[3] ll. 39b-41a. Wræcna, gen. pl. with bidan, = outcasts; I take weardas as in apposition with it (the acc. being either a scribal error or an anacoluthon), and then translate wræcna as an adjective for the sake of idiomatic fluency. For gasta weardas as an epithet for angels, though then unfallen, cf. line 12a, sup.—The passage has given scholars much trouble and is unsatisfactory, at best.
[4] line 63b. I take æðele as a form of æðelu = nobilitas, principatus, natales, origo, genus, etc. Grein's Sprachschatz, 1.52.
[5] line 168a. Three pages seem to be missing in the MS. Doubtless the remaining events of the third day, with those of the fourth, fifth, and perhaps first part of the sixth, days, including the creation of man, (i.e., apparently the contents of Gen. 1.11-2.17, incl.) were retold in these pages.
[6] line 186b. This line is apparently imperfect, metrically, for the second hemistich seems to be wanting. As the sense is complete, without emendation, I have not followed the various scholars who would insert after "Adam's bride" some such clause as, "Whom God named Eve."
[7] ll. 221-224a. The text here is corrupt and scholars differ widely in their conjectural emendations and interpretations. Since none of their versions is satisfactory or convincing, I venture upon an independent reading. Hebeleac, of course, is the Scriptural Havilah (Gen. 2.11); Fison is obviously Pison, and Geon, 230b inf., is Gihon.
[8] ll. 226, 227a. I construe the best with gold and gems, rather than with sons of men, because of Gen. 2.12.
[9] ll. 235-851. After line 234 there is a break in the MS. Sievers has shown that the following 617 lines, called Genesis B, were written and interpolated later, by a different hand, and have Old Saxon affiliations. Genesis B describes the Fall of Man and also gives a new version of the revolt and overthrow of Satan. Genesis A begins again, at line 852, with the conversation between Adam and Eve and Jehovah (Gen. 3.8 ff.).
[10] line 872. I follow the divisions of the MS. This line begins with the tenth large decorative initial, the others having occurred at ll. 1, 82, 135, 246, 389, 442, 547, 684, and 821. Where the editors so widely disagree as to the proper subdivisions of the poem, it seems safer to follow the original initializing (but not the marginal numbering of the original MS.: this skips from VII to XIII at line 440—doubtless accidentally substituting X for V—and is otherwise irregular). Cf. footnote, page vi, sup.—For lines 869-70, cf. Jour. Eng. Germ. Phil., 12.257.
[11] line 1022. A hemistich seems to be missing here, metrically.
[12] line 1125. A hemistich seems to be missing here, metrically.