IX.

Hunferd sprach, des Ecglâf Sohn, 500 Welcher zu Füssen sass des Herren der Scyldinge; Er löste der Streiter Geheimniss--ihm war Beowulfs Fahrt, Des mutigen Meerfahrers, zu grossem Neid, Weil er nicht gönnte, dass irgend ein anderer Jemals nun mehr Ruhmesthaten Unter dem Himmel der Erde erwarb als er selbst: ‘Bist du Bêowulf, der du mit Breca kämpftest Auf weiter See in einem Wettschwimmen, Dort durchforschtet ihr beide aus Stolz die Fluten Und wagtet aus verwegener Ruhmsucht im tiefen Wasser Euer Leben? Euch beiden konnte keiner, 510 Weder Freund noch Feind, vorwerfen Die gefahrvolle Reise; da rudertet ihr beide im Wasser, Dort überdecktet ihr beide den Wasserstrom mit Armen, Ihr masst die Meeresstrassen, mit Händen schwangt ihr, Ihr glittet über die Flut; das Meer wallte in Fluten, Des Winters Gewoge; ihr mühtet euch in des Wassers Gewalt Sieben Nächte ab; er besiegte dich beim Schwimmen, Er hatte grössere Kraft. Da warf ihn in der Morgenzeit An das Headoræmenland die See, Von dort aus suchte er das traute Stammgut auf, 520 Der seinen Leuten Teure, das Land der Brondinge, Die schöne Friedensburg, wo er Volk besass, Burg und Ringe. Alles, wozu er sich dir verpflichtete, Leistete der Sohn Bêanstâns wahrhaftig.’

_Criticism of the Translation._

It would be manifestly unfair to criticize this translation for its want of grace and melody, because it is avowedly a literal rendering, and a literal rendering makes no attempt to attain these qualities. But there are certain things which are indispensable in a good literal translation. It is imperative that such a translation should be based on the best text of the original poem. What has Steineck done? He has gone back thirty-five years and chosen an early and inaccurate edition of a work that has been five times re-edited, Heyne’s text of 1863! It seems almost incredible that a German, living in the midst of scholars who have done more than any other people to interpret the _Beowulf_, should ignore the fruits of their efforts.

It is unnecessary to enumerate the faults of this translation due to dependence upon an antiquated edition of the text. Suffice it to say that when the edition of 1863 was printed the text had not yet been properly transcribed from the MS.[2]

But there are evidences of an inaccuracy of a different kind that betray a carelessness utterly reprehensible. The author is apparently unable to transliterate properly the Old English names. Thus he has Vealhpeon and Vealhpeo (for Wealhtheow), Ecgpeow, Halbdaene (for Healfdene), Ermanarich, &c.

In his attempt to produce an etymological document, the translator uses many compounds such as even the German language might be better without; such are--Sippenschar (sibbegedriht), 730; Schattenwandler (sceadugenga), 704; Wangenpolster (hlēor-bolster), 689; Leibpanzer (līc-syrce), 550. As compounds these may not be offensive to a German; but the trouble with them is that they do not translate the Old English ideas.

Finally, it may be asked why a translation that appeals only as a literal rendering should not be strictly literal, noting its every variation from the original, italicizing supplied words, holding to the original word-order.

Steineck’s translation did not advance the interpretation of _Beowulf_ a whit. In point of accuracy the book is not worthy to stand with good translations thirty years old.

[Footnote 1: See supra, p. 64.] [[Heyne: Relation of...]]

[Footnote 2: See also supra, p. 8.] [[Preliminary Remarks]]

J. R. C. HALL’S TRANSLATION

Beowulf, and the Fight at Finnsburg, a translation into modern English prose, with an Introduction and Notes, by John R. Clark Hall, M.A., Ph.D. With twelve illustrations[1]. London: Swan Sonnenschein and Company, Lim., 1901. 8vo, pp. xlv, 203.

Tenth English Translation. Prose.

_Translator, and Circumstances of Publication._

Hitherto Dr. Hall had been chiefly known to the learned world for his excellent _Anglo-Saxon Dictionary for Students_.

Up to this time no prose translation had appeared in England since 1876, save Earle’s[2], which for the elementary student was practically useless. Moreover, this translation was the first to embody the results of various studies on the poem during the past decade.

_Contents._

Unlike the preceding works on _Beowulf_, it may be said that the introductory and illustrative matter in this book is of quite as much importance as the translation. The author says of his book:--

‘The following pages comprise a short statement of what is actually known with respect to the poem of _Beowulf_, another statement of what seems to me most likely to be true amongst the almost innumerable matters of conjecture concerning it, and a few words of literary appreciation.’ --Introduction, p. ix.

Statements similar to these have been put forth by other translators of the poem, but the material of their volume has not always borne them out. The studies of the poem in the Introduction are sufficient for a school edition of _Beowulf_--a similar body of information is not found in any of the existing editions--while annotations of some importance to the elementary student are found in the notes and running comment. The book contains, beside the translation, a discussion of the form, language, geographical allusions, date, and composition of the poem, as well as a useful, though inaccurate, bibliography[3].

_Text Used._

The translation is founded on the text of A. J. Wyatt, Cambridge, 1894. Dr. Hall does not always follow the interpretations given in Wyatt’s glossary, nor is the punctuation of the translation conformed to that of the Old English text.

_Indebtedness to Preceding Scholars._

In his translation Dr. Hall seems to be most indebted to the work of Professor Earle[4] (see lines 4, 71, 517, 852, 870, 926, 996, 1213, 1507, 2021, 3034, &c.).

Frequent reference is also made to the work of Cosijn, _Aanteekeningen op den Beowulf_ (1892). The work of other scholars, such as Bugge, Heyne, Socin, is also referred to.

_Nature of the Translation._

The translation is a literal prose version. It is constantly interrupted by bits of running comment, designed to overcome the inherent obscurity of the poem, or to afford an elaborate digest of the story if read without the translation (p. 7).

The rendering avoids archaisms.

Bugge’s restoration is used at line 3150; the passage at line 2215 is not restored.

EXTRACT.