THE TRANSLATIONS OF BEOWULF

PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON THE BEOWULF MANUSCRIPT

The unique manuscript of the Beowulf is preserved in the Cottonian Library of the British Museum. It is contained in the folio designated Cotton Vitellius A. xv, where it occurs ninth in order, filling the folios numbered 129a to 198b, inclusive.

The first recorded notice of the MS. is to be found in Wanley’s Catalog of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts (Oxford, 1705), Volume III of Hickes’s Thesaurus. The poem is thus described:—

‘Tractatus nobilissimus Poeticè scriptus. Præfationis hoc est initium.’

The first nineteen lines follow, transcribed with a few errors.

‘Initium autem primi Capitis sic se habet.’

Lines 53–73, transcribed with a few errors.

‘In hoc libro, qui Poeseos Anglo-Saxonicæ egregium est exemplum, descripta videntur bella quæ Beowulfus quidam Danus, ex Regio Scyldingorum stirpe Ortus, gessit contra Sueciæ Regulos.’ Page 218, col. b, and 219, col. a.

No further notice was taken of the MS. until 1786, when Thorkelin1 made two transcripts of it.

In 1731 there occurred a disastrous fire which destroyed a number of the Cottonian MSS. The Beowulf MS. suffered at this time, its edges being scorched and its pages shriveled. As a result, the edges have chipped away, and some of the readings have been lost. It does not appear, however, that these losses are of so great importance as the remarks of some prominent Old English scholars might lead us to suspect. Their remarks give the impression that the injury which the MS. received in the fire accounts for practically all of the illegible lines. That this is not so may be seen by comparing the Wanley transcript with the Zupitza Autotypes. Writing in 1705, before the Cotton fire, Wanley found two illegible words at line 15—illegible because of fading and rubbing. Of exactly the same nature appear to be the injuries at lines 2220 ff., the celebrated passage which is nearly, if not quite, unintelligible. It would therefore be a safe assumption that such injuries as these happened to the MS. before it became a part of the volume, Vitellius A. xv. The injuries due to scorching and burning are seldom of the first importance.

This point is worth noting. Each succeeding scholar who transcribed the MS., eager to recommend his work, dwelt upon the rapid deterioration of the parchment, and the reliability of his own readings as exact reproductions of what he himself had seen in the MS. before it reached its present ruinous state. The result of this was that the emendations of the editor were sometimes accepted by scholars and translators as the authoritative readings of the MS., when in reality they were nothing but gratuitous additions. This is especially true of Thorpe2, and the false readings which he introduced were never got rid of until the Zupitza Autotypes brought to light the sins of the various editors of the poem. These statements regarding text and MS. will be developed in the following sections of the paper3.

SHARON TURNER’S EXTRACTS

The History of the Manners, Landed Property, Government, Laws, Poetry, Literature, Religion, and Language of the Anglo-Saxons. By Sharon Turner, F.A.S. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, & Orme, 1805.

Being Volume IV of the History of the Anglo-Saxons from their earliest appearance above the Elbe, etc. London, 1799–1805. 8^o, pp. 398–408.

Second Edition, corrected and enlarged. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, & Orme, 1807. 2 vols., 4^o. Beowulf described, Vol. II, pp. 294–303.

Third Edition. London, 1820.

Fourth Edition. London, 1823.

Fifth Edition. (1827?)

Sixth Edition. London, 1836.

Seventh Edition. London, 1852.

Reprints: Paris, 1840; Philadelphia, 1841.

Translation of Extracts from the first two Parts.

Points of Difference between the Various Editions.

A part of this may be stated in the words of the author:—

‘The poem had remained untouched and unnoticed both here and abroad until I observed its curious contents, and in 1805 announced it to the public. I could then give it only a hasty perusal, and from the MS. having a leaf interposed near its commencement, which belonged to a subsequent part, and from the peculiar obscurity which sometimes attends the Saxon poetry, I did not at that time sufficiently comprehend it, and had not leisure to apply a closer attention. But in the year 1818 I took it up again, as I was preparing my third edition, and then made that more correct analysis which was inserted in that and the subsequent editions, and which is also exhibited in the present.’ —Sixth edition, p. 293, footnote.

The statement that the poem had remained untouched and unnoticed is not strictly true. The public had not yet received any detailed information regarding it; but Wanley1 had mentioned the Beowulf in his catalog, and Thorkelin had already made two transcripts of the poem, and was at work upon an edition. Turner, however, deserves full credit for first calling the attention of the English people to the importance of the poem.

In the third edition, of which the author speaks, many improvements were introduced into the digest of the story and some improvements into the text of the translations. Many of these were gleaned from the editio princeps of Thorkelin2. The story is now told with a fair degree of accuracy, although many serious errors remain: e.g. the author did not distinguish the correct interpretation of the swimming-match, an extract of which is given below. The translations are about as faulty as ever, as may be seen by comparing the two extracts. In the first edition only the first part of the poem is treated; in the third, selections from the second part are added.

No further changes were made in later editions of the History.

Detailed information regarding differences between the first three editions may be found below.

Turner, and his Knowledge of Old English.

Sharon Turner (1768–1847) was from early youth devoted to the study of Anglo-Saxon history, literature, and antiquities. His knowledge was largely derived from the examination of original documents in the British Museum3. But the very wealth of the new material which he found for the study of the literature kept him from making a thorough study of it. It is to be remembered that at this time but little was known of the peculiar nature of the Old English poetry. Turner gives fair discussions of the works of Bede and Ælfric, but he knows practically nothing of the poetry. With the so-called Paraphrase of Cædmon he is, of course, familiar; but his knowledge of Beowulf and Judith is derived from the unique, and at that time (1805) unpublished, MS., Cotton Vitellius A. xv. Of the contents of the Exeter Book he knew nothing. The Vercelli Book had not yet been discovered. The materials at hand for his study were a faulty edition of Cædmon and an insufficient dictionary. The author, whose interest was of course primarily in history, was not familiar with the linguistic work of the day. It is, therefore, not surprising that his work was not of the best quality.

Lines in the Poem Translated by Turner.

First edition: 18–40; 47–83a; 199b-279; 320–324; 333–336; 499–517a. In the second edition are added: 1–17; 41–46; 83b-114; 189–199a; 387–497; 522–528. In the third edition are added: 529–531; 535–558; 607–646; 671–674; 720–738; 991–996; 1013–1042; 1060b-1068a; 1159b-1165a; 1168b-1180a; 1215b-1226a; 1240b-1246a; and a few other detached lines.

Turner’s Account of Beowulf in the First Edition of his History.

‘The most interesting remains of the Anglo-Saxon poetry which time has suffered to reach us, are contained in the Anglo-Saxon poem in the Cotton Library, Vitellius A. 15. Wanley mentions it as a poem in which “seem to be described the wars which one Beowulf, a Dane of the royal race of the Scyldingi, waged against the reguli of Sweden4.” But this account of the contents of the MS. is incorrect. It is a composition more curious and important. It is a narration of the attempt of Beowulf to wreck the fæthe or deadly feud on Hrothgar, for a homicide which he had committed. It may be called an Anglo-Saxon epic poem. It abounds with speeches which Beowulf and Hrothgar and their partisans make to each other, with much occasional description and sentiment.’ —Book vi, chap. iv, pp. 398 ff.

The Story of the Poem as Interpreted by Turner.

[Dots indicate the position of the quotations.]

‘It begins with a proemium, which introduces its hero Beowulf to our notice. . . . The poet then states the embarkation of Beowulf and his partisans. . . .’ Turner interprets the prolog as the description of the embarkation of Beowulf on a piratical expedition. The accession of Hrothgar to the throne of the Danes is then described, and the account of his ‘homicide’ is given. This remarkable mistake was caused by the transposition of a sheet from a later part of the poem—the fight with Grendel—to the first section of the poem. The sailing of Beowulf and the arrival in the Danish land are then given. Turner continues: ‘The sixth section exhibits Hrothgar’s conversation with his nobles, and Beowulf’s introduction and address to him. The seventh section opens with Hrothgar’s answer to him, who endeavours to explain the circumstance of the provocation. In the eighth section a new speaker appears, who is introduced, as almost all the personages in the poem are mentioned, with some account of his parentage and character.’ Then follows the extract given below:

After this extract, Turner continues:— ‘It would occupy too much room in the present volume to give a further account of this interesting poem, which well deserves to be submitted to the public, with a translation and with ample notes. There are forty-two sections of it in the Cotton MS., and it ends there imperfectly. It is perhaps the oldest poem of an epic form in the vernacular language of Europe which now exists.’

In the second edition the following lines were added:—

‘After Hunferthe, another character is introduced:

Third Edition.

‘Hunferth, “the son of Ecglaf, who sat at the feet of the lord of the Scyldingi.” He is described as jealous of Beowulf’s reputation, and as refusing to any man more celebrity than himself. He is represented as taunting Beowulf on his exploits as a sea-king or vikingr.

Criticism of the Extracts.

Detailed criticism of the extracts is unnecessary. They are, of course, utterly useless to-day. Sufficient general criticism of the work is found in the preceding sections devoted to a discussion of the author and his knowledge of Old English and of the Beowulf.

In the third edition the author presents some criticisms of Thorkelin’s text; but his own work is quite as faulty as the Icelander’s, and his ‘corrections’ are often misleading.

Turner is to be censured for allowing an account of Beowulf so full of inaccuracy to be reprinted year after year with no attempt at its improvement or even a warning to the public that it had been superseded by later and more scholarly studies.

THORKELIN’S EDITION

De | Danorum | Rebus Gestis Secul III & IV | Poema Danicum Dialecto Anglosaxonica. | Ex Bibliotheca Cottoniana Musaei Britannici | edidit versione lat. et indicibus auxit | Grim. Johnson Thorkelin. Dr J V. | Havniæ Typis Th. E. Rangel. | MDCCXV. 4to, pp. xx, 299, appendix 5.

First Edition. First Translation (Latin).

Circumstances of Publication.

The words of Wanley cited above1 did not pass unnoticed in Denmark. Thorkelin tells us in his introduction that it had long been the desire of Suhm2, Langebeck, Magnusen, and other Danish scholars to inspect the MS. in the British Museum. The following is Thorkelin’s account of his editorial labors:—

‘Via tandem mihi data fuit ad desideratum nimis diu divini vatis Danici incomparabile opus. Arcta etenim, quæ nos et Britannos intercessit amicitia, me allexit, ut, clementissime annuentibus Augustissimis patriæ patribus Christiano VII. et Frederico VI. iter in Britanniam anno seculi præteriti LXXXVI. ad thesauros bibliothecarum Albionensium perscrutandos facerem. . . . A curatoribus, Musæi Britannici, aliarumque Bibliothecarum, potestas mihi data [est] inspiciendi, tractandi, et exscribendi omnia, quæ rebus Danicis lucem affere possent manuscripta. Ad quam rem conficiendam viri nostro præconio majores Josephus Planta et Richardus Southgate dicti Musæi Brit. præfecti in me sua officia humanissime contulerunt. Optimo igitur successu et uberrimo cum fructu domum reversus sum . . .’ (pp. viii, ix).

Thorkelin thus obtained two copies of the poem, one made with his own hand, the other by a scribe ignorant of Old English. These transcripts (still preserved in Copenhagen) formed the basis for Thorkelin’s edition. The account of his studies continues:—

‘Quæcunque igitur possent hoc meum negotium adjuvare, comparare coepi, magnamque librorum copiam unde quaque congessi, quorum opera carmen aggrederer. In hoc me sedulum ita gessi, ut opus totum anno MDCCCVII confecerim, idem brevi editurus . . .’ (p. xv).

Just at this time, unfortunately, Copenhagen was stormed by the English fleet, and Thorkelin’s text and notes were burned with his library. But the transcripts were saved. Thorkelin renewed his labors under the patronage of Bülow, and at length published in 1815.

Thorkelin, and his Interpretation of the Beowulf.

Grimus Johnssen Thorkelin (or Thorkelsson), 1752–1829, is remembered as a scholar in early Germanic history. He had little beside this knowledge and his general acquaintance with Old Germanic languages to recommend him as an editor of the Beowulf. Grundtvig said that the transcript of the Beowulf must have been the work of one wholly ignorant of Old English3. Thorkelin knew nothing of the peculiar style of Old English poetry; he could recognize neither kenning, metaphor, nor compound. He was not even fitted to undertake the transcription of the text, as the following section will make evident.

We have seen how Sharon Turner4 could describe the Beowulf. Thorkelin seems to have been little better fitted to understand the poem, to say nothing of editing it. He failed to interpret some of the simplest events of the story. He did not identify Scyld, nor understand that his body was given up to the sea, but thought that King Beowulf ‘expeditionem suscipit navalem.’ He failed to identify Breca, and thought that Hunferth was describing some piratical voyage of Beowulf’s. He makes Beowulf reply that ‘piratas ubique persequitur et fudit,’ and ‘Finlandiæ arma infert5.’ He regarded Beowulf as the hero of the Sigemund episode. He quite misapprehended the Finn episode, ‘Fin, rex Frisionum, contra Danis pugnat; vincitur; fœdus cum Hrodgaro pangit; fidem frangit; pugnans cadit6.’ He regards Beowulf and a son of Hunferth as participating in that expedition. He failed to identify Hnæf, or Hengest, or Hrothulf, &c.

Extract7.

Criticism of the Text.

In order to show how corrupt the text is, I append a collation of the above passage with the MS. It may be added that the lines are among the simplest in the poem, and call for no emendation. In passages that present any real difficulty, Thorkelin is, if possible, even more at fault.

Line 1, for maleode read maþelode.

4, insert period after Scyldinga.

9, insert period after æfþunca.

13, for middangardes read middangeardes.

15, for þon read þonne.

17, for breccan read brecan (i.e. Brecan).

25, for mic read inc.

27, for mighte read mihte.

37, for wæteris read wæteres.

38, for night read niht.

40, insert period after oferflat.

43, for heaþo Ræmis read heaþoræmes (i.e. Heaþorǣmas).

46, for Swæsne read swæsne · ᛟ · (i.e. ēðel).

54, for sode read soðe.

In the composition of his text Thorkelin made all the errors known to scribes and editors. He misread words and letters of the MS., although he had two transcripts. He dropped letters, combinations of letters, and even whole words. He joined words that had no relation to each other; he broke words into two or even three parts; he ignored compounds. He produced many forms the like of which cannot be found in Old English. One further example of his great carelessness may be given. The first line of the poem, which is written in large capitals in the MS.:—

Thorkelin perversely transcribed:—

and for this combination of syllables he chose the translation:—

There is, of course, no such word as ‘wegar’ in Old English.

Of the necessity of punctuation Thorkelin seems to have been serenely unconscious; he did not even follow the guides afforded by the MS. Had he done so, he would have saved himself many humiliating errors. For example, in the text given above, to have noticed the periods mentioned in the collation would have been to avoid two glaring instances of ‘running-in.’

Criticism of the Translation.

But, in spite of the wretched text, it remained for the translation to discover the depths of Thorkelin’s ignorance. It will be seen by reading the extract given from the translation that he did not even perceive that two men were swimming in the sea. It is to be remembered, too, that his error of the ‘piratical expedition’ is carried on for sixty lines—certainly a triumph of ingenuity. It is useless to attempt a classification of the errors in this version. In the words of Kemble:—

‘Nothing but malevolence could cavil at the trivial errors which the very best scholars are daily found to commit, but the case is widely different when those errors are so numerous as totally to destroy the value of a work. I am therefore most reluctantly compelled to state that not five lines of Thorkelin’s edition can be found in succession in which some gross fault, either in the transcription or translation, does not betray the editor’s utter ignorance of the Anglo-Saxon language.’ —Edition of 1835, Introd., p. xxix.

Reception of Thorkelin’s Edition.

The book was of value only in that it brought Beowulf to the attention of scholars. The edition was used by Turner, Grundtvig, and Conybeare. I have found the following notices of the book, which will show how it was received by the scholarly world.

Turner. On collating the Doctor’s printed text with the MS. I have commonly found an inaccuracy of copying in every page.—Fifth edition, p. 289, footnote.

Kemble, see supra.

Thorpe. (The work of the learned Icelander exhibits) ‘a text formed according to his ideas of Anglo-Saxon, and accompanied by his Latin translation, both the one and the other standing equally in need of an Œdipus.’ —Edition of 1855, Preface, xiv.

See also Grundtvig’s criticism in Beowulfs Beorh, pp. xvii ff.

GRUNDTVIG’S TRANSLATION

*Bjowulf’s Draape. Et Gothisk Helte-digt fra forrige Aar-tusinde af Angel-Saxisk paa Danske Riim ved Nic. Fred. Sev. Grundtvig, Præst. Kjøbenhavn, 18201. 8^o, pp. lxxiv, 325.

Bjovulvs-Draapen, et Høinordisk Heltedigt, fra Anguls-Tungen fordansket af Nik. Fred. Sev. Grundtvig. Anden forbedrede Udgave. Kiøbenhavn. Karl Schønbergs Forlag. 1865. 8^o, pp. xvi, 224.

First Danish Translation. Ballad Measures.

Grundtvig.

Nicolas Frederic Severin Grundtvig (1783–1872) was especially noted as a student of Old Germanic literature. He began his career in 1806 by his studies on the Edda. This was followed by a book on Northern Mythology (1810), and by various creative works in verse and prose, the subjects of which were usually drawn from old Danish history. An account of his labors on the Beowulf will be found in the following section. His interest in Old English literature continued through his long life, and he was well and favorably known among the scholars of his day.

Circumstances of Publication.

In Beowulfs Beorh (Copenhagen, 1861), Grundtvig tells the story of his early translation of the poem. He had always had a passionate interest in Danish antiquities, and was much excited upon the appearance of Thorkelin’s text2. At that time, however, he knew no Old English, and his friend Rask, the famous scholar in Germanic philology, being absent from Denmark, he resolved to do what he could with the poem himself. He began by committing the entire poem to memory. In this way he detected many of the outlines which had been obscured by Thorkelin. The results of this study he published in the Copenhagen Sketch-Book (Kjøbenhavns Skilderie), 1815. When Thorkelin saw the studies he was furious, and pronounced the discoveries mere fabrications.

But Rask, upon his return, thought differently, and proposed to Grundtvig that they edit the poem together. They began the work, but when they reached line 925 the edition was interrupted by Rask’s journey into Russia and Asia. With the help of Rask’s Anglo-Saxon Grammar (Stockholm, 1817), Grundtvig proceeded with his translation. By the munificence of Bülow, who had also given assistance to Thorkelin, Grundtvig was relieved of the expense of publication.

Progress of the Interpretation of the Poem.

Grundtvig was the first to understand the story of Beowulf. With no other materials than Thorkelin’s edition of the text and his own knowledge of Germanic mythology, he discovered the sea-burial of King Scyld, the swimming-match, and the Finn episode. He identified Breca, Hnæf, Hengest, King Hrethel, and other characters whose names Thorkelin had filched from them.

Text Used.

Rask borrowed the original transcripts which Thorkelin had brought from the British Museum, and copied and corrected them. This was the basis of Grundtvig’s translation.

Differences between the First and Second Editions.

The principal difference is in the introduction; but of the nature and extent of changes in the second edition I can give no notion. All my information respecting the first volume is derived from transcripts of certain parts of it sent me from the British Museum. These copies do not reveal any differences between the two translations.

Aim of the Volume, and Nature of the Translation.

We begin by quoting the author’s words:—

‘I have studied the poem as if I were going to translate it word for word . . . but I will not and have not translated it in that way, and I will venture to maintain that my translation is a faithful one, historically faithful, inasmuch as I have never wilfully altered or interpolated anything, and poetically faithful inasmuch as I have tried with all my might vividly to express what I saw in the poem. . . . Whoever understands both languages and possesses a poetical sense will see what I mean, and whoever is deficient in knowledge or sense, or both, may stick to his own view, if he will only let me stick to mine, which may be weak enough, but is not so utterly devoid of style and poetry as little pettifoggers in the intellectual world maintain because they can see very well that my method is not theirs. “I have,” said Cicero, “translated Demosthenes, not as a grammarian but as an orator, and therefore have striven not so much to convince as to persuade my readers of the truth of his words”: methinks I need no other defence as regards connoisseurs and just judges, and if I am much mistaken in this opinion, then my work is absolutely indefensible3.’ —Pages xxxiv, xxxv.

In the introduction to his text of 1861, Grundtvig speaks of his theory of translation, saying that he gave, as it were, new clothes, new money, and new language to the poor old Seven Sleepers, so that they could associate freely with moderns. He believed that it was necessary to put the poem into a form that would seem natural and attractive to the readers of the day. In so doing he departed from the letter of the law, and rewrote the poem according to his own ideas.

In the second edition the author states that he hopes the poem will prove acceptable as a reading-book for schools. Its value as a text-book in patriotism is also alluded to.

Extract.

Sjette Sang.

Trætten med Hunferd Drost og Trøsten derover.

Criticism of the Translation.

The poem departs so far from the text of Beowulf that any discussion of its accuracy would be out of place. As has been shown by the section on the nature of the translation, the author had no intention of being true to the letter of the text. Grundtvig’s scholarship has been discussed above.

The translation may properly be called nothing more than a paraphrase. Whole sentences are introduced that have no connection with the original text. Throughout the translation is evident the robust, but not always agreeable, personality of the translator. In his preface5 Grundtvig remarked that he put nothing into his poem that was not historically and poetically true to the original. The statement can only be regarded as an unfortunate exaggeration. Grundtvig’s style cannot be called even a faint reflection of the Beowulf style. He has popularized the story, and he has cheapened it. There is no warrant in the original for the coarse invective of the extract that has just been cited. In the Old English, Hunferth taunts Beowulf, but he never forgets that his rival is ‘doughty in battle’ (l. 526). Beowulf is always worthy of his respect. In Grundtvig, the taunting degenerates into a scurrilous tirade. Hunferth calls Beowulf a ‘mudscow’; Breca and Beowulf swim like two ‘dead herrings.’ In like manner the character of Hunferth is cheapened. In Beowulf he is a jealous courtier, but he is always heroic. In Grundtvig he is merely a contemptible braggart, ‘with his nose high in air,’ who will not allow himself to be ‘thrown to the rubbish heap.’

The same false manner is retained throughout the poem. In many places it reads well—it is often an excellent story. But it can lay no claim to historic or poetic fidelity to the Beowulf.

Reception of the Book.

The book fell dead from the press. Grundtvig himself tells us that it was hardly read outside his own house6. Thirty years later he learned that the book had never reached the Royal Library at Stockholm. A copy made its way to the British Museum, but it was the one which Grundtvig himself carried thither in 1829. This was doubtless the copy that was read and criticized by Thorpe and Wackerbarth. Both of these scholars spoke of its extreme freedom, but commended its readableness.

CONYBEARE’S EXTRACTS

Illustrations of Anglo-Saxon Poetry. By John Josias Conybeare, M.A., &c. Edited, together with additional notes, introductory notices, &c., by his brother, William Daniel Conybeare, M.A., &c. London: printed for Harding and Lepard, Pall Mall East, 1826. 8^o, pp. (viii), xcvi, 287.

Anglo-Saxon Poem concerning the Exploits of Beowulf the Dane, pp. 30–167.

Translation of extracts into English blank verse, with the original text of the extracts, and a literal translation of them into Latin prose.

Circumstances of Publication.

The volume had its origin in the Terminal Lectures which the author gave as Professor of Anglo-Saxon and Poetry at Oxford from 1809 to 18121. We know from an autobiographical note printed in the Introduction2 that the Beowulf was finished in October, 1820. But the book did not appear until two years after the author’s death, and the material which it contains is of a slightly earlier date than the title-page would seem to indicate—e.g. the volume really antedates the third edition of Turner’s History discussed above3.

Conybeare, and the Progress of the Interpretation of the Poem.

Conybeare did not edit the entire poem, and apparently never had any intention of so doing. The selections which he translates are based on Thorkelin’s text. He revises this text, however, in making his translations, and even incorporates a collation of Thorkelin’s text with the MS. (pp. 137–55). This collation, though not complete or accurate, was serviceable, and kept Conybeare from falling into some of the errors that the Icelander had made. He distinguished by an asterisk the MS. readings which were of material importance in giving the sense of a passage, and, in fact, constructed for himself a text that was practically new.

‘The text has been throughout carefully collated with the original Manuscript, and the translation of Thorkelin revised with all the diligence of which the editor is capable.’ —Page 32.

‘Any attempt to restore the metre, and to correct the version throughout, would have exceeded the bounds, and involved much discussion foreign to the purpose of the present work. This must be left to the labours of the Saxon scholar. It is evident, however, that without a more correct text than that of Thorkelin, those labours must be hopeless. The wish of supplying that deficiency, may perhaps apologize for the occupying, by this Collation, so large a space of a work strictly dedicated to other purposes.’ —Page 137, footnote.

How much Conybeare improved the text may be seen by comparing his text and Latin translation with those of Thorkelin. The first six lines of the Prolog follow:—

It will be seen that in these lines Conybeare has at almost every point the advantage over Thorkelin, and is indeed very nearly in accord with modern texts and translations. But the poem yet awaited a complete understanding, for Conybeare could say: ‘The Introduction is occupied by the praises of Scefing . . . and of his son and successor Beowulf. The embarkation of the former on a piratical expedition is then detailed at some length. In this expedition (if I rightly understand the text) himself and his companions were taken or lost at sea’ (p. 35). And, in general, he misses the same points of the story as Thorkelin, although he craftily refrains from translating the obscurer passages.

Conybeare apparently knew nothing of the critical work of Grundtvig. This is not surprising when we remember that Kjøbenhavns Skilderie was probably not known outside of Denmark4. Moreover, it is to be remembered that Conybeare’s extracts from the Beowulf are not really later than Grundtvig’s translation, since they were made in the same year, 18205.

Aim of the Volume, and Nature of the Translations.

From the words quoted above with respect to the collation, it will be seen that Conybeare in no way regarded his book as a contribution to Beowulf scholarship. As professor at Oxford, he attempted a literary presentation of the most beautiful parts of the old poetry. His extracts are, in general, nothing more than free paraphrases. Wishing to popularize the Beowulf, he used as a medium of translation a peculiarly stilted kind of blank verse. He dressed the poem out in elegant phrases in order to hide the barrenness of the original. Manifestly he feared the roughness, the remoteness of the poem in its natural state. He feared to offend a nation of readers reveling in the medievalism of Scott and Byron. A literal Latin translation was inserted to appease the scholar.

Extract.

‘At a single stroke he (Beowulf) cut through the “ringed bones” of her neck, and

Page 58; Beo., 1565–75.

Latin Translation.

... Ossium annulos fregit; telum per omnem penetravit moribundam carnem. Illa in pavimentum corruit. Ensis erat cruentus, militare opus perfectum. Effulgebat lumen, lux intus stetit, non aliter quàm cum a cœlo lucidus splendet ætheris lampas. Ille per ædes gradiebatur, incessit juxta muros ensem tenens fortiter a capulo Higelaci minister irâ ac constantiâ (sc. Iratus et constans animi).

Pages 113, 114.

Criticism of the Translations.

The English version is scarcely more than a paraphrase, as may easily be seen by comparing it with the literal translation into Latin. But even as a paraphrase it is unsatisfactory. By way of general criticism it may be said that, while it attains a kind of dignity, it is not the dignity of Beowulf, for it is self-conscious. Like Beowulf it is elaborate, but it is the elaboration of art rather than of feeling. Moreover, it is freighted with Miltonic phrase, and constantly suggests the Miltonic movement. The trick of verse in line 3 is quite too exquisite for Beowulf. The whole piece has a straining after pomp and majesty that is utterly foreign to the simple, often baldly simple, ideas and phrases of the original. Nearly every adjective is supplied by the translator: in Old English the ‘sword’ is ‘bloody,’ in Conybeare the ‘gallant sword drops fast a gory dew’; the cave becomes a mansion; the ‘floor’ is ‘dust’—dust in an ocean cave!—‘heaven’s candle’ becomes ‘heaven’s glorious torch.’ The poem is tricked out almost beyond recognition. Beowulf assumes the ‘grand manner,’ and paces ‘the Grendel’s hold’ like one of the strutting emperors of Dryden’s elaborate drama.

KEMBLE’S EDITIONS

The Anglo-Saxon poems of Beowulf, the Traveller’s Song, and the Battle at Finnes-burh. Edited together with a glossary of the more difficult words, and an historical preface, by John M. Kemble, Esq., M.A. London: William Pickering, 1833. 8^o, pp. xxii, 260. Edition limited to 100 copies.

The Anglo-Saxon Poems of Beowulf, the Traveller’s Song, and the Battle of Finnes-burh. Edited by John M. Kemble, Esq., M.A., of Trinity College, Cambridge. Second edition. London: William Pickering, 1835. 8^o, pp. xxxii, 263.

A Translation of the Anglo-Saxon Poem of Beowulf, with a copious glossary, preface, and philological notes, by John M. Kemble, Esq., M.A., of Trinity College, Cambridge. London: William Pickering, 1837. 8^o, pp. lv, 127, appendix, 179.

First English Translation. Prose.

The 1833 Volume.

A sufficient account of this volume is given by Professor Earle, who says of it:—

‘The text was an improvement on Thorkelin, but still very faulty;—to say nothing of inaccuracies from want of proper oversight as the sheets were passing through the press. The Glossary, though short, was a valuable acquisition . . . Of this edition only 100 copies were printed;—and it was a happy limitation, as it left room for a new edition as early as 1835, in which the text was edited with far greater care. All the rest remained as before, and the Preface was reprinted word for word.’ —Deeds of Beowulf, pp. xix, xx.

The Text of 1835. Kemble’s Scholarship.

But whatever may be said of the text of 1833, there is nothing but praise for the edition of 1835. In this book the poem first had the advantage of a modern scholarly treatment, and for the first time the text of the MS. was correctly transcribed. It received its first punctuation. For the first time it was properly divided into half-lines, with attention to alliteration. The text was freely emended, but the suggested readings were placed in the footnotes, in order not to impair the value of the text as a reproduction of the MS. The necessity for this was made evident by Kemble himself:—

‘But while he makes the necessary corrections, no man is justified in withholding the original readings: for although the laws of a language, ascertained by wide and careful examination of all the cognate tongues, of the hidden springs and ground-principles upon which they rest in common, are like the laws of the Medes and Persians and alter not, yet the very errors of the old writer are valuable, and serve sometimes as guides and clues to the inner being and spiritual tendencies of the language itself. The reader will moreover be spared that, to some people, heart-burning necessity of taking his editor’s qualifications too much for granted, if side by side he is allowed to judge of the traditional error, and the proposed correction. I have endeavoured to accomplish this end by printing the text, letter for letter, as I found it.’ —Preface, pp. xxiv ff.

With this wholesome respect for the tradition of the MS., it is not strange that Kemble’s carefully chosen emendations should stand to-day as of high critical value, and that many of them are retained in modern editions of the text1. When we compare Kemble’s book with Thorkelin’s, the advance is seen to be little less than astonishing. Thorkelin’s emendations were worse than useless.

Kemble had a full acquaintance with the new science of comparative philology which was developing in Germany under Jakob Grimm. He had corresponded, and later studied, with Grimm, and, according to William Hunt, was the ‘recognised exponent’ of his investigations2. It is to Grimm that Kemble dedicates his volumes, and to him that he repeatedly acknowledges his indebtedness. Thus Kemble brought to the study of the poem not only a knowledge of the Old English poetry and prose, but acquaintance with Old Norse, Gothic, Old High German, and Old Saxon. It may sufficiently illustrate his scholarly method to instance examples of his treatment of the unique words in Beowulf. Take, e.g., the word hose in line 924. This word does not appear elsewhere in Old English; it does not appear in Lye’s Dictionary, the only dictionary that was at Kemble’s disposal. Upon this word Kemble brought to bear his knowledge of the Germanic tongues, and by citing Goth. hansa, OHG. hansa, &c., derived the meaning turma—a process in which he is supported by a modern authority like Kluge. The study of compounds also first began with Kemble. He collected and compared the compounds in heaðo.. Thus he laid the foundation of all modern studies on the Old English compound.

Further Critical Material Afforded by the Volume of 1837.

In the 1835 volume twenty-three words were illustrated in the above way. But it remained for the 1837 volume to present a complete glossary of the poem, containing also important poetic words not in Beowulf. By reason of its completeness and comparative work, it remained the standard commentary on the Old English poetic vocabulary until the appearance of Grein’s Sprachschatz3.

Aim of Kemble’s Translation.

Like his edition of the text, Kemble’s translation is quite independent of any preceding book; like his edition of the text, its aim was faithfulness to the original. He adheres scrupulously to the text, save where the original is unintelligible. The translation was designed to be used together with the glossary as a part of the apparatus for interpreting the poem. He therefore made it strictly literal.

‘The translation is a literal one; I was bound to give, word for word, the original in all its roughness: I might have made it smoother, but I purposely avoided doing so, because had the Saxon poet thought as we think, and expressed his thoughts as we express our thoughts, I might have spared myself the trouble of editing or translating his poem. A few transpositions of words, &c. caused principally by the want of inflections in New English (since we have now little more than their position by which to express the relations of words to one another) are all that I have allowed myself, and where I have inserted words I have generally printed them in italics.’ —

Postscript to the Preface, p. 1.

Extract.

VIII.

Hunferth the son of Eglaf spake, he that sat at the feet of the Lord of the Scyldings; he bound up4 a quarrelsome speech: to him was the journey of Beowulf, the proud sea-farer, a great disgust; because he granted not that any other man should ever have beneath the skies, more reputation with the world than he himself: ‘Art thou the Beowulf that didst contend with Brecca on the wide sea, in a swimming match, where ye for pride explored the fords, and out of vain glory ventured your lives upon the deep water? nor might any man, friend or foe, blame5 your sorrowful expedition: there ye rowed upon the sea, there ye two covered the ocean-stream with your arms, measured the sea-streets, whirled them with your hands, glided over the ocean; with the waves of the deep6 the fury of winter boiled; ye two on the realms of water laboured for a week: he overcame thee in swimming, he had more strength: then at the morning tide the deep sea bore him up on Hēathoræmes, whence he sought his own paternal land, dear to his people, the land of the Brondings, where he owned a nation, a town, and rings. All his promise to thee, the son of Beanstan truly performed.’

Criticism of the Translation.

Kemble’s scholarship enabled him to get a full understanding of the poem, and thus to make the first really adequate translation of Beowulf. He was the first to recognize the significance of kenning, metaphor, and compound. Thus his work is to be commended chiefly because of its faithfulness. All preceding studies had been wofully inaccurate7. Kemble’s editions became at once the authoritative commentary on the text, and held this position until the appearance of Grein’s Bibliothek (1857). In this latter book, Kemble’s text was the principal authority used in correcting the work of Thorpe8. In spite of the fact that this is a literal translation, it sometimes attains strength and beauty by reason of its very simplicity.

ETTMÜLLER’S TRANSLATION

Beowulf. Heldengedicht des achten Jahrhunderts. Zum ersten Male aus dem Angelsächsischen in das Neuhochdeutsche stabreimend übersetzt, und mit Einleitung und Anmerkungen versehen von Ludwig Ettmüller. Zürich, bei Meyer und Zeller, 1840. 8^o, pp. 191.

First German Translation. Imitative measures.

Ettmüller.

Ernst Moritz Ludwig Ettmüller (1802–77), at the time of the publication of this book, was professor of the German language and literature in the Gymnasium at Zürich. He had already appeared as a translator with a work entitled Lieder der Edda von den Nibelungen. Later he edited selections from the Beowulf in his Engla and Seaxna Scôpas and Bôceras (1850). This text incorporated many new readings. Ettmüller was the first to question the unity of the Beowulf, and sketched a theory of interpolations which has since been developed by Müllenhoff. The first announcement of these views is found in the introduction to this translation.

Theory of Translation.

Ettmüller gives full expression to his theories and aims:—

‘Vor Allem habe ich so wörtlich als möglich übersetzt, da Treue das erste Erforderniss einer guten Übersetzung ist. Dann aber war mein Augenmerk vorzüglich auf Wohlklang und Verständlichkeit gerichtet. Letztere werden bei Übersetzungen dieser Art nur zu oft vernachlässigt, da manche der Ansicht sind, ihre Arbeit sei um so besser, je treuer sie die äussere Form des Originals in allen Einzelheiten wiedergebe. Aber dieweil diese so mühsam an der Schale knacken, entschlüpft ihnen nicht selten der Kern. Mein Bestreben war demnach keineswegs, z.B. jeden Vers ängstlich dem Originale nachzubilden, so dass die genaueste Übereinstimmung zwischen der Silbenzahl und den Hebungen oder gar dem Klange der Verse Statt fände. Das wäre ohnehin, ohne der deutschen Sprache die schreiendste Gewalt anzuthun, unmöglich gewesen. Ich habe vielmehr darnach mit Sorgfalt gestrebt, die Versbildung des angelsächsischen Gedichtes mir in allen ihren Erscheinungen klar zu machen, und dann frei nach dem gewonnenen Schema gearbeitet. Daher kann ich versichern, dass man für jeden Vers meiner Übersetzung gewiss ein angelsächsisches Vorbild findet, wenn auch nicht grade jedesmal die Verse einander decken. Dass dabei übrigens der höheren Rhythmik, d.h. dem ästhetisch richtigen Verhältnisse des Ausdruckes zu dem Ausgedrückten oder, mit Klopstock zu reden, des Zeitausdruckes oder Tonverhaltes (der Bewegung) zu dem Gedanken, überall die grösste Sorgfalt zugewendet ward, das braucht, dünkt mich, keiner besondern Versicherung; dies aber kann erreicht werden auch ohne knechtische Nachbildung des Originals.’ —Page 59.

Text, and Indebtedness to Preceding Scholars.

The translation is founded on Kemble’s text of 18351, to which the introduction and notes are also indebted.

Like Kemble, Ettmüller was a close student of the works of Jakob Grimm, and his interpretation of obscure lines (especially passages relating to Germanic antiquities) is largely due to the study of such works as the Deutsche Mythologie (1833), the Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer (1828), and the Deutsche Sagen (1816–8). Cf. lines 458, 484.

Extract.

Criticism of the Translation.

In his translation Ettmüller followed in the steps of Kemble2, but he was not slavishly dependent upon him. At times he disagrees with the English scholar (cp. e.g., ll. 468, 522, 1331), and offers a translation of the passage omitted by him, 3069–74. In general, the translation is strictly literal, and follows the original almost line for line.

It was probably well for Ettmüller that he made his translation thus literal. In the history of a foreign-language study there is a period when it is best that a translation should be strictly literal, for such a work is bound to be called into service as a part of the critical apparatus for the interpretation of the tongue. If the early translation is not thus literal, it is sure to be superseded later by the more faithful rendering, as Schaldemose’s superseded Grundtvig’s in Denmark3. It is not until criticism and scholarship have done their strictly interpretative work that a translation is safe in attempting to render the spirit rather than the letter of the original. The reason for this is evident: no real appreciation of the spirit is possible until scholarship has provided the means for discovering it.

By the publication of this volume, therefore, Ettmüller did for German scholarship what Kemble had done for English and Schaldemose was to do for Danish scholarship. Yet he might with propriety have made his work more simple. His translation is disfigured by numerous strange word-combinations which he often transcribed literally from the original, e.g. beadu-runen in the third line of the extract. It is safe to say that none but a scholar in Old English would be able to understand this word—if, indeed, we may call it a word. The text is full of such forms. The author is obliged to append notes explaining his own translation! He apparently forgets that it is his business as translator to render the difficult words as well as the simple ones. In Ettmüller’s case it was especially unfortunate, because it gave others an opportunity to come forward later with simpler, and hence more useful, translations.

Reception of the Translation.

The book had no extraordinary success. A reprint was never called for, and was perhaps hardly to be expected, considering the existence of Kemble’s volumes. Moreover, the translation was not accompanied by an edition of the text. Grein4, the next German scholar, took his inspiration from Kemble5 and Thorpe6 rather than from Ettmüller.

SCHALDEMOSE’S TRANSLATION

Beo-wulf og Scopes Widsið, to angelsaxiske Digte, med Oversættelse og oplysende Anmærkninger udgivne af Frederik Schaldemose. Kjøbenhavn, 1847.

Anden Udgave, Kjøbenhavn, 1851. 8^o, pp. ii, 188.

Second Danish Translation.

Nature of the Volume, and Indebtedness to Previous Scholars.

In this book the Old English text and the Danish translation were printed in parallel columns. The text, which was taken literally from Kemble1, need not detain us here. No mention is made of the work of Leo2, Ettmüller3, or of the 1837 volume of Kemble, although the influence of the latter is evident throughout the book, as will be shown below. The notes are drawn largely from the works of preceding scholars, and in these the author makes an occasional acknowledgement of indebtedness.

The translation is literal. Grundtvig’s translation4 had been so paraphrastic as often to obscure the sense, and always the spirit, of the original. Schaldemose had the advantage of presenting the most modern text side by side with the translation. Thus the book became a valuable apparatus criticus for the Danish student.

Schaldemose.

The life of Frederik Schaldemose (1782–1853) was by no means the quiet, retired life of the student. He had, it is true, been professor at the school of Nykjøbing from 1816 to 1825, and later devoted himself to literary work; but a large part of his life had been spent in military service, in which he had had many exciting adventures by land and sea. After leaving his professorship he again entered military service. Later, he devoted his time alternately to literary and commercial work.

His interest in Beowulf seems to have been, like that of Thorkelin5, primarily the interest of the Danish antiquary. In 1846 he had published a collection of Heroic Danish Songs, ancient and modern. It was doubtless a desire to add to this collection that led him to undertake an edition of the Beowulf.

It was hardly to be expected that a man whose life had been so unsettled could materially advance the interpretation of Old English poetry.

Extract.

Criticism of the Text and Translation.

There are two good things to be said of this volume: it contains a literal translation, and it is a literal translation from Kemble’s text. Being so, it could not be without merit. There was need of a literal translation in Denmark. Grundtvig’s version certainly did not fulfil the letter of the law, and Thorkelin’s had long since been forgotten.

Schaldemose’s dependence upon the translation of Kemble is very evident. In general, the Danish translator is stopped by the same passages that defy the English translator, e.g. the passage which Kemble failed to interpret at line 3075 was duly and loyally omitted by Schaldemose.

I can find no evidence for the reiterated6 statement that Schaldemose is throughout his translation slavishly indebted to Ettmüller. Certain it is that he avoided those peculiar forms of Ettmüller’s translation which are nothing more than a transliteration from the Old English.

Reception of the Volume.

It is a tribute to the Danish interest in Beowulf that Schaldemose’s volume soon passed into a second edition. But it was not of a character to arouse the interest of scholars in other countries. Thorpe, the next editor of the poem, had never seen it.

The translation, being strictly literal, naturally commanded very little attention even in Denmark; while it was utterly without interest for readers and students in other countries.

WACKERBARTH’S TRANSLATION

Beowulf, an epic poem translated from the Anglo-Saxon into English verse, by A. Diedrich Wackerbarth, A.B., Professor of Anglo-Saxon at the College of our Ladye of Oscott. London: William Pickering, 1849. 8^o, pp. xlvi, 159.

Second English Translation. Ballad Measures.

Circumstances of Publication.

In the introduction Wackerbarth gives a full account of the history of the book:—

‘With respect to the Work now presented to the Public, shortly after the putting forth of Mr. Kemble’s Edition of the Anglo-Saxon Text in 1833 I formed the Design of translating it, and early in 1837 I commenced the Work. Mr. Kemble’s second Volume had not then appeared, and I proceeded but slowly, on account of the Difficulty of the Work, and the utter Inadequacy of any then existing Dictionary. I still however wrought my Way onward, under the Notion that even if I should not think my Book, when finished, fit for Publication, yet that the MS. would form an amusing Tale for my little Nephews and Nieces, and so I went through about a Quarter of the Poem when Illness put an entire stop to my Progress. Afterwards, though the Appearance of Mr. Kemble’s additional Volume, containing the Prose Version, Glossary, &c. had rendered the remainder of my Task comparatively easy, other Matters required my Attention, and the MS. lay untouched until 1842, between which Time and the present it has been from Time to Time added to and at length completed, and the whole carefully revised, much being cancelled and retranslated.’ —Introduction, p. viii.

Indebtedness to preceding Scholars.

‘In my Version I have scrupulously adhered to the text of Mr. Kemble, adopting in almost every Instance his Emendations. . . . My thanks are due to Mr. Kemble . . . to the Rev. Dr. Bosworth . . . who have . . . kindly answered my Inquiries relative to various Matters connected with the poem.’ —Pages viii, xiv.

Style and Diction.

‘I have throughout endeavoured to render the Sense and the Words of my Author as closely as the English Language and the Restraints of Metre would allow, and for this Purpose I have not shrunken either from sacrificing Elegance to Faithfulness (for no Translator is at liberty to misrepresent his Author and make an old Saxon Bard speak the Language of a modern Petit Maître) or from uniting English Words to express important Anglo-Saxon compounds. . . . Some may ask why I have not preserved the Anglo-Saxon alliterative Metre. My Reason is that I do not think the Taste of the English People would at present bear it. I wish to get my book read, that my Countrymen may become generally acquainted with the Epic of our Ancestors wherewith they have been generally unacquainted, and for this purpose it was necessary to adopt a Metre suited to the Language; whereas the alliterative Metre, heavy even in German, a Language much more fitted for it than ours, would in English be so heavy that few would be found to labour through a Poem of even half the Length of the Beówulf’s lay when presented in so unattractive a Garb.’ —Pages ix, x.

Extract.