġetēoð, 2526 (n.);
pret. 3 sg. ġetēode, 2295 (n.).
teoh(h) †, f., company, band; ds. teohhe,
2938. [Cf. NHG Zeche.]
teohhian, vb. II, appoint, assign; pret. 1
sg. teohhode, 951; pp. ġeteohhod,
1300. [teoh(h).]
ġe-tēon, vb. 1 (& 2), †, confer, bestow,
grant; imp. sg. (wearne) ġetēoh, 366;
pret. 3 sg. (onweald) ġetēah, 1044,
(ēst) ~, 2165. Cf. of-tēon.
tēon, vb. 2, draw; t½n, 1036 (lead); pret.
3 sg. tēah, 553; pp. togen, 1288, 1439;
take (a course), i.e. go (on a journey):
pret. 3 sg. (-lāde) tēah, 1051, (-sīðas)
~, 1332. [Cf. TOW, TUG.] — Cpds.: ā-,
þurh-.
ġe-tēon, vb. 2, draw; pret. 3 sg. ġetēah,
1545, 2610; [3 pl. ġetugon, F. 15].
tīd, ¢., time; as., 147, 1915, 2226.
(Grüner 1972: 46–63.) [TIDE; OIcel.
442 GLOSSARY
tíð, Dan. tid, NHG Zeit.] — Cpds.:
ān-, morgen-.
til (†), adj., good; 61, till 2721 (Lang.
§¯20.4); nsf. tilu, 1250; nsn. til, 1304.
[Go. ga-tils. Cf. tela.]
tilian, vb. II, w. gen., strive after, earn;
1823. [TILL; Go. -tilōn, NHG zielen.
Cf. til.]
timbran, vb. I, build; pp. asn. timbred,
307. [TIMBER; Go. timrjan, NHG
zimmern.] — Cpd.: be-.
tīr †, m., glory; gs. -es, 1654. (See J.M.
Hill 1995: 66, 68–9.) [Cf. NHG Zier.
SB §¯66 n.¯1.]
tīr-ēadiġ †, adj., blessed with glory,
famous; dsm. -ēadĽgum, 2189.
tīr-fæst †, adj., full of glory, famous;
922.
tīr-lēas ‡, adj., without glory, van-
quished; gsm. -es, 843.
tīðian (tiġðian), vb. II, grant; w. dat. of
pers. & gen. of thing: pp. nsn. (wæs)
ġetīðad (impers.), 2284.
tō, I. prep. (1) w. dat.; motion, direction:
TO, toward; 28, 124, 234, 270, 298,
313 (postpos.), 318, 323, 327, 360,
374, 383, 438, 553, 604, 641 (ēode .¯.¯.
sittan, ‘by’), 720, 766, 919, 925, 1009,
1013, 1119, 1154, 1158, 1159, 1171,
1199, 1232, 1236, 1237, 1242 (‘at’),
1251, 1279, 1295, 1310, 1374, 1506,
1507, 1561, 1578, 1623, 1639, 1640,
1654b (postpos.), 1782, 1804, 1815,
1836, 1888, 1895, 1917, 1974, 1983,
2010, 2019, 2039, 2048, 2117, 2362,
2368, 2404, 2519, 2570, 2654, 2686,
2815, 2892, 2960, 2992, 3136, [F. 14,
20]; ([ġe]sittan) tō (rūne), 172, ~
(sym[b]le): 489, 2104, (cf. below: aim,
object); w. verb of thinking; 1138,
1139; w. verbs of expecting, desiring,
seeking, etc. (¯from, at, at the hands
of¯): 158, 188, 525, 601, 647, 1207,
1272, 1990, 2494a, 2494b, 2922 (te; see
Lang. §¯19.9), [F. 27], postpos.: 909,
1396, 3001; — aim, object: to, for, as;
14, 95, 379, 665, 971, 1021, 1186a,
1186b, 1472, 1654a, 1830, 1834, 1961,
2448, 2639, 2804, 2941, 2998, 3016;
— weorðan tō, (turn to), become, 460,
587, 906, 1262, 1330, 1707, 1709,
2079, 2203, 2384, 2502; si. 1711a,
1711b, 1712; — tō sōðe, ‘for certain,’
‘truthfully,’ 51, 590, 2325; — time: at,
in (see Kl. 1926: 110); 26; 933 (see
feorh); 955, 2005, 2498 (see ealdor);
2432 (see līf). — (2) w. instr.; tō hwan
(. . . wearð), 2071; tō þon, to that de-
gree, so, 1876; (næs ðā long) tō ðon
þæt, until: 2591, 2845. — (3) w. gen.;
tō þæs, to that degree, so, 1616; tō þæs
þe, to (the point) where: 714, 1967,
2410; to the point that, until, so that
(?): 1585 (MS: see n.). — (4) w. inf.
316, 2556; w. ger.: 174, 257, 473,
1003, 1419, 1724, 1731, 1805, 1851,
1922, 1941, 2093, 2416, 2445, 2452,
2562, 2644. (See Appx.C §¯21.) — II.
adv., (1) where a noun or pron.
governed by prep. might be supplied,
cf. postpos. tō; thereto, etc.; (stressed:)
1422, 1755, 1785, 2648. — (2) TOO
(JEGP 38 [1939] 64–8); before adj. or
adv.: 133, 137, 191, 905, 969, 1336,
1742, 1748, 1930, 2093, 2289 (n.),
2461, 2684, 3085; si.: 694, 2882.
tō-, pre¢x, see the following verbs.
(Fraser in Langage et psychomécan-
ique du langage, ed. A. Joly & W.
Hirtle [Lille, 1980] 185–94.) [OHG
zar-, zir-, NHG zer-.]
tō-brecan, vb. 4, BREAK (to pieces),
shatter; 780; pp. tōbrocen, 997. (Cf.
Judges 9:¯53 [A.V.]: to[-]brake [pret.].)
tō-drīfan, vb. 1, DRIVE asunder, sep-
arate; pret. 3 sg. tōdrāf, 545.
tō-gædre, adv., TOGETHER (in connec-
tion w. verb of motion); 2630. See æt-
gædere.
tō-ġēanes, I. adv., opposite (toward
someone); 1501. II. prep., (w. dat.
preceding it), aGAINSt, toward, to
meet; 666, 1542, 1626, 1893; tōġēnes,
3114. Cf. on-ġēan.
togen, see tēon, vb. 2.
tō-glīdan, vb. 1, (GLIDE apart), split
(intr.); pret. 3 sg. tōglād, 2487.
tō-hlīdan, vb. 1, crack, spring apart; pp.
npm. tōhlidene, 999. [Cf. LID fr. hlid.]
tō-lūcan, vb. 2, pull apart, destroy; 781.
tō-middes, adv., in the MIDSt; 3141.
torht (†), adj., bright, resplendent; asn.,
313. (Juzi 1939: 29–34; Kellermann
1954: 241–2.) [OS torht, OHG
zor(a)ht.] — Cpds.: heaðo-, wuldor-.
torn (†), n., (1) anger; ds. -e, 2401. —
(2) grief, aÑiction, trouble; as. torn,
147, 833; gp. torna, 2189. (Kühlwein
 GLOSSARY
1967: 124–6.) [NHG Zorn.] — Cpd.:
liġe-.
torn †, adj., cruel, bitter; supl. nsf.
tornost, 2129.
torn-ġemōt ‡, n., hostile MEETing; as.,
1140.
tō-somne, adv., TOgether (in connection
w. idea of motion); 2568, 3122. Cf.
æt-somne.
tō-weċċan ‡, vb. I, (WAKE up), stir up;
pret. 3 pl. tōwehton, 2948.
tredan, vb. 5, TREAD, walk upon, cross;
1964, 3019; pret. 3 sg. træd, 1352,
1643, 1881.
treddian (†), vb. II, step, go; pret. 3 sg.
treddode, 725; tryddode, 922. [See
tredan, trodu.]
trem(m) (†), mja. or nja., step, space; as.
(fōtes) trem, 2525. (Mald 247: fōtes
trym. See BT, Lang. §¯3.6 rem.¯2.)
trēow, f., TRUth, good faith, ¢delity; gs.
trēowe, 2922; as. ~, 1072. (Kellermann
1954: 159–65; D. Green 1965: 117–
19.) [Go. triggwa, OHG triuwa.]
trēowan, vb. I, w. dat., trust; pret. 3 sg.
trēowde, 1166. [TROW; see OEG §¯764;
SB §¯417 n.¯10.] Cf. truwian.
trēow-loga ‡, wk.m., one false to a pledge
(TROth), traitor; np. -logan, 2847.
[lēogan.]
trodu (‡) +, f., track, footprint; ap.(s.?),
trode, 843. [tredan.]
trum, adj., strong; 1369. [Breeze N&Q
40 (1993) 16–19: fr. Welsh; cf. Orel
2003: 411.]
ġe-trum, n., troop, company; is. -e, 922.
truwian, vb. II (III), w. dat. or gen.,
trust, have faith in; pret. 1 sg. truwode,
1993; 3 sg. ~, 669, 2370, 2953. (See
OEG §¯764, SB §¯417 n.¯9; earlier
analyzed as trūwian, e.g. by Siev.R.
233¯f., 298, 486; Cosijn 1883–8: 2,
§¯120; J. & E. Wright 1925: §§¯131,
538¯n.; cf. Sievers 1918–19: 105; Luick
§¯97 n.¯3.) Cf. trēowan.
ġe-truwian, vb. II (III), w. dat. or gen.,
trust; pret. 3 sg. ġetruwode, 1533,
2322, 2540; — (w. acc.) con¢rm,
conclude (a treaty); pret. 3 pl. ġetruw-
edon, 1095. See truwian.
tryddian, see treddian.
tr©we, adj.ja., TRUE, faithful; 1165. [Go.
triggws, OHG triuwi.] — Cpd.: ġe-.
ġe-tr©we, adj.ja., TRUE, faithful; 1228.
443
twā, see twēġen.
ġe-tw®fan †, vb. I, separate, part, put
an end to; pp. ġetw®fed, 1658; — w.
acc. of pers. & gen. of thing: hinder,
restrain, deprive; inf., 479; pres. 3 sg.
ġetw®feð, 1763; pret. 3 sg. ġetw®fde,
1433, 1908. [Cf. Go. tweiÏs.]
ġe-tw®man, vb. I, separate, hinder; 968
(w. acc. of pers. & gen. of thing).
twēġen, m., twā, f.(n.), num., TWAIN,
TWO; nm. twēġen, 1163; am. ~, 1347;
gm. twēġa, 2532; dm. tw®m, 1191; nf.
twā, 1194; af. ~, 1095. (A. 86 [1968]
417–36; MSS 46 [1985] 13–28.)
twelf, num., TWELVE; uninÏ. (gm.):
twelf (wintra), 147; nm. twelfe, 3170;
am. twelfe, 1867; gm. twelfa, 2401.
[Go. twa-lif.]
twēone, distrib. num., TWO, in dp.: be
(s®m) twēonum, BETWEEN (the seas =
on earth), 858 (n.), 1297, 1685, 1956.
(MLN 33 [1918] 221 n.) [Go. tweihnai.]
t©dre, adj.ja., weak, craven; npm., 2847.
[OFris. teddre, Du. teeder.]
t©n, num., TEN; nm. t©ne, 2847. (Ritter
EStn. 59 [1925] 155–7.) [Go. taíhun.]
— Cpds.: fēower-, fīf-t©ne.
t©n-dagas, m.p., period of TEN DAYS;
dp. -dagum 3159. See Appx.C §¯5.
þā,1 I. adv., then, thereupon; at be-
ginning of clause (85×) [& F. 13, 14,
28, 43, 46], exclus. of þā ġ©t, ġēn
combin., (at beginn. of ¢tt, 10 [11:
l.¯1050] times); þā (.¯.¯.) verb (.¯.¯.) subj.
(59×; þā wæs 46×, 53, 64, 126, 128,
138, 223, 491, 607, etc.; þā ð®r .¯.¯.¯,
1280); þā (.¯.¯.) subj. (.¯.¯.) verb (27×)
86, 331 (þā ð®r), 461 (n.), 465, 518,
etc., ðā iċ .¯.¯. ġefræġn: 74, 2484, 2694,
2752; 2773; — second (sometimes
third, in 1011 & 2192 fourth) word in
clause (99×; at opening of ¢tt, 9×;
always in on-verse, excl. 1168, 1263,
2192, 2209, 2591, 2845, 3045); prec.
by pers. pron. (11×) 26, 28, 312, 340,
1125 (Malone 1959), 1263, 2135, 2468,
2720, 2788, 3137; prec. by verb (89×)
34, 115, 118 (. . . þā ð®r inne), 217,
234, 301, 327, etc. (& F. 2); — ond ðā,
615, 630, 1043, 1681, 1813, 2933,
1
On the distribution of þ and ð in the MS,
see Intr. xxix¯f.
444 GLOSSARY
2997; ond . . . þā, 1590, 2707; nū ðā,
426, 657; þā ġ©t (ġīt), þā ġēn, þā ġēna,
see ġ©t, ġēn, ġēna. — II. conj. þā (just
12×: ðā), when, since, as, now that (?);
nearly always in off-verse; 140, 201,
323, 402 (Őő; or rel.?), 419, 467 (n.),
512, 539, 632, 706, 723, 733, 798,
967, 1068, 1078a, 1103, 1291, 1293,
1295, 1467, 1506, 1539, 1621, 1665,
1681 (? ond þā), 1813a (? ond ðā: n.),
1988a, 2204a, [2230], 2287a, 2362,
2372 (n.), 2428, 2471, 2550, 2567,
2624, 2676, 2690, 2756, 2872, 2876,
2883, 2926a, 2944, 2978, 2983, 2992,
3066, 3088. (Sometimes a slightly
correl. use of þā .¯.¯. þā is found: 138–
40, 723, 1506, 1665, 2623–4, 2756,
2982–3. — þā is regul. used w. pret. or
pluperf. [cf. nūða 426, w. pres.].) See
Schü.Sa. §§¯3, 12, 66; Enkvist in
Kastovsky & Szwedek 1986: 1.301–9;
ES 88 (2007) 623–31.
þā, pron., see sē.
ġe-þ®gon, see ġe-þicgan.
þ®m, þ®re, þæs, see sē.
þ®r, I. dem. adv., THERE, also shading
into then; 32, 157, 271, 284, 331, 400,
440 (n.), 493 (n.), 513, 550, 775, 794,
852, 913, 972, 977 (n.), 1099, 1123,
1165, 1190, 1243, 1269 (cf. Andrew
1948: §¯23), 1280, 1365, 1470 (ibid.),
1499, 1613, 1837, 1907, 1951, 1972,
2009, 2095, 2199, [2227], 2235, 2238,
2297, 2314, 2369, 2385, 2459, 2522,
2573(?, n.), 2866, 2961, 3008, 3038,
3039, 3050, 3070; þ®r wæs, 36, 89,
497, 611, 835, 847, 856, 1063, 1232,
2076, 2105, 2122, 2231, 2762, si.
2137; ne wæs .¯.¯. þ®r, 756, 1299, 2555,
2771; þ®r is, 3011; nis þ®r, 2458.
(Sometimes þ®r appears rather
expletive, e.g. 271, 2555; 1123, 2199.
þā ð®r: 331, 1280.) þ®r inne, þ®r on
innan, see inne, innan. — II. (rel.)
conj., where, occas. shading into
when, as; 286, 420, 508 (n.), 522, 693,
777 (slightly correl. w. dem. þ®r), 866,
1007, 1079, 1279, 1359, 1378, 1394,
[1404], 1514, 1923, 2003, 2023, 2050,
2276, 2355, 2486, 2633, 2698, 2787,
2893, 2916, 3082, 3167; to (the place)
where, 356, 1163, 1313, 2851, 3108,
perh. in: 1188, 1648, 1815, 2075; conj.,
in case that, if (cf. OES §¯3621–2);
797, 1835, 2573(?), 2730. — (Spelling
ð®r just 30×.) See Schü.Sa. §§¯30, 72;
Vat Linguistic Inquiry 9 (1978) 695–
716. [Go., OIcel. þar; OHG dār, NHG
da.]
þæt, pron., see sē.
þæt (usually spelt ³), conj., THAT; used
213×; introd. consecutive clauses, that,
so that; 22, 65, 567, 571, etc.; after vbs.
of motion, until (OES §§¯2745¯ff.), 221,
358, 404, 1318, 1911, 2716; sometimes
used to indicate vaguely some other
kind of relation, 1434, 2528, 2577,
2699 (n.); provided that: 1099; —
clauses of purpose or result, that, in
order that; 2070, 2747, 2749, 2806
(OES §¯2827); [F. 19]; — substantive
clauses; 62, 68, 77, 84, 274, 300, etc.,
[F. 44]; semi-explanatory, w. ref. to an
anticipatory pron. (hit, þæt) or noun of
the governing clause; 88, 290, 379,
627, 681, 698, 701, 706, 735, 751, 779
(ref. to þæs), 812, 910, 1167, 1181,
1596, 1671, 1754, 2240, 2325, 2371,
2839, 3036, etc. — See Schü.Sa. §§¯16,
17, 23; OES §¯2817. — oð þæt, see oð;
þæt ðe, see þætte.
þætte (= þæt ðe: 1846, 1850), conj.,
THAT; 151, 858, 1256, 1942, 2924.
ða¢an, vb. II, consent to, submit to;
2963.
þāh, see þēon, vb. 1.
ġe-þāh, see ġe-þicgan.
þām, see sē.
þanan, see þonan.
þanc, m., THANKs; w. gen. (¯for); 928,
1778; as., 1809, 1997, 2794; — satis-
faction, pleasure; ds. (tō) þance, 379
(see Mal. MLN 68 [1953] 354–6); —
THOUGHT, in cpds.: fore-, ġe-, hete-,
inwit-, or-, searo-.
þanc-hycgende ‡, adj. (pres.ptc.), taking
THOUGHT, contemplative, meditative;
2235.
þancian, vb. II, THANK, w. dat. of pers.
& gen. of thing (¯for); pret. 3 sg.
þancode, 625, 1397; 3 pl. þancedon,
227, þancodon 1626.
þanon, see þonan.
þāra, see sē.
þē, pers. pron., see þū.
þē, isn., see sē.
þ¬ (spelt ðe 5×), rel. particle (repres. any
gender, number, and case), who, that,
 GLOSSARY
which, etc.; 45, 138, 192, 238, 355,
500, 831, 941, 950, 993, 1271, 1334 (in
or by which), 1436b (?, n.), 1482, 1654,
1858, 2135 (OES §§¯2268, 3369), 2182,
2364, 2400 (on which, when), 2468,
2490, 2606, 2635, 2712, 2735, 2796,
2866, 2982, 3001, 3009, 3086, [ðē, F.
9]. See also sē (þe), þætte, þēah (þe).
(See Kock 1897; Delbrück 1909;
Curme JEGP 10 [1911] 335–59, 11.10–
29, 180–204, 355–80; Schü.Sa. §§¯14,
18a, 24–9, 31; Seppänen ELL 8.1
[2004] 71–102.) [Cf. Go. þei (?); OES
§¯2151.]
þēah, I. adv., nevertheless, however;
swā þēah: 972, 1929, 2878, 2967
(ðēh); hwæðre ~, 2442. — II. conj.,
w. sj. or, rarely, ind. (several cases
doubtful), THOUGH; 203, 526, 587,
589, 680 (þēah .¯.¯. eal, cf. ALTHOUGH),
1102, 1660, 2031, 2161, 2467 (ind.),
2855; þēh, 1613 (ind.); þēah þe, 682,
1130 (if¯?, see note), 1167, 1368, 1716
(n.: ðēah þe .¯.¯. hwæþere), 1831, 1927,
1941, 2218, 2344, 2481, 2619, 2642,
2838, 2976. (Quirk 1954: 14–43;
Lingua 66 [1985] 1–19.) [Go. þauh,
NHG doch; ON *þóh > MnE though.]
þearf, f., need, want, distress, diÌculty,
trouble; 201, 1250, 1835, 2493, 2637,
2876; ds. -e, 1456 (as.?), 1477, 1525,
2694, 2709, 2849; as. -e, 1797 (pl.?),
2579, 2801 (Dob.: advantage, pro¢t).
(Taeymans 2005.) [Go. þarba.] —
Cpds.: fyren-, nearo-.
þearf, vb., see þurfan.
þearfa, wk.m., adj., needy, lacking (w.
gen.); 2225.
ġe-þear¢an (‡), vb. II, ‡necessitate,
impose necessity; pp. ġeþearfod, 1103.
þearle, adv., severely, hard; 560.
þēaw, m., custom, usage, manner; 178,
1246, 1940; as., 359; dp. þēawum (‘in
good customs’), 2144. [THEW(s); OS
thau.] — Cf. ġe-þ©we.
þeċ, see þū.
þeċċean, vb. I, cover, enfold; 3015 (see
BT); pret. 2 pl. þehton, 513. (JEGP
104 [2005] 460.) [Cf. THATCH; NHG
decken; Holt.Et.: þeċċan 2; cf. Bamm.
1979: 131.]
þeġn, m., THEGN, follower, attendant,
retainer, warrior; 194, 235, 494, 867,
1574, 2059, 2709, 2721, 2977, [F. 13];
445
gs. -es, 1797; ds. -e, 1085, 1341, 1419,
2810; as. ðeġn, 1871; np. -as, 1230; gp.
-a, 123, 400, 1627, 1644, 1673, 1829,
2033; dp. -um, 2869; ap. -as, 1081,
3121. (Loyn EHR 70 [1955] 540–9,
History 42 [1957] 98; H. Kuhn 1969–
78 [1956]: 2.446–8; D. Green 1965:
99–102; Lindow 1976: 106–12; Amos
1980: 149–50; Zimmer 2000.) [THANE
(Sc. spelling); OHG degan.] — Cpds.:
ealdor-, heal-, mago-, ombiht-, sele-.
þeġn-sorg ‡, f., SORROW for THEGNs; as.
-e, 131 (n.).
þēgon, -un, see þicgan.
þēh, see þēah.
þehton, see þeċċean.
þenċan, vb. I, THINK; abs.: pres. 3 sg.
þenċeð, 289, 2601; w. þæt-clause: pret.
3 sg. þōhte, 691; w. tō (be intent on):
~, 1139; w. inf., mean, intend; pres. 3
sg. þenċeð, 355, 448, 1535; pret. 1 sg.
þōhte, 964; 3 sg. ~, 739; 1 pl. þōhton,
541; 3 pl. ~, 800. — Cpd.: ā-.
ġe-þenċan, vb. I, THINK, remember; imp.
sg. ġeþenċ, 1474; w. acc., conceive;
inf. ġeþenċean, 1734.
þenden, I. conj., while, as long as; ~
lifde 57, si. 1224; ~ . . . wēold 30, si.
1859, 2038; ~ mōte 1177, si. (2038),
3100; 284, 2418, 2499, 2649, 3027. II.
adv., meanwhile, then; 1019, 2985.
[Go. þandē; A. 27 (1904) 273.]
þenġel †, m., prince; as., 1507 (n.).
[þēon, vb. 1; OIcel. þengill.]
þēnian, vb. II, serve; pret. 1 sg. þēnode,
560. [þeġn.]
þēo, m., servant, slave; þēo, 2223. —
(Cpds.: Ecg-, Ongen-, Wealh-þēo[w].)
þēod, f., people, nation, troop of war-
riors; 643, 1230, 1250, 1691; ðīod,
2219; gp. þēoda, 1705. (D. Green
1998: 124–7.) [Go. þiuda.] — Cpds.:
siġe-, wer-; Swēo-; el-þēodiġ.
þēod-cyning (†), m., KING of a people,
king (over wide dominions); 2963,
2970; ðīod-, 2579; ðēod-kyning, 2144;
gs. -cyninges, 2694; as. -cyning, 3008,
[3086]; gp. -cyninga, 2. (See Frank
1981: 129–30; cf. G. Clark 1990: 47.)
þēoden (†), m., chief, lord, prince, king;
15× w. m®re, q.v.; 7× w. gp. (Scyld-
inga, etc.); 129, 1046, 1209, 1715, 1871
(þēodĺn), 2032 (þēodĺn; n.), 2131,
2869, 3037; þīoden, 2336, 2810; gs.
446 GLOSSARY
þēodnes, 797, 910, 1085, 1627, 1837,
2174, 2656; ds. þēodne, 345, 1525,
1992, 2572, 2709; as. þēoden, 34, 201,
353, 1598, 2384, 2721, 2786, 2883,
3079, 3141; þīoden, 2788; vs. þēoden
(mīn): 365, 2095; ~ (Hrōðgār), 417;
þēodĺn (Scyldinga), 1675; np.
þēodnas, 3070. (Stibbe 1935: 24–31;
Sprache 12 (1966) 184–7; Strauss
1974: 91–2.) [þēod; Go. þiudans.]
ðēoden-lēas ‡, adj., lord-LESS, deprived
of one’s chief; npm. -e, 1103.
þēod-ġestrēon ‡, n., people’s treasure,
great treasure; gp. -a, 1218; dp. -um, 44.
ðēod-kyning, see þēod-cyning.
þēod-sceaða, wk.m., people’s enemy or
spoiler; 2278, 2688. (See Kl. 1911–12:
[19].)
þēod-þrēa ‡, fwō., wk.m. (SB §§¯259¯n.,
277 nn. 2 & 3; OEG §§¯120.3, 142;
HOEM §§¯166, 167 n.¯8), distress of the
people, great calamity; dp. -þrēaum,
178.
þēof, m., THIEF; gs. -es, 2219.
þēon, vb. 1, thrive, prosper; pret. 3 sg.
þāh, 8, 2836 (n.), 3058 (turn to pro¢t);
pp. nsf. ġeþungen, excellent, virtuous,
624 (See Juzi 1939: 66–7; IF 87 [1982]
333). [Go. þeihan.]— Cpds.: on-; wēl-
þungen.
ġe-þēon, vb. 1, prosper, Ïourish; 910;
ġeþ½n, 25; imp. sg. ġeþēoh, 1218.
þēon, vb. I, see þ©wan.
þēos, see þ¬s.
þēostre, adj.ja. (Lang. §¯16.1), dark,
gloomy; dp. (m.n.) þēostrum, 2332.
[NHG düster.]
þ¬s, þēos, þis, dem. pron. (adj., excl.
290), THIS; þes, 432, 1702, [F. 7], þæs
(Lang. §¯2.1), 411; nsf. þēos, 484; nsn.
þis, 290, 2499, [F. 3]; gsm. ðisses,
1216; gsf. ðisse, 928, [F. 4]; gsn.
þisses, 1217, þysses 197, 790, 806;
dsm. ðyssum, 2639; dsf. þisse, 638;
dsn. þissum, 1169; asm. þisne, 75, [F.
9], þysne 1771; asf. þās, 1622, 1681;
asn. þis, 1723, 2155, 2251, 2643; isn.
ð©s, 1395; dpm. ðyssum, 1062, 1219;
apm. ðās, 2635, 2640, 2732; apn. ~,
1652. (Allit.: 197, 790, 806; 1395.)
þicgan, vb. 5, receive, take, consume
(¯food, drink); 1010; ðicgean, 736; pret.
1 pl. þēgun, 2633; 3 pl. þēgon, 563.
[OS thiggian.]
ġe-þicgan, vb. 5, receive, consume,
drink; pret. 3 sg. ġeþeah, 618, 628,
ġeþāh (Lang. §¯25.3), 1024; 3 pl.
ġeþ®gon, 1014.
þīn, poss. pron., THY (THINE), your; 459,
490, 593, 954, 1705, 1853, 2048; nsn.,
589; gsf. -re, 1823; gsn. -es, 1761;
dsm. -um, 346, 592; dsf. -re, 1477;
asm. -ne, 267, 353, 1848; asn. þīn,
1849; isn. -e, 2131; gpm. -ra, 367,
1672, 1673; dpm. -um, 587, 1178,
1708; apm. -e, 2095.
þinċean, see þynċan.
þinġ, n., THING, affair, 409 (n.); —
meeting (judicial assembly); as., 426
(n.); — gp. in: ®niġe þinga, in any
way, by any means: 791, 2374, 2905.
— See ġe-þinġe.
ġe-þinġan (†), vb. I, determine, appoint,
intend; pp. ġeþinġed, 647 (n.), 1938;
w. reÏ. dat., determine (to go to, tō);
pres. 3 sg. ġeþinġeð, 1837 (n.).
ġe-þinġe, nja., (1) agreement, compact;
ap. ġeþinġo (terms), 1085. — (2) re-
sult, outcome; gs. ġeþinġes, 398, 709;
gp. ġeþinġea, 525. [See þinġ; cf. NHG
Bedingung.]
þingian, vb. II, compound, settle, make
arrangements; 1843 (n.); (fēa) ~, 156;
pret. 1 sg. (fēo) þingode, 470.
ðīod(-), þīoden, see þēod(-), þēoden.
þis, see þ¬s.
ġe-þōht, m., THOUGHT; as., 256, 610.
þolian, vb. II, suffer, endure; 832; pres.
3 sg. þolað, 284; pret. 3 sg. ðolodĺ,
1525; — intr., hold out, suffer; pres. 3
sg. þolað, 2499; pret. 3 sg. þolode 131
(?, n.). [THOLE (arch., North.); Go.
þulan.]
ġe-þolian, vb. II, suffer, endure; ger.
ġeþolianne, 1419; pret. 3 sg. ġeþolode,
87, 147; — intr., remain, reside; inf.,
3109.
þon, see sē.
þonan, adv. or conj., in many cases
(marked +) at the end of the line, from
there, from where (motion [accord. to
modern notions sometimes redundant],
origin: from him 111, 1265, 1960);
þonan, +819, +2061, +2099, +2140,
2359, +2545, +2956; ðonon, 520, 1373,
+
1601, 1632 (at the end of the on-
verse), 1960, +2408; þanon, 111, 123,
224, 463, 691, +763, +844, 853, 1265,
 GLOSSARY
+
1292, +1805, +1921; þanan, +1668,
+
1880. (Blockley 2001: 137–9.)
ġe-þonc, m.n., THOUGHT; dp. -um, 2332.
[See þenċan.] — Cpd.: mōd-.
þone, see sē.
þonne (ðonne just 15×), adv., conj. (used
mostly ‘frequentitively in the past,
present, and future, and of a single act
yet to be completed at some inde¢nite
time,’ OES §¯2562; see notes on 1121,
1143, 2880), I. adv., THEN; (time);
1484, 1741, 1745, 2032, 2041, 2063,
2460, 3062, 3107; 1106 (in that case);
— (succession in narrative:) then,
further; 377, 1455; — (conclusion:)
then, therefore; 435, 525, 1671, 1822
(2063); — (contrast:) however, on the
other hand; (ġyf) þonne: 1104, 1836;
ðonne, 484 (but then). — II. conj. (1)
when, at such times as, whenever; 23,
485, 573, 880, 934, 1033, 1040, 1042,
1066, 1121 (n.), 1143 (n.), 1179, 1285,
1326, 1327, 1374, 1485, 1487 (while),
1535, 1580, 1609, 2034, 2114, 2446
(n.), 2453, 2544, 2634, 2686, 2742,
2867 (þonne . . . oft, cf. Wan 39¯f.),
2880, 3064, 3106, 3117, 3176. (Correl.
þonne [adv.] . . . þonne [conj.]: 484¯f.,
1484¯f., 2032–4, 3062–4; ġyf þonne .¯.¯.
þonne, 1104–6.) — (2) when, since,
seeing that 2447 (n.), 3051 (?,¯n.). —
(3) THAN (after comp.); without foll.
clause: 469, 505, 534, 678, 1139, 1182,
1353, 1579, 2433, 2891; with foll.
clause: 44, 70, 248, (cf. 678), 1385,
1560, 1824, 2572, 2579, [F. 40].
þonon, see þonan.
þorfte, see þurfan.
ġe-þræc (†), n., press, heap; as., 3102.
[See þrec-wudu; mōd-þracu.]
þrāg, f., time; as. (longe) þrāge: 54, 114,
1257; — time of need, hard times; ns.,
2883; as. þrāge, 87. (See Kl. 1905–6:
254, MLN 34 [1919] 131; Grüner 1972:
104–12.) [Cf. Go. þragjan. Pokorny
1959: 1089; Orel 2003: 424.] — Cpd.:
earfoð-.
þrēa-nēdla †, wk.m., sore NEED, dire
necessity; ds. -nēdlan, 2223. See n©d.
þrēa-n©d †, ¢., distress, dire NEED, sore
aÑiction; as., 284; dp. -um, 832.
ðrēat, m., crowd, troop, company; ds. -e,
2406; dp. -um, 4. [OED: THREAT, sb.]
— Cpd.: īren-.
447
þrēatian, vb. II, press, harass; pret. 3 pl.
þrēatedon, 560. (C.-P. Herbermann
Etymologie und Wortgeschichte [Mar-
burg, 1974] 137–41.) [OED: THREAT,
vb., THREATen. Cf. þrēat.]
þrec-wudu ‡, mu., (might-WOOD), spear;
1246. Cf. mæġen-. See ġeþræc.
þrēohund, num., n., THREE HUNDred; a.,
2278. (Appx.C §¯5.)
þreottēoða, num., THIRTEEnTH; 2406.
[SB §¯328, OEG §¯287.]
þridda, num., THIRD; dsm. þriddan,
2688.
ġe-þrinġ, n., THRONG, tumult; as., 2132.
þringan, vb. 3, intr., THRONG, press
forward; pret. 3 sg. þrong, 2362, 2883;
3 pl. þrungon, 2960. (D. Green 1998:
185.) [NHG dringen.] — Cpd.: for-.
ġe-þringan, vb. 3, intr., press (¯forward);
pret. 3 sg. ġeþrang, 1912, ġeþrong
2215.
þrīo, num., n., THREE; a., 2174.
þrīst-h©diġ †, adj., bold-minded, brave;
2810. [NHG dreist.]
þrītiġ, num., n., w. partit. gen., THIRTY;
as., 123, 2361; gs. -es, 379. [Szemer-
ényi 1960.]
þrōwian, vb. II, suffer; 2605, 2658; pret.
3 sg. þrōwade, 1589, 1721; ðrōwode,
2594.
ġe-þrūen †, pp., forged, hammered,
made; 1285 (MS geþuren). See note.
[Cf. (ġe-)þweran, see ġeþw®re; ZföG
59 (1908) 345; A. 60 (1936) 345.]
þr©d-liċ, see þr©ð-liċ.
ðrym(m), mja.(?), power, force; 1918;
dp. þrymmum (semi-adv.), 235; —
greatness, glory; as. þrym, 2. [Cf.
OIcel. þrymr.] — Cpd.: hiġe-.
þrym-liċ, adj., powerful, magni¢cent;
1246.
ðrysman ‡, vb. I, stiÏe, choke, oppress;
pres. 3 pl. ðrysmaþ, 1375. (See Varr.)
þr©ð †, ¢., (pl.), power, strength; dp.
-um, 494. [OIcel. -þrúðr, þrúð-.] —
Cpd.: mōd-.
þr©þ-ærn ‡, n., great house, splendid
hall; as., 657.
þr©ð-liċ(‡) (+), adj., powerful, strong,
great; 400, 1627. Supl. acc. þr©dlicost,
2869 (n.).
ðr©ð-sw©ð (-swīð) ‡, adj., strong,
powerful; 131, 736. (Conjectured by
Gr.Spr. [?], Hold., Earle 1892 to be a
448 GLOSSARY
noun, ‘great pain,’ by ref. to OIcel.
sviði ‘pain from burning’; unconvinc-
ing.)
þr©ð-word ‡, n., strong (brave, noble)
WORD(s); 643.
þū, pers. pron., THOU, you (sg.); þū
(43×), ðū (19×) [& F. 27]; ds. þē
(24×), ðē (9×) [& F. 26]; as. þeċ (ðeċ),
946, 955, 1219, 1763, 1768, 1827,
1828, 2151; þē (ðē), 417, 426, 517,
1221, 1722, 1833, 1994, 1998; dual ġit,
508, 512, 513, 516; g. inċer, 584; d.
inċ, 510; pl. ġē, 237, 245, 252, 254,
333 (n.), 338, 393, 395, 2529, 2866,
3096, 3104; gp. ēower, 248, 392(?),
596; dp. ēow, 292, 391, 1344, 1987,
2865, 3103; ap. ēowiċ, 317, 3095.
(Flasdieck A. 57 [1933] 208–15.)
þūhte, see þynċan.
ġe-þungen, see þēon, vb. 1.
þunian, vb. II, (THUNder), groan, creak;
pret. 3 sg. þunede, 1906.
*þurfan, prp., (in neg. clauses,) need,
have good cause or reason; pres. 2 sg.
þearft, 445, 450, 1674; 3 sg. þearf,
595, 2006, 2741; sj. 3 sg. þurfe, 2495;
pret. 3 sg. þorfte, 157, 1026, 1071,
2874, 2995; 3 pl. þorfton, 2363.
(Taeymans 2005.) [Go. þaúrban.]
þurh, prep., w. acc., THROUGH; local:
2661; means, instrument: 276(?), 558,
699, 940, 1693, 1695, 1979, 2045,
2405; cause, motive, through, from,
because of: 267, 278, 1726(?), 1101(?),
3068; state, manner, accompanying
circumstances, in, with, by way of: 184
(n.) 276, 1335, 2454; 267(?), 278(?),
1101, 1726.
þurh-brecan (‡), vb. 4, BREAK
THROUGH; pret. 3 sg. -bræc, 2792.
þurh-dūfan (‡), vb. 2, (DIVE), swim
THROUGH; pret. 3 sg. -dēaf, 1619.
þurh-etan (†), vb. 5, EAT THROUGH; pp.
np. þurhetone (see Lang. §¯19.6), 3049.
þurh-fōn (‡), vb. 7, penetrate; 1504.
þurh-tēon, vb. 2, bring about, effect;
1140.
þurh-wadan (†), vb. 6, go THROUGH,
penetrate; pret. 3 sg. -wōd, 890, 1567.
þus, adv., THUS, so; 238, 337, 430.
þūsend, n., THOUSAND; as., 3050; ap.
(seofan) þūsendo, 2195 (n.); þūsenda
(Lang. §19.2), 1829; (hund) þūsenda,
2994 (n.; Appx.C §¯5).
ġe-þw®re, adj.ja., harmonious, united,
loyal; npm., 1230. [ġeþweran ‘stir,
mix together.’] See mon-ðw®re.
þ©, see sē.
þyder (þider), adv., THITHER, to that
place, there; þyder, 379, 2970, 3086.
þ©htiġ (‡), adj., strong, ¢rm; asn., 1558.
[þēon, vb. 1; Cl.Hall et al.: þ…htiġ, but
fr. *þūhtīµ- < *þunχtīµ-.] — Cpd.:
hiġe-.
ġe-þyld, ¢., patience; as., 1395; dp. ġe-
þyldum, steadily, 1705. [þolian; NHG
Geduld; Afnf. 54 (1939) 230–4.]
þyle (‡) (+), mi., orator, spokesman,
oÌcial entertainer (see Commentary,
pp.¯150–1); 1165, 1456. [OIcel. þulr;
Bamm. 1979: 132–3; R.-L.2 5.378;
Kabell Afnf. 95 (1980) 39; Liberman
alvíssmál 6 (1996) 71–7.]
þynċan, vb. I, seem, appear; impers.
(marked +), w. dat., (METHINKS), it ap-
pears to me, etc.; þinċean, +1341; pres.
3 sg. þynċeð, +2653, þinċeð 1748; 3 pl.
þinċeað, 368; sj. 3 sg. þinċe, +687;
pret. 3 sg. þūhte, 842, 2461, +3057; 3
pl. þūhton, 866. [Go. þugkjan. Cf.
þenċan.] — Cpd.: of-.
•ð‰rel, adj., pierced through; [ð©r(e)l, F.
45]. [þurh.]
þyrs, mi., giant, demon; ds. -e, 426.
(Archiv 175 [1939] 90; N. Chadwick
1959: 173–4; Stanley 1979: 69–71;
Taylor 2000: 124–5; in place-names:
Whitelock 1951: 72–3.) [OIcel. þurs,
OHG thuris.]
þys-liċ, adj., such; nsf. þyslicu, 2635.
[þus.]
þ©s, þysne, þysses, þyssum, see þ¬s.
þ©stru, fīn., darkness; dp. þ©strum, 87.
[þēostre.]
þ©wan, þēon, vb. I, oppress, threaten;
ð½n, 2736; pres. 3 pl. þ©wað, 1827.
(SB §¯408 n.¯11, OEG §§¯238.3, 753.6.)
[Ekwall 1954: 78.]
ġe-þ©we (‡) +, adj.ja., customary, usual;
nsn., 2332. [þēaw.]
ufan, adv., abOVE, at the top; 330 (n.);
from above (denot. motion); 1500.
ufera, ufara, (‡) +, comp., (higher),
later; dpn. uferan (dōgrum), 2392,
ufaran (~), 2200.
ufor, adv. comp., higher up, farther
away; 2951 (n.).
 GLOSSARY
ūhta or ūhte, wk.m. or n. (SB §¯278
n.¯5), time just before daybreak, dawn;
ds. (on) ūhtan, 126. [Go. ūhtwō, wk.f.]
(See Tupper PMLA 10 [1895] 146–9.)
ūht-Ïoga ‡, wk.m., (dawn- or) night-
FLIer; gs. -Ïogan, 2760.
ūht-hlem(m) ‡, mja.(?), crash or uproar
at (dawn or) night; as. -hlem, 2007.
Cf. hilde-, wæl-hlem(m).
ūht-sceaða ‡, wk.m., predator at (dawn)
night; 2271.
umbor-wesende ‡, adj. (pres.ptc.), being
a child; dsm. umbľrwesendum, 1187;
asm. umbľrwesende, 46. Cf. cniht-;
Appx.C §¯14. (umbor also Max I 31.)
[*umb-, cf. wamb, see Grienb. ZföG
59 (1908) 345, Bäck 1934: 77–9; other
etymologies: Grimm D.M. 322 (389);
Simrock 1859: 170–1; Bamm. 1979:
134–5; also Bright MLN 31 (1916)
82¯f.: cf. ymb(e).]
un-blīðe, adj.(i.)ja., joyless, sorrowful;
130, 2268; npm., 3031.
un-byrnende (‡), adj. (pres.ptc.), without
BURNing; 2548.
unc, see iċ.
uncer, pers. pron., see iċ.
uncer, poss. pron., of us two; dpm.
uncran, 1185.
un-cūð, adj., unknown; nsf., 2214; —
strange, forbidding, awful; gsn. -es,
876 (unknown?); asm. -ne, 276; asn.
uncūð, 1410; uncanny (enemy), gsm.
-es 960. (See Schü.Bd. 42–4; GriÌth
ASE 24 [1995] 18¯f.) [UNCOUTH.]
•un-dearnunga, adv., without conceal-
ment, openly; [F. 22]. [Cf. undyrne.]
under, I. prep., (1) w. dat., (position:)
UNDER; under (wolcnum, heofenum,
roderum, sweġle): 8, 52, 310, 505, 651,
714, 1078, 1197, 1631, 1770, [F. 8];
1656, 2411, 2415, 2967, 3060, 3103;
under (helme, ‘covered by’): 342, 404,
2539, si.: 396, 1163, 1204, 1209, 2049,
2203, 2605; si. 1302; at the lower part
(¯foot) of, 211, 710, 2559; within, 1928,
cf. 3060, 3103; (attending circum-
stances:) with, 738 (n.). — (2) w. acc.,
(motion, see Kl. 1905–6: 256–7:) under
(also to the lower part of¯) 403, 820,
836, 887, 1360, 1361, 1469, 1551, 1745,
2128, 2540, 2553, 2675, 2744, 2755,
3031, 3123; (to the) inside (of¯) 707
(n.), 1037, 2957, 3090; (extension:)
449
under; under (heofones hwealf): 576,
2015, si. 414, 860, 1773. — II. adv.,
beneath; 1416, 2213.
undern-m®l (‡) (+), n., morning-time;
as., 1428. (undern, orig.: ‘3rd hour,’
‘mid-forenoon.’ See Tupper PMLA 10
[1895] 160–4.) [UNDERN (obs., dial.),
UNDERMEAL (obs.), Chaucer, C.T., III
(D) 875; Go. undaúrni-.]
un-dyrne, -derne, adj.ja., not hidden,
apparent, revealed, obvious; undyrne,
127; under[ne], 2911; nsn. undyrne,
2000; in: undyrne cūð, 150 (n.), 410
(hardly adv.; see notes on 150, 398;
Angl. 28 [1905] 440, Kock2 104). Cf.
•un-dearninga.
un-f®cne (‡) +, adj.ja., without deceit,
sincere; as. (f. or m.), 2068.
un-f®ġe (‡), adj.ja., undoomed, not fated
to die; 2291; asm. unf®ġne, 573.
un-f¡ġer (‡) + (see Appx.C §¯25), adj.,
UNFAIR, ugly, eerie, horrible; nsn.,
unfæġer, 727.
un-Ïitme ‡, adv. (?), without dispute (?),
1097 (n.).
un-forht, adj., fearless, brave; 287.
un-forhte (‡), adv., fearlessly, without
hesitation; 444.
un-frōd (‡), adj., [not wise, i.e.] not old,
young; dsm. -um, 2821.
un-from †, adj., inactive, feeble; 2188.
un-ġeāra, adv., (1) not long ago, re-
cently; 932. — (2) before long, soon;
602 (~ nū). See ġeāra.
un-ġedēfe-līċe (‡), adv., UN¢ttingly;
-ŔŕŜĺ, 2435 (n.).
un-ġemete, adv. (†), without measure,
exceedingly; 2420, 2721, 2728. [metan.
Cf. OS; Hildebr. 25: um-met.]
un-ġyfeðe (-ġifeðe) ‡, adj.ja., not granted,
denied; nsf., 2921.
un-h®lo (‡) +, fīn., ‡evil, destruction;
gs., 120. [hāl.]
un-hēore, -hīore, -h©re, adj.ja., UNpleas-
ant, awful, monstrous; -hīore, 2413;
nsf. -hēoru, 987 (n.: npn.?); nsn. -h©re,
2120.
un-hlitme ‡, adv. (?), not reluctantly,
eagerly, earnestly (?), 1129 (n.). [hlytm.]
•un-hrōr¯(‡)¯(+), adj., powerless, weak,
(made) useless; [nsn., F. 45 (n.)].
un-iġmetes (=¯un-ġemetes, Lang. §19.8),
adv.(‡), without measure, exceedingly;
1792 (n.).
450 GLOSSARY
un-lēof †, adj., not loved; apm. -e, 2863.
(Schü.Bd. 8 n.: ‘faithless’?)
un-li¢ġende, -ly¢ġende, adj. (pres.ptc.),
not LIVing, dead; -li¢ġende, 468; gsm.
-ly¢ġendes, 744; dsm. -lifġendum, 1389,
-li¢ġendum 2908; asm. -ly¢ġendne,
1308.
un-l©tel, adj., not LITTLE, great; 885;
nsf., 498; asn., 833.
un-murn-līċe †, adv., ruthlessLY, 449
(cf. 136); recklessly, 1756. [murnan.]
unnan, prp., not begrudge, wish (some-
one to have something), grant; w. dat.
of pers. & gen. of thing: pres. 1 sg. an,
1225; w. dat. of pers. & þæt-clause:
pret. 3 sg. ūðe, 2874; — like, wish;
abs.: pret. sj. 3 sg. ūðe, 2855; w.
þæt-clause: pret. 1 sg. ūþe, 960 (sj.?); 3
sg. ~, 503. [OIcel. unna, OS, OHG
unnan; Seebold ZvS 80 (1966) 277–8;
Bamm. NOWELE 34 (1998) 15–21.]
ġe-unnan, prp., grant; w. dat. of pers. &
þæt-clause; 346; pret. 3 sg. ġeūðe, 1661.
[OHG gi-unnan, NHG gönnen.]
un-nyt(t), adj.ja., useless, unusable; 413;
nsn., 3168. (Condren PQ 52 [1973]
296–9: ‘unused’)
un-riht, n., wrong; as., 1254; (on) ~
(wrongfully), 2739.
un-rihte, adv. (or ds. of unriht, n.),
wrongfully; 3059.
un-rīm, n., countless number; 1238,
3135; as., 2624.
un-rīme, adj.ja., countless; nsn., 3012.
un-rōt, adj., sad, depressed; npm. -e,
3148.
un-slāw, adj.wa., not SLOW, (‡)not blunt,
sharp; asn., 2564 (n.).
un-snyttru, fīn., UNwisdom, folly; dp.
unsnyttrum, 1734.
un-sōfte, adv., (UNSOFTly), hardly, with
diÌculty; 1655, 2140.
un-swīðe (‡), adv., not strongly; comp.
unswīðor, less strongly, 2578, 2881.
un-synniġ (‡) +, adj., guiltless; asm. -ne,
2089. [syn(n).]
un-synnum ‡, adv. (dp.), guiltlessly;
1072. See syn(n).
un-t®le (‡) +, adj.ja., blameless; apm.,
1865.
un-t©dre ‡, mja., bad brood, evil off-
spring; np. -t©dras, 111. [tūdor.]
un-wāc-liċ (‡), adj., not (WEAK) mean,
splendid; asm. -ne, 3138.
un-wearnum †, adv. (dp.), without hin-
drance, irresistibly; or: eagerly, greed-
ily (Schuchardt 1910: 14, Hoops); 741.
See wearn.
un-wrecen (‡) +, adj. (pp.), UNavenged;
2443.
up, adv., UP(ward); 128, 224, 519, 782,
1373, 1619, 1912, 1920, 2575, 2893.
up-lang, adj., UPright; 759. See and-
long. (Cf. upp-rihte.)
uppe, adv., UP, above; 566.
upp-rihte (‡) +, adv., UPRIGHT; 2092.
ūre, pers. pron., see iċ.
ūre, poss. pron., OUR; 2647; gsn. ūsses,
2813; dsm. ūssum, 2634; asm. ūserne,
3002, 3107.
ūrum, ūs, ūser, see iċ.
ūserne, see ūre.
ūsiċ, see iċ.
ūsses, ūssum, see ūre.
ūt, adv., OUT (motion); 215, 537, 663,
1292, 1583, 2081, 2515, 2545, 2551,
2557, 3092, 3106, 3130. [Go. ūt.]
ūtan, adv., from withOUT, outside; 774,
1031, 1503, 2334. [Go. ūtana.]
ūtan-weard (‡) +, adj., OUTside; asm.
-ne, 2297.
ūt-fūs ‡, adj., ready (eager) to set OUT;
33. (Liberman 1996: ‘eager for its last
voyage’; cf. hinfūs.)
uton, see wutun.
ūt-weard (‡) +, adj., turning OUTWARD,
making an attempt to escape; 761. [Cf.
weorðan.]
ūþe, see unnan.
ūð-genġe, adj.ja., departing; wæs .¯.¯. ūð-
genġe, w. dat., departed from, 2123.
[Go. unþa-. Cf. oð-.]
wā, m. (or adv.? so Kl., BT, Gr.Spr.),
WOE, aÑiction, misery; 183. [Go. wai.
In prose it is generally an interjection.]
wacian, vb. III, II (SB §¯417 n.¯8, OEG
§¯764), keep WATCH, be awake; imp.
sg. waca, 660; pres.ptc. wæċċende,
708; asm., uninÏ. 2841, wæċċendne,
1268. See wæċċan.
wada, -o, -u, see wæd.
wadan, vb. 6, go, advance; pret. 3 sg.
wōd, 714, 2661. [WADE.] — Cpds.:
on-, þurh-.
ġe-wadan, vb. 6, go, advance (to a cer-
tain point); pp. ġewaden, 220.
wæċċend(-), see wacian.
 GLOSSARY
wæcnan (†), vb. 6, vb. I (SB §¯392 n.¯2,
OEG §¯744), aWAKE, arise, spring, be
born; 85; pret. 3 sg. wōc, 1265, 1960;
3 pl. wōcun, 60. [Go. wakan, -waknan,
OIcel. vakna.] — Cpd.: on-.
wæd †, n., water, sea; (pl. w. sg.
meaning); np. wadu, 581 (n.), wado
546; gp. wada, 508. (Cronan 2003:
411–12.) [Cf. wadan.]
ġe-w®de, nja., dress, equipment, armor;
ap. ġew®du, 292. [w®d > WEED(s).]
— Cpds.: brēost-, eorl-, gūð-.
w®fre †, adj.ja., restless; 2420; nsn.,
1150; wandering, nsm., 1331 (see Kl.
1911–12: [22]; cf. Garmonsway in
Bessinger & Creed 1965: 143: ‘furi-
ous’).
w®ġ-bora ‡, wk.m., wave-roamer; 1440.
[See wēġ; beran. (borian?)] (Etymolog-
ical meanings proposed: ‘wave-bearer,
-bringer, -traveler, -piercer, -disturber,
-lifter,’ ‘offspring of the waves.’ See
Gr.Spr.; Schröer Angl. 13 [1891] 335;
Siev. Angl. 14 [1892] 135; Aant. [24];
Holt. Beibl. 14 [1903] 49, 21.300;
Grienb. BGdSL 36 [1910] 99; Siev.
ibid. 431; Sed.3; Hoops 171; Marquardt
1938: 189; Kl. Angl. 63 [1939] 420¯f.;
Beibl. 50 [1939] 331. See Varr.)
w®ġe (†), nja., cup, Ïagon; as., (f®ted)
w®ġe: 2253, 2282. [OS wêgi. See
Kross 1911: 26, 129–30; Frank in
O’Brien O’Keeffe & Orchard 2005:
411–12.] — Cpds.: ealo-, līð-.
w®ġ-holm ‡, m., (billowy) sea; as., 217.
w®ġ-sweord ‡, n., SWORD with wavy
ornamentation; as., 1489. (Cf. Hoops
174.)
wæl, n., those slain in battle (collect.),
corpse (?); as., 448 (n.), 1212, 3027;
np. walu, 1042; — slaughter, ¢eld of
battle; ds. wæle, 1113; as. wæl, 635.
(Soland 1979: 36–8.) [Cf. wōl, OIcel.
Valh∂ll.] — Cpd.: Frēs-.
wæl-bed(d) †, nja., BED of death; ds.
bedde, 964.
wæl-bend ‡, fjō., deadly BOND; ap. -e,
1936.
wæl-blēat ‡, adj., deadly, mortal (?); asf.
-e, 2725. (See blēate, and cf. Gr.Spr.,
connecting -blēat w. blāt ‘pale’;
Grinda 1993: 375–6.)
wæl-dēað ‡, m., DEATH by slaughter;
695.
451
wæl-drēor †, m. or n., blood of slaugh-
ter; ds. -e, 1631.
wæl-f®hð ‡, f., deadly FEUD; gp. -a,
2028.
wæl-fāg ‡, adj., slaughter-stained (?);
asm. -ne, 1128 (n.).
wæl-feal(l) (‡), m., slaughter; ds. -fealle,
1711. See wæl-fyl(l).
wæl-fūs ‡, adj., ready for death; 2420.
wæl-fyl(l), mi., slaughter; gp. -fylla,
3154. See wæl-feal(l). (It is connected
rather to wæl-fyllo by v.Sch., Ni.; see
also TSL 11 [1966] 146.)
wæl-fyllo ‡, fīn., abundance of slain,
FILL of slaughter; ds. -fylle, 125. [full.]
wæl-f©r ‡, n., deadly FIRE; ds. -e, 2582;
funeral ¢re; gp. -a, 1119.
wæl-g®st ‡, mi., slaughtering demon;
1331; as., 1995. See gāst.
wæl-hlem(m) ‡, mja.(?), slaughter-
uproar, onslaught; as. -hlem, 2969.
Cf. hilde-, ūht-hlem(m).
wæll-seax ‡, n., battle-knife; ds. -e, 2703.
wælm, see wylm.
wæl-nīð †, m., deadly hate, hostility;
3000; ds. -e, 85; np. -as, 2065.
wæl-r®s ‡, m., deadly onslaught, bloody
conÏict; 2947; ds. -e, 824, 2531; as.
-r®s, 2101.
w®l-rāp ‡, m., water-fetter (ice); ap. -as,
1610. [w®l ‘deep pool,’ ‘stream,’ see
J. Wright 1898–1905: WEEL, sb.1;
ROPE.] (Kock, Kl.Misc. 19; Hoops;
Berendsohn 1935: 175–6; Holt.8 p.¯x;
Kl.3 Su. 467 [?], v.Sch., Ni.: wæl-
rāpas, ‘quelling chains’; also PQ 58
[1979] 362.)
wæl-rēaf, n., spoil of battle; as., 1205.
wæl-rēċ ‡, mi., deadly (REEK) fumes;
as., 2661.
wæl-rēow, adj., ¢erce in battle; 629.
(Grinda 1993: 362–4.)
wæl-rest †, fjō.(?), bed of slaughter; as.
-e, 2902.
wæl-sceaft ‡, m., battle-(SHAFT, i.e.)
spear; ap. -as, 398.
•wæl-sliht, mi., SLAUGHTer; [gp. -a, F.
28]. [slēan; ON *slahtr > slaughter.]
wæl-stenġ ‡, mi., battle-pole, shaft of
spear; ds. -e, 1638. (Brady 1979: 132.)
wæl-stōw, f., battle-¢eld; ds. (or gs.) -e,
2051, 2984. [Cf. NHG Wa(h)lstatt.]
w®n (wæġn), m., WAGON; as., 3134.
[WAIN.]
452 GLOSSARY
w®pen, n., WEAPON; 1660; gs. w®pnes,
1467; ds. w®pne, 2965, 1664 (is.); as.
w®pen, 685, 2519, 2687, w®pĺn 1573;
gp. w®pna, 434, 1045, 1452, 1509,
1559; dp. w®pnum, 250, 331, 2038,
2395; ap. w®pen, 292. [Go. wēpn.] —
Cpds.: hilde-, siġe-.
w®pned-mon(n), mc., MAN; ds. -men,
1284. (Stibbe 1935: 69–71.) [WEAP-
ONED, i.e. male: Robinson 1985: 100
n.¯11.]
w®r, f., agreement, treaty; as. -e, 1100;
— protection, keeping; ds. -e, 3109;
as. -e, 27. [OHG wāra, cf. OS, OHG
wār.] — Cpd.: frioðo-.
w®re, w®ran, -on, wæs, see eom.
wæstm, m., growth, stature, form; dp.
-um, 1352. (Bäck 1934: 87–8; Soland
1979: 40–1.) [weaxan.] — Cpd.: here-.
wæter, n., WATER, sea; 93, 1416, 1514,
1631; gs. wæteres, 471, 516, 1693,
2791 (n.); ds. wætere, 1425, 1656,
2722, wætre 2854; as. wæter, 509,
1364, 1619, 1904, 1989, 2473.
wæter-eġesa †, wk.m., WATER-terror,
awful water; as. -eġesan, 1260.
wæter-©ð ‡, fjō., wave of the sea; dp.
-um, 2242.
wāg, m., wall; ds. -e, 1662; dp. -um, 995.
(Shetelig & Falk 1937: 320–1.) [OS
wêg. Rel. to Go. -waddjus? So de
Vries 1962: 651; cf. Orel 2003: 440.]
waldend, see wealdend.
wald-swaþu ‡, f. (or -swæþ, n.), forest-
track, -path; dp. -swaþum, 1403.
[WOLD; see swaðu.]
walu, f., ridge, ‡reinforcing crest on
helmet; 1031 (n.). [WALE, WEAL; Go.
walus ‘staff.’]
walu, pl., see wæl.
wan, adj., see won(n).
•wandrian, vb. II, WANDER, rove, circle;
[pret. 3 sg. wandrode, F. 34].
wang, see wong.
wanian, vb. II, (1) intr., WANE, diminish,
waste away; 1607. — (2) trans.,
diminish, lessen; pret. 3 sg. wanode,
1337; pp. ġewanod, 477. [Cf. won-.]
wāniġean, vb. II, bewail; 787. [OHG
weinōn, NHG weinen.]
warian, vb. II, †guard, occupy, inhabit;
pres. 3 sg. warað, 2277; 3 pl. wariġ-
eað, 1358; pret. 3 sg. warode, 1253,
1265. [OS warôn, NHG wahren.]
waroð, m., shore; ds. -e, 234; ap. -as,
1965. [OHG werid; NHG Werder. See
MLN 32 (1917) 223; Pal. 147.68, 71–3;
HS 102 (1989) 91–8.]
wāst, wāt, see witan.
•waðol¯‡, adj., wandering; [F. 8]. [Cf.
MHG wadel, OHG wadalōn, wallōn,
OE weallian, see IF 4 (1894) 337,
BGdSL 30 (1905) 132, ibid. 36 (1910)
99¯f., 431.] (BT, Cl.Hall, Mackie:
wāðol, from wāð, f., ‘wandering.’)
wē, see iċ.
wēa, wk.m., WOE, misery, trouble; 936;
as. wēan, 191, 423, 1206, 1991, 2292,
2937; gp. wēana, 148, 933, 1150, 1396,
[F. 25]. Cf. wā.
•wēa-d®d¯†, ¢., DEED of WOE; [np. -a,
F. 8].
weal(l), m., WALL (arti¢cial or natural;
of building, cavern, rock, elevated shore
[229, 572, 1224; see Cronan 2003:
409]); gs. wealles, 2323; ds. wealle,
229, 785, 891, 1573, 2307, 2526, 2542,
2716, 2759, 3060, 3103, 3161; as.
weal, 326; ap. weallas, 572, 1224. [Fr.
Lat. vallum.] — Cpds.: bord-, eorð-,
s®-, scild-.
wēa-lāf (†), f., survivors of calamity; as.
-e, 1084, 1098. (So Met 1.22; WHom
19.67.)
ġe-wealc, n., rolling; as., 464. [Cf. WALK,
OE wealc(i)an.]
ġe-weald, n., power, control; as., 79,
654, 764, 808, 903, 950, 1087, 1610,
1684, 1727; dp. ġewealdum, 2221 (‡of
his own accord).
wealdan, vb. 7, control, have power
over, rule, WIELD, possess; w. dat.
(instr.); 2038, 2390, 2574 (instr., [n.]),
2827, 2984 (gen.?); pret. 1 sg. wēold,
465; 3 sg. ~, 30, 1057, 2379, 2595; 3
pl. wēoldon, 2051 (gen.?); — w. gen.;
pres. 1 sg. wealde, 1859; pret. 1 sg.
wēold, 1770; 3 sg. ~, 702; — abs.; inf.,
2574(?); 442b: ġif hē wealdan (man-
age) mōt (a set expression, see GenA
2787b, Hel. 220b; BT: wealdan, V, d.).
(Mincoff 1933: 63–76; Beer 1939:
238–44.)
ġe-wealdan, vb. 7, control, WIELD, have
control of; w. dat.; pret. 3 sg. ġewēold,
2703; — w. gen.; inf., 1509; — w.
acc.; pret. 3 sg. ġewēold, 1554 (bring
about, see Lang. §¯21.4); pp. apm.
 GLOSSARY
ġewealdĺne (subject), 1732 (cf. Lat.
subditum facere).
wealdend, mc., ruler, God; abs., waldend,
1693; gs. wealdendes, 2857, waldendes
2292, 3109; ds. wealdende, 2329; —
w. gen. (wuldres, ylda, etc.); ns.
wealdend, 17, waldend 1661, 1752,
2741, 2875; as. ~, 183. (Strauss 1974:
106; Robinson 1985: 38.)
weallan, vb. 7, WELL, surge, seethe, boil;
pres.ptc. nsn. weallende, 847 (n.), npn.
~, 546, weallendu 581; pret. 3 sg.
wēol, 515, 849 (n.), 1131, 1422, wēoll
2138, 2593, 2693, 2714, 2882; — ¢g.,
of emotions; (subject: hreðer, brēost)
pret. 3 sg. wēoll, 2113, 2331, 2599 (~
sefa wið sorgum); (subject: wælnīðas)
pres. 3 pl. weallað, 2065; pres.ptc. asf.
(sorge) weallinde, 2464 (see Lang.
§¯19.6).
weall-clif ‡, n., CLIFF (see weal[l]); as.,
3132.
weard, m., GUARDian, watchman, keeper,
lord, possessor; 229, 286, 921, 1741,
2239, 2413, 2513, 2580, 3060; as. ~,
2524, 2841, 3066; vs. ~, 1390. (Schik
1971: 68–93; Strauss 1974: 98–9.) [Go.
(daúra-)wards.] — Cpds.: bāt-, eorð-,
ēþel-, gold-, hord-, h©ð-, land-, ren-,
sele-, yrfe-; hlāford; or-wearde.
weard, f., WARD, watch; as. -e, 319. —
Cpds.: ®ġ-, eoton-, ferh-, hēafod-.
weardian, vb. II, (WARD), GUARD,
(†)occupy; pret. 3 sg. weardode, 105,
1237; 1 pl. weardodon, 2075; — lāst
weardian: (1) follow; pret. sj. 3 pl.
weardode, 2164 (w. dat.; see n.). (2)
remain behind; inf., 971; so: swaðe
weardian; pret. 3 sg. weardade, 2098
(w. dat.).
wearn, f., (hindrance), ‡refusal; as.
wearne (ġetēoh, refuse, cf. forwyrnan),
366. — Cpd.: un-wearnum.
wēa-spel(l) ‡, n., news of WOE, discour-
aging turn of events; ds. -spelle, 1315.
weaxan, vb. 7, WAX, grow, increase,
Ïourish; 3115 (n.); pres. 3 sg. weaxeð,
1741; pret. 3 sg. wēox, 8.
ġe-weaxan, vb. 7, WAX, increase; pret. 3
sg. ġewēox, 66; develop (so as to
bring something about, tō): ~, 1711.
web(b) (‡) +, nja., WEB, tapestry; np.
web, 995. — Cf. freoðu-webbe, ġe-
wif.
453
weċċan, vb. I, WAKE, rouse, stir up;
weċċean, 2046, 3024; weċċan, 3144
(kindle); pret. sj. 3 sg. wehte, 2854
(n.). [Go. (us-)wakjan. See wæċċan,
wæcnan.] — Cpd.: tō-.
wed(d), nja., pledge; ds. wedde, 2998.
[Go. wadi; OE weddian > WED.]
weder, n., WEATHER; np., 1136; gp. -a
(storms), 546. (Kotzor in Bamm. 1985:
175–95.)
weġ, m., WAY; as. in on weġ, AWAY,
264, 763, 844, 1382, 1430, 2096; [on
wæġ, F. 43]. [Go. wigs.] — Cpds.:
feor-, fold-, forð-, wīd-.
wēġ (w®ġ) (†), m., wave; as., 3132. [Go.
wēgs, OIcel. vágr, NHG Woge.]
wegan, vb. 5, carry, wear, have (feel-
ings); 3015; pres. 3 sg. wiġeð, 599; sj.
3 sg. weġe, 2252; pret. 1 sg. wæġ,
1777; 3 sg. ~, 152 (carry on, wage),
1207, 1931, 2464, 2704, 2780. [WEIGH;
Go. (ga-)wigan.] — Cpd.: æt-.
ġe-wegan ‡, vb. 5, ¢ght; 2400. [OIcel.
vega; cf. wīgan. See BGdSL 12 (1887)
178¯f.; JEGP 20 (1921) 22–7; Hoops
256; Jóhannesson 1956: 113; Pokorny
1959: 1129; Ísl.osb. s.v. vega; Orel
2003: 452.]
wēġ-Ïota (w®ġ-)†, wk.m., wave-
FLOATer, ship; as. -Ïotan, 1907.
wēġ-līðend(e) †, mc. (pres.ptc.) [pl.],
seafarer; dp. -līðendum, 3158.
wehte, see weċċan.
wēl, well, adv. (always stressed), WELL,
very much, rightly; wēl, 186, 289, 639,
1045, 1792, 1821, 1833, 1854, 2570,
2601, 2855; well, 1951, 2162, 2812.
[WELL, dial. WEEL; Go. waíla. See
Beibl. 13 (1902) 16–18, IF 16 (1904)
503¯f., EStn. 44 (1912) 326; BGdSL 51
(1927) 304¯f.; SB §¯137 n.¯6; Lang.
§¯20.4.]
wēl-hwylċ (†), pron., every (one); adj.:
gpm. -ra, 1344; — subst., nsm. wēl-
hwylċ, 266; asn. (everything) ~, 874.
weliġ, adj., WEALthy, rich; asm. -ne,
2607.
wēl-þungen (†), adj. (pp.), accomplished,
excellent; nsf., 1927 (or: wēl þungen?).
[See þēon, vb. 1. ]
wēn, ¢., expectation; 734, 1873, 2323,
2910; as., 383, 1845 (something to be
expected, likely), [3000]; dp. wēnum,
2895. [NHG Wahn.] — Cf. or-wēna.
454 GLOSSARY
wēnan, vb. I, WEEN, expect, think; w.
inf.: pret. 1 sg. wēnde, 933; w. þæt-
clause: pres. 1 sg. wēn’ (iċ; Appx.C
§¯37), 338, 442, wēne (iċ) 1184; pret. 3
sg. wēnde, 2329; 3 pl. wēndon, 937,
1604, 2187; — (expect;) w. gen.: pres.
1 sg. wēne, 272 (think), 2522; w. gen.
& inf.: inf., 185; w. gen. & tō (¯from):
inf., 157; pres. 1 sg. wēne (iċ), 525,
wēne 2923; 3 sg. wēneþ, 600; w. gen.
& þæt-clause: pret. 3 sg. wēnde, 2239;
3 pl. wēndon, 778, 1596; w. tō: pres. 1
sg. wēne, 1396.
wendan, vb. I, turn; pres. 3 sg. wendeð,
1739 (intr.). [WEND, WENT; windan;
Go. wandjan.] — Cpd.: on-.
ġe-wendan, vb. I, turn (trans.); pret. 3
sg. ġewende, 315; change (trans.), inf.
186.
wennan, vb. I, (accustom, attach to one-
self¯), †entertain, present; pret. sj. 3 sg.
wenede, 1091. [OIcel. venja.] See Rooth
Språkvetenskapliga sällskapets i Upp-
sala förhandlingar 1922–4, pp.¯93¯ff.
— Cpd.: be-.
weora, gp., see wer.
weorc, n., WORK, deed; (see word); gs.
weorces, 2299; ds. weorce, 1569; as.
weorc, 74, 1656; gp. worca, 289; dp.
weorcum, 2096; worcum, 1100, 1833
(n.); — pain, diÌculty, distress; as.
weorc, 1721; dp. weorcum, 1638. —
weorce (is.), adv., in: weorce wesan,
be painful, grievous; 1418. (For Angl.
wærċ ‘pain.’ See Lang. §¯27; also
Füchsel A. 24 [1901] 25; Szogs 1931:
126; Grinda 1975: 54–8.) — Cpds.:
ellen-, heaðo-, niht-; ġe-weorc.
ġe-weorc, n., WORK; gs. ġeweorces,
2711; — (something wrought), hand-
IWORK; ns. ġeweorc, 455, 1562, 1681;
as. ~, 2717, 2774. — Cpds.: ®r-, fyrn-,
gūð-, hond-, land-, nīþ-.
weorod, see werod.
weorpan, vb. 3, throw; w. acc., pret. 3
sg. wearp, 1531; w. instr. (throw out),
~ 2582; — ‡w. acc. of pers. & (instr.)
gen. of thing (wæteres), sprinkle; inf.,
2791 (n.). [Go. waírpan; WARP.] —
Cpds.: for-, ofer-.
weorð, adj., valued, dear, honored;
1814; comp. weorþra, 1902. [Go.
waírþs; WORTH.] See wyrðe, weorð-
ian.
weorð, n., WORTH, price, treasure; ds.
-e, 2496. [Go. waírþ(s).]
weorðan, vb. 3, happen, come to pass,
arise; 2526 (‘turn out’), 3068; pret. 3
sg. wearð, 767, 1280, 1302, 2003; pp.
ġeworden, 1304, 3078. — w. tō & dat.,
(turn to), become, prove a source of;
inf., 1707; pret. 1 sg. wearð, 2501; 3
sg. ~, 460, 905, 1261, 1330, 1709 (si.),
2071 (‘turned out’), 2078, 2384; 3 pl.
wurdon, 2203; sj.(?) 2 sg. wurde, 587;
— w. pred. adj. or noun, become; inf.,
wurðan, 807; pres. 3 sg. weorðeð,
2913; 3 pl. weorðað, 2066, wurðaþ
282; pret. 3 sg. wearð, 77, 149, 409,
555, 753, 816, 818, 913, 1255, 1269,
1775, 2378, 2392, 2482, 2612; 3 pl.
wurdon, 228; sj. 3 sg. wurde, 2731; si.
pret. 3 sg.: on fylle wearð (‘fell’),
1544; — as auxiliary, w. pp. of trans.
verbs; inf. weorðan, 3177; pres. 3 sg.
weorþeð, 414; pret. 3 sg. wearð, 6,
902, 1072, 1239, 1437, 1947, 2310,
2692, 2842, 2961, 2983; sj. 3 sg.
wurde, 2218; w. pp. of intr. verbs:
pret. 3 sg. wearð, 823, 1234. [Go.
waírþan, NHG werden; cf. Lat.
vertere; woe WORTH the day, Ezek.
30:¯2.]
ġe-weorðan, vb. 3, auxiliary, w. pp. of
trans. verb: pret. 3 sg. ġewearð, 3061.
— impers., w. acc. of pers. & gen. of
thing, suit, seem good, (pers.:) agree
upon, decide; (w. foll. þæt-clause:)
pret. 3 sg. ġewearð, 1598 (transl.:
agree in thinking); pp. ([h]afað) ġe-
worden, 2026; (agree upon), settle,
inf. 1996. (See Hubbard JEGP 17
[1918] 119–24, Kl. ibid. 18.264–6.)
weorð-ful(l) (‡) +, adj., WORTHy, val-
ued, praiseworthy; supl. -fullost, 3099.
weorðian, vb. II, honor, exalt, ennoble,
adorn; pret. 1 sg. weorðode, 2096; sj.
3 sg. weorþode, 1090; pp. ġeweorðad,
250, 1450; ġeweorðod, 1959, 2176;
ġewurþad, 331, 1038, 1645. [weorð.]
(Leisi A. 71.3 [1953] 262; Robinson
1970a: 105.) — Cpd.: wīġ-ġeweorþad.
weorð-līċe, adv., WORTHiLY, splendidly;
supl. -licost, 3161; [comp. wurþlicor,
F. 37].
weorð-mynd, f.n.(m.)i., honor, glory; 65;
as., 1559 (wigena ~, i.e. ‘sword’; see
Kl. Archiv 126 [1911] 354: Lat. decus,
 GLOSSARY
gloria); gp. -a, 1752; dp. -um, 8,
worðmyndum 1186.
weotena, see wita.
weotian (witian), vb. II, in weotod, pp.,
appointed, ordained, assured, des-
tined; apf. -e, 1936; [witod, F. 26].
[OS witod, pp.; Go. witōþ ‘law.’] —
Cf. be-witian.
wer, m., man; 105; gs. weres, 1352 (male
person); as. wer, 1268, 3172; np.
weras, 216, 1222, 1233, 1440, 1650;
gp. wera, 120, 993 (~ ond wīfa), 1731,
3000, [F. 37], weora 2947; dp. werum,
1256. (Stibbe 1935: 41–3.) [See Angl.
31 (1908) 261.]
wered (‡), n., sweet drink; as., 496.
(Elsewhere adj. ‘sweet.’) [Breeze N&Q
40 (1993) 433¯f.: cf. Welsh gwirod; cf.
earlier Bamm. 1979: 137.]
werġa (wērga?), wk.adj., accursed, evil;
gsm. werġan (gāstes): 133 (n.), 1747.
See werhðo.
wērġe, wērgum, see wēriġ.
werġend, mc. (pres.ptc.), defender; gp.
-ra, 2882. See werian.
(ġe-)wērgian, vb. II, WEARY, fatigue;
pp. ġewērgad, 2852. [wēriġ.]
werhðo (†), f., damnation, punishment in
hell; as., 589. [Go. wargiþa. Zimmer
ZfdA 126 (2007) 53–7.] See heoro-
wearh, grundwyrġen.
werian, vb. I, defend, protect; 541; pres.
3 sg. wereð, 453; pret. 3 sg. werede,
1205, 1448; 1 pl. weredon, 1327; pp.
npm. (byrnum) werede: 238, 2529.
See werġend. [Go. warjan.] — Cpd.:
be-.
wēriġ, adj., WEARY; w. gen. (¯from);
(sīþes) wēriġ, 579; dsm. (~) wērgum,
1794; w. dat., exhausted (by); asf.
wērġe, 2937. [OS (sîð-)wôrig.] —
Cpds.: dēað-, fyl-, gūð-.
wēriġ-mōd †, adj., WEARY, disheart-
ened; 844, 1543.
werod, n., band, host, company; 651;
weorod, 290, 2014, 3030; gs. werodes,
259, werudes, 3154; ds. werede, 1215,
weorode 1011, 2346; as. (or ap.)
werod, 319; gp. weoroda, 60. [wer
‘man’? See Holt.Et.; Bamm. 1979:
137; Matzel HS 103 (1990) 106¯f.] —
Cpds.: eorl-, Ïet-.
wer-þēod (†), f., people, nation; ap.
(ofer) werþēode, 899 (cf. 1705).
455
wesan, see eom.
wēste, adj.ja., waste, deserted; asm.
wēstne, 2456. [OS wôsti.]
wēsten(n), nja., waste, desert, wilder-
ness; as. wēsten, 1265; ds. wēstenne,
2298.
wīċ, n., precinct, residence, home, settle-
ment, inhabited place; (pl. with sg.
meaning); gp. wīca, 125, 1125; dp.
wīcum, 1612, 3083, wīcun 1304; ap.
(as.?) wīċ, 821, 2589. [Fr. Lat. vicus;
WICK.] — Cpds.: dēað-, hrēa-.
ġe-wīcan (†), vb. 1, give way, fail; pret.
3 sg. ġewāc, 2577, 2629. [Cf. un-
wāc-liċ; NHG weichen.]
wicg (†), nja., horse; 1400; ds. wicge,
234, 286; as. wicg, 315; gp. wicga,
1045; ap. wicg, 2174.
wīċ-stede †, mi., place of residence,
home, inhabited place; 2462; as.,
2607.
wīd, adj., WIDE, extended, spacious,
gsn.wk. wīdan, 1859; asn. wīd, 2473;
apm. wīde, 877, 1965; (of time,)
ds.wk. wīdan, 933, asm.wk. ~, 2014
(see feorh). — Comp. asn. wīdre, 763
(n.), see ġewindan.
wīd-cūþ (‡) +, adj., WIDEly known,
famous; nsn., 1256; gsm. -es, 1042;
asm. -ne, 1489, 1991.
wīde, adv., WIDEly, far and wide, far;
74, 79, 898, 1959, 2261, 2913; wīde
ġeond eorþan: 266, 3099; wīde sprang:
18, 1588, (si.) 2582; wīde ġes©ne:
1403, 2316, 2947, 3158; wīde cūð:
2135, 2923, [F. 25].
wīde-ferhð (†), m. n., in: as., adv., for a
long time, forever, always, ever; 702,
937, 1222.
wīd-Ïoga ‡, wk.m., far-FLIer; 2830; as.
-Ïogan, 2346.
ġe-widre, nja., WEATHER, storm; ap.
ġewidru, 1375. [weder; NHG Ge-
witter.]
wīd-scofen ‡, adj. (pp.), pushed far, far-
reaching, great; 936. [scūfan.] (See
EStn. 42 [1910] 326.)
wīd-wegas †, m.p., WIDE-stretched
WAYS (Gummere 1909), distant or
far-extending regions; ap. (ġeond) ~,
840, 1704.
wīf, n., woman; 615, 2120; gs. wīfes,
1284; ds. wīfe, 639, 2028 (is.); as. wīf,
1158; gp. wīfa, 993. (Stibbe 1935: 75–
456 GLOSSARY
9; Aevum 54 [1980] 267–9.) [WIFE; SN
14 (1941–2) 252–4.] — Cpds.: āgl®ċ-,
mere-.
ġe-wif (or ġe-wife) (‡) +, ni., WEB (of
destiny), fortune; ap. ġewiofu, 697.
(Kellermann 1954: 233–41.) [wefan;
see ZfdPh. 21 (1889) 358; SB §¯263
n.¯3.]
wīf-lufu (-lufe) †, wk.f., love for a
woman (or WIFE); np. -lufan, 2065.
wīġ, n. (or m.), war, ¢ght, warfare; 23,
1080, 2316, 2872; gs. wīġes, 65, 886,
1268, 2298; ds. wīġe, 1084, 1337,
2629; wiġġe 1656, 1770; as. wīġ, 685,
1083; — ¢ghting force, valor; ns. wīġ,
350, 1042; gs. wīġes, 2323; as. wīġ,
2348.— Cpds.: fēðe-; an-wīġ-ġearo.
wiga, wk.m., warrior; 629; gp. wigena,
1543, 1559, 3115; dp. wigum, 2395.
[Sc. WIE, WY(E), see Dict. of the Older
Scottish Tongue 12.357.] — Cpds.:
æsc-, an-, byrn-, gār-, gūð-, lind-,
rand-, scyld-.
wīgan (‡), vb. 1, ¢ght; 2509. [Go.
weihan.] See wīġend; ġe-wegan.
wīġ-bealu ‡, nwa., war-BALE, war; as.,
2046.
wīġ-bil(l) ‡, n., battle-sword; -bil, 1607.
wīġ-bord †, n., battle-shield; as., 2339.
wīġ-cræft (‡) +, m., prowess; as., 2953.
wīġ-cræftiġ ‡, adj., strong in battle;
asm. -ne, 1811.
wīġend (†), mc., warrior; 3099; np.
wīġend, 1125, 1814, 3144, [F. 47]; gp.
wīġendra, 429, 899, 1972, 2337; ap.
wīġend, 3024; [vp. ~, F. 10]. — Cpd.:
gār-.
wiġeð, see wegan.
wīġ-freca ‡, wk.m., warrior; as. -frecan,
2496; np. ~, 1212.
wīġ-fruma ‡, wk.m., war-chief; 664; ds.
-fruman, 2261. (Or perh. ‘warrior,
hero’ as kenning: Marquardt A. 60
[1936] 390.)
wiġġe, see wīġ.
wīġ-ġetawa ‡, fwō.p., war-equipment;
dp. -ġetawum, 368. [Cf. (not Go. tēwa:
SB §¯43 n. 4, M. Keller 1906: 116–17,
but) OE tawian, MnE taw: see Luick
§¯314 n.¯2, Pope 322, OEG §¯358 n.¯6;
Varr.: 368a.] See gūð-ġetawa, ēored-,
gryre-, hilde-ġeatwe.
wīġ-ġeweorþad (‡), adj. (pp.), distin-
guished in battle; 1783. See weorðian.
wīġ-gryre ‡, mi., war-horror, martial
power; 1284.
wīġ-heafola ‡, wk.m., war-head, i.e.
helmet; as. -heafolan, 2661.
wīġ-hēap ‡, m., band of warriors; 477.
wīġ-hete ‡, mi., (war-HATE), war; 2120.
wīġ-hryre ‡, mi., fall in ¢ght; as., 1619.
wīġ-sigor †, (nc.)m., (war-) victory; as.
(or ds., see Lang. §¯21.4), 1554.
wīġ-spēd †, ¢., success in war, victory;
gp. -a, 697. [SPEED.]
wiġtiġ, see wītiġ.
wīġ-weorþung †, f., honor to idols, sac-
ri¢ce; ap. (gp.?) -a, 176. [wīh, wēoh
‘idol’; cf. Go. weihs ‘holy’; ASSAH 8
(1995) 1–42.]
wiht, fni. (SB §267b & n.¯3), (1)
(WIGHT), creature, being; 120; as.,
3038 (fem.). (2) anything (in neg.
clauses); ns. wiht, 2601; as. ~, 581,
1660, 2348, 2857; — ds. wihte used
adverbially, in any way, at all, in neg.
clauses: 186, 1514, 1995, 2277, 2464,
2687, 2923, in interr. clause: 1991; as.
wiht used adverbially (in neg. clauses),
at all, 541, 862, 1083, 1735 (Crp.: ns.),
2854. (Quirk 1954: 126–31; Ingersoll
1978: 198–200.) [WIGHT, WHIT (?);
Go. waíhts.] — Cpds.: āht; æl-, ō-wiht.
wil-cuma, wk.m. welCOME person, also
used as adj.; np. -cuman, 388, 394,
1894. [willa.]
wildēor [wild-dēor], n., WILD animal;
ap., 1430. [DEER. See SB §¯289.2.]
wil-ġeofa †, wk.m., joy-GIVer, lord;
2900. [willa.]
wil-ġesīþ †, m., close companion; np.
-ġesīþas, 23. [willa.]
willa, wk.m., WILL, wish, desire; ds.
(ānes) willan, 3077 (n.); as. willan,
635 (good will); on ~, 1739; ofer
(‘against’) ~, 2409, 2589; gp. wilna,
1344(?); dp. (sylfes) willum (‘of his
own will’), 2222, 2639; — grati¢ca-
tion, pleasure, contentment, gladness;
ns., 626, 824; ds. willan, 1186, 1711;
as. ~, 2307; dp. willum (‘pleasantly,’
Kock3 102), 1821 (?, n.). — desirable
or good thing; gp. wilna, 660, 950,
1344.
willan, anv., WILL, wish, desire, be
about to, be accustomed to; (1) w. inf.;
pres. 1 sg. wille, 344, 351, 427; wylle,
947, 2148, 2512; neg.: nelle, 679,
 GLOSSARY
2524; 2 sg. wylt, 1852; 3 sg. wille,
442, 1184; wile, 346, 446, 1049, 1181,
1832; wyle, 2864; 1 pl. wyllað, 1818;
[3 pl. willað, F. 9]; sj. [2 sg. wylle, F.
27]; 3 sg. wille, 979, 1314; pret. 1 sg.
wolde, 2497; 3 sg. ~, 68, 154, 200,
645, 664, 738, 755, 796, 880, 1010,
1041, 1094 (sj.?), 1277, 1292, 1339,
1494, 1546, 1576, 1791, 1805, 2083,
2090, 2160, 2186, 2294, 2305, 2308,
2315, 2588, 2858, 2940, [F. 21, sj.?];
neg.: nolde, 791, 803, 812, 1523; 3 pl.
woldon, 3171; sj. 1 sg. wolde, 2729;
neg.: nolde, 2518; 2 sg. wolde, 1175; 3
sg. ~, 988, 990, 2376; 1 pl. woldon,
2636; 3 pl. ~, 482. — (2) without inf.;
w. omission of verb of motion: pres. 1
sg. wille, 318; sj. 3 sg. ~, 1371; pret. 1
sg. wolde, 543, cf. 2497 (wesan
understood); w. inf. understood fr.
prec. verb: pres. 3 sg. (fremme sē þe)
wille, 1003, si.: 1394, 2766 (wylle);
pret. 3 sg. wolde, 1055, 3055; neg.,
abs.: (þā metod) nolde (‘did not will
it’), 706, 967. (Flasdieck A. 61 [1937]
1–42; Standop 1957: 133–71; Ogawa
1989: 32–6.)
wilnian, vb. II, desire, ask for (gen.); w.
tō (¯from, at); 188.
wil-sīð (†), m., wished-for journey; as.,
216. [willa.]
wīn, n., WINE; ds. wīne, 1467; as. wīn,
1162, 1233. (LSE 8 [1975] 78–80.) [Fr.
Lat. vinum.]
wīn-ærn (‡) +, n., WINE-hall; gs. -es,
654.
wind, m., WIND; 547, 1374, 1907; ds. -e,
217, 1132.
win-dæġ (‡), m., DAY of struggle or
hardship; dp. windagum, 1062 (see
Kl. 1911–12: [37–8]). See winnan, ġe-
win(n).
windan, vb. 3, (1) intr., WIND, Ïy, curl,
eddy; pret. 3 sg. wand, 1119; 3 pl.
wundon, 212. — (2) trans., twist; pp.
wunden (gold, ‘made into rings’),
1193, 3134; dsn.wk. wundnan (golde),
1382 (n.). — Cpds.: æt-, be-, on-.
ġe-windan vb. 3, go, turn; pret. 3 sg. (on
Ïēam) ġewand, 1001; — inf. (wīdre)
ġewindan, reach by Ïight (a more re-
mote place), 763 (see Kl. 1905–6: 263).
wind-blond ‡, n., agitation of WINDs;
3146.
457
wind-ġeard ‡, m., home of the WINDs;
1224 (n.).
windiġ, adj., WINDY; asf. windġe, 2456;
apm. windiġe, 572, 1358.
wine (†), mi., friend, (¯friendly) lord; 30,
148, 2101; gs. wines, 3096; ds. wine,
170; as. ~, 350, 376, 2026; vs. ~, 1183,
wine (mīn): 457, 530, 1704, (mīn)
wine 2047; gp. winiġea, 1664; —
applied to retainers (cf. māgas): gp.
winia 2567, dp. winum 1418. (D.
Green 1965: 108–11; Schik 1971: 62–
5.) [OS wini, OIcel. vinr, Dan. ven,
Swed. vän.] — Cpds.: frēa-, frēo-,
gold-, gūð-, m®ġ-; Ing-.
wine-drihten †, m., (¯friendly) lord; ds.
-drihtne, 360; as. -drihten, 862, 1604;
-dryhten, 2722, 3175.
wine-ġeōmor ‡, adj., mourning one’s
friends; 2239.
wine-lēas †, adj., friendLESS (ref. to
exile); dsm. -um, 2613.
wine-m®ġ †, m., friend and kinsman,
retainer; np. -māgas, 65. See Appx.B
§2.
winia, winiġea, see wine.
ġe-win(n), n., strife, struggle, ¢ght; gs.
ġewinnes, 1721; as. ġewin, 798 (see
drēogan), 877, 1469 (turmoil); —
strife, hardship; ns. ġewin, 133, 191;
as. ~, 1781. (Szogs 1931: 137–41;
Grinda 1975: 137–40.) — Cpds.: fyrn-,
©ð-.
winnan, vb. 3, contend, ¢ght; [imp. pl.
winnað, F. 12]; pret. 2 sg. wunne, 506
(cf. OES §¯2362); 3 sg. wan, 144, 151,
won 1132; 3 pl. wunnon, 113, 777.
[(ġe-)winnan > WIN.]
wīn-reċed †, n., WINE-hall; as., 714, 993.
wīn-sele †, mi., WINE-hall; 771; ds., 695;
as., 2456. [Collinder 1954: 23 would
connect w. winn- ‘battle’ (so Crp.
note), wynn-, or wine-.]
winter, m., (1) WINTER; 1132 (wintĺr),
1136; gs. wintrys, 516; as. wintĺr,
1128. (2) pl. (in reckoning), years; gp.
wintra, 147, 264, 1927, 2209, 2278,
2733, 3050; dp. wintrum (frōd), 1724,
2114, 2277. — Cf. syfan-wintre.
ġe-wiofu, see ġe-wif.
wīr †, m., (gold or silver) WIRE, metal
band, ornament; gp. -a, 2413; dp. -um,
1031. (See D. Green 1998: 155. [Fr.
Celtic? Orel 2003: 467.]
458 GLOSSARY
wīs, adj., WISE; 1845, 3094 (sound in
mind, see note); nsf., 1927; nsm. wk.
wīsa, 1400, 1698, 2329; asm.wk. wīsan,
1318; gpm. wīsra, 1413. (ArchL 11
[1959] 18–20; Seebold A. 92 [1974]
294–333.)
wīsa †, wk.m., leader; 259. (Strauss
1974: 96.) [Cf. wīsian.] — Cpds.:
brim-, here-, hilde-.
wīscan (w©scan), vb. I, WISH; pret. 3 pl.
wīston, 1604 (n.).
wīs-dōm, m., WISDOM; 350; ds. -e, 1959.
wīse, wk.f., WISE, way, manner; as.
ealde wīsan (semi-adv.) ‘after the old
fashion,’ 1865. (Cf. LS 32.125: ōðre
wīsan.)
wīs-fæst (†), adj., WISE; nsf., 626.
wīs-hycgende ‡, adj. (pres.ptc.), WISE in
thought; 2716.
wīsian, vb. II, show the way, guide,
direct, lead; abs.: pret. 3 sg. wīsode,
402; w. dat. of pers.: pres. 1 sg. wīsiġe,
292, 3103; pret. 3 sg. wīsode, 320,
1663; wīsade (w. adv. of motion): 370,
1795; — w. acc., show or lead the way
to (a place); inf., 2409; pret. 3 sg.
wīsade, 208. (Beer 1939: 213–15.)
ġe-wis-līċe, adv., certainly; supl. -licost,
1350. (ArchL 11 [1959] 18–20.) [IWIS,
YWIS (arch.); NHG gewiss.]
wisse, -on, see witan.
wist, ¢., (sustenance), feast(ing), abun-
dance, prosperity; ds. -e, 128, 1735.
(Aant. [3¯f.], Kock 223.) [wesan.]
wiste, -on, see witan.
wist-fyllo ‡, fīn., FILL of feasting, plenti-
ful meal; gs. -fylle, 734.
wīston, see wīscan.
wit(t), nja., WIT, intelligence, cleverness;
wit, 589. (Baker 1988: 18.) — Cpds.:
fyr-, ġe-.
wit, pers. pron., see iċ.
ġe-wit(t), nja., intellect, senses; ds. ġe-
witte, 2703; — (seat of intellect),
head; ds. ~, 2882. [See wit(t).]
wita, wk.m., wise man, councilor; np.
witan, 778; gp. witena, 157, 266, 936;
weotena, 1098. [witan.] — Cpds.:
fyrn-, rūn-.
witan, prp., know; witan, 252, 288; pres.
1 sg. wāt, 1331, 1830, 1863, 2656; neg.
(iċ) nāt (hwylċ), 274 (n.); 2 sg. wāst,
272; 3 sg. wāt, 2650; neg. nāt, 681
(n.); sj. 3 sg. wite, 1367; pret. 3 sg.
wisse, 169 (n.), 715, 1309, 2339, 2410,
2725; wiste, 646, 764 (n.), 821; 2 pl.
wisson, 246; 3 pl. wiston, 181, 798,
878; sj. 1 sg. wiste, 2519. [(to) WIT,
WOT, WIST. Seebold Sprache 19 (1973)
162–76.]
ġe-witan, prp., know, ascertain; 1350.
wītan, vb. 1, w. dat. of pers. & acc. of
thing, lay to (someone’s) charge; 2741.
— Cpds.: æt-, oð-.
ġe-wītan, vb. 1, depart, go; in many
instances (marked +) followed by verb
of motion (see Ogura 2002: 86–8);
freq. w. reÏex. pron.; 42; pres. 3 sg.
ġewīteð, 1360, 2460; imp. pl. ġewītaþ,
+
291; pret. 3 sg. ġewāt, +26, +115, +123,
210, 217, +234, 662, 1236, +1263,
+
1274, 1601, +1903, +1963, +2387,
+
2401, 2471, +2569, 2624 (of ealdre ~),
+
2819, +2949, +3044, [F. +43]; 3 pl.
ġewiton, +301, +853, +1125. See forð-
ġewiten, wutun.
wītiġ (†), adj., wise; wītiġ (God: ‘God in
his wisdom’): 685, 1056; ~ (drihten),
1554; wiġtiġ (~), 1841.
wītnian, vb. II, punish, torment; pp.
ġewītnad, 3073. [wīte.]
witod, see weotian.
ġe-wittiġ, adj., wise, conscious; 3094.
(Cf. ÆCHom II 2.12.10, 3.27.269, etc.:
ġewittiġ ‘in one’s senses.’) [wit(t).]
wið, prep., w. dat. & w. acc. (marked +);
basic meaning against; (motion:)
against, opposite, near, toward; 213,
+
326, +749 (n.), +1977, 1978, +2013,
2560, +2566, +2673 (as far as), +2925,
3049 (in); (w. fōn, grāpian, wið-
grīpan:) 439, 1566, 2520, 2521; —
(opposition, ¢ghting, defense, protec-
tion): against, WITH; 113, 144, 145,
+
152, 174, 178, +294, +319, (+?)384, 440,
(+?)
506, +540, 550, 660, 827, 1132,
+
1549a, +1549a, (+1997), 2341, 2371,
2400, 2839, +2914, 3004; — (mutual
relation, behavior): toward, with; +155,
+
811, +1173, +1864a, +1864a, +1954;
(conversation, transaction:) with, 365,
+
424, 425, 426, cf. +1997 (agreement);
(si.): 523, +2528; — (association, shar-
ing:) with; +1088, (+?)2534, +3027; —
(mingling, close contact:) 1880 (with-
in, see Sievers ZfdPh. 21 [1889] 363,
Aant. [31]), 2600 (with); — (separa-
tion:) from, 733, 2423. — (Note
 GLOSSARY
interchange of acc. & dat.: 424–5;
1977–8.) [Cf. Icel. við, Dan. ved,
Swed. vid.]
wiðer-ræhtes ‡, adv., opposite; 3039.
[wið; Go. wiþra; riht (Lang. §¯2.5); see
Siev. 1910: 432.]
wið-fōn ‡, vb. 7, w. dat., lay hold of;
pret. 3 sg. -fēng, 760.
wið-grīpan ‡, vb. 1, grapple WITH;
2521. (Schröer A. 13 [1891] 345¯f.)
wið-habban, vb. III, w. dat., hold out
against, WITHstand; pret. 3 sg. -hæfde,
772.
wiðre †, nja., resistance; gs. wiðres,
2953.
wlanc, see wlonc.
wlātian †, vb. II, gaze, look out for (w.
gen.: see BGdSL 12 [1887] 97); pret. 3
sg. wlātode, 1916. (See Penttilä 1956:
159.) [wlītan; Go. wlaitōn.]
wlenċo, fīn., pride, high spirit, daring;
ds. (for) wlenċo: 338, 1206, (~)
wlenċe, 508. (Shippey 1972: 28, 39;
Cronan 2003: 400–1.) [wlonc.]
wlītan †, vb. 1, look, gaze; pret. 3 sg.
wlāt, 1572; 3 pl. wliton, 1592, wlitan
2852. (See Penttilä 1956: 154–9.) —
Cpd.: ġiond-.
wlite, mi., countenance, appearance,
beauty; 250. (Juzi 1939: 15–18; Stefán
Einarsson MLN 64 [1949] 347.) [Go.
wlits; wlītan.]
wlite-beorht †, adj., beautiful; asm. -ne,
93.
wlite-sēon ‡, ¢., sight, spectacle; 1650.
Cf. wundor-sīon.
wlitiġ, adj., beautiful; asn., 1662. (Juzi
1939: 18–21.)
wlonc, adj., proud, high-spirited, bold;
331; wlanc, 341; gs. wlonces, 2953;
proud of, glorying in, w. gen.: wlonc
2833, w. dat.: wlanc 1332. (Schabram
in Studien zur englischen und ameri-
kanischen Sprache und Literatur, ed.
P. Buchloh et al. (Neumünster, 1974)
70–88; M. von Rüden ‘Wlanc’ und
Derivate im Alt- und Mittelenglischen
[Frankfurt, 1978].) — Cpd.: gold-.
wōc, see wæcnan.
wōh, adj., crooked, perverse; dpn. wōm,
1747. [Go. (un-)wāhs; IF 41 (1923)
334–51.]
wōh-bogen ‡, adj. (pp.), bent, coiled;
2827. [būgan.]
459
wolcen, n., cloud; pl. clouds, sky,
WELKIN; dp. (tō) wolcnum: 1119, 1374;
(under) wolcnum: 8, 651, 714, 1631,
1770 (in 8 & 1770 = ‘on earth’); [F.
8].
wolde, see willan.
wollen-tēar ‡, adj., with gushing TEARs;
npm. -e, 3032. [pp. of *wellan, OIcel.
vella; cf. weallan.]
wōm, see wōh.
wom(m), m., stain, blot, injury, mis-
fortune; dp. wommum, 3073 (perh.
semi-adv., miserably). [Go. wamm, or
wamms; IF 41 (1923) 46–63.]
won, pret., see winnan.
won(n), adj., dark, black; nsn. won,
1374; wk.m. wonna, 3024, 3115; dsf.
wanre, 702; npn. wan, 651. (See Lerner
MLR 46 [1951] 248; Barley 1974: 24.)
[WAN; Holt.Et., Breeze ANQ 10.4
(1997) 10–13: fr. Celtic.]
wong (†), m., plain, ¢eld, land, country,
place; ds. wonge, 2242, 3039, wange
2003; as. wong, 1413, 2409, 3073,
wang 93, 225; np. wongas, 2462.
(Benning 1961: 35–40.) [Go. waggs.]
— Cpds.: freoðo-, grund-, meodo-, s®-.
wong-stede †, mi., place; ds., 2786.
won-h©d (-hyġd) †, fni., recklessness;
dp. -um, 434. [Cf. wana; Go. wans;
WANT.]
won-s®lī (-s®liġ) †, adj., unfortunate,
unlucky; 105.
won-sceaft (†), ¢., misery; as., 120.
wōp, m., WEEPing, lamentation; 128; ds.
wōpe, 3146; as. wōp, 785.
worc, see weorc.
word, n., WORD, utterance, speech;
2817; gs. -es, 79, 2791; ds. (is.) -e,
2156; as. word, 315, 341, 390, 654,
2046, 2551; np. ~, 612, 639; gp.
worda, 289 (~ ond worca), 398, 2246,
2662, 3030 (wyrda nē ~); dp. wordum,
30, 176, 366, 388, 626, 874, 1172,
1193, 1318, 1492, 1811, 1980, 2058,
2669, 2795, 3175; ~ (nē worcum),
1100, ~ (ond ~), 1833; ap. word, 870.
(Gneuss 1955: 53.) — Cpds.: bēot-,
ġylp-, lēafnes-, meþel-, þr©ð-.
word-cwide (†), mi., WORDs, speech;
gp. -cwida, 1845; dp. -cwydum, 2753;
ap. -cwydas, 1841. [cweðan.]
word-ġyd(d) ‡, nja., song, account,
eulogy; as. -ġyd, 3172.
460 GLOSSARY
word-hord †, n., WORD-HOARD, store of
words; as., 259.
word-riht †, n., (WORD-RIGHT), instruc-
tion, command; gp. -a, 2631. [Cf.
rihtan ‘direct.’] (Hoops St. 129¯f.; cf.
Kl.3 et al.: ‘right word, censure.’)
worhte, see wyrċan.
worn, m., large number, great quantity;
freq. w. partit. gen.; as., 264, 870, 2114
(many things), 3154; — combined w.
eall: as. worn eall, 3094 (a great many
things), w. fela: ns. worn fela, 1783;
as., 530, cf. 870; — gp. (partit. gen.
depend. on fela): worna fela, 2003,
2542 (cf. Go. manageins ¢lu).
worold, f., WORLD; (eal) worold, 1738
(‘everything’); gs. worolde, 950, 1062
(~ brūceð, cf. Lat. mundo uti ‘live’),
1080, 1387, 1732; worulde, 2343,
3068, worlde 2711; as. worold, 60,
1183, 1681. (Benning 1961: 172–4.)
[OIcel. ver∂ld, OHG weralt, NHG
Welt.]
worold-ār (‡) +, f., WORLDly honor (Kl.
1911–12: [4]); as. -e, 17.
worold-cyning †, m., (earthly) KING; gp.
-a, 1684, wyruld-cyning[a], 3180.
worold-r®den(n) ‡, f., WORLDly rule,
leadership (?); gs. worold-r®denne,
1142 (n.).
worðiġ, m., enclosed homestead, pre-
cinct(s); as., 1972. (See Middendorff
1902: 148–9; Holthausen Beibl. 34
[1923] 349; Hoops, Pal. 147 [Brandl
Festschr.; Leipzig, 1925] 72–3.)
worð-mynd, see weorð-mynd.
woruld-candel ‡, f., WORLD-CANDLE
(sun); 1965.
woruld-ende ‡, mja., END of the WORLD;
ds., 3083.
wracu, f., revenge, punishment; as.
wræce, 2336. [wrecan; Go. wraka.] —
Cpds.: gyrn-, n©d-.
wræc, n. (f.?, see BT, SB §¯276 n.¯4, a),
misery, distress; 170; as., 3078.
[WRACK, WRECK; wrecan; Kl. et al.:
wr®c (cf. Go. wrēkei); cf. Deor 1:
wr»ces.]
wræċċa, see wreċċa.
wræce, see wracu.
wræc-lāst, m., track or path of exile; ap.
-as, 1352.
wræc-mæcġ †, mja., banished man,
outcast; np. -as, 2379. See mago.
wræc-sīð, m., exile, misery; as., 2292;
dp. -um, 338. [OS wrak-sîð.]
wr®t(t) †, f., ornament, work of art; gp.
wr®tta, 2413; dp. wr®ttum, 1531; ap.
wr®tte, 2771, 3060. [Holt. Beibl. 35
(1924) 253: *wraitiþu, cf. wrītan.]
wr®t-liċ (†), adj., ornamental, splendid,
wonder-inspiring; nsf., 1650; asm. -ne,
891, 2173; asn. -liċ, 1489, 2339. (See
Juzi 1939: 67–70.)
wrāð, adj., hostile (subst.: enemy), ¢erce;
dsm. wrāþum, 660, 708; asn. (or p.)
wrāð, 319; gp. wrāðra, 1619. [WROTH;
OS wrêð; cf. wrīþan.]
wrāðe, adv., rashly, senselessly; 2872.
wrāð-līċe (‡), adv., cruelly, severely;
3062.
wrecan, vb. 5, drive, force; pp. wrecen,
2962; drive out; pret. 3 sg. wræc,
2706; — recite, utter; inf., 873, 3172;
pres. sj. 3 sg. wrece, 2446; pret. 3 sg.
wræc, 2154; pp. wrecen, 1065; —
avenge; inf., 1278, 1339, 1546; pres.
sj. 3 sg. wrece, 1385; pret. 1 sg. wræc,
423, 1669; 3 sg. ~, 1333. [WREAK.] —
Cpds.: ā-, for-; un-wrecen. See
wrecend.
ġe-wrecan, vb. 5, avenge, punish; pret. 1
sg. ġewræc, 2005; 3 sg. ~, 107, 2121,
2395, 2875; 3 pl. ġewr®can, 2479; pp.
ġewrecen, 3062.
wreċċa, wk.m., exile, adventurer, hero;
1137; [wreċċea, F. 25]; ds. wræċċan,
2613; gp. wreċċena, 898. (See BGdSL
35 [1909] 483; Tol. 64–6; GriÌth ASE
24 [1995] 37–40; Robinson 1997:
202–3.) [WRETCH; OS wrekkio, NHG
Recke. Cf. wrecan.]
wrecend, mc., avenger; 1256.
wreoþen-hilt ‡, adj., HILT wrapped with
a grip or with twisted ornamentation;
nsn., 1698. [wrīþan.] (See Girvan
1935: 39; Cramp 1957: 67; Davidson
1962: 136–7; Cooke MÆ 72 [2003]
303.)
wrīdian, vb. II, grow, Ïourish; pres. 3
sg. wrīdað, 1741.
wrītan, vb. 1, cut, engrave (WRITE); pp.
writen, 1688. (Gneuss 1955: 98.) —
Cpd.: for-.
wrīþan, vb. 1, (twist), bind, tie; 964; —
bind up; pret. 3 pl. wriðon, 2982.
[WRITHE.] — Cf. hand-ġewriþen;
bēah-wriða.
 GLOSSARY
wrixl, f., exchange; ds. -e, 2969. [Cf.
NHG Wechsel.]
wrixlan, vb. I, w. dat., change, vary, ex-
change; (wordum) wrixlan: 366 (n.),
874 (n.).
ġe-wrixle, nja., exchange; 1304. [See
wrixl.]
wrōht, f., (accusation), quarrel, strife;
2287, 2473, 2913. [Cf. wrēġan ‘stir
up’; Go. wrōhs.]
wudu, mu., WOOD; tree(s); ns., 1364; as.,
1416, 2925 (Hrefna Wudu; or ds.?); —
spear; as. (or p.), 398; — ship; ns.,
298; as., 216, 1919. — Cpds.: b®l-,
bord-, gomen-, •gūð-, heal-, holt-,
mæġen-, s®-, sund-, þrec-.
wudu-rēċ ‡, mi., WOOD-smoke; 3144.
[REEK.]
wuldor, n., glory, heaven (cf. Lat. gloria);
gs. wuldres, 17, 183, 931, 1752. (Juzi
1939: 85–6.) [Go. wulþrs, cf. wulþus.]
— Cpd.: kyning-.
wuldor-torht †, adj., gloriously bright;
npn. wk. wuldľrtorhtan, 1136.
wuldur-cyning (†), m., KING of glory
(God); ds. wuldĿrcyninge, 2795. (See
Kl. 1911–12: [9].)
wulf, m., WOLF; as., 3027. [Go. wulfs.]
wulf-hliþ ‡, n., WOLF-slope, retreat of
wolves; ap. -hleoþu, 1358. (See
Eliason JEGP 34 [1935] 20–3.)
wund, f., WOUND; 2711, 2976; as. -e,
2531, 2725, 2906; dp. -um, 1113, 2687
(n.), 2830, 2937; [ap. -a, F. 47]. —
Cpd.: feorh-.
wund, adj., WOUNDed; 2746, [F. 43];
dsm. -um, 2753; npm. -e, 565, 1075.
[Go. wunds.]
wunden-feax ‡, adj., with (WOUND)
braided hair, or with curly mane; nsn.,
1400. (Cf. wunden-loc[c]; Siev. 1910:
432–3, Tupper 1910: 125–6.)
wunden-hals ‡, adj., with (WOUND)
curved (neck, i.e.) prow; 298.
wunden-m®l ‡, n., sword with (WOUND)
curved markings (ornaments); as.,
1531. See brogden-m®l.
wunden-stefna ‡, wk.m., ship with
(WOUND) curved (STEM) prow; 220.
wunder-fæt ‡, n., WONDERful vessel; dp.
wundĺrfatum, 1162. [VAT.]
wundor, n., WONDER, astonishing thing;
771, 1724, wundĿr 3062 (n.); ds.
wundre, 931; as. wundľr, 840; wunder,
461
931; wundur, 2759(?), 3032 (wundĿr),
3103(?); gp. wundra, 1509 (strange
beings, monsters), 1607; dp. (adv.)
wundrum, amazingly, 1452 (see also
2687¯n.); ap. wundur, 2759, 3103. (See
Juzi 1939: 81–3.) — Cpds.: hond-,
nīð-, searo-.
wundor-bebod ‡, n., strange or mysteri-
ous command (advice); dp. wundľr-
bebodum, 1747 (n.).
wundor-dēað ‡, m., strange DEATH; ds.
wundľrdēaðe, 3037.
wundor-l√ċ, adj., WONDERful, strange;
1440 (wundľrliċ). (Juzi 1939: 83–5.)
wundor-sīon ‡, ¢., amazing sight; gp.
wundľrsīona, 995.
wundor-smiþ ‡, m., WONDER-SMITH, i.e.
smith who makes wonderful things, or
who works by amazing art (BT); gp.
wundľrsmiþa, 1681. (See the note of
Earle 1892; Kl. 1911–12: [25 n.¯7].)
wundur-māððum ‡, m., WONDERful
jewel; as., 2173.
wunian, vb. II, reside, live, remain,
continue, be situated; 3083 (w. dat.
[instr.]: wīcum), 3128; pres. 3 sg.
wunað, 284, 1735, 1923; pret. 3 sg.
wunode, 1128, 2242; — w. acc.,
(†)inhabit, occupy; inf., 1260; pres. 3
sg. wunað, 2902. [WON (Sc., obs.),
WONt; NHG wohnen.]
ġe-wunian, vb. II, w. acc., †remain with,
stand by (someone); pres. sj. 3 pl.
ġewuniġen, 22.
wurð-, see weorð-.
wutun, uton, w. inf., introd. adhortative
clause, let us; wutun, 2648; uton,
1390, 3101. [OS wita; cf. ġe-wītan.]
wyl(l)e, wyllað, wylt, see willan.
wylm, mi., WELLing, surging, Ïood;
1764, 2269, wælm 2546; gs. wælmes,
2135 (surging water); as. wylm, 1693;
dp. wylm[um], 516; ap. wylmas, 2507.
[weallan.] — Cpds.: brēost-, brim-,
bryne-, ċear-, f©r-, heaðo-, holm-, s®-,
sorh-.
wyn(n), fjō.(i.), joy, delight, pleasure;
wyn, 2262; ds. wynne, 2014; as. ~,
1080, 1730, 1801 (heofones ~, ‘sun’),
2107, 2727; dp. wynnum, 1716, 1887.
(Juzi 1939: 87–90; Benning 1961: 41–
66; Schabram ZvS 84 [1970] 247–50.)
[See wyn-sum; NHG Wonne.] —
Cpds.: ēðel-, hord-, līf-, lyft-, symbel-.
462 GLOSSARY
wyn-lēas †, adj., joyLESS; asm. -ne, 1416;
ap.(s.?)n. -lēas, 821.
wyn-sum, adj., pleasant, admirable, ¢ne;
asm.wk. -an, 1919; npn. -e, 612 (n.).
(Juzi 1939: 90–2.) [WINSOME.]
wyrċan, vb. I, WORK, do, make; 930;
pret. 3 sg. worhte, 92, 1452; w. gen.,
acquire, endeavor to win; pres. sj. 3
sg. wyrċe, 1387 (cf. 1491). [Go.
waúrkjan.] — Cpd.: be-.
ġe-wyrċan, vb. I, make, perform, carry
out, accomplish, achieve; 1660; ġe-
wyrċean, 69, 2337, 2802, 2906; pres. 1
sg. ġewyrċe, 1491; pret. 3 sg. ġeworhte,
1578, 2712; 3 pl. ġeworhton, 3156; sj.
1 sg. ġeworhte, 635 (‘gain’); 2 pl.
ġeworhton, 3096; pp. ġeworht, 1696;
apm. (fæste) ġeworhte (‘disposed’),
1864 (see Aant. [28], Kl. 1905–6: 461);
w. þæt-clause, bring (it) about (that):
inf. ġewyrċean, 20. (Forssman in
Grinda & Wetzel 1993: 401–13.)
wyrd, ¢., course of events, what comes to
pass; fate, destiny; 455, 477, 572, 734
(destined), 1205, 2420 (n.), 2574,
2814; as., 1056, 1233, 2526 (n.); event,
fact, gp. -a, 3030. (Schücking BGdSL
47 [1923] 309–11; Timmer Neophil.
26.3 [1941] 213–28; Stolzmann 1953:
99–102; Kellermann 1954: 228–33; L.
Mittner Wurd [Bern, 1955]; Brodeur
1959: 102–4; Stanley N&Q 12 (1965)
285–93, 323–7; Dunning & Bliss 1969:
72–4; G. Weber Wyrd [Frankfurt,
1969]; Smithers 1970; Shippey 1972:
40–1; Payne in Burlin & Irving 1974:
15–35; Kasik Neophil. 63 [1979] 128–
35; J. Frakes The Fate of Fortune in
the Early Middle Ages [Leiden, 1988]
83–100; Trahern in Godden & Lapidge
1991.) [WEIRD; weorðan. Bamm. 1979:
139–40.] (See Intr. lxxii¯f.)
wyrdan, vb. I, injure, destroy; pret. 3 sg.
wyrde, 1337. [Go. (fra-)wardjan;
weorðan.] Cpd.: ā-.
wyrm, mi., serpent; ap. -as, 1430;
(dragon:) ns., 897, 2287, 2343, 2567,
2629, 2669, 2745, 2827; gs. wyrmes,
2316, 2348, 2759, 2771, 2902; ds.
wyrme, 2307, 2400, 2519; as. wyrm,
886, 891, 2705, 3039, 3132. (JEL 21
[1988] 99–124; in place-names:
Whitelock 1951: 74.) [WORM.] — See
draca.
wyrm-cyn(n), nja., breed of serpents; gs.
-cynnes, 1425.
wyrm-fāh ‡, adj., with serpentine orna-
mentation; nsn., 1698. (See Girvan 1935:
39; Cramp 1957: 67; Davidson 1962:
136; Smithers 1966: 417–20: ‘red-
stained’; cf. MÆ 72 [2003] 307 n.¯18.)
wyrm-hord ‡, n., dragon’s HOARD; gp.
-horda, 2221 (n.).
wyrp, fjō., change (¯for the better); as. -e,
1315. [weorpan.]
ġe-wyrpan, vb. I, reÏ., recover; pret. 3
sg. (hyne) ġewyrpte, 2976. [See wyrp.]
wyrsa, compar. (cf. posit. yfel), WORSE;
gsn. (or p.) wyrsan, 525 (n.); dsf. ~,
2969; asn. wyrse, 1739; inferior, i.e.
less noble, less worthy: asm. wyrsan
(wīġfrecan), 2496; npm. ~ (~), 1212.
wyrt, ¢., root; dp. -um, 1364. [WORT.]
wyrðe, adj.ja., w. gen., WORTHy of, ¢t
for; npm., 368; comp. nsm. wyrðra,
861; — entitled to, in possession of;
asm. wyrðne (ġedōn), 2185 (n.).
[weorð.] — Cpds.: fyrd-, hord-.
wyruld-, see worold-.
yfel, n., EVIL, harm; gp. yÏa, 2094.
(Schubel Archiv 189 [1953] 292–6.)
[Go. ubils.]
ylca, pron., (the) same; gsn.(wk.) ylcan,
2239. [ILK.]
yldan, vb. I, delay (trans.); 739. [eald.]
ylde †, mi.p., ancestors, people of old,
the departed; humankind, men and
women; gp. ylda, 1661, ylda (bearn):
150, 605, yldo (~), 70 (n.); dp. yldum,
77, 705, 2117; eldum, 2214, 2314,
2611, 3168. [eald; OS eldi.]
yldesta, see eald.
yldo, fīn., age, old age; 1736, 1766,
1886; ds. ylde, 22; eldo, 2111. [ELD;
eald.]
yldra, see eald.
ylfe, mi.p., ELVEs; 112. (See Grimm
D.M. 365¯ff. [442¯ff.]; de Vries 1956–7:
§¯184; H. Kuhn R.-L.2 1.130–2; A. Hall
Elves in AS England [Woodbridge,
2007].) See Ælf-here.
ymb, ymbe, prep., w. acc.; (place:)
about, around, near; ymb, 399, 568,
668, 689 (postpos., stressed), 838,
1012, 1030, 2477; ymbe, 2883, 3169,
[F. 33]; postpos., stressed, w. dat.
(semi-adv.): 2597; — (time:) after (see
 GLOSSARY
Siev. 1904: 323–6); ymb, 135, 219; —
(¢g.:) about, concerning; ymb, 353,
439, 450, 507, 531, 1536, 1595, 2509,
3172; ymbe, 2070, 2618. [OS, OHG
umbi. See Appx.C §¯22.]
ymb-beorgan ‡, vb. 3, protect (round
about); pret. 3 sg. -bearh, 1503.
ymbe-fōn, vb. 7, clasp, enclose; pret. 3
sg. -fēng, 2691.
ymbe-hweorfan, vb. 3, move (intr.) about
(w. acc.); pret. 3 sg. -hwearf, 2296.
ymb-ēode, anv., pret. (see gān), went
round (w. acc.); 3 sg., 620.
ymb-sittan, vb. 5, SIT round (w. acc.);
pret. 3 pl. -s®ton, 564.
ymb(e)-sittend †, mc.p., neighboring
peoples (those living [SITTing] about,
or on the borders); np. ymbsittend,
1827; gp. ymbsittendra, 9; ymbĺ-
sittendra, 2734. (See Appx.C §¯22 on
ymb[e].)
yppe (‡) +, wk.f., raised Ïoor, high seat;
ds. yppan, 1815. [up, uppe.]
yrfe, nja., heritage; 3051. [Go. arbi.]
yrfe-lāf †, f., heirloom; ds. -e, 1903; as.
-e, 1053.
yrfe-weard, m., (GUARDian of an inher-
itance), heir; 2731; gs. -as, 2453.
yrmþ(u), f., misery; gs. yrmðe 2005 (n.);
as. yrmþe, 1259. [earm.]
yrre, nja., anger; ds., 2092; as., 711.
yrre, adj.ja., angry; 1532, 1575, 2073,
2669; gsm. eorres, 1447; npm. yrre,
769. [Go. aírzeis.]
463
yrre-mōd ‡, adj., angry (of MOOD); 726.
yrringa, adv., angrily; 1565, 2964.
ys, see eom.
©ð, fjō., wave; np. ©þa, 548; gp. ~, 464,
848, 1208, 1469, 1918; dp. ©ðum, 210,
421, 515, 534, 1437, 1907, 2693; ap.
©ðe, 46, 1132, 1909. [OS ûðia.] —
Cpds.: Ïōd-, līġ-, wæter-.
©ðan, vb. I, destroy; pret. 1 sg. ©ðde, 421.
(Ball in Bamm. 1985: 44: ‘Ïood’?)
[Cf. Go. auþs, NHG öde.]
©ðe, adj., see ēaðe.
©ðe-līċe, adv., easily; 1556.
©ð-ġeblond ‡, n., tossing waves, surge,
surging water; 1373, 1593; np.
-ġebland, 1620. [blandan.]
©þ-ġesēne, see ēþ-ġes©ne.
©ð-ġewin(n) ‡, n., wave-strife; swim-
ming, gs. -es, 1434; tossing water, ds.
-e, 2412. (Cf. Mackie 1939: 522.)
©þ-lād †, f., way across the waves,
voyage; np. -e, 228. [līðan.]
©ð-lāf †, f., LEAVing of waves, (sand or
other material tossed up on) shore; ds.
-e, 566. (See Aant. [11¯f.]; Hoops 81,
St. 98¯f.)
©ð-lida ‡, wk.m., wave-traverser, ship;
as. -lidan, 198. [līðan.]
©wan, vb. I, show, manifest; pres. 3 sg.
ēaweð, 276; eoweð, 1738 (n.: appear);
pret. 3 sg. ©wde, 2834.
ġe-©wan, vb. I, show, present, bestow;
(ēstum) ġe©wan, 2149; pp. (~) ġe-
ēawed 1194.
 PROPER NAMES
References to names in The Fight at Finnsburg (marked ‘F.’) are added within square brackets. For
ease of reference, a name found in that poem and not in Beowulf has additionally been marked with
an enlarged, elevated point (•) before the headword. The meanings of name constituents are
provided, but see Lang. §¯26.10 for cautionary remarks about the signi¢cance of personal names.
Ābel, m., biblical person; as., 108.
Ælf-here, mja., kinsman of Wīġlāf; gs.
-es, 2604. [ælf- ‘elf’; Kaufmann 1968:
28–9, 174–6; see Lang. §¯2.5 rem.¯3;
here ‘army.’] (See Bu. 51.)
Æsc-here, mja., a counselor and warrior
of Hrōðgār’s; 1323, 1329; gs. -es, 1420;
ds. -e, 2122. [æsc (ON askr), (‘ash’-)
‘spear’ (Scand. ‘boat’; see Mald 69).
Kaufmann 1968: 40, 174–6.]
Ār-Scyldingas, see Scyldingas.
Bēan-stān, m., father of Breca; gs. -es,
524. [Icel. bauni ‘shark,’ ‘dog¢sh’ (or
OE bēan ‘bean’? or Bēan- = Bēon-?
see Kaufmann 1968: 57). See ZfdA 7
(1849) 421; MLN 18 (1903) 118, ibid.
20.64; Varr.: 524; Commentary, p.¯149,
n. 3.]
Beorht-Dene, see Dene.
Bēow, m., Danish king, son of Scyld; 18
(n.), 53 (n.). [MS beowulf. Björkman
Nordisk Tidskrift för Vetenskap, Konst
och Industri 1918, 163–82, & EStn. 52
(1918) 145–93; see also the etym. of
Bēowulf, infra. Bēow, Bēaw (cf. ON
Biár: see Appx.A §¯8, Prologus, also
Skáldskap., ch. 55) belongs to OE
bēow ‘grain, barley’ (EpGl 645, LdGl
184), OS beo(w), beuwod ‘harvest,’
related to the root bhū. So Kemble ii,
pp.¯xiii¯f.; Müllenhoff ZfdA 7 (1849)
410¯f. & his Beovulf; Kögel ZfdA 37
(1893) 268–76; Gerstein in Myth in
Indo-European Antiquity, ed. G. Larson
(Berkeley, 1974) 146; cf. Boer Afnf. 19
(1903) 20–8. It corresponds to ON
bygg ‘barley.’ Or Bēow = Byggvir
(see Harris Arv 55 [1999] 7–23; Fulk
& Harris 2002; Anglo-Saxon 1 [2007]
109–36; note on 4–52).]
Bēowulf, Bīowulf, m., (Bēowulf Ġēata
676, 1191), the hero of the poem. (The
īo form is con¢ned to the second part
of the MS, in which it is regularly used
with the exception of ll.¯1971, 2207,
2510 [see Lang. §¯18.1 rem., Intr. clv.)
— ns., 343 (Bēowulf is mīn nama),
405, 506, 529, 631, 676, 957, 1024,
1191, 1299, 1310, 1383, 1441, 1473,
1651, 1817, 1880, 1999, 2359, 2425,
2510, 2724; gs. -es, 501, 795, 856, 872
& 1971 (sīð Bēowulfes), 2194, 2681,
2807 (Bīowulfes Biorh); ds. -e, 609,
623, 818, 1020, 1043, 1051, 2207,
2324, 2842, 2907, 3066, 3151; as.
-wulf, 364, 653, 2389; vs. ~, 946; wine
mīn B.: 457, 1704; B. lēofa: 1216,
1758; lēofa B.: 1854, 1987, 2663. —
Note: Bēowulf maðelode: 405, 2510,
2724; Bēowulf maþelode, bearn
Ecgþeowes: 529, 631, 957, 1383, 1473,
1651, 1817, 1999, 2425. — [Björkman
1918; Cha.Intr. 365–81, 451–85;
Schröder Anglia 56 (1932) 316¯f., 57
(1933) 400; Krogmann EStn. 67 (1932)
161–4. The following etymologies of
the name Bēowulf (and of Bēow) have
been proposed: (1) Bēowulf (= ON
Bjólfr) = ‘bee-wolf.’ So Grimm D.M.
306 (369); Simrock 1859: 177; Müll-
enhoff ZfdA 12 (1865) 283 (cf. Cha.
Intr. 366 n.¯4); Sweet 1892 & EStn. 2
(1878) 312–14, Athenæum (18732) 631;
Körner EStn. 1 (1877) 483¯f.; Skeat
Academy 11.1 (1877) 163 c & Jnl. of
Philol. 15 (1886) 120–31; Cos. Aant.
[42]; Siev. BGdSL 18 (1894) 413;
Grienb. 759; Panzer 392; Cabaniss
JEGP 54 (1955) 195–201; Schramm
1957: 82; Arent in ON Lit. & Myth-
ology, ed. E. Polomé (Austin, 1969)
150; Pettitt NM 77 (1976) 528; Haudry
Études Indo-Européennes 9 (1984)
10¯f.; Glosecki Jnl. of Ritual Stud. 2
(1988) 31–49 (cf. 50–7), 257–62, &
1989: 204. This etymology is strongly
supported by the form of the proper
 PROPER NAMES
name Biuuulf occurring in the Liber
Vitae Ecclesiae Dunelmensis (ed. D.
Dumville & P. Stokes [Cambridge,
2001] M69). See Lang. §¯18. Thus
Bēo-wulf, Northumbr. Bīu-wulf = ON
Bjólfr. Parallel OHG forms: Biulfus,
Piholf. (2) Bēowulf = ON Bjólfr (as
¢rst seen by Grundtvig), i.e. Bœjólfr,
Býjúlfr, from bœr, býr ‘farm (yard).’
So Bu. 56 & Tid. 287¯ff.; Gering 1906:
100–1. (3) Bēowulf a substitution for
Beadu-wulf. So Thorpe (gloss.); Gru.
xxxiii; Morley 1891: 344; Sarr.St. 47,
EStn. 16 (1892) 71–85, ibid. 23 (1897)
227 [ON B∂ðvarr =*Badu-(h)arir; cf.
St. 151, EStn. 42 (1910) 20: from *B∂ð-
vargr]; Ferguson Athenæum (18921)
763 a–b. (4) Laistner 1879: 264–5
connects the name with *bēawan,
Goth. (us-)baugjan ‘sweep.’ Bēowulf
= ‘sweeping wolf,’ i.e. the cleansing
wind that chases the mists away.
Another, very far-fetched suggestion
by Laistner 1889: 24. And see E.
Wadstein in Germanica: Eduard
Sievers zum 75. Geburtstage (Halle,
1925) 323–6: cf. Dutch bui(e) ‘strong
gust of wind’ (?). (5) The ¢rst constit-
uent of Bēowulf = ON Byggvir (barley
cult-¢gure, Lokasenna 46, 56). So
Müllenhoff ZfdA 12 (1865) 284; Harris
Arv 55 (1999) 7–23; Fulk & Harris
2002; Anglo-Saxon 1 (2007) 109–36;
similarly Orchard 2003: 121 n. 117
(‘wolf of [the god] Bēow’); similarly
Kögel AfdA 18 (1892) 56, Kaufmann
1968: 66 (from *Bawiwulf-¯). On the
Finnish evidence, see Krohn Finnisch-
Ugrische Forschungen 4 (1904) 231–
48, Eisen ibid. 6 (1906) 104–11, Olrik
1903–10: 2.250–65, von Unwerth Afnf.
33 (1917) 320–35, RES 40 (1989) 313–
22. (6) Bēowulf = Beorn-wulf. So
Fajardo-Acosta 1989: 29.]
Bīowulfes Biorh, m., Bēowulf’s Mound;
as., 2807. (See Appx.C §¯5.)
Breca, wk.m., chieftain of the Brond-
ingas; 583; d.(a.?)s. Brecan, 506; as. ~,
531. [Cf. brecan ofer bæðweġ, El 244,
Andr 223, 513; Malone Names 1
(1953) 155; Björkman Beibl. 30 (1919)
170–4: perh. brecan = ‘rush,’ ‘storm’;
ON breki ‘breaker’; but cf. Malone
1962: 133.]
465
Brondingas, m.p., a Germanic people;
gp. -a, 521. [brond ‘sword’?; ON
brandr, ‘ship’s beak (prow).’ See Cha.
Wid. 111; Björkman Beibl. 30 (1919)
174–7; Mal. 1962: 133–4.]
Brōsinga (gp.) mene, 1199 (n.). [Etym.
of ON Brísinga (men), brísingr: Bu.
75; Malone Jesp.Misc. 47–54; R.-L.2
3.464¯f.; von See et al. 1997–: 2.543–
6.] (Müllenhoff ZfdA 12 [1865] 304:
Breosingas = Brisingas [metrically
improbable].)
Cāin, m., biblical person; 1261 (MS
camp); gs. Cāines (altered fr. cames),
107 (n.).
Dæġ-hrefn, m., a warrior of the Hūgas;
ds. Dæġhrefne, 2501 (n.). [dæġ ‘day’;
hrefn ‘raven’; see 1801¯f.; Kaufmann
1968: 88.]
Dene, mi.p., Danes (national and geo-
graphical designation); np., 2050; gp.
Dena, Deniġ(e)a, Denia, 155, 498,
657, 1670, 2035; land ~, 242, 253, si.
1904; folce(s) ~, 465 (n.), 1582; ~
lēode (-um), 389, 599, 696, 1323,
1712, 2125; wine ~, 350; aldor ~, 668;
-frēan, 271, 359, 1680; dp. Denum,
767, 823, 1158, 1417, 1720, 1814,
2068; ap. Dene, 1090. [ON Danir. Cf.
OE denu ‘valley’? See R.-L.2 5.174¯f.,
w. refs.; Noreen 1911–13: 2.138¯ff.;
Zachrisson APS 1 (1926–7) 284–92, &
Studier tillägnade Axel Kock (1929)
494¯ff.: ‘woodlanders’; OScand. dan,
cf. OE dæn(n); von See et al. 1997–:
3.661–4.] — Cpds. (see Bryan Kl.
Misc. 120–34; Schütte ZfdA 67 [1930]
133; Magoun 1949; Storms 1957;
Shippey 1978: 45; Howe 1989: 153–4;
Newton 1993: 114–16): (a) Beorht-
Dene; gp. -Dena, 427, 609. [beorht
‘bright.’] Gār-Dene; gp. -Dena, 1; dp.
-Denum, 601, 1856, 2494. [gār ‘spear’;
for names of persons compounded w.
gār, see Sweet 1885: 586; Keller 1906:
140; cf. Gārmund (l.¯1962), Hrōðgār.]
Hrinġ-Dene; np., 116, 1279; gp. -a,
1769. [hrinġ ‘mailshirt.’] — (b) East-
Dene; gp. -a, 392, 616; dp. -um, 828.
Norð-Dene; dp. -um, 783. Sūð-Dene;
gp. -a, 463; ap. -e, 1996. West-Dene;
dp. -um, 383 (n.), 1578. — Cf.
466 PROPER NAMES
Healf-Dene. — See Scyldingas, Ing-
wine; Lang. §¯21.5.
Ēad-ġils, m., Swedish prince, son of
Ōhthere; ds. -e, 2392. [ēad ‘wealth’;
ġīs(e)l ‘hostage’; Kaufmann 1968: 43–
6, 149.]
Eafor, see Eofor.
•Eaha, wk.m., a Danish warrior; [F. 15].
Ēan-mund, m., Swedish prince, son of
Ōhthere; gs. -es, 2611. [Kaufmann
1968: 46–7, 262.]
Earna Næs, mja., a promontory in the
land of the Ġēatas, near the scene of
the dragon ¢ght; as., 3031. [earn
‘eagle.’]
Ēast-Dene, see Dene.
Ecg-lāf, m., a Dane, father of Ūnferð; gs.
Ecglāfes: ~ bearn, 499; sunu ~, 590,
980 (Ec-; see 957¯n.), 1808; mago ~,
1465. [ecg ‘sword’; lāf ‘remnant’;
Kaufmann 1968: 21–2, 224.]
Ecg-þ¬o(w), mwa., father of Bēowulf;
263, 373 (Ecgþēo); gs. Ecgþeowes:
bearn ~, 529, 631, 957 (Ec-, n.), 1383,
1473, 1651, 1817, 1999 (-ðioes), 2177,
2425; sunu ~, 1550, 2367, 2398
(-ðiowes); maga ~, 2587. (On quantity
in -þ¬ow, see Appx.C §¯17.) [ecg
‘sword’; þēow ‘slave, servant.’ Cf. ON
Eggþér. Kaufmann 1968: 21–2.]
Ecg-wela, wk.m., (unknown) Danish king;
gs. -an, 1710 (n.). [ecg ‘sword’; wela
‘wealth’; Malone A. 56 (1932) 436¯f.:
‘sword-vexer,’ i.e. Scyld]
Eofor, m., a Ġēat, the slayer of Ongen-
þēo; gs. Eofores 2486, Eafores 2964;
ds. Iofore, 2993, 2997. [eofor ‘boar’;
Schramm 1957: 78; Kaufmann 1968:
103–4.]
Ēo-mēr, m., son (Ja.: grandson) of the
Angle king Offa; 1960. [eoh ‘horse’;
m®re ‘famous’; Schramm 1957: 32,
100; Kaufmann 1968: 105, 250–1.]
(Bede, H.E. ii, cap. 9: Eumer, OE
Bede 122.9: Ēom®r [a different per-
son].)
Eormen-rīċ, m., king of the East Goths;
gs. -es, 1201. [eormen- ‘immense’; rīċe
‘powerful,’ cf. Go. reiks ‘ruler.’
Kaufmann 1968: 108–9, 289–90.]
(Bede, H.E. ii, cap. 5: Irminricus;
Sweet 1885: 171: Iurmenrīċ. See Brady
1943; Malone 1962: 146–9.)
Ēotan, wk.m.p., ‘Jutes’; people under
the leadership of Finn, the Frisian
king: gp. Ēotena, 1072 (n.), 1088, 1141
(n.); dp. Ēotenum, 1145; — Jutes: dp.
Ēotĺnum, 902 (n.). (Cf. Introd. to
Finn, p. 275; ZvS 50 [1922] 142; Beitr.
51 [1927] 10¯f.) [R.-L.2 16.92–3; cf. ON
ýtar ‘men’ (poetic).]
Fin(n), m., king of the East Frisians; Fin,
1096, 1152; gs. Finnes, 1068, 1081,
1156; ds. Finne, 1128; as. Fin, 1146.
[See also Finnes Buruh.] (H. Kuhn
1969–78 [1969]: 2.183–8; Tol. 45–50;
R.-L.2 9.70–7, 80–2; Introd. to Finn,
p.¯276.)
Finnas, m.p., Finns (Lapps); gp. -a, 580.
See n. on 499–61. [See Schönf. 275¯f.;
Kaufmann 1968: 116.]
•Finnes Buruh, fc., Finn’s stronghold;
[F. 36]. (H. Kuhn 1969–72 [1969]:
2.187–8.)
Fitela, wk.m., nephew (and son?) of
Siġemund; 879, 889. [Etym. of Fitela,
ON Sinfj∂tli, OHG Sintar¢zzilo:
Grimm ZfdA 1 (1841) 2–6; Müllenhoff
ZfdA 23 (1879) 161–3; P.Grdr.1 iia 185,
ibid.2 iia 87; EStn. 16 (1892) 433¯f.;
Beitr. 16 (1892) 363–6, 509¯f., ibid.
30.97¯f.; Koegel 1894: a 173, b 200; —
Gering 1892: 183 n.; Beitr. 18 (1894)
182 n.¯2; ZfdPh. 40 (1908) 392–6; —
Beitr. 35 (1909) 265. Björkm.Eig. 27–
40; Much ZfdA 66 (1929) 15–24
(kenning for ‘wolf’; Fitela shortened
from the compound form as found in
OHG and ON); Brate Studier i nordisk
¢lologi 14 (1923) 2; Schramm 1957:
82; Kaufmann 1968: 117; von See et
al. 1997–: 4.206–7.]
Folc-walda, wk.m., father of Finn; gs.
-an, 1089. [Cf. 2595.] (Malone Names
1 [1953] 160; Schramm 1957: 42; H.
Kuhn 1969–78 [1969]: 2.183–8; Tol.
45–50.)
Francan, wk.m.p., Franks; gp. Francna,
1210; dp. Froncum, 2912. [‘spear-men’
(cf. OE franca ‘spear’)?? Or ‘freemen’?
Or ‘bold ones’? See Schönf. 91; Cha.
Wid. 195¯f.; Björkman Beibl. 30 (1919)
177; R.-L.2 9.373¯f.]
Frēa-waru, f., daughter of Hrōðgār; as.
-e, 2022. [waru ‘watchful care,’ wær
‘(a)ware’; Kaufmann 1968: 120–1,
386.] (Cf. Berct-, Ecg-, Hroth-, Siġ-
 PROPER NAMES
waru [Sweet 1885: 461]; M. Boehler
Die ae. Frauennamen (Berlin, 1930)
240–1; Mal. ELH 7 [1940] 39–44,
Names 1 [1953] 159.)
Fremu, fīn., wife of the Angle king Offa;
1931 (n.). [fremu ‘bene¢t’; Kaufmann
1968: 119; Bamm. A. 124 (2006) 585.]
See Commentary, pp. 222¯ff.
Frēsan, Fr©san, wk.m.p., Frisians; West
Frisians (living west of the Zuider
Zee; Intr. lx): gp. Frēsna, 2915; dp.
Fr©sum, 1207, 2912; — East Frisians
(Introd. to Finn, p. 274): gp. Frēsena,
1093, Fr©sna 1104. [Schönf. 95¯f.; Tol.
11; R.-L.2 10.2–5; Lang. §¯10.4.]
Frēs-cyning, m., king of the (West)
Frisians; ds. -[e], 2503.
Frēs-lond, n., Friesland; land of the
West Frisians: dp. Frēslondum, 2357;
— land of the East Frisians: as.
Fr©sland, 1126.
Frēs-wæl, n., Frisian slaughter or battle-
¢eld; ds. -e, 1070.
Frōda, wk.m., Heaðo-Beard chief, father
of Inġeld; gs. -an, 2025. [frōd ‘wise’
(‘old’); Kaufmann 1968: 126; Gillespie
1973: 48; R.-L.2 10.92¯f.]
Froncan, see Francan.
Fr©san, Fr©s-land, see Frēsan, Frēs-
lond.
Gār-Dene, see Dene.
Gār-mund, m., father of the Angle king
Offa; gs. -es, 1962. [gār ‘spear’; mund
‘hand, protection’; Kaufmann 1968:
132–4, 262.]
•Gār-ulf, m., a Frisian warrior; [F. 31;
ds. -e, 18]. [gār; wulf.]
Ġēatas, m.p., Scandinavian group in
southern ‘Sweden,’ = ON Gautar (see
Intr. lxv); gp. Ġēata, 374, 378, 601,
676, 1191, 1202, 1551, 1642, 1836,
1911, 2184, 2327, 2472, 2658, 2946; ~
lēode (-a, -um), 205, 260, 362, 443
(Ġēatena: see Varr., Lang. §¯21.6),
1213, 1856, 1930, 2318, 2927, 3137,
3178; ~ lēod, 625, 669, 1432; ~
dryhten (cyning, goldwine), 1484,
1831, 2356, 2402, 2419, 2483, 2560,
2576, 2584, 2901, 2991; dp. Ġēatum,
195, 1171, 2192, 2390, 2623; ap.
Ġēatas, 1173. Ġēat (i.e. Bēowulf), ns.,
1785; gs. Ġēates, 640; ds. Ġēate, 1301;
as. Ġēat, 1792. — [Ablaut form: Gotan
467
‘Goths.’ Schönf. 104¯f. Older view:
ON Gautar derived from Gautland, the
land near the river Gautelfr; cf. ON
gjóta, OE ġēotan. Now generally held
to be a sexual descriptor of a man (but
cf. Kuhn 1969–78 [1954]: 2.364–77):
see Tamm Etymologisk svensk ordbok
(1890–1905) s.v. Göte; Grienb. ZfdA
46 (1902) 158; Noreen 1911–13: 2.91,
139; Smithers Durham U. Jnl. 63.2
(1971) 87–103; Thorsten Andersson
1996, R.-L.2 12.278–83.] — Cpds.:
Gūð-Ġēatas; gp. -a, 1538. [gūð ‘war.’]
S®-Ġēatas; np., 1850; gp. -a, 1986.
[s® ‘sea.’] Weder-Ġēatas; gp. -a, 1492,
1612, 2551; dp. -um, 2379. [weder
‘weather, storm,’ i.e. battle.] — See
Wederas; Hrēðlingas.
Ġēatisc, adj., belonging to the Ġēatas;
nsf., 3150.
Ġēat-mæcgas, mja.p., men of the Ġēatas;
gp. -mecga, 829; dp. -mæcgum, 491.
Ġēotena, see Ġēatas.
Ġifðas, m.p., East Germanic group; dp.
-um, 2494 (n.). (Wid 60: Ġefþas, Lat.
Gepidae.) [Schönf. 109¯f.; Mal. MLR
28 (1933) 315–19; R.-L.2 11.115–18.]
God, m., GOD; 13, 72, 381, 478, 685,
701, 930, 1056, 1271, 1553, 1658,
1716, 1725, 1751, 2182, 2650, 2874,
3054; gs. Godes, 570, 711, 786, 1682,
2469, 2858; ds. Gode, 113, 227, 625,
1397, 1626, 1997; as. God, 181, 811.
(See Klaeber 1911–12: [9–10].) [PIE
*ghuto- ‘the invoked’? Cf. Leuvense
Bijdragen 85 (1996) 69–74.]
Grendel, m., monster slain by Bēowulf;
102, 151, 474, 591, 678, 711, 819,
1054, 1253, 1266, 1775, 2078; gs.
Grendles, 127, 195, 384, 409, 478,
483, 527, 836, 927, 1258, 1282, 1391,
1538, 1639, 1648, 2002; Grendeles,
2006, 2118, 2139, 2353; ds. Grendle,
666, 930, 1577, 2521; as. Grendel,
424, 1334, 1354, 1586, 1997, 2070.
[The following explanations of the
name Grendel have been proposed: (1)
The name is related to OE grindan
‘grind,’ hence ‘destroyer.’ (E.tr. 20;
Sweet 1892; Laistner 1889: 23; etc.;
also Brandl P.Grdr.2 iia 992, who at the
same time suggests a possible allusion
to the grinding of grain by slaves cf.
Appx.A §¯7.2), and to OE *grandor
468 PROPER NAMES
(SB §¯289 n.¯7) in grondorlēas, Jul 271,
ON grand ‘evil,’ ‘injury’ (Gr.Spr.;
Sarrazin Angl. 19 [1897] 374¯n.;
Grienb. 758). And see Pogatscher in
Neusprachliche Studien: Festgabe für
Karl Luick (Berlin, 1925) 151; cf.
Fjalldal 1998: 23–4. (2) The name is
related to OE (GenB 384) grindel ‘bar,
bolt,’ OHG grindel, krintil.1 Grimm
D.M. 201 (243). (3) The name is re-
lated to ON grindill, a term in a þula
for ‘storm’; grenja ‘to bellow.’ See
Sarr.St. 65; Mogk P.Grdr.2 iii 301¯f.
(Cf. Beo 1373¯ff.?) (4) Formation by
means of -ila (cf. strenġel) from Lat.
grandis. See Hagen MLN 19 (1904) 70.2
(5) Grendel < *grandil-, from *grand
‘sand,’ ‘bottom (ground) of a body of
water.’ See Rooth Beibl. 28 (1917)
335–40. (6) As a deformation of
dialectal drindle or dringle ‘trickle,’
‘small trickling stream’ (Cha.Intr. 44)
or of *Drenġel ‘drowned’ or ‘drinker’
(Steele ELN 40.3 [2003] 1–13). (7)
Grendel and Grettir both derive from
the root *grandi-. So N. Chadwick
1959: 193; Hume JEGP 73 (1974)
475¯f. Refuted by Liberman 1986:
388–90.
•Gūð-ere, mja., a Frisian warrior; [F.
18]. [gūð; here.]
Gūð-Ġēatas, see Ġēatas.
Gūð-lāf, m., (1) a Danish warrior; 1148,
[F. 16]; (2) either the same Dane, or
else a Frisian warrior (see Intr. to F.);
1
Cf. Schweizerisches ldiotikon (ed. Staub
& Tobler) 2.757¯ff., s.v. grendel, grindel,
where reference is made to the names of nu-
merous localities containing that stem; see also
Archiv 130 (1913) 154¯f. & 131 (1913) 427 n.¯2:
EStn. 1 (1877) 485. — It has been pointed out,
by the way, that a proper name Aedric Grendel
occurs in the Great Roll of the Pipe for A.D.
1179–80 (Liebermann Archiv 126 [1911] 180).
— An adj. grindel ‘angry, impetuous’ is found
in the works of the Gawain poet: see the MED.
[Cf. etymology no.¯3?]
2
Imitation of an Asian name was vaguely
suggested as a possibility by Bouterwek Germ.
1 (1856) 401, and Kaske Speculum 46 (1971)
425¯ff. compares giants with names ending in
-el in the Book of Enoch. — Also Hicketier’s
speculation (1914) of an Iranian mythological
parallel may be noted.
gs. -es, F. 33]. [gūð ‘war’; lāf ‘rem-
nant’; Kaufmann 1968: 158–60, 224.]
Gūð-Scil¢ngas, see Scyl¢ngas.
Hæreð, m., father of Hyġd; gs. Hæreþes
1929, Hæreðes 1981. [Binz 162¯f.;
Köpke 1909: 26–7; Björkm.Eig. 49–
51; Kaufmann 1968: 176.]
Hæðcyn(n), -cen(n), mja., prince of the
Ġēatas, second son of Hrēðel; Hæð-
cyn, 2434, 2437; ds. Hæðcynne, 2482;
as. Hæðcen, 2925. [h(e)aðu- ‘war’;
Björkman EStn. 54 (1920) 24–34: ON
*Haþu-kuniR (or *-kunjaR). See Lang.
§¯19.7 n.¯4; Binz 165; EStn. 32 (1903)
348; but also Bu.Tid. 289; ZföG 56
(1905) 758; Gering 1906: 117.]
Hālga, wk.m., Danish prince, younger
brother of Hrōðgār; Hālga til, 61. [ON
Helgi, from ON heilagr, OE hāliġ,
deriv. of hāl ‘hale, sound, uninjured’;
cf. OED s.v. holy; Kaufmann 1968:
166.]
Hāma, wk.m., a person of the Gothic
cycle of legends; 1198 (n.); Malone
1962: 159–62. [Kaufmann 1968: 166–
7; Gillespie 1973: 64–6.]
Healf-dene, mi., king of the Danes; hēah
~, 57; gs. -es, 1064; maga ~, 189, 1474,
2143; mago ~, 1867, 2011; sunu ~,
268, 344, 645, 1040, 1652, 1699, 2147;
~ sunu, 1009; bearn ~, 469, 1020. [Old
(West) Norse Hálfdan(r), ODan. Haldan
(Lat. Haldanus). See Intr. liv; von See
et al. 1997–: 3.950–8.]
Healf-Dene, mi.p., ‘Half-Danes,’ people
(of the Finnsburg story) to which Hōc,
Hnæf, Hildeburh belong; gp. -Dena,
1069. See 82–5¯n. [Named after the
king, 57? Cf. Mal. Afnf. 42 (1926) 234–
40, EStn. 70.1 (1935) 74–6; Schramm
1957: 65; Tol. 37–45; Intr. lvi n.¯8.]
Heal-gamen, m., Hrōðgār’s scop; 1066
(n.) [‘Hall-entertainment.’]
Heard-rēd, m., Ġēatish king, son of
Hyġelāc; 2388; ds. -e, 2202, 2375.
(Malone Names 1 [1953] 161.) [Kauf-
mann 1968: 173–4.]
Heaðo-Beardan, wk.m.p., a Germanic
people (see Intr. lv, R.-L.2 14.93¯f.); gp.
-Beardna 2032 (n.), 2037 (Heaða-),
2067. [heaðo- ‘war’; beard ‘beard’ (cf.
Long-Beardan, Wid 32, 80; ON barða
‘bearded axe,’ Skáldsk.?) See Lang.
§¯20.6.]
 PROPER NAMES
Heaþo-lāf, m., a man of the Wyl¢ng
people; ds. -e, 460. [heaþo- ‘war’; lāf
‘remnant’; Kaufmann 1968: 177–9,
224.]
Heaþo-R®mas, m.p., a people living in
southern Norway (Romerike); ap.
-R®mes, 519. (Wid 63: Heaþo-
Rēamum, dp.; ON Raumar; see Lang.
§¯7.1.) See Commentary, p. 149.
Heaðo-Scil¢ngas, see Scyl¢ngas.
Helmingas, m.p., the family to which
Wealhþēo belongs; gp. -a, 620. (Wid
29: Helm. See Cha.Wid. 198.) [Kauf-
mann 1968: 182.]
Hemming, m., a kinsman of Offa and of
Ēomēr; gs. -es, 1944 (n.), 1961.
Henġest, m., leader of the Danish party
at Finnsburg (see Intr. to F.); 1127, [F.
17]; gs. -es, 1091; ds. -e, 1083, 1096.
[henġest ‘horse’; Stanley 1990: 60–3;
Oettinger GL 40 (2000) 71–4.]
Heoro-gār, m., Danish king, elder
brother of Hrōðgār; 61; Hioro-, 2158;
Here-, 467. [heoro ‘sword,’ here
‘army’; gār ‘spear’; Kaufmann 1968:
187, 174–6, 132–4.] (Cf. hioro-serċe
2539, here-syrċe 1511.)
Heorot, m., the famous hall of the
Danish king Hrōðgār (corresponding
to the royal seat of Hleiðr [Lejre,
Zealand] in Norse tradition, see Intr.
lviii); 1017, 1176, Heort 991; gs.
Heorotes, 403; ds. Heorote, 475, 497,
593, 1267, 1279, 1302, 1330, 1588,
1671, Heorute 766, Hiorote 1990,
Hiorte 2099; as. Heorot 166, 432,
Heort 78. (R.-L.2 14.392–4.) [heorot
‘hart’; see note to 78; Herben PMLA
50 (1935) 933–45.]
Heoro-weard, m., son of Heorogār; ds.
-e, 2161.
Here-beald, m., Ġēatish prince, eldest
son of Hrēðel; 2434; ds. -e, 2463.
[here ‘army’; beald ‘bold’; Kaufmann
1968: 174–6, 53.]
Here-gār, see Heoro-gār.
Here-mōd, m., a king of the Danes;
1709; gs. -es, 901. [here ‘army’; mōd
‘mind, courage’; Kaufmann 1968:
174–6, 259–60; cf. Taylor 2000: 61–
2.] See Commentary, pp. 169¯ff.
Here-rīċ, m., (prob.) uncle of Heardrēd
(i.e. brother of Hyġd, see Seebohm
1902: 69, Mal. JEGP 50 [1951] 19–
469
21); gs. -es, 2206. [here ‘army’; rīċe
‘powerful.’]
Here-Scyldingas, see Scyldingas.
Het-ware, mi.p., a Frankish people on
the lower Rhine (see Intr. lx); 2363,
2916. (Wid 33: Hætwerum, dp.) [hæt(t)
‘hat’ (perh. ‘helmet’)?; -ware ‘inhabit-
ants.’ Cf. Lat. forms Chatti, Chattuarii;
Schönf. 130¯f.; Neumann R.-L.2 4.391¯f.,
w. refs.; cf. Goffart in Chase 1981: 83.]
Hiġe-lāc, see Hyġe-lāc.
Hilde-burh, f., wife of the Frisian king
Finn; 1071, 1114. [hild ‘battle’; burg
‘forti¢ed place’; Kaufmann 1968: 185–
6, 75–6; Boehler 1930: 241.]
Hiorot, see Heorot.
Hnæf, m., chief of the (Half-)Danes at
Finnsburg, 1069; gs. -es, 1114; [ds. -e,
F. 40]. [See ZfdA 12 (1865) 285; Tol.
50–3.]
Hōc, m., father of Hildeburh (and of
Hnæf¯); gs. -es, 1076. [See Bu.Zs. 204;
Much ZfdA 62 (1925) 133¯f.: cf. OE
hēċen, ‘kid’; but cf. Kaufmann 1968:
191.]
Hond-sciōh, m., a Ġēat warrior, one of
Bēowulf’s men; ds. -sciō, 2076 (n.).
[Cf. NHG Handschuh ‘glove.’] (First
recognized as a proper name by Gru.
See Holtzm. 496; Bu.Zs. 209¯f. For the
ON name V∂ttr, i.e. ‘glove,’ see
Appx.A §¯5 (Skáldskaparmál, ch. 41),
§¯6 (Ynglinga saga, ch. 27.)
Hr®dlan, Hr®dles, see Hrēðel.
Hrefna Wudu, mu., Ravenswood, a for-
est in Sweden; as. (or ds.?), 2925.
Hrefnes Holt, n.,Ravenswood, a forest in
Sweden; as., 2935.
Hrēosna Beorh, m., a hill in Weder-
mearc; as., 2477.
Hrēðel (-®-, Hr®dla), m., king of the
Ġēatas, father of Hyġelāc, grandfather
of Bēowulf; 374 (Hrēþel Ġēata), 2430
(Hrēþel cyning), 2474; gs. Hrēþles,
1847, 2191, 2358, 2992; Hr®dles,
1485; Hr®dlan, 454. [For the inter-
change of Hrēð- and Hr®d-, see Bu.Zs.
197¯f.; Binz 164; Cha.Wid. 252¯f.;
Malone 1962: 174; HOEM §¯353.17;
Intr. liii n. 7; Lang. §¯7.3; note on
2869¯f.]
Hrēþling, m., son of Hrēþel; as., 1923
(Hiġelāc); 2925 (Hæðcen). Hrēð-
lingas, m.p., Geatish people, 2960.
470 PROPER NAMES
Hrēð-rīċ, m., a son of Hrōðgār; 1189,
1836. [hrōð- : hrēð ‘glory,’ see Siev.
Beitr. 27 (1902) 207; Mal. PMLA 42
(1927) 268–313. Cf. Roderick.]
Hrinġ-Dene, see Dene.
Hrones Næs(s), mja., a headland on the
coast of Wedermearc; ds. Næsse,
2805, 3136. [hron ‘whale’; Johansson
1964: 76–9 (fanciful).]
Hrōð-gār, m., king of the Danes; 61,
356, 371, 456, 653, 662, 925, 1017,
1236, 1321, 1687, 1840, 2155; gs. -es,
235, 335, 613, 717, 826, 1066, 1456,
1580, 1884, 1899, 2020, 2351; ds. -e,
64, 1296, 1399, 1407, 1592, 1990,
2129; as. -gār, 152, 277, 339, 396,
863, 1646, 1816, 2010; vs., 367, 407,
417 (þēoden H.), 1483. — Note:
Hrōðgār maþelode: 925, 1687, 1840;
Hrōðgār maþelode, helm Scyldinga:
371, 456, 1321. — [hrōðor, hrēð (see
Intr. liii); gār. Cf. ON Hróðgeirr, MHG
Rüedegēr, Anglo-Norman Roger (see
ChronD, E 1075). Kaufmann 1968:
202–3, 132–4.]
Hrōð-mund, m., a son of Hrōðgār;
1189. (See Newton 1993: 77–104, 128–
31.) [mund ‘hand, protection.’]
Hrōð-ulf, m., son of Hālga; 1017; as.,
1181. [wulf. ON Hrólfr, ME Rolf. Cf.
Ralph. R.-L.2 15.158¯f.]
Hrunting, m., Ūnferð’s sword; 1457; ds.
-e, 1490, 1659; as., 1807. [Cf. ON
Hrotti, sword-name; ON (OE) hrind-
a(n) ‘thrust.’ See A. Noreen Abriss der
Urgerm. Lautlehre (Strassburg, 1894)
188; also Falk 1914: 52; Mal. Lan-
guage 20 (1944) 87¯f., Afnf. 61 (1946)
284¯f.; Davidson 1962: 129–30; Brady
1979: 98: ‘long piece of wood.’ Also
Fjalldal 1998: 59–60.]
Hūgas, m.p., a name applied to the
Franks; gp. -a, 2502; ap. -as, 2914.
[See Intr. lx; Schönf. 132.; Goffart in
Chase 1981: 83–100.]
Hūn-lā¢ng, m., (son [or descendant] of
Hūnlāf¯), perhaps a warrior in Henġ-
est’s band; 1143 (n.). [*hūn- ‘high,’
see Hoops in Heusler et al. 1902: 167–
80; Schönf. 143; Holt. Et.; Mal. MLN
43 (1928) 300–4; Kaufmann 1968:
207–9.]
Hyġd, ¢., wife of Hyġelāc; 1926, 2369;
ds. -e, 2172. [ġe-hyġd ‘thought, delib-
eration’; cf. Boehler 1930: 242; Mal.
MLN 56 (1941) 356–8; Kaske 1963;
Bamm. 1979: 85–7; Weise Names 34
(1986) 1–10.] (Cf. Schönf. 142?)
Hyġe-lāc, Hiġe-lāc, (H©lāc[es] 1530
pointing to the form Hyġlāc, see
Siev.R. 463, Lang. §§¯19.10, 20.1; the
form Hyġe- occurs only betw. 2001
and 2434, besides 813, 2943), m., king
of the Ġēatas; 435, 1202, 1983, 2201,
2372, 2434, 2914; gs. -es, 261, 342,
2386, 2943, 2952, 2958; ~ þeġn, 194,
1574, 2977; m®ġ ~, 737, 758, 813,
914, 1530, (si.) 407; ds. -e, 452, 1483,
1830 (MS), 1970, 2169, 2988; as. -lāc,
1820, 1830 (n.), 1923, 2355; vs., 2000
(dryhten H.), 2151. (Cf. Kaske 1963;
Robinson A. 86 (1968) 52–7.) [ON
Hugleikr; Kaufmann 1968: 205–6,
223; R.-L.2 15.300.]
In-ġeld, m., prince of the Heaðo-Beardan,
son of Frōda; ds. -e, 2064. (R.-L.2
15.418–20.) [Schönf. 146¯f.: In-ġeld;
cf. Björkm.Eig. 77–80: *Ing-ġeld <
*Ing(w)i-µelð-. Ball A. 78 (1960) 407
favors the pronunciation In-ġeld,
without affrication (si. Mag.), on the
ground that the name is never spelt
‘Incgeld.’ In addition, Alcuin’s spel-
ling ‘Hinieldus’ (see Frank 1991: 91)
probably indicates that the ‘g’ is not an
affricate: cf. how OE ‘cg’ is spelt ‘cg,’
‘c,’ or ‘g’ in Latin MSS of Bede’s
H.E. There is room for doubt, how-
ever, since the British name ‘Ingcél’
found in the Middle Irish Togail
Bruidne Da Derga is almost certainly
a borrowing of this name (see Henry
1966: 220–1), and Irish ‘cg’ cannot
represent a spirant or a glide, rather a
stop consonant (there being no corres-
ponding affricate in Irish). Derivation
from *Ing-weald- (see note on 2034¯f.)
is precluded by the form in Alcuin.]
Ing-wine, mi.p., (Ing’s friends), Danes;
gp.: (eodor) Ingwina, 1044, (frēan) ~,
1319. [Schönf. 147; Intr. lviii & n.¯5;
Holt.Et. (and Suppl.); Maier R.-L.2
15.417¯f.]
Iofor, see Eofor.
Mere-wīoing, m., Merovingian (i.e. king
of the Franks); gs. -as, 2921 (n.).
 PROPER NAMES
[Schönf. 139, 167¯f., 12; Holt. EStn. 54
(1920) 89; R.-L.2 19.574–5; cf. Ōswīo;
Ecgfrið Ōswēoing (ASE 5 [1976] 32,
35); patronymic ending -ing as in
Scylding.]
Mōd-Þr©ðo, see 1931 (n.).
Næġling, m., Bēowulf’s sword, 2680 (n.).
[næġl, see 2023; cf. sword-names
Nagelrinc, -ring, Nagelung in Þiðreks
saga & MHG epics; Falk 1914: 31, 57;
Davidson 1962: 142–4.]
Norð-Dene, see Dene.
Offa, wk.m., king of the (continental)
Angles; 1957; gs. Offan, 1949. [Ekwall
EStn. 54 (1920) 310: cf. Wulf-? (Saxo:
Uffo); Kaufmann 1968: 364; Sprenger
1995: 187; R.-L.2 22.17–22.]
Ōht-(h)ere, mja., son of the Swedish king
Ongenþēo; gs. Ōhteres, 2380, 2394,
2612; Ōhtheres, 2928, 2932. [ōht
‘pursuit’ (or ‘terror’?); here ‘army’;
ON Óttarr. See Björkman 1910: 104;
Sarrazin EStn. 42 (1910) 17; Kauf-
mann 1968: 364–6.]
Onela, wk.m., king of the Swedes, son of
Ongenþēo; 2616; gs. Onelan, 62,
2932. [ON Áli. Cf. Björkm.Eig. 85¯f.]
Ongen-þ¬o(w), mwa., king of the Swedes;
2486, -ðīo, 2924, 2951, 2961 (see
Varr.); gs. Ongĺnþeoĺs, 1968, Ongĺn-
ðioes, 2387; Ongĺnðeowes, 2475; ds.
-ðīo, 2986. (On -þ¬o, see Appx.C
§¯17.) [þēo(w) ‘servant.’ Cf. ON
Angantýr. See Malone 1962: 188–90;
R.-L.2 22.104.]
•Ord-lāf, m., a Danish warrior; [F. 16].
Ōs-lāf, m., a Danish warrior; 1148. [ōs,
ON áss ‘god.’ Kaufmann 1968: 35–7.
Cf. Krappe Beitr. 56 (1932) 1–10.]
S®-Ġēatas, see Ġēatas.
Scede-land (= Sceden-), n., see Sceden-
īġ; dp. -landum, 19.
Sceden-īġ, fjō., name of the southern-
most part of the Scandinavian Penin-
sula (Skåne), applied to the Danish
realm; ds. -iġġe, 1686. [ON Skán-ey,
Lat. Sca(n)dinavia, mod. Swed. Skåne,
see Intr. lviii; Gloss.: ēg-strēam. See
Müllenhoff 1887–1900: 2.359–61;
Much ZfdA 36 (1892) 126–30; Bugge
Beitr. 21 (1896) 424; Schrader in
471
Philologische Studien: Festgabe für E.
Sievers (Halle, 1896) 2–5; Holt. Beibl.
29 (1918) 256; but also Lindroth Namn
och Bygd 3 (1915) 10¯ff. (connection of
‘Scadinavia’ and ‘Skåne’ denied);
Björkm.Eig. 99¯f.; Nyman R.-L.2 28.582–
7; Kretschmer Glotta 17 (1929) 148–
51; Mal. SP 28 (1931) 575–6, id.
1933b: 149; Whitelock 1951: 26;
Pokorny 1959: 23; Stanley 1981: 207;
Frank 1981: 125 n.¯8 (cf. PQ 61 [1982]
343¯f.).]
Scē¢ng, m., appellation of Scyld; 4.
[scēaf, MnE sheaf; see Commentary,
p.¯111; Lang. §¯8.4.]
Scyld, m., mythical Danish king; 4, 26;
gs. -es, 19. [scyld ‘shield’; see Com-
mentary, p. 111.]
Scyldingas (Scild-, 229, 351, 1183, 2101,
2105), m.p., (descendants of Scyld,
members of Danish dynasty), Danes
(poet. name); np. hwate ~, 1601, 2052
(Scyldungas); gp. Scyldinga, 53, 229,
913, 1069, 1154, 1168, 1563; wine ~,
30, 148, 170, 1183, 2026, 2101
(Scildunga); frēan ~, 291, 351, 500,
1166; helm ~, 371, 456, 1321; eodor ~,
428, 663; þēoden ~, 1675, 1871; lēod
~, 1653, 2159 (Scyldunga); witan ~,
778; winum ~, 1418; dp. Scyldingum,
274; ap. Scyldingas, 58. Scylding, ns.:
gamela ~ (i.e. Hrōðgār), 1792, 2105.
[scyld, Scyld; ON Skj∂ldungar; see
Commentary, p. 111; Malone Names 1
(1953) 153¯f., 2.109–12; R.-L.2 29.7–13;
von See et al. 1997–: 3.724.] — Cpds.:
Ār-Scyldingas; gp. -a, 464; dp. -um,
1710. [ār ‘honor.’] Here-Scyldingas;
gp. -a, 1108. [here ‘army.’] Siġe-
Scyldingas; gp. -a, 597; dp. -um,
2004. [siġe ‘victory.’] Þēod-Scyld-
ingas; np., 1019. [þēod ‘people.’] —
See Dene.
Scyl¢ngas (Scilf-), m.p., (Swedish dyn-
asty), Swedes; Scil¢ngas 3005 (n.); gp.
Scyl¢nga: helm ~, 2381, lēod ~, 2603.
Scyl¢ng, ns.: gomela ~ (i.e.
Ongenþēo), 2487, 2968 (Scil¢ng).
[ON Skil¢ng(a)r, see Appx.A §¯7.1:
Hyndluljóð 11; ON -skjálf, OE scielf,
scylf, ‘peak, crag, pinnacle’; cf. MHG
(Nibelungenlied) Schilbunc (-ung).
See Bu. 12; Björkm.Eig. 100–9; Hoops
255; von See et al. 1997–: 3.724¯f.] —
472 PROPER NAMES
Cpds.: Gūð-Scil¢ngas; ap. 2927.
Heaðo-Scil¢ngas; np. 2205; Heaðo-
Scil¢ng; gs. -as, 63 (i.e. Onela). —
See Swēon.
•Secgan, wk.m.p., a Germanic (coastal)
people; [gp. Secgena, F. 24]. [secg
‘sword’; cf. seax; Seaxe; Much ZfdA
62 (1925) 135.]
•Siġe-ferð, m., one of Hnæf’s warriors
(of the people of the Secgan); [F. 15,
24]. [ferð = frið(u).]
Siġe-mund, m., son of Wæls, uncle (and
father?) of Fitela; gs. -es, 875; ds. -e,
884. [siġe ‘victory’; mund ‘hand,
protection.’ Gillespie 1973: 125–6.]
Siġe-Scyldingas, see Scyldingas.
Sūð-Dene, see Dene.
Swēon, wk.m.p., Swedes; i.e. inhabitants
of the east central part of the present
Sweden (northeast of Lakes Väner and
Vätter); gp. Swēona, 2472, 2946 (n.);
~ lēodum (-e), 2958, 3001. [OIcel.
Svíar, OSwed. Swēar, Swīar. Cf. Go.
swēs, OE sw®s ‘one’s own’; A.
Noreen, Altschwed. Gram. §¯169 n.;
Wadstein Fornvännen 25 (1930) 193–
216; R.-L.2 27.446¯f., 30.163–5.] —
See Scyl¢ngas.
Swēo-ðēod, f., the Swedish people; ds.
-e, 2922. [ON Sví-þjóð; cf. Leges
Edwardi confessoris 32E (ed. Lieber-
mann 1903–16: 1.659): Suetheida,
‘Sweden.’] See Swīo-rīċe.
Swerting, m., (maternal) uncle (See-
bohm 1902: 69) or grandfather (?) of
Hyġelāc; gs. -es, 1203. [sweart
‘black’; ON Svertingr.]
Swīo-rīċe, nja., Sweden; ds., 2383, 2495.
[Mn.Swed. Sverige.] (See Langenfelt
NM 33 [1932] 92–121.)
Þēod-Scyldingas, see Scyldingas.
Þr©ðo, see 1931 (n.).
Ūn-ferð, m., courtier (¯þyle) of Hrōðgār;
499 (n.), 1165; as., 1488; vs., 530.
(MS: Hun-.) [See Commentary, pp.
149¯ff.; Lang. §¯26.10; MP 85.2 (1987)
113–27, w. refs.]
W®ġ-mundingas, m.p. the family to
which Wīhstān, Wīġlāf, and Bēowulf
belong; gp. -a, 2607, 2814. (Byers MP
66 (1968) 45–7; Farrell Saga-Book
18.3 [1972] 240–50; Eliason ASE 7
[1978] 95–105.)
Wæls, m., father of Siġemund; gs. -es,
897. [Prob. related not to Go. walis,
γνήσιος, ‘genuine, legitimate’ but to
ON V∂lsi: see Björkm.Eig. 114¯f.]
Wælsing, m., son of Wæls (i.e. Siġe-
mund); gs. -es, 877. [Cf. ON V∂ls-
ungr.]
Wealh-þ¬o, str. & wk.f., Hrōðgār’s
queen; 612, 1162, 1215, 2173; ds.
-þ½n, 629; as. -þēo, 664. (On -þ¬ow,
see Appx.C §¯17.). [wealh ‘Celtic,’
‘foreign’ (LSE 8 [1975] 20–44; D.
Green 1998: 162–3; cf. Ja.); þēow
‘slave’ (or ‘captive’? [carried off in
war]: Björkman Beibl. 30 [1919] 177–
80.). See Intr. liv & n. 1; Meyer Beibl.
33 (1922) 94–101; E. Wessén Nordiska
namnstudier, Uppsala Universitets
Årsskrift, Filos., Språkvet. och histor.
Vetensk. 3 (1927) 110¯ff.; Malone
Kl.Misc. 135–58; Boehler 1930: 243–
4; Gordon MÆ 4 (1935) 169–75;
Robinson ES 45 (1964) 36–9; Kauf-
mann 1968: 380–3; Damico 1984: 59–
86; Hill PQ 69 (1990) 106–12; note on
2174a.]
Wederas, m.p., = Weder-Ġēatas (cf.
Hrēðas, El 58 = Hrēð-Gotan, ibid. 20);
gp. Wedera, and (only in the second
part of the MS, and there regularly,
except 2186 & 2336) Wedra (see Lang.
§¯19.10), 423, 461 (n.), 498, 2120,
2186; ~ lēode (-a, -um), 225, [390]
(n.), 697, 1894, 2900, 3156; ~ lēod,
341; ~ þīoden (helm), 2336, 2462,
2656, 2705, 2786, 3037.
Weder-Ġēatas, see Ġēatas.
Weder-mearc, f., land of the (Weder-)
Ġēatas; ds. -e, 298. (Cf. [Den-]mark.)
Wēland, m., famous smith of Germanic
legend; gs. -es, 455 (n.). [Cf. ON vél
‘arti¢ce’ (Grimm)?; High German
Wielant(d), ON V∂lundr (Jiriczek
1898: 7; Heusler ZfdA 52 [1910] 97¯f.);
Gillespie 1973: 141–3; MnE Wayland
(dial. pronunc., see Förster Archiv 119
[1907] 306).]
Wendlas (or Wendle), m.p., Vandals (?)
(cf. GD 3, 1.179.14: Wandale, Var.:
Wendle, 182.11: Wændla, etc.), or
inhabitants of Vendel in Uppland,
Sweden, or inhabitants of Vendill in
 PROPER NAMES
North Jutland (mod. Vendsyssel); gp.
Wendla, 348. (See Intr. lii, lxiii; Müll.
89¯f., Cha.Wid. 208; Ekwall 1954: 79;
Mal. 1962: 209.)
Wēoh-stān (Wēox-), see Wīh-stān.
West-Dene, see Dene.
Wīġ-lāf, m., a W®ġmunding, kinsman of
Bēowulf; 2602, 2631, 2862, 2906,
3076; vs., 2745; as. Wīlaf, 2852. (A.
119 [2001] 239–41; Stanley 2001: 87.)
Wīh-stān, Wēoh-stān, m., father of
Wīġlāf; Wēohstān, 2613; gs. Wīh-
stānes (sunu): 2752, 3076, 3120, 2862
(Wēoh-), 2602 (Wēox-); (byre) Wīh-
stānes: 2907, 3110. [wīġ, wēoh (cf.
wīġ-weorþung; E&S o.s. 19 (1934)
152¯f.; Kaufmann 1968: 402; ASSAH 8
(1995) 1–42; cf. Alewīh, Wid 35; ON
Vésteinn, see Intr. lxiii n.¯3: Kálfsvísa.]
Wil¢ngas, see Wyl¢ngas.
Wiðer-ġyld, m., a Heaðo-Beard war-
rior; 2051 (n.). [Schramm 1957: 71.]
473
Won-rēd, m., a Ġēat, father of Wulf and
Eofor; gs. -es, 2971. [won ‘wanting,
void of’; Kaufmann 1968: 384.]
Won-rēding, m., son of Wonrēd (i.e.
Wulf¯); 2965.
Wulf, m., a Ġēat (warrior); 2965; ds. -e,
2993.
Wulf-gār, m., an oÌcial at the court of
Hrōðgār; 348, 360.
Wyl¢ngas, m.p., a Germanic people
(prob. south of the Baltic Sea); dp.
Wyl¢ngum, 471, Wil¢ngum 461.
[wulf; ON Yl¢ngar.] (See Müllenhoff
ZfdA 11 [1859] 282, ibid. 23 [1879]
128, 169¯f.; Jiriczek 1898: 273, 291–2;
Bugge 1899: 175; Cha.Wid. 198; Mal.
1962: 213–14; Newton 1993: 105–31;
von See et al. 1997–: 3.726; R.-L.2
34.253–5.)
Yrmen-lāf, m., a Dane; gs. -es, 1324.
[Cf. Eormen-(rīċ).]
This page intentionally left blank
 WORKS CITED

This list contains works cited frequently, as well as works of especial importance, regardless of
frequency of citation. When it is economical to do so, works referred to less frequently are cited in
briefer form within the text, e.g. ‘Klaeber MP 27.3 (1932) 233–7.’ Very many works that cannot be
cited easily in this manner are included in the list below. For the purpose of alphabetization, all
diacritics are disregarded, e.g., a = ä = å. Subtitles are omitted unless they are essential for
identifying items.
Selections from Beowulf scholarship dating from the period 1705–1935 (many of them trans-
lated from their original language into English) are included in Shippey & Haarder 1998. Selective
overviews of the modern reception history of Beowulf are offered by Haarder 1975, Short 1980a,
Clark 1990, Stanley 1994: 1–68, and Fulk & Cain 2003: 194–213. Klaeber’s annotated bibliog-
raphy (Kl.3, cxxv–clxxxiii) remains a valuable guide to 19th- and early 20th-century scholarship
and is available on the World Wide Web (see p. cxc supra). More recent bibliographies of Beowulf
scholarship are Fry 1969 (comprehensive, non-annotated), Short 1980b (annotated, addressing the
period to 1978), and Hasenfratz 1993 (annotated, for 1978–1990). Chapters that address the
changing currents of Beowul¢an scholarship from many different perspectives are included in
Bjork & Niles 1997, while Orchard 2003 provides some more up-to-date references.
The standard bibliography covering the whole of Old English literary scholarship to the end of
1972 is Green¢eld and Robinson 1980. Works published since 1972 are included in annual bib-
liographies in ASE and OEN. The latter publishes two annual bibliographies, one of which is an-
notated, while the other is available in searchable form on that journal’s Web site.

I. EDITIONS AND FACSIMILES

A. Complete editions (in chronological order, with date of ¢rst edition or of ¢rst pub-
lication; for further information on most editions, see the Table of Abbreviations,
pp.¯xvii¯ff.).
1. Thorkelín (Thk., 1815). — 2. Kemble (Ke., 1835). — 3. Schaldemose, F. 1847.
Beo-Wulf og Scopes Widsið. Copenhagen. [Dependent on Kemble.] — 4. Thorpe
(Tho., 1855). — 5. Grein1 (Gr.1, 1857; cf. Wülcker [11 infra]). — 6. Grundtvig (Gru.,
1861). — 7. Heyne (He., 1863; rev. by Socin [Soc.], 5th ed., 1888; rev. by Schücking
[Schu.], 8th ed., 1908; rev. by von Schaubert [v.Sch.], 15th ed., 1940). — 8. Grein2
(Gr.2, 1867). — 9. Arnold (Arn., 1876). — 10. Harrison, J., & R. Sharp. 1883.
Beowulf: An AS Poem. Boston. [Based on Heyne.] — 11. Wülcker (Wülck., 1883).
[Revision of Gr.1.] — 12. Holder (Hold., 1884). — 13. Wyatt (Wy., 1894; cf.
Chambers [18 infra]). — 14. Trautmann (Tr., 1904). — 15. Holthausen (Holt., 1905).
— 16. Sedge¢eld (Sed., 1910). — 17. Pierquin (see Pierquin 1912 under II infra). —
18. Chambers (Cha., 1914; revision of Wyatt [13 supra].) — 19. Klaeber (Kl., 1922)
— 20. Olivero, F. 1934. Beowulf. Turin. — 21. Wrenn (Wn., 1953; rev. by Bolton
[Wn.-B.], 1973). — 22. Dobbie (Dob., 1954). — 23. Magoun (Mag., 1959). — 24.
Nickel et al. (Ni., 1976–82). — 25. Chickering (Chck., 1977). — 26. Swanton (Swn.,
1978). — 27. Crépin (Crp., 1991). — 28. Jack (Ja., 1994). — 29. Alexander (Alxr.,
1995). — 30. Mitchell & Robinson (MR, 1998). — 31. Kiernan (Ki., 1999).
B. Some notable partial editions. (Examples are too numerous for comprehensive treat-
ment.)
1. Conybeare (Cony., 1826). — 2. Ettmüller (E., 1875). — 3. Möller (Mö., 1883). —
4. Lehnert (Le., 1939).
C. Manuscript facsimiles.
1. Zupitza (Z., 1882). — 2. Malone (Mal., 1963). — 3. Kiernan (Ki., 1999).
476 WORKS CITED
II. OTHER WORKS CITED

Abraham, L. 1993. ‘The Decorum of Beowulf.’ PQ 72.267–87.

Aertsen, H., & R. Bremmer, edd. 1994. Companion to OE Poetry. Amsterdam.
Amodio, M. 2004. Writing the Oral Tradition. Notre Dame.
Amodio, M., & K. O’Brien O’Keeffe, edd. 2003. Unlocking the Wordhoard. Toronto.
Amos, A. 1980. Linguistic Means of Determining the Dates of OE Literary Texts.
Cambridge, MA.
Anderson, C. 1999. ‘Formation & Resolution of Ideological Contrast in the Early Hist.
of Scandinavia.’ Cambridge diss.
Andersson, T.M. 1980. ‘Tradition & Design in Beowulf.’ In Niles 1980: 90–106.
–¯¯¯¯1983. ‘The Dating of Beowulf.’ UTQ 52.288–301.
–¯¯¯¯1997. ‘Sources & Analogues.’ In Bjork & Niles 1997: 125–48.
Andersson, Thorsten. 1996. ‘Götar.’ In Från götarna till Noreens kor, ed. E. Brylla et
al., 33–50. Uppsala.
Andrew, S. 1940. Syntax & Style in OE. Cambridge.
–¯¯¯¯1948. Postscript on Beowulf. Cambridge.
Anlezark, D. 2006. Water & Fire: The Myth of the Flood in AS England. Manchester.
Antonsen, E. 1975. A Concise Grammar of the Older Runic Inscriptions. Tübingen.
Arcamone, M. 2000. ‘Germanico *fehu “patrimonio” e germanico *laihwna “prestito”:
Contributo allo studio della terminologia feudale.’ In Il feudalesimo nell’alto
medioevo, II, 915–47. Spoleto.
Arnold, C. 1997. An Archaeology of the Early AS Kingdoms. 2nd ed. London.
Atwood, E., & A. Hill, edd. 1969. Studies in Lang., Lit., & Culture of the Middle Ages.
Austin.
Bäck, H. 1934. The Synonyms for ‘Child,’ ‘Boy,’ ‘Girl’ in OE. Lund.
Bähr, D. 1959. Ae. æþele und freo. Berlin diss.
–¯¯¯¯1971. ‘Ae. īsig (Beowulf, Zeile 33).’ Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik
19.409–12.
Baker, P. 1988. ‘Beowulf the Orator.’ JEL 21.3–23.
Baker, P., & N. Howe, edd. 1998. Words & Works. Toronto.
Bammesberger, A. 1979. Beiträge zu einem etymologischen Wörterbuch des Alt-
englischen. AF 139. Heidelberg.
–¯¯¯¯ed. 1985. Problems of OE Lexicography. Regensburg.
–¯¯¯¯1986a. Linguistic Notes on OE Poetic Texts. AF 189. Heidelberg.
–¯¯¯¯1986b. ‘On OE gefrægnod in Beowulf 1333a.’ In Kastovsky & Szwedek 1986:
1.193–7.
–¯¯¯¯1992. ‘Five Beowulf Notes.’ In Korhammer et al. 1992: 239–55.
–¯¯¯¯2006. ‘Eight Notes on the Beowulf Text.’ In Walmsley 2006: 19–37
Barley, N. 1974. ‘OE Colour Classi¢cation.’ ASE 3.15–28.
Barnouw, A. 1902. Textkritische Untersuchungen nach dem Gebrauch des bestimmten
Artikels und des schwachen Adjectivs in der ae. Poesie. Leiden.
Bartlett, A.C. 1935. The Larger Rhetorical Patterns in AS Poetry. New York.
Bately, J. 1985. ‘Linguistic Evidence as a Guide to the Authorship of OE Verse: A
Reappraisal, with Special Ref. to Beowulf.’ In Lapidge & Gneuss 1985: 409–31.
–¯¯¯¯2003. ‘Bravery & the Vocabulary of Bravery in Beowulf & the Battle of Maldon.’ In
Amodio & O’Brien O’Keeffe 2003: 274–301.
Bauschatz, P. 1982. The Well & the Tree. Amherst.
Bazelmans, J. 1999. By Weapons Made Worthy. Amsterdam.
Beck, H. 1965. Das Ebersignum im Germanischen. Q&F n.s. 16. Berlin.
–¯¯¯¯1968. ‘Waffentanz und Waffenspiel.’ In Festschrift für Otto HöÏer, ed. H. Birkhan
& O. Gschwantler, 1–16. Vienna.
Beck, H., & K. Strunk. 1973. ‘Germanisch *armaz und vedisch árma.’ In Festschrift
für Hans Eggers, ed. H. Backes, 18–41. Tübingen.
 WORKS CITED 477
Beer, H. 1939. Führen und Folgen, Herrschen und Beherrschtwerden im Sprachgut der
Angelsachsen. Breslau.
Belden, H. 1913. ‘Onela the Scyl¢ng & Ali the Bold.’ MLN 28.149–53.
Benning, H. 1961. ‘Welt’ und ‘Mensch’ in der ae. Dichtung. Bochum-Langendreer.
–¯¯¯¯1971. Die Vorgeschichte von neuenglisch duty. Frankfurt.
Benson, L. 1966. ‘The Literary Character of AS Formulaic Poetry.’ PMLA 81.334–41.
–¯¯¯¯1967. ‘The Pagan Coloring of Beowulf.’ In Creed 1967: 193–213.
–¯¯¯¯1970. ‘The Originality of Beowulf.’ In The Interpretation of Narrative: Theory &
Practice, ed. M. Bloom¢eld, 1–43. Cambridge, MA.
Berendsohn, W. 1913. ‘Drei Schichten dichterischer Gestaltung im Beowulf-Epos.’
Münchner Museum für Philologie des Mittelalters under der Renaissance 2.1–32.
–¯¯¯¯1935. Zur Vorgeschichte des Beowulf. Copenhagen.
Berger, H., & H. Leicester. 1974. ‘Social Structure as Doom: The Limits of Heroism in
Beowulf.’ In Burlin & Irving 1974: 37–79.
Bertelsen, H., ed. 1905–11. Þiðriks saga af Bern. 2 vols. Copenhagen.
Bessinger, J., & R. Creed, edd. 1965. Franciplegius. New York.
Biggam, C. 2000. ‘Grund to Hrof: Aspects of the OE Semantics of Building &
Architecture.’ In Lexicology, Semantics & Lexicography, ed. J. Coleman & C. Kay,
103–25. Amsterdam.
Bischoff, B., et al., edd. 1988. The Épinal, Erfurt, Werden, & Corpus Glossaries.
Copenhagen.
Bjork, R. 1994. ‘Speech as Gift in Beowulf.’ Speculum 69.993–1020.
–¯¯¯¯1996. ‘Grímur Jónsson Thorkelin’s Preface to the First Edition of Beowulf, 1815.’ SS
68.291–320.
–¯¯¯¯1997. ‘Digressions & Episodes.’ In Bjork & Niles 1997: 193–212.
Bjork, R., & A. Obermeier. 1997. ‘Date, Provenance, Author, Audiences.’ In Bjork &
Niles 1997: 13–34.
Bjork, R., & J. Niles, edd. 1997. A Beowulf Handbook. Lincoln, Nebr.
Björkman, E. 1910. Nordische Personennamen in England, etc. SEP 37. Halle.
–¯¯¯¯1918. ‘Beowulfforskning och mytologi.’ Finsk Tidskrift för Vitterhet, Vetenskap,
Konst och Politik 84.250–71.
Blackburn, F. 1897. ‘The Christian Coloring in the Beowulf.’ PMLA 12.205–25.
Blair, J. 2005. The Church in AS Society. Oxford.
Blake, N. 1993. ‘From Old to Middle Eng.’ In Papers from the 4th Intl. Conf. of the
Spanish Soc. for Med. Eng. Lang. & Lit., ed. T. Fanego Lema, 19–33. Santiago de
Compostela.
Bliss, A. 1979. ‘Beowulf, Lines 3074–75.’ In J.R.R. Tolkien, Scholar & Storyteller, ed.
M. Salu & R. Farrell, 41–63. Ithaca.
Blockley, M. ¯2001. Aspects of OE Poetic Syntax. Urbana.
Blom¢eld, J. 1938. ‘The Style & Structure of Beowulf.’ RES o.s. 14.396–403.
Bloom¢eld, L. 1930. ‘OHG eino, OE ana “solus.”’ In Curme Vol. of Ling. Stud., ed. J.
Hat¢eld et al., 50–9. Baltimore.
Bloom¢eld, M. 1949–51. ‘Beowulf & Christian Allegory: An Interpretation of
Unferth.’ Traditio 7.410–15.
Blumenstengel, I. 1964. Wesen und Funktion des Banketts im Beowulf. Marburg.
Boenig, R. 2001. ‘Musical Instruments as Iconographical Artifacts in Medieval Poetry.’
In Material Culture & Cultural Materialisms in the Middle Ages & Renaissance, ed.
C. Perry, 1–15. Turnhout.
Boer, R. 1912. Die ae. Heldendichtung. Halle.
Bolton, W. 1978. Alcuin & Beowulf. New Brunswick.
Bonjour, A. 1950. The Digressions in Beowulf. Oxford.
–¯¯¯¯1957. ‘Beowulf & the Beasts of Battle.’ PMLA 72.563–73.
Bouterwek, K., ed. 1854. Cædmon’s des Angelsachsen biblische Dichtungen, I.
Gütersloh. [See pp.¯c–cxiv.]
478 WORKS CITED
Bradley, S., tr. 1982. AS Poetry. London.
Brady, C. 1943. The Legends of Ermanaric. Berkeley.
–¯¯¯¯1952. ‘The Synonyms for “Sea” in Beowulf.’ In Studies in Honor of Albert Morey
Sturtevant, 22–46. Univ. of Kansas Pubs., Humanistic Stud. 29. Lawrence.
–¯¯¯¯1979. ‘Weapons in Beowulf: An Analysis of the Nominal Compounds & an
Evaluation of the Poet’s Use of Them.’ ASE 8.79–141.
–¯¯¯¯1983. ‘Warriors in Beowulf: An Analysis of the Nominal Compounds & an
Evaluation of the Poet’s Use of Them.’ ASE 11.199–246.
Brandl, A. 1929a. ‘Beowulf und die Merowinger.’ Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1929, xi, 207–11.
–¯¯¯¯1929b. ‘Der Saalkampf in Finns Burg.’ In Britannica: Max Förster zum sechzigsten
Geburtstage, 23–5. Leipzig.
Braun, A. 1911. Lautlehre der ags. Version der Epistola Alexandri ad Aristotelem.
Würzburg diss.
Braune, W., ed. 1994. Althochdeutsches Lesebuch. 17th ed. rev. E. Ebbinghaus.
Tübingen.
Breeze, A. 1997. ‘A Celtic Etymology for OE deor “brave.”’ In Alfred the Wise, ed. J.
Roberts et al., 1–4. Cambridge.
Bremmer, R. 1996. ‘Grendel’s Arm & the Law.’ In Stud. in Eng. Lang. & Lit., ed. M.
Toswell & E. Tyler, 121–32. London.
–¯¯¯¯2004. ‘The Frisians in Beowulf — Beowulf in Frisia.’ In Med. Eng. Literary &
Cultural Studies: SELIM XV, ed. J. Conde Silvestre & M. Vázquez González, 3–31.
Murcia.
Brodeur, A. 1943a. ‘The Climax of the Finn Episode.’ Univ. of California Pubns. in
Eng. 3.295–361.
–¯¯¯¯1943b. ‘Design & Motive in the Finn Episode.’ Essays & Studies, Univ. of
California Pubns. in Eng. 14.1–42.
–¯¯¯¯1959. The Art of Beowulf. Berkeley.
–¯¯¯¯1968. ‘A Study of Diction & Style in Three AS Narrative Poems.’ In Nordica et
Anglica, ed. A. Orrick, 97–114. The Hague.
–¯¯¯¯1970. ‘Beowulf: One Poem or Three?’ In Mandel & Rosenberg 1970: 3–26.
Brooke, S. 1892. The Hist. of Early Eng. Lit. New York.
Brooks, K., ed. 1961. Andreas & the Fates of the Apostles. Oxford.
Brown, A., & P. Foote. 1963. Early English & Norse Studies Presented to Hugh Smith.
London.
Brown, E. 1891–2. Die Sprache der Rushworth Glossen zum Evangelium Matthäus und
der mercische Dialect. 2 vols. Göttingen.
Brown, M. 2007. MSS from the AS Age. London.
Brown, P., et al., edd. 1986. Modes of Interpretation in OE Lit. Toronto.
Bruce, A. 2002. Scyld & Scef. New York.
Bruce-Mitford, R. 1974. Aspects of AS Archaeology. London.
–¯¯¯¯1979. The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial: A Handbook. 3rd. ed. London.
Brunner, H. 1890. ‘Über absichtslose Missethat im altdeutschen Strafrechte.’
Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 817–42. Berlin.
Buchloh, P. 1966. ‘Unity & Intention in Beowulf.’ In English Studies Today, ed. I.
Cellini & G. Melchiori, 99–120. Rome.
Büchner, G. 1968. Vier ae. Bezeichnungen für ‘vergehen’ und ‘verbrechen.’ Berlin
diss.
Bugge, S. 1899. The Home of the Eddic Poems. Tr. W. Scho¢eld. London.
Bülbring, K. 1902. Altenglisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg.
Burlin, R., & E. Irving, edd. 1974. OE Studies in Honour of John C. Pope. Toronto.
Burrow, J. 1986. The Ages of Man. Oxford.
Busse, W., & R. Holtei. 1981. ‘Beowulf & the 10th Century.’ Bull. of the John Rylands
Univ. Libr. 63 (1981) 285–329.
 WORKS CITED 479
Cable, T. 1974. The Meter & Melody of Beowulf. Urbana.
–¯¯¯¯1991. The Eng. Alliterative Tradition. Philadelphia.
Calder, D., ed. 1979. OE Poetry: Essays on Style. Berkeley.
Cameron, A. 1969. ‘Saint Gildas & Scyld Sce¢ng.’ NM 70.240–6.
Campbell, A. 1962. ‘The OE Epic Style.’ In Eng. & Med. Stud. for J.R.R. Tolkien, ed.
N. Davis & C. Wrenn, 13–26. London.
–¯¯¯¯1971. ‘The Use in Beowulf of Earlier Heroic Verse.’ In England before the Conquest,
ed. P. Clemoes & K. Hughes, 283–92. Cambridge.
Campbell, P. 1974. ‘The Death of Beowulf: Please Indicate Church AÌliation.’ Revue
de l’Université d’Ottawa 44.539–42.
Cameron, A., et al. 1981. ‘A Reconsideration of the Language of Beowulf.’ In Chase
1981: 33–75.
Carney, J. 1955. Studies in Irish Lit. & Hist. Dublin.
Carnicelli, T., ed. 1969. King Alfred’s Version of St. Augustine’s Soliloquies.
Cambridge, MA.
Carr, C. 1939. Nominal Compounds in Gmc. London.
Carrigan, E. 1967. ‘Structure & Thematic Development in Beowulf.’ Proc. of the Royal
Irish Acad. 66 section c, no. 1, 1–51.
Carver, M. 1998. Sutton Hoo: Burial Ground of Kings? London.
–¯¯¯¯2000. ‘Burial as Poetry.’ In Tyler 2000: 25–48.
–¯¯¯¯2005. Sutton Hoo: A 7th-Century Princely Burial Ground. London.
Cassidy, F. 1972. ‘Beowulf: icge & incge Once More.’ In Studies for Einar Haugen, ed.
E. Firchow, 115–18. The Hague.
Cavill, P. 1999. Maxims in OE Poetry. Cambridge.
–¯¯¯¯2004. ‘Christianity & Theology in Beowulf.’ In his Christian Tradition in AS
England, 15–39. Cambridge.
Chadwick, H. 1907. The Origin of the English Nation. Cambridge.
–¯¯¯¯1912. The Heroic Age. Cambridge.
Chadwick, H., & N. Chadwick. 1932. The Growth of Literature, I: The Ancient Litera-
tures of Europe. Cambridge.
Chadwick, N. 1959. ‘The Monsters & Beowulf.’ In The Anglo-Saxons, ed. P. Clemoes,
171–203. London.
Chambers, R., ed. 1912. Widsith. Cambridge.
Chambers, R., et al. 1933. Chapters on the Exeter Book. London.
Chance, J. 1986. Woman as Hero in OE Literature. Syracuse.
Chaney, W. 1970. The Cult of Kingship in AS England. Berkeley.
Chase, C., ed. 1981. The Dating of Beowulf. Toronto.
Cherniss, M. 1972. Ingeld & Christ. The Hague.
Chiusaroli, F. 1995. Storia, memoria e conoscenza nell’Inghilterra medioevale. Rome.
Clark, C. 1992. ‘Onomastics.’ In The Cambr. Hist. of the Eng. Lang., I, ed. R. Hogg,
452–89. Cambridge.
Clark, G. 1990. Beowulf. Boston.
–¯¯¯¯1997. ‘The Hero & the Theme.’ In Bjork & Niles 1997: 271–90.
Clarke, M. 1911. Sidelights on Teutonic History during the Migration Period.
Cambridge.
Clement, R. 1984. ‘Codicological Consideration in the Beowulf MS.’ In Proc. of the
Illinois Med. Assn., 1984, ed. R. Bosse, 13–27. Macomb.
Clemoes, P. 1995. Interactions of Thought & Lang. in OE Poetry. Cambridge.
Clover, C. 1980. ‘The Germanic Context of the Unferþ Episode.’ Speculum 55.444–68.
–¯¯¯¯1986. ‘Hildigunnr’s Lament.’ In Structure & Meaning in ON Literature, ed. J. Lindow
et al., 141–83. Odense.
Coatsworth, E., & M. Pinder. 2002. The Art of the Anglo-Saxon Goldsmith.
Woodbridge.
Collinder, B. 1954. ‘Beowulfskolier.’ In Elias Wessén, 15 April 1954, 16–25. Lund.
480 WORKS CITED
Collins, R. 1983. ‘Blickling Homily XVI & the Dating of Beowulf.’ In Medieval Stud.
Conference Aachen 1983, ed. W.-D. Bald & H. Weinstock, 61–9. Frankfurt.
Cook, A., ed. 1900. The Christ of Cynewulf. Boston.
–¯¯¯¯1922. ‘The Possible Begetter of the OE Beowulf & Widsith.’ Transactions of the
Connecticut Acad. of Arts & Sciences 25.281–346.
–¯¯¯¯1925. ‘Cynewulf’s Part in Our Beowulf.’ Ibid. 27.385–406.
–¯¯¯¯1926. ‘Beowul¢an & Odyssean Voyages.’ Ibid. 28.1–20.
Cosijn, P. 1883–8. Altwestsächsische Grammatik. 2 vols. The Hague.
Cox, B. 1971. Cruces of Beowulf. The Hague.
Craigie, W., ed. 1930. Specimens of AS Poetry, III. Edinburgh.
Cramp, R. 1957. ‘Beowulf & Archaeology.’ Medieval Archaeology 1.57–77.
–¯¯¯¯1993. ‘The Hall in Beowulf & in Archaeology.’ In Damico & Leyerle 1993: 331–46.
Creed, R., ed. 1967. OE Poetry: 15 Essays. Providence.
Crépin, A. 1998. ‘Beowulf: Monstre ou modèle?’ Études Anglaises 51.387–98.
Cronan, D. 2003. ‘Poetic Meanings in the OE Poetic Vocabulary.’ ES 84.397–425.
–¯¯¯¯2007. ‘Beowulf, the Gaels, & the Recovery of the Pre-Conversion Past.’ Anglo-
Saxon 1.137–80.
Dahlberg, C. 1985. ‘Beowulf & the Land of Unlikeness.’ In CUNY Eng. Forum 16, ed.
S. Brody & H. Schechter, 105–27. New York.
–¯¯¯¯1988. The Literature of Unlikeness. Hanover.
Dam, J. van. 1957. The Causal Clause & Causal Prepositions in Early OE Prose.
Groningen.
Damico, H. 1984. Beowulf¯’s Wealhtheow & the Valkyrie Tradition. Madison.
Damico, H., & J. Leyerle, edd. 1993. Heroic Poetry in the AS Period. Kalamazoo.
Dančev, A. 1967. ‘The Syntactic Functions of the Prep. mid in OE Poetry & Prose.’
Godišnik na So¢jskija Universitet, Fakultet po zapadni ¢lologii, 61.51–130.
Daunt, M. 1959. ‘Minor Realism & Contrast in Beowulf.’ In Mélanges de linguistique
et de philologie: Ferdinand Mossé in memoriam, 87–94. Paris.
–¯¯¯¯1966. ‘Some Modes of AS Meaning.’ In In Memory of J.R. Firth, ed. C. Bazell et al.,
66–78. London.
Davidson, H. 1962. The Sword in AS England. Oxford.
–¯¯¯¯1964. Gods & Myths of Northern Europe. Harmondsworth.
Davidson, H., ed., & P. Fisher, tr. 1979–80. Saxo Grammaticus: The History of the
Danes. 2 vols. Woodbridge.
Davis, C. 1996. Beowulf & the Demise of Gmc. Legend in England. New York.
Dehmer, H. 1928. ‘Die Grendelkämpfe Beowulfs im Lichte moderner Märchen-
forschung.’ GRM 16.202–18.
Delbrück, B. 1909. Zu den germanischen Relativsätzen. Abhandl. der philol.-hist.
Klasse der Königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 27, no. 19. Leipzig.
Dening, W. 1912. Zur Lehre von den Ruhe- und Richtungskonstruktionen. Leipzig diss.
Deskis, S. 1996. Beowulf & the Medieval Proverb Tradition. Tempe.
Deutschbein, M. 1902. Zur Entwicklung des englischen Alliterationsverses. Halle.
Diamond, R. 1961. ‘Theme as Ornament in AS Poetry.’ PMLA 76.461–8.
Dickins, B., ed. 1915. Runic & Heroic Poems of the Old Teutonic Peoples. Cambridge.
Dickinson, T., & H. Härke. 1992. Early AS Shields. London.
Doane, A. 2003. ‘Beowulf & Scribal Performance.’ In Amodio & O’Brien O’Keeffe
2003: 62–75.
Donahue, C. 1949–51. ‘Beowulf, Ireland & the Natural Good.’ Traditio 7.263–77.
–¯¯¯¯1965. ‘Beowulf & Christian Tradition: A Reconsideration from a Celtic Stance.’
Traditio 21.55–116.
–¯¯¯¯1975. ‘Potlatch & Charity: Notes on the Heroic in Beowulf.’ In Nicholson & Frese
1975: 23–40.
Donoghue, D. 1987. Style in OE Poetry. New Haven.
Downes, J. 1997. Recursive Desire. Tuscaloosa.
 WORKS CITED 481
Drout, M. 2007. ‘Blood & Deeds: The Inheritance Systems in Beowulf.’ SP 104.199–
226.
Dumville, D. 1981. ‘Beowulf & the Celtic World.’ Traditio 37.109–60.
Dunning, T., & A. Bliss, edd. 1969. The Wanderer. London.
Earl, J. 1994. Thinking about Beowulf. Stanford.
Earle, J., ¯tr. 1892. The Deeds of Beowulf. Oxford.
Ekwall, E. 1954. Review of Wn.1. ES 35.75–81.
Eliason, N. 1953. ‘Beowulf Notes.’ Angl. 71.438–55.
–¯¯¯¯1975. ‘Healfdene’s Daughter.’ In Nicholson & Frese 1975: 3–13.
Emerson, O. 1926. ‘The Punctuation of Beowulf & Literary Interp.’ MP 23.4.391–405.
Engelhardt, C. 1866. Denmark in the Early Iron Age. London.
Engstrom, R., et al. 1989. A Modern Replication Based on the Pattern-Welded Sword of
Sutton Hoo. Kalamazoo.
Enright, M. 1996. Lady with a Mead Cup. Blackrock.
Ericson, E. 1930. ‘The Use of OE swa in Negative Clauses.’ In Studies in Honor of
Hermann Collitz, 159–75. Baltimore.
–¯¯¯¯1932. The Use of ‘swā’ in OE. Göttingen.
Ettmüller, L. 1851. Vorda vealhstôd Engla and Seaxna. Quedlinburg.
Fajardo-Acosta, F. 1989. The Condemnation of Heroism in the Tragedy of Beowulf.
Lewiston.
Falk, H. 1914. Altnordische Waffenkunde. Oslo.
Farrell, R. 1972. Beowulf, Swedes & Geats. London.
–¯¯¯¯1982. ‘Beowulf & the Northern Heroic Age.’ In The Vikings, ed. R. Farrell, 180–216.
London.
Fell, C. 1984. Women in AS England. Bloomington.
–¯¯¯¯1991. ‘Runes & Semantics.’ In OE Runes & Their Continental Background, ed. A.
Bammesberger (AF 217), 195–229. Heidelberg.
–¯¯¯¯1995. ‘Paganism in Beowulf: A Semantic Fairy-Tale.’ In Pagans & Christians, ed. T.
Hofstra et al., 9–34. Groningen.
Finch, R., ed. & tr. 1965. The Saga of the Volsungs. London.
Fischer, A. 1986. Engagement, Wedding & Marriage in OE. AF 176. Heidelberg.
–¯¯¯¯2002. ‘Notes on Kinship Terminology in the History of English.’ In Of Dyuersitie &
Chaunge of Langage, ed. K. Lenz & R. Möhlig, 115–28. AF 308. Heidelberg.
Fischer, W. 1934. ‘Von neuerer deutscher Beowulf-Forschung.’ In Germanische
Philologie (Behaghel Festschrift), ed. A. Goetze et al., 419–31. Heidelberg.
Fjalldal, M. 1998. The Long Arm of Coincidence. Toronto.
Foley, J., ed. 1981. Oral Traditional Literature. Columbus.
–¯¯¯¯1990. Traditional Oral Epic. Berkeley.
–¯¯¯¯1991. Immanent Art. Bloomington.
Förster, M. 1919. Die Beowulf-Handschrift. Leipzig.
Frank, R. 1981. ‘Skaldic Verse & the Date of Beowulf.’ In Chase 1981: 123–39.
–¯¯¯¯1982a. ‘The Beowulf Poet’s Sense of History.’ In The Wisdom of Poetry, ed. L.
Benson & S. Wenzel, 53–65. Kalamazoo.
–¯¯¯¯1982b. ‘Old Norse Memorial Eulogies & the Ending of Beowulf.’ In The Early
Middle Ages, ed. W. Snyder, 1–19. Binghamton.
–¯¯¯¯1986. ‘“Mere” & “Sund”: Two Sea-Changes in Beowulf.’ In P. Brown et al. 1986:
153–72.
–¯¯¯¯1991. ‘Germanic Legend in OE Literature.’ In Godden & Lapidge 1991: 88–106.
–¯¯¯¯2003. ‘The Discreet Charm of the OE Weak Adj.’ In AS Styles, ed. C. Karkov & G.
Brown, 239–52. Albany.
–¯¯¯¯2007. ‘A Scandal in Toronto.” Speculum 82.843–64.
Frantzen, A. 1990. Desire for Origins. New Brunswick.
–¯¯¯¯1998. Before the Closet. Chicago.
Fry, D. 1969. Beowulf & the Fight at Finnsburh: A Bibliography. Charlottesville.
482 WORKS CITED
–¯¯¯¯ed. 1974. Finnsburh: Fragment & Episode. London.
Fuhr, K. 1892. Die Metrik des westgermanischen Allitterationsverses. Marburg.
Fulk, R. 1988. ‘PIE *ķ in Gmc. Unstressed Syllables.’ In Die Laryngaltheorie, ed. A.
Bammesberger, 153–77. Heidelberg.
–¯¯¯¯1997. ‘Textual Criticism.’ In Bjork & Niles 1997: 35–53.
–¯¯¯¯2007a. ‘Archaisms & Neologisms in the Lang. of Beowulf.’ In Managing Chaos, ed.
C. Cain & G. Russom, 267–87. Berlin.
–¯¯¯¯2007b. ‘The Textual Criticism of Frederick Klaeber’s Beowulf.’ In Constructing
Nations, Reconstructing Myth, ed. A. Wawn et al., 131–53. Turnhout.
–¯¯¯¯In press. ‘Anglian Dialect Features in OE Anon. Homiletic Literature.’ To appear in
Empirical & Analytical Advances in the Study of Eng. Lang. Change, ed. S. Fitz-
maurice & D. Minkova. Berlin.
Fulk, R., & C. Cain. 2003. A History of OE Lit. Oxford.
Fulk, R., & J. Harris. 2002. ‘Beowulf’s Name.’ In Beowulf: A Verse Translation, tr. S.
Heaney, ed. D. Donoghue, 98–100. New York.
Gahrn, L. 1986. ‘The Geatas of Beowulf.’ Scand. Jnl. of History 11: 95–113.
Gang, T. 1952. ‘Approaches to Beowulf.’ RES 3.1–12.
Gannholm, T., tr., 1992. Beowulf. Gutarnas naionalepos. Visby.
Gardner, J. 1975. ‘Guilt & the World’s Complexity: The Murder of Ongentheow & the
Slaying of the Dragon.’ In Nicholson & Frese 1975: 14–22.
Gardner, T. 1968. Semantic Patterns in OE Substantival Compounds. Heidelberg diss.
Garmonsway, G., & J. Simpson, edd. 1968. Beowulf & Its Analogues. London.
Gąsiorowski, P. 1997. The Phonology of OE Stress & Metrical Structure. Frankfurt.
Gehse, H. 1938. Die Kontaminationen in der englischen Syntax. Breslau.
Georgianna, L. 1987. ‘King Hrethel’s Sorrow & the Limits of Heroic Action in
Beowulf.’ Speculum 62.829–50.
Gering, H., tr. 1892. Die Edda. Leipzig.
–¯¯¯¯tr. 1906. Beowulf nebst dem Finnsburg-Bruchstück. Heidelberg.
Gering, H., & B. Sijmons. 1927–31. Kommentar zu den Liedern der Edda. 2 vols.
Halle.
Gerritsen, J. 1989. ‘Have with You to Lexington! The Beowulf MS & Beowulf.’ In In
Other Words, ed. J. Mackenzie & R. Todd, 15–34. Dordrecht.
Getty, M. 2002. The Metre of Beowulf. Berlin.
Gillespie, G. 1973. A Catalogue of Persons Named in German Heroic Literature. (700–
1600). Oxford.
Girvan, R. 1935. Beowulf & the Seventh Century. London.
–¯¯¯¯1954. Review of Wn.1. RES 5.175–9.
Glogauer, E. 1922. Die Bedeutungsübergänge der Konjunktionen in der ags. Dichter-
sprache. Leipzig.
Glosecki, S. 1989. Shamanism & OE Poetry. New York.
Gneuss, H. 1955. Lehnbildungen und Lehnbedeutungen im Altenglischen. Berlin.
Godden, M., & M. Lapidge, edd. 1991. The Cambr. Companion to OE Lit. Cambridge.
Godden, M., et al., edd. 1994. From AS to Early Middle Eng. Oxford.
Goldsmith, M. 1960. ‘The Christian Theme of Beowulf.’ MÆ 29.81–101.
–¯¯¯¯1962. ‘The Christian Perspective in Beowulf.’ CL 14.71–90.
–¯¯¯¯1970. The Mode & Meaning of Beowulf. London.
Goossens, L. 1985. ‘Framing the Linguistic Action Scene.’ In Papers from the 6th Intl.
Conf. on Hist. Ling., ed. J. Fisiak, 149–70. Amsterdam.
Gräslund, B. 1993. ‘Folkvandringstidens Uppsala.’ In Kärnhuset i riksäpplet, 173–208.
Uppland.
Gray, J. 1989. ‘The Finn Episode in Beowulf: Line 1085(b) ac him geþingo budon.’ In
Words & Wordsmiths, ed. G. Barnes et al., 32–9. Sydney.
Green, A. 1913. The Dative of Agency. New York. [Pp.¯95–102.]
Green, D. 1965. The Carolingian Lord. Cambridge.
 WORKS CITED 483
–¯¯¯¯1998. Language & History in the Early Gmc. World. Cambridge.
Green¢eld, S., ed. 1963. Studies in OE Literature in Honor of Arthur Gilchrist
Brodeur. Eugene.
–¯¯¯¯1972. The Interpretation of OE Poems. London.
–¯¯¯¯1974. ‘“Gifstol” & Goldhoard in Beowulf.’ In Burlin & Irving 1974: 107–17.
–¯¯¯¯1976. ‘Three Beowulf Notes: Lines 736b¯ff., 1331b¯ff., 1341–44.’ In Med. Stud. in
Honor of Lillian Herlands Hornstein, ed. J. Bessinger & R. Raymo, 169–72. New
York.
–¯¯¯¯1982a. ‘Of Words & Deeds: The Coastguard’s Maxim Once Again.’ In The Wisdom
of Poetry, ed. L. Benson & S. Wenzel, 45–51. Kalamazoo.
–¯¯¯¯1982b. ‘A Touch of the Monstrous in the Hero, or Beowulf Re-Marvellized.’ ES
63.294–300.
–¯¯¯¯1985. ‘Beowulf & the Judgement of the Righteous.’ In Lapidge & Gneuss 1985:
393–407.
Green¢eld, S., & F. Robinson. 1980. A Bibliography of Publications on OE Literature
to the End of 1972. Toronto.
Grein, C. 1862. ‘Die historischen Verhältnisse des BeowulÏiedes.’ Jahrbuch für
romanische und englische Literatur 4.260–85.
Griepentrog, W. 1995. Die Wurzelnomina des Germanischen und ihre Vorgeschichte.
Innsbruck.
GriÌth, M., ed. 1997. Judith. Exeter.
Grimm, J., ed. 1840. Andreas und Elene. Kassel.
–¯¯¯¯1865–90. Kleinere Schriften. Berlin.
Grimm, P. 1912. Beiträge zum Pluralgebrauch in der ae. Poesie. Halle diss.
Grinda, K. 1975. Arbeit und Mühe. Munich.
–¯¯¯¯1993. ‘Zu einigen Komposita aus Substantiv vor Adjektiv in der ae. Poesie.’ In
Grinda & Wetzel 1993: 347–400.
Grinda, K., & C.-D. Wetzel, edd. 1993. Anglo-Saxonica: Festschrift für Hans
Schabram. Munich.
Grion, G. 1883. ‘Beowulf: Poema epico Anglosassone del VII secolo.’ Atti della Reale
Accademia lucchese di science, lettere ed arti 22.197–379.
Grønbech, V. 1909–12. Vor Folkeæt i Oldtiden. 4 vols. Copenhagen. (Tr. W. Worster,
The Culture of the Teutons, 3 vols. [Oxford, 1931].)
Groos, A., ed. 1986. Magister Regis: Studies in Honor of Robert Earl Kaske. New
York.
Grundtvig, N. 1808. Nordens Mythologi, eller Udsigt over Eddalæren. Copenhagen.
Grüner, R. 1972. Die Verwendung der unbestimmten substantivischen Zeitbegriffs-
wörter in der ae. Dichtersprache. Zurich diss.
Gummere, F., tr. 1909. The Oldest Eng. Epic. New York.
Gutenbrunner, S. 1936. Die germanischen Götternamen der antiken Inschriften. Halle.
–¯¯¯¯1949. Schleswig-Holsteins älteste Literatur. [Pp.¯52–63 on Finnsburg.]
Haarder, A. 1975. Beowulf: The Appeal of a Poem. Niborg.
Hagen, A. 2006. AS Food & Drink. Hockwold cum Wilton.
Hall, J.L., tr. 1892. Beowulf. Boston.
Hall, J.R. 2006. ‘Three Studies on the MS Text of Beowulf: Lines 47B, 747B, &
2232A.’ In Beatus Vir, ed. A. Doane & K. Wolf, 441–70. Tempe.
Hallander, L.-G. 1966. OE Verbs in ‘-sian.’ Stockholm.
Halsall, M., ed. 1981. The OE Rune Poem. Toronto.
Halverson, J. 1969. ‘The World of Beowulf.’ ELH 36.593–608.
Hamilton, M. 1946. ‘The Religious Principle in Beowulf.’ PMLA 61.309–30.
Hanning, R. 1974. ‘Beowulf as Heroic History.’ Medievalia et Humanistica 5.77–102.
Harbus, A., & R. Poole, edd. 2005. Verbal Encounters. Toronto.
Harris, J. 1994. ‘A Nativist Approach to Beowulf: The Case of Germanic Elegy.’ In
Aertsen & Bremmer 1994: 45–62.
484 WORKS CITED
–¯¯¯¯2000. ‘Beowulf as Epic.’ OT 15.159–69.
Harris, S. 2003. Race & Ethnicity in AS Lit. New York.
Harrison, J., & R. Sharp, tr. 1894. Beowulf. 4th ed. Boston.
Hart, W. 1907. Ballad & Epic. Boston.
Hasenfratz, R. 1993. Beowulf Scholarship: An Annotated Bibliography, 1979–1990.
New York.
Hatto, A. 1957. ‘Snake-Swords & Boar-Helmets in Beowulf.’ ES 38.145–60, 257–9.
Hawkes, S. 1989. Weapons & Warfare in AS England. Oxford.
Haymes, E., tr. 1988. The Saga of Thidrek of Bern. New York.
Haymes, E., & S. Samples. 1996. Heroic Legends of the North. New York.
Haywood, J. 1991. Dark Age Naval Power. London.
Heizmann, W., & A. van Nahl, edd. 2003. Runica — Germanica — Mediaevalia.
Berlin.
Henry, P. 1966. The Early Eng. & Celtic Lyric. London.
–¯¯¯¯1981. ‘Furor Heroicus.’ Occasional Papers in Ling. & Lang. Learning 8 (1981) 53–
61.
Hermann, P. 1922. Erläuterungen zu den ersten neun büchern der Dänischen
geschichte des Saxo Grammaticus, II: Kommentar. Leipzig.
Herschend, F. 1998. The Idea of the Good in Late Iron Age Society. Uppsala.
–¯¯¯¯2001. Journey of Civilisation. Uppsala.
Heusler, A. 1923. Die altgermanische Dichtung. Wildpark-Potsdam.
–¯¯¯¯1925. Deutsche Versgeschichte, I. P.Grdr.2 viiia. Berlin.
–¯¯¯¯1969. Kleine Schriften. 2 vols. Berlin. [The original date of publication is noted in
brackets.]
Heusler, A., et al. 1902. Germanistische Abhandlungen, Hermann Paul zum 17. märz
1902 dargebracht. Strassburg.
Heyne, M. 1864. Ueber die Lage und Construction der Halle Heorot. Paderborn.
–¯¯¯¯1899–1903. Fünf Bücher deutscher Hausaltertümer. 3 vols. Bonn.
Hickes, G. 1703–5. Linguarum Vett. Septentrionalium Thesaurus, etc. 2 bks. in 3 vols.
Oxford.
Hicketier, F. 1914. Grendel. Berlin.
Hieatt, C. B. 1975. ‘Envelope Patterns & the Structure of Beowulf.’ English Studies in
Canada 1.249–65.
Hill, J.M. 1995. The Cultural World in Beowulf. Toronto.
–¯¯¯¯2000. The AS Warrior Ethic. Gainesville.
Hill, Joyce, ed. 1983. OE Minor Heroic Poems. Durham. [Rev. ed. 1994.]
Hill, T. 1986. ‘Scyld Sce¢ng & the “Stirps Regia.”’ In Groos 1986: 37–47.
–¯¯¯¯1994. ‘The Christian Language & Theme of Beowulf.’ In Aertsen & Bremmer 1994:
63–77.
Hills, C. 1997. ‘Beowulf & Archaeology.’ In Bjork & Niles 1997: 291–310.
Hock, H. 1991. ‘On the Origin & Development of Rel. Clauses in Early Gmc., with
Special Emphasis on Beowulf.’ In Stæfcræft: Stud. in Gmc. Ling., ed. E. Antonsen &
H. Hock, 55–89. Amsterdam.
Hodler, W. 1954. Grundzüge einer germanischen Artikellehre. Heidelberg.
Hogg, R. 1988. ‘On the Impossibility of OE Dialectology.’ In Luick Revisited, ed. D.
Kastovsky & G. Bauer, 183–203. Tübingen.
Holthausen, F. 1910. ‘Beiträge zur Textkritik ae. Dichtungen.’ Festschrift Wilhelm
Viëtor, 127–8. Die neueren Sprachen, Ergänzungsband. Marburg.
Hoover, D. 1985. A New Theory of OE Meter. New York.
Hope-Taylor, B. 1977. Yeavering. London.
Hopper, P. 1990. ‘Principles of Grammaticization: Towards a Diachronic Typology.’
In Language Typology 1987, ed. W. Lehmann, 157–70. Amsterdam.
Horgan, A. 1970. ‘Religious Attitudes in Beowulf.’ In Essays & Poems Presented to
Lord David Cecil, ed. W. Robson, 9–17. London.
 WORKS CITED 485
Horn, W. 1924. ‘Beobachtungen über Sprachkörper und Sprachfunktion.’ In Beiträge
zur germanischen Sprachwissenschaft, ed. W. Horn, 58–82. Heidelberg.
Hornburg, J. 1877. Die Composition des Beowulf. Metz. [= Archiv 72 (1884), 333–404.]
Howe, N. 1989. Migration & Mythmaking in AS England. New Haven.
Howlett, D. 1997. British Books in Biblical Style. Dublin.
Hubbard, F. 1920. ‘The Plundering of the Hoard in Beowulf.’ Univ. of Wisconsin Stud.
in Lang. & Lit. 11.5–20.
Huguenin, J. 1901. Secondary Stress in AS. Johns Hopkins diss. Baltimore.
Hunter Blair, P. 2003. An Introd. to AS England. 3rd ed. rev. S. Keynes. Cambridge.
Huppé, B. 1984. The Hero in the Earthly City. Binghamton.
Imelmann, R. 1907. Die ae. Odoaker-Dichtung. Berlin.
–¯¯¯¯1909. Review of Schü.8. Deutsche Literaturzeitung 30.995–1000.
–¯¯¯¯1920. Forschungen zur ae. Poesie. Berlin.
Ingersoll, S. 1978. Intensive & Restrictive Modi¢cation in Old English. AF 124.
Heidelberg.
Irving, E. 1968. A Reading of Beowulf. New Haven.
–¯¯¯¯1982. ‘Beowulf Comes Home: Close Reading in Epic Context.’ In Acts of Inter-
pretation, ed. M. Carruthers & E. Kirk, 129–43. Norman.
–¯¯¯¯1984. ‘The Nature of Christianity in Beowulf.’ ASE 13.7–21.
–¯¯¯¯1989. Rereading Beowulf. Philadelphia.
–¯¯¯¯1997. ‘Christian & Pagan Elements.’ In Bjork & Niles 1997: 175–92.
Iser, W., & H. Schabram, edd. 1960. Britannica: Festschrift für Hermann Flasdieck.
Heidelberg.
Jazayery, M., & W. Winter, edd. 1988. Languages & Cultures: Studies in Honour of
Edgar G. Polomé. Berlin.
Jente, R. 1921. Die mythologischen Ausdrücke im ae. Wortschatz. Heidelberg.
Jin, K. 1998. ‘(Pro-)Nominal Reference in OE & the Origin of the that-Clause.’ In Eng.
Historical Linguistics & Philology in Japan, ed. J. Fisiak & A. Oizumi, 111–36.
Berlin.
Jiriczek, O. 1898. Deutsche Heldensagen, I. Strassburg.
Jóhannesson, A. 1956. Isländisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern.
Johansson, G. 1964. Beowulfsagans historiska fragment. Göteborg.
John, E. 1974. ‘Beowulf & the Margins of Literacy.’ Bull. of the John Rylands Univ.
Lib. 56.388–422.
Johnson, D. 2001. ‘The Gregorian Grendel: Beowulf 705b–09 & the Limits of the
Demonic.’ In Rome & the North, ed. R. Bremmer et al., 51–65. Paris.
Jordan, R. 1906. Eigentümlichkeiten des anglischen Wortschatzes. AF 17. Heidelberg.
–¯¯¯¯1974. Handbook of Middle Eng. Grammar: Phonology. Tr. & rev. E. Crook. The
Hague.
Jørgensen, L., & P. Petersen. 1998. Guld, magt og tro. Copenhagen.
Joy, E., & M. Ramsey, edd. 2006. The Postmodern Beowulf. Morgantown.
Jurasinski, S. 2006. Ancient Privileges: Beowulf, Law, & the Making of Gmc.
Antiquity. Morgantown.
Juzi, G. 1939. Die Ausdrücke des Schönen in der ae. Dichtung. Zurich diss.
Kahlas-Tarkka, L. 1987. The Uses & Shades of Meaning of Words for ‘every’ & ‘each’
in OE. Helsinki.
Kahrl, S. 1972. ‘Feuds in Beowulf: A Tragic Necessity?’ MP 69.2.189–98.
Kaluza, M. 1896. ‘Zur Betonungs- und Verslehre des Altenglischen.’ In Festschrift zum
siebzigsten Geburtstage Oskar Schade, 101–34. Königsberg.
Karp, D. 1989. ‘The Preverb ge- in Beowulf: Indicator of Resultative Meaning.’
Columbia diss.
Kaske, R. 1958. ‘Sapientia et Fortitudo as the Controlling Theme of Beowulf.’
Speculum 55.423–56.
–¯¯¯¯1963. ‘“Hygelac” & “Hygd.”’ In Green¢eld 1963: 200–6.
486 WORKS CITED
Kastovsky, D., & A. Szwedek, edd. 1986. Linguistics across Historical & Geograph-
ical Boundaries. 2 vols. Berlin.
Kaufmann, H. 1968. Ernst Förstemann, Altdeutsche Personnennamen, Ergänzungs-
band. Munich.
Keller, M. 1906. The AS Weapon Names. AF 15. Heidelberg.
Keller, W. 1929. ‘Zur Worttrennung in den ags. Handschriften.’ In Britannica: Max
Förster zum sechzigsten Geburtstage, 89–105. Leipzig.
Kellermann, G. 1954. Studien zu den Gottesbezeichnungen der ags. Dichtung. Münster
diss.
Kemble, J. 1839–48. Codex diplomaticus aevi Saxonici. 6 vols. London.
Kemenade, A. van. 2002. ‘Word Order in OE Prose & Poetry: The Position of Finite
Verb & Adverbs.’ In Studies in the Hist. of the Eng. Lang.: A Millennial
Perspective, ed. D. Minkova & R. Stockwell, 355–71. Berlin.
Kendall, C. 1991. The Metrical Grammar of Beowulf. Cambridge.
Ker, N. 1957. Catalogue of MSS Containing AS. Oxford.
Ker, W. 1908. Epic & Romance. 2nd ed. London.
Kern, H. 1877. Taalkundige Bijdragen, I. Haarlem. [Pp.¯193¯ff.]
Kier, C. 1915. Beowulf. Et bidrag til Nordens oldhistorie. Copenhagen.
Kiernan, K. 1981. Beowulf & the Beowulf MS. New Brunswick. [Rev. ed. 1996, Ann
Arbor.]
–¯¯¯¯1984. ‘The State of the Beowulf MS 1882–1983.’ ASE 13.23–42.
–¯¯¯¯1986. The Thorkelin Transcripts of Beowulf. Copenhagen.
King, K., ed. 1958. Das Lied vom hürnen Seyfrid. Manchester.
King, M., & W. Stevens, edd. 1979. Saints, Scholars & Heroes, I. Collegeville.
Kitson, P. 1997. ‘When Did Middle Eng. Begin? Later than You Think!’ In Stud. in
Middle Eng. Ling., ed. J. Fisiak & W. Winter, 221–69. Berlin.
Kittredge, G. 1903. ‘Arthur & Gorlagon.’ Harvard Stud. & Notes in Phil. & Lit. 8.149–
275.
Klaeber, F. 1905–6. ‘Studies in the Textual Interp. of Beowulf.’ MP 3.235–65, 445–65.
–¯¯¯¯1907. ‘Minor Notes on the Beowulf.’ JEGP 6.190–6.
–¯¯¯¯1908a. Review of Schü.8. ESt. 39.425–33.
–¯¯¯¯1908b. ‘Zum Beowulf.’ ESt. 39.463–7.
–¯¯¯¯1911–12. ‘Die christliche Elemente im Beowulf.’ Angl. 35.111–36, 249–70, 453–82;
36.169–99. [Page refs. are to the tr.: P. Battles, The Christian Elements in Beowulf
(Kalamazoo, 1996).]
–¯¯¯¯ed. 1913. The Later Genesis. Heidelberg.
–¯¯¯¯1926. ‘Beowul¢ana.’ Angl. 50.107–22, 195–244.
–¯¯¯¯1929. ‘Eine germanisch-englische Formel: Ein stilistisch-syntaktischer Streifzug.’ In
Britannica: Max Förster zum sechzigsten Geburtstage, 1–22. Leipzig.
Klein, S. 2006. Ruling Women. Notre Dame.
Kleman, M. 1953. ‘Three OE Verbs for “Cleanse, Purge.”’ Intl. Anthropological &
Ling. Rev. 1.179–84.
Kluge, F. 1902. Angelsächsisches Lesebuch. Halle.
–¯¯¯¯1926. Nominale Stammbildungslehre der altgerm. Dialekte. 3rd ed. Halle.
–¯¯¯¯1975. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 21st ed. Berlin.
Knappe, G. 1994. Traditionen der klassischen Rhetorik im ags. England. AF 236.
Heidelberg.
Köberl, J. 2002. The Indeterminacy of Beowulf. Lanham.
Kock, E. 1897. The Eng. Relative Pronouns. Lund.
–¯¯¯¯1918. Jubilee Jaunts & Jottings. Lunds Universitets Årsskrift, N.F. Avd. 1, Bd. 14,
No. 26.
–¯¯¯¯1921. Plain Points & Puzzles. Lunds Universitets Årsskrift, N.F. Avd. 1, Bd. 17, No.
7.
–¯¯¯¯1923. Review of Kl.1. Afnf. 39.185–9.
 WORKS CITED 487
Koegel, R. 1894. Geschichte der deutschen Literatur, I, a & b. Strassburg.
Kolb, E. 1993. ‘Anglo-nordische Komposita in der Dichtersprache.’ In Grinda &
Wetzel 1993: 469–82.
Köpke, J. 1909. Altnord. Personennamen bei den Ags. Berlin diss.
Korhammer, M., et al., edd. 1992. Words, Texts, & MSS. Cambridge.
Krackow, O. 1903. Die Nominalcomposita als Kunstmittel im ae. Epos. Berlin.
Krag, C. 1991. Ynglingatal og ynglingesaga. En studie i historiske kilder. Oslo.
Krapp, G., ed. 1906. Andreas & the Fates of the Apostles. Boston.
Krapp, G., & E. Dobbie, edd. 1931–53. The AS Poetic Records. 6 vols. New York.
Krauel, H. 1908. Der Haken- und Langzeilenstil im Beowulf. Göttingen diss. Halle.
Krause, W. 1968. Handbuch des Gotischen. 3rd ed. Munich.
–¯¯¯¯1971. Die Sprache der urnordischen Runeninschriften. Heidelberg.
Kress, J. 1864. Ueber den Gebrauch des Instrumentalis in der ags. Poesie. Marburg diss.
Kristensson, G. 2001. ‘Language in Contact: Old East Saxon & East Anglian.’ In East
Anglian Eng., ed. J. Fisiak & P. Trudgill, 63–70. Cambridge.
Kross, T. 1911. Die Namen der Gefässe bei den Angelsachsen. Kiel diss.
Kühlwein, W. 1967. Die Verwendung der Feindseligkeitsbezeichnungen in der ae.
Dichtersprache. Neumünster.
–¯¯¯¯1968. Modell einer operationellen lexikologischen Analyse: Ae. ‘Blut.’ Heidelberg.
Kuhn, H. 1969–78. Kleine Schriften. Ed. D. Hofmann. 4 vols. Berlin. [Year of orig.
publication bracketed.]
Kuhn, S. 1979. ‘OE Agl®ca — Middle Irish Oclach.’ In Linguistic Method, ed. I.
Rauch & G. Carr, 213–30. The Hague.
Kylstra, H. 1974. ‘Ale & Beer in Gmc.’ In Iceland & the Mediaeval World, ed. G.
Turville-Petre & J. Martin, 7–16. Melbourne.
Laistner, L. 1879. Nebelsagen. Stuttgart.
–¯¯¯¯1889. Das Rätsel der Sphinx, II. Berlin.
Lapidge, M. 1982. ‘“Beowulf,” Aldhelm, the “Liber Monstrorum” & Wessex.’ Studi
medievali 3rd ser. 23.151–92.
–¯¯¯¯1993. ‘Beowulf & the Psychology of Terror.’ In Damico & Leyerle 1993: 373–402.
–¯¯¯¯2001. ‘Beowulf & Perception.’ PBA 111.61–97.
Lapidge, M., et al., edd. 1999. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of AS England. Oxford.
Lapidge, M., & H. Gneuss, edd. 1985. Learning & Lit. in AS England. Cambridge.
Larrington, C. 1993. A Store of Common Sense. Oxford.
Larson, L. 1904. The King’s Household in England before the Norman Conquest.
Wisconsin diss. Bull. of the Univ. of Wisc. 100. Madison.
Lass, R. 1988. ‘The “Akzentumsprung” of OE ēo.’ In On Language: Rhetorica,
Philologica, Syntactica, ed. C. Duncan-Rose & T. Vennemann, 221–32. London.
Last, W. 1925. Das Bahuvrihi-Compositum im Ae., Mittelenglischen und
Neuenglischen. Greifswald diss.
Lawrence, W. 1928. Beowulf & Epic Tradition. Cambridge, Mass.
Leake, J. 1967. The Geats of Beowulf: A Study in the Geographical Mythology of the
Middle Ages. Madison.
Lee, A. 1998. Gold-Hall & Earth Dragon. Toronto.
Lee, D. 1972. ‘Lactantius & Beowulf.’ In Studies in Ling. in Honor of Raven I.
McDavid, Jr., ed. L. Davis, 397–413. University, AL.
Lees, C. 1994. ‘Men & Beowulf.’ In her Medieval Masculinities, 129–48. Minneapolis.
Lehmann, H. 1885. Brünne & Helm im ags. BeowulÏiede. Göttingen diss. Leipzig.
Lehmann, R. 1988. ‘Some Problems in the Translation of Beowulf.’ In Langs. &
Cultures, ed. M. Jazayeri & W. Winter, 365–71. Berlin.
Lehmann, W. 1962. ‘Beowulf 2298.’ In Festschrift für Ludwig Wolff, ed. W. Schröder,
107–10. Neumünster.
–¯¯¯¯1967. ‘Atertanum Fah.’ In Studies in Historical Ling. in Honor of George Sherman
Lane, ed. W. Arndt et al., 221–32. Chapel Hill.
488 WORKS CITED
–¯¯¯¯1968. ‘Post-Consonantal l m n r & Metrical Practice in Beowulf.’ In Nordica et
Anglica, ed. A. Orrick, 148–67. The Hague.
–¯¯¯¯1969. ‘On Posited Omissions in the Beowulf.’ In Atwood & Hill 1969: 220–9.
–¯¯¯¯1972. ‘Comparative Constructions in Germanic of the OV Type.’ In Studies for
Einar Haugen, ed. E. Firchow et al., 323–30. The Hague.
–¯¯¯¯1986. A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Leiden.
Lehmann, W., & T. Tabusa. 1958. The Alliterations of the Beowulf. Austin.
Leo, H. 1839. Ueber Beowulf. Halle.
Leonard, W., tr. 1923. Beowulf, a New Verse Translation. New York.
Lerer, S. 1991. Literacy & Power in AS Lit. Lincoln.
Leyerle, J. 1965. ‘Beowulf the Hero & the King.’ MÆ 34.89–102.
–¯¯¯¯1967. ‘The Interlace Structure of Beowulf.’ UTQ 37.1–17.
Liberman, A. 1986. ‘Beowulf — Grettir.’ In Germanic Dialects, ed. B. Brogyanyi & T.
Krömmelbein, 353–401. Amsterdam.
–¯¯¯¯1996. ‘The “Icy” Ship of Scyld Sce¢ng: Beowulf 33.’ In Bright Is the Ring of Words,
ed. C. Pollner et al., 183–94. Bonn.
Liebermann, F., ed. 1903–16. Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen. 3 vols. Halle.
Lindelöf, U. 1890. Die Sprache des Rituals von Durham. Helsinki.
Lindemann, J. 1970. OE Preverbal Ge-. Charlottesville.
Lindow, J. 1976. Comitatus, Individual & Honor. Berkeley.
Lindkvist, K.-G. 1978. ‘At’ versus ‘on,’ ‘in,’ ‘by.’ Stockholm.
Lindqvist, S. 1958. Beowulf Dissectus. Snitt ur fornkvädet jämte svensk tydning.
Uppsala.
Liuzza, R. 1995. ‘On the Dating of Beowulf.’ In Beowulf: Basic Readings, ed. P. Baker,
281–302. New York.
Lorz, A. 1908. Aktionsarten des Verbums im Beowulf. Würzburg diss.
Loyn, H. 1984. The Governance of AS England. Stanford.
Lucas, P. 1990. ‘On the Role of Some Adverbs in OE Verse Grammar.’ In Papers from
the 5th Intl. Conf. on Eng. Historical Ling., ed. S. Adamson et al., 293–312.
Amsterdam.
–¯¯¯¯ed. 1994. Exodus. Rev. ed. Exeter.
Lühr, R. 1982. Studien zur Sprache des Hildebrandliedes. Frankfurt.
Luick, K. 1910. ‘Zur ae. Grammatik.’ Festschrift Wilhelm Viëtor, 260–2. Die neueren
Sprachen, Ergänzungsband. Marburg.
Lüngen, W. 1911. Das Prä¢x on(d)- in der ae. Verbalkomposition. Kiel diss.
Lüning, O. 1889. Die Natur in der altgerm. und mittelhochdeutschen Epik. Zurich.
Mackie, W. 1939. ‘Notes upon the Text & the Interp. of Beowulf.’ MLR 34.515–24.
–¯¯¯¯1941. ‘Notes upon the Text & the Interpretation of Beowulf, II.’ MLR 36.95–8.
Magennis, H. 1996. Images of Community in OE Poetry. Cambridge.
Magoun, F. 1949. ‘Danes, North, South, East, & West, in Beowulf.’ In Philologica, ed.
T. Kirby & H. Woolf, 20–4. Baltimore.
–¯¯¯¯1953. ‘The Oral-Formulaic Character of AS Narrative Poetry.’ Speculum 28.446–67.
–¯¯¯¯1963. ‘Béowulf B: A Folk-Poem on Béowulf’s Death.’ In Early Eng. & Norse Stud.,
ed. A. Brown & P. Foote, 127–40. London.
Maisenhelder, K. 1935. Die ae. Partikel ‘and.’ Heidelberg diss. Königsfeld.
Malone, K. 1923. The Literary History of Hamlet. AF 59. Heidelberg.
–¯¯¯¯1926. ‘The Finn Episode in Beowulf.’ JEGP 25.157–72.
–¯¯¯¯1930. ‘When Did Middle Eng. Begin?’ In Curme Volume of Ling. Studies, ed. J.
Hat¢eld & W. Leopold, 110–17. Baltimore.
–¯¯¯¯1933a. Review of Hoops St. ES 15.94–6.
–¯¯¯¯1933b. Review of Hoops. ES 15.149–51.
–¯¯¯¯1943. ‘Hildeburg & Hengest.’ ELH 10.257–84.
–¯¯¯¯1948. ‘The OE Period (to 1100).’ In A Literary History of England, ed. A. Baugh, 3–
105. New York.
 WORKS CITED 489
–¯¯¯¯1949. ‘Readings from the Thorkelin Transcripts of Beowulf.’ PMLA 64.1190–1218.
–¯¯¯¯ed. 1951. The Thorkelin Transcripts of Beowulf in Facsimile. Copenhagen.
–¯¯¯¯1958. ‘Grendel & His Abode.’ In Studia Philologica et Litteraria in Honorem L.
Spitzer, 297–308. Bern.
–¯¯¯¯1959. ‘The Finn Episode Once Again.’ Festschrift für Walther Fischer, 1–3.
Heidelberg.
–¯¯¯¯1960. ‘Eleven Beowulf Notes.’ In Iser & Schabram 1960: 192–9.
–¯¯¯¯ed. 1962. Widsith. Rev. ed. Copenhagen.
–¯¯¯¯1965. ‘Some Beowulf Readings.’ In Bessinger & Creed 1965: 120–3.
Mandel, J., & B. Rosenberg, edd. 1970. Med. Lit. & Folklore Studies. New Brunswick.
Margeson, S. 1980. ‘The Völsung Legend in Medieval Art.’ In Medieval Iconography
& Narrative, ed. G. Andersen, 183–211. Odense.
Marquardt, H. 1938. Die ae. Kenningar. Halle.
Marsden, R. 2004. The Cambridge OE Reader. Cambridge.
Matthes, H. 1955. ‘Kampfrune und Buchschreibersymbole.’ In Monumentum
Bambergense, ed. H. Nottarp, 367–77. Munich.
–¯¯¯¯1961. ‘Hygd.’ In Festschrift zum 75. Geburtstag von Theodor Spira. Ed. H. Viebrock
& W. Erzgräber, 14–31. Heidelberg.
Mayr-Harting, H. 1991. The Coming of Christianity to AS England. 3rd ed. University
Park, PA.
Mazzuoli Porru, G. 1985. ‘Beowulf, v. 33: īsig ond ūtfūs.’ In Studi linguistici e
¢lologici per Carlo Alberto Mastrelli, 263–74. Pisa.
McClelland, C. 1966. ‘Horses in Beowulf: A Horse of a Different Color.’ TSL 11.177–
87.
McHugh, M. 1987. ‘The Sheaf & the Hound.’ In La narrazione: Temi e techniche, 9–
43. Piovan.
McNamee, M. 1960. ‘Beowulf — An Allegory of Salvation?’ JEGP 59.190–207.
Meaney, A. 2003. ‘Scyld Sce¢ng & the Dating of Beowulf — Again.’ In Textual &
Material Culture in AS England, ed. D. Scragg, 23–73. Cambridge. [Rpt. of a 1989
article, w. addendum.]
Megginson, D. 1995. ‘The Case against a “General OE Poetic Dialect.”’ In Prosody &
Poetics in the Early Middle Ages, ed. M. Toswell, 117–32. Toronto.
Meier, H. 2002. ‘Their burh Was Their Homestead: Or, an Old Sense Overlooked.’ In
Of Dyuersitie & Chaunge of Langage, ed. K. Lenz & T. Möhlig, 129–43. AF 308.
Heidelberg.
Meier, J. 1950. Ahnengrab und Rechtsstein. Berlin.
Mertens-Fonck, P. 1978. ‘Structure des passages introduisant le discours direct dans
Beowulf.’ In Mélanges de philologie et de littératures romanes offerts à Jeanne
Wathelet-Willem, 433–45. Liège.
Meyer, W. 1912. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Eroberung Englands durch die
Angelsachsen. Halle diss.
Michelet, F. 2006. Creation, Migration, & Conquest. Oxford.
Middendorff, H. 1902. Altenglische Flurnamenbuch. Halle.
Mincoff, M. 1933. Die Bedeutungsentwicklung der ags. Ausdrücke für ‘Kraft’ und
‘Macht.’ Pal. 188. Leipzig.
Minkova, D. 2003. Alliteration & Sound Change in Early Eng. Cambridge.
Mitchell, B. 1968. ‘Two Syntactical Notes on Beowulf.’ Neophil. 52.292–9.
–¯¯¯¯1982. ‘OE man “one”: Two Notes.’ In Language Form & Ling. Variation, ed. J.
Anderson, 277–84. Amsterdam.
–¯¯¯¯1988a. On Old English. Oxford.
–¯¯¯¯1988b. ‘Relative & Personal Pronouns in Beowulf: Eight Notes.’ In Philologia
Anglica, ed. K. Oshitari et al., 3–12. Tokyo.
–¯¯¯¯1993. ‘Five Notes on OE Syntax.’ In English Far & Wide, ed. R. Hiltunen et al.,
143–52. Turku.
490 WORKS CITED
–¯¯¯¯1997. ‘Unexpressed Principal Clauses in OE?’ In To Explain the Present, ed. T.
Navalainen & L. Kahlas-Tarkka, 125–34. Helsinki.
Mitchell, B., & F. Robinson. 2001. A Guide to OE. 6th ed. Oxford.
Möllmer, H. 1937. Konjunktionen und Modus im Temporalsatz des Ae. Breslau.
Momma, H. 1997. The Composition of OE Poetry. Cambridge.
Mone, F. 1836. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der teutschen Heldensage. Quedlinburg.
Morley, H. 1891. Eng. Writers, I. 3rd ed. London.
Morris, R., ed. 1874–80. The Blickling Homilies. EETS o.s. 58, 63, 73. London.
Morsbach, L. 1906. ‘Zur Datierung des Beowulfepos.’ Nachrichten der Königlichen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Phil-hist. Klasse, 251–77.
Mossé, F. 1938. Histoire de la forme périphrastique être + participle present en
Germanique. Paris.
Muir, B., ed. 1989. Leoð: Six OE Poems. New York.
Mullally, E. 2005. ‘Hrethel’s Heirloom.’ In Images of Matter, ed. Y. Bruce, 228–44.
Newark, DE.
Müllenhoff, K. 1887–1900. Deutsche Altertumskunde. 5 vols. Berlin.
Munch, P. 1874. Samlede Afhandlinger, II. Christiania.
Napier, A. 1901. ‘Contributions to OE Lit.’ In An English Miscellany Presented to Dr.
Furnivall, ed. W. Ker et al., 355–81. Oxford.
Naumann, H. 1926. Frühgermanentum. Munich.
–¯¯¯¯1931. Altgermanisches Dichterbuch. Berlin.
Neckel, G. 1920. Die Überlieferung vom Gote Balder. Dortmund.
Neville, J. 1999. Representations of the Natural World in OE Poetry. Cambridge.
–¯¯¯¯2001. ‘Monsters & Criminals.’ In Olsen & Houwen 2001: 103–22.
Newton, S. 1993. The Origins of Beowulf & the Pre-Viking Kingdom of East Anglia.
Cambridge.
Nicholson, L., & D. Frese, edd. 1975. AS Poetry. Notre Dame.
Nickel, G. 1966. Die Expanded Form im Ae. Neumünster.
Nielsen, H. 2003. ‘On the Demise of OE.’ In Heizmann & van Nahl 2003: 496–508.
Niles, J., ed. 1980. OE Literature in Context. Cambridge.
–¯¯¯¯1983. Beowulf: The Poem & Its Tradition. Cambridge, MA.
–¯¯¯¯1993. ‘Locating Beowulf in Literary History.’ Exemplaria 5.79–109.
–¯¯¯¯1997. ‘Myth & History.’ In Bjork & Niles 1997: 213–32.
–¯¯¯¯1999. Homo Narrans: The Poetics & Anthropology of Oral Literature. Philadelphia.
–¯¯¯¯2007a. Beowulf & Lejre. Tempe.
–¯¯¯¯2007b. Old English Heroic Poems & the Social Life of Texts. Turnhout.
–¯¯¯¯2008. ‘On the Danish Origins of the Beowulf Story.’ To appear in AS England & the
Continent, ed. J. Story & H. Sauer. Tempe.
–¯¯¯¯In press. ‘Beowulf 2545b–49: The Stream That Bursts into Flame at the Dragon’s
Barrow.’ To appear in Translating the Past, ed. J. Beal & M. Busbee. Tempe.
Noreen, A. 1911–13. Spridda Studier. 3 vols. Stockholm.
–¯¯¯¯1923. Altnordische Grammatik, I. 4th ed. Tübingen.
North, R. 1991. Pagan Words & Christian Meanings. Amsterdam.
–¯¯¯¯1997. Heathen Gods in OE Lit. Cambridge.
–¯¯¯¯2007. The Origins of Beowulf. Oxford.
O’Brien O’Keeffe, K. 1990. Visible Song. Cambridge.
–¯¯¯¯ed. 1997. Reading OE Texts. Cambridge.
O’Brien O’Keeffe, K., & A. Orchard, edd. 2005. Latin Learning & Eng. Lore. 2 vols.
Toronto.
O’Connor, S. 1992. ‘Technology & Dating of the Mail.’ In Tweddle 1992: 1057–81.
Oetgen, J. 1978. ‘Order & Chaos in the World of Beowulf.’ Am. Benedictine Rev.
29.134–52.
Ogawa, H. 1989. OE Modal Verbs. Copenhagen.
Oggins, R. 2004. The Kings & Their Hawks. New Haven.
 WORKS CITED 491
Ogura, M. 2002. Verbs of Motion in Medieval Eng. Cambridge.
Olrik, A. 1903–10. Danmarks Heltedigtning. 2 vols. Copenhagen. [Refs. to vol. I are to
the translation by L. Hollander, The Heroic Legends of Denmark (New York, 1919).]
Olsen, A. 1997. ‘Gender Roles.’ In Bjork & Niles 1997: 311–24.
Olsen, K., & L. Houwen. 2001. Monsters & the Monstrous in Medieval Northwest
Europe. Leuven.
Opland, J. 1980. AS Oral Poetry. New Haven.
Orchard, A. 1995. Pride & Prodigies. Cambridge. [Cited from the corrected reprint of
2003.]
–¯¯¯¯2003. A Critical Companion to Beowulf. Cambridge.
–¯¯¯¯2003–4. ‘Reading Beowulf Now & Then.’ SELIM 12.49–81.
Orel, V. 2003. A Handbook of Gmc. Etymology. Leiden.
Orton, P. 2000. The Transmission of OE Poetry. Turnhout.
Osborn, M. 1978. ‘The Great Feud: Scriptural History & Strife in Beowulf.’ PMLA
93.973–81.
Overing, G. 1990. Language, Sign, & Gender in Beowulf. Carbondale.
–¯¯¯¯1995. ‘The Women of Beowulf.’ In Beowulf: Basic Readings, ed. P. Baker, 219–60.
New York.
Owen-Crocker, G. 1981. Rites & Religions of the Anglo-Saxons. Totowa.
–¯¯¯¯2000. The Four Funerals in Beowulf. Manchester.
–¯¯¯¯2002. ‘Horror in Beowulf.’ In Early Med. Eng. Texts and Interpretations, ed. E.
Treharne & S. Rosser, 81–100. Tempe.
–¯¯¯¯2004. Dress in AS England. Rev. ed. Woodbridge.
Panzer, F. 1910. Studien zur germanischen Sagengeschichte, I: Beowulf. Wiesbaden.
Parker, R. 1956. ‘Gyd, leod, & sang in OE Poetry.’ Univ. of Tennessee Stud. in the
Humanities 1.59–63.
Parsons, D., & T. Styles, edd. 1997. The Vocabulary of Eng. Place-Names: Á–BOX.
Nottingham.
Pasternack, C. 1995. The Textuality of OE Poetry. Cambridge.
Peirce, I. 2002. Swords of the Viking Age. Woodbridge.
Penttilä, E. 1956. The OE Verbs of Vision. Helsinki.
Pepperdene, M. 1955. ‘Grendel’s geis.’ Jnl. of the Royal Soc. of Antiquaries of Ireland
86.188–92.
Peter, S. 1998. ‘Healfdene’s Honey: A Bear Bearn in Beowulf.’ In Mír Curad, ed. J.
Jasanoff et al., 573–84. Innsbruck.
Philippson, E. 1929. Germanisches Heidentum bei den Angelsachsen. Leipzig.
Phillpotts, B. 1920. The Elder Edda & Ancient Scand. Drama. Cambridge.
–¯¯¯¯1928. ‘Wyrd & Providence in AS Thought.’ E&S o.s. 13.7–27.
Pierquin, H., ed. & tr. 1912. Le poème anglo-saxon de Beowulf. Paris.
Pintzuk, S. 2002. ‘Verb-Object Order in OE: Variation as Grammatical Competition.’
In Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, ed. D. Lightfoot, 276–99. Oxford.
Pirkhofer, A. 1940. Figurengestaltung im Beowulf-Epos Heidelberg.
Pokorny, J. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, I. Bern.
Pollington, S. 2003. The Mead Hall. Hockwold-cum-Wilton.
Pope, J. 1981. ‘On the Date of Composition of Beowulf.’ In Chase 1981: 187–95.
–¯¯¯¯1982. ‘The Existential Mysteries as Treated in Certain Passages of Our Older Poets.’
In Acts of Interpretation, ed. M. Carruthers & E. Kirk, 345–62. Norman.
–¯¯¯¯ed. 2001. Eight OE Poems. 3rd ed. rev. R. Fulk. New York.
Puhvel, M. 1979. Beowulf & Celtic Tradition. Waterloo.
Pulsiano, P. 1982. ‘“Cames cynne”: Confusion or Craft?’ Proceedings of the PMR
Conference 7.33–8.
–¯¯¯¯ed. 1993. Medieval Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia. New York.
Quirk, R. 1954. The Concessive Relation in OE Poetry. New Haven.
–¯¯¯¯1963. ‘Poetic Language & OE Metre.’ In Brown & Foote 1963: 150–71.
492 WORKS CITED
Rademacher, M. 1921. Die Worttrennung in ags. Handschriften. Münster diss.
Rank, O. 2004. The Myth of the Birth of the Hero. Tr. from 1922 orig. by G. Richter &
J. Lieberman. Baltimore.
Rask, R. 1817. Angelsaksisk Sproglære. Copenhagen.
Rauer, C. 2000. Beowulf & the Dragon. Cambridge.
Raw, B. 1978. The Art & Background of OE Poetry. London.
Reichert, H. 1998. ‘Runeninschriften als Quellen der Heldensagenforschung.’ In
Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung, ed. K. Düwel, 66–102.
Berlin.
Reichl, K. 2000. Singing the Past. Ithaca.
Renoir, A. 1962. ‘Point of View & Design for Terror in Beowulf.’ NM 63 (1962) 154–
67.
–¯¯¯¯1963. ‘The Heroic Oath in Beowulf.’ In Green¢eld 1963: 237–66.
–¯¯¯¯1988. A Key to Old Poems. University Park, PA.
Richards, M. 1993. ‘Beowulf 2695a: andlongne.’ In The Ring of Words in Med. Lit., ed.
U. Goebel & D. Lee, 281–90. Lewiston.
Richter, C. 1910. Chronologische Studien zur ags. Literatur auf Grund sprachlich-
metrischer Kriterien. SEP 33. Halle.
Ries, J. 1907. Die Wortstellung im Beowulf. Halle.
Ringbom, H. 1968. Studies in the Narrative Technique of Beowulf & Lawman’s Brut.
Åbo.
Rissanen, M. 1967. The Uses of ‘One’ in Old & Early Middle Eng. Helsinki.
–¯¯¯¯1986. ‘“Sum” in OE Poetry.’ In P. Brown et al. 1986: 197–225.
–¯¯¯¯1988. ‘Where Philology & Ling. Meet: Reference, (In)de¢niteness & OE sum.’ In
Luick Revisited, ed. D. Kastovsky & G. Bauer, 295–310. Tübingen.
–¯¯¯¯1998. ‘Maþelian in OE Poetry.’ In Baker & Howe 1998: 159–72.
Ritter, O. 1922. Vermischte Beiträge zur englischen Sprachgeschichte. Halle.
Rives, J., tr. 1999. Tacitus: Germania. Oxford.
Roberts, J. 2005. Guide to Scripts Used in Eng. Writings up to 1500. London.
Robertson, D. 1951. ‘The Doctrine of Charity in Medieval Literary Gardens.’ Speculum
26.24–49.
Robinson, F. 1966. ‘Two Non-Cruces in Beowulf.’ TSL 11.151–60.
–¯¯¯¯1970a. ‘Lexicography & Literary Criticism: A Caveat.’ In Rosier 1970: 99–110.
–¯¯¯¯1970b. ‘Personal Names in Medieval Narrative & the Name of Unferth in Beowulf.’
In Essays in Honor of Richebourg Gaillard McWilliams, ed. H. Creed, 43–8.
Birmingham, AL.
–¯¯¯¯1973. ‘OE awindan, of, & sinhere.’ In Festschrift Prof. Dr. Herbert Koziol, Wiener
Beiträge zur engl. Philologie 75. Vienna.
–¯¯¯¯1974. ‘Elements of the Marvellous in the Characterization of Beowulf: A Reconsid-
eration of the Textual Evidence.’ In Burlin & Irving 1974: 119–37.
–¯¯¯¯1979. ‘Two Aspects of Variation in OE Poetry.’ In Calder 1979: 127–45.
–¯¯¯¯1984. ‘History, Religion, Culture: The Background Necessary for Teaching
Beowulf.’ In Approaches to Teaching Beowulf, ed. J. Bessinger & R. Yeager, 107–
22. New York.
–¯¯¯¯1985. Beowulf & the Appositive Style. Knoxville.
–¯¯¯¯1991. ‘Beowulf.’ In Godden & Lapidge 1991: 142–59.
–¯¯¯¯1992. ‘Why Is Grendel’s Not Greeting the Gifstol a Wræc Micel?’ In Korhammer et
al. 1992: 257–62.
–¯¯¯¯1993a. ‘Textual Notes on Beowulf.’ In Grinda & Wetzel 1993: 107–12.
–¯¯¯¯1993b. ‘The Tomb of Beowulf.’ In his Tomb of Beowulf & Other Essays, 3–19.
Oxford.
–¯¯¯¯1994. ‘Did Grendel’s Mother Sit on Beowulf?’ In Godden et al. 1994: 1–7.
–¯¯¯¯1997. ‘Sigemund’s fæhðe ond fyrena: Beowulf 879a.’ In To Explain the Present, ed.
T. Nevalainen & L. Kahlas-Tarkka, 201–8. Helsinki.
 WORKS CITED 493
–¯¯¯¯2005. ‘Mise en page in OE MSS & Printed Texts.’ In O’Brien O’Keeffe & Orchard
2005: 2.363–75.
Rogers, H. 1955. ‘Beowulf’s Three Great Fights.’ RES 6.339–55.
Rosier, J. 1963. ‘The Uses of Association: Hands & Feasts in Beowulf.’ PMLA 78.8–14.
–¯¯¯¯ed. 1970. Philological Essays. The Hague.
Rudanko, M. 1983. Towards Classifying Verbs & Adjectives Governing the Genitive in
Beowulf. Tampere.
Russchen, A. 1984. ‘Finnsburg — a Critical Approach.’ In Miscellanea Frisica, ed. N.
Århammar et al., 349–56. Assen.
Russom, G. 1987. OE Meter & Linguistic Theory. Cambridge.
–¯¯¯¯1995. ‘Constraints on Resolution in Beowulf.’ In Prosody & Poetics in the Early
Middle Ages, ed. M. Toswell, 147–63. Toronto.
–¯¯¯¯1998. Beowulf & Old Gmc. Metre. Cambridge.
–¯¯¯¯2002. ‘Dating Criteria for OE Poems.’ In Stud. in the Hist. of the Eng. Lang.: A
Millennial Perspective, ed. D. Minkova & R. Stockwell, 245–65. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
–¯¯¯¯2007. ‘At the Center of Beowulf.’ In Myth in Early Northwest Europe, ed. S.
Glosecki, 225–40. Tempe.
–¯¯¯¯In press. ‘Historicity & Anachronism in Beowulf.’ [To appear in the proceedings of
the Epic & History Conference, Brown University, 2006.]
Rynell, A. 1952. Parataxis & Hypotaxis as a Criterion of Syntax & Style, Especially in
OE Poetry. Lunds Universitets Årsskrift 48.3. Lund.
–¯¯¯¯1991. ‘Plural for Singular Forms in Beowulf.’ In Lang. & Style in Eng. Lit., ed. M.
Kawai, 123–40. Hiroshima.
Rypins, S., ed. 1924. Three OE Prose Texts in MS. Cotton Vitellius A xv. EETS o.s. 161.
London.
Sarrazin, G. 1913. Von Kädmon bis Kynewulf. Berlin.
Sawyer, P. 1968. AS Charters. London. [Updated electronic version: ‹http://www.trin
.cam.ac.uk/chartwww/charthome.html›.]
Schabram, H. 1954. Die Adjektive im Sinnbezirk von ‘kühn,’ ‘mütig,’ ‘tapfer’ in der
ags. Poesie. Cologne diss.
Schaldemose, F., ed. 1847. Beo-Wulf og Scopes Widsið. Copenhagen. Rev. ed. 1851.
[Dependent on Kemble.]
Schaubert, E. von. 1949. Bedeutung und Herkunft von. ae. ‘feormian.’ Göttingen.
–¯¯¯¯1954. Vorkommen, gebietsmäßige Verbreitung und Herkunft ae. absoluter
Partizipialkonstruktionen in Nominativ und Akkusativ. Paderborn.
Scheler, M. 1961. Ae. Lehnsyntax: Die syntaktischen Latinismen im Ae. Berlin diss.
(Frei Univ.)
Scherer, W. 1893. Kleine Schriften, I. Berlin. [Pp.¯471–96 = ZföG 20 (1869), 89–112:
rev. of He.2.]
Schik, B. 1971. Das Problem der ‘Gefolgschaft’ im Beowulf. Kiel diss.
Schleburg, F. 2002. Ae. ‘swa.’ Heidelberg.
Schlemilch, W. 1914. Beiträge zur Sprache und Orthographie spätae. Sprachdenk-
mäler der Übergangszeit (1000–1150). SEP 34. Halle.
Schneider, H. 1962. Germanische Heldensage, I. 2nd ed. Berlin.
Schneider, K. 1986. Sophia Lectures on Beowulf. Tokyo.
Schramm, G. 1957. Namenschatz und Dichtersprache. Göttingen.
Schrøder, L. 1875. Om Bjovulfs-drapen. Copenhagen.
Schubel, F. 1979. Probleme der Beowulf-Forschung. Darmstadt.
Schubert, H. 1870. De Anglo-Saxonum arte metrica. Berlin diss.
Schuchardt, R. 1910. Die Negation im Beowulf. Berlin.
Schücking, L. 1905a. Beowulfs Rückkehr. SEP 21. Halle.
–¯¯¯¯1905b. Review of Barnouw 1902. In Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 167, 2.730–40.
–¯¯¯¯1908. Review of Holt.1 EStn. 39.94–111.
494 WORKS CITED
–¯¯¯¯1929a. ‘Das Königsideal im Beowulf.’ Bull. of the Mod. Humanities Research Assn.
3.143–54.
–¯¯¯¯1929b. ‘Sōna im Beowulf.’ In Britannica: Max Förster zum sechzigsten
Geburtstage, 85–8. Leipzig.
–¯¯¯¯1933. Heldenstolz und Würde im Ags. Leipzig.
Scowcroft, R. 1999. ‘The Irish Analogues to Beowulf.’ Speculum 74.22–64.
Sedge¢eld, W., ed. 1899. King Alfred’s OE Version of Boethius. Oxford.
–¯¯¯¯1922. An AS Verse-Book. Manchester.
See, Klaus von, et al. 1997–. Kommentar zu den Liedern der Edda. Vols. 2–5 to date.
Heidelberg.
Seebohm, F. 1902. Tribal Custom in AS Law. London.
Seiffert, F. 1913. Die Behandlung der Wörter mit auslautenden ursprünglich silbischen
Liquiden oder Nasalen und mit Kontraktionsvokalen in der Genesis A und im
Beowulf. Halle-Wittenberg diss.
Shetelig, H., & H. Falk. 1937. Scandinavian Archaeology. Oxford.
Shipley, G. 1903. The Genitive Case in AS Poetry. Johns Hopkins diss. Baltimore.
Shippey, T. 1972. OE Verse. London.
–¯¯¯¯1977. ‘Maxims in OE Narrative: Art or Traditional Wisdom?’ In Oral Tradition,
Literary Tradition, ed. H. Bekker-Nielsen, 28–46. Odense.
–¯¯¯¯1978. Beowulf. London.
–¯¯¯¯1993. ‘Principles of Conversation in Beowul¢an Speech.’ In Techniques of Des-
cription, ed. J. Sinclair et al., 109–26. London.
–¯¯¯¯1997. ‘Structure & Unity.’ In Bjork & Niles 1997: 149–74.
Shippey, T., & A. Haarder, edd. 1998. Beowulf: The Critical Heritage. London.
Short, D. 1980a. ‘Beowulf and Modern Critical Tradition.’ In A Fair Day in the
Affections, ed. J. Durant & M. Heser, 1–23. Raleigh.
–¯¯¯¯1980b. Beowulf Scholarship: An Annotated Bibliography. New York.
Sieper, E. 1915. Die ae. Elegie. Strassburg.
Sievers, E., ed. 1878. Der Heliand und die ags. Genesis. Halle.
–¯¯¯¯1884a. ‘Miscellen zur ags. Grammatik.’ BGdSL 9.197–300.
–¯¯¯¯1884b. ‘Zum Beowulf.’ BGdSL 9.134–44, 370.
–¯¯¯¯1895. ‘Beowulf und Saxo.’ Berichte der Königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften, 6 July, 175–92.
–¯¯¯¯1900. Zum ags. Vocalismus. Leipzig.
–¯¯¯¯1903. An OE Grammar. 3rd ed. Tr. A. Cook. Boston.
–¯¯¯¯1904. ‘Zum Beowulf.’ BGdSL 29.305–31, 560–76.
–¯¯¯¯1910. ‘Gegenbemerkungen zum Beowulf.’ BGdSL 36.397–434.
–¯¯¯¯1918–19. Metrische Studien, IV. Abhandlungen der Königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft
der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse 35. Berlin.
–¯¯¯¯1929. ‘Cædmon und Genesis.’ In Britannica: Max Förster zum sechzigsten
Geburtstage, 57–84. Leipzig.
Simrock, K., tr. 1859. Beowulf. Stuttgart.
Sims-Williams, P. 1978. ‘“Is It Fog or Smoke or Warriors Fighting?”: Irish & Welsh Par-
allels to the Finnsburg Fragment.’ Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 27.505–14.
Sisam, K. 1953. Studies in the Hist. of OE Literature. Oxford.
–¯¯¯¯1958. ‘Beowulf’s Fight with the Dragon.’ RES 9.129–40.
–¯¯¯¯1965. The Structure of Beowulf. Oxford.
Small, G. 1929. The Gmc. Case of Comparison. Philadelphia.
Smithers, G. 1951–2. ‘Five Notes on OE Texts.’ EGS 4.65–85.
–¯¯¯¯1961. The Making of Beowulf. Durham.
–¯¯¯¯1966. ‘Four Cruces in Beowulf.’ In Studies in Lang. & Lit. in Honour of Margaret
Schlauch, ed. M. Brahmer et al., 413–30. Warsaw.
–¯¯¯¯1970. ‘Destiny & the Heroic Warrior in Beowulf.’ In Rosier 1970: 65–81.
Smithson, G. 1910. The OE Christian Epic. Berkeley.
 WORKS CITED 495
Smyser, H. 1965. ‘Ibn FaŹlān’s Account of the Rūs, with Some Commentary & Some
Allusions to Beowulf.’ In Bessinger & Creed 1965: 92–119.
Soland, M. 1979. Ae. Ausdrücke für ‘Lieb’ und ‘Seele.’ Zurich.
Sørensen, K. 1983. ‘The Growth of Cataphoric Personal & Possessive Pronouns in
English.’ In Current Topics in Eng. Hist. Ling., ed. M. Davenport et al., 225–38.
Odense.
Sprenger, U. 1995. ‘Zur Offasage.’ In Nordwestgermanisch, ed. E. Marold & C.
Zimmermann, 187–204. Berlin.
Standop, E. 1957. Syntax und Semantik der modalen Hilfsverben im Ae. Bochum-
Langendreer.
Stanley, E. 1956. ‘OE Poetic Diction & the Interpretation of The Wanderer, The
Seafarer, & The Penitent’s Prayer.’ Anglia 73.413–66.
–¯¯¯¯1963. ‘Hæthenra Hyht in Beowulf.’ In Green¢eld 1963: 136–51.
–¯¯¯¯1966. ‘Beowulf.’ In his Continuations & Beginnings, 104–41. London.
–¯¯¯¯1969. ‘Spellings of the “Waldend” Group.’ In Atwood & Hill 1969: 38–69.
–¯¯¯¯1974. ‘Some Observations on the A3 Lines in Beowulf.’ In Burlin & Irving 1974:
139–64.
–¯¯¯¯1975. The Search for AS Paganism. Cambridge.
–¯¯¯¯1979. ‘Two OE Poetic Phrases InsuÌciently Understood for Literary Criticism: þing
gehegan & seonoþ gehegan.’ In Calder 1979: 67–90.
–¯¯¯¯1981. ‘The Date of Beowulf: Some Doubts & No Conclusions.’ In Chase 1981: 197–
211.
–¯¯¯¯1987. ‘The Gmc. “Heroic Lay” of Finnesburg.’ In his Collection of Papers with
Emphasis on OE Literature, 281–97.
–¯¯¯¯1988. ‘Rhymes in Medieval English Verse: From OE to Middle Eng.’ In Medieval
English Studies presented to George Kane, ed. E. Kennedy et al., 19–54. Woodbridge.
–¯¯¯¯1990. ‘“Hengestes heap,” Beowulf 1091.’ In Britain 400–600, ed. A. Bammesberger
& A. Wollmann, 51–63. Heidelberg.
–¯¯¯¯1992. ‘Unstressed Initial Clusters in Half-Lines of Beowulf.’ In Korhammer et al.
1992: 263–84.
–¯¯¯¯1993. ‘Some Problematic Sense-Divisions in OE: “Glory” & “Victory”; “Noble,”
“Glorious,” & “Learned.”’ In Damico & Leyerle 1993: 171–226.
–¯¯¯¯1994. In the Foreground: Beowulf. Cambridge.
–¯¯¯¯1998a. ‘Courtliness & Courtesy in Beowulf & Elsewhere in Eng. Med. Lit.’ In Baker
& Howe 1998: 67–103.
–¯¯¯¯1998b. ‘Words for the Dictionary of OE.’ In The Dictionary of OE: Retrospects &
Prospects, ed. M. Toswell, 33–56. Kalamazoo.
–¯¯¯¯2000. ‘HWÆT.’ In Essays on AS & Related Themes, ed. J. Roberts & J. Nelson,
525–56. London.
–¯¯¯¯2001. ‘“A Very Land-¢sh, Languagelesse, a Monster”: Grendel & the Like in OE.’
In Olsen & Houwen 2001: 79–92.
Stevenson, W., ed. 1904. Asser’s Life of King Alfred. Oxford.
Stibbe, H. 1935. ‘Herr’ und ‘Frau’ und verwandte Begriffe in ihren ae. Äquivalenten.
AF 80. Heidelberg.
Stitt, J. M. 1992. Beowulf & the Bear’s Son. New York.
Stjerna, K. 1912. Essays on Questions Connected with the OE Poem of Beowulf. Tr. J.
Clark Hall. Coventry. [Papers orig. pub. 1903–8.]
Stockwell, R., & D. Minkova. 1997. ‘Prosody.’ In Bjork & Niles 1997: 55–83.
Stolzmann, P. 1953. Die angelsächsischen Ausdrücke für ‘Tod’ und ‘sterben.’ Erlangen
diss.
Storms, G. 1957. Compounded Names of Peoples in Beowulf. Utrecht/Nijmegen.
Strauss, J. 1974. Eine Komponentenanalyse im verbal- und situationskontextuellen
Bereich. AF 103. Heidelberg.
Suzuki, S. 2004. The Metre of OS Poetry. Cambridge.
496 WORKS CITED
Suzuki, Y. 2002. ‘The Prosody & Syntax of Light Elements in West Gmc. Alliterative
Verse: With Special Reference to Beowulf.’ In New Insights in Germanic Linguistics
II, ed. I. Rauch & G. Carr, 225–50. New York.
Swanton, M. 1973. The Spearheads of the AS Settlements. London.
–¯¯¯¯1974. A Corpus of Pagan AS Spear Types. Oxford.
–¯¯¯¯1982. Crisis & Development in Germanic Society, 700–800. Goppingen.
Sweet, H., ed. 1871. King Alfred’s WS Version of Gregory’s Pastoral Care. EETS 45,
50. London.
–¯¯¯¯ed. 1885. The Oldest Eng. Texts. EETS 83. London.
–¯¯¯¯ed. 1892. An AS Reader. Oxford.
–¯¯¯¯1896. The Student’s Dictionary of AS. Oxford.
Sydow, C. von. 1914. ‘Irisches in Beowulf.’ In Verhandlungen der 52. Versammlung
deutscher Philologen, 177–9. Leipzig.
Szemerényi, O. 1960. Studies in the Indo-European System of Numerals. Heidelberg.
Szogs, A. 1931. Die Ausdrücke für ‘Arbeit’ und ‘Beruf¯’ im Ae. AF 73. Heidelberg.
Taeymans, M. 2005. ‘On Old & ME need in Pos. & Neg. Contexts.’ Belgian Jnl. of
Eng. Lang. & Lits. 3.105–21.
Tanke, J. 2002. ’Beowulf, Gold-Luck, and God’s Will.’ SP 99.356–79.
Taylor, P. 1986. ‘Beowulf 4–6a: Scyld’s scaþan.’ In Geardagum 7.37–43.
–¯¯¯¯2000. Sharing Story. New York.
Terasawa, J. 1994. Nominal Compounds in OE. Copenhagen.
–¯¯¯¯1998. ‘The helle Sequence in OE Poetry.’ In Eng. Historical Ling. & Philology in
Japan, ed. J. Fisiak & A. Oizumi, 387–99. Berlin.
–¯¯¯¯2002. ‘Beowulf 128: æfter wiste.’ In ‘And Gladly Wolde He Lerne & Gladly Teche,’
ed. Y. Iyeiri & M. Connolly, 147–54. Tokyo.
Thier, K. 2002. Ae. Terminologie für Schiffe und Schiffsteile. Oxford.
–¯¯¯¯2003. ‘Sails in the North — New Perspectives on an Old Problem.’ Intl. Jnl. of
Nautical Archaeology 32.182–90.
Tolkien, J. 1936. ‘Beowulf: The Monsters & the Critics.’ PBA 22.245–95.
–¯¯¯¯1953. ‘The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm’s Son.’ E&S n.s. 6.1–18.
–¯¯¯¯ed. 1981. The OE Exodus. Ed. J. Turville-Petre. Oxford.
Townend, M. 2002. Lang. & Hist. in Viking Age England. Turnhout.
Trautmann, M. 1905. ‘Nachträglisches zu Finn und Hildebrand.’ BBzA 17.122.
Trilsbach, G. 1905. Die Lautlehre der spätwestsächs. Evangelien. Bonn.
Tupper, F., ed. 1910. The Riddles of the Exeter Book. Boston.
–¯¯¯¯1911. ‘The Philological Legend of Cynewulf.’ PMLA 26.235–79.
Turner, S. 1799–1805. The History of the Anglo-Saxons. 4 vols. London.
Turville-Petre, E. 1964. Myth & Religion of the North. Westport.
Tweddle, D. 1992. The Anglian Helmet from 16–22 Coppergate. London.
Tyler, E., ed. 2000. Treasure in the Medieval West. York.
–¯¯¯¯2006. OE Poetics. York.
Underwood, R. 1999. AS Weapons & Warfare. Stroud.
Vetter, F. 1872. Zum Muspilli und zur germanischen Allitterationspoesie. Vienna.
Visser, F. 1966–73. An Historical Syntax of the Eng. Lang. 3 vols. Leiden.
Vleeskruyer, R., ed. 1953. The Life of St. Chad. Amsterdam.
Vries, Jan de. 1956–7. Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Berlin.
–¯¯¯¯1962. Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Rev. ed. Leiden.
Wadstein, E. 1925. ‘Norden och Västeuropa i gammal tid.’ Populärt vetenskapliga
föreläsningar vid Göteborgs Högskola, n.s. 22.10–32, 159–67.
Wagner, R. 1910. Die Syntax des Superlativs im Gotischen, etc. Pal. 91. Berlin.
Walmsley, J., ed. 2006. Inside OE. Oxford.
Wanley, H. 1705. Antiquæ literaturæ septentrionalis liber alter, seu Humphredi
Wanleii librorum vett. septentrionalium, qui in Angliæ bibliothecis extant .¯.¯.
catalogus historico-criticus. Oxford. [= Book ii, or Vol. 3 of Hickes 1703–5.]
 WORKS CITED 497
Webster, L. 2000. ‘Ideal & Reality: Versions of Treasure in the Early Anglo-Saxon
World.’ In Tyler 2000: 49–59.
Weinhold, K. 1856. Altnordisches Leben. Berlin.
Wenisch, F. 1979. Spezi¢sch anglisches Wortgut in den nordhumbrischen Inter-
linearglossierungen des Lukasevangeliums. AF 132. Heidelberg.
Wetzel, C.-D. 1993. ‘Beowulf 3074¯f. — ein locus desperatus?’ In Grinda & Wetzel
1993: 113–66.
Weyhe, H. 1925. ‘Zur ae. Flexion.’ In Germanica: Eduard Sievers zum 75.
Geburtstage, 313–22. Halle.
Whallon, W. 1969. Formula, Character, and Context. Cambridge, MA.
Whitelock, D. 1951. The Audience of Beowulf. Oxford.
Wieland, G. 1988. ‘Manna mildost: Moses & Beowulf.’ PCP 23.86–93.
Wild, F. 1962. Drachen im Beowulf und andere Drachen. Vienna.
Williams, D. 1982. Cain & Beowulf. Toronto.
Williams, R. 1924. The Finn Episode in Beowulf. Cambridge.
Williamson, C., ed. 1977. The OE Riddles of the Exeter Book. Chapel Hill.
Wilson, D. 1992. AS Paganism. London.
Winter, W. 1955. ‘Æht,’ ‘wela,’ ‘gestreon,’ ‘sped,’ und ‘ead’ im Alt- und Mitteleng-
lischen. Berlin diss.
Wissmann, W. 1955. Skop. Berlin.
Wolf, A. 1919. Die Bezeichnung für Schicksal in der ags. Dichtersprache. Breslau diss.
Wollmann, A. 1990. Untersuchungen zu den. frühen lat. Lehnwörtern im Ae. Munich.
Wormald, P. 1978. ‘Bede, Beowulf & the Conversion of the AS Aristocracy.’ In Bede
& AS England, ed. R. Farrell, 32–95. Oxford.
Wrenn, C. 1967. A Study of OE Lit. London.
Wright, C.D. 1993. The Irish Tradition in OE Lit. Cambridge.
Wright, C.J., ed. 1997. Sir Robert Cotton as Collector. London.
Wright, H. 1957. ‘Good & Evil; Light & Darkness; Joy & Sorrow in Beowulf.’ RES
8.1–11.
Wright, J., ed. 1898–1905. English Dialect Dictionary. 6 vols. London.
Wright, J., & E. Wright. 1925. OE Grammar. 3rd ed. London.
Wyatt, A. 1926. The Threshold of AS. Cambridge.
Wyler, S. 1984. ‘OE Colour Terms & Berlin & Kay’s Theory of Basic Colour Terms.’
In Modes of Interpretation: Essays Presented to Ernst Leisi, ed. R. Wats & U.
Weidmann, 41–57. Tübingen.
Zimmer, S. 2000. ‘Urgermanisch *þeγ-na-z “Gefolgsmann.”’ Am. Jnl. of Gmc. Ling. &
Lits. 21.291–9.
Toronto Old English Series

General Editor Editorial Board

ANDY ORCHARD ROBERTA FRANK
THOMAS N. HALL
ANTONETTE DIPAOLO HEALEY
MICHAEL LAPIDGE

1 Computers and Old English Concordances edited by Angus Cameron, Roberta

Frank, and John Leyerle
2 A Plan for the Dictionary of Old English edited by Roberta Frank and Angus
Cameron
3 The Stowe Psalter edited by Andrew C. Kimmens
4 The Two Versions of Waerferth's Translation of Gregory's Dialogues: An Old
English Thesaurus David Yerkes
5 Vercelli Homilies IX–XXIII edited by Paul E. Szarmach
6 The Dating of Beowulf edited by Colin Chase
7 Eleven Old English Rogationtide Homilies edited by Joyce Bazire and James E.
Cross
8 Old English Word Studies: A Preliminary Author and Word Index Angus
Cameron, Allison Kingsmill, and Ashley Crandell Amos
9 The Old English Life of Machutus edited by David Yerkes
10 Words and Works: Studies in Medieval English Language and Literature in
Honour of Fred C. Robinson edited by Peter S. Baker and Nicholas Howe
11 Old English Glossed Psalters: Psalms 1–50 edited by Phillip Pulsiano
12 Families of the King: Writing Identity in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Alice
Sheppard
13 Verbal Encounters: Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse Studies for Roberta Frank edited
by Antonina Harbus and Russell Poole
14 Latin Learning and English Lore: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Literature for Michael
Lapidge edited by Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe and Andy Orchard
15 Early English Metre by Thomas A. Bredehoft
16 Source of Wisdom: Old English and Early Medieval Latin Studies in Honour of
Thomas D. Hill edited by Charles D. Wright, Frederick M. Biggs, and Thomas N.
Hall
17 The Narrative Pulse of Beowulf: Arrivals and Departures John M. Hill
18 Verse and Virtuosity: The Adaptation of Latin Rhetoric in Old English Poetry
Janie Steen
19 Finding the Right Words: Isidore’s Synonyma in Anglo-Saxon England Claudia
Di Sciacca
20 Striving with Grace: Views of Free Will in Anglo-Saxon England Aaron Kleist
21 Klaeber’s Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg 4th edition, edited by R.D. Fulk,
Robert E. Bjork, and John D. Niles