Page:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu/110

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

86

BEOWULF.

nemnan hȳrde, þǣr hīo [næ]gled^[1] sinc
hæleðum sealde. Sīo gehāten [wæs],
2025geong, gold-hroden, gladum suna Frōdan;
[h]afað þæs geworden wine Scyldinga,
rīces hyrde, ond þæt rǣd talað,
þæt hē mid ðȳ wīfe wæl-fǣhða dǣl,
sæcca, gesette. Oft, [nō]^[2] seldan, hwǣr
2030æfter lēod-hryre lȳtle hwīle
bon-gār būgeð, þēah sēo brȳd duge.
Mæg þæs þonne ofþyncan ðēoden^[3] Heaðobeardna
ond þegna gehwām þāra lēoda,
þonne hē mid fǣmnan on flett gǣð,
2035dryht-bearn Dena duguða biwenede;^[4]

↑ 2023. Grein’s emendation.
↑ 2029. Heyne’s emendation; cf. l. 3019, and Ps. lxxiv. 4. Oft ends a line in the MS., which is defective at the beginning of the next line, the s of seldan being gone. “I do not think there was before seldan room enough for no.”—Zupitza. Kōlbing and Wūlcker think there was.
↑ 2032. Kemble ‘ðēodne.’ In his favour, ofþyncan always takes a dat. pers., and ðeoden is not a defensible dat. form; against, ðeoden is the clear reading of the MS., and he would be a bold man who should correct all its grammatical anomalies.
↑ 2035. This is the MS. reading of this difficult line. Grein emended bī werede, “among the company,” making dryht-bearn explanatory of hē in the previous line. But it is natural to take hē, as Heyne does, to refer to the ðeoden of l. 2032. He retains the MS. reading and renders: “[while] a noble scion of the Danes attended upon the knights.” It is much more satisfactory to assume the omission of the conjunction þæt at the beginning of l. 2035, correlative with þæs in 2032, to take duguða as nom. to biwenede, and to regard this as one of the frequent instances in O.E. poetry of a plural subject with a singular verb in a subordinate clause. Cf. ll. 2164, 1051, 2130, 2251, &c. The gain to the sense is immense: “It displeased the prince of the Heathobards, [that] his doughty warriors should attend on a noble scion of the Danes.” For the omission of þæt cf. l. 801, and see the note on l. 2206, a parallel passage; the explanation there suggested applies with equal force here, where þonne (2032) is correlative with þonne (2034).

[1] 2023. Grein’s emendation.

[2] 2029. Heyne’s emendation; cf. l. 3019, and Ps. lxxiv. 4. Oft ends a line in the MS., which is defective at the beginning of the next line, the s of seldan being gone. “I do not think there was before seldan room enough for no.”—Zupitza. Kōlbing and Wūlcker think there was.

[3] 2032. Kemble ‘ðēodne.’ In his favour, ofþyncan always takes a dat. pers., and ðeoden is not a defensible dat. form; against, ðeoden is the clear reading of the MS., and he would be a bold man who should correct all its grammatical anomalies.

[4] 2035. This is the MS. reading of this difficult line. Grein emended bī werede, “among the company,” making dryht-bearn explanatory of hē in the previous line. But it is natural to take hē, as Heyne does, to refer to the ðeoden of l. 2032. He retains the MS. reading and renders: “[while] a noble scion of the Danes attended upon the knights.” It is much more satisfactory to assume the omission of the conjunction þæt at the beginning of l. 2035, correlative with þæs in 2032, to take duguða as nom. to biwenede, and to regard this as one of the frequent instances in O.E. poetry of a plural subject with a singular verb in a subordinate clause. Cf. ll. 2164, 1051, 2130, 2251, &c. The gain to the sense is immense: “It displeased the prince of the Heathobards, [that] his doughty warriors should attend on a noble scion of the Danes.” For the omission of þæt cf. l. 801, and see the note on l. 2206, a parallel passage; the explanation there suggested applies with equal force here, where þonne (2032) is correlative with þonne (2034).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]