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,

Mit Bitten und Warnen,

which we are asked to accept as a translation for

ne lēof nē lāð. (l. 511.)

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:—

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:—

Dans la porte se trouvait une barque bien équipée. (p. 29.)

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—

earme on eaxle     ides gnornode,

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.