Canto VIII.

Criticism of the Translation.

Wackerbarth’s translation is not to be considered as a rival of Kemble’s1—the author did not wish it to be so considered. Kemble addressed the world of scholars; Wackerbarth the world of readers. Wackerbarth rather resembles Conybeare2 in trying to reproduce the spirit of the poem, and make his book appeal to a popular audience. Wackerbarth had the advantage of basing his translation on the accurate and scholarly version of Kemble; yet Conybeare and Wackerbarth were equally unsuccessful in catching the spirit of the original. The reason for their failure is primarily in the media which they chose. It would seem that if there were a measure less suited to the Beowulf style than the Miltonic blank verse used by Conybeare, it would be the ballad measures used by Wackerbarth. The movement of the ballad is easy, rapid, and garrulous. Now, if there are three qualities of which the Beowulf is not possessed, they are ease, rapidity, and garrulity. Not only does the poet avoid superfluous words—the ballad never does—but he frequently does not use words enough. His meaning is thus often vague and nebulous, or harsh and knotted. Nor can the poem properly be called rapid. It is often hurried, and more often insufficient in detail, but it never has sustained rapidity. The kenning alone is hostile to rapidity. The poet lingers lovingly over his thought as if loath to leave it; he repeats, amplifies. The description of Grendel’s approach to Heorot is given three times within twenty lines.

Now these features which have just been described Wackerbarth’s ballad lines are eminently unfitted to transmit. But there is still another reason for shunning them. They are almost continuously suggestive of Scott. Of all men else the translator of Beowulf should avoid Scott. Scott’s medievalism is hundreds of years and miles away from the medievalism of Beowulf. His is the self-conscious, dramatic, gorgeous age of chivalry, of knight and lady, of pomp and pride. Beowulf is simple to bareness.

It is in such strong picturesque passages as the swimming-match that Wackerbarth’s style is worst. There is a plethora of adjectives, scarcely one of which is found in the original; but they are of no avail—they are too commonplace to render the strength and raciness of the original words. There is too much ballad padding—‘then he cry’d,’ ‘at last,’ ‘well and faithfully,’ ‘onslaught dire, and deadly fight.’ Hunferth prattles. The heroic atmosphere is gone.

In passages calling for calmness, solemnity, or elevation of thought—and there are many such—the easy flow of a verse monotonous and trivial effectually destroys the beauty of the lines.

But in spite of its very evident limitations, Wackerbarth’s translation was a move in the right direction. His aim, in his own words, was to ‘get his book read,’ and he was wise in choosing a medium that would be popular, even if it were not satisfactory to the scholar. It was better to have Beowulf according to Wackerbarth than no Beowulf at all.

THORPE’S EDITION

The Anglo-Saxon Poems of Beowulf, The Scop or Gleeman’s Tale, and the Fight at Finnesburg. With a literal translation, notes, and glossary, &c., by Benjamin Thorpe. Oxford: printed by James Wright, Printer to the University. M.DCCC.LV.

*Reprinted, 1875. 12^o, pp. xxxiv, 330.

Third English Translation. Short Lines.

Author’s Prefatory Remarks.

‘Twenty-four years have passed since, while residing in Denmark, I first entertained the design of one day producing an edition of Beowulf; and it was in prosecution of that design that, immediately on my arrival in England in 1830, I carefully collated the text of Thorkelin’s edition with the Cottonian manuscript. Fortunately, no doubt, for the work, a series of cares, together with other literary engagements, intervened and arrested my progress. I had, in fact, abandoned every thought of ever resuming the task: it was therefore with no slight pleasure that I hailed the appearance of Mr. Kemble’s first edition of the text of Beowulf in 1833. . . .

‘Copies of Mr. Kemble’s editions having for some time past been of rare occurrence, I resolved on resuming my suspended labour, and, as far as I was able, supplying a want felt by many an Anglo-Saxon student both at home and abroad. . . .

‘My first impulse was to print the text of the poem as it appears in the manuscript, with a literal translation in parallel columns, placing all conjectural emendations at the foot of each page; but, on comparing the text with the version in this juxta-position, so numerous and so enormous and puerile did the blunders of the copyist appear, and, consequently, so great the discrepance between the text and the translation, that I found myself compelled to admit into the text the greater number of the conjectural emendations, consigning to the foot of the page the corresponding readings of the manuscript. In every case which I thought might by others be considered questionable, I have followed the more usual course, of retaining in the text the reading of the manuscript, and placing the proposed correction at foot. . . .

‘Very shortly after I had collated it, the manuscript suffered still further detriment.

‘In forming this edition I resolved to proceed independently of the version or views of every preceding editor.’ —Pages vii, viii, xii, xiii.

Criticism of Thorpe’s Text.

Considering the amount of time that had elapsed between this and the edition of Kemble1, Thorpe can hardly be said to have made a satisfactory advance. In some respects his edition is actually inferior to Kemble’s. It is probable, for example, that the collation of which the author speaks in his introduction was the one which he had made twenty years before, and that, in taking up his work a second time, he did not trouble himself to revise it. At any rate, the MS. did not receive from Thorpe that respectful attention that it had had from Kemble. Thorpe was more clever than the former scholar in deciphering faded lines of the MS., but he was not always careful to indicate those letters which he actually found there, and those he himself supplied from conjecture. Yet these readings were often of sufficient importance to affect an entire passage, and later scholarship has in many cases deciphered readings whose sense is entirely different from Thorpe’s. Thus his edition presents striking divergences from later texts, while no explanation of them is offered in the footnotes. Not only does he frequently incorporate his own readings in the text without noting the MS. forms, but he even makes mistakes in the MS. forms which he does note. A collation of Thorpe’s text with the MS. has revealed a carelessness which was all the more reprehensible in that it came from a scholar who was thought to be well-nigh infallible. A few examples of this carelessness are given:—

Line 319 (158)2, banan (misreads MS. in footnote).

487 (241), Ic (word emended from le without noting MS. form).

1160 (578), hwæþere (emends without noting the MS. form).

1207 (601), ac him (omits a word).

4408 (2201), hilde hlemmum (MS. misread in a footnote. Emendation unnecessary).

At line 2218 the MS., badly mutilated at this point, reads,

In Thorpe’s edition the line reads (4443),

Not only does he fail to state that he has changed MS. sy to fi, but he gives no indication that for the words fyrena hyrde there is no room in the MS., and that the reading is entirely of his own making.

In order to afford a comparative estimate of the work of Thorpe and Kemble, I append the texts of each as they appear at what is now line 20003.

These selections give a good basis for judging the merits and defects of Thorpe’s edition. Thorpe is seen to have the advantage in deciphering certain parts of the text, see e.g. lines 9, 11, 17. On the other hand, Kemble is far more conscientious. Thus at line 13 Thorpe reads ne as if it were found in the MS. It is not there, and Kemble is right in inclosing the letters in parentheses. The same thing is true of Fǽr in line 19, and Grendles in line 14. Thorpe’s emendations in lines 3 and 5 are an advance on Kemble, and are still retained in the text. But Thorpe might have followed Kemble’s punctuation in 18 and 19 to his advantage.

Extract.

VIII.

Criticism of the Translation.

This being a strictly literal translation, the reader is referred to the sections on the text for a valuation and criticism. It is a question whether there was need for another literal rendering in England at this time. Kemble’s translation was not yet out of date, and with Thorpe’s new glossary the student had a sufficient apparatus for the interpretation of the poem.

Some German scholars have discovered that the short lines in which Thorpe’s translation is couched are imitative of the Old English measure. I am unable to agree with them. Probably any short-line translation would ipso facto assume a choppiness not dissimilar to the Old English, and probably plenty of lines could be discovered which correspond well enough to the ‘five types,’ but the agreement seems purely fortuitous. It is quite unlikely that Thorpe intended any imitation.

Influence of Thorpe’s Edition.

The influence of this edition has been considerable. It was the principal authority used by Grein4 and Heyne5 in constructing their texts. Thus its influence was felt in all texts down to the publication of the Zupitza Autotypes (1882). Thomas Arnold6 copied the text almost word for word.

GREIN’S TRANSLATIONS

Dichtungen der Angelsachsen, stabreimend übersetzt von C. W. M. Grein. Erster Band. Göttingen: Georg H. Wigand, 1857. 8^o, Beowulf, pp. 223–308. Zweite (Titel-) Auflage, 1863.

Beowulf. Stabreimend übersetzt von Professor Dr. C. W. M. Grein. Zweite Auflage. Kassel: Georg H. Wigand, 1883. 8^o, pp. 90.

Second German Translation. Imitative Measures.

Grein’s Preparation for Scholarly Work.

Christian Wilhelm Michael Grein1 (1825–77) was eminently well fitted for the editing and translating of Old English poetry. He possessed a natural aptitude for the study of Germanic Philology, and had the advantage of studying with an excellent professor, Franz Eduard Christoph Dietrich (1810–83), in the University at Marburg. As early as 1854 he began his labors as a translator of Old English poetry with a version of the Phoenix, ‘Der Vogel Phoenix: ein angelsächsisches Gedicht, stabreimend übersetzt,’ Rinteln, 1854. In the same year he printed a translation of the Heliand.

In 1855 he assumed the position of Praktikant at the Kassel Landesbibliothek. Here he was able to devote a large part of his attention to the study of Old English, acquiring a familiarity with the poetry of that tongue which it has seldom been the fortune of a scholar to surpass. He formed the design of editing and translating the entire body of Old English poetry and appending to it a complete glossary which should not only give the meanings of the words, but instance every occurrence of the word. This design he carried out between the years 1857 and 1864.

Grein’s Texts.

The text of Beowulf is found in Grein’s Bibliothek der angelsächsichen Poesie, Erster Band, Göttingen, 1857, where it occupies pp. 255–341. A second edition, several times re-edited, is Beovulf, nebst den Fragmenten Finnsburg und Waldere, Kassel und Göttingen, 1867.

Grein never saw the MS. of the poem2. He based his text on a collation of all the preceding editions. This was unfortunate, because, had Grein seen the MS., he would doubtless have hastened to make a correct transcription of it. As it was, his edition necessarily shares some of the faults of its predecessors, since the text had never yet been accurately transcribed. A simple illustration of this defect may be seen by examining line 2218 of the text, where Grein reads,

following Thorpe3. As has been pointed out, this is an impossible reading, and one for which there is no justification in the MS. Thorpe, however, had presented it as the MS. reading, and Grein could not but copy it.

Like Kemble, Grein had a supreme respect for the readings of the MS., and he announced his intention of following this reading wherever possible:—

‘Bei der Behandlung des Textes galt als erste Pflicht, handschriftliche Lesarten, wo es nur immer möglich war, zu retten und namentlich auch manche angezweifelte, den Lexicis fremde Wörter als wolbegründet nachzuweisen: nur da, wo Verderbniss auf der Hand liegt, habe ich mir mit der grössten Vorsicht Aenderungen erlaubt oder bereits von Andern vorgeschlagene Aenderungen aufgenommen, wobei ich mich möglichst eng an das handschriftlich gebotene anzuschliessen suchte.’ —Vorwort, iv. (Bibl.).

This was wise. Since the days of Kemble, emendation had become unnecessarily frequent. We have seen in what a light-hearted way Thorpe spoke of the ‘blunders of the scribes,’ and how careless he was in the preparation of his text. The dialect had not yet received proper attention, and the copyists were blamed for errors that they never made.

Grein was extremely clever in filling the lacunae of the MS., and his conjectural emendations are frequently retained by later editors.

Still another improvement which he introduced was the full punctuation of the text; this was superior to any that had preceded it. In previous editions defective punctuation had obscured the sense of the lines; here it was made a factor in their interpretation.

Theory of Translation.

Grein’s theory of translation is sufficiently expressed in the Vorrede to the Dichtungen:—

‘Die Sammlung von metrischen Uebersetzungen angelsächsischer Dichtungen, deren erster Band hiermit der Oeffentlichkeit übergeben wird, soll einen doppelten Zweck erfüllen. Einerseits betrachte ich dieselben als eine wesentliche Ergänzung, gleichsam als fortlaufenden Commentar zu meiner gleichzeitig in demselben Verlag erscheinenden Textausgabe der angelsächsischen Dichter, indem sie meine Interpretation der Originaltexte, worin ich oft von meinen Vorgängern abweiche, einfach vor Augen legen. Andrerseits aber bezweckte ich dadurch die Bekanntschaft mit den in vieler Beziehung so herrlichen dichterischen Erzeugnissen des uns engverwandten englischen Volkes aus der Zeit vor dem gewaltsamen Eindringen des romanischen Elements durch die normannische Eroberung auch in weiteren Kreisen anzubahnen, was sie sowol nach ihrem Inhalte als auch nach der poetischen Behandlung des Stoffes gewiss in hohem Grade verdienen. Daher war ich eifrigst bemüht, die Uebersetzung dem Original in möglichster Treue nach Inhalt, Ausdruck und Form eng anzuschliessen: namentlich suchte ich, soweit es immer bei dem heutigen Stande unserer Sprache thunlich war, auch den Rhythmus des Originals nachzubilden, wobei es vor allem auf die Beibehaltung der eigentümlichen Stellung der Stabreime ankam, ein Punkt, der bei der Uebertragung alter Alliterationspoesien nur zu oft vernachlässigt wird.’ —Vorrede, iii.

Differences between the two Editions.

The second edition of the translation (see supra, p. 65) was edited from Grein’s ‘Handexemplar’ of the Dichtungen after his death by Professor Wülker, who has also re-edited the text of the Bibliothek. The differences are seldom more than verbal, and are largely in the early parts of the poem. The second edition is, of course, superior.

Extract.

III.

Criticism of the Translation.

The translation is a literal line-for-line version. Its superiority to its predecessors is, therefore, one with the superiority of the text on which it is founded.

The translation became at once the standard commentary on Beowulf, and this position it retained for many years. It is still the standard literal translation in Germany, none of the later versions having equaled it in point of accuracy.

SIMROCK’S TRANSLATION

Beowulf. Das älteste deutsche Epos. Uebersetzt und erläutert von Dr. Karl Simrock. Stuttgart und Augsburg: J. G. Cotta’scher Verlag, 1859. 8^o, pp. iv, 203.

Third German Translation. Imitative Measures.

Simrock.

Dr. Karl Simrock (1802–1876) brought to the translation of Beowulf the thorough knowledge of a scholar, the fine feeling and technique of a poet, and an enviable reputation as a translator of Old German poetry. At the time when he made his translation of Beowulf, he was Professor of Old German Literature at Bonn, whither he had been called because of his contributions to the study of Old German mythology. His title to remembrance rests, however, on his metrical rendering of the Nibelungenlied, a work which, in 1892, had passed into its fifty-second edition. As an original poet, Simrock is remembered for his Wieland der Schmied (1835), and Gedichte (1844).

Object of the Translation.

Simrock wished to do for Beowulf what he had done for the Nibelungenlied, Walther von der Vogelweide, and Der arme Heinrich. He objected to the too literal work of Ettmüller1 and Grein2, hoping in his own work to make the poem readable and to dispense with a ‘note for every third word’:

‘Geist und Stimmung einer fernen Heldenzeit anklingen zu lassen, und doch dem Ausdruck die frische Farbe des Lebens zu verleihen.’ —Vorrede, iii.

In this ambition he was justified by his success as a translator of Old German poetry.

Nature of the Translation.

The diction of the version is, on the whole, characterized by simplicity and ease. Yet the author, like many another translator of Old English, tries to give his style an archaic tinge by preserving the compound forms characteristic of that language, such as Lustholz, Aelgelage, Kampfrunen, a fault that Ettmüller had carried to excess. These forms he sometimes used to the exclusion of simpler, or even more literal, words. The nature of the German language, however, keeps these from being as repulsive as they are in English, but they are sufficiently strange to mystify and annoy the reader.

The feature of his translation for which Simrock was most concerned was the measure:

‘Vor Allem aber den Wohllaut, der echter Poesie unzertrennlich verbunden ist, das schien mir die erste Bedingung, damit der Leser . . . den Sinn ahne und von der Schönheit des Gedichts ergriffen von Blatt zu Blatt getragen werde. Nur so glaubte ich eine tausendjährige Kluft überbrücken und dieser mit Angeln und Sachsen ausgewanderten Dichtung neues Heimatsrecht bei uns erwerben zu können.’ —Vorrede, iii, iv.

He also preserved alliteration, believing that a fondness for that poetic adornment may be easily acquired, and that it is by no means inconsistent with the genius of modern tongues.

Relation of Translation and other Parts of the Book.

The notes to the translation contain discussions of the episodes and of the mythological personages of the poem. There is a discussion of the poetic worth of Beowulf, and an argument for the German origin of the poem. But the translation is the raison d’être of the volume, and other parts are strictly subordinated to it. The Finnsburg fragment is inserted at the end of section 16. As the author does not wish to disturb the order of Beowulf, he is obliged to place the poem at the end of the Finnsburg episode (in Beowulf), a very ill-chosen position, where it can only confuse the general reader more than the obscure lines to which it is related. This practice of inserting the Finnsburg fragment, lately revived by Hoffmann3, has been generally repudiated.

Text, and Indebtedness to Preceding Scholars.

The text followed is Grein’s (1857)4. The translator acknowledges his indebtedness to the versions of Ettmüller and Grein.

Extract.

8. Hunferd.

Criticism of the Translation.

Simrock’s translation is commendable for its faithfulness. It is, moreover, a simple and readable version, though in these respects it is not equal to Heyne’s rendering which was to follow it; but it was easily superior to Grein’s. Yet, in spite of this, the book is not well known among German translations, and has never passed into a second edition. This is surprising when we consider the success of Simrock’s previous translations. The partial failure is accounted for by two facts: (1) Simrock’s reputation as a scholar was not equal to that of Grein or Heyne, nor had he the advantage of editing the text; (2) the measure which the translation employed has never been popular among readers. No German translation in imitative measures, with the single exception of Grein’s (which has made its appeal as a scholarly work and not as a piece of literature), has ever passed into a second edition; while versions couched in iambic lines or Nibelungen meters have been reprinted.

HEYNE’S TRANSLATION

Beowulf. Angelsächsisches Heldengedicht übersetzt von Moritz Heyne. Paderborn: Druck und Verlag von Ferd. Schöningh, 1863. 12^o, pp. viii, 127.

Zweite Auflage. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1898. 8^o, pp. viii, 134.

Fourth German Translation. Iambic Pentameter.

Heyne.

The name of Moritz Heyne is one of the most illustrious in the history of Beowulf scholarship. The Heyne editions of the text1 have been standard for nearly forty years, while the translation has been recently reprinted (1898). Beside his work on the Beowulf, this scholar was to become prominent as editor of the Heliand and of Ulfilas, and as one of the staff appointed to complete Grimm’s Dictionary.

At the time when he printed his edition of the Beowulf, Heyne was a student at Halle, and but twenty-six years of age (born 1837)2. In his work he had some assistance from Professor Leo3 of Halle.

Relation of Text and Translation.

The translation was founded on the text of 1863. At the time it was by far the best edition that had yet appeared. It was furnished with an excellent glossary. The text had the advantage of the valuable work done by Grundtvig4 in collating the two transcripts made by Thorkelin5. It thus came a stage nearer the MS. readings than any other existing edition, while it avoided the unnecessary conjectures of the Danish editor.

Heyne’s text having been five times re-edited, the first edition of the translation often fails to conform to readings which have been introduced into the text in later editions; but the free nature of the translation makes this of no great importance.

Differences between the First and Second Editions of the Translation.

The differences between the two editions are not of much importance. The translation is in general, though not always, brought up to the late editions of the text, and some changes are made for the improvement of the meter.

The first edition contains 3201 lines; the second 3207. The theory and aim of the translation are not changed at all.

Aim of Heyne’s Translation.

In this translation of the Beowulf, Heyne attempts to popularize what he considers the most beautiful of the Old English poems. He says of it—

‘Es ist nicht die erste, die ich biete; gleichwol hoffe ich es werde die erste sein, die auch einem grössern Publicum, das noch nicht Gelegenheit hatte, sich mit den ältern Dialecten unserer Sprache zu beschäftigen, verständlich ist. Die ältern deutschen Uebersetzer haben, bei allen Verdiensten ihrer Arbeit, unserer neuhochdeutschen Muttersprache teilweise übel mitgespielt.’ —Vorwort, iii.

With this in view, Heyne put his translation out in a form that would make it accessible to all. This was in itself an innovation. The works of Ettmüller6 and Simrock7 had been in a more elaborate format, while Grein’s translation8 was not only expensive, but encumbered with other work, and intended primarily for the scholar.

Nature of the Translation.

Heyne chose a new medium for his version, the unrimed iambic line. His aim being to get his book read, he avoided a literal translation, and rendered with commendable freedom, though not with inaccuracy. He used no strange compounds, and shunned an unnatural verse. Thus he produced the most readable translation that has ever appeared in Germany. Of his own attempt he says—

‘Die vorliegende Uebertragung ist so frei, dass sie das für uns schwer oder gar nicht genau nachzubildende allitterierende Versmass des Originals gegen fünffüssige Jamben aufgibt, und zu Gunsten des Sinnes sich der angelsächsischen Wort- und Satzstellung nicht zu ängstlich anschmiegt; dagegen auch wieder so genau, dass sie hoffentlich ein Scherflein zum vollkommenern Verständniss des Textes beitragen wird.’ —Vorwort, iii.

Heyne’s theory of translation is one that has been very little in vogue in Germany. He has been criticized on all sides for his freedom. Yet the criticism is undeserved. Heyne is never paraphrastic—he never adds anything foreign to the poem. He merely believes in translating the obscure as well as the simple ideas of his text. His ‘freedom’ seldom amounts to more than this—

He occasionally inserts a word for metrical reasons, and sometimes, in the interests of clearness, a demonstrative or personal pronoun, or even a proper name (cf. l. 500 of the extract).

Extract.

IX.

The extract illustrates sufficiently the characteristics of Heyne’s rendering. In the first place, attention may be called to the extreme freedom of the verse, a freedom which at times makes the composition verge upon prose. In the second place, the translation of the Old English phrase beadu-runen onband should be noticed, and compared with the translations of Ettmüller, Grein, and Simrock, who have respectively—

Heyne is the only one who translates the phrase in such a way as to make the words intelligible to a reader unacquainted with Old English. Finally, it should be noticed that the translation is quite as accurate as those which preceded it. Heyne certainly succeeded in his attempt to make the poem more intelligible to the general reader than it had ever been before. While not so serviceable to the scholar as Grein’s translation, it is undoubtedly the most enjoyable of the German versions.

VON WOLZOGEN’S TRANSLATION

Beovulf (Bärwelf). Das älteste deutsche Heldengedicht. Aus dem Angelsächsischen von Hans von Wolzogen. Leipzig: Philipp Reclam, jun. (1872?).

Volume 430 of Reclam’s Universal-Bibliothek. Small 8^o, pp. 104.

Fifth German Translation. Imitative Measures.

Concerning the Translator.

Hans von Wolzogen (born 1848), popularly known as a writer on the Wagnerian operas and as conductor of the Bayreuther Blätter, translated three Germanic poems for Reclam’s ‘Bibliothek’: Beowulf, 1872, Der arme Heinrich, 1873, and the Edda, 1877. There is no evidence that he had any special interest in Old English studies.

Aim of the Volume.

As expressed in the ‘Vorbemerkung,’ the aim of the translator was (1) to provide a readable translation ‘für unser modernes Publicum,’ and (2) to make a convenient handbook for the student, so that the beginner, with Grein’s text1 and the present translation, might read the Beowulf with no very great difficulty. So von Wolzogen made his version ‘more literal than Heyne’s, but freer than Simrock’s’ (p. 1).

Nature of the Translation.

The translation is in alliterative measures, called by the translator imitative of the Old English. Von Wolzogen is concerned for this feature of his work, and is at pains to give what he considers a full account of the original verse as well as a lengthy defence of alliteration. Archaic touches are occasional. The names are ‘re-translated into German’ according to a system of which, apparently, von Wolzogen alone holds the key:—

‘... diese angelsächsische Form selbst nur eine Uebertragungsform aus den ursprünglich deutschen Namen ist, wobei manch Einer sogar sinnlos verdreht worden, wie z.B. der Name des Helden selbst, der aus dem deutschen Bärwelf, Jungbär, zum Beovulf, Bienenwolf, gemacht worden war.’ —Vorbemerkung, p. 5.

The account of the Fall of Hygelac and of Heardred, 2354–96, is shifted to line 2207 (p. 75).

Text Used.

The translation is apparently founded on one of Grein’s texts2, but the work is so inaccurate that exact information on this point is impossible from merely internal evidence.

Extract.

Dritter Gesang.

HUNFRID.

Criticism of the Translation.

Von Wolzogen’s translation is hardly trustworthy. A specimen of his free interpretation of the Beowulf diction may be seen in the footnote on page 13, where he defines horngēap (i.e. ‘with wide intervals between its pinnacles of horn’) as ‘hornreich,’ and translates hornreced, ‘Hornburg.’ Inaccurate renderings of the Old English have been noted above in italics. They reveal an especial difficulty with the kenning, a device which von Wolzogen apparently did not understand, since the entire translation shows an attempt to interpret the kenning hypotactically. Had the translator been making a paraphrase, inaccuracies like ‘muthige Meerfahrt’ and ‘ihr rangt mit dem Wasser’ might be excused; but in a translation which was avowedly literal (more literal than Heyne’s) they appear to be due to nothing less than ignorance and carelessness. To give one example from the thousand that bear out the truth of this statement, we may cite line 561 (p. 27),

which is translated,

This is not paraphrase; it is sheer misapprehension of the Old English.

A similar misapprehension is seen in line 15 of the extract,

which we are asked to accept as a translation for

The verse of von Wolzogen’s translation is the poorest of the German attempts at imitative measures. The translator is obliged at times to append footnotes explaining the scansion of his lines (see pp. 33, 34, 65, 91). The cesura is frequently not in evidence (cf. lines 14 and 22, both of which are also metrically incorrect); the lines are often deficient in length (p. 29, line 26; p. 31, line 19; p. 32, line 19).

ARNOLD’S EDITION

Beowulf, a heroic poem of the eighth century, with a translation, notes, and appendix, by Thomas Arnold, M.A. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1876. 8^o, pp. xliii, 223.

Fourth English Translation. Prose.

Circumstances of Publication.

No edition of the text of Beowulf had appeared in England since the work of Thorpe1, now twenty years old. The textual criticism of the Germans had, meanwhile, greatly advanced the interpretation of the poem. Grein’s text of the poem had passed into a second, and Heyne’s into a third, edition. There was an opportunity, therefore, for an improved English edition which should incorporate the results of German scholarship. This edition Mr. Thomas Arnold (1823–1900) undertook to supply.

Relation of the Parts.

The Introduction contained a new theory of the origin of the poem2. But the important part of the book was the text and translation. There is no glossary3. The notes are at the bottom of the page. Here glossarial, textual, and literary information is bundled together. There is a very inadequate bibliography in the Introduction.

Nature of the Translation.

The translation is a literal prose version, printed under the text. It resembles Kemble’s work4, rather than Thorpe’s5. It eschews unwieldy compounds, and makes no attempt to acquire an archaic flavor. Supplied words are bracketed.

Criticism of the Text.

Arnold had access to the MS., and gave the most thorough description of it that had yet appeared. But, strangely enough, he did not make it the basis of his edition. He speaks of a ‘partial collation’ of the MS., but this appears to have been nothing more than a transcription of certain fragmentary parts of the MS. One of these passages is printed in the Introduction, where it is referred to as an ‘exact transcript’; yet, in collating it with the Zupitza Autotypes, I have found the following errors:—

Line 22196, þeowes for þeofes.

2220, biorn for beorna.

2211, geweoldum for ge weoldum.

2223, b for þ.

2225, wea . . . for weal . . .

2226, inwlitode, inwatode for mwatide.

Of course the faded condition of the MS. offers some excuse for one or two of these errors, but, if we encounter mistakes in a short transcript professedly exact, what would have been the fate of the text had the entire MS. been collated?

Professor Garnett7 has noted that Arnold’s text was taken from Thorpe’s, with some changes to suit the 1857 text of Grein. In order to test the accuracy of these statements I have made a collation of the texts of Arnold, Thorpe, and the MS. The list of errors in Thorpe’s text, which I have mentioned in a discussion of that work8, is repeated bodily in Arnold’s. Yet there was no excuse at this time for the retention of many of these readings. Grundtvig9 had corrected several of them as early as 1861 by his collation of the Thorkelin transcripts10; Heyne had got rid of them by collating Thorpe’s work with Kemble’s11 and Grundtvig’s. Arnold makes almost no reference to the work of Heyne, and incorporates none of his emendations. He also overlooked Grein’s 1867 text, which contained new readings and a glossary. Arnold himself did not emend the text in a single instance.

Extract.

VIII.

Hunferth spake, the son of Ecglaf, who sat at the feet of the master of the Scyldings; he unbound the secret counsel of his malice. The expedition of Beowulf, the valiant mariner, was to him a great cause of offence; for that he allowed not that any other man on the earth should ever appropriate more deeds of fame under heaven than he himself. ‘Art thou that Beowulf who strove against Breca in a swimming-match on the broad sea? where ye two for emulation explored the waves, and for foolish boasting ventured your lives in the deep water. Nor could any man, either friend or foe, warn you off from your perilous adventure. Then ye two rowed on the sea, where with your arms [outspread] ye covered the ocean-stream, measured the sea-ways, churned up [the water] with your hands, glided over the deep; the sea was tossing with waves, the icy wintry sea. Ye two toiled for seven nights in the watery realm; he overcame thee in the match, he had more strength. Then, at dawn of morn, the sea cast him up on [the coast of] the Heathoreamas; thence he, dear in the sight of his people, sought his loved native soil, the land of the Brondings, the fair safe burgh where he was the owner of folk, burgh, and precious jewels.’ —Pages 37, 38.

Criticism of the Translation.

The translation is literal, and its value is therefore in direct ratio to the value of the text, which has been discussed above.

BOTKINE’S TRANSLATION

Beowulf, Épopée Anglo-Saxonne. Traduite en français, pour la première fois, d’après le texte original par L. Botkine, Membre de la Société Nationale havraise d’Études diverses. Havre: Lepelletier, 1877. 8^o, pp. 108.

First French Translation. Prose.

Old English Studies in France.

The only attention that Beowulf had received in France prior to this time was in the work of Sandras, De Carminibus Cædmoni adiudicatis1. Other scholars, if they devoted themselves to English at all, studied chiefly the later periods of the literature2. In 1867 the author of the article on Beowulf in Larousse’s Dictionary could say, ‘Le poème n’est pas connu en France.’ In 1876 Botkine published a historical and critical analysis of the poem3. This was the first scholarly attention that the poem received in France. In the following year Botkine’s translation appeared.

France has added nothing to our knowledge of Beowulf; there has never been another translation, nor even a reprint of Botkine’s. There has been no further scholarly work done on the poem; and the principal literary notices of it, such as Taine’s and Jusserand’s, have been notoriously unsympathetic. The genius of Old English poetry is at the furthest possible remove from that of the French.

Aim of the Translation.

It will be made evident in the section that follows on the nature of Botkine’s translation that his work could never have been intended for scholars. Had it been so intended, the translator would have rendered more literally. His introduction4 proves that the book was addressed to the general reader rather than the student of Old English.

The Introduction deals with the nature of Old English poetry, and makes historical and critical remarks on the Beowulf. There are occasional notes explanatory of the text.

In his critical work the author is chiefly indebted to Grein5 and Heyne6.

Nature of the Translation.

The translation, which is in prose, is characterized, as the author himself admits, by extreme freedom and occasional omission of words and phrases. The author’s defence of these may be given here:—

‘Je crois devoir me disculper, en présentant cette première traduction française de Beowulf, du double reproche qui pourrait m’être adressé d’avoir supprimé des passages du poëme et de n’en avoir pas suffisamment respecté la lettre. D’abord je dois dire que les passages que j’ai supprimés (il y en a fort peu) sont ou très obscurs ou d’une superfluité choquante. Ensuite, il m’a semblé qu’en donnant une certaine liberté à ma traduction et en évitant autant que possible d’y mettre les redites et les périphrases de l’original anglo-saxon, je la rendrais meilleure et plus conforme à l’esprit véritable de l’œuvre. Est-ce sacrifier du reste la fidélité d’une traduction que d’épargner au public la lecture de détails le plus souvent bizarres et inintelligibles? N’est-il pas plus logique d’en finir de suite avec des artifices poétiques inconnus à nos littératures modernes, plutôt que de vouloir s’escrimer en vain à les reproduire en français? Et alors même qu’on poursuivrait jusqu’au bout une tâche si ingrate, pourrait-on se flatter en fin de compte d’avoir conservé au poëme son cachet si indiscutable d’originalité? Non certes.’ —Avertissement, p. 3.

‘Il ne faut pas oublier que, la langue française différant complètement par ses racines de l’anglo-saxon, il ne m’a pas été permis d’éluder les difficultés de l’original comme on a pu le faire parfois en anglais et en allemand.’ —Note, p. 4.

It has been customary, in speaking of the work of M. Botkine, to call attention to the numerous omissions. This is misleading. The passages which the translator has omitted are not the obscure episodes or the long digressions, but the metaphors, the parenthetical phrases, and especially kennings and similar appositives.

For example, the original has:—

which Botkine renders:—

The principal passages which Botkine omits entirely are: 1002b-1008a; 1057b-1062; 1263–1276; 1679–1686.

Text Used.

The author seems to have been well acquainted with the scholarly work done on Beowulf up to his time. He mentions in his Notes the interpretations of Grein, Grundtvig7, Ettmüller8, Thorpe9, and Kemble10. He appears to follow, in general, the text of Heyne, not, however, invariably.

Extract.

IX.

Hunferth, fils d’Ecglaf, qui était assis aux pieds du prince des Scyldingas, parla ainsi (l’expédition de Beowulf11 le remplissait de chagrin, parce qu’il ne voulait pas convenir qu’aucun homme12 eût plus de gloire13 que lui-même):

‘N’es-tu pas le Beowulf qui essaya ses forces à la nage sur la mer immense avec Breca quand, par bravade, vous avez tenté les flots et que vous avez follement hasardé votre vie dans l’eau profonde? Aucun homme, qu’il fût ami ou ennemi, ne put vous empêcher d’entreprendre ce triste voyage.—Vous avez nagé alors sur la mer14, vous avez suivi les sentiers de l’océan. L’hiver agitait les vagues15. Vous êtes restés en détresse pendant sept nuits sous la puissance des flots, mais il t’a vaincu dans la joûte parce qu’il avait plus de force que toi. Le matin, le flot le porta sur Heatho-ræmas et il alla visiter sa chère patrie16 le pays des Brondingas, où il possédait le peuple, une ville et des trésors. Le fils de Beanstan accomplit entièrement la promesse qu’il t’avait faite.’

Criticism of the Extract and Translation.

If the translation is compared with the text, the reader will be struck by the characteristic beauty of the words omitted. We may agree with the translator regarding the difficulty of rendering compound and kenning into French, and yet the very absence of an attempt to do this jeopardizes the value of the translation more than the omission of many episodes, for it brings it dangerously near to paraphrase. ‘Vous avez nagé alors sur la mer, vous avez suivi les sentiers de l’océan,’ cannot possibly be called a translation of—

ll. 512, ff.

A part of the story has been thrown away with the adjectives. The force and beauty of the passage are gone.

But there is another danger in this paraphrastic method. In omitting words and phrases, the translator will often misinterpret his original. This is especially true of Botkine’s work in the obscure episodes where he wishes to make the meaning perfectly clear. In attempting to simplify the Old English, he departs from the original sense. Instances of this may be brought forward from the Finn episode:

ll. 1089 ff.

The idea is misinterpreted in Botkine’s—

Le fils de Folcwalda (stipulait qu’il) leur ferait chaque jour une distribution de trésors. (p. 50.)

Again, at line 1117 it is said of the lady—

meaning that the lady stood by the body (shoulder) of the corpse as it lay on the pyre. Botkine makes of this—

‘Elle poussait des lamentations en s’appuyant sur le bras de son fils.’ (p. 50.)

The rendering is not without its amusing features, chiefly illustrations of the inability of the French language to accommodate itself to typically Germanic expressions. Thus when Hrothgar says what is the equivalent of ‘Thanks be to God for this blessed sight,’ Botkine puts into his mouth the words: ‘Que le Tout-Puissant reçoive mes profonds remercîments pour ce spectacle!’ —which might have been taken from a diplomatic note.

LUMSDEN’S TRANSLATION

Beowulf, an Old English Poem, translated into Modern Rhymes, by Lieut.-Colonel H. W. Lumsden1. London: C. Kegan Paul & Co., 1881. 8^o, pp. xx, 114.

Beowulf, an Old English Poem, translated into Modern Rhymes, by Lieut.-Colonel H. W. Lumsden, late Royal Artillery. Second edition, revised and corrected. London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Co., 1883. 8^o, pp. xxx, 179.

Fifth English Translation. Ballad Measures.

Differences between the two Editions, and Indebtedness to Preceding Scholars.

In the first edition of the translation a number of passages were omitted. Some of these omissions were owing to corrupt text, some to extreme obscurity of the original, and some merely to the fact that the original was deemed uninteresting. The principal omissions were: 83–86; 767–770; 1724–1758; 1931–1963; 2061–2062; 2214–2231; 2475; 2930–2932; 3150–3156. These passages were inserted in the second edition.

‘In this edition I have endeavoured to remove some of the blunders which disfigured its predecessor. . . . Some parts have been entirely rewritten, and the passages formerly omitted . . . have been inserted. . . . A few notes have been added; and the introduction has been materially altered and, I hope, improved.’ —Preface to the Second Edition, p. v.

Aim and Nature of the Translation.

Lumsden’s desire was to produce a readable version of the poem. Thus his work resembles that of Wackerbarth2; and, like Wackerbarth, he couched his translation in ballad measures. Lumsden does not vary his measure, but preserves the iambic heptameter throughout. His lines rime in couplets.

No attempt is made to preserve alliteration or archaic diction.

The Introduction and Notes contain popular expositions of the work of preceding scholars. Several of the Notes are original and well worth while (see Notes A, C, G, M).

Texts Used.

The translation is based on Grein’s text of 18573 and Arnold’s text (1876)4. Garnett has shown5 that Lumsden ignored the 1867 text of Grein and the editions of Heyne. These defects were remedied to some extent in the second edition. Lumsden himself never emends the text.

Extract6.

IV. Hunferd and Beowulf.

Criticism of the Translation.

The extract illustrates the paraphrastic nature of parts of the translation. Lumsden frequently seems to feel it necessary to read a meaning into the obscure lines and passages that do not easily lend themselves to translation; cf. lines 11, 12. At line 2258 Lumsden translates:—

The Old English from which this passage is taken reads:—

The passage is certainly obscure, and the readings are not all undoubted, but the words can never be tortured into meaning what Lumsden tries to make them mean.

But it would be manifestly unfair to judge a translation addressed to the general reader merely by scholarly tests. The work must make its appeal as a literary rendering.

The propriety of adopting a ballad measure may be questioned. Probably no measure could be found more unlike the Old English lines. Moreover, by reason of its long association with purely popular poetry, it constantly suggests the commonplace and the trivial. But above all, it is reminiscent of a medievalism wholly different from that of Beowulf.

The saving grace of the ballad measure is its readableness. It is rather effective in passages not too dignified, calling for action. But in passages of elevation the line is found wanting:—

But, like Wackerbarth’s, Lumsden’s translation had the advantage of being readable.

GARNETT’S TRANSLATION

Beowulf: An Anglo-Saxon Poem, and the Fight at Finnsburg, translated by James M. Garnett, M.A., LL.D., Boston, U.S.A.: published by Ginn, Heath, & Co., 1882. 8^o, pp. xl, 107.

Second Edition, Ginn, Heath, & Co., 1885. 8^o, pp. xlvi, 110.

Third Edition, Ginn & Co., 1892. Reprinted 1899. 8^o, pp. liii, 110.

Fourth Edition, 1900.

Sixth English Translation. Imitative Measures.

Differences between the Editions.

In the second edition the translation was collated with the Grein-Wülker text, and wherever necessary, with the Zupitza Autotypes. Additions were made to the bibliography:—

‘I have revised certain passages with a view to greater accuracy, but I have not changed the plan of the work, for that would have necessitated the re-writing of the whole translation.’ —Preface to the second edition.

The third and fourth editions are simple reprints, with some additions to the bibliography.

Circumstances of Publication.

As has been pointed out above in the sections on Arnold1 and Lumsden2, no satisfactory literal translation of Beowulf existed in English. Furthermore, an American translation had never appeared. It was with a view to presenting the latest German interpretations of the poem that Garnett prepared his literal version of the poem. The original draft of the translation was made at St. John’s College, Md., in the session of 1878–79.—Preface to first edition.

Texts Used.

The translation is based on Grein’s text of 1867. Notes are added showing the variants from Heyne’s text of 1879. In the second edition notes are added showing the variants from the Grein-Wülker text of 1883.

Method of Translation.

The translation is intended for ‘the general reader’ and for the ‘aid of students of the poem.’ —Preface to second edition.

The translation is a literal line-for-line version. Of this feature of his work Professor Garnett says:—

‘This involves naturally much inversion and occasional obscurity, and lacks smoothness; but it seemed to me to give the general reader a better idea of the poem than a mere prose translation would do, in addition to the advantage of literalness. While it would have been easy, by means of periphrasis and freer translation, to mend some of the defects chargeable to the line-for-line form, the translation would have lacked literalness, which I regarded as the most important object.’ —Preface to the first edition.

Nature of the Verse-form.

‘In respect to the rhythmical form, I have endeavored to preserve two accents to each half-line, with cæsura, and while not seeking alliteration, have employed it purposely wherever it readily presented itself. I considered that it mattered little whether the feet were iambi or trochees, anapæsts or dactyls, the preservation of the two accents being the main point, and have freely made use of all the usual licences in Early English verse. . . . To attain this point I have sometimes found it necessary to place unemphatic words in accented positions, and words usually accented in unaccented ones, which licence can also be found in Early English verse. . . . While the reader of modern English verse may sometimes be offended by the ruggedness of the rhythm, it is hoped that the Anglo-Saxon scholar will make allowances for the difficulty of reproducing, even approximately, the rhythm of the original. The reproduction of the sense as closely as possible had to be kept constantly in view, even to the detriment of the smoothness of the rhythm.’ —Preface to the first edition.

Extract.

III.

Hunferth’s taunt. The swimming-match with Breca. Joy in Heorot.

Criticism of the Translation.

The translation, in its revised form, is throughout a faithful version of the original text. The fault of Garnett’s translation is the fault of all merely literal translations—inadequacy to render fully the content of the original. The rendering may be word for word, but it will not be idea for idea. Examples of this inadequacy may be given from the printed extract. ‘Grief’ in line 502 is a very insufficient rendering of æf-þunca, a unique word which suggests at once vexation, mortification, and jealousy. Had the poet simply meant to express the notion of grief, he would have used sorh, cearu, or some other common word. In line 508 ‘pride’ hardly gives full expression to the idea of wlence, which signifies not only pride, but vain pride, of empty end. In line 517 ‘conquered’ is insufficient as a translation of oferflāt, which means to overcome in swimming, to outswim.

Examples of this sort can be brought forward from any part of the poem. At line 2544 Garnett translates—

a translation of—

Here ‘hnitan fēðan’ refers to the swift clash in battle of two armed hosts, a notion which is ill borne out by the distributive ‘warriors’ and the vague ‘contended.’

At line 2598 we find—

for

which, whatever be the meaning of ‘bugon,’ is surely a misleading translation.

The nature of the verse has been sufficiently illustrated by the quotations from the author’s preface. It would seem from the way in which the measure is used that it was a kind of second thought, incident upon the use of a line-for-line translation. It is hard to read the lines as anything but prose, and, if they appeared in any other form upon the page, it is to be questioned whether any one would have guessed that they were intended to be imitative.

Reception of Garnett’s Translation.

Garnett’s volume had a flattering reception. The book received long and respectful reviews from the Germans. Professor Child and Henry Sweet expressed their approbation. The book has passed through four editions. This cordial welcome has been due in large measure to the increasing attention given the poem in American colleges and secondary schools. Being strictly literal, the book has been of value as a means of interpreting the poem.

GRION’S TRANSLATION

Beovulf, poema epico anglosassone del vii secolo, tradotto e illustrato dal Dott. Cav. Giusto Grion, Socio Ordinario.

In Atti della Reale Accademia Lucchese di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti. Tomo XXII. Lucca: Tipografia Giusti, 1883. 8^o, pp. 197–379.

First Italian Translation. Imitative Measures.

In the Italian text, all apostrophes are spaced as in the original.

Contents.

Full discussions of (1) Mito; (2) Storia; (3) Letteratura. The latter is a fairly complete bibliography of what had been done on Beowulf up to this time.

Author’s Preliminary Remarks.

‘Il poema consiste di 3183 versi fra cui alcuni in frammenti che noi abbiamo cercato di completare senza alterare lettera del testo. Una mano recente lo ha diviso in 43 canti, detti in ags. fitte; ne notiamo il numero anche nella versione. I versi che il Müllenhoff reputa interpolati, sono disposti in linee rientranti; quelli attributi ad A portano di più questa lettera nella versione nostra interlineare, che segue la parola del testo in maniera da mantenervi anche la sintassi, e sì che nessuna parola d’un verso prenda posto in un’ altra riga. Le parentesi quadre [ ] segnano nel testo riempiture di lacune. Nella versione sono queste segnate per lettere corsive.’ —Prefazione, p. 251.

Texts Used.

The translator makes use of all the texts and commentaries that had appeared up to his time, and even goes so far as to emend the text for himself (cf. lines 65, 665, 1107, 2561, 3150).

The Notes are rather full. They are sometimes merely explanatory; sometimes there are discussions of the MS. readings, of proposed emendations, of history, myth, &c.

Method of Translation.

The translation is literal; the medium an imitative measure of four principal stresses, varied occasionally by the expanded line. The diction is simple.

Extract.

VIII.

Criticism of the Translation.

The present writer cannot attempt a literary criticism of the translation.

In purpose and method this version may be compared with that of Kemble1 and of Schaldemose2. In each case the translator was introducing the poem to a foreign public, and it was therefore well that the translation should be literal in order that it might assist in the interpretation of the original. There has been no further work done on the poem in Italy3.

While the verse is not strictly imitative in the sense that it preserves exactly the Old English system of versification, it aims to maintain the general movement of the original lines. The four stresses are kept, save where a fifth is used to avoid monotony. These ‘expanded lines’ are much commoner in the Italian than in the Old English.

WICKBERG’S TRANSLATION

Beowulf, en fornengelsk hjeltedikt, öfversatt af Rudolf Wickberg. Westervik, C. O. Ekblad & Comp., 1889. 4^o, pp. 48, double columns.

First Swedish Translation. Imitative Measures.

Aim of the Volume.

The translator begins his introduction with a discussion of the importance of Beowulf as a historical document. For this reason he is especially interested in the episodes:—

‘This important historical interest may then explain the reason for translating the poem into Swedish, and also serve as an excuse for the fact that in the translation the poetic form has not been considered of first importance.’ —Inledning, p. 3.

Nature of the Translation.

‘In the translation I have endeavored to make the language readable and modern. A translation out of an ancient tongue ought never to strive after archaic flavor in point of words and expressions. Since the poet wrote in the language of his day, the translation ought also to use contemporary language. . . . I have tried to follow the original faithfully, but not slavishly. For the sake of clearness the half-lines have often been transposed. . . . The rhythm is still more irregular than the Old English. Alliteration has generally been avoided.’ —Inledning, p. 6.

Texts Used.

The author constructs his own text. He explains (p. 6) that he has in general taken the MS. as the basis of his text. He has emended by making those changes which ‘seemed most necessary or most probable.’ In places where this departure from the MS. has been made, he italicizes the words of his translation.

Extract.

8.

EARLE’S TRANSLATION

The Deeds of Beowulf, an English Epic of the Eighth Century, done into Modern Prose, with an Introduction and Notes by John Earle, M.A., rector of Swanswick, Rawlinsonian Professor of Anglo-Saxon in the University of Oxford. At the Clarendon Press, 1892 (February). 8^o, pp. c, 203.

Seventh English Translation. Prose.

Circumstances of Publication.

Sixteen years had elapsed since the publication of a scholarly translation in England—for Lumsden’s1 can hardly be said to count as such. In the meantime Heyne’s text2 had passed into a fifth edition (1888); Wülker’s revision of Grein’s Bibliothek had appeared with a new text of Beowulf (1881); Zupitza’s Autotypes of the MS. had appeared 1882, making it possible to ascertain exactly what was in the original text of the poem; the studies of Sievers3, Cosijn4, Kluge5, and Bugge6 had been published, containing masterly discussions of text revision. Some of these materials had been used by Garnett in his translation, but the majority of them were of later date.

Aim of the Translation.

Nothing is said in the introduction respecting the aim of the translation; but it is evident from the Notes that the purpose was twofold—to present the latest interpretation of the text, and to afford a literary version of the poem.

Texts Used.

‘This translation was originally made from the Fourth Edition of Moritz Heyne’s text. His Fifth Edition came out in 1888, and I think I have used it enough to become acquainted with all the changes that Dr. Adolf Socin, the new editor, has introduced. Where they have appeared to me to be improvements, I have modified my translation accordingly.’ —Preface.

But the translator does not depend slavishly upon his text. He frequently uses emendations suggested by the scholars mentioned above, especially those of Professor Sophus Bugge in Studien über das Beowulfsepos7; see lines 457, 871, 900, 936, 1875, 2275.

The Introduction presents a new theory of the origin of the poem. The notes are especially interesting because of the large body of quotations cited for literary comparison and for the light they throw on Old Germanic and medieval customs.

Extract.

VIII.

Unferth the king’s orator is jealous. He baits the young adventurer, and in a scoffing speech dares him to a night-watch for Grendel. Beowulf is angered, and thus he is drawn out to boast of his youthful feats.

Unferth made a speech, Ecglaf’s son; he who sate at the feet of the Scyldings’ lord, broached a quarrelsome theme—the adventure of Beowulf the high-souled voyager was great despite to him, because he grudged that any other man should ever in the world achieve more exploits under heaven than he himself:— ‘Art thou that Beowulf, he who strove with Breca on open sea in swimming-match, where ye twain out of bravado explored the floods, and foolhardily in deep water jeoparded your lives? nor could any man, friend or foe, turn the pair of you from the dismal adventure! What time ye twain plied in swimming, where ye twain covered with your arms the awful stream, meted the sea-streets, buffeted with hands, shot over ocean; the deep boiled with waves, a wintry surge. Ye twain in the realm of waters toiled a se’nnight; he at swimming outvied thee, had greater force. Then in morning hour the swell cast him ashore on the Heathoram people, whence he made for his own patrimony, dear to his Leeds he made for the land of the Brondings, a fair stronghold, where he was lord of folk, of city, and of rings. All his boast to thee-ward, Beanstan’s son soothly fulfilled. Wherefore I anticipate for thee worse luck—though thou wert everywhere doughty in battle-shocks, in grim war-tug—if thou darest bide in Grendel’s way a night-long space.’

Criticism of the Translation.

As a whole, the translation may fairly be called faithful. The emendations from which Professor Earle sometimes renders are always carefully chosen, and the discussions of obscure lines in the poem are of real scholarly interest. But this is not always true of the simpler passages of the poem. These are often strained to make them square with the translator’s personal notions. Thus, at line 1723, Earle reads for

adding in a note, ‘(In this passage) the living poet steps forward out of his Hrothgar, and turns his eyes to the prince for whom he made it up’ (p. 168). Now this is nothing more than an attempt on the part of the translator to wring from the Old English lines some scrap of proof for the peculiar theory that he holds of the origin of the poem.

Similarly, he often reads into a single word more than it can possibly bear. At line 371 he translates—

But ‘crown’ is an impossible rendering of ‘helm,’ which is here used figuratively to denote the idea of protection8, rather than the idea of the crowning glory of kingship. Further, in the same passage, 375–6, heard eafora (bold son), is wrenched into meaning ‘grown-up son.’ These are but two examples of what is common throughout the translation.

Diction.

The archaic style used by Professor Earle cannot be regarded as highly felicitous, since it mixes the diction of various ages. Here are Old English archaisms like ‘Leeds’ and ‘burnie’; here are expressions like ‘escheat,’ ‘page’ (attendant), ‘emprize,’ ‘bombard’ (drinking-vessel), ‘chivalry.’ Here are such specialized words as ‘harpoon,’ ‘belligerent,’ ‘pocket-money,’ and combinations like ‘battailous grip’; while throughout the entire translation are scattered modern colloquialisms like ‘boss’ (master), ‘tussle,’ ‘war-tug.’

The reason for these anomalies is evident—the translator wishes to imitate the remoteness of the original style. The style is certainly remote—at times almost as remote from the language of to-day as is the style of Beowulf itself.

J. L. HALL’S TRANSLATION

Beowulf, an Anglo-Saxon Epic Poem, translated by John Lesslie Hall. Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 1892 (May 7).

Reprinted 1900. 8^o, pp. xviii, 110.

Eighth English Translation. Imitative Measures.

Circumstances of Publication.

Presented to the Philosophical Faculty of Johns Hopkins University in candidacy for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by John Lesslie Hall, late Professor in the college of William and Mary.

Aim of the Translation.

‘The work is addressed to two classes of readers. . . . The Anglo-Saxon scholar he [the translator] hopes to please by adhering faithfully to the original. The student of English literature he aims to interest by giving him, in modern garb, the most ancient epic of our race.’ —Preface, vii.

Nature of the Translation.

The translation is in imitative measures and in archaic style.

‘The effort has been made to give a decided flavor of archaism to the translation. All words not in keeping with the spirit of the poem have been avoided. Again, though many archaic words have been used, there are none, it is believed, which are not found in standard modern poetry. . . .

‘The measure used in the present translation is believed to be as near a reproduction of the original as modern English affords. . . . The four stresses of the Anglo-Saxon verse are retained, and as much thesis and anacrusis is allowed as is consistent with a regular cadence. Alliteration has been used to a large extent; but it was thought that modern ears would hardly tolerate it in every line. End-rhyme has been used occasionally; internal rhyme, sporadically. . . .

‘What Gummere calls the “rime-giver” has been studiously kept; viz., the first accented syllable in the second half-verse always carries the alliteration; and the last accented syllable alliterates only sporadically. . . .

‘No two accented syllables have been brought together, except occasionally after a cæsural pause. . . . Or, scientifically speaking, Sievers’s C type has been avoided as not consonant with the plan of translation.’ —Preface, viii, ix.

Text.

‘The Heyne-Socin text and glossary have been closely followed. Occasionally a deviation has been made. . . . Once in a while . . . (the translator) has added a conjecture of his own to the emendations quoted from the criticisms of other students of the poem.’ —Preface, vii.

The footnotes which contain the conjectural readings are interesting, and in one or two cases valuable additions to the suggested emendations (cf. p. 15; p. 103, note 3).

Extract.

IX.

Unferth taunts Beowulf.

Criticism of the Translation.

The translation is faithful, but not literal. The chief difference, for example, between this and the translation by Garnett is that Hall makes an attempt to preserve the poetic value of the Old English words. He is never satisfied with the dictionary equivalent of an Old English expression. Thus, in the extract given above, ‘from vainest vaunting’ is given as a translation of dol-gilpe—a great improvement over Garnett’s rendering, ‘for pride.’ Similarly, ‘mixing and stirring’ is given as a translation of mundum brugdon. This method often leads the translator some distance, perhaps too great a distance, from the Old English. The following may serve as examples of the heightened color that Hall gives to the Old English forms:—

548, ‘the north-wind whistled, fierce in our faces,’ for norþan-wind heaðo-grim ondhwearf. 557, ‘my obedient blade,’ for hilde-bille. 568, ‘foam-dashing currents,’ for brontne ford. 587, ‘with cold-hearted cruelty thou killedst thy brothers,’ for ðū þīnum brōðrum tō banan wurde. 606, ‘the sun in its ether robes,’ for sunne swegl-wered. 838, ‘in the mist of the morning,’ for on morgen. 1311, ‘As day was dawning in the dusk of the morning,’ for ǣr-dæge.

Perhaps these paraphrastic renderings are what Dr. Hall is referring to when he says in his preface, regarding the nature of the translation, ‘Occasionally some loss has been sustained; but, on the other hand, a gain has here and there been made.’

As for the archaism, that is well enough for those who like it. It is never so strange as that of Earle, or the marvelous diction of William Morris. But it is not, therefore, dignified or clear. How much dignity and clarity a translator has a right to introduce into his rendering is a matter of opinion. Mr. Hall was quite conscious of what he was doing, and doubtless regarded his diction as well suited to convey the original Beowulf spirit.

The chief criticism of the verse is that it is often not verse at all. Many passages are indistinguishable from prose. This is a stricture that cannot be passed on the Old English, nor on the best modern imitations of it.

There might be an excuse for some of this freedom in blank verse, but in measures imitative of the Old English it is utterly out of place. There is always a pause at the end of a line in Old English; run-on lines are uncommon. There is not an example in Beowulf of an ending so light as ‘the’ or ‘a’ in the verses quoted above.

HOFFMANN’S TRANSLATION

Beówulf. Aeltestes deutsches Heldengedicht. Aus dem Angelsächsischen übertragen von P. Hoffmann. Züllichau. Verlag von Herm. Liebich (1893?). 8^o, pp. iii, 183.

*Zweite Ausgabe, Hannover, Schaper, 1900.

Sixth German Translation. Nibelungen Measures.

The Translator.

In Minerva (1902), P. Hoffmann is recorded as ‘Ord. Professor’ of Philosophy and Pedagogy at Gent.

Aim of the Volume.

The translator desired to present a rendering of the poem that should attract the general reader. He regarded Simrock’s version as too literal and archaic1, the version of von Wolzogen as not sufficiently clear and beautiful2, and the version of Heyne as not sufficiently varied in form3 (Vorwort, i). He regards the Beowulf as of great importance in inspiring patriotism—he always calls the poem German—and even offers a comparison of Beowulf with Emperor William I. With the scholarship of his subject the author hardly seems concerned.

Text, and Relation of Parts.

The translation is founded on Grein’s text of 18674.

In addition to the translation, the volume contains articles on the history of the text, origin, the Germanic hero-tales, the episodes, the esthetic value of the poem. These are decidedly subordinate in interest to the translation.

Nature of the Translation.

The translation is in the so-called Nibelungen measures. Archaisms and unnatural compounds are avoided.

The Finnsburg fragment is inserted in the text at line 1068, p. 44 of the volume. The episode is furnished with a beginning and ending original with Hoffmann.

Extract.

Viertes Abenteuer.

VON BEOWULF’S SCHWIMMFAHRT.

Criticism of the Translation.

Hoffmann’s translation is certainly not a contribution to scholarship. It is a sufficient condemnation of the volume to quote the words of the Vorwort:—

‘Die Uebersetzungen von Grein, Holder und Möller sind mir nicht zugänglich gewesen, auch wie es scheint, nicht sehr bekannt.’

It is not surprising that Hoffmann is unacquainted with the translations of Holder and Möller, as these works have never been made; but that a German translator should ignore the version of Grein is a revelation indeed.

Even though a translator may not care to embody in his work any new interpretations, it is nevertheless his duty to base his translation on the best text that he can find. But apparently Hoffmann had never heard of the Heyne editions of the text, nor of the Grein-Wülker Bibliothek. He bases his translation on Grein’s text of 1867. He evidently considered it a sufficient recommendation of his work to associate with it the name of Grein, not troubling himself to discover what advance had been made upon the work of that scholar.

Examples of antiquated renderings may be brought forward:—

P. 1, line 1, Wie grosse Ruhmesthaten.

2, line 1, So soll mit Gaben werben im Vaterhause schon.

21, line 15 (see Extract), Vom Wintersturm getrieben Hoch auf die Wellen schäumten.

84, line 3, Mothrytho.

Petty inaccuracies due to the nature of the translation also appear. An example of this is seen on page 3, at the opening of the first canto—

Literary Criticism.

The translation resembles the work of Lumsden5 and Wackerbarth6 in affording a version of the tale easily readable. And the same criticism may be passed on the work of Hoffmann that was passed on the two Englishmen. The style and medium chosen are not well fitted to render the spirit of the poem. The Nibelungenlied is a poem of the late twelfth century. The Beowulf at latest belongs to the eighth. To choose for the translation of Beowulf, therefore, a medium surcharged with reminiscence of a time, place, and style quite different from those of the original is certainly an error. It may find an audience where another and more faithful rendering would fail; but it will never win the esteem of scholars. In his introduction Hoffmann calls attention to the lack of variety in blank verse, but surely it does not have the monotony inherent in a recurring rime and strophe.

Again, rime and strophe force upon the author the use of words and phrases needed to pad out the verse or stanza. Attention must also be called to the fact that the original seldom affords a natural pause at the exact point demanded by the use of a strophic form. See the close of the following stanzas in the Extract: I, III, IV, V. One effect of the forced pause is that there is confusion in the use of kennings, which often have to do duty as subject in one stanza and as object in another stanza.

Commonplace expressions, incident perhaps upon the use of the measure, are not unfrequent. Thus

translates

Traces of this are also found in the extract; see beginning of last stanza.

In conclusion, it may be said that Hoffmann’s version marks an advance in one way only, readableness; and in this it is hardly superior to Heyne’s rendering, which has the advantage of scholarship.

MORRIS AND WYATT’S TRANSLATION

Colophon: Here endeth the story of Beowulf done out of the old English tongue by William Morris and A. J. Wyatt, and printed by said William Morris at the Kelmscott Press, Uppermall, Hammersmith, in the county of Middlesex, and finished on the tenth day of January, 1895. Large 4^o, pp. vi, 119.

Troy type. Edition limited to 300 copies on paper and eight on vellum.

Second edition. The Tale of Beowulf, Sometime King of the Folk of the Weder Geats, translated by William Morris and A. J. Wyatt. London and New York: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1895. 8^o, pp. x, 191.

Ninth English Translation. Imitative Measures.

Differences between the First and Second Editions.

In the second edition a title-page is added. The running commentary, printed in rubric on the margin of the first edition, is omitted.

Text Used.

The translation is, in general, conformed to Wyatt’s text of 1894, departing from it in only a few unimportant details.

Part Taken in the Work by Morris and Wyatt respectively.

The matter is fortunately made perfectly clear in Mackail’s Life of William Morris, vol. ii. p. 284:—

‘(Morris) was not an Anglo-Saxon scholar, and to help him in following the original, he used the aid of a prose translation made for him by Mr. A. J. Wyatt, of Christ’s College, Cambridge, with whom he had also read through the original. The plan of their joint labours had been settled in the autumn of 1892. Mr. Wyatt began to supply Morris with his prose paraphrase in February, 1893, and he at once began to “rhyme up,” as he said, “very eager to be at it, finding it the most delightful work.” He was working at it all through the year, and used to read it to Burne-Jones regularly on Sunday mornings in summer.’

The plan of joining with his own the name of his principal teacher was one which Morris had used before when translating from a foreign tongue. He published his rendering of the Volsunga Saga as the work of ‘Eirikr Magnússon and William Morris.’ There is no evidence that Mr. Wyatt had any hand in forming the final draft of the translation. In defending it, Morris took all the responsibility for the book upon himself, and he always spoke of it as his own work. In writing to a German student toward the end of his life Morris spoke of the translation as his own without mentioning Mr. Wyatt1. Nor has Mr. Wyatt shown a disposition to claim a share in the work. In the preface to his edition of the text of Beowulf (Cambridge, 1894), he says:—

‘Mr. William Morris has taken the text of this edition as the basis of his modern metrical rendering of the lay.’ —Page xiii.

Finally, it may be added that the specimens of Mr. Wyatt’s translation printed in the glossary and notes of his book bear no resemblance to the work of Morris.

Morris’s Theory of Translation.

None despised the merely literal rendering of an epic poem more than William Morris. In writing of his version of the Odyssey to Ellis, Morris said: ‘My translation is a real one so far, not a mere periphrase of the original as all the others are.’ In translating an ancient poem, he tried to reproduce the simplicity and remoteness of phrase which he found in his original. He believed it possible, e.g., to suggest the archaic flavor of Homer by adopting a diction that bore the same relation to modern English that the language of Homer bore to that of the age of Pericles. The archaism of the English would represent the archaism of the Greek. This method he used in rendering Vergil and Homer.

But when he approached the translation of Beowulf, he was confronted by a new problem. It was evident that fifteenth-century English was ill-adapted to convey any just notion of eighth-century English. Beowulf required a diction older than that of Sir Thomas Malory or Chaucer. Hence it became necessary to discard the theory altogether, or else to produce another style which should in some true sense be imitative of Beowulf. This latter Morris tried to accomplish by increasing the archaism of his style by every means in his power. This feature is discussed in the following section.

Nature of the Translation.

The translation of Beowulf is written in extremely archaic language. An imitative measure of four principal stresses is used. Wherever possible, the Old English syntax has been preserved (see line 1242); the word-order of the original is retained. The archaic language is wrought of several different kinds of words. In the first place, there is the ‘legitimate archaism,’ such as ‘mickle,’ ‘burg,’ ‘bairn’; there are forms which are more closely associated with the translation of Old English, such as ‘middle-garth,’ ‘ring-stem.’ There are modern words used with the old signification, such as ‘kindly’ (in the sense ‘of the same kind’), ‘won war’ (in the sense ‘wage war’), ‘fret’ (in the sense ‘eat’). Finally, there are forms which are literally translated from Old English: ‘the sight seen once only’ from ansȳn, face, 251; ‘spearman’ from garsecg, ocean (see extract), ‘gift-scat’ from gif-sceatt, gift of money, 378; ‘the Maker’s own making’ from metod-sceaft, doom, 1180. Romance words are excluded whenever possible. A glossary of ‘some words not commonly used now’ is included in the book, but none of the words cited above, save ‘burg,’ is found in it.

Extract.

IX. Unferth contendeth in words with Beowulf.

Criticism of the Translation.

The Morris-Wyatt translation is thoroughly accurate, and is, so to speak, an official commentary on the text of Wyatt’s edition. It is therefore of importance to the student of the Beowulf.

As a literary rendering the translation is disappointing. In the first place, it must be frankly avowed that the diction is frequently so strange that it seems to modern readers well-nigh ridiculous. There are certain sentences which cannot but evoke a smile. Such are: ‘(he) spoke a word backward,’ line 315; ‘them that in Scaney dealt out the scat,’ line 1686.

Secondly, the translation is unreadable. There is an avalanche of archaisms. One example of the extreme obscurity may be given:—

l. 1975–76.

It would seem that the burden of ‘rathe,’ ‘beroomed,’ and ‘withinward,’ were sufficient for any sentence to carry, but we are left to discover for ourselves that ‘rich one’ does not mean rich one, but ruler, that the ‘floor’ is not a floor but a hall, and that the guests are not guests, but the ruler’s own men.

Morris himself was conscious of the obscurity of the work:—

‘For the language of his version Morris once felt it necessary to make an apology. Except a few words, he said, the words used in it were such as he would not hesitate to use in an original poem of his own. He did not add, however, that their effect, if slipped sparingly in amid his own pellucid construction and facile narrative method, would be very different from their habitual use in a translation. . . . As the work advanced, he seems to have felt this himself, and his pleasure in the doing of it fell off.’ —Mackail’s Life, ii. 284–5.