VIII.

Hunferth the son of Eglaf spake, _he_ that sat at the feet of the Lord of the Scyldings; he bound up[4] 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, blame[5] 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 deep[6] 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 inaccurate[7]. 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 Thorpe[8]. In spite of the fact that this is a literal translation, it sometimes attains strength and beauty by reason of its very simplicity.

[Footnote 1: See Wyatt’s text, lines 51, 158, 250, 255, 599, &c.]

[Footnote 2: See article in the _Dictionary of National Biography_.]

[Footnote 3: See infra, pp. 56 ff.]

[Footnote 4: _bound up_, onband, now generally translated ‘unbind.’]

[Footnote 5: _blame_, belēan, rather ‘dissuade’ than ‘blame.’]

[Footnote 6: _with the waves of the deep_, &c., geofon-yþu weol wintrys wylm, so Kemble reads in his text, and for this reading the translation is correct, but he failed to discern the kenning to ‘geofon’ in ‘wintrys wylm.’]

[Footnote 7: See supra on Turner, p. 9; Thorkelin, p. 15; Grundtvig, p. 22; Conybeare, p. 28.]

[Footnote 8: See infra, p. 49.] [[Thorpe]]

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. 8vo, 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 1835[1], 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.

Ecglâfes Sohn Hûnferdh da sagte, der zu Füssen sass dem Fürsten der Skildinge, entband Beadurunen--ihm war Beowulfes Beginn, des muthigen Meergängers, mächtig zuwider; ungern sah er, dass ein andrer Mann irgend Machtruhmes mehr in Mittelgart, auf Erden äufnete denn er selber--: ‘Bist du der Beowulf, der mit Breca kämpfte in sausender See, im Sundkampfe? 600 Ihr da aus Übermuth Untiefen prüftet und aus Tollmuth ihr in tiefem Wasser das Leben wagtet; liesset keinen, nicht Freund noch Feind, da fernen euch von der sorgvollen That, als zur See ihr rudertet. Dort ihr den Egistrom mit Armen wandtet, masset die Meerstrasse, mischtet mit Händen, glittet über’s Geerried (Glanderfluthen warf Winters Wuth!), in Wassers Gebiet sieben Nächt’ ihr sorgtet: Er, Sieger der Wogen, 610 hatte mehr der Macht, denn zur Morgenzeit ihn bei Headhoræmes die Hochfluth antrug.-- Von dannen er suchte die süsse Heimat, lieb seinen Leuten, das Land der Brondinge, die feste Friedeburg, da Volk er hatte, Burg und Bauge;--All Erbot wider dich der Sohn Beanstânes sorglichst erfüllte.’

_Criticism of the Translation._

In his translation Ettmüller followed in the steps of Kemble[2], 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 Denmark[3]. 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. Grein[4], the next German scholar, took his inspiration from Kemble[5] and Thorpe[6] rather than from Ettmüller.

[Footnote 1: See supra, p. 33.] [[Kemble]]

[Footnote 2: See supra, p. 33.] [[Kemble]]

[Footnote 3: See supra, p. 22, and infra, p. 41 ff.]

[Footnote 4: See infra, p. 55.] [[Grein]]

[Footnote 5: See supra, p. 33.] [[Kemble]]

[Footnote 6: See infra, p. 49.] [[Thorpe]]

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. 8vo, 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 Kemble[1], need not detain us here. No mention is made of the work of Leo[2], Ettmüller[3], 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 translation[4] 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 Thorkelin[5], 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.

Hunferd sagde, Sønnen af Ecglaf; han sad ved Scyldinge- Styrerens Fødder; Kiv han begyndte, thi kjær var ham ikke Beowulfs Reise, den raske Søfarers, men til Sorg og Harme, 1000 thi han saae ei gjærne at en anden Mand meer Magtroes havde, under Himmelens Skyer end selv han aatte: Er Du den Beowulf, der med Breca kjæmped’ paa det vide Hav i Væddesvømning, da I af Hovmod 1010 Havet udforsked’, og dumdristige i dybe Vande vovede Livet; ei vilde Nogen, Ven eller Fjende, afvende eders sorgfulde Tog; til Søen I da roed, vendte med Armene 1020 de vilde Bølger, maalde Havveien, med Hænderne brød den, og svam over Havet mens Søen vælted vinterlige Vover; saa paa Vandenes Ryg I strede syv Nætter; han, Seirer paa Havet, aatte meer Styrke, 1030 thi aarle on Morgenen til Headhoræmes Havet ham førde; derfra han søgde sit Fædrenerige, feiret af Sine, Brondinge-Landet det fagre Fristed, hvor et Folk han havde, Borge og Ringe. 1040 Saa blev hvad Beanstans Søn Dig loved’ sikkerlig opfyldt.

_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 reiterated[6] 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.

[Footnote 1: See supra, p. 33.] [[Kemble]]

[Footnote 2: See infra, p. 121.] [[Leo]]

[Footnote 3: See supra, p. 37.] [[Ettmüller]]

[Footnote 4: See supra, p. 22.] [[Gruntvig]]

[Footnote 5: See supra, p. 15.] [[Thorkelin]]

[Footnote 6: See Wülker, _Ang. Anz._ IV, 69; Wackerbarth’s ed. (see infra, p. 45).]

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. 8vo, 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.

CANTO VIII.

But haughty Hunferth, Ecg-láf’s Son Who sat at royal Hróth-gár’s Feet To bind up Words of Strife begun And to address the noble Geat. The proud Sea-Farer’s Enterprize 5 Was a vast Grievance in his Eyes: For ill could bear that jealous Man That any other gallant Thane On earth, beneath the Heavens’ Span, Worship beyond his own should gain. 10 ‘Art thou Beó-wulf,’ then he cry’d, ‘With Brecca on the Ocean wide That didst in Swimming erst contend, Where ye explor’d the Fords for Pride And risk’d your Lives upon the Tide 15 All for vain Glory’s empty End? And no Man, whether Foe or Friend, Your sorry Match can reprehend. O’er Seas ye rowed, your Arms o’erspread The Waves, and Sea-paths measuréd. 20 The Spray ye with your Hands did urge, And glided o’er the Ocean’s Surge; The Waves with Winter’s fury boil’d While on the watery Realm ye toil’d, Thus seven Nights were told, 25 Till thee at last he overcame, The stronger in the noble Game. Then him at Morn the billowy Streams In triumph bare to Heatho-rǽmes From whence he sought his Fatherland, 30 And his own Brondings’ faithful Band, Where o’er the Folk he held Command, A City, Rings, and Gold. His Promise well and faithfully Did Beanstán’s Son perform to thee; 35 And ill I ween, though prov’d thy Might In Onslaught dire and deadly Fight, Twill go with thee, if thou this Night Dar’st wait for Grendel bold.’

_Criticism of the Translation._

Wackerbarth’s translation is not to be considered as a rival of Kemble’s[1]--the author did not wish it to be so considered. Kemble addressed the world of scholars; Wackerbarth the world of readers. Wackerbarth rather resembles Conybeare[2] 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.

[Footnote 1: See supra, p. 33.] [[Kemble]]

[Footnote 2: See supra, p. 28.] [[Conybeare]]

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. 12mo, 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 Kemble[1], Thorpe can hardly be said to have made a satisfactory advance. In some respects his edition is actually inferior to Kemble’s. It is probable, for example, that the collation of which the author speaks in his introduction was the one which he had made twenty years before, and that, in taking up his work a second time, he did not trouble himself to revise it. At any rate, the MS. did not receive from Thorpe that respectful attention that it had had from Kemble. Thorpe was more clever than the former scholar in deciphering faded lines of the MS., but he was not always careful to indicate those letters which he actually found there, and those he himself supplied from conjecture. Yet these readings were often of sufficient importance to affect an entire passage, and later scholarship has in many cases deciphered readings whose sense is entirely different from Thorpe’s. Thus his edition presents striking divergences from later texts, while no explanation of them is offered in the footnotes. Not only does he frequently incorporate his own readings in the text without noting the MS. forms, but he even makes mistakes in the MS. forms which he does note. A collation of Thorpe’s text with the MS. has revealed a carelessness which was all the more reprehensible in that it came from a scholar who was thought to be well-nigh infallible. A few examples of this carelessness are given:--

Line 319 (158)[2], _banan_ (misreads MS. in footnote). 487 (241), _Ic_ (word emended from _le_ without noting MS. form). 1160 (578), _hwæþere_ (emends without noting the MS. form). 1207 (601), _ac him_ (omits a word). 4408 (2201), _hilde hlemmum_ (MS. misread in a footnote. Emendation unnecessary).

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

_... 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 2000[3].

THORPE. KEMBLE.

Þæt is undyrne, þ̷ is un-dyrne, dryhten Higelác, dryhten Hige-lác, (uncer) gemeting ... ge-meting monegum fyra, monegū fira hwylce (orleg)-hwíl 5 hwylce ... hwíl uncer Grendles uncer Grendles wearð on þám wange, wearð on wange, þær he worna fela þær he worna fela Sige-Scyldingum síge-(Scyl)dingum sorge gefremede, 10 sorge ge-fremede, yrmðe tó aldre. yrmð(o) tó aldre; Ic þæt eall gewræc, ic þ̄ eall ge-wræc, swá ne gylpan þearf swá (ne) gylpan ðearf Grendles maga Grendeles maga (ǽnig) ofer eorðan 15 (ǽnig) ofer eorðan uht-hlem þone, uht-hlem ðone, se þe lengest leofað (se þe) lengest leofað láðan cynnes. ládan cynnes, Fǽr-bifongen, ... (fǽr)-bí-fongen.

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 Gren{dl}es 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.