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:—

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

. . . slæpende be syre . . . de þeofes cræfte.

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

... slæpende be fire, fyrena hyrde þeófes cræfte.

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,

be fire, fyrena hyrde,

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—