Abstract

A little more than a hundred years ago Eduard Sievers drew attention to the abnormal anacrusis in Beowulf 9b, þara ymbsittendra, and 402b, þa secg wisode. He had discovered that anacrusis, or Auftakt as he called it, though admitted with some frequency before verses of types A and D in the first half-line, was very rare in the second half-line, where the obligatory single alliteration on the first of two lifts seemed to call for a more limited range of syllabic patterns. He found only seven or eight certain instances of anacrusis, invariably monosyllabic, before verses of type A , and only the two instances here in question before verses of type D. Were these two instances above suspicion, like those he had accepted as authentic before type A? He did not immediately pass judgment on the seemingly more irregular disyllabic þara of line 9b, but he noted at once that the þā of 402b could perhaps be omitted, since secg wisode would serve by itself as a parenthetic clause parallel to the preceding snyredon ætsomne. No doubt he was aware that secg wisade had occurred as an independent clause in a paratactic series at line 208b. Yet he proposed the omission of þa somewhat tentatively, with a vielleicht. A few years later he took more decisive action against the þara of line 9. Having occasion to quote the passage containing it in another connection, he enclosed þara in brackets as a sign that the word was to be canceled