Some Emendations and Non-Emendations in Beowulf (Verses 600a, 976a, 1585b, 1663b, 1740a, 2525b, 2771a, and 3060a)

In greater detail than would have been feasible in his edition of Beowulf and The Fight at Finnsburg itself, Frederick Klaeber judiciously set out his views on various textual and interpretive matters in a series of journal articles to which the reader is referred throughout his edition. The following discussion of cruces in Beowulf is thus offered after his example, explaining the reasoning behind certain of the textual and interpretive choices that are most likely to be adopted in the forthcoming revised edition of Klaeber's work.¹ In most instances, a change to the text is advocated, though in some places reasons to doubt Klaeber's readings are answered and his decisions corroborated. Some of the alterations proposed here are to the text itself, while others are to Klaeber's interpretation of particular words and passages. In some cases, an old solution discarded by Klaeber is advocated; in others, a new solution is proposed. All the problems discussed are of long critical standing.

Verse 600a: snēdeþ

Near the close of his reply to Unferth's insulting challenge, Beowulf describes the plight of the Danes: Grendel shows them no mercy,

    ac hē lust wigeð,swefeð ond snēdeþ, secce ne wēneþtō Gār-Denum.

(599b-601a)²

[but he feels delight, puts to sleep and butchers, expects no resistance from the Spear-Danes.]

Klaeber's snēdeþ, "cuts, slices," a change in the third edition, is an alteration of MS sendeþ, "sends," first suggested by Rudolf Imelmann, and it was subsequently advocated by Johannes Hoops, who exerted a notable influence on Klaeber's third edition.³ The infinitive is normally spelled snædan, and once it has the meaning "take a meal" (Peterborough Chronicle, s.a. 1048). A difficulty with this emendation, pointed out by von Schaubert, is that this would be the only instance in the poem in which æ as the front mutation of ā (from Gmc. ai) was spelled ē.⁴ Accordingly, it has been proposed to read snædeþ (F. Holthausen and Alfred Bammesberger) or sændeþ (Bruce Mitchell and Fred C. Robinson).⁵ Yet the emendation is of such uncertainty that Klaeber ultimately, in a supplement to his third edition, abandoned it,⁶ returning to the manuscript form, as in his first two editions.

The reading sendeþ presents its own difficulties. It was first proposed by Heinrich Leo that the word should mean "feasts," on the basis of comparison to sand, "dish of food" (the original sense being "something sent to the table"), but this idea enjoys no currency.⁷ Most editors now assign to it either the meaning "dispatches, sends to death" or "devours."⁸ This is on the basis of a comparison, first drawn by Klaeber, to verses in Hávamál: "veiztu, hvé blóta skal? / veiztu, hvé senda skal, veiztu, hvé sóa skal?"⁹ in essence, "Do you know how a blood sacrifice is to be made?" where blóta and sóa, "sacrifice," are apparently to be taken as synonyms of senda, "send."¹⁰ The semantic development of senda as used in this passage is not certain.¹¹ Without a doubt, the compounded verb in Old English can have such a meaning in Beowulf, as in forsendan (904) and forð onsendan (2266).¹² Yet the simplex is never used this way in Old English, and the Old Icelandic parallel, which looks like a nonce usage, is not very convincing. Accordingly, perhaps most of the editors adopting this interpretation have expressed diffidence like Klaeber's.

It may be better to read line 600a as swefeð, ondsendeþ, "puts to sleep, destroys," without emendation.¹³ To be sure, the verb onsendan usually requires the object gāst to refer to sending forth the spirit, and then it refers only to dying, not to killing. Yet the Beowulf poet uses it in a non-reflexive sense in 2266: forð onsended, "sent to destruction, killed." Presumably, forð is not essential to this meaning: compare how gewītan, "go," may mean "perish, die" either with for...