Criticism of the Translation.

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

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

Struggles of battle when warriors contended,

a translation of—

Gūða . . . þonne hnitan fēðan

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

At line 2598 we find—

they to wood went

for

hȳ on holt bugon,

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

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

Reception of Garnett’s Translation.

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

GRION’S TRANSLATION

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

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

First Italian Translation. Imitative Measures.

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

Contents.

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

Author’s Preliminary Remarks.

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

Texts Used.

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

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

Method of Translation.

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

Extract.

VIII.

Criticism of the Translation.

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

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

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

WICKBERG’S TRANSLATION

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

First Swedish Translation. Imitative Measures.

Aim of the Volume.

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

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

Nature of the Translation.

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

Texts Used.

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

Extract.

8.

EARLE’S TRANSLATION

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

Seventh English Translation. Prose.

Circumstances of Publication.

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

Aim of the Translation.

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

Texts Used.

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

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

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

Extract.

VIII.

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

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

Criticism of the Translation.

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

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

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

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

Diction.

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

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

J. L. HALL’S TRANSLATION

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

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

Eighth English Translation. Imitative Measures.

Circumstances of Publication.

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

Aim of the Translation.

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

Nature of the Translation.

The translation is in imitative measures and in archaic style.

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

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

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

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

Text.

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

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

Extract.

IX.

Unferth taunts Beowulf.

Criticism of the Translation.

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

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

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

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

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

HOFFMANN’S TRANSLATION

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

*Zweite Ausgabe, Hannover, Schaper, 1900.

Sixth German Translation. Nibelungen Measures.

The Translator.

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

Aim of the Volume.

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

Text, and Relation of Parts.

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

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

Nature of the Translation.

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

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

Extract.

Viertes Abenteuer.

VON BEOWULF’S SCHWIMMFAHRT.

Criticism of the Translation.

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

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

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

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

Examples of antiquated renderings may be brought forward:—

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

Literary Criticism.

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

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

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

Gesagt! gethan!

translates

ond þæt geæfndon swā (line 538).

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

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

MORRIS AND WYATT’S TRANSLATION

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

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

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

Ninth English Translation. Imitative Measures.

Differences between the First and Second Editions.

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

Text Used.

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

Part Taken in the Work by Morris and Wyatt respectively.

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

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

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

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

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

Morris’s Theory of Translation.

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

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

Nature of the Translation.

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

Extract.

IX. Unferth contendeth in words with Beowulf.