IX.

Da sagte Hunferd, Ecglafs Sohn, der Hrodgar 500 zu Füssen sass, dem Herrn der Schildinge, des Streites Siegel löste er (denn sehr war Beowulfes Ankunft ihm verhasst, des kühnen Meerbefahrers; er vergönnte es Niemand, mehr des Ruhmes als er selber 505 sich unterm Himmel jemals zu erwerben): ‘Bist du der Beowulf, der einst mit Breca sich auf der weiten See im Schwimmkampf mass, als ihr euch kühnlich in die Tiefen stürztet, und mit verwegnem Brüsten euer Leben 510 im tiefen Wasser wagtet? Niemand konnte, nicht Freund, nicht Feind, des mühevollen Weges euch hindern. Da schwammt ihr hinaus in See, wo ihr die wilde Flut mit Armen decktet, des Wassers Strassen masset und die Hände 515 die Wogen werfen liesst; so glittet ihr hin übers Meer. Die winterlichen Wellen, sie giengen hoch. Der Tage sieben mühtet ihr euch im Wasser: jener überwand dich im Schwimmen, denn er hatte grössre Kraft. 520 Da trug die Hochflut ihn zur Morgenzeit auf zu den Hadorämen, von wo aus er, der seinem Volke liebe, seinen Erbsitz im Land der Brandinge, die schöne Burg erreichte. Dort besass er Land und Leute 525 und Schätze. Was er gegen dich gelobt, das hatte Beanstans Sohn fürwahr erfüllt.’

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--

_entband beadurunen_ _entband Streitrunen_ _Kampfrunen ... entbinden._

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.

[Footnote 1: There have been six--1863, 1868, 1873, 1879, 1888, 1898; the last two are by Dr. Adolf Socin.]

[Footnote 2: Heyne is at present Professor in the University of Göttingen.]

[Footnote 3: See infra, p. 121.] [[Leo]]

[Footnote 4: In _Beowulfs Beorh_. See also supra, p. 22.]

[Footnote 5: See supra, p. 16.] [[Thorkelin]]

[Footnote 6: See supra, p. 37.] [[Ettmüller]]

[Footnote 7: See supra, p. 59.] [[Simrock]]

[Footnote 8: See supra, p. 55.] [[Grein]]

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 8vo, 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 text[1] 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 texts[2], but the work is so inaccurate that exact information on this point is impossible from merely internal evidence.

EXTRACT.

DRITTER GESANG.

HUNFRID.

_So sagte Hunfrid_[3], der Sohn des _Eckleif_, Dem Schildingenfürsten zu Füssen gesessen, Kampfrunen entbindend (es kränkte des _Bärwelf_ _Muthige Meerfahrt_ mächtig den Stolzen, Der an Ehren nicht mehr einem andern Manne 5 Zu gönnen gemeint war im Garten der Mitte, Als wie unter’m Himmel erworben er selbst!): ‘Bist du der _Bärwelf_, der mit _Brecht_ bekämpfte Auf weiter See im Wetteschwimmen, Da übermüthig und ehrbegierig 10 Eu’r Leben ihr wagtet in Wassertiefen, _Die beid’ ihr durchschwammt?_ Da brachte zum Schwanken Den Vorsatz der furchtbaren Fahrt euch Keiner _Mit Bitten und Warnen_, _und_ Beide durchtheiltet Mit gebreiteten Armen die Brandung ihr rudernd, 15 Durchmasset das Meer mit _meisternden_ Händen Auf wogenden Wegen, während der Wirbelsturm Rast’ in den Well’n, und _ihr rangt mit_ dem Wasser Durch sieben Nächte. Der Sieger im Neidspiel Zeigte sich mächt’ger; zur Zeit des Morgens 20 Riss zu den Haduraumen die Flut ihn; ins eigene Erbe enteilt’ er von dort, Zum Lande der Brandinge, lieb seinen _Mannen_, Zur bergenden Burg. Da gebot er dem Volke _Schlossreich und schatzreich_. Wie geschworen, so hielt 25 Sein Versprechen dir redlich der Sprössling des _Bonstein_.’

_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),

_Ic him þēnode deoran sweorde swā hit gedēfe wæs._

which is translated,

dawider doch diente Mein treffliches Schwert, das treu mir beistand. (p. 27.)

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).

[Footnote 1: See supra, p. 55.] [[Grein]]

[Footnote 2: See Vorbemerkung, p. 3.]

[Footnote 3: The italics, save those used for proper names (which are von Wolzogen’s), indicate inaccurate renderings.]

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. 8vo, 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 Thorpe[1], 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 poem[2]. But the important part of the book was the text and translation. There is no glossary[3]. 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 work[4], rather than Thorpe’s[5]. 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:--

Line 2219[6], þeowes _for_ þeofes. 2220, biorn _for_ beorna. 2211, geweoldum _for_ ge weoldum. 2223, b _for_ þ. 2225, wea ... _for_ weal ... 2226, inwlitode, inwatode _for_ mwatide.

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 Garnett[7] 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 work[8], is repeated bodily in Arnold’s. Yet there was no excuse at this time for the retention of many of these readings. Grundtvig[9] had corrected several of them as early as 1861 by his collation of the Thorkelin transcripts[10]; Heyne had got rid of them by collating Thorpe’s work with Kemble’s[11] 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.