ðǣm tō hām forgeafHrēþel Gēata
375āngan dohtor;is his eafora[1] nū
heard hēr cumen,sōhte holdne wine.
Ðonne sægdon þæetsǣ-līþende,
þā ðe gif-sceattasGēata[2] fyredon
þyder tō þance,þæt hē þrit*tiges[3]Fol. 138b.
380manna mægen-cræfton his mund-gripe
heaþo-rōf hæbbe.Hine hālig God
for ār-stafumūs onsende,
tō West-Denum,þæs ic wēn hæbbe,
wið Grendles gryre;ic þǣm gōdan sceal
385for his mōd-þræcemādmas bēodan.
Bēo ðū on ofeste,hāt in gān[4]
sēon sibbe-gedrihtsamod ætgædere;
gesaga him ēac wordum,þæt hīe sint wil-cuman
Deniga lēodum.”[Þā wið duru healle
390Wulfgār ēode,][5]word inne ābēad;
“Ēow hēt secgansige-drihten mīn,
- ↑ 375. MS. ‘eaforan’; Kemble ‘eafora.’
- ↑ 378. Thorpe ‘Gēatum,’ adopted by Bugge and Earle. The change is not absolutely necessary, because the genitive can have the same meaning, “for the Geats.”
- ↑ 379. MS. ‘·xxx tiges.’
- ↑ 386. Heyne reads ‘hāt [hig] in gān’ for metrical reasons (but see “Beiträge” x. 268), and takes sibbe-gedriht (i.e. the Danes) as the object of sēon. But sibbe-gedriht certainly refers to Beowulf’s company, as in l. 729, and is the accus.-subject of in gān sēon. The whole phrase may be rendered “bid the band of warrior-kinsmen go into the presence.” Cf. ll. 396, 347, 365.
- ↑ 389—90. No gap in MS., though the lack of alliteration seems conclusive as to a defect in the text. The emendation is Grein’s.
a strain to the meaning of the passage, and we may safely assume that the scribe has run two words into one, as in numerous other instances. Eald fæder makes excellent sense.
