Onfeng hraethe inwit-þancum (749).—­Under ‘onfon’ H. says ’he received the maliciously-disposed one’; under ‘inwit-þanc’ he says ‘he grasped,’ etc.

Nieth-wundor seon (1366).—­Under ‘nieth-wundor’ H. calls this word itself nom. sing.; under ‘seon’ he translates it as accus. sing., understanding ‘man’ as subject of ‘seon.’  H. and S. (3d edition) make the correction.

Forgeaf hilde-bille (1521).—­H., under the second word, calls it instr. dat.; while under ‘forgifan’ he makes it the dat. of indir. obj.  H. and S. (3d edition) make the change.

Brad and brun-ecg (1547).—­Under ‘brad’ H. says ’das breite Hueftmesser mit bronzener Klinge’; under ‘brun-ecg’ he says ’ihr breites Hueftmesser mit blitzender Klinge.’

[110]

Yethelice (1557).—­Under this word H. makes it modify ‘astod.’  If this be right, the punctuation of the fifth edition is wrong.  See H. and S., appendix.

Selran gesohte (1840).—­Under ‘sel’ and ‘gesecan’ H. calls these two words accus. plu.; but this is clearly an error, as both are nom. plu., pred. nom.  H. and S. correct under ‘sel.’

Wieth sylfne (1978).—­Under ‘wieth’ and ‘gesittan’ H. says ‘wieth = near, by’; under ‘self’ he says ‘opposite.’

þeow (2225) is omitted from the glossary.

For duguethum (2502).—­Under ‘dugueth’ H. translates this phrase, ’in Tuechtigkeit’; under ‘for,’ by ‘vor der edlen Kriegerschaar.’

þaer (2574).—­Under ‘wealdan’ H. translates þaer by ‘wo’; under ‘motan,’ by ‘da.’  H. and S. suggest ‘if’ in both passages.

Wunde (2726).—­Under ‘wund’ H. says ‘dative,’ and under ‘wael-bleate’ he says ‘accus.’  It is without doubt accus., parallel with ‘benne.’

Strengum gebaeded (3118).—­Under ‘strengo’ H. says ‘Strengum’ = mit Macht; under ‘gebaeded’ he translates ‘von den Sehnen.’  H. and S. correct this discrepancy by rejecting the second reading.

Bronda be lafe (3162).—­A recent emendation.  The fourth edition had ‘bronda betost.’  In the fifth edition the editor neglects to change the glossary to suit the new emendation.  See ‘bewyrcan.’